Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to Close the Security Theater

blogs.forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#71

Post by white_devil »

bh42222 wrote: post #50
white_devil wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power to end the TSA lies with the public. The responsibility to end the TSA lies with the public. The public need to make enough fuss, so the media reports the fuss, so that more public become aware of the issue. Really? Just like the power and responsibility to prevent Greece from imposing further utterly useless austerity measures on its citizens lies with the Greek public? The riot police would beg to differ.…

Just like the power and responsibility to prevent Greece from imposing further utterly useless austerity measures on its citizens lies with the Greek public? The riot police would beg to differ. Oh come on, Greece is not North Korea. Do you really think the Greek government could push anything through if more then two thirds of the population was violently against it? Yes, the clashes with police look spectacular but…

Oh come on, Greece is not North Korea.

There's a difference in their respective levels of totalitarianism, yes. But Greece, just like any other country, can turn it up a notch when "necessary".

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#72

Post by seabee »

bdunbar wrote: post #47
seabee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing that enforcement by government inspection tends to go against the "unrestricted free market" ideal, that customers will vote with their feet and not patronize unsafe businesses. (In reality customers are never that well informed to make such a decision.)

In theory an unrestricted free market is nice, in reality unworkable. The role of the State is provide ground rules and regulation of the market. A prudent State recognizes such a thing works best with a light hand, of course. Customers need not be un-informed on safety issues. There are many, many organizations that provide such information to consumers - think Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader and so on.

When you get to matters of safety you can either take an unforgiving, Darwinian view and stake people's survival on whether they read Consumer Reports that month, or you can take responsibility and be proactive about preventing theses dangers.

The "pure free market" ideal of caveat emptor makes businesses sound an awful like muggers loitering in dark alleys waiting for victims; something you need to protect yourself from. Sure, in a perfectly rational market and with perfectly informed participants these dangers are known and avoided, but perfection is never achieved in reality. Government regulation and licensing, when done properly, papers over the irrationality and information asymmetry by making the decision of what a business can do. After all, would any rational person eat at a restaurant that gave you food poisoning more often than not? If the government didn't force its closure lack of business would, and with more sick people too.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#73

Post by bluedanieru »

bdunbar wrote: post #25
bluedanieru wrote: post #2

Better yet, it needs to be replaced with a competitive market for air travel in which the airports, the airways, and the airliners are in private hands. Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out. Ugh, how are they going to 'weed this out' exactly? Seems to me competitive pressures would lead private…

Seems to me competitive pressures would lead private firms to do exactly what the TSA is doing i.e. give the appearance of being serious about security. In the marketplace competitive pressure leads to better service, not worse. LASIK has gone from a novelty for the rich to a treatment everyone can afford, for example. Possibly counter examples exist, but I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps after I've had my mornin…

No, I have no problem with any of that. The author seemed to be proposing that the government should get out completely, and there would be no standards X, Y, and Z.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#74

Post by bdunbar »

bluedanieru wrote: post #73
bdunbar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me competitive pressures would lead private firms to do exactly what the TSA is doing i.e. give the appearance of being serious about security. In the marketplace competitive pressure leads to better service, not worse. LASIK has gone from a novelty for the rich to a treatment everyone can afford, for example. Possibly counter examples exist, but I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps after I've had my mornin…

No, I have no problem with any of that. The author seemed to be proposing that the government should get out completely, and there would be no standards X, Y, and Z.

He proposes abolition of the TSA. Which I endorse.

Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#75

Post by bluedanieru »

bdunbar wrote: post #74
bluedanieru wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I have no problem with any of that. The author seemed to be proposing that the government should get out completely, and there would be no standards X, Y, and Z.

He proposes abolition of the TSA. Which I endorse. Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.

He supports privatizing airports and airliners (both already are so I'm not sure what he's on about) and the 'airways' (presumably he wants to abolish the FAA?). He implies that government intervention in air travel can't make us more secure. It's pretty clear what his solution is, and it isn't a well-regulated air travel industry. It's a not-regulated air travel industry, or nearly so.

Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out.

He's not talking about regulation here. He thinks solid airline security will just happen.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#76

Post by waqf »

hugh3 wrote: post #69
waqf wrote: post #52

It recently occurred to me that we can see what "appropriate" security measures would be by looking, even within the US, at what security is in place at sites that are not targets of mass hysteria. For example, subways are generally known to be good terrorist targets. What's the security level on subways? In Boston and NY, it's a bunch of signs saying "if you see something, say something" and "we reserve the right in…

Except terrorists aren't any more rational than the general public are (hey, some would argue even less so), and it's the terrorists who keep on trying to target the planes, not the subways, at least in the United States. If there were a series of successful high-casualty subway attacks you'd see insane security on the subway (and let's really hope that doesn't happen). Besides, you just can't kill that many people o…

It seems to me that to make your argument valid you have to be implicitly claiming the following: we're so confident that no fragment of the current Islamist terrorism movement will target subways that we don't need to put in place the security measures that would be necessary if we thought they might; and yet we are so clueless as to when, where and how they plan to attack airplanes that we have to strip-search every 95-year-old/5-year-old/this week's TSA victim stereotype across the entire system.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#77

Post by bdunbar »

bluedanieru wrote: post #75
bdunbar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He proposes abolition of the TSA. Which I endorse. Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.

He supports privatizing airports and airliners (both already are so I'm not sure what he's on about) and the 'airways' (presumably he wants to abolish the FAA?). He implies that government intervention in air travel can't make us more secure. It's pretty clear what his solution is, and it isn't a well-regulated air travel industry. It's a not-regulated air travel industry, or nearly so. Some might object that private…

both already are

My local public-use airport (Outagamie County Regional Airport) is owned by the county.

DFW is owned by the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth.

JKF is owned by the City of New York.

What airports are owned by private interests?

The rest of the points you make I did not see in the article - but I merely skimmed, having read things like that before.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#78

Post by MichaelGlass »

I'm amazed this post was so popular. A populist point "let's shut down the TSA" is supported by a series of really poorly thought out and subjectively supported arguments.

Mind you, I agree that the TSA introduces unprecedented invasions of personal privacy. And I agree that it should be shut down on those grounds. But making the point that TSA kills because it incentivizes driving is silly.

What else is stupid? Privatized Airports. Besides security and fleet maintenance concerns, this sounds like a recipe for monopolistic airport practices, ie, come to Hartsfield Jackson, an airport paid for with tax-payer dollars. I'm not saying that public airports are run like well oiled machines, but I'd rather roll back one stupid administration than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re: Time to Close the Security Theater

#79

Post by thesteamboat »

bdunbar wrote: post #70
khafra wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your friends can tell you how well their LASIK worked, and how much it cost, as soon as their eyes heal. This allows market forces to do what they do pretty well. Anti-terrorist security measures have neither of these advantages. It's very difficult to find out how much they cost; especially if you include indirect costs to travelers. It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first appr…

It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security. This is also a problem with TSA. And we can calculate - roughly - the cost of TSA in delays, wages, missed flights. A good argument just popped into my brain: we used to run security at airports with either local cops or private companies. This worked, pretty well,…

We've made effective changes since then -- they just haven't been at screening. Passenger awareness that they should resist and reinforcing cockpit doors have greatly increased security. The TSA? Not so much. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...
Post reply on HN