6 ms·

The organizational structure of many US government organizations still seems strange to me. The DHS's restructure after 9/11 seemed to make sense (from my view

The organizational structure of many US government organizations still seems strange to me. The DHS's restructure after 9/11 seemed to make sense (from my viewpoint as an outsider) even if it looks like they outsourced the branding of it to the 3rd Reich. The Secret Service has dual roles of protection of certain officials and their families and investigating financial crimes. I understand the Secret Service's history as a sub-department of the Department of the Treasury made sense, but it still seems weird to have two very different, yet very specialized roles. And then there's this weird new requirement that very many US Government departments have their own tactical officer squads. Can't we just have a National Police (a merged FBI, US Marshals, etc)? The current silo system reeks of each silo budget hoarding. All of this to say: The SEC now needs to compete with the other branches of government to hire the best InfoSec people at a time when companies are investing more in the same space. If only the NSA was more focused on defending our government's systems, we could free up other government resources to work on the non-redundant functions.

KGIII 9y ago
Nazis wore Hugo Boss. As for branding, the TSA has nothing on that. The TSA recruits on pizza boxes.
- pizza 9y ago
  Striking imagery is too gauche; a policy of deliberate ambiguity is always preferable, and something it seems the public unconscious (yours truly likely included) very rapidly absorbs.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Your username indicates your bias! On a more serious note, uniforms are so much more drab today. I do wonder if there's some psychological science behind the mundanity of dress uniforms. I don't suppose you're up on your psychology? I tried Google and can only find the psych behind uniforms, and their effect on others, but no references to why they aren't as extravagant as they used to be.
    - pizza 9y ago
      modern ideology is both being encouraged to enjoy wherever you go, but also to recoil in cynicism from anyone who appears to actually enjoying to excess. Neither does your average joe want to put on a garish and fearsome uniform, for fear of being perceived as really believing in their duty-in-uniform ("it's just my job, I'm just like you"), nor does your average joe want there to be much difference in how they fear the average TSA agent than they already do their Starbucks barista :P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I'm pretty old and, as such, I feel inclined to give tradition a nod. There's something to be said for a good dress uniform. I'd never go so far as to suggest we need more people like Gaddafi. No, that would be morally wrong of me to suggest so. By most accounts, he was a horrible man. But... That man could wear a uniform. He had enough medals on his uniform to claim the top pedestal at the Special Olympics. He was a man who understood the value of a fancy dress uniform. And, back on that same topic, I've done way too much reading now. As near as I can tell, nobody has decided why dress uniforms have become more tame. They don't even usually wear fancy hats, with some exceptions. The Swiss and Britons still have some fancy hats. I really do wonder why the uniforms aren't nearly as fancy as they used to be. I can understand utilitarian needs, but these are dress uniforms. It's not like they are going to be out in a fancy dress ghillie suit. I bet there's a reason for it and I'd not be surprised if it were related to something psychological. A layman's guess would be that really snazzy uniforms inspire fear and promote ideas of inequality, or a lack of feelings of shared pain and shared service. Which is probably why Gaddafi could get away with it, but Trump can not. I have spent way too long pondering this and looking for scholarly studies at Google.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Top19 9y ago
One criticism of having a centralized national police force, a common feature in developing countries, is it makes corruption easier and more attractive. In a sense you’ve also centralized corruption and given it just as many efficiencies. That being said I don’t have a full solution to this issue, just a quick point from the other side. EDIT: I think a while ago (2-3 years maybe) it came out that the EPA had their own SWAT team, which seemed pretty funny.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  Apart from the US, what industrialised countries don't have a centralized national police force?
  - z2210558 9y ago
    Australia, for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Australia
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Italy, for historical reasons, has two major and mostly overlapping police forces, plus another two specialized one: * The "Carabinieri", a branch of the military which historically which mostly works against normal crime * The "Polizia di Stato", which became a fully civil force in 1981 and often compete with the Carabinieri * The smaller "Guardia di Finanza", which is another militarized force but at the direct dependence of the Ministry of Economy, and deal with financial crime and smuggling Until last year, we also had the State Forestry Corp which was its own corp and was, against many many resistances, absorbed into the Carabinieri.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    The French have their national Police and also 'Gendarmes' which are like police, but I think a branch of the Armed forces. I'm not so sure of the history, but it's not so crazy that there are 'two' so long as roles are clear etc.. Nation states are funny things. They change slowly :) One thing is for certain: there should be more control over who gets to be a 'cop' and the training and ultimate badge authority should be centralized at least at the state level. This idea of 'Universities' hiring their own cops ... with authority to arrest ... who is in charge of them exactly? I mean, in France they have 'two systems' but as far as I remember that covers everything and there are only 2 kinds of police uniforms that I ever saw. If there is one goofball cop/gendarme, his case will go pretty high up. Not to the 'dean' of the local college or whatever. Or to 'an elected guy' from some village.
otakucode 9y ago
I'm not sure if hiring the best InfoSec people is the way they will be going. They are very clear that their goal is to protect 'retail investors,' not to improve security. To me, that says 'put as many security researchers revealing the flaws in the systems used by large companies in prisons as possible.' Maybe put some kids running nmap on the NASDAQ website in jail.
Balgair 9y ago
On a National Police: Making one would require a large restructuring of our government, likely a constitutional convention. The reason is that guys like the FBI and ATF can only go after federal crimes which are de facto felonies and not misdemeanors (I may be totally wrong there, so please correct me). As such, the large majority of crimes are then under the states, as they do the day to day crime stuff, things like fraud, jay-walking, etc. Again, this is the US, so things are very convoluted and I may be wrong. To get a National Police, you'd have to give those rights to the Feds and not just the States, a very messy business that may result in successions. In addition, there are 300+ million Americans, so trying to impose 'law' on a Federal level and not in a State-resolution level would be crazy, as what works in Maine and what should be legal there is not something that may work in Arizona or Hawaii.
- thephyber 9y ago
  To be clear, my vision of a "national police force" is to unify the existing law enforcement agencies which are already enforcing US federal law. I do not want and did not mean to suggest that US police forces _replace_ local police (thereby the US federal government would then need to enforce all local laws, including traffic citations and misdemeanors). I can see how the discussion would diverge from what I envisioned due to the ambiguous nature of how I described it.

KGIII 9y ago

Nazis wore Hugo Boss. As for branding, the TSA has nothing on that. The TSA recruits on pizza boxes.

pizza 9y ago
Striking imagery is too gauche; a policy of deliberate ambiguity is always preferable, and something it seems the public unconscious (yours truly likely included) very rapidly absorbs.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Your username indicates your bias! On a more serious note, uniforms are so much more drab today. I do wonder if there's some psychological science behind the mundanity of dress uniforms. I don't suppose you're up on your psychology? I tried Google and can only find the psych behind uniforms, and their effect on others, but no references to why they aren't as extravagant as they used to be.
  - pizza 9y ago
    modern ideology is both being encouraged to enjoy wherever you go, but also to recoil in cynicism from anyone who appears to actually enjoying to excess. Neither does your average joe want to put on a garish and fearsome uniform, for fear of being perceived as really believing in their duty-in-uniform ("it's just my job, I'm just like you"), nor does your average joe want there to be much difference in how they fear the average TSA agent than they already do their Starbucks barista :P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I'm pretty old and, as such, I feel inclined to give tradition a nod. There's something to be said for a good dress uniform. I'd never go so far as to suggest we need more people like Gaddafi. No, that would be morally wrong of me to suggest so. By most accounts, he was a horrible man. But... That man could wear a uniform. He had enough medals on his uniform to claim the top pedestal at the Special Olympics. He was a man who understood the value of a fancy dress uniform. And, back on that same topic, I've done way too much reading now. As near as I can tell, nobody has decided why dress uniforms have become more tame. They don't even usually wear fancy hats, with some exceptions. The Swiss and Britons still have some fancy hats. I really do wonder why the uniforms aren't nearly as fancy as they used to be. I can understand utilitarian needs, but these are dress uniforms. It's not like they are going to be out in a fancy dress ghillie suit. I bet there's a reason for it and I'd not be surprised if it were related to something psychological. A layman's guess would be that really snazzy uniforms inspire fear and promote ideas of inequality, or a lack of feelings of shared pain and shared service. Which is probably why Gaddafi could get away with it, but Trump can not. I have spent way too long pondering this and looking for scholarly studies at Google.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Top19 9y ago

One criticism of having a centralized national police force, a common feature in developing countries, is it makes corruption easier and more attractive. In a sense you’ve also centralized corruption and given it just as many efficiencies. That being said I don’t have a full solution to this issue, just a quick point from the other side. EDIT: I think a while ago (2-3 years maybe) it came out that the EPA had their own SWAT team, which seemed pretty funny.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
Apart from the US, what industrialised countries don't have a centralized national police force?
- z2210558 9y ago
  Australia, for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Australia
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Italy, for historical reasons, has two major and mostly overlapping police forces, plus another two specialized one: * The "Carabinieri", a branch of the military which historically which mostly works against normal crime * The "Polizia di Stato", which became a fully civil force in 1981 and often compete with the Carabinieri * The smaller "Guardia di Finanza", which is another militarized force but at the direct dependence of the Ministry of Economy, and deal with financial crime and smuggling Until last year, we also had the State Forestry Corp which was its own corp and was, against many many resistances, absorbed into the Carabinieri.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  The French have their national Police and also 'Gendarmes' which are like police, but I think a branch of the Armed forces. I'm not so sure of the history, but it's not so crazy that there are 'two' so long as roles are clear etc.. Nation states are funny things. They change slowly :) One thing is for certain: there should be more control over who gets to be a 'cop' and the training and ultimate badge authority should be centralized at least at the state level. This idea of 'Universities' hiring their own cops ... with authority to arrest ... who is in charge of them exactly? I mean, in France they have 'two systems' but as far as I remember that covers everything and there are only 2 kinds of police uniforms that I ever saw. If there is one goofball cop/gendarme, his case will go pretty high up. Not to the 'dean' of the local college or whatever. Or to 'an elected guy' from some village.

otakucode 9y ago

I'm not sure if hiring the best InfoSec people is the way they will be going. They are very clear that their goal is to protect 'retail investors,' not to improve security. To me, that says 'put as many security researchers revealing the flaws in the systems used by large companies in prisons as possible.' Maybe put some kids running nmap on the NASDAQ website in jail.

Balgair 9y ago

On a National Police: Making one would require a large restructuring of our government, likely a constitutional convention. The reason is that guys like the FBI and ATF can only go after federal crimes which are de facto felonies and not misdemeanors (I may be totally wrong there, so please correct me). As such, the large majority of crimes are then under the states, as they do the day to day crime stuff, things like fraud, jay-walking, etc. Again, this is the US, so things are very convoluted and I may be wrong. To get a National Police, you'd have to give those rights to the Feds and not just the States, a very messy business that may result in successions. In addition, there are 300+ million Americans, so trying to impose 'law' on a Federal level and not in a State-resolution level would be crazy, as what works in Maine and what should be legal there is not something that may work in Arizona or Hawaii.

thephyber 9y ago
To be clear, my vision of a "national police force" is to unify the existing law enforcement agencies which are already enforcing US federal law. I do not want and did not mean to suggest that US police forces _replace_ local police (thereby the US federal government would then need to enforce all local laws, including traffic citations and misdemeanors). I can see how the discussion would diverge from what I envisioned due to the ambiguous nature of how I described it.