Historical context

The security challenges facing the Paris Olympics are underscored by ongoing global conflict, an ever-evolving threat spectrum and a broad concern over the vulnerability of large gatherings to potential risks. Throughout history, the Olympic Games have unfortunately been a prime target for hostile actors.

One of the most notable incidents occurred during the Munich Olympics in 1972, where the Israeli team suffered a tragic terrorist attack, resulting in the deaths of 11 athletes and coaches. The Atlanta Olympics in 1996 was the target of a bombing attack that claimed two lives and injured more than 100 people. This incident prompted a reassessment of security protocols and the adoption of stricter measures to protect athletes, spectators and infrastructure. The Rio Olympics in 2016 faced challenges related to crime and civil unrest in the host city, requiring extensive security measures to ensure the safety of participants and visitors.

These global, centre-stage incidents are a stark reminder that when it comes to venue security, nothing is more important than a comprehensive and layered risk mitigation program. Here we take a look more closely at a few key areas to consider:

• Comprehensive Training: Many organisations fail to recognise the importance of ongoing training for personnel. From security officers to venue staff to volunteers, thousands of individuals involved in event operations must be trained in awareness, escalation, and response. Depending on the role, training might include emergency response procedures, crowd management techniques, or surveillance systems.

• Security Camera Monitoring: In the 2017 suicide bombing at the U.K.’s Manchester Arena, the attacker hid in a CCTV blind spot after carefully identifying the location from repeated reconnaissance trips. When planning large venue attacks, terrorists frequently conduct pre-operational surveillance to locate areas of security weakness and vulnerability. Thorough and diligent reviews of security camera footage are essential in the months leading up to high-profile events.

• Checkpoint Explosive Screening: Large-scale public events require many access points to ease guest entry and exit. Unfortunately, this creates access opportunities for hostile actors. X-ray screening at venue checkpoints is critical for the deterrence and detection of improvised explosive devices (IED), firearms and weapons. Rigorous screening very often dissuades a perpetrator from attempting to enter areas with a greater concentration of people and a detonation would have a larger impact.

• Explosive Detection Canines: Detection canines offer an effective, efficient and flexible solution for explosive and weapons detection at high-volume facilities. Canine teams sweep large areas and crowds for trace amounts of these odours in a short time with little to no operational or public disruption. Their presence alone serves as a strong prevention measure.

Challenges and contingency planning

These are just four of the many layers recommended for an effective security plan. While significant enhancements have been made in security preparations for large-scale public events over the decades, challenges persist. Security professionals must respond to the dynamic nature of the threat with flexibility. We must merge the lessons learned from past incidents with today’s innovative solutions to protect people, property and brands.

Hugh O’Rourke is the Vice President, Consulting Services for Allied Universal's Enhanced Protection Services, and a former deputy inspector with the New York City Police Department, and a retired colonel with the United States Air Force Reserves. He spent more than 21 years with the NYPD, in the Office of the Chief of Patrol as well as the Executive Officer for the NYPD’s first Counterterrorism Division. In that role, O’Rourke served as the liaison to the federal government on matters of intelligence and infrastructure protection.