not profiling is F'ing stupid and a waste of resources

[soulcougher73]

Profiling an extremely rare event doesn't make sense. And it's not the best tool we have.

X-ray scanning baggage, passing through metal detectors, sniffing for bomb materials are far better at increasing security.

The body scanners they're using now are way better at actually increasing safety than profiling, especially since they apply to everyone.

I am fine with these as well. But ignoring patterns to screen people who have shown no pattern is a waste or resouces. That is what the OP was trying to get at and im trying to agree with.

I mean how far does it have to go before we have the scene from Airplane! where all the guys with guns walk through the check point and they stop the little old white lady?

 

[Capt Caveman]

So then terrorist find someone who won't be searched to carry out attacks. They can offer money to their family, hold family hostage, trick them into thinking they are carrying something not so deadly (drugs or other contraband). I came up with these as I read this thread, how many more possibility would there be to get someone else to carry out an attack?

I could convince my elderly Japanese neighbor to bring a book of mine(containing whatever inside) on his next trip to CA to bring for a friend of mine. Or I could help a family unload their baggage from their vehicle and stick something in their child's diaper bag.

 

[actuarial]

I am fine with these as well. But ignoring patterns to screen people who have shown no pattern is a waste or resouces. That is what the OP was trying to get at and im trying to agree with.

I mean how far does it have to go before we have the scene from Airplane! where all the guys with guns walk through the check point and they stop the little old white lady?

I think screening only some people is useless, but if we are going to doing it randomly does make more sense - it's impossible to trick random and provides a deterrent that someone cannot avoid.

Profiling actions and restricting what you can bring on board is specifically what will avoid the airplane scenario. Under racial profiling, you end up with a white guy in a trench coat with a bomb strapped to his chest walking through the check point to stop the muslim guy wearing a Disney hat travelling with his family. That's the modern day take on Airplane!

 

[Infohawk]

So, you'd let a Timothy McVeigh thru but not the middle eastern college student who's wearing a turban?

There's no reason you can't profile for Militia types.

Asian people commit crimes like anyone else. A person with terrible fashion sense doesn't mean he is a criminal.

According to statistics and most people's personal experiences, you're not very likely to experience a random act of violence by an East Asian.

 

[Siddhartha]

Wasn't the problem they had with catching the DC shooter was that he did not fit the profile of a pissed off middle aged white guy? IIRC, they had stopped him before he was caught but let hit go because he did not fit the profile.

 

[soulcougher73]

Wasn't the problem they had with catching the DC shooter was that he did not fit the profile of a pissed off middle aged white guy? IIRC, they had stopped him before he was caught but let hit go because he did not fit the profile.

Could have been. IRC he was a black male?

Like ive said profiling does not always work. Its just statistics and odds. Sort of like gambling. But you can still make predictions based on it. You can never stop a random act of anything. So when someone else that doent fit a profile does something their is not much you can do. Even if its a 1 time occurancy you cant create a profile off that. You need many occurances to draw any conclusions.

 

[Jaepheth]

If I'm still alive when we hand over security to AIs; I'm going to laugh when it starts profiling based on all statistically significant factors, and the PC crowd cries foul.

EDIT - But seriously, if they want to call it "random" then they should just get one of those spring-loaded dice bubbles found on a Trouble! board, stick a D20 in it, and everyone who rolls a 3 or lower gets an enhanced security check.

 

[werepossum]

Wasn't the problem they had with catching the DC shooter was that he did not fit the profile of a pissed off middle aged white guy? IIRC, they had stopped him before he was caught but let hit go because he did not fit the profile.

Yes, they stopped him several times in roadblocks. If however one is a sociopath, one does not typically reveal any signs of nervousness or guilt in a few seconds' interaction.

 

[Jeff7]

When you consider most of the terrorist acts attempted against the US since 9/11, I would say your first example is a lot closer to the truth.

Yes, that's the flipside of it. Fortunately, a lot of criminals are terribly stupid, or else they have some big ego that desperately needs attention.

 

[actuarial]

Could have been. IRC he was a black male?

Like ive said profiling does not always work. Its just statistics and odds. Sort of like gambling. But you can still make predictions based on it. You can never stop a random act of anything. So when someone else that doent fit a profile does something their is not much you can do. Even if its a 1 time occurancy you cant create a profile off that. You need many occurances to draw any conclusions.

My contention is your logic breaks down with terror attacks. They're so infrequent, and so varied in execution, that there's really not a set pattern. Hell, the best you can come up with is someone Muslim looking, which either a) casts WAY too wide a net, or if talking about people dressing like extremists b) doesn't even fit recent attacks. And it wastes resources, and people's time, and given how rare and how well planned these attacks generally are doesn't actually increase safety (in my opinion of course).

Any plan should at least back-test, and I don't see any profile that's been bandied about that would have stopped 9/11. If that's what we're trying to avoid, shouldn't we implement something that would have stopped it?

If we're talking about profiling to catch speeders, vandals, petty thieves etc. then it makes sense. There's enough experience, and enough offenders within some populations for it to work.

And then there's the matter of citizens rights. If the goal is to stomp all over our freedoms to add a little safety (and it is only a little, the chance of death by terror attack is extraordinarily small), then why aren't we pushing the government to monitor the internet traffic of white males for kiddie porn, pull over any car driving out past midnight to check for drunks, etc. Those would have a far higher likelihood of working.

 

[IGBT]

yet another example that liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Infohawk]

Any plan should at least back-test, and I don't see any profile that's been bandied about that would have stopped 9/11.

Really? The 911 jickackers has obviously Muslim names didn't they? Had they been monitored beforehand or given more scrutiny at the airport it doesn't seem like 911 would have happened.

 

[Rock Hydra]

I don't care if it's profiling or what. There is no business searching someone without probable cause.

 

[manlymatt83]

So, you'd let a Timothy McVeigh thru but not the middle eastern college student who's wearing a turban?

No, I'd let them both through.

(IE: 99.999999999999999999999% of the time, most of those types of people would be harmless)

 

[manlymatt83]

yet another example that liberalism is a mental disorder.

I totally agree

 

[WelshBloke]

You can panic about "evil Muslims" on the subway all you like but I bet that, statistically, you're less likely to be killed/assaulted by one than most other religions/ethnicities.

 

[actuarial]

Really? The 911 jickackers has obviously Muslim names didn't they? Had they been monitored beforehand or given more scrutiny at the airport it doesn't seem like 911 would have happened.

So are we going to screen EVERY person (or male) with a muslim sounding name? Like I said - way too wide a net to be feasible from a cost perspective.

And what would more scrutiny or monitoring have done? What did they do at the airport that would have let us know they shouldn't get on the plane?

 

[spacejamz]

this thread reminds me of the beginning of Airplane II where they let the terrorists with machine guns through the metal detector without any problems but accosted the grandmother when the metal detector went off...

 

[spacejamz]

so it is at least safe to not screen senior citizens and children...or do we need to keep searching them to keep the appearance of randomness??

 

[her209]

today, i saw 2 authorities stop an old asian man professionally dressed, in his late 50's and go through his belongings.

Yakuza gang members dress in business suits. He could have been Yakuza.

 

[Infohawk]

Like I said - way too wide a net to be feasible from a cost perspective.

I was addressing your premise that profiling would not have prevented 911. It seems likely monitoring before (why are all these guys taking flying lessons and not needing to learn landings?) or extra scrutiny at the airport (why do they all have boxcutters?) could have prevented it.

 

[actuarial]

I was addressing your premise that profiling would not have prevented 911. It seems likely monitoring before (why are all these guys taking flying lessons and not needing to learn landings?) or extra scrutiny at the airport (why do they all have boxcutters?) could have prevented it.

I understand what you were addressing, but I still think you missed my point. You presented a profile of 'muslim sounding name'. That is a ridiculously large net, and as such isn't feasible to employ. Yeah, they would have been caught in that net, as well as thousands of others that day. How many security agents are we going to hire?

How would airport staff know who's taken flying lessons recently? If you were talking about more monitoring in general (as opposed to once at the airport), then I'm sure that would help, but it doesn't really apply to airport security once in the airport. And again - these are action things, and if they imply a possible nefarious motive why wouldn't you want to check on people of every race/religion?

And who's 'they all'? I thought it was only a small group for every plane, thus it probably wouldn't have even been every muslim on that specific plane, let alone the thousands of others that passed through the airport that day.

If we're talking about it being suspicious that two businessman would be carrying box cutters - yeah that's weird and deserves some attention. But I would hope they look at those guys whether they're brown, black or white, because that behavior is weird.

 

[Infohawk]

I understand what you were addressing, but I still think you missed my point. You presented a profile of 'muslim sounding name'. That is a ridiculously large net, and as such isn't feasible to employ. Yeah, they would have been caught in that net, as well as thousands of others that day. How many security agents are we going to hire?

How would airport staff know who's taken flying lessons recently? If you were talking about more monitoring in general (as opposed to once at the airport), then I'm sure that would help, but it doesn't really apply to airport security once in the airport. And again - these are action things, and if they imply a possible nefarious motive why wouldn't you want to check on people of every race/religion?

And who's 'they all'? I thought it was only a small group for every plane, thus it probably wouldn't have even been every muslim on that specific plane, let alone the thousands of others that passed through the airport that day.

If we're talking about it being suspicious that two businessman would be carrying box cutters - yeah that's weird and deserves some attention. But I would hope they look at those guys whether they're brown, black or white, because that behavior is weird.

Yes we're talking about security in general. The FBI is part of the equation beforehand. Also, there are Muslim names and not just "Muslim-sounding" names. Again, these could be tagged by knowledgeable people who are not necessarily waiving wands at the airport. Your "there's too many Muslims" argument is silly. Muslims are already being monitored and in any case we're using harsh search tactics on the entire population as it is. (I also think you're overestimating the amount of Muslims traveling in the US.)

 

[actuarial]

Yes we're talking about security in general. The FBI is part of the equation beforehand. Also, there are Muslim names and not just "Muslim-sounding" names. Again, these could be tagged by knowledgeable people who are not necessarily waiving wands at the airport. Your "there's too many Muslims" argument is silly. Muslims are already being monitored and in any case we're using harsh search tactics on the entire population as it is. (I also think you're overestimating the amount of Muslims traveling in the US.)

I don't really disagree with this (other than I think there surely are a lot of muslims that travel in the US every day).

If we're keeping a database and flagging people that have done something to lead us to believe they may be a threat, and search them more than others, then that makes sense. That's a pretty huge difference from a TSA agent pulling aside someone who 'looks muslim' for additional screening, which a lot of people in this thread seem to support.

And again: this is profiling based on actions, which I've already stated a couple times I'm for.

 

[Paul98]

So are we going to screen EVERY person (or male) with a muslim sounding name? Like I said - way too wide a net to be feasible from a cost perspective.

And what would more scrutiny or monitoring have done? What did they do at the airport that would have let us know they shouldn't get on the plane?

Not to mention as soon as they started doing this, i mean with this wide a net it's going to be obvious. They would have just changed there names or gone with people who don't fit the profile.