Tuesday, February 02, 2010

MIssing the point on profiling

As airports are set to introduce more and more stringent and intrusive methods to determine whether or not little old Granny Smith is really a suicide bomber with 5lbs of Semtex hidden in her balls of wool, the debate about "profiling" starts up again.

Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.

No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.

Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.

The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.

There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.

Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?

3 comments:

Furor Teutonicus said...

Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber

Do you mean "Would NOT have fitted"?

Because otherwise, as it stands, the obvious answer is "YES fucking EXACTLY!" IF profiling was being carried out corretly insted of being hamstrung by these lefty twats who could not give a twopenny shit about VICTIMS. Tzen the arseholes WOULD have been caught.

Stan said...

No - I mean "not all those .... would have fitted" which is basically the same thing. If I'd put another not in there it would have been a double negative "not all those .... would not have fitted"

But we're more or less in agreement. What I'm more or less saying is that it's odd that the authorities are quite happy to use racial (or gender/sexuality) profiling where the profile is most likely to be a white, heterosexual man, but reluctant to use it when the profile comes up with something other than that.

Actually, it's not "odd" - it is very revealing about progrressive liberalism as an anti-white heterosexual male doctrine.

Progressive liberals discriminate against white heterosexual men on a regular basis - job opportunities, promotions, "rights" etc. - in a way they would never permit for black men, Asian men, women or homosexuals.

John Byrnes said...

Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!

Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.

The Problem
Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.

The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” - all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.

All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:

1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!

2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.

3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh

The Solution
Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.

The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.