« Assorted links | Main | Prospects for a Space Elevator »
Incentives vs. the TSA
Every spring, private security officers at San Francisco International Airport compete in a workplace "March Madness"-style tournament for cash prizes, some as high as $1,500.
The games: finding illegal items and explosives in carry-on bags; successfully picking locks on difficult-to-open luggage; and spotting a would-be terrorist (in this case Covenant Aviation Security's president, Gerald L. Berry) on security videos.
"The bonuses are pretty handsome," Berry said. "We have to be good - equal or better than the feds. So we work at it, and we incentivize."
Somehow, this I had not known, nor had I known it was possible:
Some of the nation's biggest airports are responding to recent public outrage over security screening by weighing whether they should hire private firms such as Covenant to replace the Transportation Security Administration. Sixteen airports, including San Francisco and Kansas City International Airport, have made the switch since 2002.
The full story is here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 31, 2010 at 02:37 PM in Economics, Law | Permalink
Comments
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-25/travel/california.tsa.pilot_1_youtube-video-pilot-effective-security?_s=PM:TRAVEL
Posted by: Nick L at Dec 31, 2010 3:05:23 PM
Just what we would expect, the first privatized airport security system operating at that center of
commie socialism, San Francisco. Next we should expect to see Texas set up central planning, :-).
Posted by: Barkley RosserB at Dec 31, 2010 3:06:07 PM
It seems that nothing will change procedurally though which means no real response to "recent public outrage"
Posted by: Jason Yip at Dec 31, 2010 4:09:42 PM
So John Mica gets to rail against the bureaucracy that he created, and we get to privatize public funds under the guise of a fake market. The private screeners have to implement all of the same procedures and policies and equipment as currently employed by the TSA: the procedures which are the actual problem.
I wonder if that "competition" has any incentives to reduce false positives. None were mentioned.
Posted by: Matthew Ernest at Dec 31, 2010 4:14:45 PM
From the same article:
"One independent report found that private security contracts were 9 to 17 percent higher than the TSA's costs. Mica says the difference is "concocted." "
Maybe Xe.
Posted by: Bill at Dec 31, 2010 4:23:26 PM
sounds like they're outsourcing their PR problem. if its a private group doing the pat-downs then it is not the government violating your civil liberties
Posted by: ben at Dec 31, 2010 4:55:19 PM
Is nobody else concerned that the president of the security firm is a would-be terrorist?
Posted by: dirk at Dec 31, 2010 5:30:16 PM
1) Private screeners are required to follow TSA directives, the problem generally isn't just a bureaucratic workforce so this does little to address.
2) Many airports don't opt out of TSA screeners because they believe their decision to do so exposes them to liability in the event of a terrorist action, which they'd avoid if they don't opt out of government screeners.
Posted by: Gary Leff at Dec 31, 2010 7:25:56 PM
Prediction- all airports eventually switch over, and we still have a TSA.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Dec 31, 2010 8:26:25 PM
SFO is one of the most pleasant airports, in terms of pre-flight security screening, that I frequent. And I never feel unsafe. Very good balance there between individual rights and community safety.
Posted by: jason at Dec 31, 2010 9:10:09 PM
"Hey buddy! No getting back in line!"
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 1, 2011 6:09:24 AM
Last year I learned that civil rights progress is treating EVERYONE like sheite.
But, why don't we give massages instead of pat-downs. That way, even if a terrorist does make it onto the plane he'll be too copacetic to light his balls on fire.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 1, 2011 6:12:54 AM
Great. Incentives to be more intrusive. How about instead incentives for how fast they process passengers, for how few false positives they pull aside for further screening, and incentives for every time they look the other way about enforcing some dumbshit rule that's supposed to keep us "safer".
Posted by: Anonymous at Jan 1, 2011 11:46:36 AM
That's probably what Tyler was insinuating.
Sometimes the incompetence of government is a blessing.
Who wants a ball grab with gusto?
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 2, 2011 5:21:21 AM
