4 ms·

You're right that there are many ways to profile, but race and religion have been historically pervasive profiling techniques. It does seem more fair to simply

You're right that there are many ways to profile, but race and religion have been historically pervasive profiling techniques. It does seem more fair to simply put everyone through the same process. If you're annoyed at why you (an innocent) have to be subjected to such stringent and time consuming security, that's how innocents who fit "the profile" might feel as well.

sooheon 9y ago
If those doing the profiling are interested in being successful, and race and religion prove to be ineffective indicators of threat, then such profiling should stop (or bombs will keep getting through at an inordinate rate). Otherwise, race and religion are simply observations about passengers which have value in directing attention.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > If those doing the profiling are interested in being successful, and race and religion prove to be ineffective indicators of threat, then such profiling should stop I mean maybe if the profiling is being done by robots, but in reality I have my doubts.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    I think humans can do this as well, they just need the right incentive structure (i.e. tied to actual results). CYA security theatre is not it.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I think the bias is too deeply ingrained to disappear without strong, sustained institutional pressure to avoid it.
- everdev 9y ago
  Correlation != Causation If we examine the background of anyone who has ever committed terrorism, every major race and religion would be covered. And so much of crime comes from social context, so at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat. You can take any race and put them in a hostile, violent context and see them either continue the violence or die. Or, if you say the majority of terrorists are men, so let's stop profiling women, I'm sure you would find more women committing terrorism. Then are women the greater threat or is it simply that we've made it harder for men to be terrorists? I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    I agree with the gist of everything you've written here. And I think you're slightly missing the point. > "so much of crime comes from social context" Agreed. This is why I advocate taking that context into account. Not profiling would mean treating every single individual the exact same way, removing all social context from consideration. > at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat This is not the point of profiling. The point is to build probability distributions, and hone them. > I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics. This is literally the point! You want to profile on such an exacting superset of factors (behavior, history, autonomous responses, forensics...) that you cause the incidence rate of terrorism to go down, across the board. A brittle policy like "only screen middle eastern men" will of course get gamed, but that is terrible profiling. It builds a one-dimensional "profile"--you want a profile that is harder to fool, and based on actual behavioral cues.

sooheon 9y ago

If those doing the profiling are interested in being successful, and race and religion prove to be ineffective indicators of threat, then such profiling should stop (or bombs will keep getting through at an inordinate rate). Otherwise, race and religion are simply observations about passengers which have value in directing attention.

emodendroket 9y ago
> If those doing the profiling are interested in being successful, and race and religion prove to be ineffective indicators of threat, then such profiling should stop I mean maybe if the profiling is being done by robots, but in reality I have my doubts.
- sooheon 9y ago
  I think humans can do this as well, they just need the right incentive structure (i.e. tied to actual results). CYA security theatre is not it.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I think the bias is too deeply ingrained to disappear without strong, sustained institutional pressure to avoid it.
everdev 9y ago
Correlation != Causation If we examine the background of anyone who has ever committed terrorism, every major race and religion would be covered. And so much of crime comes from social context, so at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat. You can take any race and put them in a hostile, violent context and see them either continue the violence or die. Or, if you say the majority of terrorists are men, so let's stop profiling women, I'm sure you would find more women committing terrorism. Then are women the greater threat or is it simply that we've made it harder for men to be terrorists? I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics.
- sooheon 9y ago
  I agree with the gist of everything you've written here. And I think you're slightly missing the point. > "so much of crime comes from social context" Agreed. This is why I advocate taking that context into account. Not profiling would mean treating every single individual the exact same way, removing all social context from consideration. > at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat This is not the point of profiling. The point is to build probability distributions, and hone them. > I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics. This is literally the point! You want to profile on such an exacting superset of factors (behavior, history, autonomous responses, forensics...) that you cause the incidence rate of terrorism to go down, across the board. A brittle policy like "only screen middle eastern men" will of course get gamed, but that is terrible profiling. It builds a one-dimensional "profile"--you want a profile that is harder to fool, and based on actual behavioral cues.