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.

Of note, the 20th 9/11 hijacker was "profiled" by Customs agent and Vietnam vet Jose Melendez-Perez. It was stated that he wasn't afraid of the "profiling" label. In turning away Mohammed Al-Qahtani, believed to have been the 20th hijacker for UA 93.

At one time "profiling" was considered good police work.

There was an article in the International Herald Tribune shortly after 9/11 that interviewed a bunch of right-wing groups of white people (I believe these were mostly in Germany) that saw Osama as a hero for what he was doing. I'm not sure if they agreed with his specific politics, but they definitely liked the tactics. I think there's some potential for these types of people to get into the terrorism game. And no amount of discrimination against Middle Easterners is going to help that.

Customs does profile, but it's not a "dark skin = bad" profile. That kind of simplicity gets one nowhere.

And Customs is a whole different thing than the airport checkpoint. TSA agents are neither trained to do anything besides look for contraband, nor are they empowered to do "police work."

Doppy,

Your post on another thread provides a link to exactly what I was talking about in my previous posts.

Folks, for a rational discussion of the correct use of "profiling" including a take on profiling based SOLELY on race, which I wholeheartedly agree with, take a gander at the following.

Common Sense

Authorities in Jordan say that two of the bombers there this week were a husband and wife couple.

There are so many examples of this "middle eastern male between a certain age range" "profile" being wrong, that I really don't see any redeeming value in it.

1 out of 5, 7, etc... is not random. It is a set pattern. Random selection would be letting the passenger flip a coin. head goes on, tails goes for addition screening.

Cheers,

J

I thought Tim McVeigh was of midwestern descent, not eastern descent?

1) Tim McVeigh did not attack transportation.

2) Tim McVeigh was not a suicide bomber.

3) TSA would not have detected Tim McVeigh. His yellow Ryder truck would have blown up a terminal, and if that terminal was the WN facility at LAX, many passengers waiting at a checkpoint would probably have been killed.

Deleted

That was completely uncalled for Bart. Nothing PH said could possibly indicate that.

I actually had a lot of respect for you until that post.

Grow up.

All of the argument against profiling are based on the assumption that it would be the ONLY criteria for screening, and that ONLY those who meet the profile would be screened.

NOWHERE has that been stated. The point of profiling is to give EXTRA scrutiny to those who are members of a group which STATISTIC LY have a greater chance of being a threat.

All passengers should still receive screening. No one is arguing that they shouldn't. But to deny that Muslim male roughly between the ages of 17 and 40 do not STATISTICAL have a greater chance of actually being a terrorist intent on doing harm to Americans is simply denying a FACT. Sticking your head in the sand to avoid reality will not make it go away.

This is simply a matter of knowing who the enemy is. Something most Americans don't want to face because it would involve offending a racial group who likes to claim victim status while all the wile calling you a racist for thinking such thoughts.

The worst offense in America today is to be accused of being a racist. And it seems Americans would rather risk a catastrophic attack which will kill thousands that to be called "racist".

If we fail to acknowledge who the enemy is, we cannot fight them. I fear that America will not be waken for this Utopian PC dreamworld by anything short of a mushroom cloud over a major city. Even then, I have my doubts.

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

No, that's not what those who have argued against profiling assumed. Please reread the arguments.

If you look at terrorrist attacks in the US alone, it's pretty evenly balanced between Muslims and non-Muslims over the long run. Now, if you're talking about groups like Al Qaeda in general, then yes, there are more Muslims out there to get us. But a couple problems arise:

(1) How is the TSA supposed to know what religion someone subscribes to? There are white Muslims, Asian Muslims, African Muslims, Arab Muslims and so on.

(2) How is the TSA supposed to know how old someone is?

(3) We know that groups like Al Qaeda are smart enough to use people who don't fit the male, 17-40 description. They use women (witness the husband-wife duo in Jordan a few days ago). They'll use people who aren't in that age range.

(4) What is the TSA supposed to do if a 25 year old Muslim male presents himself at the checkpoint? (Remember that the 9/11 hijackers didn't have any prohibited items on them, and many did get an extra careful screening by the checkpoint staff.)

Actually the concern is that some want to narrowly define the enemy to the point where we're getting less security for our effort instead of more.

Lets do the math. Lets say 5 million Muslims in the US. 25 have actually caused an attack on US soil.

25 / 5,000,000 = .000005 chance of a particular Muslim in the US of being a terrorist. If you figure of these 25, they are either all dead or in custody, you should not lose any sleep over night because of this.

Any statistician would laugh at that as any sort of predictor of behavior. That third grade math sure comes in handy.

Please point out the racism in his post. I really want to know what you think was racist about that.

Nor should you. But but I thought baseless accusations of sympathizing with a mass murderer would be beneath you. I was simply pointing that out. Obviously I was mistaken.

How typical. I seems many people are incapable of having this type of discussion without having to accuse you opponent of being a racist. Very convenient. Once one has decided they're opponent is "racist", they may dismiss all their arguments and need not respond or form a logical argument. They're racist, and that the end of it. I know you're not like that Bart, you typically form well thought out responses. But in this case, you've slipped into a simple reactionary "you're a racist" mode.

You're the first one to jump on others for not maintaining a civil tone, making broad generalizations, baseless accusations or disparaging you or the TSA in a way you disapprove of, Bart. A little respect in return would make your admonitions carry a little weight.

That's a possibility in your book. Try it.... you'll be surprised of the results.

For starters, there is no such thing as a random event when a human does a selection. Humans are subjective individuals and will act based on their senses, emotions and thoughts. Screeners (being human beings, for the most part) use their EYES to create the "random" selection.

A couple of years back I witnessed what you call random screening. A m/f "dark" couple in non-western attaire was approaching the security point. The careful screener decided to start sending 'white' people to secondary screening prior and after the couple in question were screened. The couple went through without setting any alarms. Guess where they were sent? Come on...., you can guess.... easy question.... Geeeee..... nice "random" pattern..... select a few prior and after to be politically correct....

J.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?

NO ONE said the threat would come from ONLY ONE DIRECTION!!! I specifically pointed out that I WAS NOT claiming that. Yet you completely ignored that, and proceeded to make your argument in response to something I specifically pointed out that I WAS NOT claiming. Your condescending admonition to for me to "Think", falls a little flat in light of the fact that you are arguing with me over points I DID NOT MAKE.

To deny that profiling has no place in security measures is to believe that a 90 year old Caucasian woman in a wheelchair, is as likely to be a threat as a 21 year old Arab named Mohamed fresh off the ship from Syria. That is simple NOT a resalable assumption.

You're missing the point entirely. The reasoning for profiling isn't based solely on the raw statistical probability they will be a threat. Were that the criteria, why would we need security screening AT ALL. The criteria for profiling is based on what group is MORE LIKELY to be a threat, and what group is LESS LIKELY.

Lets do the math. Lets say 5 million Muslims in the US. out of a general population of 300,000,000, 25 MUSLIMS, have actually caused an attack on US soil.

25 / 5,000,000 = .000005 chance of a particular Muslim in the US of being a terrorist. In contrast, using those numbers, out of the general population there's a .000000833 chance they ANYONE will be a terrorist. That means by your numbers, that a Muslim has a greater chance of being a terrorist than the general population by a margin of 60 to 1.

Any statistician would laugh at NOT considering those odds in any life or death situation, and NOT doing something to mitigate those odds.

Yes, that third grade math sure comes in handy. But statistical analysis IS NOT third grade math. It's more than crunching raw numbers to get the result YOU WANT TO SEE.

Your entire argument in this post can be summed up as follows. "There are problems and difficulties with how to actually develop a criteria for profiling. Therefor we shouldn't try."

Nice. Let's just give up then.

Your response can be summed up as, "I can't respond to the criticism of my plan, so I'll just divert the issue."

If you can't address the issues I've laid out, then you don't have an actionable plan, do you?

At the most basic level I asked (1) how are we going to select people and (2) what are we going to do based on that selection. If you don't even know that, then you don't have a plan at all.

Sorry if my argument is too complicated. The real world is complicated. Slogans aren't going to get us very far.

There's an error in your math. You didn't both to include non-muslim terrorists in the above calculation. Of course the "statistics" are going to be biased in your favor if you bias the calculation of them.

60 times more than practically nothing is still close to nothing.

Please explain then why we screen ANYONE.

Timothy McVeigh was most emphatically a terrorist. He was even lower than low because the Murrah Federal Building had nothing to do with the Department of Justice, the agency that ordered the Waco operation. Since McVeigh had a beef with Janet Reno, he should have bombed DOJ headquarters in D.C. In bombing the Murrah Federal Building, McVeigh killed and injured many innocent senior citizens there for Social Security issues and children at a daycare on site. I am confident that McVeigh is in hell along with Mohammed Atta, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

All that being said, the other factors in my earlier post are still true. We did not experience any terrorist attacks aimed at transportation until 9/11, when al-Qaida terrorists, not Americans, attacked our country.