Sure the TSA want to ensure safety on the worlds planes, but do they really need racial profilling? Just because one looks different does that really mean they should pick you out for an extra check?
Just becaus the skin of my dad and my skin are a bit darker than that of a caucasian, we always get picked out for a "random" safety check. Every time we take a trip, they come up with a reason that we should be checked extra (a one day mileage trip is weird, we have a laptop not for buisness, etc.). I'm sick of it. If anybody has some insight into their mind, or an idea of how to change it, please, tell me.

Wrong forum. This is not a NWA topic.

This is more a TSS Forum topic and I'm moving it there....

Thanks

I'm probably going to get slammed for saying it, but...

While what you describe could be viewed as "profiling"/is "profiling"...I think it's also to some extent common sense. Does it suck? It sure does. Is it fair? No (but neither is life). I honestly don't like it; I think there's a certain level of conflict between "profiling" and the constitution. But I can't completely deny that there is a certain level of sense in it (IMO).

The worst part of that is, skin color is a lousy way to profile. I have no problems with profiling, per se, but its (seemingly) never done properly in the US. Perhaps its our general hangup on skin color?

A better ways to profile is behavioral profiling which is frequently used throughout Europe. Of course, then the TSA might have to ask people complicated questions like "why are you traveling today?"

I agree that there may be better ways of "profiling"...but imagine asking everyone why they're traveling. Think the lines move slowly now?

Unfortunately, and as unfair as it may be, a cursory glance at skin color / features to "guesstimate" ethnicity (for obvious reasons seemingly Middle Eastern ethnicity is the target) is a lot easier and faster than getting into a game of 20 questions with each passenger.

In all honesty, I'm totally conflicted on this subject. As I wrote earlier...I don't like the idea that it's being done, yet I can't get around the common sense factor of it. I wish we didn't live in a world where it's be perceived as necessary.

The commonsense is many Americans assume anyone not white is a terrorist. Yes, middle eastern appearance would be a good clue. Problem is Indians, Pakistani's, Israeli's(!) get lumped in with the other. And people dressed not business casual get eyed more often as well.

It's not the concept that's the problem, it's the impossibilty of proper implementation.

Here's the problem with profiling: it's filled with erroneous assumptions based on physical appearance.

Want to profile "Middle Eastern" looking people? What about hispanics, Italians or the wide variety of other ethnicities whose skin is dark, hair is black but ethnicity may be German, British, Canadian or Russian? These people may look "Middle Eastern." The flip side of that is that not everyone from the Middle East is dark skinned or has black hair. There are a fair number of blonde, blue-eyed and fair skinned Middle Eastern people.

Want to profile Muslims? Tall order. Its religious influence is world wide and there are Asians, Africans, Europeans, Americans and people from all sorts of cultures and societies throughout the globe who are devout Muslims.

Racial and ethnic profiling is dumb.

I see no evidence that the TSA considers dumb bad. So, that's not much of an argument.

Believe me, I'm the first person to realize that simply appearing to be Middle Eastern doesn't cut it. Timothy McVeigh was a white boy like me. And while I totally acknowledge that anyone could be a terrorist...you can't deny that the 19 asshats who got this all started (and good old Mr. OBL) have strikingly similar physical characteristics and come from a certain part of the world. A part of the world which contains an awful lot of people that for right or wrong would like to inflict as much damage on us as they could (and yes, I realize that (1) there are an equal number of people over there who like us and (2) we're not entirely blameless in the way some of them feel about us).

Physical/ethnic "profiling" isn't perfect; personally I have qualms about it...but it's one tool in the toolbox. It can't be entirely discounted. I don't believe in stupidly giving up important freedoms...but neither do I believe in flying completely in the face of common sense. There's a fine line in there that needs to be found and straddled.

... and the consequences of racist/ethnic profiling cannot be ignored either. Harass enough members of a racial/ethnic community on a basis related largely to (near-)immutable characteristics and the NEGATIVE consequences of such harassment (and then some) are unfortunately not going to surprise me.

I love how we went from "racial" to "racist". Very nice.

And I recognize that "profiling" can result in negative consequences...that's part of why I'm so conflicted about it. However, reality can't be denied...19 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were very clearly Middle Eastern. I don't like it, it makes me uncomfortable...but "profiling" has it's place (IMO). Does that mean "profiling" will catch the next batch of nutjobs bent on committing a terrorist attack? Absolutely not...there are no guarantees. But as I wrote earlier, it's one tool in the toolbox, and I think it'd be stupid to not make some (perhaps limited) use of it.

Just my opinion. I'm not a policymaker any more than what's derived from my periodic local/state/national election vote.

EDIT

FWIW...I used to be the "victim" of profiling. My hair is always cut "high and tight" and when I travel I generall wear BDU pants because I find the bellows thigh pockets to be a great way to carry a book, cell phone, etc. Before 9/11 the way I looked was actually part of the "profile" being used at that time (my mom and her friends were flight attendants and used to tell me all the time I'd get yanked). It was a regular occurence for me to get extra questions thrown my way when passing through security or boarding the plane. I just never found it that offensive.

Arguing by analogy is logically flawed, but let me be lazy here to make a point that may appear to be an an analogy but really may be an anecdote with lessons to teach:

In one insurgency-hit regions, the villages and neighborhoods that were targetted at X time for house to house searches on the basis of ethnic/religious (and age) profiling correlated closely with the neighborhoods where the incidence of local young males being reported as "underground" and engaged in the insurgency at X + Y time was highest. Should we not wonder why and just presume that causation would never factor into the outcome?

[sarcasm]And stories of someone's sibling or cousin being shoved around (at the very least) by "security" forces would never play into such a person's picking up arms? Of course, never.[/sarcasm]

Pardon me for not being the master of logic and debate. I guess I'll just stop posting entirely since I can't measure up to your expectations GU.

And I've no doubt that "stories of someone's sibling or cousin being shoved around" could result in someone taking up arms. The question is whether the cost/benefit ratio of such a transaction plays out in your favor.

I will now slink back to my poorly educated life, having been properly chastized by Mr. East Coast.