Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
While his objection was meant for the Pennsylvania Penn family who were trying to buy their way into a mid-18th century tax abatement, in modern times, it has come to more colloquially symbolize a balance between security and freedom in the name of convenience. If by no more coincidence than application, his point certainly holds merit today.
The Battle of Wills
In one corner, we have Technology, the newcomer from Silicon Valley revolutionizing every aspect of our lives and having a permanent and irreparable impact on global industry and society.
In the other corner, we have freedom, our reigning champion of truth, justice, and the American way, with its declarations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Some people say that relying more heavily on technology gives us freedom and autonomy over our time and lives. Others claim that inherent within that system, nefarious actors are bent on dismantling American hubris worldwide.
Turns out, both schools of thought are true. With generations of experience and insight into terrorism and counterinsurgencies, many veterans understand how easily threat organizations can blend into the crowd intent on gaining political, religious, or ideological control over noncombatants.
Preparedness, not paranoia—that’s what we bring to the conversation. Wars throughout history have incited catalysts for societal change. If indeed art mimics life, then the style of warfighting, the art of war, will continue to teach what may yet be the appropriate lessons.
Here’s how these veterans view this risk management continuum within cyberspace.
The Question: How do we address the digital trend of trading security for convenience?
This, unfortunately, is just part of the ever-changing world we live in. From an OPSEC perspective, all the tenets of having good security “hygiene” still apply, and following the basics will always be the best initial line of defense. Additionally, we need to ensure that we remain ever vigilant (not typically an issue for most veterans) and pick and choose how we use technology / what information we share is sterilized and safe for public consumption. — R. Lee, USMC
Realistically, we can address and discuss the issues of convenience versus inconvenience regarding physical security all day long. However, it boils down to one thing: the willingness of the individual and the organization to properly ensure the safeguarding of the property they are responsible for.
As military police, our primary concern is the safeguarding and security of the installation, including all personnel, property, and critical infrastructure associated.
Having areas with digital forms of security, such as alarms and digital access devices, can make things easier to monitor. They also come with higher risks because those areas can be accessed by people with malicious intent who do not have proper authorization.
Areas such as locked gates with security fencing are just as susceptible. However, it goes back to the lengths the individual is willing to go to to commit a serious offense.
So, how do we ultimately address this? The simple answer is to eliminate all possibilities of mixing technological errors with human errors. Finding the common ground between these two is the starting point for understanding proper physical security. — W. Grissom, USN
___________________________
EDITOR’S NOTE: Josh Porthouse is currently a Marine Corps Reservist with 14 years on active duty. As a Team FireWatch Veteran Voices Contributor, Josh works alongside other veterans to bring a personal perspective to relevant topics for today’s active-duty and veteran service members.
Contribute your voice! Send your story to us at VetVoices@FireWatchMagazine.com. Submit topic ideas or answers to past questions and join the conversation at #vetvoices.
