(no subject)

You have probably all read how a guerilla advertising campaign involving a cartoon character giving the finger in blinky lights caused a massive overreaction which will probably ruin the lives of the two men who got picked as scapegoats. (To be fair, the city did not actually shut down, as some people have been reporting. But the whole thing did get blown out of proportion.)

In an example of underreaction, a couple weeks ago Los Angeles subway staff failed to report or take any other action whatsoever to deal with a known spill of mercury, a toxic chemical, on an in-use subway platform, for eight hours. However, once it was reported to the proper authorities, they called in a hazmat team, shut down the platform, cleaned up the mess, and took action to figure out who did it and why. (For those of you not following the story, the first theory, that it was someone legitimately transporting medical equipment, seems not to have been the case. It now looks like it was a possibly deranged person who found some medical waste that hadn't been properly disposed of, but it's all still being investigated.) Anyway, after the initial and terrible response, the official response seemed to proceed with all reasonable caution.

In reading people's responses to the Boston blinky lights reaction, I noticed a strain of thought which goes like this: "But it's the police/Homeland Security/bomb squad's job to take threats seriously. That means that if something is reported as a threat, they are obligated to react as if it's the second coming of 9/11, from the first moment they hear of it, until indefinitely, regardless of context."

This is wrong. It is their job to investigate threats seriously. It is also their job to decide how likely a threat is to be serious upon first hearing of it, even before going out to check it out (someone needs to decide how many people to dispatch and who they should be and what they should bring); to decide whether or not to publicize it, and what to say if they do; and when to stand down.

Here is an example, for contrast, of a sensible reaction, which involved my father and a parachute.

(no subject)

You have probably all read how a guerilla advertising campaign involving a cartoon character giving the finger in blinky lights caused a massive overreaction which will probably ruin the lives of the two men who got picked as scapegoats. (To be fair, the city did not actually shut down, as some people have been reporting. But the whole thing did get blown out of proportion.)

In an example of underreaction, a couple weeks ago Los Angeles subway staff failed to report or take any other action whatsoever to deal with a known spill of mercury, a toxic chemical, on an in-use subway platform, for eight hours. However, once it was reported to the proper authorities, they called in a hazmat team, shut down the platform, cleaned up the mess, and took action to figure out who did it and why. (For those of you not following the story, the first theory, that it was someone legitimately transporting medical equipment, seems not to have been the case. It now looks like it was a possibly deranged person who found some medical waste that hadn't been properly disposed of, but it's all still being investigated.) Anyway, after the initial and terrible response, the official response seemed to proceed with all reasonable caution.

In reading people's responses to the Boston blinky lights reaction, I noticed a strain of thought which goes like this: "But it's the police/Homeland Security/bomb squad's job to take threats seriously. That means that if something is reported as a threat, they are obligated to react as if it's the second coming of 9/11, from the first moment they hear of it, until indefinitely, regardless of context."

This is wrong. It is their job to investigate threats seriously. It is also their job to decide how likely a threat is to be serious upon first hearing of it, even before going out to check it out (someone needs to decide how many people to dispatch and who they should be and what they should bring); to decide whether or not to publicize it, and what to say if they do; and when to stand down.

Here is an example, for contrast, of a sensible reaction, which involved my father and a parachute.