4 ms·

If we're running airport security - putting aside the security theatre aspect - do we really want to search a 90 year old female pensioner as often as a 21 year

If we're running airport security - putting aside the security theatre aspect - do we really want to search a 90 year old female pensioner as often as a 21 year old man, when the former is significantly (as in, 100x thereabouts) less likely to pose a threat to a flight? Isn't that just a waste of resources? Or consider health insurance. Do we really want young people paying the same premiums as 80 year olds? Perhaps you think there's a negative societal byproduct of making a certain group of people feel marginalized/targeted. Does wanting to reduce this justify clear resource wastage, such as in the airport security example above?

magicalist 5y ago
> putting aside the security theatre aspect > Does wanting to reduce this justify clear resource wastage, such as in the airport security example above? Hold on, your argument can't put aside the "security theatre aspect" while also using it as justification for policies. If it really is theatre, this wouldn't be doing anything more effectively except getting more people invested in the show going on.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I should've said "to the extent that it isn't security theatre"
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Now your argument hinges on it not being security theater. You have to make the case that airport security is so vital and effective that we need to profile people to get that slight edge.
josephcsible 5y ago
> do we really want to search a 90 year old female pensioner as often as a 21 year old man, when the former is significantly (as in, 100x thereabouts) less likely to pose a threat to a flight? Terrorist organizations aren't stupid, and they have members of all ages. If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore, then they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights. > Or consider health insurance. Do we really want young people paying the same premiums as 80 year olds? In this example, what are you saying that the 80-year-olds have control over?
- rrdharan 5y ago
  > they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights They really wouldn’t. There aren’t that many 90 year olds available and it’s pretty hard to recruit them into terrorism (relative to 21 year olds).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wruza 5y ago
  If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore, then they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights. And skewed statistics accordingly, so that it would include them again. That’s how it already works, but on an intuition of particular security workers and/or general guidelines they receive.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore" Even if that isn't the optimal policy (and I didn't suggest that it was) due to its exploitability, it doesn't then follow that having the same search probability for 90 year old women and 21 year old men is optimal. Perhaps searching young men with a 3x higher probability compared to old women is optimal. What we can say with confidence, when considering only the immediate objective of flight safety (or venue security), is that an exactly equal search probability is definitely not optimal, due to nearly all instances of lone shooters and so on being young or middle aged men.
cartoonworld 5y ago
I'd say Yes and Yes. Granting the security theater, If your searches aren't random you introduce a trivial way to bypass the searches. A bad actor simply has to con the contraband onto an unsuspecting low-risk passenger to convert his chances to a much higher success rate. wrt health insurance, we should properly note that health insurance doesn't exist. It is not insurance but some kind of health care subscription. I am of course speaking as US citizen. A more useful analogy might be life insurance. The negative societal byproduct of marginalizing certain groups is clearly not justified, it is the resource wastage.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "A bad actor simply has to con the contraband onto an unsuspecting low-risk passenger" While it's true that this will happen, this isn't a valid argument for exactly equal search frequency across demographics. Lone wolf attacks are almost exclusively young or middle aged men. That isn't changing in response to venue or airport search policy. Young people might be easier to convert into drug smugglers due to financial need, higher risk appetite, less family responsibilities and a higher chance of having gang affiliations. Even if smugglers recruit more old people in response to a skew towards searching young people more frequently, such a policy may still maximize the number of successful searches.
  - cartoonworld 5y ago
    >This isn't a valid argument for exactly equal resource allocation across demographics. It is if your goal is to intercept contraband. Previous contraband seizure statistics will be skewed by survivor bias. Currently, in airports, everybody and every bag passes through an x-ray or metal detector. Airport or venue search policy is unable to affect demographics. This kind of reasoning results in a spiral of paranoia and ineffective solutions (security theater) which is much worse than a waste of time and resources. This collective suspicion breeds the kind of resentment and distrust which I would argue contribute to the very problems they are purported to solve.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
armchairhacker 5y ago
IMO the main issue is that you're punishing (or at least inconveniencing) the person whose predicted to be bad. The 21 year old man did nothing wrong being a 21 year old man, and just because he's super suspicious doesn't mean he's actually dangerous. And you have to imagine what happens when you are the one who seems super suspicious. Similarly, 80 year olds and especially people with pre-existing conditions, they did nothing wrong, so it's not fair to make them pay more. Possible solutions are 1) monitor the suspicious individuals without inconveniencing them (e.g. monitor the 21-year old via a security camera), 2) distribute the inconvenience when possible (e.g. raise everyone's premiums a small amount for those who are more likely to be sick), or 3) offer some sort of compensation to people who have to be targeted.
Spooky23 5y ago
Says who? For what threat? Recall the Pan Am flight exploded over Scotland. Explosives were concealed in a radio. Who is to say that grandma isn’t packing such a device? The threat of a 9/11 style hijacking is largely neutralizes by reinforced cockpit doors. But any person can be a mule, knowingly or unknowingly, for contraband of various types.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> Or consider health insurance. Do we really want young people paying the same premiums as 80 year olds? Health insurance is a perfect example of intentionally restricting factors that may be considered to make a more fair system. Forget age. Most systems don't require a sick person to pay more than a healthy person even if the sick person is nearly guaranteed to take out more than they contribute. > Perhaps you think there's a negative societal byproduct of making a certain group of people feel marginalized/targeted. Does wanting to reduce this justify clear resource wastage, such as in the airport security example above? The extra security is the resource wastage. The flip side of "we can do less for this group" is "we can do more for that group". Also, your comment here heavily implies you think that resource waste is obviously more important that making large groups of people feel marginalized. To be frank, even from the most sociopathic economic lens, I do think that exhibiting behaviors that perpetuate racist/religious/political/ageist/sexist/sexual orientation biased ideas have significantly higher negative externality costs to society. Especially those that implicitly convey that an outsider group is dangerous.

magicalist 5y ago

> putting aside the security theatre aspect > Does wanting to reduce this justify clear resource wastage, such as in the airport security example above? Hold on, your argument can't put aside the "security theatre aspect" while also using it as justification for policies. If it really is theatre, this wouldn't be doing anything more effectively except getting more people invested in the show going on.

fighterpilot 5y ago
I should've said "to the extent that it isn't security theatre"
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Now your argument hinges on it not being security theater. You have to make the case that airport security is so vital and effective that we need to profile people to get that slight edge.

josephcsible 5y ago

> do we really want to search a 90 year old female pensioner as often as a 21 year old man, when the former is significantly (as in, 100x thereabouts) less likely to pose a threat to a flight? Terrorist organizations aren't stupid, and they have members of all ages. If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore, then they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights. > Or consider health insurance. Do we really want young people paying the same premiums as 80 year olds? In this example, what are you saying that the 80-year-olds have control over?

rrdharan 5y ago
> they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights They really wouldn’t. There aren’t that many 90 year olds available and it’s pretty hard to recruit them into terrorism (relative to 21 year olds).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wruza 5y ago
If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore, then they'd suddenly end up committing most of the attacks on flights. And skewed statistics accordingly, so that it would include them again. That’s how it already works, but on an intuition of particular security workers and/or general guidelines they receive.
fighterpilot 5y ago
"If we made it our policy not to search 90-year-olds anymore" Even if that isn't the optimal policy (and I didn't suggest that it was) due to its exploitability, it doesn't then follow that having the same search probability for 90 year old women and 21 year old men is optimal. Perhaps searching young men with a 3x higher probability compared to old women is optimal. What we can say with confidence, when considering only the immediate objective of flight safety (or venue security), is that an exactly equal search probability is definitely not optimal, due to nearly all instances of lone shooters and so on being young or middle aged men.

cartoonworld 5y ago

I'd say Yes and Yes. Granting the security theater, If your searches aren't random you introduce a trivial way to bypass the searches. A bad actor simply has to con the contraband onto an unsuspecting low-risk passenger to convert his chances to a much higher success rate. wrt health insurance, we should properly note that health insurance doesn't exist. It is not insurance but some kind of health care subscription. I am of course speaking as US citizen. A more useful analogy might be life insurance. The negative societal byproduct of marginalizing certain groups is clearly not justified, it is the resource wastage.

fighterpilot 5y ago
"A bad actor simply has to con the contraband onto an unsuspecting low-risk passenger" While it's true that this will happen, this isn't a valid argument for exactly equal search frequency across demographics. Lone wolf attacks are almost exclusively young or middle aged men. That isn't changing in response to venue or airport search policy. Young people might be easier to convert into drug smugglers due to financial need, higher risk appetite, less family responsibilities and a higher chance of having gang affiliations. Even if smugglers recruit more old people in response to a skew towards searching young people more frequently, such a policy may still maximize the number of successful searches.
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  >This isn't a valid argument for exactly equal resource allocation across demographics. It is if your goal is to intercept contraband. Previous contraband seizure statistics will be skewed by survivor bias. Currently, in airports, everybody and every bag passes through an x-ray or metal detector. Airport or venue search policy is unable to affect demographics. This kind of reasoning results in a spiral of paranoia and ineffective solutions (security theater) which is much worse than a waste of time and resources. This collective suspicion breeds the kind of resentment and distrust which I would argue contribute to the very problems they are purported to solve.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago

armchairhacker 5y ago

IMO the main issue is that you're punishing (or at least inconveniencing) the person whose predicted to be bad. The 21 year old man did nothing wrong being a 21 year old man, and just because he's super suspicious doesn't mean he's actually dangerous. And you have to imagine what happens when you are the one who seems super suspicious. Similarly, 80 year olds and especially people with pre-existing conditions, they did nothing wrong, so it's not fair to make them pay more. Possible solutions are 1) monitor the suspicious individuals without inconveniencing them (e.g. monitor the 21-year old via a security camera), 2) distribute the inconvenience when possible (e.g. raise everyone's premiums a small amount for those who are more likely to be sick), or 3) offer some sort of compensation to people who have to be targeted.

Spooky23 5y ago

Says who? For what threat? Recall the Pan Am flight exploded over Scotland. Explosives were concealed in a radio. Who is to say that grandma isn’t packing such a device? The threat of a 9/11 style hijacking is largely neutralizes by reinforced cockpit doors. But any person can be a mule, knowingly or unknowingly, for contraband of various types.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> Or consider health insurance. Do we really want young people paying the same premiums as 80 year olds? Health insurance is a perfect example of intentionally restricting factors that may be considered to make a more fair system. Forget age. Most systems don't require a sick person to pay more than a healthy person even if the sick person is nearly guaranteed to take out more than they contribute. > Perhaps you think there's a negative societal byproduct of making a certain group of people feel marginalized/targeted. Does wanting to reduce this justify clear resource wastage, such as in the airport security example above? The extra security is the resource wastage. The flip side of "we can do less for this group" is "we can do more for that group". Also, your comment here heavily implies you think that resource waste is obviously more important that making large groups of people feel marginalized. To be frank, even from the most sociopathic economic lens, I do think that exhibiting behaviors that perpetuate racist/religious/political/ageist/sexist/sexual orientation biased ideas have significantly higher negative externality costs to society. Especially those that implicitly convey that an outsider group is dangerous.