4 ms·

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 aviatio

by wisty 15y ago

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 would be better putting the police in charge (and giving them the funds to put a couple of officers in each airport gate). If that's a waste of valuable police time, they could reduce their presence.

bdunbar 15y ago
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 'everyone' knew that hijackers would jack the plane, hold hostages, make demands. 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.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  """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 variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    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!"
    - dotBen 15y ago
      I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that. The Israeli's have a completely different approach to security - orientated around threat-intelligence and behavioral analysis. It's like expecting Ford to suddenly decide they want to get into the software business As it goes, they're about to open a software lab in Silicon Valley. I take the point you're really making here, but just saying :)
      - bdunbar 15y ago
        "I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that." The Israeli's have a completely different approach to security - orientated around threat-intelligence and behavioral analysis. True. Israel might be the exception to the rule. Of course, Israel has a much smaller area to control and a unique motivation.
ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
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 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.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > 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".
  - ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
    > why you trust a private corporation to manufacture jet engines and brakes, and not checking for bombs is pretty irrational. Naa, Irrational is when you trust airline companies that don't give their pilots 8 full hours of sleep and bribe officials into giving them passing safety inspections simply because you've been conditioned from a young age to assume that the free market would never do anything to jeopardize human lives in the name of profit. Now that is irrational. I don't like the TSA either, I'm not trying to protect their wasteful security theatre, I'm just saying, leaving it up to airlines to somehow collaborate together to work on increasing safety isn't going to happen on its own.
brc 15y ago
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.

by wisty 15y ago

bdunbar 15y ago

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 'everyone' knew that hijackers would jack the plane, hold hostages, make demands. 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.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
"""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 variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  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!"
  - dotBen 15y ago
    I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that. The Israeli's have a completely different approach to security - orientated around threat-intelligence and behavioral analysis. It's like expecting Ford to suddenly decide they want to get into the software business As it goes, they're about to open a software lab in Silicon Valley. I take the point you're really making here, but just saying :)
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      "I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that." The Israeli's have a completely different approach to security - orientated around threat-intelligence and behavioral analysis. True. Israel might be the exception to the rule. Of course, Israel has a much smaller area to control and a unique motivation.

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago

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 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.

smokeyj 15y ago
> 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".
- ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
  > why you trust a private corporation to manufacture jet engines and brakes, and not checking for bombs is pretty irrational. Naa, Irrational is when you trust airline companies that don't give their pilots 8 full hours of sleep and bribe officials into giving them passing safety inspections simply because you've been conditioned from a young age to assume that the free market would never do anything to jeopardize human lives in the name of profit. Now that is irrational. I don't like the TSA either, I'm not trying to protect their wasteful security theatre, I'm just saying, leaving it up to airlines to somehow collaborate together to work on increasing safety isn't going to happen on its own.

brc 15y ago

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.