Monday, March 28, 2005
Confusing Control and Security
In today's Washington Post, Richard Rahn writes how the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is confusing control and security . I like his title because it is so descriptive of the activities of most large government or bureaucratic organizations - just change the word "security" to reflect the big organization's mission.
After describing the inefficient and ineffective TSA proceedures, he conclude : "If TSA would use sensible cost-benefit and probability analysis, they would put more resources into bomb and chemical detection and let us have our pocket knives and sewing materials. ... (They seem to forget that for decades before the recent use of metal detectors many people routinely carried guns on airplanes, and despite millions of flights there were only a handful of serious incidents.) TSA, and for that matter all other law enforcement agencies, should be required to subject every rule, regulation and procedure to strict cost-benefit analysis, as well as review by civil liberties experts. That would provide better security at lower cost, with far less harassment and intrusion."
His comment about guns in airplanes reminds me of the rather poor performance of the TSA concerning putting armed agents in airplanes despite the expressed intent of Congress for this politically incorrect action. Congress pushed for both more Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) and for arming all pilots that wished to be armed.
While FAMs have been hired, there are very few relative to the number of air flights; and it has been geting harder to retain and recruit them. They complain about a rigid and uncomfortable dress code that makes them obvious stand-outs among the passengers; and the frequency of flights without interim rest, due to the scarcity of FAMs. The lack of FAMs could be offset by more armed pilots. However, very few pilots have been certified for weapons carry; which seems odd since a large percentage of pilots asked for the right to be armed and are also ex-military. Why? Perhaps, because the TSA instituted a very extensive and slow program to conduct mental suitability profiles on applicants and to require lengthy training in how to handle a pistol ( and then provided very few training slots).
Of course, there are other ways to do this - one could supplement the FAMs by encouraging off-duty Law Enforcement officers to travel armed. That opens up a very large pool of trained LE agents who could qualify with a minimum of extra training and at very low cost. It's probably a lot cheaper and more effective than much of the current airport security hassle.
But that approach , or others that place more reliance on citizens, threatens to improve security at the expense of bureaucratic control. In many areas of Homeland Security, it seems we talk about Trusting the Citizens, but end up enacting centralized controls. It seems odd since this nation is the premier exemplar of the power of distributed decisionmaking and action in pursuit of common objectives - with major successes in fields as diverse as internet creation and exploitation to corporate management to modern warfighting in the Mid-East.
After describing the inefficient and ineffective TSA proceedures, he conclude : "If TSA would use sensible cost-benefit and probability analysis, they would put more resources into bomb and chemical detection and let us have our pocket knives and sewing materials. ... (They seem to forget that for decades before the recent use of metal detectors many people routinely carried guns on airplanes, and despite millions of flights there were only a handful of serious incidents.) TSA, and for that matter all other law enforcement agencies, should be required to subject every rule, regulation and procedure to strict cost-benefit analysis, as well as review by civil liberties experts. That would provide better security at lower cost, with far less harassment and intrusion."
His comment about guns in airplanes reminds me of the rather poor performance of the TSA concerning putting armed agents in airplanes despite the expressed intent of Congress for this politically incorrect action. Congress pushed for both more Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) and for arming all pilots that wished to be armed.
While FAMs have been hired, there are very few relative to the number of air flights; and it has been geting harder to retain and recruit them. They complain about a rigid and uncomfortable dress code that makes them obvious stand-outs among the passengers; and the frequency of flights without interim rest, due to the scarcity of FAMs. The lack of FAMs could be offset by more armed pilots. However, very few pilots have been certified for weapons carry; which seems odd since a large percentage of pilots asked for the right to be armed and are also ex-military. Why? Perhaps, because the TSA instituted a very extensive and slow program to conduct mental suitability profiles on applicants and to require lengthy training in how to handle a pistol ( and then provided very few training slots).
Of course, there are other ways to do this - one could supplement the FAMs by encouraging off-duty Law Enforcement officers to travel armed. That opens up a very large pool of trained LE agents who could qualify with a minimum of extra training and at very low cost. It's probably a lot cheaper and more effective than much of the current airport security hassle.
But that approach , or others that place more reliance on citizens, threatens to improve security at the expense of bureaucratic control. In many areas of Homeland Security, it seems we talk about Trusting the Citizens, but end up enacting centralized controls. It seems odd since this nation is the premier exemplar of the power of distributed decisionmaking and action in pursuit of common objectives - with major successes in fields as diverse as internet creation and exploitation to corporate management to modern warfighting in the Mid-East.
