4 ms·

The "predominant number of actual culprits" are engineers. "Engineering Terror" (2010) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?_r=0 h

by dalke 10y ago

The "predominant number of actual culprits" are engineers. "Engineering Terror" (2010) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.h... "There’s a Good Reason Why So Many Terrorists Are Engineers" (2013) - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-why-so-many-terrorists-are-engineers/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-why... As you are likely an engineer, do you want to be singled out every time you fly? Do you want all HN readers to be singled out, because most of us are likely engineers? Why, or why not? Then there's the sheer problem of defining "terrorism." Are attacks on abortion centers, including murders, due to 'Christian terrorism'? If so, when do we target Christians? Is the Charleston church shooting an example of 'white terrorism', and do we need to start profiling all white people? If rich people are more likely to do white collar crime, do you start profiling them? Or do you only profile the least powerful people, spend lots of money on huge numbers of false positives and further induce resentment, with essentially no chance of benefit?

coldtea 10y ago
>As you are likely an engineer, do you want to be singled out every time you fly? Do you want all HN readers to be singled out, because most of us are likely engineers? If that's an actual statistical factor (and not bad engineering), then it should absolutely weigh in their "single out" criteria, whatever anyone likes it or not.
- dalke 10y ago
  It is the supporters of racial profiling who need to show that it is an "actual statistical factor", and that it's significant enough to spend time, money, political capital, and social will, to use. To start with, it needs to be more effective than singling out "males" (who really are "a predominant number of actual culprits") and "engineers". You say you "don't see what's wrong with racial profiling", but you don't even know if it's effective? Do you want to waste money on useless policies?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >It is the supporters of racial profiling who need to show that it is an "actual statistical factor", and that it's significant enough to spend time, money, political capital, and social will, to use. The first is beyond dispute -- if anything is almost a tautology. If one combats terrorists from Syria, Iraq and other arab countries, they should by definition add a weight to such ethnicities in their profiling for potential actors of such acts. It's not Alaskans or Norwegians who predominantly (if at all) enroll in ISIS. >To start with, it needs to be more effective than singling out "males" (who really are "a predominant number of actual culprits") and "engineers". Actually, no it hasn't. Since "males" and "engineers" will be additional weights. Who even said it has to be a single deciding factor? >* You say you "don't see what's wrong with racial profiling", but you don't even know if it's effective? Do you want to waste money on useless policies?* Who said that I don't even know if it's effective? It's very effective where it's applied e.g in Israel etc.
    - dalke 10y ago
      As I pointed out, what is "terrorism"? If you start by saying that "ISIS = terrorism" then there's no predictive knowledge in knowing someone's ethnicity, because your definition is inherently geographically biased, and ethnicity is correlated to geography. As you say, it's a tautology, but you think that's meaningful, when it's actually a decision made by fiat. And wouldn't nationality be more predictive than ethnicity? Are those who attack abortion centers and abortion doctors terrorists? If so, is "Christianity" another factor? If not, why not? Is the Charleston church shooting an example of terrorism? If so, is "being white" another factor? When the US-backed Contras used murder, rape, and torture against the civilian population, was that terrorism? And if so, what were the key predictive factors we could use to help identify terrorists and terrorist supporters? Who gets to choose what is terrorism, who gets to choose the factors that go into the predictive model, and does that choice have a built-in bias which makes the model useless for screening purposes? And again, why is it the least powerful who are often designated the most suspicious?
      - coldtea 10y ago

by dalke 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>As you are likely an engineer, do you want to be singled out every time you fly? Do you want all HN readers to be singled out, because most of us are likely engineers? If that's an actual statistical factor (and not bad engineering), then it should absolutely weigh in their "single out" criteria, whatever anyone likes it or not.

dalke 10y ago
It is the supporters of racial profiling who need to show that it is an "actual statistical factor", and that it's significant enough to spend time, money, political capital, and social will, to use. To start with, it needs to be more effective than singling out "males" (who really are "a predominant number of actual culprits") and "engineers". You say you "don't see what's wrong with racial profiling", but you don't even know if it's effective? Do you want to waste money on useless policies?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >It is the supporters of racial profiling who need to show that it is an "actual statistical factor", and that it's significant enough to spend time, money, political capital, and social will, to use. The first is beyond dispute -- if anything is almost a tautology. If one combats terrorists from Syria, Iraq and other arab countries, they should by definition add a weight to such ethnicities in their profiling for potential actors of such acts. It's not Alaskans or Norwegians who predominantly (if at all) enroll in ISIS. >To start with, it needs to be more effective than singling out "males" (who really are "a predominant number of actual culprits") and "engineers". Actually, no it hasn't. Since "males" and "engineers" will be additional weights. Who even said it has to be a single deciding factor? >* You say you "don't see what's wrong with racial profiling", but you don't even know if it's effective? Do you want to waste money on useless policies?* Who said that I don't even know if it's effective? It's very effective where it's applied e.g in Israel etc.
  - dalke 10y ago
    As I pointed out, what is "terrorism"? If you start by saying that "ISIS = terrorism" then there's no predictive knowledge in knowing someone's ethnicity, because your definition is inherently geographically biased, and ethnicity is correlated to geography. As you say, it's a tautology, but you think that's meaningful, when it's actually a decision made by fiat. And wouldn't nationality be more predictive than ethnicity? Are those who attack abortion centers and abortion doctors terrorists? If so, is "Christianity" another factor? If not, why not? Is the Charleston church shooting an example of terrorism? If so, is "being white" another factor? When the US-backed Contras used murder, rape, and torture against the civilian population, was that terrorism? And if so, what were the key predictive factors we could use to help identify terrorists and terrorist supporters? Who gets to choose what is terrorism, who gets to choose the factors that go into the predictive model, and does that choice have a built-in bias which makes the model useless for screening purposes? And again, why is it the least powerful who are often designated the most suspicious?
    - coldtea 10y ago