Seek evidence from where? start where? who do you ask and why? How do decide which areas of investigation are going to be most fruitful?
Police do use behavioural profiling in order to give them a lead on the sort of person that might have committed a particular crime. Given such a lead what should the police do with it? My own view is that they should look more closely at those that fit the profile.
What would you suggest?
Well obviously that depends on the situation. You put forth a lot of examples. If there are not leads and all the evidence is what was stated in the evidence then you can request witnesses come forward, but that is about all you can do.
Behavior profiling is used of course, but generally to narrow the witnesses down to seek more legal leads on a smaller group. It would not be used to then perform invasive searches without more evidence. No one could get the legal go ahead in that situation without clear evidence.
Again there were many examples given and I have suggested a few above.
In terms of airline security I would not be using intrusive objectionable search methods without clear evidence. Police are not allowed to do that and they are far better trained than airport security. To a large degree I would leave it at metal detectors and x-raying carry on baggage.
No one in this thread has expressed an opinion of that nature.
No one is saying that if wescan for certain behaviors, the people flagged will cross a wide spectrum of humanity.
What we are saying is that if we drop a segment of humanity into the search pattern, we will harrass a lot of people needlessly while missing a lot of other people.
I would not be surprised to find that most speeders drive sports cars and muscle cars. However, if a cop looking for speeders focuses exclusively on sports cars and muscle cars, he is going to miss a lot of guys in Caddies and Beamers who think they own the road and the speed limits don’t apply to them while a lot of young families who happen to own Mustangs and Chargers are going to be made nervous by cops hanging on their butts as they drive safely to family functions.
Which I have agreed with all along. We have to go where the intelligence leads us not blindly use a “cookie-cutter” criteria. I just feel that some people are uncomfortable that the intelligence does indeed drive us to scrutinise one group of people more than another. That, unfortunately is the nature of the current threat.
The analogy doesn’t hold in the UK at least. The speed limits are fairly low and pretty much EVERY person breaks it, but I get your point.
Incidentally, with threat assessment being a key talking point in this thread it will interesting to see what the Wikileaks exposure tells us about the workings of the US intelligence services. I stand to be proved completely wrong in my assumptions of how they operate.
There is always a xenophobic threat. Was the American Japanese prison camps of WW2 justified?
Americans, whole American families, more than 110,000 people were rounded by the American government simply because their skin was a little too dark and their eyes a little too east asian. They were shipped off away from their homes and communities and exiled into prison camps for the crime of having Japanese ancestors.
Now I’m sure the WW2 powers that be thought this justified in light of the then current threat. Was it?
No, very wrong and pointless in the extreme. There is world of difference between “closer scrutiny” and “concentration camp”. I’m of the opinion that you should have actual evidence of wrongdoing before arrest and incarceration.
Having said that, I would be comfortable with (and probably expect) that a disproportionate number of people with German and Japanese connections were under surveillance during WW2, would you agree?
Connections is not the same as ancestry, pus we are not at war with these nations. If would seem reasonable to focus on people who have actual connections with terrorists. And I don’t mean blood relations or simple associations.
No, it’s a waste of resources and no matter how well meaning will be used to indulge bigotry. Ideology is what was important, not where your ancestors lived. An American of whatever extraction with fascist leanings was a lot more likely to work for the enemy than an American whose ancestors happened to come from Germany or Japan.
Which is why I very carefully said connections and not ancestors or family.
I’m afraid you’re going to have to clarify. Are you saying race x individuals should be investigated more closely if more race x individuals do crime y?
Or
Race x may turn out to have more instances of crime y?
If the former, I’m saying that’s abhorrent. No one should be harassed or treated as a lesser because of the color of their skin, or their gender.
Connections is a very vague term in this context. It could mean ancestry, family, business connections, political affiliations or a hundred other things.
(Not that race is a helpful distinction but…) very definitely the latter. We should not be surprised, nor call “racism” when the surveillance concentrates more on certain groups than others, nor when those proportions are repeated in convictions. It is merely a reflection of current threats.
Quite…difficult isn’t it? And as you can’t explore everything how do you choose which connections are important? Should fear of being branded racist stop you from making a pragmatic decision as to which options you take?
Is it your position, then, that on-the-spot “profiling” by Israeli security for passengers waiting to board El Al is completely ineffective?
There seems to be a histrionic response in several posts here that sets up a straw-man on two counts: First, that any “profiling” uses skin hue as the only criterion for presumed population origin, and second, that it would use “Muslim” as the only criterion for belief screening.
Neither of these strawmen are worth defending. Effective “short-hand” (to use TomnDeb’s language, I think) takes into account appearance, but not exclusively so, and similarly takes into account apparent or presumed religious background and beliefs, but not exclusively so.
I can’t figure out if what is being defended is that it is equally effective to randomly screen all comers without any regard to appearance at all–a position with which I vigorously disagree–or whether on-the-spot screening which takes into account appearance as a means test for further screening (say, follow-up questions by an expert profiler) is likely to offend some people–a position with which I heartily agree (and said so in my original post in this thread).
So, again: Is it the position of anti-profilers that appearance-based profiling is an ineffective adjunct for screening, or that it is effective, but offensive?
Fear of being branded a racist should not at all. Fear of actually infringing on the very principals that make a free nation great should.
I think that is a healthy standpoint. The problems being that such an infringement is not always clear and the compulsion to infringe is shifting based on threats perceived and information received.
I’m glad I don’t have to make that decision.
Without beating up the topic further, it’s the “exclusively” that’s the strawman if you are drawing a parallel to the current situation with appearance-based profiling. Who has argued we should profile exclusively by appearance?
But to use your analogy:
Suppose that in recent years almost all accidents resulting in death had been caused only by drivers of sports and muscle cars, and that the precipitant of those accidents was speeding. Suppose that sports and muscle car owners had an extremist subset whose publicly-published position was that speeding was appropriate and that deaths from high-speed accidents was an acceptable consequence. Now you have a situation more analogous to the current terrorist threat.
Yes, tomorrow it may be the Caddie that speeds (isn’t a BMW a sports car? 
). Yes, there are a vast majority of utterly innocent sports and muscle car owners who will be “unfairly” singled out as they drive to their family picnics. What I’m trying to figure out is if the position here is that focusing on sports and muscles cars is ineffective in such a scenario, or simply unfair. I get that it’s unfair to innocent drivers who find themselves lumped into a subgroup with which they have no sympathies. What I seem to see being defended is that it’s ineffective, and with that I disagree.
Well that’s an issue of methodology. Are they investigating these people out of legitimate evidence, or out of profiling them because of where their ancestors came from? The former is okay and just, the latter an abomination against anything decent and it’s perpetrators should have their testicles slammed in a rusty, jagged, car door.
Certainly there is no clear cut line, but it is not so fuzzy as you think. The police have it pretty clear cut.
Why is unfair in quotes?
Are you postulating being singled out for special attention, such as TSA forced gropings because you look a little too Arabic, or having your car followed because you’re in the wrong neighborhood for your skin color is fair by some definitions?