jwalkabout

Think about it, if u were a terrorist wouldn't u select the least likely candidate to carry out your schemes. Eeryones should be a suspect and that includes families and women with babies.
Terrorists are not stupid and they will choose the path of least resistance, therefore profiling is a joke as a security measure in this day and age.

jwalkabout

You are the kind of person a terrorist would have a field day with. You search according to a profile and they will just use the opposite of your profile to complete their mission.

Explore

Flying UA, I've seen white business exec types selected for extra screening as much as anyone. Doesn't seem to be much racial/ethnic profiling taking place, and with Norm Mineta as Transportation Secretary, I doubt it will start.

Agree with prior posters that much of the extra screening has been of the Keystone Kops variety, unfortunately cutting into the country's productivity in the process. Maybe Federal management will result in more consistency.

venk

Doppy, I said I am gold or above on ALL of those airlines. UA is actually comped status and if what you say is true should trigger more screenings from UA. The point, therefore, is that any randomness in the process should make it equally likely (or unlikely) for me to be selected. While some variation is to be expected amongst airlines, the extremes are very difficult to explain.

This does not take into account the discretion of the ticketing agent that issued the boarding pass unless you used a machine to check in. In AA, I have always been selected for secondary checked-in baggage check as well. Clearly there is something in AA's (as opposed to other airlines') criterion that I am triggering. This is one of the reasons I am avoiding AA flights.

I am still trying to get an answer from AA as to why I was denied boarding almost two hours before a LHR-EWR flight (which appears to have some reason based on profiling rather than overbooking, even the gate agent appeared baffled why it is was closed for me and had a number of conversations with the supervisor). Some non Elites were still checking in after I was denied boarding.

Ironically, there was enough time for the gating agent to get me alternate transport on BA which was leaving within 15 minutes of the AA flight, for me to take the Heathrow Express to the BA terminal, stand in their non-elite line for over an hour and get in without being subjected to any additional screening! If AA wanted to send me a signal, they didn't want me flying them, they couldn't have been more clearer. :-)

jetsetter

Venk,
What did AA tell you was the reason you were not able to check in or board? How did they handle it in the end, i.e. how did they get you where you were going, and did they put you up in a hotel, etc? I do remember re that secret service agent story on AA, they apparently have a field in the computer that they can flag a pax as somebody dis-allowed to fly AA. With the secret service agent, they flagged him with that for a little while, and they took the flag off his profile.

Doppy ,
When does the ticket agent know if a pax has been selected by the computer? I.e. do they know before they print the BP out? Does the ticket agent have a computer entry where they can manually make a passenger a selectee if they feel something is suspicious about them, or perhaps if they just don't like them? I have read that CAPS only looks at your current itinerary, and not your overall travel history. Do ticket agents know exactly how CAPS works and its criteria, or is it somewhat of a mystery for them as well?

I've only been picked by CAPS on one trip, and it was using a free ticket voucher and my FF number was not in the record. Is the level of sophistication of the profiling mechanism just wehter the pax is an FF or elite, or does it look at other variables about the FF?

There was an article I think in The Washington Post where they were talking about really building a system that truly profiles pax based on numerous records and sources. An example was that if you frequent restaurants where people on the watch list frequent you might get selected, etc. It was to look at your spending, phone call patterns, etc. Again, apparently, this is just an idea and not actually in use now.

venk

I don't have an explanation from AA as yet. The response I got from AA to my written letter only addressed another aspect of the letter and just ignored this (lesson learnt: if you send a letter to any airline, send a single focused question/complaint and nothing else and send separate letters if necesssary).

The gate agent (business/elite check in line) started with the normal processing but after entering my info on the screen simply said it is "closed". I said "huh?" and she noticed that the flight isn't departing until two hours later and went and spoke with a supervisor for at least 5 minutes. She came back and just said it is closed and she can put me on a flight the next day. No offer of anything.

I said that is not acceptable and that I needed to be back that day and asked if she can do anything else about it. At that point, she said that I am entitled to a $300 voucher for future AA flights as DOB compensation. That is it. No hotel, nothing else.

At that point I was more interested in getting back than getting bumped (for any reason) and getting compensated for it. I suggested that they put me on a BA flight instead. She at first said she couldn't possibly do it and when I insisted firmly, went and spoke to a supervisor again and finally issued a ticket for a BA flight that was departing right after the AA flight. The only other thing that I can think of that might have been a factor is that I had changed the date of the return flight a couple of days earlier.

Ironically, there was a non-elite line for the EWR flight that had at least 40-50 people waiting in it and being processed all this time so it couldn't have been fully checked-in by that time.

Oh well, I don't need to fly AA.

Doppy

venk- I don't know what I was thinking, for some reason I thought you said you only had gold-equivalent status on UA and no status on the other arlines. That's obviously not what you said at all.

jetsetter - On AA you'll typically have *CLR* on your boarding pass if the computer hasn't selected you. Usually, for people selected by the computer, there'll either be a gate agent with a list of names telling or the EGR will tell the gate agent to send the pax for secondary screening.

What I've read says that info from your FF profile goes into the system. They haven't been terribly specific, but the impression I got was that since airlines have more info about elites, they'll get more or less screening as is appropriate based on the FF info.

d

tfong007

I am certain that profiling happens. It is unavoidable. There are defintely some people that fall into lower risk groups. As bad as it sounds, I would think that since they are doing random checks its better that the work the odds to hopefully catch the people that might be the potential trouble makers. I dont know who or what these risk groups are, but I am sure if they take a look at all incidents in the past 20 years they can come up with some stats that will allow them to select the right/wrong people?

robvberg

jwalkabout, I have tried to explain this before. I think many people misunderstand profiling. In drug trafficking, profiling does actually provide an increase in arrests. Yet people seem to hear the stories of the 60 year old lady, a mom with drugs in the baies diapers etc. Drug trafficking and other criminal groups have a better chance of getting a person that does not fit the traffickers profile. That is not the same of terrorists groups.

The reason major terrorist groups succeed is that they are very insular and tied by either family or to a lesser extent political affiliation. When it is not tied by family, it is not possible to just pick somebody that is different. Remember this is a person that has to operate without any controls, away from much of what would normally be prime influencers. To get somebody to commit suicide or even launch a terrorist incident with the thought of getting away, is not something most people can do. The JW Lindh's of the world are not usual. Even JW Lindh asked to be sent to fight for the Taliban, and not act directly against the US.

The whole concept of the profile is to maximise resources. No matter what type of security procedures we put in place, a dedicated terrorist with sufficient time and effort will be able to score successes. Additionally a profile is really only a useful tool if it is made up from intelligence reports, history and it needs to be constantly updated. By failing to admit that certain criteria should cause additional security measures, we make a joke out of random searches that are influenced by personal opinion. That means that when you allow a security checker to decide on who to check you will not have profiling you will just have discrimination. He would be as likely to pick the native born but ethnically middleeastern person over someone from the Abu Sayef band that is traveling on a Philippine passport.

It also means that profiles have to be comprehensive. There is a greater risk of a suicide bomber from Sri Lanka being a female Tamil than anything else. The reverse is true in Palestine. There has been only one female bomber in PLO history. There has never been a reported case of a terrorist actually using a baby or child as cover in a bombing or hijacking. The reason that these things happen is based on many factors including sociology, religion etc. Someone who comes from a society that places women in a subservient position is unlikely to trust that they can go through with a bombing. Even the Algerians that fought the french in the 60's used women to transport bombs and components but were unwilling to have them actually place bombs until very late.

So while it is possible that anyone could become a terrorist, that possibility is almost zero. A suicide bomber is almost always the result of special conditions or very very intense training. Many people talk about McVey, but so far there has not been a US domestic suicide bomber. Even the 'militia' types that have died have been from standoffs/arrests and not something they planned.

------------------
Robert

robinhood

Perhaps not, but there has been a reported case of a terrorist using a pregnant white woman as cover in an attempted bombing. Does that count?

robvberg

robinhood, actually that is true, but the terrorist was a "boyfriend" but not the father of the child. Additionally the reason the El Al security pulled her over for additional checks is because of profiling. She answered that she was meeting a man from the west bank that she had been dating. She was traveling for 2 weeks with just a small bag, that he had given her. There were, I believe a couple of other flags. A single female traveling alone has been profiled as a possible smuggler for atleast 40 years. Both of weapons and narcotics. Partly because of sexism. First law enforcement wonders about any female that would travel alone to dangerous areas. Secondly they are considered by both terrorists and law enforcement as being naive and easily manipulated. The terrorists also see them as non threatening and able to pass areas where the terrorists would be suspicious.

Again this is why profiling and not individual bias is the way to focus security efforts.

Finally just so no one will misunderstand, I do not advocate racism. While we need to look at people that are greater security risks, when they pass that security, they need to be allowed to go about their business. It does not matter if that person is arabic, white, black or asian.

------------------
Robert

B747-437B

I am a 24 yr old Indian male. NW Silver, CO Gold, DL Gold, AA Platinum, AI NRSA.

My numbers on *random* selection since September 11.

DL : 2/25 (8.0%)
CO : 1/22 (4.5%)
AA : 14/15 (93.3%)
NW : 2/12 (16.6%)
AI : 0/6 (0%)

Overall : 19/80 (23.7%)

Maybe venk has a point when he says that the chances of being selected on AA are greater?

GUWonder

I have never been "randomed" out on AA where I went from Gold to Exce Plat, after 9-11. I have never been singled out on UA, where after 9-11 I went from nothing to Premier Exec (4,000 miles from 1k). On Delta, prior to making Silver Medallion, I was flagged down 20/20 shuttle flights. Mind you, I have been a member of all 3 frequent flier programs dating back to 1992 if not longer and was born in good old New York.

AA gets a bad rep disproportionately. NW on the other hand has flagged my father down every time and he is silver elite and has been a member of NWWorldperks since for years beyond a decade.

robinhood

I'm wondering who you think should be exempted from profiling. Clearly, you think Arabs should be profiled. Also, it seems, single women should be profiled as well, particularly if they're pregnant. And for all the complaints about searching the elderly, when it comes to people who are "naive and easily manipulated," I can think of no better group. Shouldn't we profile the elderly as well? And if terrorists are indeed seeking people who are "non threatening and able to pass areas where terrorists would be suspicious," shouldn't we then be profiling the LEAST suspicious people, not the most? I'm just curious what the point of profiling is if everyone needs to be profiled. Unless, of course, the argument is that white males should be exempted from everything, as usual?

robvberg

Actually robinhood, I hope you have just missed my point. I am not saying that white males should be exempt from everything. But at this time there is no known threat to comercial aircraft from militia groups. I know this because the militias and other terrorist groups talk about targets in their propaganda and usually make flase threats before an actual attack. Their have been no suicide bombers from the militia movement. Militia targets and threats have been against government buildings, racial targets, jewish targets etc. Therefore a suicide bomber on an aircraft at this time that is from the US and is a white male, white female is almost zero. The same can be said of a US born hispanic, Pacific Islander, Japanese, Korean etc. The risk is also exceedingly low among US blacks though there were some attempted contacts among radical US black muslims and Libya in the 80's.

Regarding women, I said that it was a bias that is becoming less relevant but is and was believed by both law enforcement and actual terrorists. The reason they are different from the elderly is that law enforcement believes that while they, the elderly, might take a gift from someone, when asked the standard question about carrying anything from someone they will tell the airline that they are carrying it. The single female traveler is less likely to accept a gift from someone unknown, but is more likely to be convinced by someone she thinks is a love interest. Then it is possible to convince her that she should say she is not carrying anything to avoid the hassle/protect him. Now what I actually said is that pregnant females are not likely to be used by Terrorists, and that the one case in which one was used was the exception. I also noted that it was not as different a case because the terrorist contact was not the father.

The whole point of profiling is to maximise resources. So I give you the option. We will not be able to search every bag going onto planes until after next year. If you have the ability to check 15% of the bags, do you want to randomly check those 15% or do you want to check 100% of the bags from the highest risk groups, and most if not all of the bags of other flyers that trip several criteria. I think most of the people that are upset, think profiling is see someone you are afraid of and stop them. That is not the way to go and not what actual profiling does in an airport situation. The information in a travel record allows security to create a profile that is greater than just race or religion. Creating the profile and researching past incidents allows you to also know what to look for or ask.

Finally security is never going to be perfect. There will be both lapses, and weaknesses that can be exploited. The whole point of the exercise is to make a target seem to be an unlikely success with the resources available. The terrorist is just like anyone else, he does not want to try something unless he feels that there is a good chance of success. The only way to really harden airtravel is to destroy the ability of people to actually use it.

------------------
Robert