Schneier on Security: Halloween and the Irrational Fear of Stranger Danger | Hacker News Reader

Schneier on Security: Halloween and the Irrational Fear of Stranger Danger

schneier.com

21 pointsstakent7 comments

It's ironic that, while the fear-mongering is stupid, much of the advice given is actually pretty sensible.

> But instead, most Halloween articles to this day tell parents to feed children a big meal before they go trick-or-treating, so they won't be tempted to eat any candy before bringing it home for inspection.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Eat healthy food, so you won't be tempted to eat unhealthy food.

> Face paint so no mask will obscure a child's vision.

You know what? Wearing a mask isn't fun. Sure, it's fun for 30 seconds in the store. It's also fun for 30 seconds after you put on your costume and say, "Look at me, everyone!" But after that, yes, it obscures your vision. It makes your head hot. It pokes you relentlessly in irritating places. It itches, and it makes it difficult to scratch.

So my take on all this is that the trend away from masks (which, sadly, I think has been starting to reverse in recent years) means that a lot of kids have had more fun on Halloween then they would otherwise have.

And, by the way, masks also make photographs less interesting. "Here's my kid's Halloween costume. Yes, the kid's inside it. Trust me."

(EDIT: Yes, I know the fear-mongering is stupid. I said as much.)

It's the means, not the ends, that are being criticized here. Fear-mongering is poisonous whether or not you happen to like the end result.

Having a big healthy meal to encourage healthy eating in preference to gorging on junk food is fine; having a big healthy meal so that your kids won't touch candy before you can check it for DEADLY POISONS and RAZOR BLADES is ridiculous and promotes an irrational fear of the community in which you live.

Similarly, not wearing a mask because you don't like masks is fine; not wearing one because MASKS MIGHT KILL YOU is deeply silly and strengths the disconnect between perceived and actual likely risks.

Thus, the irony. Thus, my comment.

I agree with all those arguments in general, but the article was targeting fear-mongering and an irrational approach to risk, not halloween etiquette and general rules reg. raising a child.

In addition note that your approval of the advice hinges on a completely different goal from that presented.

So it's not just the fear-mongering that you're ignoring, you're also ignoring the fact that it only happens that some specific "rules" please you. Your preferences are utterly unrelated to what caused whomever to formulate those rules.

This was a blast from the past.

When I was a kid, not only was someone going to die from strychnine in their Pixie Stix, but the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups also probably contained razor blades and needles.

These days when I think of Halloween I just think of women in the marketing department dressed like strippers. Or are they supposed to be Lady Gaga? shudder

The rumors and advice in the media, as silly as they were, were better than the home-grown advice that was passed from parent to parent. Don't let your kid eat fruit -- it's too hard to to see where the razor blade went in! Tell every parent on your block to pass out sealed candies only, not candy with wrappers that can be put back on after they're taken off! (Seriously, there were parents who thought it was irresponsible for honest people to pass out Tootsie Rolls and Brach's candies on Halloween, because it made it easy for killers to pass out re-wrapped poison candy.) And, of course, there were the various numbers (all made up) about what percentage of your kid's body it was safe to paint before the kid would suffocate and die.

Contrary to current stereotypes, anybody taking their kids trick-or-treating in a car was assumed to be poor, and an uncaring parent, because they were forcing their kids to trick-or-treat in "better" neighborhoods so they would get more candy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com