OPINION: The bag check at mall entrances is security theater and accomplishes little

Either do it properly every single time or remove it altogether.

There is something almost comical about entering a mall in the Philippines. I mean, what exactly are we supposed to make of a security guard taking a quick look at our bags, sometimes using a long stick to poke around inside as if a half-second shuffle of our belongings will reveal anything suspicious? 

Other times, out comes the handheld metal detector, which gets waved over us for roughly the same amount of time, apparently enough to establish whether anything dangerous has decided to come along for a shopping trip.

Most people probably just go through with it because what else are they supposed to do? As for me, it annoys me to no end every single time. It is a small inconvenience, but one that gets under your skin like a stone trapped in your shoe that you cannot seem to shake off. 

The security check is part of getting through the door, so people comply and keep walking. Whether someone finds it useful, annoying or simply something to get over with, there is little reason to make a scene about it when the goal is to get inside the mall.

I have never had a problem with security checks when there is a clear reason for them. Airports are an obvious example, where people are entering a controlled environment and screening serves a very specific purpose. The process can be tedious, but there is an understandable reason behind it. A shopping mall is a different setting, and that is where I start wondering how much this particular routine actually accomplishes.

Because what we are seeing at many mall entrances can hardly be described as thorough screening. It is a procedure that is over almost as soon as it begins. It certainly looks like a security procedure. But how much security can reasonably be provided in that amount of time?

That is what makes the routine so strange. At this point, it has become a ritual, almost a performance to show that security is being done. The procedure itself seems to have become the reassurance, regardless of how much actual protection it provides.

What makes the routine even more questionable is how inconsistently it is carried out. A person carrying a backpack might be asked to open it while someone with a small purse gets a much quicker inspection, or sometimes none at all, with barely a glance before being waved through. When the crowd is moving quickly or there is a long line at the entrance, the checks can become even more cursory, as guards try to keep people moving.

If the purpose is to prevent dangerous items from entering the mall, surely the effectiveness of the screening should be consistent enough to provide some meaningful level of protection. When the same procedure can range from an actual look inside a bag to barely glancing at it, it becomes difficult to see how much security the routine is really providing.

There is also something to be said about how predictable the whole routine has become. Someone deliberately trying to bring something prohibited inside would already know what sort of inspection to expect. That does not mean the guards are failing at their jobs. They are following the procedure they have been given. It means the procedure itself deserves some scrutiny.

And there is a customer-experience issue here too. A few seconds may sound insignificant when considered one person at a time. Multiply those seconds across the thousands of people entering a busy mall every day and the time adds up, particularly during weekends and peak shopping periods. It creates queues and another small inconvenience at the very place where businesses are trying to get customers through the door and into their stores.

That inconvenience can be justified if the security measure provides meaningful protection. Customers are generally willing to put up with reasonable inconvenience when they understand the purpose and can see that the process is serious. Airport security is a good example. Nobody expects it to be fun.

But that is also why mall security deserves the occasional reality check. If a procedure is going to be imposed on practically every customer, there should be a solid reason for doing it and some confidence that it actually works.

It reminds me, in a way, of what I call the “Face Shield Era,” when we were required to wear face shields and led to believe they would protect us from COVID-19 during the pandemic.

Some precautions became so familiar that following the routine could eventually feel like proof that something was being done, even when people could reasonably wonder how useful a particular measure was in a given situation. There is a tendency, perhaps, to equate visible precaution with effective precaution.

Mall security should be taken seriously. That includes being willing to look at whether the procedures being followed are actually doing the job they are supposed to do. More importantly, the system behind those procedures should have a clear purpose beyond reassuring everyone at the entrance that security is happening.

Maybe the answer is that these checks genuinely help. If so, perhaps it is time to accept that effective screening will sometimes mean longer lines and slower entry, particularly when the mall is busy. And if the routine has become so familiar that its effectiveness is difficult to establish, perhaps it is time to rethink whether it should continue at all.

Mall entrances have two choices. Do the bag checks properly, thoroughly and consistently every single time, with no exceptions, even if that means longer queues. Or remove them altogether. 

That is the point.

READ: