26 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 4:
Irreconcilable differences
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Science, Regulatory Policy
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page has a pair of commentaries taking nearly opposite positions on the recent controversy over TSA's screening procedures and practices. Gabriel Schoenfeld defends TSA's invasive pat-downs as necessary to prevent terror attacks using non-metallic weapons such as C-4 and PETN. Peggy Noonan says TSA has gone too far.
Schoenfeld and Noonan are opposed for at least two reasons:
- They have different perspectives about the tolerable risk of terrorism via aircraft. Noonan would tolerate higher risks than Schoenfeld.
- They have different perceptions of the intangible costs of enhanced screening. Noonan believes public support for TSA is declining (and will continue to do so) because invasive screening is humiliating and undignified. Schoenfeld believes these are acceptable costs to achieve better security.
25 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 3:
Does TSA invite terrorism?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
Controversy about the Transportation Security Administration's new screening technologies and procedures continues to intensify. The White House is reacting defensively. The chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is defending the new procedures. Opponents of advanced imaging technology have attempted to organize a nationwide "Opt-Out" yesterday, the busiest airline travel day of the year.
Travelers electing to opt-out face mandatory, invasive pat-downs. Should the number of opt-outers be substantial, the queue for invasive pat-downs could stretch TSA resources beyond their capacity. This is the result organizers intend. They hope to persuade TSA to relent on its one-size-fits-all approach to airport security. TSA Administrator John Pistole first said he would not budge and criticized proponents of the opt-out campaign for causing massive delays and missed flights, then appeared to give ground after his position was undermined by Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama. According to Pistole, the new, invasive pat-down procedure is needed to prevent threats such as the so-called Christmas Day bombing attempt 11 months ago. (The implied 11-month delay in TSA's response is not explained.)
Pistole displays a tone of bureaucratic defensiveness that suggests he's primarily concerned with how he would be treated in the event that an aircraft is successfully targeted by a terrorist:
"I would hate to think what happens if the government caves in on this and relaxes these procedures and someone manages to get on board a plane and causes harm," Pistole said Monday in an interview on NBC's "TODAY" show. "Imagine what you will be asked."
A closer look suggests suggests that TSA's screening procedures are illogical even if Pistole's position is taken at face value. This reinforces the hypothesis we previously suggested, but considered very unlikely, that the reason TSA is forcing invasive pat-downs is to overcome travelers' objections to advanced imaging. If travelers object strenuously enough to invasive pat-downs, they will begin to prefer advanced imaging technology as the lesser of two evils. This is a sensible strategy if TSA intends to replace all metal detectors with advanced imaging devices but recognizes that travelers will agree to it only if they have no other option.
More...24 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 2:
"Analysis of the "don't touch my junk" episode
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
John Tyner, heretofore an anonymous blogger, is now a public celebrity. According to Tyner, TSA forced him to submit to an invasive pat-down, which led to his now famous imprecation. Apparently, millions have seen the video he recorded of the encounter; his description of it and his several follow-up blog posts reveal much more about inherent flaws in TSA's airport security regime.
More...17 Nov 2010
Airport Security:
Has TSA lost its way?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
The Transportation Security Administration acknowledges that its screening procedures have become much more invasive. TSA administrator John Pistole defends them as necessary to provide the best possible security for air travelers. However, he does not provide a reasoned basis for this conclusion -- for example, what incremental security benefits new procedures provide compared with the incremental costs in lost privacy. Pistole's argument reduces to the notion that any increase in inspection intensity is justified if Pistole decides that it is.
Both the new security procedures and Pistole's unwillingness to provide a reasoned basis for them have provoked widespread opprobrium. Is there a constructive path forward, or has TSA lost its way?
More...15 Aug 2010
Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 13
Does the Privacy Act protect the records of unlawful aliens?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
The Washington Examiner reports that the Department of Homeland Security will not release records of unlawful aliens detained in Prince William County VA, on the ground that doing so would violate the Privacy Act of 1974.
Is this correct?
More...2 May 2010
Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 11
How Opposition to Arizona SB 1070 May Be Harming Unlawful Aliens
by Richard Belzer
in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
We have reviewed Arizona's new immigration law (SB 1070) and posted
an analysis
of its major provisions. The Arizona House subsequently passed a
revision, and we analyzed
that. Meanwhile, opponents have reacted stridently,
calling the state of Arizona:
- A police state (Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.); The Nation, via National Public Radio; New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse; American Civil Liberties Union; LaRaza President and CEO Janet Murguia) in which Americans would have to "present their papers" (Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.))
- Reminiscent of Nazi Germany (Cardinal Roger Mahoney, Al Sharpton, Mack, Polis), the Soviet Union (Greenhouse, Mahoney), the Jim Crow South (Sharpton, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), rapper Rass Kass, demonstrators in Newport News VA), or apartheid South Africa (Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Sharpton)
- Racist (Polis, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson)
As our previous posts here and here make clear, these characterization are not based on the text of the law, which makes it a state crime to violate federal immigration law. Ironically, the use of extreme language by opponents of the law may have the unintended effect of better achieving the law's objectives than the law itself.
More...
30 Apr 2010
Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 10
Arizona legislature may amend SB 1070
by Richard Belzer
in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
Alia Beard Rau of the Arizona Republic reports that Arizona legislators are proposing to make technical changes to SB 1070, the law enacted on April 23 that makes certain federal immigration law violations state crimes.
More...27 Apr 2010
Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 9
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
by Richard Belzer
in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
Arizona's legislature last week enacted legislation that has garnered considerable press attention and commentary, including criticism by President Obama (New York Times, Fox News, NPR, Real Clear Politics. In a Sunday op-ed published by the Washington Post, Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon says the bill is the product of a "far-right legislature"; that it is unconstitutional; and that it is motivated by "the vocal, spiteful few" who are "bitter, small-minded and full of hate." Gordon and others vow to challenge the law's constitutionality "because of the civil rights being violated and the vagueness of the statute." Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis compares the law with Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust and says he fears "Arizona is headed for a police state."
Gordon's views seem typical of those views expressed in commentaries published since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. We've seen very few editorials and commentaries supporting the law (e.g., IBD, ).
News stories seem to track this editorial pattern; the AP, for example, uses opponents as its source for fact claims about the law, not its actual text. Meanwhile, published commentary appears to be unrepresentative of public opinion. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports 70% of Arizona voters favor the law and 23% oppose it.
Today we analyze the text of the bill.
More...2 Jan 2010
Airline Security after Abdulmutallab:
Is TSA behaving rationally?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
After Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration issued a directive requiring airlines to immediately make major changes in their operations.
Travel bloggers Christopher Elliott and Steve Frischling published the directive. On December 29, both were served with subpoenas demanding the surrender by December 31 of all private records that might reveal the identity of the source. Frischling surrendered his computer to federal agents on December 30. Predictably, they destroyed it rather than return it. Elliott contested the subpoena and TSA withdrew them on December 31.
Whether TSA's actions were legal (or should have been illegal) is an interesting question. What is more immediately interesting is that the directive itself implies a higher concern about the appearance of safety than safety itself. Nothing in the directive would have prevented Abdulmutallab from bombing Flight 253 or prevent a similarly equipped terrorist from blowing up an airliner tomorrow.
