4 ms·

> It gives the illusion of security, but they would absolutely not deter a determined threat actor. Sure. And the threat of jail/imprisonment doesn't deter det

> It gives the illusion of security, but they would absolutely not deter a determined threat actor. Sure. And the threat of jail/imprisonment doesn't deter determined murderer's. It doesn't mean we shouldn't put deterrents.

kingcharles 5y ago
Absolutely we need deterrents, otherwise chaos. What deterrents is one of the hardest problems society has ever grappled with. How do we stop antisocial behaviours? Prisons (a modern punishment) do not seem to work, for a multitude of complicated reasons. This is coming from someone who has been through the system.
p_j_w 5y ago
>It doesn't mean we shouldn't put deterrents. GP doesn't say we shouldn't, but rather that it's not good enough.
- eximius 5y ago
  Generally calling something security theatre has an implication that it shouldnt be done because of its inefficacy and the availability of robust alternatives (e.g., port knocking is theatre when we can have robust security on known ports with minimal configuration and cryptography).
  - aneutron 5y ago
    While I do agree that security theater does have a connotation for things that have no reason to be done, I only meant that it's not enough. It's theater in the sense that it would only provide a sense of safety, not solve the actual underlying issue or vulnerability class.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      In general, very little is ever enough to completely prevent some sort of determined targeted attack, especially if the attacker doesn't care whether they're caught or not.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    It's also theater if the ratio between actual protection and perceived protection is highly disproportionate, like with the TSA in the US.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Depends what you mean by “not good enough.” It’s obviously not perfect, like all our laws and systems for preventing crimes.
rstuart4133 5y ago
For what it's worth, the threat of jail / imprisonment has no effect on determined murders whatsoever. In fact it has no effect violent crimes in general. From https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-p... : > The weak association between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates applies almost entirely to property crime.16 Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates. It does make sense. If a person is committing a crime in the hopes of material gain, reducing that material gain by imposing a negative gain if they get caught should deter them. It doesn't seem like a person committing a crime of passion would be using that sort calculus. And it turns out in this case intuition is right: the figures say they don't. Ergo the threat of jail has no effect on the number of murders committed.

kingcharles 5y ago

Absolutely we need deterrents, otherwise chaos. What deterrents is one of the hardest problems society has ever grappled with. How do we stop antisocial behaviours? Prisons (a modern punishment) do not seem to work, for a multitude of complicated reasons. This is coming from someone who has been through the system.

p_j_w 5y ago

>It doesn't mean we shouldn't put deterrents. GP doesn't say we shouldn't, but rather that it's not good enough.

eximius 5y ago
Generally calling something security theatre has an implication that it shouldnt be done because of its inefficacy and the availability of robust alternatives (e.g., port knocking is theatre when we can have robust security on known ports with minimal configuration and cryptography).
- aneutron 5y ago
  While I do agree that security theater does have a connotation for things that have no reason to be done, I only meant that it's not enough. It's theater in the sense that it would only provide a sense of safety, not solve the actual underlying issue or vulnerability class.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    In general, very little is ever enough to completely prevent some sort of determined targeted attack, especially if the attacker doesn't care whether they're caught or not.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It's also theater if the ratio between actual protection and perceived protection is highly disproportionate, like with the TSA in the US.
tshaddox 5y ago
Depends what you mean by “not good enough.” It’s obviously not perfect, like all our laws and systems for preventing crimes.

rstuart4133 5y ago

For what it's worth, the threat of jail / imprisonment has no effect on determined murders whatsoever. In fact it has no effect violent crimes in general. From https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-p... : > The weak association between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates applies almost entirely to property crime.16 Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates. It does make sense. If a person is committing a crime in the hopes of material gain, reducing that material gain by imposing a negative gain if they get caught should deter them. It doesn't seem like a person committing a crime of passion would be using that sort calculus. And it turns out in this case intuition is right: the figures say they don't. Ergo the threat of jail has no effect on the number of murders committed.