What is wrong with racial/religious profiling?

[jonks]

MR. GREGORY: Well, isn't there a profile of who we think the terrorists are?

GEN. HAYDEN: Of, of, of, of, of course there is.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GEN. HAYDEN: But it's based more on behavior. I mean, for example, the individual in question here, Abdulmutallab. I mean, he would not have automatically fit a profile if you were standing next to him in the visa line at Dulles, for example. So it's the behavior that we're attempting to profile. And it's the behavior, these little bits and pieces of information that were in the databases, that we didn't quite stitch together at this point in time. But it wasn't question of ethnicity or, or religion. Those, those are contributing factors. But it's what people do that we should be paying attention to.

MR. GREGORY: Well, but I, but I want to press Secretary Chertoff on this point whether--because I've spoken to counterterror officials who'll say it's more than a contributing factor. We know who 90 percent of these terrorists are. There may be other examples of women being used and the what--and whatnot. But Islamic males between the age of 20 and 30 make up roughly 90 percent of that profile. Is that an inappropriate or appropriate way for law enforcement to be targeting individuals?

MR. CHERTOFF: I think relying on, on preconceptions of stereotypes is, is actually kind of misleading and arguably dangerous. Obviously, you want to...

MR. GREGORY: So that's wrong? That profile's wrong?

MR. CHERTOFF: Correct.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

MR. CHERTOFF: While I--now, what I would say is you want to look at things like where has a person traveled to, where have they spent time, what has their behavior been. But recognize, one of the things al-Qaeda's done is deliberately tried to recruit people who don't fit the stereotype, who are Western in background or appearance. Look at a--like a guy like an Adam Gadahn, who grew up in California, who's one of the senior level al-Qaeda operatives but does not fit the normal prejudice about what a--an extremist looks like.

 

[whylaff]

My only question is, and this goes for any security measures, where do you draw the line? There will always be a way to circumvent security measures.

I have an internal defibrillator and I am subjected to secondary screening whenever I fly (or go anywhere secured for that matter) because I set off a metal detector. I get a friendly pat-down and I am on my way. But, the reality is, they have no way of knowing what is actually implanted in my body, and while it may sound extreme, what is to prevent someone with such strong dedication from simply internalizing a device intended to cause harm to themselves and those around them? Even with a full body scanner, I am very doubtful that one would be able to identify specific characteristics of a device with a medical purpose and something that is a weapon.

Flying is still extremely safe and all this consent to extreme security measures seems to center around “if it protects my family, it is worth it.” What do you do to protect your family on the road when you are driving? If everyone drove 15 MPH, traffic fatalities would be minimal. Beyond that, we can easily identify societal groups and localities that produce potentially unsafe drivers. If we subjected these individuals and repeat traffic regulation violators to stricter scrutiny from police, one can only assume that roads would be safer. Why aren’t these things done? On the surface, they aren’t even practical. You do the best you can to minimize risk, but it is never absolute.

 

[daishi5]

My only question is, and this goes for any security measures, where do you draw the line? There will always be a way to circumvent security measures.

I have an internal defibrillator and I am subjected to secondary screening whenever I fly (or go anywhere secured for that matter) because I set off a metal detector. I get a friendly pat-down and I am on my way. But, the reality is, they have no way of knowing what is actually implanted in my body, and while it may sound extreme, what is to prevent someone with such strong dedication from simply internalizing a device intended to cause harm to themselves and those around them? Even with a full body scanner, I am very doubtful that one would be able to identify specific characteristics of a device with a medical purpose and something that is a weapon.

Flying is still extremely safe and all this consent to extreme security measures seems to center around “if it protects my family, it is worth it.” What do you do to protect your family on the road when you are driving? If everyone drove 15 MPH, traffic fatalities would be minimal. Beyond that, we can easily identify societal groups and localities that produce potentially unsafe drivers. If we subjected these individuals and repeat traffic regulation violators to stricter scrutiny from police, one can only assume that roads would be safer. Why aren’t these things done? On the surface, they aren’t even practical. You do the best you can to minimize risk, but it is never absolute.

The answer is, we cannot stop everyone who is completely dedicated to a cause, some will get around what we setup unless we go to some horrendous extremes. The benefit though is that we raise the cost.

The "normal" suicide bomber is not a middle eastern young male because of some weird discriminatory hiring practices by terrorist groups. Those young men are the most willing, in other words the cheapest. Terrorist networks are resource limited, this is a fact of life because everyone is resource limited. They want to cause terror, stupid young males are the cheapest way to cause terror. So they "spend" a certain amount of their resources recruiting these young males because they are the most "terror" they can get for their resources.

If we were to put in place some system that would make a young middle eastern male less likely to succeed then those men become less valuable. However, the replacements, such as older men, women, or different ethnicities probably did not become more willing to die in a fireball just because young middle eastern males became less successful. This makes it so that the terror networks can create less terror from the same amount of resources.

I don't understand how it could be possible that profiling would not work. I am not saying it would be perfect, and yes we would let more of the "non-profile" terrorists through, but those "non-profile" terrorists are a minority already, so even a doubling of their success rate is not a huge increase. Not to mention, I don't think we would replace our current systems with profiling.

But, it is honestly an academic question for me, I think it would work. But if any of my senators or representatives vote for any form of "pre-judgement." I will vote against them, that is not what I want in "my America." And honestly, that some people would support a form of discrimination so blatant and oppressive just so they can feel a little safer make me sad.

 

[StageLeft]

Airports need to start doing it. In fact they are, but to them it's PC to do it by nationality not race or religion. Who gives a fvck, really. You categorize a person by one thing does it mean much more than another? As long as Granny McGee doing her yearly trip from Toronto to Florida to wait out the winter is given as much attention as Abdul shifty-eye we can still be sure that security has a ways to go.

 

[tvarad]

My only question is, and this goes for any security measures, where do you draw the line? There will always be a way to circumvent security measures.

I have an internal defibrillator and I am subjected to secondary screening whenever I fly (or go anywhere secured for that matter) because I set off a metal detector. I get a friendly pat-down and I am on my way. But, the reality is, they have no way of knowing what is actually implanted in my body, and while it may sound extreme, what is to prevent someone with such strong dedication from simply internalizing a device intended to cause harm to themselves and those around them? Even with a full body scanner, I am very doubtful that one would be able to identify specific characteristics of a device with a medical purpose and something that is a weapon.

...

It's simply not a matter of checking for physical evidence. That should also be corroborated against the look of the person, his or her background and database checks that happen even before check-in. If that had happened in the Christmas bomber case, he would have been weeded out long before he showed up at the gate. The British claim that they had passed on intelligence about this guy's background to the U.S.. That should have been enough to have him put on a mandatory body check when he showed up at the gate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You need to look up bayes theorem. To put simply, you are wrong.

Hmm... no, I'm afraid not.

I'm not just sure what you're mentally adding to what I actually said, but if I am wrong, it isn't because of Baye's theorem.

 

[jonks]

Lol. Retired General says 18-28 year old Muslim men should all be strip searched before being allowed on planes.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/mcinerney-strip-search-muslims/

You have to love these people. He then goes on to say (paraphrasing) "I don't want to racially profile, I just want to search those types of people who have shown proclivity for these types of attacks."

???

 

[palehorse]

Lol. Retired General says 18-28 year old Muslim men should all be strip searched before being allowed on planes.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/mcinerney-strip-search-muslims/

You have to love these people. He then goes on to say (paraphrasing) "I don't want to racially profile, I just want to search those types of people who have shown proclivity for these types of attacks."

???

I like McInerney and agree with him completely.

 

[Red Dawn]

I see nothing wrong with it. In fact I do it all the time.Anytime I see a couple of guys in a white whirt and tie riding bicycles I go out of my way not to talk to them.

 

[yllus]

Lol. Retired General says 18-28 year old Muslim men should all be strip searched before being allowed on planes.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/03/mcinerney-strip-search-muslims/

You have to love these people. He then goes on to say (paraphrasing) "I don't want to racially profile, I just want to search those types of people who have shown proclivity for these types of attacks."

???

I'm actually having a bit of a hard time disagreeing with Mr. McInerney.

I would hope that airports would use those new sees-everything body scanners instead of a literal strip search, but anyone entering into this discussion reasonably would have to admit that doing this would nullify the use of 98% of the talent pool available to Al Qaeda-type organizations. That's a pretty good start.

If you then add behaviour profiling and better database checks for the rest of the passenger population I think you'd solve the problem as best as can be reasonably achieved.

Lastly, Mr. McInerney is right that that Muslims (or men of Middle Eastern/South Asian appearance) are the group from which bombers are most often drawn from. The fact that this essentially leads to racial profiling doesn't take away from the truth of the statement.

 

[StageLeft]

Look, if there are another string of attacks or a single significant one you can bet your ass that there are only two way things will go:

1) Airports will make security ridiculous for EVERYONE. Delays even now that seem painful will be comparatively painless.
2) Airports will start directing resources where they are best utilized and that is indeed profiling.

But of course I still think terrorists have so far been quite idiotic. There are countless soft targets. To concentrate on planes just seems stupid considering how often they are caught. Nobody believes that society as a whole can be locked down, but until/if terrorists ever get a brain, we can stop them at airports. But as it is now instead of a super-duty effort on guys who fit the bill we inevitably give half-hearted effort to everyone. It makes no sense.

 

[woolfe9999]

Another study that concludes random screening is superior to profiling:

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/random_security.html

The study makes a point that is difficult to refute. With any profiling system, regardless of whether race/religion are factors or not, terrorists can test the system by sending a number of their people onto plains for test runs, and seeing who gets searched and who does not. The ones who did not get searched beat the profiling system, and then those are the ones who will be used for the actual attack later on. A random system, however, can never be beaten except with luck.

Personally, I think we should just send everyone through these full body scanners, which will make the entire discussion moot.

- wolf

 

[jonks]

I like McInerney and agree with him completely.

You agree that we shouldn't racially profile, we should just profile by race. clear.

Also, question, you think we should strip search 18-28 year old muslims even if they are american citizens? Just curious how much faith you put in that little constitution of ours.

 

[palehorse]

Personally, I think we should just send everyone through these full body scanners, which will make the entire discussion moot.

That sounds good to me...

TSA currently operates 40 body scanners in U.S. airports.
TSA bought an additional 150 scanners.
TSA plans to buy just 300 more.
Full-body scanners cost between $130,000 and $200,000 each.
There are 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports.

meaning, the cost to install a scanner in every lane would be between $200M and $320M dollars.

So... who is going to pay for all of the new scanners, and how long before they're installed?

What about airports outside the U.S.?

hmm...

 

[Rainsford]

That sounds good to me...

TSA currently operates 40 body scanners in U.S. airports.
TSA bought an additional 150 scanners.
TSA plans to buy just 300 more.
Full-body scanners cost between $130,000 and $200,000 each.
There are 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports.

meaning, the cost to install a scanner in every lane would be between $200M and $320M dollars.

So... who is going to pay for all of the new scanners, and how long before they're installed?

What about airports outside the U.S.?

hmm...

Also...it's not entirely clear that full body scanners would have even caught this latest attempt. The point of full body scanners (assuming we're talking about the "x-ray" type) is that they can detect density differences to find hard objects like knives and guns that are constructed out of a material that won't set off a metal detector (like ceramic).

Many kinds of explosives, especially liquid kinds, probably won't show up on the machines. I saw this mentioned on a news article about this topic, although I can't find it at the moment. If I do, I'll edit this post with a link. But it makes sense to me, since those full body scanners aren't MEANT to pick up explosives, only hard objects.

 

[daishi5]

Another study that concludes random screening is superior to profiling:

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/random_security.html

The study makes a point that is difficult to refute. With any profiling system, regardless of whether race/religion are factors or not, terrorists can test the system by sending a number of their people onto plains for test runs, and seeing who gets searched and who does not. The ones who did not get searched beat the profiling system, and then those are the ones who will be used for the actual attack later on. A random system, however, can never be beaten except with luck.

Personally, I think we should just send everyone through these full body scanners, which will make the entire discussion moot.

- wolf

It sounds like the study made the assumption that the willing suicide bomber population was equitably distributed throughout the population, so the terrorist groups could choose the demographics of their bombers at will. Profiling only works if the terrorists pool of resources is unevenly distributed and it is not easy for them to choose which demographics they send.

From a simple reading of the news story, but not the actual paper I think I see a flaw. The paper assumes that the terrorist organization actually posses people who would not fit the profile in a large enough quantity to continue at their current level of activity. For example, the news report gives the example of 20 men, lets assume all 20 were willing suicide bombers, but that the terrorists do not have any more willing bombers. If we are profiling 19 of them, and they are all proven to be "useless" for bombing, the terrorists have one bomber who will succeed (the actual scenario described in the story). However, if we scan randomly, at full capacity (8% according to the paper) we can expect to catch 2. 18 will make it through. 18 willing bombers making it through have a much better chance of getting through the rest of security then 1.

The game theory example, and the paper appear to be completely correct, but it makes an underlying assumption that I feel is invalid. I.E. perfect logic, bad axiom. They make the assumption that terrorist organizations have a very large and DIVERSE pool of willing sacrifices. If the profiling eliminates a % of the willing bombers over and above the 8% mark, which I feel is a very easy goal to meet, then we have reduced the pool of bombers by a greater amount through profiling then we could expect to reduce them through random screening.

 

[Rainsford]

Look, if there are another string of attacks or a single significant one you can bet your ass that there are only two way things will go:

1) Airports will make security ridiculous for EVERYONE. Delays even now that seem painful will be comparatively painless.
2) Airports will start directing resources where they are best utilized and that is indeed profiling.

But of course I still think terrorists have so far been quite idiotic. There are countless soft targets. To concentrate on planes just seems stupid considering how often they are caught. Nobody believes that society as a whole can be locked down, but until/if terrorists ever get a brain, we can stop them at airports. But as it is now instead of a super-duty effort on guys who fit the bill we inevitably give half-hearted effort to everyone. It makes no sense.

Sure it does. It's easy to SAY pick on "guys who fit the bill", but actually DOING that in a way that really increases security is much more difficult. Not to mention the legal and ethical problems.

And at the end of the day, the vast majority of our real security against terrorist attack comes from the fact that terrorists at all are incredibly rare, and SMART terrorists are even rarer. Even if we changed NOTHING as a response to the underwear bomber, it's still much, much, MUCH more likely that you'll die on your way to the airport because of some nimrod in an SUV talking on his cell phone instead of looking where he was going.

You know what I think we REALLY need to do? Have a big group unbunching of our collective panties, and get on with life.

 

[woolfe9999]

That sounds good to me...

TSA currently operates 40 body scanners in U.S. airports.
TSA bought an additional 150 scanners.
TSA plans to buy just 300 more.
Full-body scanners cost between $130,000 and $200,000 each.
There are 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports.

meaning, the cost to install a scanner in every lane would be between $200M and $320M dollars.

So... who is going to pay for all of the new scanners, and how long before they're installed?

What about airports outside the U.S.?

hmm...

$200m to $300m? How much money have we spent protecting ourselves against terrorism since 9/11, if you include two wars and all the homeland security measures? Sounds pretty trivial to me. The better counter-argument is how much it would slow down security lines. Not sure about that since I have never been in a line where the scanners are used.

I think what this comes down to is a tradeoff. Our current system is reasonably effective, but clearly not 100%. If we get one successful airline attack every 5 years, which sounds about right, people still scream bloody murder and claim that the system has failed. We could use the scanners (or extremely heightened human screening requiring that we hire more personnel), and add two air marshalls to every flight (another major expense), and we would then be like the Israelis who haven't had an attack in 40 years. At a cost of money and time. Or we can keep the current system, refine it to make sure that guys like this last one get on a no-fly list like they should, and leave it at that. We'll probably have a plain blown up every 5, 7, 10 years or so.

It's the age old cost-benefit question of how much money/inconvenience is worth saving x number of lives. Sounds crass, but we make these calculations, implicitly, all the time. The problem with deaths due to terrorism, as opposed to some other cause, is that the public has a heightened reaction to them. We pay little attention to tens of thousands of automobile related deaths every year, but 120 people die in a airline hijacking, and we're freaked, the stock market takes a nose dive, and everyone is wringing their hands and analyzing the issue to death. The truth is, if these measures are costly and/or inconvient, that is tough luck - if we are going to react in the hysterical way that we do to these attacks, then we are getting exactly what we have asked for.

The truth is that we will ultimately adopt Israeli style security measures over time, because the elected officials are in charge of these decisions, and it is their political ass on the line whenever these attacks succeed. Let's face it, the current President has been lambasted over an incident which (by luck) wasn't even successful. Can you imagine if it had been successful?

- wolf

 

[palehorse]

Sure it does. It's easy to SAY pick on "guys who fit the bill", but actually DOING that in a way that really increases security is much more difficult. Not to mention the legal and ethical problems.

And at the end of the day, the vast majority of our real security against terrorist attack comes from the fact that terrorists at all are incredibly rare, and SMART terrorists are even rarer. Even if we changed NOTHING as a response to the underwear bomber, it's still much, much, MUCH more likely that you'll die on your way to the airport because of some nimrod in an SUV talking on his cell phone instead of looking where he was going.

You know what I think we REALLY need to do? Have a big group unbunching of our collective panties, and get on with life.

Exactly where does the mythical "acceptable threshold of deaths caused by terrorists" lie? Is there some sort of cost/benefit analysis we should use here?

For some of us, that threshold is zero. While reaching that threshold is more than likely impossible, we should still do everything within our power to get as close to zero as possible. For that reason, no cost should be considered "too much," and no measure should be considered "not worth it."

I'm for installing scanners at every security lane AND adapted profiling.

 

[woolfe9999]

Exactly where does the mythical "acceptable threshold of deaths caused by terrorists" lie? Is there some sort of cost/benefit analysis we should use here?

Actually yes, there are cost-benefit analyses that are applied to human life every day, everywhere, both in what we do and what we do not do. Governments, corporations, and individuals do this every single day. We could set top freeway speed to 30 MPH and undoubtedly that would save some lives, at a cost of extreme inconvenience. In healthcare, do we test every individual for everything and burden the system with massive costs because it will save a few lives? Should women under 30 get breast cancer screening?

The thing about terrorist deaths is that we have a heightened reaction to them. It is almost as if the lives lost due to this cause are perceived as more valuable than lives lost to other causes. I'm not saying we shouldn't guard against it, but we cannot pretend that there is no cost-benefit analysis, that there is no length in terms of cost and inconvience to which we should not go.

- wolf

 

[Patranus]

That sounds good to me...

TSA currently operates 40 body scanners in U.S. airports.
TSA bought an additional 150 scanners.
TSA plans to buy just 300 more.
Full-body scanners cost between $130,000 and $200,000 each.
There are 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports.

meaning, the cost to install a scanner in every lane would be between $200M and $320M dollars.

So... who is going to pay for all of the new scanners, and how long before they're installed?

What about airports outside the U.S.?

hmm...

How about some of that 800 billion dollar "stimulus" package they have only spent a minimal percentage of?
(The manufacturing plant is probably not in a battle ground state)

 

[Rainsford]

It sounds like the study made the assumption that the willing suicide bomber population was equitably distributed throughout the population, so the terrorist groups could choose the demographics of their bombers at will. Profiling only works if the terrorists pool of resources is unevenly distributed and it is not easy for them to choose which demographics they send.

From a simple reading of the news story, but not the actual paper I think I see a flaw. The paper assumes that the terrorist organization actually posses people who would not fit the profile in a large enough quantity to continue at their current level of activity. For example, the news report gives the example of 20 men, lets assume all 20 were willing suicide bombers, but that the terrorists do not have any more willing bombers. If we are profiling 19 of them, and they are all proven to be "useless" for bombing, the terrorists have one bomber who will succeed (the actual scenario described in the story). However, if we scan randomly, at full capacity (8% according to the paper) we can expect to catch 2. 18 will make it through. 18 willing bombers making it through have a much better chance of getting through the rest of security then 1.

The game theory example, and the paper appear to be completely correct, but it makes an underlying assumption that I feel is invalid. I.E. perfect logic, bad axiom. They make the assumption that terrorist organizations have a very large and DIVERSE pool of willing sacrifices. If the profiling eliminates a % of the willing bombers over and above the 8% mark, which I feel is a very easy goal to meet, then we have reduced the pool of bombers by a greater amount through profiling then we could expect to reduce them through random screening.

If there are only 20 potential terrorists who want to attack our air travel system, then attempting to catch them at all with security at the airport is a moronic waste of time and money. We'd be far better off using those resources to actually track down and capture those 20 guys instead.

You suggest the flawed assumption in the paper is that the terrorist organization has a "very large" pool of potential attackers, yet your counter-example is at the opposite end of the spectrum. A more reasonable middle ground would seem to be a larger, but limited, pool of attackers than the organization wishes to use in an actual attack. For a relatively sophisticated operation like 9/11, that would seem to be a more realistic situation.

Your assumption of 90% accuracy of the profile seems pretty high to me, but unless it's 100%, the flaw remains. Terrorists can test to figure out which 10% of their applicant pool doesn't match the profile, even if the profile itself is secret. That 10% is the number of people they'd use for the next 9/11. Simple.

The counter-argument you make, that catching 9 out of 10 9/11 operations is better than catching 1 or 2 of them sounds good, but you're assuming that the limiting factor in terrorist operations is willing terrorists. I doubt the terrorists conducting the 9/11 attack were all Al-Qaeda had to offer. Instead, it seems like money, planning time, and the ability to keep a secret when too many people know it seems like it probably played a bigger role as to why 9/11 didn't happen with a few dozen planes instead of a handful. The other thing to consider is that terrorism isn't a military operation, "success" in a terrorist's terms isn't about actual damage inflicted, but psychological damage. And for that, succeeding at all is usually enough. I'm not sure 9/11 would have had THAT much of a bigger effect if the number of hijacked planes had doubled, but it would have been much more difficult for Al-Qaeda to pull off.

 

[palehorse]

How about some of that 800 billion dollar "stimulus" package they have only spent a minimal percentage of?
(The manufacturing plant is probably not in a battle ground state)

Iknowright?

I'm pretty sure National Security wasn't at the top of Congress' list when they wrote out their list of recipients... As usual, they're all stuck in a reactionary mindset. If/when something happens, we essentially have the length of time equivelant to a news-cycle to get anything accomplished. If it takes any longer than that, it's forgotten by each and every one of those who purport to "represent" us...

 

[Rainsford]

Exactly where does the mythical "acceptable threshold of deaths caused by terrorists" lie? Is there some sort of cost/benefit analysis we should use here?

For some of us, that threshold is zero. While reaching that threshold is more than likely impossible, we should still do everything within our power to get as close to zero as possible. For that reason, no cost should be considered "too much," and no measure should be considered "not worth it."

I'm for installing scanners at every security lane AND adapted profiling.

That is a ridiculous position, and quite honestly I don't think you thought it through very well.

If the acceptable threshold of deaths from terrorism is zero, and "no cost should be considered 'too much'", why don't we just shut down air travel? Or for that matter, how about all mass transit? Since racial and/or religious profiling is acceptable, why not take it a step farther and just lock up anyone who can be identified as a Muslim or comes from a country identified with terrorism? I mean, every measure is considered worth it, right?

But why not go for the whole thing and just turn into a police state? No civil liberties, no freedom of association, or travel. No protection of your house or private information. Maybe we'd be totally and completely safe then, eh comrade? Well, at least from terrorists. But since there are a HUGE list of things that are a far greater danger to you than terrorism, this clearly can only be the tip of the iceberg.

Whatever "some of you" might think, I'm pretty happy living in a country where FREEDOM is our first concern. And if that sometimes comes with a minuscule amount of additional danger, then that's how it goes. Freedom isn't free, right?

 

[palehorse]

That is a ridiculous position, and quite honestly I don't think you thought it through very well.

If the acceptable threshold of deaths from terrorism is zero, and "no cost should be considered 'too much'", why don't we just shut down air travel? Or for that matter, how about all mass transit? Since racial and/or religious profiling is acceptable, why not take it a step farther and just lock up anyone who can be identified as a Muslim or comes from a country identified with terrorism? I mean, every measure is considered worth it, right?

But why not go for the whole thing and just turn into a police state? No civil liberties, no freedom of association, or travel. No protection of your house or private information. Maybe we'd be totally and completely safe then, eh comrade? Well, at least from terrorists. But since there are a HUGE list of things that are a far greater danger to you than terrorism, this clearly can only be the tip of the iceberg.

Whatever "some of you" might think, I'm pretty happy living in a country where FREEDOM is our first concern. And if that sometimes comes with a minuscule amount of additional danger, then that's how it goes. Freedom isn't free, right?

For arguments sake, let me revise my original statement and narrow it down to costs involving convenience, soldiers' lives, or money.

I do not agree with you that statistical and adaptive profiling in airport security lanes infringes on our Constitutional rights.

Implementation of screening at national entry points and security screening lanes does not equate to internment camps and fascist cops on every corner telling the dark-skinned folk to present their papers. I think that you're presenting an exaggerated list of nonsense in order to elicit an emotional response from the readers here, with hopes of garnering emotion-based support, and not to prove any real point.

You're better than that Rain...