Abolish the Department of Homeland Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#41

Post by NegativeOne » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 7:00 PM UTC

mmariani wrote: post #30

wavephorm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a euphemism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism The US government uses typical propaganda tactics like this, grease up the names of their authoritarian bills to make them sound nice, when in fact they are usually quite sinister. For example, the Patriot Act includes provisions for torturing and spying on Americans.

That is happening almost in every country in the world. Privacy, freedom of speech, you name it. Blood was spilled to assure we have rights. Even though, most people are consistently waiving them and they seem not to care about it. How is it even possible? I'm perplexed by this.

That's something that really bothers me. I try to talk to people about this stuff and they honestly don't care, because it doesn't effect them yet.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#42

Post by ChrisNorstrom » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 8:06 PM UTC

steveplace wrote: post #37

lukeschlather wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airports aren't subject to higher scrutiny than buses for the sake of the airports' customers. 9/11 would have been unremarkable if people had stolen buses and driven them into the same buildings. Airports are subject to higher scrutiny because their planes can potentially become missiles with a high-power payload. In a totally free market, most of the airlines could probably absorb the loss of a plane every year, bu…

Schneier states the case that the solution to this risk has already been completed: For years I've said that exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers that they need to fight back. http://www.schneier.com/essay-303.html Neither of those solutions required increased security measures.

How does one fight back against an underwear bomber? Do the passengers instinctively smell the pube-laced explosives, jump on the terrorist and disarm him?

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#43

Post by ChrisNorstrom » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 8:14 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #24

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #22

I was reading along, nodding my head, then I got to this: Hard to argue with most of that, although abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. What? How many passengers can you service…

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it wo…

I agree, "free market solutions" sounds nice until you notice that capitalism has no soul. It was only a few years ago that airlines bribed the FAA to skip inspections on their planes. Watch the frontline documentary on how airlines treat their pilots, barely giving them enough sleep, paying them terribly low wages, and putting non experienced pilots in senior positions, all to make a profit. Not to mention this: http://www.defraudingamerica.com/faa_corruption.html and lets not forget that every few years a major airline files for bankruptcy.

"Oh but the airlines will want to protect their planes because in the long term it will affect their customers"

We the passengers look into the long term and assume that airlines do too. History has shown that corporate greed plans for nothing beyond the next fiscal quarter. I wouldn't trust them one bit.

I don't like the TSA either but leaving it up to the airlines... We can't go "back" to the way things were, times change, society changes, new threats emerge.

AND at the end of the day we're all just a bunch of speculators sitting in front a computer reading one sided stories off of some guy's blog. We don't have a fraction of enough real data and information to make a call that would affect millions of people.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#44

Post by smokeyj » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 8:53 PM UTC

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #43

wisty wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it wo…

I agree, "free market solutions" sounds nice until you notice that capitalism has no soul. It was only a few years ago that airlines bribed the FAA to skip inspections on their planes. Watch the frontline documentary on how airlines treat their pilots, barely giving them enough sleep, paying them terribly low wages, and putting non experienced pilots in senior positions, all to make a profit. Not to mention this: htt…

> I agree, "free market solutions" sounds nice until you notice that capitalism has no soul.

I've got news for you. Economic models are inanimate. Sorry Che.

> I don't like the TSA either but leaving it up to the airlines...

It is up to the airlines. All the mechanical components on that capitalist plane were made by free enterprise. Now, why you trust a private corporation to manufacture jet engines and brakes, and not checking for bombs is pretty irrational. And besides, when you have choice which, free markets afford you, you can take a greyhound bus if you're that afraid of the "terrorists".

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#45

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 10:07 PM UTC

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #42

steveplace wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schneier states the case that the solution to this risk has already been completed: For years I've said that exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers that they need to fight back. http://www.schneier.com/essay-303.html Neither of those solutions required increased security measures.

How does one fight back against an underwear bomber? Do the passengers instinctively smell the pube-laced explosives, jump on the terrorist and disarm him?

You hold him down, choke him; and find the burning shoe or underwear. There's usually water in the form if bottles to throw on someone.

In the end, you fight back and don't deal with idiocism.

It reminds me when I was working at Starbucks. We had a long-ish line. A guy who we knew would cause problems shows up, and a Japanese barista tried to take his order. He then starts yelling at her, for repeating it wrong (it was right, but he couldn't understand the accent).

Then a guy 2 people behind says out loud, "either order or get the hell out!" A lady behind him then said "Be nice to her, or leave"

Once one person had the courage to say something, more did. And the customer eventually left without ordering anything. We baristas did nothing but stand there, trying to get the order.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#46

Post by brc » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 10:36 PM UTC

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #43

wisty wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it wo…

I agree, "free market solutions" sounds nice until you notice that capitalism has no soul. It was only a few years ago that airlines bribed the FAA to skip inspections on their planes. Watch the frontline documentary on how airlines treat their pilots, barely giving them enough sleep, paying them terribly low wages, and putting non experienced pilots in senior positions, all to make a profit. Not to mention this: htt…

'Capitalism has no soul?'

Really?

And a socialist centrally-planned one-party state does?

Sheesh.

If you think corruption is only possible in a free market, I've got news for you. The free market is about the only hope you've got in a fight against corruption. Have a look at the world indices for corrupt societies - the worst offenders are the ones with the least freedom. I have no doubt at all that the TSA is already fighting corruption at some levels, and this will get worse as they fight to expand their powers.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#47

Post by brc » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 10:39 PM UTC

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #42

steveplace wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schneier states the case that the solution to this risk has already been completed: For years I've said that exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers that they need to fight back. http://www.schneier.com/essay-303.html Neither of those solutions required increased security measures.

How does one fight back against an underwear bomber? Do the passengers instinctively smell the pube-laced explosives, jump on the terrorist and disarm him?

Well, yes, apparently that's what did happen.

Remember two things: a) the underwear bomber got through the TSA checks b) you just can't pack enough explosives in your underwear to really do any serious damage.

Both the shoe and the underwear bomber were apprehended on the plane. That alone shows why the TSA is useless.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#48

Post by brc » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 10:49 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #24

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #22

I was reading along, nodding my head, then I got to this: Hard to argue with most of that, although abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. What? How many passengers can you service…

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it wo…

You could have the airport security run by private enterprise. The Federal government would have a minimum set of standards and random plainclothes inspectors. These inspectors would periodically try and infiltrate security, and if successful at penetrating security, issue a $x fine.

Airports would be free to implement whatever they needed to within the current laws in order to meet said standards.

People seem to conflate 'free markets' with 'freedom to do anything they want'. In reality, effective markets are done under a strict rule of law. Set the rules in place, enforce the rules, and let people innovate the best way to operate within those rules. If one airport decides on strip searches and another on random checks then people can decide for themselves (to a limited extent if there is only one airport) which airports they wish to use.

This works for everything from vehicle standards to building standards to food standards - I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work with security standards.

There would be problems with this system, but it at least has the advantage of not expanding government powers and creating yet another state police force.

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#49

Post by bdunbar » Sun, Jan 15, 2012, 1:10 AM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #38

bdunbar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. Except this is how airport security was ran before 9/11. 9/11 didn't happen because costs were cut. 9/11 happened because the attackers worked the problem, discovered gaps, exploited them. Gaps that the government, who set the standards and rules for security, had no idea were there. Recall that in August, 2011 'everyo…

"""The idea that anyone use airliners as improvised cruise missiles was so far into looney-tunes land that Tom Clancy used it as a plot device to catapult Jack Ryan into the presidency.""" And that, IMO, sums up what is wrong with how we handle airport security. We continually focus on fixing what happened last time instead of looking at what could happen. Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many v…

Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently.

I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that.

It's like expecting Ford to suddenly decide they want to get into the software business, and stop making cars. It's just not going to happen: not in their DNA.

Take 'a' proposal that would have prevented 9/11: issue every passenger a pistol and frangible ammunition. [1] Can you imagine any government doing that? Trusting their citizens to be adults?

So, no: We're stuck with TSA and the government screwing the pooch by insisting they can control was can't be controlled.

[1] If you want, issue them only to people who can prove competence with firearms, or veterans. Instructional videos: "So you want to use your pistol!"

Re: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

#50

Post by dguaraglia » Sun, Jan 15, 2012, 2:04 AM UTC

waffle_ss wrote: post #27

dguaraglia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the term "security theater". That's exactly what they are doing. Well, that and buying extremely expensive machinery from a company partially owned by the very man, Michael Chertoff, who co-wrote the PATRIOT act and jump-started this whole stupid thing. Talk about revolving-door politics and corruption. That bothers me more than any pat-downs.

Is there a list somewhere of all of these corrupt politicians / traitors? If not, I'm going to start a wiki. Who knows, maybe it will be useful if the winds of change ever blow through this country.

You know? This is not a bad idea.

I've been wondering for months what kind of thing one could do to 'awaken' people about all these corrupts running stuff. It's not that they hide what they do. Oh, no! In general they are quite blatant about it. The problem is that most journalists (with the exceptions of people like Matt Taibbi and Greg Palast) can't be bothered to do their job and actually do some... well, journalism.

So, I wonder if creating a compendium of these facts won't make it an easier job for the journalists in the mainstream media to pick them up and maybe expose them to the public a bit more. I'm making a big, big, assumption here that mainstream media actually gives a crap about this at all.