4 ms·
"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 strong
by 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 agoif you anti-profile everyone but black people, what does that end up meaning? that's essentially a wiley political word.