Market Competition for Security Measures

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:

> I didn't "dismiss" it. In fact, I wrote more about this issue, which I
> haven't seen brought up by anyone else here, than 95% of all posts to
> Cypherpunks have in their entire amount of original material!

My apologies. Dismiss was not the correct word.

I suppose I view this issue as a larger hurdle then you do.

> I never claimed that a stable end-state is that of some airlines have
> "no security procedures." Such was not the case before 911, so it is
> even less likely today.

[snip]

> You are making my point, not arguing against it. I never claimed that a
> spectrum of security measures would be a stable, or even a short-term,
> state.

Okay. I took your thoughts to mean that you were envisioning a market
where the level of security provided by the airlines was completely under
the control of the airlines themselves, and would be adjusted by the
airlines according to the demands of the customers (and to a lesser
extent, the employees and share-holders) so that the airline could remain
profitable.

My point was that such a system wouldn't get off the ground. The issue
isn't simply *actual* collateral damage. Airlines would have to get
permission to use the airspace their planes would occupy. If an airline's
proposed security measures didn't meet with the requirements for the
community controlling the airspace that airline wished to utilize, the
airline wouldn't ever have the chance to see how the market would react to
its security offering. I think it's a non-starter, because the potential
collateral damage and the reliance on third-party "right-of-ways" is too
great.

Such a system could work well in other instances, though.

Compare to private railway lines. A private train service would be able to
initiate such a system with much greater ease, since there is much less
potential collateral damage, and less use of third-party resources and
property.

Call me a pessimist, but I can't see how an airline with "less than
acceptable for the Common Good" security measures would ever be able to
begin operating. I don't think we'd ever have the opportunity to see what
the market reaction would be -- the airline would not fly one plane.

> May's Law: The longer the essay, the more complaints there are that it
> was not detailed enough.

Oh, Tim... I wasn't complaining. You asked for thoughts, and I was
offering mine.


-MW-