split thread: profiling
 

I thought there was some interesting discussion on profiling as a tool to screen travellers.

There was some valid points raised and the suggestion is that we should split that into another thread.

So, this is the topic: Profiling, should it be implemented? If so how and under what critierias to implement profiling to better improve security while preserving integrity?

thoughts anyone?

Deleted

Thank you.

Race should never be the ONLY factor when screening, but it certainly should enter into the mix. Alarm bells should go off if someone is acting suspicious, but alarm bells should ring a WHOLE LOT LOUDER if that someone acting suspicious fits the profile of a male of eastern descent between the ages of 17 and 40.

It's called common sense, something that we have allowed to fall by the wayside in our overzealous attempts to never cause offense. In a more scientific terminology, it is also called risk assessment and more often involves selective screening based on who is LEAST likely to be a threat. Unfortunately, this is all too often mistaken for profiling, when it is nothing of the sort.

Will we catch ALL terrorists using common sense? No. Will we catch MORE terrorists using common sense? Yes. I believe the Israelis have the screening process down cold, but it is not a procedure we could adopt across the board in the U.S. We should look to them as to how to begin to properly screen airline passengers.

A whole lot better case for common sense is made here - Pilot screening recommendations

Bart, then why is profiling used with shoes? :confused:

No it isn't. How many males of middle eastern descent between the ages of 17 and 40 have been caught at airport check points? Is it OK to single out dark skinned people who have lived here all of their lives? Or were here for an education? It is just plain silly. It is just a few middle eastern folks at this small point in time.

In the past it was France, Britain, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Porter Rico, the American South, North Korea, North Viet Nam, Russia, China...... The list goes on and on... Are we still singling these people out? Why not? Did ANY of the Japanese Americans interred in WW II cause any problems?

As I said in an other post, we had a problem with about 25 Muslim terrorists most of whom are now dead. Considering how many millions of Muslims are here legally and have given us no problem, statistically it is not a very good predictor of behavior. In fact it is down right worthless.

Muslim extremists have very recently vowed jihad on the West, to either forcibly convert it to Islam or to destroy our polluted civilization. Given those warnings, isn't it imprudent to avoid paying more attention to individuals who meet the criteria (young males for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc.) to avoid appearing insensitive? I know some Christians from the Middle East, and to be honest, would feel bad if they were selected for additional screening based only on their national origin. However, the alternative is to ignore known threats so that we do not appear to be insensitive. Look at what sensitivity and tolerance got Theo van Gogh, who had the gall to direct a film critical of some Muslim practices. Look at what is happening in France, which has allowed large numbers of Muslim youths to essentially get paid (with unemployment compensation) to attend radical mosques. If we in the West do not make some hard choices, the inaction will spell the end of our civilization, especially if nuclear devices are employed.

You COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. I never said that we should prejudge passengers based SOLELY on their race or SOLELY on any characteristic. BUT, it shouldn't be ignored if there are other factors causing alarm bells to go off. Not only should it not be ignored, but it should be included as an ADDITIONAL risk factor. You obviously don't know the first thing about risk assessment.

Again, what is more important and immediately falls into the common sense category is what factors are most important in REDUCING the element of risk, and that we should take these into account when screening passengers. As numerous posters have mentioned before, SSSSing 70+ year old little old ladies of Norwegian descent is a complete waste of time and energy.

Again, it is called common sense. Is it perfect? No. Is it a better way to proceed? Yes.

End of discussion for me.

Profiling young middle-eastern males (prohibiting their air travel, in fact) would have paid off in spades on the morning of September 11, 2001, but that has nothing to do with the usefulness of profiling similar individuals on any other day. Why not? Because airlines in the USA have transported billions of individuals since that day and not one (save Richard Ried, the Shoeicide Bomber) has engaged in terrorist activity inflight. Not a single young, middle-eastern male has turned out to be a terrorist in the last four years.

In hindsight, a non-negligble percentage of the young, middle-eastern males traveling that fateful Tuesday morning turned out to be terrorists. But since that day, the percentage of young, middle-eastern males who turned out to be terrorists has equaled Zero (0). Since the numbers prove (excluding, of course, the 19 terrorists from September 11) that they are no more likely to be terrorists than anyone else, profiling them for extra scrutiny is worthless as a security method. Agree with Bart on this one.

Of course, the un-American treatment we have all suffered at the airport in the last four years has also turned out to be a colossal waste of time and money (given that the number of terrorists, including the young, middle-eastern males plus everyone else is still Zero), but that's a subject for a different thread.

People like to say "we should screen Muslim extremists" or "people from countries x, y, and z" as if that information is printed on the boarding pass.

Let's not forget the Muslim world spans far beyond the Middle East. Extreme Islam spans to northern Africa, south Asia, and now even western Europe. A person's citizenship is relatively inconclusive...an Indian citizen might "look" more like our American version of "what a terrorist looks like", even though he may be Hindu, while the French citizen of mixed ancestry actually holds the extreme belief.

Profiling "middle eastern looking people" only serves to guarantee that terrorists would choose someone of Asian, African, or European descent in a terrorist act, or choose plant an explosive device in grandma's walker or baby's stroller (because THEY can't be terrorists...right?)...or even easier than that, in the cargo hold.

Deleted

Deleted

The problem with profiling is that it typically ends up creating a profile for who we're not looking for, too.

The second set of bombers in London were from Africa and South East Asia -- not the Middle East.

I agree that the SSSS system is lousy. But regardless, we do need to screen 70+ year old ladies of Norwegian (or even Danish) descent. Why? Because we need to make sure that they don't have any contraband on them. It's probably less likely that they'd intentionally have any, but they can be used as mules, nonetheless. In fact, they're probably a good target for it, owing to their advanced age.

Anyway, what, exactly, do you suggest we do with this profile anyway? If I'm a TSA Officer and I see a guy with dark skin, what am I supposed to do?

A few of them were profiled. One was selected by a ticketing agent because he seemed "suspicious" and a few others were picked up by CAPPS. But it didn't matter because they didn't have any contraband on them (as far as I know) so they were allowed through the checkpoint without any trouble.

Wasn't there a jamaican that tried to do a bomb in London as well?

Yes, some of the London bombers were "Black", and therefore would have likely have slipped through any racialized terror profiling regime.


Racial profiling for terrorism is pointless - al-Qaeda has long since moved on to recruiting persons of African and -- wait for it -- European descent, and I pity the person or country who thinks that screening Arabs will keep them safe.