Why America's Government is Treating Americans Like Terrorists

Many years ago, I consulted to a Texas-based convenience store chain.

They had a 150% store manager turnover rate. They wanted to identify characteristics of higher-tenure store managers, so they could hire people who'd stay longer.

Turns out that they also administered lie detector tests every month to every store manager about whether or not they were stealing. After about six months, managers figured, "I guess they're expecting me to steal, and someone must be getting away with it -- I'll give it a try."

And there's your turnover.

A massively expensive approach to management. Note the cost of tests, the cost of theft. More importantly, the cost of forced turnover, and of the suspicion and paranoia in the system.

That's what happens when the only response to a trust violation is to treat everyone like a suspect.

That explains one of the most expensive solutions to low trust in the world today -- airport security systems. Imagine the savings if we could figure out how to target terrorists -- savings in time, money, personnel, equipment -- not to mention the general levels of suspicion and paranoia.

One reason for the cost is that we value fairness over efficiency. No matter it's your next-door neighbor grandmother and her grand-daughter flying to Dubuque -- she goes through the same x-ray machines as a sweating, furtive, cash-paid one-way ticket holder. Anything short of perfect screening isn't sufficient for us to violate a core set of values around fairness.

So -- treat everyone like a terrorist.

Another value is the cultural resistance to monetizing human lives. "If screening saves only one disaster," we say. But outside the bright lights of the public, others have to make serious trade-off decisions all the time -- doctors, public policy makers, safety engineers. The only way we seem to be able to face those decisions is to hide them from public view.

Once in the public view -- treat everyone like a terrorist.

Sarbanes Oxley is the result of a similar logic. Anyone could be an ethical terrorist, the logic goes. Better to realign entire industries to remove temptation than to make tough individual decisions about who to prosecute and imprison.

Treat everyone like a terrorist.

But the biggest reason of all may be a tendency to rely on systems rather than people. Seduced by technology and the siren song of metrics, fueled by paranoia about people we don't know, our social response to a connected world has been to systematize the human networks -- instead of humanizing the systems.

If "everybody's a terrorist" is our only solution to socially-hostile acts in a networked world, we quickly become hostage to the very thing we tried to prevent. We drown in costly solutions, trying to boil the ocean.

We need social solutions that:

• delegate accountability
• allow for human judgment
• recognize and deal with ambiguity and variance among people and situations
• allow a reasonable level of non-perfection of outcomes

and that do so in a socially acceptable manner.

You can't trust everyone. That doesn't mean you can't trust anybody. But our social policies--and our norms -- are blind to this simple truth.

Follow Charles H. Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/charleshgreen

Comments

[bagelmaven]

I agree with all the proscriptions Mr. Charles Green suggests.

. delegate accountability
• allow for human judgment
• recognize and deal with ambiguity and variance among people and situations
• allow a reasonable level of non-perfection of outcomes

Whoa wait a minute. It's the last proscription that is problematic. What does "allowing a reasonable level of non-perfection" mean? Does it mean that we must conclude that we will screw up from time to time and simply accept that? Well, what kind of screw up will that be? If it's an occasional bomb in a garbage can well I can deal with that BUT what if the screw up means we miss neutralizing a biological, chemical or worst of all worsts a nuclear device? That kind of "non-perfection" is unacceptable don't you think? This is why whenever I go ballistic (excuse the pun) over the Orwellian excesses of team Bush I am ALWAYS tempered by the fact that we are talking about devices that some people would use in a heartbeat to inflict significant harm to us and indeed annihilate us if they thought they could. As much of a committed civil libertarian I am, I believe this is not fantasy. One MUST recognize the truth. As much as I loath team Bush I cannot escape the fact that since 9/11 our security SEEMS to have improved and we have not thank God, Allah, Jesus or whomever suffered that kind of horrific episode .... yet. Has something gone right or is it just plain dumb luck? I don't know. If unnecessary screening or spying will keep us from that then well I don't know maybe indeed it's worth it. Why can I never make up my mind? Natalie Rosen, Framingham, MA

[fact finder]

Mr. Green; My son is a Lt. supervisor with a nation wide private security company. He has to make periodic checks on all the guards to make sure that they are doing their job. This is despite the fact that the guards are monitored electronically and visually 24/7. There is NO TRUST any more that is the biggest problem in my opinion.

[protagonia]

Dog training.

We are bad,
We are bad,
We are bad,
We are bad,
We are bad...

[1will]

You have an interesting point about screening and airport security systems.
If only there were one or two things the terrorists have in common we could stop screening Swedes, Scots and little old ladies.
If only the terrorists had one thing in common, what could it be? There must be some common denominator.

[Sundialsvc4]

I've always been impressed by those World War II posters which said, simply, "Be Vigilant."

We have the means to get information distributed very far-and-wide, very securely, very fast. Heck, a secure "wiki" could be a wonderful law-enforcement tool.

But first, we must switch from a "war on" mentality to a "law enforcement" mentality with respect to this whole thing. We are dealing with vicious criminals, and they know how to defeat a conventional "army" in a conventional "war." But it is axiomatic that, no matter what they do, SOMEBODY out there will see something suspicious. And if we asked people around the globe to simply "be vigilant," and taught them how to do it, we'd be rewarded with "300 million eyes."

Having said that, we should also remember that someone out there right now IS doing a pretty darned good job, profoundly in-secret, because if you notice, "things are generally pretty quiet around here even though this is a darned big country." Those white-hat folks do not want to get our attention -- it's the very last thing they want -- but we should acknowledge them with appropriate gratitude. Maybe they're doing some things wrong at airports, but they're also doing a lot of things right.

[SamThornton]

You had me up to the point Sarbanes-Oxley was mentioned. By and large, American corporations have worked overtime to secure entirely justified suspicions for both their products and the way they operate. Sarbanes-Oxley is a good first step to curb their enthusiasm.

Promoting "trust" among the hoi polloi for predatory capitalists in the most licentious business climate since the 1890's is a bridge too far, I'm afraid.

[LeftRight]

This post exposes one of the greatest falacies on the right. I've been having an online argument with a long distance friend of mine about torture. His fallback position always seems to be "if we stop one terrorist action!" He cannot understand me when I say that I would willingly sacrifice myself, or my family, if need be, to protect America, which I see as more than just the sum of the land, lives, and property. America is more than all of that, America is the land of the FREE, and the home of the brave, not JUST the home of the brave.

[CriminallySane]

I have walked out of businesses without completing my purchase when I am treated as a suspect instead of a customer, and I tell them why when I do. And I would encourage anyone else who doesn't like this dispiriting trend to do likewise.

Will it change their patterns of abusive behavior? Who knows? At least they are hearing from one customer that they're sorely lacking in both good sense and good manners.

[mommadona]

Here's a eye-opener:

All those brains who've thought up this way of handling things HAVE MASTERS OF BUSINESS DEGREES FROM HARVARD.

Now - tell me what isn't working correctly?
How about the mindset trained.
US versus THEM

[K-Dog76]

Agreed.