Hacker News Reader

Comment by JimboOmega | Hacker News Reader

I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week.

The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.

There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.

I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?

View on HN

Yes, the TSA is part of the Executive Branch, so it ultimately reports to Obama.

On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.

Hayek explains that the purpose of this "separation of responsibility from power" is to keep the policy-making uninfluenced by the political process, because it's impossible to create a policy that makes everyone happy.

We need a better way to reverse the separation when it's no longer useful, like in this TSA situation.

Congress has a couple of opportunities to step forward. The TSA wants a bunch of money in next year's budget for additional scanners, and with the small government attitude of the incoming Congress this is a great opportunity to stop them. Also, with Jason Chaffetz taking over the House subcommittee with oversight, and an general sense that TSA isn't real popular right now, we might see some more assertiveness in general. So #1 on the list of people to complain to is your Representative and Senators.

If you're a frequent flyer, call your airline. The airlines are a powerful lobbying force and we we need to get them more engaged. We've talked to them a couple times after driving/training (instead of flying) and one time we got a very sympathetic CSR who told us they're getting a lot of calls and very concerned about their business. Even if you haven't changed your travel plans yet, let them know that you're thinking about it. Reassure them you know it's not their fault, but ask them to weigh in with DHS and Congress to get things changed.

> I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best.

How large is the group of people who think it isn't wasted effort?

I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them otherwise.

How are you (general) educating people about their rights?

[1] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html

The polls I've seen are that most people think it's wasted effort, although even so a lot don't see it as a big deal.

Usually I start by discussing effectiveness, or lack thereof -- so I've practiced explaining why they don't work and the actual risks in ways that everybody can understand.

Sometimes it's better to start with the safety risks (which is something I'm pretty credible on because I was on a National Academy of Sciences panel on dependable software). If it's a small-government person or fiscal conservative, I'll emphasize the cost. Or I'll discuss the dignity aspects, phrasing it in terms of the government's policy to take a naked picture of every traveler and choosing 3% of them to have their breasts and genitals groped.

It often takes several iterations; don't be frustrated. And of course there are plenty of people who just won't be convinced, in which case my usual strategy it to stay in their face enough that they consider changing their position just so I'll shut up about it already :-)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I have the utmost respect for Ben Franklin, but this quote is not his best work. You might not be realizing it, but you are giving up liberty every day in exchange of something you find more valuable. Examples include signing up for credit, giving your address or social security in exchange of discounts, using a card at your grocery store or local mall, etc...

There is really nothing wrong with giving up some liberty just as long as 1) you're clear on what you're getting in exchange and 2) you agree that the deal is fair.

Convenience is not safety. Your point is not directly relevant to the Franklin quote.

and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.

Ron Paul has been pretty vocal in his dislike for the TSA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com