Profiling, racial or otherwise, doesn't necessarily work.
October 23, 2001 3:36 AM Subscribe
at least until Eskimo women decide to start hijacking planes for suicide attacks
posted by matteo at 6:55 AM on October 23, 2001
posted by matteo at 6:55 AM on October 23, 2001
Racial profiling doesn't work!?!?!?! Damn, that's years of law enforcement down the tubes!
posted by bob bisquick at 7:03 AM on October 23, 2001
posted by bob bisquick at 7:03 AM on October 23, 2001
I'm guessing nobody who has posted so far in this thread has actually read the article.
posted by Doug at 7:18 AM on October 23, 2001
posted by Doug at 7:18 AM on October 23, 2001
This is actually a good point, with regard to terrorists. As disgusting as it is, racial profiling is effective in areas where sufficiently large proportions of one group commit a certain type of crime. E.g., if it happens to be the case that, statistically, 75% of all purple-skinned people use Ecstasy to "enhance the driving experience" (or whatever), then cops that pull over purple-skinned people will probably make the streets safer for other drivers. Not to condone the idea, just to say it would have that effect.
With terrorism, however, the proportion of Arabs who are terrorists is far too low for profiling to be effective (even if it were legal or defensible). Too many Arabs, too few terrorists. Trying to check out all the Arabs will never succeed -- some will always get through, and the ones that you most want to catch will probably be the best at getting through. So it will be much more effective to focus on terrorist-like behavior, as the article says.
(I also got the impression Doug got....)
posted by mattpfeff at 7:25 AM on October 23, 2001
With terrorism, however, the proportion of Arabs who are terrorists is far too low for profiling to be effective (even if it were legal or defensible). Too many Arabs, too few terrorists. Trying to check out all the Arabs will never succeed -- some will always get through, and the ones that you most want to catch will probably be the best at getting through. So it will be much more effective to focus on terrorist-like behavior, as the article says.
(I also got the impression Doug got....)
posted by mattpfeff at 7:25 AM on October 23, 2001
(I also got the impression Doug got....)
me too -- thanks for finally jumpstarting the discussion, doug and matt. :)
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:34 AM on October 23, 2001
me too -- thanks for finally jumpstarting the discussion, doug and matt. :)
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:34 AM on October 23, 2001
All seven times I have traveled to Cancun Mexico, I have had my luggage searched on my way back into US. Each time I was told that I had been "randomly selected". Ha, obviously, I fit some kind of profile, white female 30 to 40 slightly disheveled, dark circles. Perhaps I look like I might "use" marijuana. (Actually, I looked like someone who has just partied her A** off for a week.)I happen to look like someone who might have been smoking marijuana which to them also means I am dumb enough to look like that and still have it on me. What a crock. When I mentioned this to the custom agent she asked me "what does a drug traffiker look like then?". My response "more like you". She then had the audacity to say "Don't you think we catch all the drug trafikkers passing through here?" Had I been drinking milk it most certainly would have shot out my nose....
This is my own personal experience in profiling...By profiling the people who happen to appear to be capable of breaking the law...you miss the ones who really are! They don't even realize just how ineffectual they are. Now that is what scares me.
posted by carolinagrl at 8:28 AM on October 23, 2001
This is my own personal experience in profiling...By profiling the people who happen to appear to be capable of breaking the law...you miss the ones who really are! They don't even realize just how ineffectual they are. Now that is what scares me.
posted by carolinagrl at 8:28 AM on October 23, 2001
(I also got the impression Doug got....)
Unless you guys read the Globe every day like I do, I actually read the article way before you did (it's two weeks old or something). So, I did read it, yes.
But I do think it is fundamentally flawed: because if it's true that it can be effective to follow a suspect's behavior, not race or gender, in case of, say, an assassination attempt agains the president, it's also true that for suicide terrorism, Al Qaeda style, the old profiling stuff remains very effective.
It's not racism, as we already discussed a few weeks ago: for guys like Mohammed Atta and his thugs, profiling works.
The article states that "the intelligence specialists who wrote the memo say that terrorists aren't necessarily like killers or drug traffickers, and security lies in the hard work of watching for suspicious behavior, not for suspicious people".
But excuse me, the four Al Qaeda suspects still under arrest in the US have been caught thanks to racial profiling. Sad but true
posted by matteo at 8:36 AM on October 23, 2001
Unless you guys read the Globe every day like I do, I actually read the article way before you did (it's two weeks old or something). So, I did read it, yes.
But I do think it is fundamentally flawed: because if it's true that it can be effective to follow a suspect's behavior, not race or gender, in case of, say, an assassination attempt agains the president, it's also true that for suicide terrorism, Al Qaeda style, the old profiling stuff remains very effective.
It's not racism, as we already discussed a few weeks ago: for guys like Mohammed Atta and his thugs, profiling works.
The article states that "the intelligence specialists who wrote the memo say that terrorists aren't necessarily like killers or drug traffickers, and security lies in the hard work of watching for suspicious behavior, not for suspicious people".
But excuse me, the four Al Qaeda suspects still under arrest in the US have been caught thanks to racial profiling. Sad but true
posted by matteo at 8:36 AM on October 23, 2001
In a very small way, perhaps, profiling can better one's odds. But there's something called Simpson's paradox that can undermine the whole megillah.
Let's go back to that purple-skinned people example. Suppose that 15% of green-skinned people use ecstasy while driving, and 75% of purple-skinned people use ecstasy. So, profiler that one is, stops and checks all purple-skinned people and nab more ecstasy-users than normal, right?
Well, what if there are 10,000 green-skinned people for every 1,000 purple-skinned people. For every 750 (75% of 1000) purple-skinned people you nab using ecstasy, you just missed 1,500 (15% of 10,000) green-skinned ecstasy users. In the population as a whole, there are more green-skinned ecstatic drivers than purple-skinned ones.
More to the point, the FBI isn't interested in getting a certain quota of terrorists -- they want to catch =all= of them. You can't do that by focussing only one one population. By focussing on a particular population, one is not paying attention to people not in that population. So while one is keeping the look-out for al-Qaeda-backed Arabic terrorists, homegrown terrorists like Tim McVeigh get through.
As well, though profiling may seem a way to reduce costs by restricting where one is looking, it may actually be =expanding= the population over which one needs to check. Does the FBI really want to check out every Arab in the U.S.? In addition to creating a hostile situation, which might undermine intelligence gathering inthe community, they simply don't have to resources or ability to investigate the millions of Arabs in the country. I can't imagine them doing it here in New York City, much less the entire U.S.
posted by meep at 9:22 AM on October 23, 2001
Let's go back to that purple-skinned people example. Suppose that 15% of green-skinned people use ecstasy while driving, and 75% of purple-skinned people use ecstasy. So, profiler that one is, stops and checks all purple-skinned people and nab more ecstasy-users than normal, right?
Well, what if there are 10,000 green-skinned people for every 1,000 purple-skinned people. For every 750 (75% of 1000) purple-skinned people you nab using ecstasy, you just missed 1,500 (15% of 10,000) green-skinned ecstasy users. In the population as a whole, there are more green-skinned ecstatic drivers than purple-skinned ones.
More to the point, the FBI isn't interested in getting a certain quota of terrorists -- they want to catch =all= of them. You can't do that by focussing only one one population. By focussing on a particular population, one is not paying attention to people not in that population. So while one is keeping the look-out for al-Qaeda-backed Arabic terrorists, homegrown terrorists like Tim McVeigh get through.
As well, though profiling may seem a way to reduce costs by restricting where one is looking, it may actually be =expanding= the population over which one needs to check. Does the FBI really want to check out every Arab in the U.S.? In addition to creating a hostile situation, which might undermine intelligence gathering inthe community, they simply don't have to resources or ability to investigate the millions of Arabs in the country. I can't imagine them doing it here in New York City, much less the entire U.S.
posted by meep at 9:22 AM on October 23, 2001
Does the FBI really want to check out every Arab in the U.S.?
Not all of them of course. Just Arab men from 20 to 40 years of age who are trying to learn how to fly a commercial jetliner. Arab men who are trying to purchase explosives/fertilizer/hazardous chemicals. Arab men who hang out in conservative Islamic environments as certain Mosques and Islamic Centers (certain Islamic Cultural Centers in Europe are, according to the FBI, and I quote, Al Qaeda bases).
Arab men who travel in small groups and purchase one-way-only plane tickets, business or first class, and have very little baggage with them.
Need I go on?
The FBI has told us many times that a new attack is highly likely. To prevent it, you need police work like this. And profiling is part of police procedure. Just ask a good cop.
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on October 23, 2001
Not all of them of course. Just Arab men from 20 to 40 years of age who are trying to learn how to fly a commercial jetliner. Arab men who are trying to purchase explosives/fertilizer/hazardous chemicals. Arab men who hang out in conservative Islamic environments as certain Mosques and Islamic Centers (certain Islamic Cultural Centers in Europe are, according to the FBI, and I quote, Al Qaeda bases).
Arab men who travel in small groups and purchase one-way-only plane tickets, business or first class, and have very little baggage with them.
Need I go on?
The FBI has told us many times that a new attack is highly likely. To prevent it, you need police work like this. And profiling is part of police procedure. Just ask a good cop.
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on October 23, 2001
matteo, please give a source for the "four al-Qaeda suspects still under arrest". It is my impression that while there have been some arrests for immigration violations, the vast majority of the 700+ persons "detained" have neither been arrested nor charged with crimes. If there are indeed "al-Qaeda suspects under arrest", it seems highly likely that they were discovered not by a traffic stop pulling over all swarthy-looking men, but by material evidence connecting them with either the hijackers or overseas terrorist investigations.
So, no, I'm not taking your defense of profiling at face value. I think you're taking a face-value opinion about racial profiling but offering no proof that it works.
Finally, the assumption that any police or counterterrorist operation can detect and prevent crimes before they happen is mere fantasy. Individuals, and small groups, can indeed keep secrets, and achieve their objectives. No amount of profiling will end that; but it may well end the nation of civil liberties with which we are all familiar.
posted by dhartung at 5:01 PM on October 23, 2001
So, no, I'm not taking your defense of profiling at face value. I think you're taking a face-value opinion about racial profiling but offering no proof that it works.
Finally, the assumption that any police or counterterrorist operation can detect and prevent crimes before they happen is mere fantasy. Individuals, and small groups, can indeed keep secrets, and achieve their objectives. No amount of profiling will end that; but it may well end the nation of civil liberties with which we are all familiar.
posted by dhartung at 5:01 PM on October 23, 2001
Adding onto the whole, "the article doesn't really prove anything" topic, I thought I'd reccommend you check the New York Times Magazine article, The Color of Suspicion. It definitely explained the whole issue for me. The best url I could find was here.
posted by MarkO at 7:28 PM on October 23, 2001
posted by MarkO at 7:28 PM on October 23, 2001
Actually, that article proves this article's point -- namely, that whereas the African American population of the U.S., for various unfortunate historical reasons, does represent a disproportionate and tangible percentage of the U.S. criminal element, and can therefore be sampled effectively (if unconscionably), profiling several million individuals of Middle Eastern descent just to find a few hundred doesn't work -- it just doesn't scale. And I guarantee you'll provide an opening for the next volley of domestic insanity. In 1993 it was the Arabs. A few years later, it was the domestic crazies. For now it's the Arabs again. And it will swing back yet again, because we're always caught looking in the wrong place, judging with our eyes instead of our minds.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:42 PM on October 23, 2001
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:42 PM on October 23, 2001
Actually, that article proves this article's point -- namely, that whereas the African American population of the U.S., for various unfortunate historical reasons, does represent a disproportionate and tangible percentage of the U.S. criminal element, and can therefore be sampled effectively (if unconscionably), profiling several million individuals of Middle Eastern descent just to find a few hundred doesn't work -- it just doesn't scale. And I guarantee you'll provide an opening for the next volley of domestic insanity. In 1993 it was the Arabs. A few years later, it was the domestic crazies. For now it's the Arabs again. And it will swing back yet again, because we're always caught looking in the wrong place, judging with our eyes instead of our minds.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:47 PM on October 23, 2001
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:47 PM on October 23, 2001
Dammit -- why does it keep doing that!
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:48 PM on October 23, 2001
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:48 PM on October 23, 2001
matteo, please give a source for the "four al-Qaeda suspects still under arrest".
Here
And it was discussed here on MeFi already
Finally, the assumption that any police or counterterrorist operation can detect and prevent crimes before they happen is mere fantasy
Anybody who's even slightly familiar with counterterrorism work will explain you how wrong you are.
So many people haven't been blown up, killed (the Pope, for example) and stuff like that thanks to this kind of work. Don't believe me, just ask a good cop, or read some books about that.
And if you think counterterrorism sucks so bad please write your congressman: a lot of your taxes are being spent on that and so much more money willbe in the future.
CIA director George Tenet will soon be replaced exactly because the boys at Langley didn't know anything about preparations for 9/11. It's the CIA's and the FBI's biggest mistake. But that doesn't mean counterrorism is ALWAYS a waste of time.
Or, you can just stick to your opinions.
posted by matteo at 5:36 AM on October 24, 2001
Here
And it was discussed here on MeFi already
Finally, the assumption that any police or counterterrorist operation can detect and prevent crimes before they happen is mere fantasy
Anybody who's even slightly familiar with counterterrorism work will explain you how wrong you are.
So many people haven't been blown up, killed (the Pope, for example) and stuff like that thanks to this kind of work. Don't believe me, just ask a good cop, or read some books about that.
And if you think counterterrorism sucks so bad please write your congressman: a lot of your taxes are being spent on that and so much more money willbe in the future.
CIA director George Tenet will soon be replaced exactly because the boys at Langley didn't know anything about preparations for 9/11. It's the CIA's and the FBI's biggest mistake. But that doesn't mean counterrorism is ALWAYS a waste of time.
Or, you can just stick to your opinions.
posted by matteo at 5:36 AM on October 24, 2001
« Older | Speaking of Tokyo Rose: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rabbit at 3:57 AM on October 23, 2001