5 ms·

no need to repeat 'politically correct' statements, skin color, just like sex and age, are part of vectors that you would have to mathematically use to narrow d

by djanogo 14y ago

no need to repeat 'politically correct' statements, skin color, just like sex and age, are part of vectors that you would have to mathematically use to narrow down suspects.

vowelless 14y ago
Plus there is a high probability that he had a thick saudi accent (based on the accent of his roommate). A saudi descent american with a bostonian accent probably would not have been an immediate suspect.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> no need to repeat 'politically correct' statements It's not a "'politically correct' statement", it's part of the law. If you think that it's OK to search someone's apartment based on their ethnicity alone, I can only assume that you have no respect for the rule of law. And from TFA, I could not see any other distinguishing factors that were used to determine probable cause to search this guy's apartment, instead of any of the other people at the scene. The only factor was his ethnicity.
- morganw 14y ago
  > probable cause to search Don't need probable cause if the roommate consented to a search. "you have nothing to hide, do you?" 2nd oldest trick in the book.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Did you not read the article? They showed up with "a phalanx of officers from the FBI, ATF and Boston". They wouldn't have done that if they were just hoping the roommate would let them in. They likely had a search warrant. And like I said, this is speaking purely legally. Even if they didn't have a search warrant, the fact that they targeted this guy for his ethnicity alone was unethical.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    One might question the extent to which someone on a student visa can "consent" to a search, when faced by numerous government agents at his door. I am sure that legally there are no problems there, but ethically? There is unstated element of coercion there.
jlgreco 14y ago
You are not thinking sufficiently Bayesian. While you could say that there is an elevated chance that the terrorist is of Arabic descent (and frankly, the odds there are not that strong. Maybe better than 50%, but I wouldn't put my money even on that...) that is only a small part of the picture. You must also consider the possibility that any given person of Arabic descent is a terrorist (an absurdly small probability). When you combine these two factors then you can decide how probable it is that he is the terrorist, given his descent. If you actually work out the numbers here, you will undoubtedly discover that the probability he is responsible falls well below any rational standard for harassing the man. Edit: To get a grip on what sort of standard you would usually demand: consider a murder in a small isolated town. With no clues at all, lets say the murderer could be anyone. In a town with 3 people, each person could be said to have a 50/50 chance of being the murderer. Is that enough for search warrants for both (not under our legal system, but just ethically/morally)? Sure, I'd accept that. If there were a hundred people in that town? No way. So, does "terrorist, given arabic descent" go over 1%? I HIGHLY doubt it.
- vadman 14y ago
  I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but wouldn't it be "terrorist, given Arabic descent AND participation in the targeted event AND proximity to the explosion AND high probability of a follow up explosion (judging from past events) AND ..."?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > wouldn't it be "terrorist, given Arabic descent AND participation in the targeted event AND proximity to the explosion AND high probability of a follow up explosion (judging from past events) AND ..." The only thing that man has over the likely thousands of others that in some way participated in the event is his skin color. Everyone else there had those same properties. So if we are considering the population of people in the general area at the time, then no. They used only his descent. They, and djanogo[edited], used P(arabic|terrorist) to justify a search. In order to justify a search you need a reasonable P(terrorist|arabic). Assign some reasonable numbers to each factor off the top of your head, work it out on a napkin, and come back to me with whatever figures work out to be over whatever a reasonable threshold might be.

by djanogo 14y ago

no need to repeat 'politically correct' statements, skin color, just like sex and age, are part of vectors that you would have to mathematically use to narrow down suspects.

vowelless 14y ago

Plus there is a high probability that he had a thick saudi accent (based on the accent of his roommate). A saudi descent american with a bostonian accent probably would not have been an immediate suspect.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> no need to repeat 'politically correct' statements It's not a "'politically correct' statement", it's part of the law. If you think that it's OK to search someone's apartment based on their ethnicity alone, I can only assume that you have no respect for the rule of law. And from TFA, I could not see any other distinguishing factors that were used to determine probable cause to search this guy's apartment, instead of any of the other people at the scene. The only factor was his ethnicity.

morganw 14y ago
> probable cause to search Don't need probable cause if the roommate consented to a search. "you have nothing to hide, do you?" 2nd oldest trick in the book.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Did you not read the article? They showed up with "a phalanx of officers from the FBI, ATF and Boston". They wouldn't have done that if they were just hoping the roommate would let them in. They likely had a search warrant. And like I said, this is speaking purely legally. Even if they didn't have a search warrant, the fact that they targeted this guy for his ethnicity alone was unethical.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  One might question the extent to which someone on a student visa can "consent" to a search, when faced by numerous government agents at his door. I am sure that legally there are no problems there, but ethically? There is unstated element of coercion there.

jlgreco 14y ago

You are not thinking sufficiently Bayesian. While you could say that there is an elevated chance that the terrorist is of Arabic descent (and frankly, the odds there are not that strong. Maybe better than 50%, but I wouldn't put my money even on that...) that is only a small part of the picture. You must also consider the possibility that any given person of Arabic descent is a terrorist (an absurdly small probability). When you combine these two factors then you can decide how probable it is that he is the terrorist, given his descent. If you actually work out the numbers here, you will undoubtedly discover that the probability he is responsible falls well below any rational standard for harassing the man. Edit: To get a grip on what sort of standard you would usually demand: consider a murder in a small isolated town. With no clues at all, lets say the murderer could be anyone. In a town with 3 people, each person could be said to have a 50/50 chance of being the murderer. Is that enough for search warrants for both (not under our legal system, but just ethically/morally)? Sure, I'd accept that. If there were a hundred people in that town? No way. So, does "terrorist, given arabic descent" go over 1%? I HIGHLY doubt it.

vadman 14y ago
I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but wouldn't it be "terrorist, given Arabic descent AND participation in the targeted event AND proximity to the explosion AND high probability of a follow up explosion (judging from past events) AND ..."?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > wouldn't it be "terrorist, given Arabic descent AND participation in the targeted event AND proximity to the explosion AND high probability of a follow up explosion (judging from past events) AND ..." The only thing that man has over the likely thousands of others that in some way participated in the event is his skin color. Everyone else there had those same properties. So if we are considering the population of people in the general area at the time, then no. They used only his descent. They, and djanogo[edited], used P(arabic|terrorist) to justify a search. In order to justify a search you need a reasonable P(terrorist|arabic). Assign some reasonable numbers to each factor off the top of your head, work it out on a napkin, and come back to me with whatever figures work out to be over whatever a reasonable threshold might be.