(Crossposted to Redstate)
Rivka of Respectful of Otters* has resumed blogging with an interesting post about security procedures and their actual utility, starting with this parable and following with this observation:
Bruce’s point is that, while every security measure is implemented for a good reason, the good reason involved often has nothing to do with security. The canonical modern example is the requirement that all airline passengers show a photo ID. There’s nothing about showing photo ID that makes us safer, as was demonstrated on 9/11: every one of the hijackers had an acceptable photo ID. But the photo ID requirement does put the airlines in a better financial position. Prior to the ID requirement, it was possible to resell tickets you didn’t plan to use, which meant lost revenue for the airlines. Now, private resale of airline tickets is impossible. The “security” measure was implemented to solve an economic problem, not a security problem.
I am actually not up to speed on whether the specific example is true, but in general I agree that we need to consider our security procedures. One of the standard objections to the USA PATRIOT Act is that it was a hodgepodge of pie-in-the-sky wish lists by a wide varierty of law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies, rather than a coherent examination of our security needs. There is a certain ring of truth to that objection. I am not ascribing malice or even incompetence to its creation, mind you: at the time we needed something to facilitate antiterrorist activities, and the mindset was to throw something together and worry about making it more linear a few years down the line.
Well, it’s a few years down the line. A exhaustive review of the uses for which USA PATRIOT was put, and the uses for which it could have been put, but was not – and I am not talking about the standard Congressional dog-and-pony show: I’m talking about a working group of about five or so trusted Senatorial and Congressional aides from both sides of the spectrum who can keep their mouths shut while the reiview is going on – would be precisely what we need right now. I would be very happy to hear that something like this is going on – but I would also be, alas, slightly surprised.
Moe
*(ObWi personalized note) Who is feeling kind of down, apparently, so go cheer her up.
Yeah, at a certain point, you brain simply MUST turn off all the warnings and such. Knowing that some of the measures that inconvenience us are useless only adds to that inclination.
Which is related to why it’s so frustrating to watch Ashcroft and Ridge hold press conferences during which they don’t raise the terror alert. They’re training us to ignore them.
I would be very happy to hear that something like this is going on – but I would also be, alas, slightly surprised.
I’d be very surprised.
However, post-November, it’s a whole different ball game. Bush’s defeat should make you very happy…
I keep wondering when we’ll get some bread and circuses.
What will make me happy, Jes, is some indication that, hopefully not years and years from now, you will be able accept in your heart that I am an honest-to-God Bush supporter who is actively attempting to get him re-elected because I think that it’d be best for the country.
Sorry, but I’m not in the mood for the usual fun and games.
I play a little mental game whenever I hear about a new security measure. I think, “If the 9/11 terrorists would have encountered this, what would have happened?” In most cases, the answer is that they would have nodded and smiled and gotten through and killed a few thousand people.
I like security. Big fan. I don’t like paranoid control-freaking masquerading as and distracting us from real security.