4 ms·

> US citizens of Pakistani origin need to jump through hoops to get an Indian visa, for example. That's far more intrusive and harmful. With good reason, after

by msravi 10y ago

> US citizens of Pakistani origin need to jump through hoops to get an Indian visa, for example. That's far more intrusive and harmful. With good reason, after the 26/11 Mumbai attack, which had the extensive involvement of an US citizen of Pakistani origin[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley

tehlike 10y ago
good reason is very relative, i guess. You can find extremists in any nation/religion, and it doesn't make much sense to make life hard for _everyone else_.
- msravi 10y ago
  In order to sort the bad apples you do need some sort of filter. You can do it either by (a) having sets of hierarchical filters with increasingly finer pores, or (b) with a single filter with the finest possible pores that everyone is put through. Ironically, having a coarse filter that sorts people based on nationality/religion as one of the first level filters actually makes life easier for everyone else. The other option is to profile everyone and pass these profiles through an extremely fine filter - which is what the SM profile information in the article seems to be targeted for. So, choose your poison. Do you want everyone to be intensively profiled at the cost of privacy, or do you want to be filtered using broad parameters such as religion and nationality?
  - tehlike 10y ago
    sounds to me like racial profiling. I am really curious how much this is helping in terms of false positives, and false negatives. I believe in data, and i am just curious about the numbers, so i could be convinced about its usefulness. As coming from somewhat chaotic part of the world to have some peaceful life, the hoops I had to jump through (visas, immigration, airport checks, constant secondary inspections etc), it really bothers me. Mind you, I am a white male with very good educational background in my own country, and in the US. Hard to imagine what it is like for some other people who may not be as lucky as I am. Either way, as much as I dislike US immigration and so on, I cannot complain. This country provides me the opportunities that I have been working for, and I am grateful.
    - msravi 10y ago
      Right, the data. So the proper way to do this would be to set up a massive A/B test, with everyone entering the US to be randomly assigned to one of two groups - either you're put into the hierarchical filter and you're profiled based on broad first-level parameters, or you're put into the fine filter and you're forcibly opted in into intensive surveillance for the next couple of years or so. Then measure the false positives, hits, and misses and take a decision. Seems to me that this step is probably the first of several by the US immigration to get this data and justify the move away from broad profiling (which they've taken flak for), towards the need for more intense profiling (which they're also taking flak for).
      - mattip 10y ago
        Assuming you were serious, a/b testing works only when you can determine the value of the outcome. How many of the millions of people who pass through immigration need to be rejected for reasons of national security?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

by msravi 10y ago

tehlike 10y ago

good reason is very relative, i guess. You can find extremists in any nation/religion, and it doesn't make much sense to make life hard for _everyone else_.

msravi 10y ago
In order to sort the bad apples you do need some sort of filter. You can do it either by (a) having sets of hierarchical filters with increasingly finer pores, or (b) with a single filter with the finest possible pores that everyone is put through. Ironically, having a coarse filter that sorts people based on nationality/religion as one of the first level filters actually makes life easier for everyone else. The other option is to profile everyone and pass these profiles through an extremely fine filter - which is what the SM profile information in the article seems to be targeted for. So, choose your poison. Do you want everyone to be intensively profiled at the cost of privacy, or do you want to be filtered using broad parameters such as religion and nationality?
- tehlike 10y ago
  sounds to me like racial profiling. I am really curious how much this is helping in terms of false positives, and false negatives. I believe in data, and i am just curious about the numbers, so i could be convinced about its usefulness. As coming from somewhat chaotic part of the world to have some peaceful life, the hoops I had to jump through (visas, immigration, airport checks, constant secondary inspections etc), it really bothers me. Mind you, I am a white male with very good educational background in my own country, and in the US. Hard to imagine what it is like for some other people who may not be as lucky as I am. Either way, as much as I dislike US immigration and so on, I cannot complain. This country provides me the opportunities that I have been working for, and I am grateful.
  - msravi 10y ago
    Right, the data. So the proper way to do this would be to set up a massive A/B test, with everyone entering the US to be randomly assigned to one of two groups - either you're put into the hierarchical filter and you're profiled based on broad first-level parameters, or you're put into the fine filter and you're forcibly opted in into intensive surveillance for the next couple of years or so. Then measure the false positives, hits, and misses and take a decision. Seems to me that this step is probably the first of several by the US immigration to get this data and justify the move away from broad profiling (which they've taken flak for), towards the need for more intense profiling (which they're also taking flak for).
    - mattip 10y ago
      Assuming you were serious, a/b testing works only when you can determine the value of the outcome. How many of the millions of people who pass through immigration need to be rejected for reasons of national security?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]