Security Profiling Without Prejudice?

Could be a great tool for doctors to locate new patients with weak bladders.

An airline that requires everyone to fly in the nude is the only 100% failsafe way to eliminate security concerns among the passengers. There is a limit to what you can do. You would also have to make sure the cabin door can not be opened during flight.

Victim/witness: "Yes, officer; the terrorist looked to be of Amish descent".

Agent: "Why do you think this?"

Victim/witness: "Uh, he was 40ish, wore black clothes kind of like a formal suit, had a wide-brim hat, long curled hair for sideburns, a beard but no mustache, and (said he had) built a lot of barns."

Agent: "OK, is there anything else?"

Victim/witness: "Just that I would know without a doubt, him, or someone else who was associated with him"

Agent: "OK, We're finished here. Thank you for your statement." Victim/witness walks out.

Agent phones HQ - "Yeah, we've got the perp's characteristics - sending the file".

HQ: "OK, thanks for the good work."

HQ calls security: "Security? This is HQ. Here's what we're looking for:

• A man with some kind of religious views.
• A man of middle-age, say 15 to 65 yrs.
• A man that is dressed in a suit or maybe semi-casual clothes, or maybe even jeans and a tee-shirt.
• A man wearing a hat of some kind, or maybe not even wearing a hat.
• A man with long sideburns, or short sideburns, or maybe even no sideburns... don't want to rule anything out, y'know.
• A man with some kind of facial hair.
• A man that may be in the construction trade, or related to it, which may be anything.

Come to think of it, they may be so devious that it may not be a man at all, or even Amish! My final recommendation is to question everyone. But especially those who ARE NOT Amish." Unspoken: _{(That way we cannot be accused of racial profiling).}

Yep, all Jews, Arabs and brick layers are to be concentrated on as well.

Upon approaching the security checkpoint, one would see a large sign, this sign would indicate two paths, one path would have a notice: Warning! You are about to enter a Detection/Detonation containment chamber, any weapons will be detected, any explosive devices will be detonated. Detonation will be audible as a muffled "clank" to persons outside the chamber.

The other path would be optional.

There is something about this whole question that bothers me tremendously, and that is this. The vast majority of the worlds terrorism is carried out by Muslim men. This is a fact. And yet, we avoid racial profiling. Why? Because we are afraid of being called racists. In the name of political correctness, we don't even call 'em Muslim terrorists any more! So, what's wrong with this picture? Would it not make more sense, and be more effective, to use racial profiling in combination with other techniques?

Now this is not in any wise meant to say that all Muslim men are terrorists, but only that a Muslim is more likely to be one and thus should automatically be subject to greater scrutiny.

I expect I am going to catch a lot of heat for this remark.

Well said sir.

Great answer!

Me three.

I hear all the time on TV cop programs "the suspect is caucasian, blah,blah...." Isn't this racial profiling?

All security profiling should be done by German Shepard dogs. they do not discriminate, they only sense electro/chemical changes and act accordingly. Technology can be beaten, but a dogs sense of "smell" is one of the most awesome and most unused "tools". They just want to work for us, and most criminals are "afraid".

If you profile only Muslim men, the only terrorists you find will be Muslim men.

If the only terrorists you find are Muslim men, that will justify the profiling.

When terrorist acts take place, you will crack down on Muslim men, not suspecting that the culprits are women or survivalists or McVeigh lookalikes.

When you crack down on Muslim men, invade their rights etc. you will make them angry and disillusioned and push them into the arms of the ......

You do see where this is going, don't you? If you only look for "X" in a certain population, you miss "X" in all other populations. The search should be for "X" in general.

There is some truth to that. However, if you look for kind hearted acts in humans you have a higher probability of finding them among the living populations versus the dead.

I understand that this was an extreme example, but if 90% of all terrorist acts are perpetrated by by one group, say Group A, it would be folly to spread your resources equally among all groups (i.e., Groups A through Z). By discriminating based on previous statistical data (i.e., applying more resources to screen Group A) you can vastly improve the odds of discovering more terrorists.

If innocent members of Group A become offended, then it would be both noble and principled as a member of Group A to purge one's ranks of the cause of the offense. It is called self-policing.

If you (a member of Group A) choose not to do that, then rest assured someone else will and you may not like the results.

If the primary mechanism for security was effective intimidation, real or imagined, would there be any need for profiling?

Hmm what kind of mechanical component is

Security Profiling ?

A contour gage?

Press

Dang!

The corporate watchdogs have blocked the site.