Decius wrote:
Bunch of jackass college students get on I285 in Atlanta and actually do the speed limit. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

That statement is a bit ironic really. The common myth of speed limits is that they are set with public safety concerns in mind. Yet four people obeying the speed limit enraged some other drivers to the point that they dipped onto the shoulders, one even clipping a parked vehicle and coming close to causing a bad accident.

I wonder who would have been faulted if it had been on the bad side. Would the law see the four law abiding drivers as "contributing factors?" Based on bizzaro world principles of lawsuits, my guess is yes.

I have seen police cruisers do this occasionally, weave back and forth across lanes of traffic with their lights going to "pace" the flow of traffic in Nashville. There was no particular reason I could see other than flow control. I think I even experienced this once coming out of Atlanta, but that was for tending to a wreck up ahead.

Rattle wrote:
Bunch of jackass college students get on I285 in Atlanta and actually do the speed limit. Fortunately, even though there were almost several accidents, no one was hurt.

What an amazing act of civil obedience.

I think we've had this converation.

noteworthy wrote:
This is more exploitative than meditative, but it is about the speed limit -- specifically, the 55 mph posted limit on the I-285 loop around metropolitan Atlanta, GA.

If the authorities were inclined, the students who executed this "meditation" could probably have been tried for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, or some such thing.

Fortunately for the students, the police were too busy ticketing the drivers going 75 mph in the other direction.

That, and worrying about all the foreigners at the ports. (Pay no attention to the abundantly obvious fact that the containers are foreign, too, and most of them are not being inspected by anyone, regardless of citizenship.)

While it is true that containers are foreign, customs uses a crude reputation system to determine which cargo needs searching. Responsibility for the content of containers is placed on freight forwarders, who do the validating of customers and essentially 'vouch' for them. There's a government mandated procedure for establishing credibility with a forwarder, and if they screw it up they are in big trouble. What this means is that cargo from new customers is often inspected, and cargo from old customers routinely shipping cargo is not. So while its true that most cargo does (and must) go uninspected, its not as bad as you might think. Its a privatized security model that not many people seem to understand. Is it adequate? Probably not. But its something.

Jello wrote:

noteworthy wrote:
This is more exploitative than meditative, but it is about the speed limit -- specifically, the 55 mph posted limit on the I-285 loop around metropolitan Atlanta, GA.

If the authorities were inclined, the students who executed this "meditation" could probably have been tried for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, or some such thing.

Fortunately for the students, the police were too busy ticketing the drivers going 75 mph in the other direction.

That, and worrying about all the foreigners at the ports. (Pay no attention to the abundantly obvious fact that the containers are foreign, too, and most of them are not being inspected by anyone, regardless of citizenship.)

While it is true that containers are foreign, customs uses a crude reputation system to determine which cargo needs searching. Responsibility for the content of containers is placed on freight forwarders, who do the validating of customers and essentially 'vouch' for them. There's a government mandated procedure for establishing credibility with a forwarder, and if they screw it up they are in big trouble. What this means is that cargo from new customers is often inspected, and cargo from old customers routinely shipping cargo is not. So while its true that most cargo does (and must) go uninspected, its not as bad as you might think. Its a privatized security model that not many people seem to understand. Is it adequate? Probably not. But its something.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

flynn23 wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

It isn't being privatized outside the US. The stuff that the UAE is looking to buy is currently owned by a British company. Security is handled by ICE, very much a domestic concern.

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

It isn't being privatized outside the US. The stuff that the UAE is looking to buy is currently owned by a British company. Security is handled by ICE, very much a domestic concern.

Irrelevant. The whole notion is that this is privatized - meaning that it is not held to a standard which is aligned with the good of the nation. Besides, do you think ICE gives a fuck about smuggling and other nasty things going on at ports? They're getting PAID by the port operator. Last thing they need is to risk that contract by exposing an incident in which the port might get shut down or attract scrutiny.

Ironically, the real reason why this is happening is due to our trade deficit. You can't keep importing more than you export forever. The US has been forced to start selling hard assets to make up the difference. At what point do we start selling other key infrastructure pieces? Adopt a highway indeed.

flynn23 wrote:

Irrelevant. The whole notion is that this is privatized - meaning that it is not held to a standard which is aligned with the good of the nation.

These ports have always been privately operated.

Besides, do you think ICE gives a fuck about smuggling and other nasty things going on at ports? They're getting PAID by the port operator. Last thing they need is to risk that contract by exposing an incident in which the port might get shut down or attract scrutiny.

I get the impression you didn't click on the link. ICE is not paid by the port operator. They are a division of DHS.

Ironically, the real reason why this is happening is due to our trade deficit. You can't keep importing more than you export forever. The US has been forced to start selling hard assets to make up the difference. At what point do we start selling other key infrastructure pieces? Adopt a highway indeed.

In this case we aren't selling anything. We never owned this. A british company is selling it to the UAE.

flynn23 wrote:

Jello wrote:

noteworthy wrote:
This is more exploitative than meditative, but it is about the speed limit -- specifically, the 55 mph posted limit on the I-285 loop around metropolitan Atlanta, GA.

If the authorities were inclined, the students who executed this "meditation" could probably have been tried for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, or some such thing.

Fortunately for the students, the police were too busy ticketing the drivers going 75 mph in the other direction.

That, and worrying about all the foreigners at the ports. (Pay no attention to the abundantly obvious fact that the containers are foreign, too, and most of them are not being inspected by anyone, regardless of citizenship.)

While it is true that containers are foreign, customs uses a crude reputation system to determine which cargo needs searching. Responsibility for the content of containers is placed on freight forwarders, who do the validating of customers and essentially 'vouch' for them. There's a government mandated procedure for establishing credibility with a forwarder, and if they screw it up they are in big trouble. What this means is that cargo from new customers is often inspected, and cargo from old customers routinely shipping cargo is not. So while its true that most cargo does (and must) go uninspected, its not as bad as you might think. Its a privatized security model that not many people seem to understand. Is it adequate? Probably not. But its something.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

In the case of ocean cargo... I'm not sure there is any better way to direct the limited resources of customs agents than a private reputation system.

Jello wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Jello wrote:

noteworthy wrote:
This is more exploitative than meditative, but it is about the speed limit -- specifically, the 55 mph posted limit on the I-285 loop around metropolitan Atlanta, GA.

If the authorities were inclined, the students who executed this "meditation" could probably have been tried for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, or some such thing.

Fortunately for the students, the police were too busy ticketing the drivers going 75 mph in the other direction.

That, and worrying about all the foreigners at the ports. (Pay no attention to the abundantly obvious fact that the containers are foreign, too, and most of them are not being inspected by anyone, regardless of citizenship.)

While it is true that containers are foreign, customs uses a crude reputation system to determine which cargo needs searching. Responsibility for the content of containers is placed on freight forwarders, who do the validating of customers and essentially 'vouch' for them. There's a government mandated procedure for establishing credibility with a forwarder, and if they screw it up they are in big trouble. What this means is that cargo from new customers is often inspected, and cargo from old customers routinely shipping cargo is not. So while its true that most cargo does (and must) go uninspected, its not as bad as you might think. Its a privatized security model that not many people seem to understand. Is it adequate? Probably not. But its something.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

In the case of ocean cargo... I'm not sure there is any better way to direct the limited resources of customs agents than a private reputation system.

I don't know of a specific suggestion, but where there's a will, there's a way. The same can be said for immigration/border patrol, and other 'problems' that the US spends billions barely mitigating.

flynn23 wrote:

Jello wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Jello wrote:

noteworthy wrote:
This is more exploitative than meditative, but it is about the speed limit -- specifically, the 55 mph posted limit on the I-285 loop around metropolitan Atlanta, GA.

If the authorities were inclined, the students who executed this "meditation" could probably have been tried for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, or some such thing.

Fortunately for the students, the police were too busy ticketing the drivers going 75 mph in the other direction.

That, and worrying about all the foreigners at the ports. (Pay no attention to the abundantly obvious fact that the containers are foreign, too, and most of them are not being inspected by anyone, regardless of citizenship.)

While it is true that containers are foreign, customs uses a crude reputation system to determine which cargo needs searching. Responsibility for the content of containers is placed on freight forwarders, who do the validating of customers and essentially 'vouch' for them. There's a government mandated procedure for establishing credibility with a forwarder, and if they screw it up they are in big trouble. What this means is that cargo from new customers is often inspected, and cargo from old customers routinely shipping cargo is not. So while its true that most cargo does (and must) go uninspected, its not as bad as you might think. Its a privatized security model that not many people seem to understand. Is it adequate? Probably not. But its something.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "privatized security model." That's especially effective when you're dealing with national security. It'll be even more effective now that it'll be privatized outside of US jurisdictional effect. But I'm sure some guys in Texas will get rich in the process.

In the case of ocean cargo... I'm not sure there is any better way to direct the limited resources of customs agents than a private reputation system.

I don't know of a specific suggestion, but where there's a will, there's a way. The same can be said for immigration/border patrol, and other 'problems' that the US spends billions barely mitigating.

In this case, I think its not so much the way the resources are directed (the private system), as it is that there aren't enough resources to be directed. More customs agents, etc.