And that “certain vicinity” seems to include Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, … . There’s a rather broad racial diversity here.
That doesn’t make any sense at all. I respect his credentials as an expert on profiling terrorists, but I don’t necessarily respect his stance on civil rights. There is no required correlation between the two. I think Karl Rove is probably the foremost expert on political subterfuge, but that doesn’t mean I like him or think he’d make a great babysitter. It just means that if I wanted someone dirty, but effective, he’d be the man I’d look to. By the same token, if I want a security/terrorism expert, civil rights be damned, I’m going to get Rafi Ron.
I quoted him earlier where he stated his reasons, but I’ll happily repeat it. He said “Racial profiles don’t work because terrorists come in all sizes, shapes and ethnic backgrounds.’”
They were quotes by Rafi Ron and are part of this article and the article linked above. The “he” was because the quote was part of a larger article, and the author was referring to Rafi Ron when he said “he”. I should have probably removed “he said” from that quote. If you’d prefer to find your own quotes, he’s a pretty well known fellow, and just searching on his name will give you all sorts of information.
:rolleyes: You’re really going to insinst that I do this, huh? OK…
Then surely you can quote the post in this thread where someone has seriously advocated forcing Arabs and/or Muslims to alter their mode of dress in order to make them easily identifiable.
I’m not dismissing it out of hand. I, and several others, have presented a very sound rationale for why it will not only work but will in fact be counter-productive. This rationale has been dismissed by saying that terrorists can’t evade the profile. I don’t think that this has been sufficiently justified, resting as it does on the assumptions that a) terrorists of a Muslim nature are, by and large, profilable by appearance, that b) they can’t alter their recruitment practices and that c) these are the only (or are the most important) types of criminal our system should be designed to catch. Pretty much all of these are dubious, to my mind.
Again, assuming that terrorists’ past recruitment policies are unchangeable, and that the present set of terrorists are the only ones we will face.
Didn’t say it did; this is really something of a strawman. Any variation in inspection rate creates a group of people who are relatively under-scrutinised. Those people will become very valuable to criminals, at least some of whom are not so stupid as to ignore this fact.
I see it as analogous to having a fishing net with different sizes of hole. The profiling argument says that because some of the holes are really small, the net is efficient. The anti-profiling argument says that because some of the holes are really big, pretty much anything can sail through them if it knows they’re there. Since there’s no way of hiding the big holes, I have a lot more time for the latter argument than the former.
But that’s apples and oranges. In the Rove case, you say you acknowledge his political “acumen”, but wouldn’t trust him to babysit. But the question, based on your example, is would you trust him to tell you how to win an election. That is inside the sphere of hi expertise. Babysitting may or may not be. (Wow, what a set up for a Bush joke! Better change it–oh, what the hell.)
The Ron point we are discussiing is different Because you want to use his “authority” to counter my arguement, but you don’t agree with any of his points. The only thing lamer than an appeal to authority is a selective appeal to authority. Do you think that Ron’s opinion on all matters “profiling” should be the last word or not?
Thanks for the links. I’ll read them and get back to you.
I assume you mean “won’t work”… But that’s not really the question. The question is does it work better or worse than random searches given limited resources? If we had the resources to inpsect everyone, I don’t think people would argue that we should cut back on those resources and use profiling instead.
Not by me. I’ve said that anything that makes the terror groups change recruiting tactics is good because it weakens their current infrastructure and exposes them to new scrutiny. I’ve also said that they can’t easily change recruiting tactics, not that they can’t change them at all.
It’s more about ruling out certain groups (elderly women) than about ruling in certain groups. Also, we’re not instituting these searches to catch other types of crimes. We’re instituting these seaches to detect Islamic terrorists who might try to blow up a bomb in the subway system. Period.
You keep wanting to cast this in black and white: The terrorists either can or can’t change their tactics. That’s not the argument. The argument is about making it harder for them to operate. If they have to change their tactics, they get slowed down. Of course they can change their recruiting policies-- no one is arguing that they can’t.
I hope that ObL beigns trying to recruit elderly caucasian females to his cause. He won’t be successful, and elderly caucasian females are probably more likely to turn him in than are young, disaffected Pakistani males.
Bad analogy. A better one is that if you know you’re fishing for marlin, you don’t cast your line in the lake at the local golf course. The key, of course, is that you have to know you’re fishing for marlin. If you’re not confident about what you’re fishing for, then you do have to cast a wide net.
The suicide bombers seem intent on killing lots of people. Concentrating lots of people in a small place serves thier end. The long lines compacted into serpentine mazes at the TSA checkpoints in airports serve to do exactly that. A bomber could easilly kill as many in one of those lines as by taking out an airliner.
It’s all freakin’ eyewash. Expensive and ineffective…at stopping terrorists. Very effective at making suzy hommaker “feel safe”…I guess.
Forgot to add…
I don’t expect the cops to reveal their profiling decisions, if they do decide to profile. They shouldn’t tell us if they are profiling and they shouldn’t tell us how they are profiling (assuming that it is legal to do so). The less the terrorist know about our counter-terror tactics the better.
He is an authority on profiling techniques. He is not an authority on civil rights. I acknowledge his authority on profiling techniques. Since he’s not an authority on civil rights, there is nothing to acknowledge in that area, and I vehemently disagree with the lengths to which he’d like for us to go in the name of security. I honestly believe that we’d be more secure if we followed all of his advice, but the loss of civil rights is not a price that I’m willing to pay for that. Profiling techniques and civil rights are apples and oranges. One can be an expert in one, and be dumber than a rock in the other. I can acknowledge that someone is an expert torturer without thinking that torture is acceptable. I can acknowledge that the 9/11 terrorists came up with a pretty ingenious use of an airplane, while still reeling in horror at the results. If you’re still having troubles grasping this, I or someone else will gladly give you an endless number of analogies that apply.
On the tactics of profiling, he’s a pro. On the ethics of profiling, not so much. To answer your exact question, no, his opinion on all matters “profiling” should not be the last word, as he’s not an expert on all matters “profiling.” He is an expert on how one effectively profiles, and I’ll gladly take his advice on effective profiling over your’s if I need such advice. He is not an expert (nor does he claim to be) on whether profiling is an ethical undertaking.
Oh, and you might want to brush up on the definition of “appeal to authority” and either retract that implication you made, or explain how it applies here.
The question is, is it narrow enough to create a small enough pool. And that depends on two things: what the profile is and whre you are thinking of applying it as a tool. A pool of people with red hair and blue eyes would be a great tool in Botswana and useless tool in Ireland. Conversely the pool we’ve been talking about would have varying ,levels of usefulness if applied to Iceland and and the US. And within the US, it would vary from NYC to Omaha to Madison to Seattle. The point is that we should look to all tools. If prfiling makes for a helpful one in a particular instance, by all means, use it. If it doesn’t, don’t.
To whom it may concern:
I sense a disengenuous argument. One akin to someone arguing against sex ed in schools on the practical grounds of it not reducing the number of abortions, when my his belief is that kids should only be taught about sex in the home and should remain virgins until marriage.
What I read–from you and others–is a problem of effectiveness. What I hear is a problem with the palatability of “profiling”. For those of that stripe, I wish you would have the backbone to just say it. Maybe if we discussed it it would be meaningful.
Ascenray, although your email prompted this response, it is not directed to you.
The answer is worse as demonstrated in this paper here.
Which I have posted before (post #31) but everyone seems to have ignored.
I also posted the opinion of another security expert who said profiling wouldn’t work, but everyone has ignored that too.
(I’m not bitter and twisted, honest)
Yes, I realise this, and the answer is “no, it will in fact be worse because at the same time as you tighten one bit of the net, you loosen another which people can target.” Just because one group of people might find it slightly more difficult to target that weak spot is immaterial; your security network is as secure as its weakest link.
But they gain from changing their tactics, because they know that by doing so they will have a greater chance of getting through our security network. “Exposing them to new scrutiny” is a pretty nebulous benefit to us, set next to the absolutely indisputable benefit to the terrorists of choosing a candidate with a known low chance of detection.
There is no meaningful distinction between these two. By ruling out some group, by definition you are ruling in others, and vice versa.
Great. Now what about all those other criminals who are having a ball now that you’re not looking for them so much? I mean, if you admit that you’re only interested in catching brown people bombing things, then I agree; searching only brown people for bombs is a great tactic. But there will continue to be other sorts of crime, continue to be other sorts of criminal, there will be white (or white-looking) people with bombs, and by pretending that Islamic bomb-based terrorism is the main focus of our security net, you are giving those other criminals an easier ride.
Then you accept that they are capable of taking advantage of the fact that you are letting some groups through relatively un-searched? In that case, I fail to see how you can deny that we are handing the terrorists an advantage by focusing on one type of suspect. You say terrorists “have” to change their tactics; well, yes, but how much of a burden is this, given that in exchange for this effort they get a greater chance of success? They’ve shown themselves capable of extremely long-term thinking, and a high level of planning to maximise the chances of success. They’re not going to say “oh, bugger, we have more work to do,” they’re going to say “hurrah, if we put some effort in here we’ll have a better chance of succeeding!” I get no satisfaction from the idea that the terrorists might be working a bit harder, if it means they blow more of my city up.
If you’re laying siege to my castle, do I benefit from opening the side gate, or do you? I know exactly what you’re going to do - you “have” to attack the weakness - and I can confidently predict that you’re going to target that side gate, but the end result is nonetheless that you charge through it and generally lay waste to my nice castle and fine serving wenches. You might say that I should then concentrate my defence around the gate (your actions are “open to new scrutiny”, if you like), but aren’t we then back where we started?
I don’t see how this analogy fits at all. If only Islamic terrorists were so mercifully distinct from regular Joes as marlin are from other fish. If only they could never look like other fish. If only they did sit in one place, away from all the other fish. But they come from all over the place, and do not stay still. They have been British nationals, German naturalised citizens, you name it. They have been of African, Jamaican, Arabic and other descents. And they are not all handily sat in one spot, they are mixed in with the general population. There is no analogy for the different lakes; we are trawling in the wide blue sea that is the international travelling population, and pretending that a few small holes will catch precisely the sort of fish we’re after.
We’ve dealt with this: how do you propose that they hide them? As I pointed out earlier, even if we make the enormously dubious assumption that no-one with links to terrorists can get a job in border security in the entirety of the United States (or wherever), and thus get access to the search policy (which must be disseminated to the thousands of people performing those searches), it is impossible to conceal one’s search policy unless you can search people without them knowing it has happened. There is no way you can keep your profiling completely secret, because its output is fully observable.
Oh, and pay more attention to rayh, who posted the cites I was too lazy to go find. 
I love you
Do you want an honest debate or are you just trying to cast me as a racist? You know damn well I never said I only wanted to catch brown people bombing things, and I’ve said over and over again that you don’t stop searching little old ladies, you just seacrh them at a lower frequency.
Interesting, the answer to this question is the only part of my post that you didn’t quote… Here it is again:
I’m sorry for not addressing your cite. It’s just that we’re not talking science here, and for every expert you can cite who says “it doesn’t work”, I can find that one who says it does. And you know why? Every circumstance is different. I’m certain there are many, many instances when profiling doesn’t work. It might well be that in most circumstances it doesn’t. But police use profiling all the time and the success or failure is based on many things, not the least of which is having a good idea of who your target suspects are.
Anyway, I think the few of us left in this thread are mostly talking past each other, and are just repeating the same things over and over again. As I said early on, I’m not a big fan of racial (or ethnic) profiling for a number of reasons, and I actually feel somewhat uncomfortable defending it. I think I’ve said all I have to say on the subject.
Since we’re specifically talking about “racial” profiling only, as that is the proposed legislation that the OP is discussing, do you know of a single expert who thinks it works? I’m being quite serious. I can’t find one.
No no; sorry, I had no intention of calling you a racist, either directly or indirectly, and I don’t think you’re one at all. My point was that your “we’re trying to catch X type of criminal. Period” statement is in fact not what we want our security system to achieve. We want it to catch all types of criminal. I am saying that yes, if we are only concerned with one type of criminal (say, Arabic-looking bombers), only searching people from that group will work fine, and the numbers of criminals in that group will decrease. But we’ll miss all the other criminals, and because life will become easier for those people, their numbers will increase. There’s no point saying we’re only interested in one sort of crime, because we’re not.
And you keep going on as if I think you want to completely stop searching some groups, and I don’t. I have said (over and over again) that you are creating groups with a better chance of success, not total. The degree to which this is true depends on how much you vary the searches, of course, and this will dictate how valuable it is for the terrorists to evade the profile. Nothing in my entire argument presumes that you stop searching any group completely.
I don’t think that’s a sensible answer, to be honest. Osama isn’t going to target nonagenarians from Connecticut, but it’s entirely plausible that a family might be used, with an elderly relative the unwitting mule. You seem to think that the only way to target the profile is to recruit a death-or-glory suicide bomber, but this is far from the truth. Even some of the 9/11 hijackers were unaware their mission was suicide, by all accounts. By inventing implausible scenarios in which profiles might be evaded, you blind yourself to the myriad reasonable ways in which they can.
And what about the case I posted previoulsy where :-
In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend–the father of her unborn child–had hidden the bomb.
How would ethnic profiling stop something like that? There have been stories of people being given packages to take through customs on behalf of other people that turned out to contain drugs. It could just as easily have been a bomb. The bombs on the 7/7 may have been detonated using mobile phones.
I now see your point. In my head I was thinking you were refering to him as an expert on “what to do about the whole issue”. But you were referinig to him as an expert on profiling only. Makes sense. My apologies for the inaccurate accusation. I hope you see that it was an understandable mistake.
Is your primary objection to profiling that it is ineffective or that it is a loss of civil rights? Please explain as fully as you can, as I’m genuinely curious. Also, can you imagine any circumstance where you would be an advocate of using racial profiling as a factor?
You were appealing to an authority, that’s how. I didn’t mean it in the fallacious sense–Iv’e accepted your claim that he is an expert–just that you were looking to support your argument with the voice of an expert in the field. But just in case, I checked:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Appeal-to-authority
Regarding Rafir Ron, I read the articles (thanks) and he seems to know what he’s talking about. I would love to know the reasoning behind his stance, so I’m going to Google him. My guess is that one of the reasons is that his experience in Israel probably didn’t offer the same opportunity to eliminate large swaths of people (blonde hair, blue eyes for instance), as it might in NYC. If not there, Omaha. But this is just a guess.
I’m really interested in seeiing your answer to the questions above.
No problem at all.
My primary objection to “racial” profiling used to determine who we search is that it’s ineffective. My primary objection to more complex profiling being used, of the type that Magiver explained, is from a privacy standpoint. I’m fully aware that at least somewhat of a majority of the population would indeed give up their rights for security, so I’m resigned to fighting for them to at least be effective, and also not racially motivated. Even then, if we’re going to use profiling, I’d want it to be shown a lot more effective than what we’ve seen so far in places where profiling does take place.
To be quite frank, I believe the current proposal is racially motivated, but that’s not provable. I just don’t see any other justification for it, when even Bloomberg himself thinks it’s ineffective.
Not racial profiling. I can imagine circumstances where a particular criminal is defined as being a member of a specific race, and using that information in doing police work, but that’s not profilng. I can’t imagine a circumstance where I’m told that the suspect is a crack dealer, and then making the assumption that I’m looking for a black man. That’s racial profiling and nope, I don’t think it should be used.
Not in the fallacious sense.
While I won’t call you a liar, your exact words were “The only thing lamer than an appeal to authority…” That doesn’t sound like you meant it in the non-fallacious sense, but I’ll be happy for you to explain how it does. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the expertise of an actual, proven expert. The fact that you referred to it as lame tells us that you meant it exactly how I took it.
Once again, if you had simply notated that I had deferred to an expert, I would have not taken offense. Since you called it lame, it’s hard to take any other way.
Nope, he’s been working here for quite a while, and has stated quite clearly that it doesn’t work because terrorists come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities, not because everyone looks the same.