undefined | Better HN

0 pointssliverstorm9y ago0 comments

I don't think we can take this much further without knowing what's actually in the regulations, but I imagine they consist more of "officer's dash cam will be run 24/7 and backed up in triplicate", "officer will learn proper gun handling techniques X, Y, & Z", etc rather than "don't shoot people", "don't shoot handcuffed people", "don't shoot clowns", "don't shoot children".

Or, in the fraud case, "books will be audited at frequency X", "Y behavior makes it too easy to hide fraud and is not allowed". Rather than "fraud is illegal on Monday", "fraud is also illegal on Tuesday", "fraud is even illegal on holidays"...

Of course we can never achieve 100% with more regulation, but we make it more of a priority to make abuse harder to get away with than elsewhere, presumably increasing overhead in exchange for lowering abuse (yes, this is probably not a strictly linear curve)

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Bartweiss9y ago

In the travel regulations case, we can see, and horrifyingly it's more of a "fraud is illegal on Monday" situation: https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf

There are some sensible regulations there, like having someone approve travel requests, but there are also a lot of very narrow restrictions obviously added by someone who wanted to prevent Fraud X, but lacked the authority to change what was already written. The result is that you get more overhead with depressingly little payoff.

In principle you're right about the trade-off, but that's only the case when rule-writers have the authority to sensibly restructure what already exists.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse