6 ms·

And airlines won't profile and interview as does EL AL because why?

by rrggrr 9y ago

madaxe_again 9y ago
Because profiling is rightly illegal in most civilised corners of the world.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Not all profiling is based on race/religion. If my country X is currently at war with country Y, it seems like it'd be reasonable to give a second look towards anyone who has traveled to Y and potentially its allies. And vice-versa I would expect Y authorities to profile against X. My understanding is that this type of profiling is currently done in Israel and they claim it to be very effective. I don't know if that's true, but at the very least it seems "civilized."
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Most civilised countries are not at war with anyone, though, so how would that help?
    - wayn3 9y ago
      the entire nato is at war with whereever the USA is dropping bombs this week. calling a country "civilised" is difficult because youre implicitly calling other countries uncivilised.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Russia recently annexed Crimea. Is it reasonable for Ukraine to take a second look at Russians traveling to and from their country? Is Ukraine uncivilized? Is Russia?
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Apparently you don't know the definition of "most".
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Maybe I was more focused on the, "so how would it help?" part.
MengerSponge 9y ago
Because profiling is profoundly counterproductive. The vast majority of passengers are not interested in murder or mayhem, and will report suspicious behavior. If you antagonize one class of people, you reduce their willingness, as a group, to cooperate with authorities. Also, because terrorists are rare and are not exclusively members of any one profile, you are more likely to miss one if you shift focus onto one group in particular. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0813202106.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0813202106.abst...
- Banthum 9y ago
  "If you antagonize one class of people, you reduce their willingness, as a group, to cooperate with authorities." The question is whether this effect is stronger or weaker than the gains you get from profiling. The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless. We don't need to focus on: -70-year-old British grandmas -4-year-old children -Chinese women -etc. Obviously this doesn't preclude someone slipping something into their bag without their knowledge, so bags would still have to be checked. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of simple things you could do to make the whole process faster and easier for everyone, including 23-year-old Arab men with congenital overactive sweat glands.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    > The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless. That is still profiling. Given four groups, A,B,C,D with a property of dangerous/not dangerous. If I say only A,B and D are dangerous then I'm saying C is not dangerous. If I say only C isn't dangerous then I'm saying A,B and D are dangerous.
  - oculusthrift 9y ago
    if you anti-profile everyone but black people, what does that end up meaning? that's essentially a wiley political word.
48snickers 9y ago
These guys did a pretty good job explaining why not: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-paper... It's the profiling part that's the problem- you can determine through trial and error if you are likely to be interviewed, and adjust your resources accordingly. As noted in the paper, the 9/11 hijackers appeared to do exactly that. Completely random interviews can't be gamed the same way.

And airlines won't profile and interview as does EL AL because why?

by rrggrr 9y ago

And airlines won't profile and interview as does EL AL because why?

madaxe_again 9y ago

Because profiling is rightly illegal in most civilised corners of the world.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Not all profiling is based on race/religion. If my country X is currently at war with country Y, it seems like it'd be reasonable to give a second look towards anyone who has traveled to Y and potentially its allies. And vice-versa I would expect Y authorities to profile against X. My understanding is that this type of profiling is currently done in Israel and they claim it to be very effective. I don't know if that's true, but at the very least it seems "civilized."
- icebraining 9y ago
  Most civilised countries are not at war with anyone, though, so how would that help?
  - wayn3 9y ago
    the entire nato is at war with whereever the USA is dropping bombs this week. calling a country "civilised" is difficult because youre implicitly calling other countries uncivilised.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Russia recently annexed Crimea. Is it reasonable for Ukraine to take a second look at Russians traveling to and from their country? Is Ukraine uncivilized? Is Russia?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Apparently you don't know the definition of "most".
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        Maybe I was more focused on the, "so how would it help?" part.

MengerSponge 9y ago

Because profiling is profoundly counterproductive. The vast majority of passengers are not interested in murder or mayhem, and will report suspicious behavior. If you antagonize one class of people, you reduce their willingness, as a group, to cooperate with authorities. Also, because terrorists are rare and are not exclusively members of any one profile, you are more likely to miss one if you shift focus onto one group in particular. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0813202106.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0813202106.abst...

Banthum 9y ago
"If you antagonize one class of people, you reduce their willingness, as a group, to cooperate with authorities." The question is whether this effect is stronger or weaker than the gains you get from profiling. The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless. We don't need to focus on: -70-year-old British grandmas -4-year-old children -Chinese women -etc. Obviously this doesn't preclude someone slipping something into their bag without their knowledge, so bags would still have to be checked. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of simple things you could do to make the whole process faster and easier for everyone, including 23-year-old Arab men with congenital overactive sweat glands.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  > The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless. That is still profiling. Given four groups, A,B,C,D with a property of dangerous/not dangerous. If I say only A,B and D are dangerous then I'm saying C is not dangerous. If I say only C isn't dangerous then I'm saying A,B and D are dangerous.
- oculusthrift 9y ago
  if you anti-profile everyone but black people, what does that end up meaning? that's essentially a wiley political word.

48snickers 9y ago

These guys did a pretty good job explaining why not: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-paper... It's the profiling part that's the problem- you can determine through trial and error if you are likely to be interviewed, and adjust your resources accordingly. As noted in the paper, the 9/11 hijackers appeared to do exactly that. Completely random interviews can't be gamed the same way.