There is an obvious misconception among supporters of subway security that they seem to equate security with "security." This misunderstanding can lead them to ignore that security is only one part of the subway's overall safety and security system.
A few days ago, some netizens took a video of the Changchun Metro security check, and the above screen showed that the security inspector was completely "fooling". *After further dissemination and fermentation, it seems that the official has strengthened the security inspection and further standardized the security inspection process. The follow-up ** on the Internet showed that "hundreds of people queued up outside the subway station to wait for the security check, shivering in the cold wind......”
Just recently, the most serious cold wave in recent years has shrouded the country, and such **and** continue to circulate on the Internet, once again arousing the call for abolishing subway security checks.
China has one of the strictest security checks in the world. Security checks are required to enter airports, subway stations, and train stations, and even some hospitals and schools in some cities have been screened.
The point is, many of the time, security screening is a mere formality. This kind of "formal security check" has further made many people who were not opposed to subway security checks also begin to turn the first degree, because since the security check has become formalized, the biggest reason why the security check "helps to ensure personal safety" no longer exists, so why bother to do any more security checks?
But some people say that there is a perfunctory "formal security check" in the subway, which just shows that all kinds of loopholes should be plugged and security checks should be further strengthened, and it is best to be as strict as the security check of Jiyang. It is likely that people who do not often use the subway to say so. You know, even in the case of formal security checks, there are often "hundreds of people waiting in line outside the subway station, shivering in the cold wind...... in many places". Of course, this shows that the current rather lax security check has seriously affected the efficiency of the subway.
If the strictness of subway security is really to be on par with the security check of Jiyang, then the daily rush hour in many cities will become a real disaster.
However, there seems to be no shortage of supporters for subway security, and the "safe operation of the subway and the personal safety of passengers" is also a difficult reason to refute. Supporters of local railway security are offered "safety first."
1. When the banner of "life comes first", those who advocate the abolition of subway security checks seem to have to retreat. Because of this, the discussion of whether or not to cancel the subway security check can easily turn into a battle of wills and positions.
So there's a big difficulty here, and that's that, although it's well known, the trade-off between safety, efficiency and cost should be considered when it comes to subway security storage. But the argument that subway security should be abolished from the perspective of efficiency and cost, no matter how strong, may not really convince the proponents of subway security.
So, is there a way to go beyond the dispute over subway security inspection?This means that the idea of argumentation based on efficiency and cost (although I myself have always liked it) must be largely abandoned. However, there are a few related questions that may need to be clarified before answering this question.
The data shows that the subway security check is suspected of "cannon fighting mosquitoes".
Security proponents often emphasize that subway security is about the safety of every passenger. When things don't fall on you, you think security is troublesome, and if something happens, you're done with everything. It sounds like there is some truth.
The point is that the underlying logic of this statement actually means that if the subway security check cannot be 100% safe, then it will lose most of the meaning of its existence.
So, can subway security really guarantee the complete safety of the subway?The answer, of course, is no.
There should be no doubt that subway security checks help improve subway security. In the most general sense, the existence of the subway security inspection system can reduce the safety risk of the subway from the two levels of "in-event" and "before-the-event".
On the "in-the-thing" level, when passengers enter the subway station to take the subway, security can detect some dangerous goods and contraband.
According to information released by the Beijing Metro, between 2008 and 2018, a total of 9.8 billion items were inspected by Beijing Subway security checks, and 1.16 million pieces of contraband of various types were seized, with an average of 118 contraband items found in every million items.
In addition, in 2019, the Beijing subway operating company inspected a total of 13 items1.7 billion pieces, and 22 contraband were detected30,000 pieces, with a detection rate of 0017, of which daily necessities (lighter oil, gas, civilian sprays, ordinary knives) accounted for 99.
However, there is another data mentioned by Zi** that seems a little strange and seems impossible to be true: "According to the public security department, in 2022 alone, more than 1,000 incidents of carrying dangerous goods or contraband were detected in subway security inspections nationwide."
At the level of ex-ante, the existence of a security check system can prevent passengers from carrying contraband to the subway to a certain extent in advance. There are two mechanisms here, one is to deter potential criminals, and the other is to dissuade or remind ordinary passengers. Although it is not possible to accurately count the specific data on the contraband "blocked in advance" outside the subway station, it is likely that it is not a small number.
In the real world, the above mechanism is greatly reduced due to the fact that subway security checks have become "formalized".
For example, in some places, subways usually release passengers without bags without inspection, and even if they are manually checked, there are many parts that cannot be covered. Some cities have also piloted "mandatory inspection of large packages and random inspection of small packages", but the standards for small packages are not clear. As another example, it is not uncommon to observe people crossing the railing to hand over items that have not been screened.
In this regard, some experts pointed out that subway security also has a "barrel effect", and its effect is determined by the weakest link. If there is one place where the security check is not strict, the whole security check will be meaningless.
Of course, proponents of subway security may disagree with this observation. They stressed that the current loopholes simply point to the need to further strengthen security screening.
Yes, if the subway security check is as strict as the Jiyang security check, the subway may be a little safer. But in that case, even if the cost is not considered, it means that the subway itself will lose its meaning of existence - if "10 minutes by subway and 1 hour of queuing at the security check", then do you still need the subway?
Ensuring safety is a systematic project, and security is not the core factor
Proponents of subway security have another glaring misconception. They seem to equate security screening with "security." On the one hand, this misunderstanding will lead them to ignore that security check is only a part of the entire safety and security system of the subway, and on the other hand, it may also lead them to mistakenly believe that opposing subway security check means opposing all security measures of the subway.
More importantly, whether from the perspective of general analysis or from the actual experience of subway operation abroad and Hong Kong, China, it is likely that security check is not an indispensable part of the subway security system.
As mentioned earlier, subway security can reduce security risks through a variety of mechanisms at the level of "in-process" and "before-the-event", but the role played by subway security is completely replaceable, and there are many ways to replace it.
An obvious alternative is to do so on an "ex post facto" level, i.e. to increase the penalties for violators – allowing passengers to enter the train without going through security, but imposing severe penalties (e.g. hefty fines) if someone is found to be carrying contraband. When this kind of punishment is known to the public, it can also play a role in deterring potential criminals and dissuading ordinary passengers from carrying contraband, and then blocking contraband outside the subway station in advance.
Another intuitive alternative is to make use of second-party supervision, which requires passengers to report any suspicious objects to the police immediately, while at the same time strengthening security (police) patrols at places such as entrances, subway concourses, and subway carriages to respond to passengers' requests for help and alarms in a timely manner.
The subway security system, only security check, is impossible to operate normally, but without security check, it can still operate well. In the eyes of proponents of subway security, security is the whole or most important security measure. But in fact, the subway security system, just from the perspective of the participants, includes at least the security guards who patrol the places, the station staff of the subway company who serve on the spot, the backstage staff (or the police) who monitor the CCTV, and so on.
Therefore, in a certain sense, the role that subway security can play is somewhat similar to that of an anti-theft door - to put it more mildly, it may only be equivalent to a lock that some people add to their own security door.
At the level of analysis, the subway security check may also have a ***, that is, it may provide a reason for the "slackness" of the staff in other parts of the subway security system to a certain extent: since it is already in the security check, we might as well take it easy. Therefore, the existence of security checks may increase security risks.
Judging from the actual experience of foreign countries and Hong Kong, China, the cancellation of security checks does not necessarily affect the safety and security of the subway. There are too many examples of this to mention.
However, the question mentioned at the beginning of this article has not been solved: is there a way to go beyond the dispute over the existence and disposal of subway security checks?
There are security trains and non-security trains, are you willing to pay more for the former?
Proponents of abolishing subway security checks often emphasize that major subway security incidents – especially terrorist attacks – are low-probability events, and that security checks imply "extremely high efficiency costs for small-probability risks" that outweigh the benefits. This line of argument is actually quite powerful, but this article will abandon it.
From an analytical point of view, it is assumed that the people involved in subway security can be divided into two categories: good people (i.e., ordinary passengers) and bad people (the most extreme "bad guys" are *** both good and bad people are likely to carry contraband, so there are the following four situations:
1) The bad guy is carrying contraband, and according to the above analysis, under the current "formal security check", there is a certain possibility that it will not be detected;
2) Good people carry contraband, and according to the above analysis, under the current "formal security check", there is a certain possibility that it will not be detected;
3) The bad guys are not carrying contraband;
4) Good people don't carry contraband.
Considering that the proponents of subway security check take "life is priceless" as the fulcrum of their argument, it is worth admitting that because of the existence of situations (1) and (2) above, subway security seems to be necessary. At this time, what kind of security check is the most desirable state?
To paraphrase the idea of separation and equilibrium in economics, it is ideal if the security check can be carried out only when (1) and (2) above occur. But such an equilibrium may not exist in theory, and it is largely impossible to achieve in the real world.
This may be the root cause of "since there is going to be security, everyone must be screened to the strictest standards, otherwise there will be no point in screening".
As a result, there has been a relapse into a deadlock that demands the abolition of security checks, emphasizing efficiency and cost, and supporting security checks, emphasizing the pricelessness of life. To break this impasse, perhaps a shift in perspective from an efficiency-cost perspective to an action-evolution perspective may be required.
Here's how the shift looks. Take a step back from the concept of separation equilibrium borrowed from economics above. Acknowledging that there are "justifications" for those who oppose and support screening, and then try to give better institutional arrangements a chance to emerge as they evolve.
More specifically, it may be possible to adopt an implementation scheme similar to this: select a new subway line in a city, set up two entrances in the subway station, one requires security checks, the other does not need security checks, and at the same time the subway trains are also separated, one end is a security car, and the other end is a non-security car. Then, let those who support the security check and those who oppose the security check enter the station separately and ride separately.
In addition, it is necessary to use reinforcing materials and equip rapid separation devices at the train separation parts to ensure that no major security incidents occur in non-security cars as much as possible.
Passengers in the security cars may then need to be appropriately overpaid because of their expected increased safety factor and the cost of providing them with a higher service.
It is not difficult to note that this implementation is based on the fact that the current "formal screening" may not achieve the goals of the security proponents, and that it will bring significant improvements to them because more stringent security screening is not possible. On the other hand, it can also bring improvements to those who oppose security checks. As for the subway hall and train design and construction, of course, there will be some additional costs, but it should be less efficient than it is now (pardon me, efficiency is mentioned again).
Incidentally, in theory, this scheme was also inspired by the concept of a "black swan" proposed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. A "black swan" event refers to a sudden and small probability event with a huge impact that cannot be prevented in advance. If you try to prevent the occurrence of a small probability of a "black swan" event, you will fall into a misunderstanding. In view of this, Taleb proposed that it is more important to prepare for the occurrence of "black swan" events than to prevent the occurrence of "black swan" events.
Of course, the above idea is very immature and even a bit of a joke, but it may provide some ideas.