Is it ever okay to accept the loss of life as an acceptable risk to doing business?
First off, is this even reasonable? I believe it is. Though not the best approach to calculating the cost vs benefit of a given security measure, it can be enlightening to look at past and present choices and see what they indicate about the value placed on life by how much money was spent trying to protect it.
But life is invaluable…
By value, I don’t simply mean money. Thou for simplicity sake I will use it for the rest of this post. Most people would say that life is invaluable. But that notion, though admirable and on some level true, it is not an accurate statement. Some people would trade theirs or someone elses life for cash. While others would trade their own life for another. In both cases they have, potentially unknowingly, attached a value to life…or at least a particular persons life.
It’s either valued or it’s not…
By definition, if something does not have a defined value it is either worth nothing or everything. Given that society won’t allow life to be valued at nothing (at least usually) then without a defined value, life is invaluable…or in other words…when placed in your hands, there is zero tolerance for failure to protect.
So? It’s always job number 1…
If you’ve been in the security industry for any measurable time, you will recognize the following priority list from somewhere. It shows up as the default when I do Incident Response program development.
1. Preserve life
2. Prevent physical damage to personnel, facilities, or systems
3. Prevent financial loss
This presumes that life is the most valuable item a business/government/entity must protect. Very few, if any security professionals will face the protection of life as priority one in their career. Typically we give lip service to the priority of life since that firewall we just bought doesn’t protect life…at least directly. But what happens when your entire reason for existing is making something safer?
Safer vs Zero tolerance
I chose the term “safer” very carefully and on purpose. It means some risk, or level of failure, is acceptable and still be considered a success. If your entire reason to exist is to protect life, you can not calculate the value of the security measure unless you know the value of life. As has been shown time and time again through history…nothing can be made perfectly safe…ala zero tolerance. But when tasked with zero tolerance, or zero breaches, and you have no understanding of the value of life your only alternative is to spend an unlimited amount of money in the quest for zero tolerance. You’ll still fail…typically spectacularly since any crackpot with an idea is given an opportunity to try his idea. Remember you didn’t start with a value of life so there’s no way to say the crockpots idea is crazy. If it saves just one child…..
Can you think of an entity in this exact situation? No one willing to put a value on life and an unlimited budget (effectively)?
When zero tolerance bites you in the butt…the TSA
The federal government will never publish how much your life is worth to them, assuming they even wanted to calculate it. They can’t. It would be a political disaster. So how can we figure out the presumed value so we see if the government expenditures are insane or not?
The TSA has a budget of roughly $7billion per year and a mandate of zero tolerance for loss of life. Let’s assume that the worst case scenario of doing nothing is a 9/11 style attack every year (3000 dead). So what’s the value of life for an agency tasked with zero tolerance? Simple calculation really…last year the Federal government valued the life of the flying public at $7billion / 3000 or $2.4million per life.
Just as a point of measure…42,000 people die in car crashes every year and the budget for the NHTSA is $900,000. So the Federal government values the life of the driving public at at $900,000 / 42,000 or $21 per life.
Think somebodies priorities are out of kilter a wee bit? Or is it airline deaths get more media attention because they are more spectacular and thus more political pressure to “do something, anything”?
When does acceptable risk come into play?
It can’t…until you put a value on life.
You willing to put a value on life? Not as easy as it sounds. But if you don’t, you’ll end up like the TSA or Medicare. In an unwinnable situation and everyone hates you.