I was just reading a guest article from PC game by Rami Ismail about the inconsistent or even non-existent security at this years e3 2017. As I read the article was was amazed. If Mr. Ismail was experienced by others than e3 is lucky that nobody targeted the show. Not to be morbid, but any sort of violent action at the show would have had catastrophic results. I think e3 must rank high for having the CEOs on the premises because of the joyful entertainment nature of games. Moreover this is now a show with families because it is open to the public, even if it is expensive. If they were not consistently checking passed and search bags at ALL door they were running an enormous risk this week.

I have only gone to a a dozen small conventions in my life, but I have always had my bag checked since 2001. The last comic convention I went to in 2016 was a rinky-dink one in Hartford CT. They had metal detectors and bag checks at the few entrance doors they had. The venue even stamped hands coming in & out of the venue with yet another bag check. Hartford Connecticut is an economical depressed area to be sure, so much of the checks were just as much about drugs or theft in addition to security, but even small convention had those checks as a "necessary" expense.

As I said is Mr Ismail experiences was happening to others that is just scary. Two months since the Paris France shootings. Just weeks after he explosion outside Ariana Grande’s concert at Manchester Arena that killed 22 and injured more than 60. Days after the London Bridge attack where several died and many were injured. During this week there have been numerous shootings in the US alone.... SO WHAT THE HELL?

Let's not freak out. e3 came and went without issue. No need for fearmongering. We should be able to hold events without in-your-face security. When that becomes seen as a necessity then we'll have reached some truly dark times.

Honestly, I never even thought about E3 security outside of the badges to get in. We went to an expo here recently with a volunteer security team, and while they did their best there's still an element of "you never know."

I suppose if the show's gonna be open to the public, better security is a worthwhile investment. Even the GB guys made it seem like a chaotic mess, so at the very least they'll need to improve the organization.

That article isn't really chilling or scary, it reads like something you'd see in a suggestion box. 'Hey, next year, you should have more people checking badges and should be checking people's bags and have metal detectors'.

More bag checks wouldn't help against a shooting, you're slowing down the entrance process and creating lines of people at the entrance, which are then just as vulnerable as anyone inside.

You would need armed guards and bag checking, which will still not be entirely detrimental to an organised attack with multiple perpetrators.

Anyway this is all going to come down to money like it usually does. How much do ESA value the risk of this happening vs. the extra money they would have to spend? It'll have to be like airport security to thwart bomb threats.

I thought this line was stupid too: "the amount of anger and vitriol thrown around online about games", can't say I remember the last time an attack was related to someone being mad about Horizon getting an 8/10...

The unfortunate reality is, there's no amount of security that can stop someone inflicting casualties in a packed area.

@monkeyking1969: The recent Manchester bombing happened at the exit to the venue, where people gathered to collect their kids, so he didn't have much security to pass. The recent attacks in London happened on the streets. Similarly the lorry incident in Nice and Stockholm. And the attacks in the Bataclan and the surrounding area started outdoors.

My point of mentioning this is that all of these attacks originated or took place outside venues where there is no security. If someone wanted to carry out a terrorist attack against e3 it would happen outside the venue, where they don't have to risk getting past security measures and they can still inflict massive damage.

That's not to say security isnt important. But the ESA weighed it up and decided there was a minimal risk involved to warrent extensive searches on such a large crowd.

Living in fear is always the best course of action. Barf.

It's a type of thing you hear and I wonder if these people ever consider sports, where that type of thing has gone on forever (crazy anger and vitriol online and in the public arena around it). Sometimes I am amazed there isn't more violence at sporting events as well. There is the potential for it to happen.

You can think about the Dark Knight shooting that happened. Has anything changed at your local movie theater? Could it really change so much?

No, it hasn't, and while yes it could change; no it should not. If the airport has taught us anything, it is that security is a huge fucking waste of everyone's time. Every public area and form of public transportation (minus planes) have basically no forms of security. And guess what? We don't have terrorists bombing/shooting every station and large public area. Shit happens, sure, and I'm sure the people involved don't like to hear it; but having more security wouldn't have helped.

Having more security at E3 would do nothing to help and the article does nothing but push a terrible viewpoint that would only do more harm than good.

@ev77: I don't necessarily think it's terrible for air travel given some special things about it but overall I agree with everything else.

You can always have some security personnel on site. Otherwise, it is part of the cost of having a free society to me. Like you say, not a fun answer to hear.

Rami has a website dedicated to letting people know if he was randomly checked at every airport he goes to. He wanted to get stopped and checked to write a fake outrage article. He didn't, so this is all he had left to write up. Nothing new here, he virtue signals at god-tier.

And god forbid actual every-day game fans, who are hyped to be at e3, make you move your precious "off the record" conversation elsewhere. This article reeks of bitterness if nothing else.

You can't stop these incidents/attacks from occurring and killing innocent people. They will happen, and they will happen with greater frequency than they did in the past.

The better question is whether eventual casualties can be minimized in any practical way. Do we want incidents where 20 people die, or ones with a body count numbering 100+

Rami's article should've approached it from this angle, instead of being as vague and nebulous as it turned out to be.

A suicide bomber or gunman is still guaranteed to have blood on their hands if they're determined to go through with the act. But even simple security measures - which according to Rami were absent - at least have the potential to do the following:

• Dissuade less committed attackers
• Make mass hostage situations more difficult to achieve
• Ensure clear routes of exit/escape are available to those inside and adjacent
• Restrict tools and methods (knives and concealable pistols vs high capacity rifles)
• Keep crowds calm and controlled, preventing crushes
• Maintain situational awareness, assisting external authorities in case of an incident

This might seem paranoid, but I'd prefer to look at it as a sense of perspective. I currently work in the security field as an armed guard, and come from a military background which included overseas service in a pretty dangerous part of the world.

Stuff like this is going to be like the seatbelt or bike helmet of the 21st century. Inconvenient and obtrusive, yes, but it's part of our obligation to minimize deaths from random acts of mass violence.

I went to E3 and I'll admit that the possible of a violent incident definitely crossed my mind. Not sure if bag checks or a different option makes sense.

If bag checks, metal detectors and armed security guards would lead to even just 1 saved life in the case of a violent incident then it is worth it.

Check this out. Not saying it's worrying or anything, just found it related.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/6hoeb1/how_to_attend_e3_for_free_without_really_trying/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack

In this case, armed terrorists went to attack a public exhibition and were stopped by an off-duty police officer working security who was stationed at barricades in front of the venue. Seems like more security worked there. The exhibitors paid $10,000 to a total of 40 off-duty police officers and additional security for the event.

They probably didn't need it before since it wasn't really "public", but the crazies do come out for example the guy dressed like the punisher that went to comicon to kill the green ranger.

I sort of have issue with the article, all it does is put focus on the event which can potentially make it a target in the future.

No one is saying to have no security what-so-ever. Clearly, you need security to patrol the area to take care of drunks, see that things stay orderly, and to just have a "presence". But there is a big difference between having basic non-intrusive security and setting up metal detectors, checking bags, having people go through scanners, dog sniffers, and all that other nonsense. It doesn't scale and it just doesn't work.

@corwag: people in the west have it too easy. We can sit around all day and fake being outraged about stuff that doesn’t really mean shit; we’ve become soft and it’s sad.

Rami would probably complain if there was security and he got checked. You can never win with these types of people.

I find it weird that everyone in this thread is so offended by what happens already at every sporting event ever. It doesn't sound like body scans or interrogations, just simply making sure no one can bring weapons inside.

Except we have huge music festivals like Coachella (also here in Southern California by the way) with over 100,000 in attendance and they have heavy security, police presence, metal detectors, bag checks, dogs, etc. Not to mention sporting events with all of the above as well, and that works. What recent, specific examples do you have of large venue security like this "not working?"

Coachella is a huge festival that is literally out in the middle of a desert where they have all the space (and time, and money) to try and make it work. I haven't ever been so I can't comment on it specifically, but I have been to football games, I have flown on plenty of flights, been to other sporting events, malls, a game show, and used plenty of public transportation (like trains and buses). And I explain it as "not working" to mean more-so that it "doesn't make a difference". So it is not "one way works and another way doesn't", it is that "both are of the same effect". People that want to cause harm to other people will always find a way. Unless you want to live in a police state or replicate 1984 that is part of the price you pay for "freedom". Like I said, basic non-intrusive levels of security are fine and helpful. But there comes a certain point past which any new levels of security are meaningless and don't improve or make a difference. It is just a huge waste of everyone's time and/or money. That point can be a little different depending on the situation, but on average I draw the line (after) metal detectors.

Quite some heavyhanded language in this thread for what is essentially a suggestion for next E3. I don't see the outrage or fearmongering. If i go to a football game, i expect to see stewards there. If i go to a huge event with a lot of VIP's, i expect some sort of security as well. Especially when the general audience is invited. The amount of security that is appropriate for e3 is up to the ESA to decide. It's not a binary choice between 0% security vs police state + snipers on the roof.

@brendan: the issue is that life is dangerous. Do we need body scanning at every single corner of every single place in the world. Should we all attach cameras to ourselves so that we can feel safer? Of course not. It’s sad that we have to rely on a few security guards to protect us from someone. Why can’t we do this ourselves?

I love Rami but I feel he is way off base here...

America certainly has large problems but we don't need a police state quite yet.

Though, I would like to know what weird shit went down with Astro.

It shocks me how much most of you are reacting so strongly against introducing stronger security to a big public event. It's a necessity, and it is not "living in fear". Having a smoke detector in my house is not me "living in fear" and neither is locking my car doors when I'm out.

@joshth: the logistics involved in doing this kind of check at an event like this would be insane. If someone really wants to do something it would be easy. People are carrying around so much equipment that it would be extremely easy to hide something. In general, security just makes people feel better, it doesn’t do much. The TSA has something like a 90% failure rate in detecting guns, knives, and bombs and look at how many of those people are at the airports. Besides, a security check like this would make the perfect target for a terrorist.

Plenty of other big conventions employ security measures like bag searches, metal detectors, and off-duty police working as guards. I'm not sure I see how applying some common sense precautions to a large public event as being a "police state" thing.

@horseman6: I'm not sure I'll ever buy the "putting security in a place makes it a target" argument. I also don't feel like just because something is logistically difficult means it isn't worth doing. All I know is that I go to plenty of public events like E3, and security being tight is pretty much a guarantee. It is very rarely a hassle. You may be right that it only makes people "feel safer" but I believe there is value in that.

But it's also clear you and I are going to disagree on this and are probably not going to convince the other of our way of thinking. I was just surprised to see how many people here reacted so strongly in the negative.

@joshth: take a look at a lot of terrorist attacks, especially in Israel and Iraq. Checkpoints are a constant and easy target because you have a lot of people lined up in one area. Now think of that at E3 where true security checks will take a long time because of the equipment, it’s not really making anyone safer. Is it a deterrent?

@horseman6: Does that mean you don't think there should be any security whatsoever at any public event? I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this, because it sort of sounds like your suggestion is to simply do nothing and hope for the best.

That's a straw man argument. No one here would disagree with those things, both of those are common sense.

It's hyperbole 100%. But for me personally, there is little difference between me locking my car door and having a security guard check through my backpack at a big public event. I'm sure plenty of people would disagree with me on that, but it's how I feel.

@horseman6: is 'he wants attention' being intellectually honest? Like if that's the main goal here, wouldn't he write a retrospective on Nuclear Throne, or share some thoughts about the upcoming game, which would gain attention + promote his work? Lying about security measures would not make much sense with the amount of people that visited E3 this year. It would be easy to point out the inaccuracies in the article.

Why is it less feasible that he genuinely thought that the security was lacking?

I would say a large majority of people here can at least agree that basic common-sense security is fine (i.e. smoke detectors and locking things). What most of us don't want is airport-level security at all events and public areas. Having personnel patrol is fine and necessary. Having a metal detector makes sense at a lot of locations. Doing bag checks can also makes sense at specific events (IMO not so much at E3 where there will be lots of equipment being brought in by both public and event people). Having dogs patrol, body scans and pat downs, pulling people out of lines to give them "advanced screening", demanding phone/laptops be "checked" for "security", prohibiting items because of "intel", taking off shoes/jackets/etc, and on and on doesn't make sense. In almost every scenario.

And that doesn't even get into the problems with training, having a proper amount of staff to keep things flowing, the cost of all the equipment and additional personnel needed, the cost in time to all the attendees, etc that comes along with additional levels of security. All for what most studies have found is very little to no gain.

Plus I don't see what makes these events so special they need to be "guarded". Plenty of large stores, malls, and stations have just as many at a given time and seem to be doing just fine with the barest level of security (I don't get my bag checked nor metal detected at train stations or ikea).

@mike: no, I just think that the constant need to have the government or some security force protect you is dangerous. It’s the path that will lead to facism.

@onemanarmyy: I’m being a bit harsh unnecessarily. Why did he write this? Maybe he did feel security was lacking but I’d like to see some details. Like I said, what security should be in place? Just the presence of a security force? Or do we need to do thorough checks if everyone’s stuff which is always impossible, especially in this scenario.

The chance of a terrorist attack in the United States is extremely small. Does every event need extreme security? What’s considered important? Does the event need to have at least 1k people? 5k people? Remember that there was security at the Ariana Grande concert and lazy checks were done. This is how most security checkpoints work. It’s not possible to thoroughly check and scan bags and people, it would take hours even with a huge security force.

@joshth: Locking your door takes half a second and only applies to you. Checking your bag at an event can take upwards of 5-10 minutes (possibly longer) and since it applies to everyone the time gets compounded. It's a huge difference.

@horseman6: Yeah i agree with you there. But at the same time, i feel like those in depth questions should be handled internally by the event organizers . At the end of the day, Rami is no expert in this matter and neither are most of the audience.

After such a different E3, i bet that the ESA is very interested to receive some feedback regarding their revamped show. Whether it's press highlighting the difficulties of doing their jobs in such a chaotic atmosphere, visitors arguing whether the value-proposition of the event was worth it, or people like Rami to write about the security. It's at least worth considering the feedback to see what can be done to improve the show. If extra security is counterproductive, that's fine, but at least you'll know that it's a thought out choice instead of an oversight.

I think there should 100% be security measures at these events. These terrorists will stop at nothing and the thought that I'm raising my daughters to live in this world scares the shit out of me. I'm going to end up terrified every time they want to go to an event or gathering. The thought is enough to being me to tears, honestly. If better and more security can help save just 1 life I'm all for it.

@ev77: As I've said a couple of times now, I made an exaggerated point there to talk about how I personally feel. It's clear that yourself and others disagree with me and that's fine. There's no need to keep @ing me about this.

@frodobaggins: That sounds unhealthy.

@mmmorrowind92: yep.

Check bags and checks passes at all doors....is that REALLY so hard? That is the minimum that should occur that should go on, to be so lax is simply not acceptable.

I agree it isn't hard but it's not going to be make or break vs. an attack. I wonder what security the Bataclan had.

Armed guards need to keep the entrance secure so attackers can't just blow past the bag checkers and then make their way inside the main hall.

@onemanarmyy: having extra police or security isn’t necessarily bad. Just remember that with sporting events the security isn’t just for terrorists, there are always a bunch of dumb people looking to start fights and create havoc; that’s probably not something you’re going to see at a video game convention. Generally security is just around to make people feel better, if a terrorist really wanted to do something it’s not hard to do it.

An industry trade show that happens once a year isn't constant. I don't know how having badge checks at the entrance, and having a few private sector security guards to keep lines organized and general rowdiness down, leads to the uproot of America's political system, and an entire overthrow of the United States government.

People thought the same of cons, then someone brought in 4 guns and a knife.

It's still a protective measure and frankly it avoids people sneaking in.

While I at the show, I saw several full armed police officers as well as a k9 unit. The first door open was a cluster fuck but ever other time I went into the doors I got my badge checked. The first day they checked everyone's IDs before entering.

Also why e3 is a bit different is that your badge has your legal name on it, yes you could exchange it with someone else but if something happened they can easily trace it.

I understand that it could be improved however a lot of what we see at events and the airport is just theater Adam ruins everything did a great piece dismantling airport security. point being, a lot of it doesn't work.