Should "profiling" be allowed at airports?

[sonofskeptish]

Why is it such a taboo to suggest that "profiling" be used at airport security checkpoints? Why must selective screening be entirely at random? When deciding between 2 passengers to search, why can't security decide to search the young male instead of the old granny? When was the last time a female suicide bomber with 3 young kids tried to blow up an aircraft? I'm not saying drop random checks, just that perhaps it makes sense to do a little profiling too. I recently went through security with my wife (who was searched) while I was not. When asked, security told us it was entirely random. In the same breath, the female security guard said she cannot search males, only females. While I am playing devils advocate, seriously, what's the big deal? If the profile of suicide bombers was short, fat, balding males (perhaps it is) which describes me, why would I get offended if I was search. Just like when I'm asked to show ID when paying with credit card... they are protecting me.

 

[footprints]

Why is it such a taboo to suggest that "profiling" be used at airport security checkpoints? Why must selective screening be entirely at random? When deciding between 2 passengers to search, why can't security decide to search the young male instead of the old granny? When was the last time a female suicide bomber with 3 young kids tried to blow up an aircraft? I'm not saying drop random checks, just that perhaps it makes sense to do a little profiling too. I recently went through security with my wife (who was searched) while I was not. When asked, security told us it was entirely random. In the same breath, the female security guard said she cannot search males, only females. While I am playing devils advocate, seriously, what's the big deal? If the profile of suicide bombers was short, fat, balding males (perhaps it is) which describes me, why would I get offended if I was search. Just like when I'm asked to show ID when paying with credit card... they are protecting me.

Profiling per se, is used at most major airports, just beyond the reach and scope of the knowledge you have put down here. This profiling generally starts by policing agencies transmitting data around the world, it is also done in the screening processess which says if a person even has a right to enter a country can they even get a visa. This is also further compounded in the fact that custom officers will pull anybody aside if they are acting suspiciously.

Terrorism doesn't just happen on planes or at airports. The only thing a general profile of a terrorist that would stand up as common is that they are all human. Women and children have been used during terrorists plots. Those least suspicious are the ones who would most probably get away with it.

 

[TheKnight]

I agree. And law enforcement gets criticized a lot for criminal profiling. However, the fact is that criminals have common traits, so law enforcement looks for those traits. I know from the diverse area that I work in (I'm not a cop yet, but working towards it) that all races commit crimes. People are people, regardless of color or race. When the police are looking for a criminal, the easiest way to find them is race. If I am looking for a robbery suspect, and they know that the suspect is a hispanic, they can eliminate all the whites, blacks, asians, etc from their search because the victims told them that the person who robbed them is hispanic. Similarly speaking, if law enforcement wished to prevent crime, then they use common factors to find people who might be going to commit a crime.

For instance, in the area around Los Angeles, there are certain cities (Norwalk, Paramount, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, South Gate, Downey, etc) which are largely hispanic cities. If an officer gets 10 robberies in one week where the suspect is described as a male hispanic with bald head 16-25 years old wearing gang attire, then the officer will look for young bald headed hispanics who wear attire that gangs like to associate themselves with (like the LA Dodger hats).


Personally, I have no problem if I get stopped (I'm a young guy) because the police are looking for someone. Looking at the outside from the inside, I know that 97% of the time the police are not "harassing" people. They are simply trying to do their job. Sure they say things that often make them sound like douche bags, but that just makes them bad communicators. It doesn't mean that law enforcement is racist.


In regards to the airport situation, it shouldn't matter if the TSA etc are looking for men/women that fit the profile of terrorists. Honestly, I would much rather be randomly searched because of my race, then get on a plane and be blown up by someone of my race that the police did not catch because they were trying to be politically correct.

 

[Smoke]

One problem with profiling is that it's sloppy. Women, children, and old people can be and sometimes are terrorists. When you single out the young, brown-skinned men, you're giving the blue-eyed female terrorist a much better chance of getting through. You make it far too easy for the terrorists.

If I am looking for a robbery suspect, and they know that the suspect is a hispanic, they can eliminate all the whites, blacks, asians, etc from their search because the victims told them that the person who robbed them is hispanic.

Apart from the fact that a Hispanic person can look like just about anybody -- I've known black Hispanics and blonde, blue-eyed Hispanics as well as Hispanics with "Asian-looking" eyes -- the problem with this is that airport security isn't looking for a particular suspect. They aren't trying to find a particular person; they're charged with making sure that nobody of any description gets the opportunity to commit a terrorist act.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think that airports need to take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure passenger safety.

On the other hand airports have driven me back to using the car-ferry

 

[Smoke]

On the other hand airports have driven me back to using the car-ferry

I fly when it's the only means of travel that fits my time and budget constraints. If we ever win the lottery, we'll travel by rail and by ship from then on.

It's not the terrorists who worry me; it's the flying itself -- well, that and pilot error.

 

[Archer]

People complain about profiling so give them what they want!!! Disban 1/2 the security and get rid of all checks. When planes start falling from the sky they will wonder why.

 

[Smoke]

People complain about profiling so give them what they want!!! Disban 1/2 the security and get rid of all checks. When planes start falling from the sky they will wonder why.

Complete gibberish.

 

[Archer]

Complete gibberish.

No it really is not. Evidently there is some sort of problem with it or the thread would not be here. I say give everyone what they want, do away with all laws and let it ride.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Why is it such a taboo to suggest that "profiling" be used at airport security checkpoints? Why must selective screening be entirely at random? When deciding between 2 passengers to search, why can't security decide to search the young male instead of the old granny? When was the last time a female suicide bomber with 3 young kids tried to blow up an aircraft? I'm not saying drop random checks, just that perhaps it makes sense to do a little profiling too. I recently went through security with my wife (who was searched) while I was not. When asked, security told us it was entirely random. In the same breath, the female security guard said she cannot search males, only females. While I am playing devils advocate, seriously, what's the big deal? If the profile of suicide bombers was short, fat, balding males (perhaps it is) which describes me, why would I get offended if I was search. Just like when I'm asked to show ID when paying with credit card... they are protecting me.

Criminal profiling has numerous issues in forensic psychology, one of them being very little empirical studies despite its booming field. Recently though more studies have emerged and one researcher who has done a bunch of articles on this is Richard N. Kocsis, among others. Part of my forensic psychology course investigated criminal profiling and I found out that much of what I thought of it was glamorized on TV. Some profilers are actually very good at what they do but in comparing their effectiveness with psychics, psychologists, college/university students, random police officers and so forth, they may outperform them but some studies have shown that the investigating officers think more highly of a profile if they're told it's done by a profiler even if it really isn't. It's an interesting field but from a scientific perspective, it's pretty poor.

Regarding your wife being checked, I think that has more to do with law, ethics and morals rather than profiling. If a male guard tried to search a female, usually it may stir up some commotion so I think the same applies here.

For random checks, I'd rather have them because at least I know there's been some checking as opposed to none at all. A suicide bomber though will try to blend in so trying to pin-point one out probably won't work that well. The features they may be using as too general and they tend to favour one group as opposed to another, giving a greater chance for another group to go on by with illegal or terrorist equipment. I don't say it's the fault of the guards because they're doing what they're told. The only thing I think the guards may be guilty of is improperly searching people, poor communication skills, etc... . They're doing their best so although it's not the greatest, I try to live with it.

People complain about profiling so give them what they want!!! Disban 1/2 the security and get rid of all checks. When planes start falling from the sky they will wonder why.

Is this meant to be a joke or something intelligent? The nonsense in it makes it too hard to tell which it is.

 

[Archer]

Is this meant to be a joke or something intelligent? The nonsense in it makes it too hard to tell which it is.

I guess I could explain. I have heard many complain about profiling and how it is wrong. Those same people complain when they are held up by security doing random checks. My solution is give them what they want.

People always complain about something and when you give them what they want and something goes wrong they blame the authorities.

The human condition.

 

[TheKnight]

One problem with profiling is that it's sloppy. Women, children, and old people can be and sometimes are terrorists. When you single out the young, brown-skinned men, you're giving the blue-eyed female terrorist a much better chance of getting through. You make it far too easy for the terrorists.

Maybe, but until a blue-eyed female terrorist commits an act of terrorism, they should spend time looking for the people who have been committing the acts. If all the attacks have been done by darker middle-eastern people, then they should look for those people. Yes, it may make it easier, and I'm not saying that they should focus all their attention on those people and forget about the rest. But they should definitely place more focus on those people.

Apart from the fact that a Hispanic person can look like just about anybody -- I've known black Hispanics and blonde, blue-eyed Hispanics as well as Hispanics with "Asian-looking" eyes -- the problem with this is that airport security isn't looking for a particular suspect. They aren't trying to find a particular person; they're charged with making sure that nobody of any description gets the opportunity to commit a terrorist act.

Indeed. And the same is true with regular law enforcement when they attempt to prevent crimes. Granted, it's easier for regular law enforcement because they have crimes occurring more often, so a physical profile is easier to obtain. But experience has taught me that when you're in a largely Hispanic area, or a largely black area, or a largely white area etc, the criminals will be composed of the people from that area. Very rarely is it someone from outside of that area who looks different from the people of that area.

In an airport, the security would be general because prevention of terrorism is a much higher priority. Unless they search everyone, they're going to have to profile somewhat. That's better than playing terrorist lottery and picking random people hoping to catch a terrorist.

 

[sonofskeptish]

One problem with profiling is that it's sloppy. Women, children, and old people can be and sometimes are terrorists. When you single out the young, brown-skinned men, you're giving the blue-eyed female terrorist a much better chance of getting through. You make it far too easy for the terrorists.

Apart from the fact that a Hispanic person can look like just about anybody -- I've known black Hispanics and blonde, blue-eyed Hispanics as well as Hispanics with "Asian-looking" eyes -- the problem with this is that airport security isn't looking for a particular suspect. They aren't trying to find a particular person; they're charged with making sure that nobody of any description gets the opportunity to commit a terrorist act.

I'd take the plane with blue-eyed females over the one with young brown-skinned men any day. Don't see too many gals among this lot...

http://www.newvideo.com/images/boxart/AAE77273-03.jpg

But I'd take the plane with the brown-skinned men over one with these 19 on board...

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/wp-content/hijackers19.jpg

 

[YmirGF]

I think the downside to profiling is that it gives security personal the idea that they have their bases covered. Granted, such profiles may work for a specific type of person, but as others have mentioned, such profiles do not allow for would-be terrorists to change their tactics. Security has to be adaptive and profiling would, in my view, simply put a log jam into that adaptability.

Rather than security be left to low paid workers on the front line, I would feel more secure with highly trained, well paid, security officers who could think for themselves. In my view, any rogue elements would surface very quickly and thereby be vetted from the system.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think airport security is going a little overboard. They go to some extreme measures, and someone with a bomb still got through.
I've never been a fan of flying, and with some of the safety procedures they have, I doubt I ever fly by choice again.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Should "profiling" be allowed at airports?

Allowed? It should be instituted as a logical measure into any systematic procedure which is serious about actually trying to prevent terrorist acts, as opposed to merely giving the illusion of security while wasting enormous amounts of time and money.

 

[TheKnight]

I think the downside to profiling is that it gives security personal the idea that they have their bases covered. Granted, such profiles may work for a specific type of person, but as others have mentioned, such profiles do not allow for would-be terrorists to change their tactics. Security has to be adaptive and profiling would, in my view, simply put a log jam into that adaptability.

Rather than security be left to low paid workers on the front line, I would feel more secure with highly trained, well paid, security officers who could think for themselves. In my view, any rogue elements would surface very quickly and thereby be vetted from the system.

Profiling doesn't really give security that idea. It means "I should look for this type of person, but keep my eyes open for anyone that is suspicious."

A profile of a criminal is simply that, a profile. It is nothing more than a clue or an arrow pointing in a particular direction where terrorist attacks have been known to come from. However, your average security personnel knows that it's not always going to come from that particular profile of a person.

Personally, I think they should just search everyone and eliminate the problem. Or develop technology that would not require everyone to be searched.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I guess I could explain. I have heard many complain about profiling and how it is wrong. Those same people complain when they are held up by security doing random checks. My solution is give them what they want.

People always complain about something and when you give them what they want and something goes wrong they blame the authorities.

The human condition.

They blame the authorities or whosever face is on the front because that's what they see, that's what is placed on the front. In times of stress, not all people are going to stop and think about it, the majority will blame those who are there in front of them. If you disban half the guards and if terrorism increases, then of course people will advocate for more security. However, it's not going to end there, it's going to be a similar repeat of the aftermath of 9/11, where many muslims were targetted by racism and discrimination. It will come full-circle and it ends up with guards favouring a certain group.

Instead of doing that, impliment full-body scanners: Dutch to use full body scanners for US flights - Yahoo! News. There are of course ethical and moral issues currently with them but it's a toss-up: have better security or worry about one's genitals being seen. Have this along with the current security of metal detectors and such. I'd rather have people along with myself go through these full-body machine scanners rather than have fear that a random person will see my genitals through a computer screen.

But even with these scanners, you're right, people complain. It's impossible to please everyone as some group will complain no matter what happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it such a taboo to suggest that "profiling" be used at airport security checkpoints?

Because it relies on bad math.

"Terrorists are more likely to be _____" does not imply "_____ are more likely to be terrorists".

 

[Archer]

They blame the authorities or whosever face is on the front because that's what they see, that's what is placed on the front. In times of stress, not all people are going to stop and think about it, the majority will blame those who are there in front of them. If you disban half the guards and if terrorism increases, then of course people will advocate for more security. However, it's not going to end there, it's going to be a similar repeat of the aftermath of 9/11, where many muslims were targetted by racism and discrimination. It will come full-circle and it ends up with guards favouring a certain group.

Instead of doing that, impliment full-body scanners: Dutch to use full body scanners for US flights - Yahoo! News. There are of course ethical and moral issues currently with them but it's a toss-up: have better security or worry about one's genitals being seen. Have this along with the current security of metal detectors and such. I'd rather have people along with myself go through these full-body machine scanners rather than have fear that a random person will see my genitals through a computer screen.

But even with these scanners, you're right, people complain. It's impossible to please everyone as some group will complain no matter what happens.

Heck we could always Israeli security levels!! How well do you think people would like that