6 ms·

On #1: If the TSA didn't frisk 80 year old men, any smart terrorist would begin recruiting 80 year olds. You can't have gaps in enforcement by policy or they wi

On #1: If the TSA didn't frisk 80 year old men, any smart terrorist would begin recruiting 80 year olds. You can't have gaps in enforcement by policy or they will be exploited (sadly).

pfisch 13y ago
Are you being serious here or is this facetious?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Why is this laughable? There are stories of kids and women being used as suicide bombers. The comment above makes the dreaded profiling word seem like a dirty thing, it should be a perfectly acceptable thing. Follow Israel's lead and behavior profile people as soon as they step into the airport and flag them appropriately.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Why is "be like Israel" the be all end all solution? Profiling does not scale to the 800 million US travelers. Who are we profiling for? Arabs? Don't forget the 2nd largest terrorist attack on US soil was committed by a white Gulf War veteran who was raised Christan. http://www.examiner.com/article/exactly-what-are-israeli-airport-security-measures-and-would-they-work-here http://www.examiner.com/article/exactly-what-are-israeli-air... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      > Who are we profiling for? People who are acting out of the ordinary. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-israeli-airport-security-teaches-the-world/ http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-isr... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604840.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Israel_Airlines_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Israel_Airlines_Ltd
thaumasiotes 13y ago
Bruce Schneier likes to say this too, as if it makes sense. It doesn't. Your hypothetical terrorist group can't recruit with equal ease from any demographic group that strikes their fancy. So if we screen everyone equally, all[1] of the terrorists will be young single men. If we start screening young, single, Arab men so heavily that it's more economical for a terrorist group to recruit Laotian grandmothers, that's exactly what we want. It will dramatically reduce the incidence of attacks, because it's extremely difficult to convince Laotian grandmothers to make them. The optimal way to allocate screening resources is to produce the result that everyone is equally likely to be a terrorist. But you can't begin by assuming it; it's the goal you want to reach. If there's a demographic group with an elevated risk of offending, we want to dedicate screening to it until it has only the baseline risk. Even if that raises the baseline risk, it's a win for us. With all that in mind, screening a particular group at a 0% rate won't get you there. But screening 80-year-olds at 0.001% of the rate you screen men 15-25, or less, is probably fine. [1] most
- shangxiao 13y ago
  > it's a win for us Define "us"
  - arjie 13y ago
    The people the screening is supposed to protect. If you force terrorists to recruit from a group that is small and that is less likely to pull off the operation well, then everyone but the terrorists profits.
    - hdevalence 13y ago
      So "young, single, Arab men" not only aren't "us", but also aren't people who deserve protection from terrorism? I'm glad that you can decide on their behalf that their rights are worth less than your imagined security.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
nonce42 13y ago
Yes, a lot of people don't understand that. To make it concrete: Do you skip screening of the young pregnant Irish woman? I hope not. That was Anne-Marie Murphy, whose boyfriend put Semtex and a timer in her bag. [1] Do you skip screening of the attractive blonde woman? Sorry, that was hijacker Leila Khaled with a blonde wig and hidden grenades. [2] (These are both very interesting stories and I recommend reading the links below.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair [2] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-09-28/news/0109280226_1_hijacking-lev-el-al http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-09-28/news/0109280226_...
- ivanca 13y ago
  Screener or not screener is just as useless; so what are you hoping for exactly? (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912.html#.UvSAWfldX7p http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-...)
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Well, you have to skip screening some people (in fact, most of them). Given the presence of holes in your net, positioning them over young pregnant women is going to give you much better results than just about any other policy imaginable. The Anne-Marie Murphy example is interesting; as you point out, she was sabotaged and didn't know she was carrying explosives. So -- she would pass demographic profiling with flying colors, as she should. She didn't want to do anything. The very commonly suggested approach of behavioral profiling is also useless here. People who believe they're not carrying explosives act exactly the same as people who really aren't carrying explosives. Network analysis ("passenger's boyfriend is Arab") could flag her. Would you support that?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  If you really believe that then you have to think that TSA Pre makes a complete farce of the system. Or that it always was a complete farce.

On #1: If the TSA didn't frisk 80 year old men, any smart terrorist would begin recruiting 80 year olds. You can't have gaps in enforcement by policy or they will be exploited (sadly).

pfisch 13y ago

Are you being serious here or is this facetious?

res0nat0r 13y ago
Why is this laughable? There are stories of kids and women being used as suicide bombers. The comment above makes the dreaded profiling word seem like a dirty thing, it should be a perfectly acceptable thing. Follow Israel's lead and behavior profile people as soon as they step into the airport and flag them appropriately.
- aestra 13y ago
  Why is "be like Israel" the be all end all solution? Profiling does not scale to the 800 million US travelers. Who are we profiling for? Arabs? Don't forget the 2nd largest terrorist attack on US soil was committed by a white Gulf War veteran who was raised Christan. http://www.examiner.com/article/exactly-what-are-israeli-airport-security-measures-and-would-they-work-here http://www.examiner.com/article/exactly-what-are-israeli-air... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    > Who are we profiling for? People who are acting out of the ordinary. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-israeli-airport-security-teaches-the-world/ http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-isr... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604840.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Israel_Airlines_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Israel_Airlines_Ltd

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Bruce Schneier likes to say this too, as if it makes sense. It doesn't. Your hypothetical terrorist group can't recruit with equal ease from any demographic group that strikes their fancy. So if we screen everyone equally, all[1] of the terrorists will be young single men. If we start screening young, single, Arab men so heavily that it's more economical for a terrorist group to recruit Laotian grandmothers, that's exactly what we want. It will dramatically reduce the incidence of attacks, because it's extremely difficult to convince Laotian grandmothers to make them. The optimal way to allocate screening resources is to produce the result that everyone is equally likely to be a terrorist. But you can't begin by assuming it; it's the goal you want to reach. If there's a demographic group with an elevated risk of offending, we want to dedicate screening to it until it has only the baseline risk. Even if that raises the baseline risk, it's a win for us. With all that in mind, screening a particular group at a 0% rate won't get you there. But screening 80-year-olds at 0.001% of the rate you screen men 15-25, or less, is probably fine. [1] most

shangxiao 13y ago
> it's a win for us Define "us"
- arjie 13y ago
  The people the screening is supposed to protect. If you force terrorists to recruit from a group that is small and that is less likely to pull off the operation well, then everyone but the terrorists profits.
  - hdevalence 13y ago
    So "young, single, Arab men" not only aren't "us", but also aren't people who deserve protection from terrorism? I'm glad that you can decide on their behalf that their rights are worth less than your imagined security.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

nonce42 13y ago

Yes, a lot of people don't understand that. To make it concrete: Do you skip screening of the young pregnant Irish woman? I hope not. That was Anne-Marie Murphy, whose boyfriend put Semtex and a timer in her bag. [1] Do you skip screening of the attractive blonde woman? Sorry, that was hijacker Leila Khaled with a blonde wig and hidden grenades. [2] (These are both very interesting stories and I recommend reading the links below.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair [2] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-09-28/news/0109280226_1_hijacking-lev-el-al http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-09-28/news/0109280226_...

ivanca 13y ago
Screener or not screener is just as useless; so what are you hoping for exactly? (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912.html#.UvSAWfldX7p http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-...)
thaumasiotes 13y ago
Well, you have to skip screening some people (in fact, most of them). Given the presence of holes in your net, positioning them over young pregnant women is going to give you much better results than just about any other policy imaginable. The Anne-Marie Murphy example is interesting; as you point out, she was sabotaged and didn't know she was carrying explosives. So -- she would pass demographic profiling with flying colors, as she should. She didn't want to do anything. The very commonly suggested approach of behavioral profiling is also useless here. People who believe they're not carrying explosives act exactly the same as people who really aren't carrying explosives. Network analysis ("passenger's boyfriend is Arab") could flag her. Would you support that?
Zigurd 13y ago
If you really believe that then you have to think that TSA Pre makes a complete farce of the system. Or that it always was a complete farce.