No Profiling, No Saftey?

March 11, 2002 10:11 AM

No Profiling, No Saftey? ...to placate special interest groups that fear profiling will result in widespread racial or religious discrimination, authorities are imposing screening quotas that are unlikely to thwart a future terrorist attack. They should be doing the very opposite by creating more sophisticated profiling systems that catch real criminals. Is it really "damned if they do, damned if they don't" or is there a better way?
posted by nobody_knose (36 comments total)

Um, where did this guy get his info? Just because some consultant who rode first class was upset she got searched?

They ARE profiling, based on country of origin, where you bought your ticket (buying online sets you up for a search, I learned), other factors, in addition to some random searches.

You think its impossible terrorists could have a white person working for them? (Walker? The Shoe Bomber?) Or a woman? (recent attacks in israel), or maybe even non-islamic terrorist group? Do no random searches, and you leave a wide open security hole.

Carefully considered profiling based on a variety of factors make sense, aggressive race/religion based profiling isn't the best idea for security or liberty.
posted by malphigian at 10:31 AM on March 11, 2002

Personally, I don't give a damn if they profile. Profile away. The fact of the matter is a petite red head has NEVER hijacked a plane or driven one into a building. The sorry fact is the majority of religous zelots currently out to do in the USA are ARAB MUSLIM MEN. If it were petite redheads, then it would make sense to search them.

I've never had problems with profiling. I know it insults people, but my safety is much more important to me than insulting people. I doesn't say anything in the constitution about "Freedom from searches or profiling." If small blonde women started targeting the nation, I would understand if I were pulled over and searched. It would be frustrating (and perhaps they could come up with something so the same people aren't searched over and over again) but I would understand.

Random searches are still a good idea, but profiling makes an enormous amount of sense.
posted by aacheson at 10:37 AM on March 11, 2002

Personally, I don't give a damn if they profile. Profile away. The fact of the matter is a petite red head has NEVER hijacked a plane or driven one into a building. The sorry fact is the majority of religous zealots currently out to do in the USA are ARAB MUSLIM MEN. If it were petite redheads, then it would make sense to search them.

I've never had problems with profiling. I know it insults people, but my safety is much more important to me than insulting people. I doesn't say anything in the constitution about "Freedom from searches or profiling." If small blonde women started targeting the nation, I would understand if I were pulled over and searched. It would be frustrating (and perhaps they could come up with something so the same people aren't searched over and over again) but I would understand.

Random searches are still a good idea, but profiling makes an enormous amount of sense.
posted by aacheson at 10:37 AM on March 11, 2002

Whoops. How did THAT happen?
posted by aacheson at 10:38 AM on March 11, 2002

I was typing up something like aacheson said, but she said it better than I could.

I also remember reading an article a few months back about how airlines were not allowed to single out young middle eastern muslim men, but they could single out anybody else... I'm trying to find it now...
posted by Keen at 10:41 AM on March 11, 2002

Prior to the Sept terror attacks, planes profield and no one gave a hoot; in Jersey (and other states) the cops got ijnto trouble for rracial profiling. Many complaints but no one complained about airline profiling.
A profile suggest that a certain type, based on info from the recent past studies, is more likely to bge a potential problem than others not fitting that profile. If such profiling creates more securityk, then I am all for it. If this or that one may be offended, then drive a car or take a train rather than a plane. Still (nearly) a free country so you can choose.
posted by Postroad at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2002

aacheson, yes, but a white british man just tried to blow up a plane with his shoes. And women had never been suicide bombers before until a few months ago, this is the point for keeping random searches.

The article is really lousy one to discuss this issue, if you go the DOT site on this issue, you can see one of the major items they are working on is the pre-screening (aka profiling system). Hopefully, this will be a well designed system, that steps carefully around peoples civil rights.

I know its a loaded quote, but its one I happen to agree with:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
I'm not saying profiled searches are necessarily a violation of essential liberty, but I do not think the discussions deserve the offhand "pc-nonsense" dismissals people seem to like to give. There are serious potential issues here, and the issue needs to be treated with care. Its not that far from profiling to requiring, say, a group to wear yellow stars or pink triangles (did I just godwin's law myself?).
posted by malphigian at 10:51 AM on March 11, 2002

Definitely, Godwin. Go tell a Holocaust survivor that you compared the annihilation of the Jews to the search for Islamic suicide terrorists, and you're going to get your ass kicked
Rightly so
Godwin
posted by matteo at 11:02 AM on March 11, 2002

Finally found it, but be warned, its from the conservative crackpot site newsmax.com:

The Dept. of Transportatin issued this guidebook thing saying that airport security screeners cannot search people who look arab, middle eastern, etc.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/140318.shtml
posted by Keen at 11:04 AM on March 11, 2002

Nineteen hijackers from one organization is a pretty small sample. If we only target Arab men, then (a) Al Qeda will make sure to recruit folks that don't look like likely suspects (not all Muslims are Arab, I remind you), and/or (b) right-wing 'mericun nutjobs, left-wing anti-globalist nutjobs, copycat nutjobs, and the Petite Redhead Liberation Army will seize their respective days. By the "search only Arabs" reasoning, all of those concrete barriers at government buildings after OKC were misguided; we should have just set up checkpoints for veterans in rental vans.

I'm a single guy, buying tickets online, often multi-leg or one way. I also usually purchase on a credit card that's pretty close to its embarrassingly low limit. Looking at me, the most sinister thought most airport security personnel would have is that I'm an IRA fundraiser, but the computer tags me every time - I'm seven for seven since nine-eleven.
posted by chino at 11:19 AM on March 11, 2002

matteo: Point taken, comparison withdrawn (although I obviously wasn't making the direct comparison you accuse me of).

It is NOT that far from profiling to requiring the profiled race/religion to wear/carry an indicator of some sort. The out of hand dismissals of profiling complaints as PC whining seem dangerous to me, and I'm surprised people don't see it as at least something to be careful about implementing. This is not to say I disagree entirely with the concept, just that the lack of concern worries me.
posted by malphigian at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2002

Profiling is a interesting subject. If I fly do I want only those who match a high probability terrorist profile or those randomly selected to be searched?

Nope. I want everyone searched before they get on a plane. Maybe time consuming but it is fairly simple. Terrorists are not the only threat to airline safety. Crackpots, suicidal maniacs, drunks and abusively violent people are all very real threats.

Seems to me that neither random searches nor profiling provide the kind of certainty that should be required for strapping 100+ people into an aluminium tube and shooting it into the sky with the hope that it comes down safely.

Now if you are going for the appearance of doing something by all means go for profiling and random searches. They both provide the illusion of security to the credulous without undue cost or inconvenence
posted by srboisvert at 11:27 AM on March 11, 2002

Hmm, this link seems a little... muddy to me. "Just pick up the newspaper or turn on the TV" for examples? C'mon.

Racial profiling is the erosion of civil liberties and American dignity. It is ineffective, crude, and beneath us.

Executive Director of Black Leadership Forum searched "about 20 times" since September 11th--Post-Gazette.

...when we fight back we shouldn't lash out at ourselves--PBS civil rights, anti-terrorist, and legal specialist interview, pro and con.

--Cached testimony of David Harris on racial profiling before Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.

...the unhappy truth is that we don't know what the next group of terrorists might look like--David Harris.

...profiling based merely on race is a blunt instrument, while behavioral profiling is precise.--From Philadelphia Inquirer, examples of ineffectiveness of US Customs profiling for contraband.

Racial profiling not even effective against shoplifting--crimedoctor.com.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:27 AM on March 11, 2002

"aacheson, yes, but a white british man just tried to blow up a plane with his shoes."

I don't believe he was caucasian. More of a mix, I believe.

If we only target Arab men, then (a) Al Qeda will make sure to recruit folks that don't look like likely suspects (not all Muslims are Arab, I remind you), and/or (b) right-wing 'mericun nutjobs, left-wing anti-globalist nutjobs, copycat nutjobs, and the Petite Redhead Liberation Army will seize their respective days.

Um, then why had these groups not reared their ugly little plane-stealing heads prior to 9/11? I don't think these groups are in the same league, or would adopt the same MO. Home-grown terrorists seem more enamored of preserving their own hides. Nut jobs usually work alone. Anti-globalists are usually after the moral highground and usually disrupt without lethal violence. Petite redheads? Well, there's no way we're beating *them*, so we should surrender now.

As to AL-Qeda recruiting those who don't fit their "look"- well, they're going to have a recruiting problem. If we catch those who DO fit the look, we've eliminated 95% of the problem. Random checks can then make life more nervous for the remaining 5%.
posted by dissent at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2002

[but a white british man just tried to blow up a plane with his shoes.]

He may have been white, I don't recall noticing. What I DO remember noticing is that he looked like a crackpot. Who, dear friends, will stand up against crackpot profiling?
posted by revbrian at 11:44 AM on March 11, 2002

like all information gathering, 'intelligence' is never 100% reliable unless 100% of the available information is in the hands of the collector, and it is all correct. what tends to happen is that when there is a shortfall in information (nearly always), assumptions are made, or there is outright fabrication. this can often lead to mistakes and then cover-ups.
as there can never be a situation where all the correct information is held by the right people at the right time, one might ask whether resources could not be spent more wisely. it is difficult to imagine a world where governments would not spy on each other (or their people), for fear of public ridicule on the world stage. difficult, but not impossible.
e.g. in berlin during the cold war there really wasn't as much intrigue going on as the bosses (cia and kgb) thought, so rather than dissapoint them with the mundane truth, reams of reports on 'disident' behaviour were produced, mostly consisting of the sexual fantasies of the agents involved, and none of it true.
approached from a scientific point of view, as data is either not present or may not be reliable, no theory may be derived. for the country that gave the world the 'conspiracy theory', that might be too hard to swallow.
posted by asok at 11:47 AM on March 11, 2002

As to AL-Qeda recruiting those who don't fit their "look"- well, they're going to have a recruiting problem.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Al-Quada recruits from a single group. They have in the past recruited Bosnians, Chechnyans, Albanians, Brits, East Africans, Philipinos, Indonesians, Malays, and Americans.
posted by euphorb at 12:00 PM on March 11, 2002

To add to Euphorb's list: and French nationals.

Speaking as someone who looks like a total crackpot, I will gladly stand up against crackpot profiling. Visible markings (skin color, clothing, hairstyle, "ethnic garb") are not useful signifiers of intent, unless that visible marking is a stick of dynamite hanging out of one's vest or a suicide note in one's airplane luggage -- which are characteristics of behavior and intent, not identity.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 12:13 PM on March 11, 2002

Imagine that a serial rapist is at large in your neighborhood. Cops then start really watching out for male suspects, not females...
Imagine that a kid playing in the park gets very badly mauled by a dog. Cops start looking for Rottweilers and other big dogs. They don't seem to bother questioning people with small poddles.

That's profiling for you. I'm not talking about rogue racist cops who mistake their ignorant, bigoted prejudices for regular police procedure.

But ask a good cop, serious and reasonable profiling is an important part of police work. Al Qaeda does not recruit and train Eskimo women as kamikaze bombers right now. Their agents are under 40 males of Arabic descent (all 19 the 9-11 guys, plus the twentieth guy who got arrested in Minnesota in August).

The guy who tried to blow up the Paris-Miami flight with explosives hidden in his shoes (Richard Reid, half Black Jamaican and half white, British citizen, btw) paid cash for his ticket, one way, no luggage, not even a small bag, a Bin Laden lookalike. The Israeli guys searched Reid for a long time when the he bought a ticket for a El Al flight, and they also put a plainclothes agent next to him in the cabin, ready to break Reid's neck.
The French police kicked Reid out of the Paris airport once, they did not allow him on board because of profiling.
They weren't that smart the next day, when they let him onboard -- then he could have blown up the friggin plane. Profile worked twice for him and protected the passengers.
He got on board with explosives when profiling wasn't used, remember
posted by matteo at 12:30 PM on March 11, 2002

But matteo, all profiling is bad.

My elderly Aunt-in-law was searched in January, down to taking her shoes off.

She had to sit on the floor and get her daughter to help her remove her shoes. She was obviously a random search.

I think we should be profiling to a point.

I'm sorry but the elderly woman who can't even take her own shoes off, isn't a threat. What was the point of searching her?
posted by SuzySmith at 12:49 PM on March 11, 2002

As a muslim in america, i have to say that i have no problem with profiling. As a lot of my friends in the muslim community have stated, that we dont mind FBI coming to our house to interview us, or call us for an interview. We as members of the muslim community in america understand that need to straighten the security system, and sympathize with the urgency it demands. I personally will not hesitate if I am asked to carry a National Identity Card. I wouldnt even hesitate to put my religion on it.

But there are some things we worry about. When you want to search our house, come in with respect. Allow me to call my lawyer or some one I trust so I am sure the searchers dont "plant" some thing. If you want to interview me, then surely ask me politely. But dont question me about my thoughts. Because I can not present 26 years of experience in 30 minutes.

Also the question arises, who would I be comfortable to show my NID. I wont show it to my employer, or the local cops. Yeah if the FBI or CIA wants to see it, sure they can.

The thing is, I and most of my friends dont mind profiling in this time of chaos. But we are scared of bias, and negative implementations, which we know have happened in the past with other minorities.
posted by adnanbwp at 12:53 PM on March 11, 2002

I'm sorry but the elderly woman who can't even take her own shoes off, isn't a threat. What was the point of searching her?
suzy, that's exactly what I'm saying. Profiling means you have the profile of the suspect. So you concentrate on that kind of profile. Your aunt-in-law is not a suspect of anything when it comes to Al Qaeda suicide terrorism, she was a victim of "PC-profiling" -- that means, we have to search the Arabs, but if we don't waste our time doing some other random, senseless search, they'll call us racist
posted by matteo at 12:55 PM on March 11, 2002

...paid cash for his ticket, one way, no luggage, not even a small bag...

These are useful behavioral characteristics to profile.

a Bin Laden lookalike

First, this is ridiculous. They look nothing alike. They aren't from the same country, aren't similar ethnically, don't speak similarly, etc. What they are is they are both not white and sometimes have nasty matted beards.

Second, that wasn't racial profiling. That was terrorist network profiling at work. Reid was profiled because of what he really had in common with bin Laden: he attended the same mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui, and interacted with Al-Qaeda members.

This link is total fluff. Factless opinion, complete with "the American public appears to support" and "the real enemy is the privacy rights lobby."
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:01 PM on March 11, 2002

a Bin Laden lookalike

First, this is ridiculous

Tell it to the people who were on that plane with him and saw him trying to ingnite the bomb in his shoes.
posted by matteo at 1:13 PM on March 11, 2002

I travel on business. I've been profiled (lone bearded male with heavy looking bag and harried expression whose ticket was purchased on the internet by someone else). I carry a lot of metal, tend to be late, and for some reason most of my shoes have steel shanks in them. I set off alarms all the way down the concourse. And I get searched. Incessantly. I get asked odd questions. I get swabbed with explosives-detectant.

Do I like it? Nope. It sucks. It's awkward. It takes time. It makes people look at me strangely. But I am willing to temporarily sacrifice my personal comfort for increased safety for everyone.

The people who do the most complaining about profiling don't seem to realize that being stopped does not mean being arrested, or repressed in any way. It just means that you fit a profile. What you are really being is inconvenienced. Comprimising the safety of all because one does not want to be inconvenienced is selfishness.

Though it sucks, I take off my shoes, answer stupid questions, turn on my laptop/phone/palm/tape recorder, because my convenience is not as important as the safety of the entire plane. Hey, I know elderly women who can't take their shoes off are harmless... but I don't want the screeners at the airport to take a chance. The alternative is much, much worse.
posted by UncleFes at 1:16 PM on March 11, 2002

When will you and your friends start minding, Adnanbwp? When they ask you to come down to the profiling center to answer a few questions? When the "muslim" stamp on your National ID also carries a monitoring chip?European Jews, Armenians, Japanese Americans, and a whole lotta other minorities put up with inconveniences to calm the rhetoric, thereby starting a slide into wholesale nastiness.
posted by chino at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2002

Oh I just remembered, once back in 2001, I and a friend were returning from abroad. Out of some 200 passengers, we were the only two singled out for customs check. And to top that, when we reached the counter, the custom officer called us by our last names. He already knew our names. That kinda freaked me out. But hell, I and my friend didnt look 1/1000th as white as the rest of the 198 passengers returning home from europe after christmas.

But, we laughed it over thinking what can a person do. I had nothing to hide except one extra box of ciggerettes. hehe.

So profiling has always been there. I think the difference is that when you look like an arab or a muslim of a different ethnicity, the screeners and searchers and the security officials give you a different look. Its like, here he/she is, friend and relative of those 19. If only I could lay my hands on him/her. They used to be rude before 9/11, now they dont even smile.

I sometimes think its funny and understandable. When I first came here I did notice that no one is American in this country. You always have a prefix. Irish-American, African-American, Arab-American, or the self definitory "Texan", add Terrorist-Look-Alike-American. I think its all too funny.

Profiling and random searching wont solve the problem. The proper way is to tighten security, search every one, screen and sniff all bags, hire pretty stewardesses. :P Its either this or just an illusion of security. I mean the security at airports here was ludicrous to start with. I am amazed it took them so long to do this. They should have implemented a better world class security system long ago.
posted by adnanbwp at 1:18 PM on March 11, 2002

chino, what do u expect. Although I completely distrust American foreign policy and the way this lone power acts in the world, how it lies and conns, I DO understant that America is a scared, frantic, confused nation at this moment. It needs soothing and comfort from television ads to the nationalized olympics. If my fellow americans feel safer with profiling then let it be. Only I know it wouldnt work. But they dont. Let them be warm and cozy at night so they can sleep.

When will I stop being uncomfortable? I feel uncomfortable every moment I am being profiled. But I dont plan to whine about it. I talk about it, try to educate people about it.

The National Identity Card example was meant to show how far I am willing to go. And thats far enough. I wont want a chip on my NID. I wouldnt want them tracking me, as if they are not already. I wouldnt want to listen into my phone calls as if they arent already alerted to every call wherein I use Allah or Muhammad (pbuh). I know my email is being read. My friend's snail mail from Pakistan was opened and taped before it was delivered.

My point was and is that Profiling was there, it is here, and it will remain. There is no way I can avoid it. I only want it to be fair and respectable towards the profilee.
posted by adnanbwp at 1:32 PM on March 11, 2002

You always have a prefix. Irish-American, African-American, Arab-American, or the self definitory "Texan", add Terrorist-Look-Alike-American. I think its all too funny.

And whose fault is this? Blacks espicially brought it on themselves, because they accept the term, they even are proud of their "african-american" leaders.

And if somebody referred to Sen. Lieberman as say, Jewish-American senator Lieberman, leader of Jewish-Americans, people would get angry. But blacks don't seem to care who this seperates them.
posted by Keen at 2:34 PM on March 11, 2002

But blacks don't seem to care who this seperates them.

Upon reading this outloud I find this does not make sense.
What I'm trying to say is:
But blacks don't seem to care how this seperates them.
posted by Keen at 2:41 PM on March 11, 2002

Oh please, Keen -- tell it to the happy Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans who shut down the streets for their St. Patricks and Columbus Day parades. That dog just won't hunt.

Their agents are under 40 males of Arabic descent (all 19 the 9-11 guys, plus the twentieth guy who got arrested in Minnesota in August).

That's who their agents were on 9/11. We don't have any clue who else is working with al-Qaeda. We didn't know that Johnny Walker Lindh was al-Qaeda, did we? We don't know who the 9/11 hijackers networked with and recruited while they were here, nor do we know who they left behind to continue to recruit and network. We don't know how many nutjobs may just decide to join their ranks. That's the whole point.

Relying solely upon the information of the past in order to make security decisions for the future is fool's folly. At the same time, eliminating anybody for any reason is similarly foolhardy.

I'm sorry but the elderly woman who can't even take her own shoes off, isn't a threat. What was the point of searching her?

So we presume that the old, the very young and the infirm aren't a "threat" and we don't bother to search them. So the next time someone wants to smuggle a weapon on a plane, what do they do? Plant it on their baby or their grandmother. Women gladly send their sons off to be snipers who kill civilians, or suicide bombers, rejoicing that their sons are doing the work of whatever faction or god they believe in. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that there could be a similarly agenda'ed old woman willing to be a "non-threatening" weapons mule for her grandson to take down (or take control of) a jetliner?

Profiling is thinking in a box. Presuming that white people, women, redheads, old people, whomever cannot possibly be a threat because they weren't a threat on 9/11 is thinking in a box so small it can barely be seen. Security cannot be left in the hands of people whose minds are closed, who cannot imagine broad scenarios of danger and attack from all quarters.

There are far more people who'd like to have a stab at America and innocent Americans. If we keep our heads in the sand and pretend that only swarthy young men with accents are a danger to us, we will face more horror, more tragedy and more avoidable, preventable deaths. Get your minds out of their boxes, folks. Start thinking big -- thinking big is what our enemies were and are doing, it's time we got caught up.
posted by Dreama at 4:09 PM on March 11, 2002

Sorry, Adnan. I was a little insensitive there. I don't envy you one bit, and you have to make your own decisions. It's real easy for me to say what I'd do in your place, when the worst I get is a little atheist-bashing.
If they're tracking your email, they're probably tracking this conversation, too. Maybe they'll knock on my door soon, the bastards.
posted by chino at 4:40 PM on March 11, 2002

Oh, and let's not forget that white guys with acne are also plane-crashing suspects.
posted by chino at 5:30 PM on March 11, 2002

There are far more people who'd like to have a stab at America and innocent Americans. If we keep our heads in the sand and pretend that only swarthy young men with accents are a danger to us, we will face more horror, more tragedy and more avoidable, preventable deaths. Get your minds out of their boxes, folks. Start thinking big -- thinking big is what our enemies were and are doing, it's time we got caught up.

And our enemies are primarily swarthy young men. Our enemies may be thinking big, but until they have sex changes, lose the accent, and lighten their complexions, most of them are still going to look and sound the same.

Random screening? Yes. But in addition to profiling, not as a replacement.

Your "broad scenarios" sound very much like paranoia to me, Dreama. Our enemies, if they succeed in making us chase down every red herring, and spread our attention thin, will have a much easier time of it.

Mules are not the main problem. Mules are harmless if there's no actual attacker to hand off to... also, frankly, I'd profile women as tending to be less prone to take part in violent actions. 100% correlation? No. But a real one.
You may toss out anecdotal contradictions, but the weight of statistics will press you back in a thundering wave.

Profiling is all about weighing probabilities and logically weighting effort accordingly. In a situation with only finite resources, it is a logical first step, although certainly not a final one.

I suspect your primary motivation is not to avoid the further real horror of lives lost, but to avoid the perceived horror of profiling. Which is truly not horrible, merely logical.
posted by dissent at 9:08 PM on March 11, 2002

I'm another clean-cut, married, natural born American citizen, member of many frequent flier clubs, purchaser of round-trip tickets via credit cards. I've flown in the past with my infant daughter listed on my ticket.

And yet, easily 50% of the times I've flown since 9/11 (I fly for business a couple of round trips per month), I've been singled out for some form of additional searching. Last time I was flying San Jose (CA) to Seattle -- on the return leg! -- I went through the carry-on-hand-search, wanding, shoe-removal routine twice and I hadn't even set off the metal detector. This is when the "random, non-profiling" thing seems a little silly.

(I had both a friend and a cousin on American Flight #11, and I lived in Manhattan for four years, so I don't take the threat lightly...)
posted by sib at 9:49 PM on March 11, 2002

Profiling is all about weighing probabilities and logically weighting effort accordingly. In a situation with only finite resources, it is a logical first step, although certainly not a final one.

I suspect your primary motivation is not to avoid the further real horror of lives lost, but to avoid the perceived horror of profiling. Which is truly not horrible, merely logical.

There is a valid economic argument to be made that profiling a population of 1 million on the basis of perceived ethnicity in the hopes of finding single terrorists is a waste of resources with minimal return on investment. Putting up arbitrary roadblocks to certain ethnic groups does cost money.

That is not to say that profiling is a bad thing, however statisticially it seems that it would be better to narrow the focus beyond just "swarthy young men" (which statistically is still searching through a very large haystack) to the profile that seems to better fit the terrorists: foreign nationals with a record of travel in a handful of countries.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:47 AM on March 12, 2002