Racial profiling, yes or no?

[Stoned_Rider]

From Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html):

THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.

The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.

They also say that it would greatly reduce queues at secur-ity gates, which caused lengthy delays at London airports yesterday for the fifth day running. Heathrow and Gatwick were worst affected, cancelling 69 and 27 flights respectively. BAA gave warning yesterday that the disruption would continue for the rest of the week.


This is one issue that I'm still undecided about.

On one hand it makes sense. Britain is currently under constant threat from Islamic terrorism. The perpetrators of 7/7 were all muslim. The suspects held in the latest terrorism plot are all muslim. Obviously this technique would be far more effective and would save a lot of time and resources. I mean, what's the point in stopping and searching a middle-aged Japanese woman for example?
Naturally, this will cause some inconvenience for some people, especially those with Asian or Middle Eastern looks. But, personally I would be happy with such an inconvenience, for the sake of fighting terrorism. If I am to be stopped and searched, based on my looks, I would happily co-operate and thank the airport security for doing their job properly.
I believe that law-abiding, peaceful muslims should feel the same as well, as they have absolutely nothing to fear. IMHO, this is their chance to prove that they have serious intentions in fighting Islamic terrorism.

On the other hand, we have seen in the recent arrests that a couple of the suspects were white converts to Islam. So obviously, focusing solely on young Asian or North African men is not that effective anymore, even though they still constitute the large majority of muslim terrorists. Terrorists are constantly developing cunning tactics, such as recruiting white converts, to bypass security and fool the police.
Also, this technique would undoubtedly cause outrage in the muslim community in Britain. They will see this as yet another example of the government and police unfairly targeting them. Inevitably, more young muslims will be angry and radicalized, hence we can probably expect some more terrorism.

Opinions? :)

[mancroft]

Good idea. Makes sense. Unless they want everyone checked and spend three hours going through security.

BTW What are they doing about checking INbound flights as well as OUTbound ones?

[omnirook]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't ... Racial profiling is "illegal" in the United States. Yeah, right. That's why I'm not stopped and pestered all the time but my black relatives are. Like a lot of Americans nowadays, not only do I have black family members, but I do not feel the need to deny that I have black family members. My black relatives take all sorts of shit, not only from the police (black cops included) but from stores and restaurants. In the stores, blacks have been followed by store security for years - just for being black ... When it comes to the general public, better to make the extra effort and at least appear to scrutinize everybody, regardless of race. Anyone w/half a brain knows that the behind-the-scenes intelligence gathering will be targeted at people who are Muslim and especially those Muslims who are Arabs. But that's not the same as blatantly doing it, not the same as humiliating people in public just because they appear to be Arabs.

[PlayerOfGames]

I think it's useless. As soon as racial profiling becomes a significant factor in determining who gets searched, conducting terrorist operations using people who do not fit the profile becomes that much easier, and so more desirable, and so done more.

Stoned Rider, "IMHO, this is their chance to prove that they have serious intentions in fighting Islamic terrorism."?

The very fact that someone who is muslim should be expected to provide more "proof" that they are against terrorism is disgusting to me.

[omnirook]

I think it's useless. As soon as racial profiling becomes a significant factor in determining who gets searched, conducting terrorist operations using people who do not fit the profile becomes that much easier, and so more desirable, and so done more.

Stoned Rider, "IMHO, this is their chance to prove that they have serious intentions in fighting Islamic terrorism."?

The very fact that someone who is muslim should be expected to provide more "proof" that they are against terrorism is disgusting to me.
Good points ... Still, they're going to look more closely at Muslims and at Arab Muslims in particular.

[libertarianjim]

It's a piece of data, like anything else.

[charred_heart]

yikes! I voted yes by mistake!!!
my vote should be discounted!!!!

anyway...
racial profiling has very negative consequences in the long term as omnirook pointed out. It can lead to harassment, wrongful imprisonment or even death in certain situations.

[distraction tactics]

If the shoe fits...

That said, I believe the threat of terrorism is continually overstated contrary to what some doomsayers may be saying about the increasing Muslim population in western nations.

[Geoff]

I'd be against it as the only means for determining who to stop. But surely anti-terrorist activity must be intelligence led, not just based on "let's follow every civilian on the planet so we arent seen to be discriminating". If the intelligence says keep an eye on muslim male of a certain grouping, then do so.

If over time the intelligence changes, change who they follow, but dont waste resources following (to use the example above) middle aged japanese couples around when they have never been remotely implicated in any of the terrorist activity that is being tracked by the west. Once they do, sure.. start including them.

-Geoff

[omnirook]

If the shoe fits...

That said, I believe the threat of terrorism is continually overstated contrary to what some doomsayers may be saying about the increasing Muslim population in western nations.
Agreed. Nearly all the Muslims that have come West have done so because they believe that they can get a life that they cannot have at home, whatever that might mean to any one of them. (A lot of Muslim queers have come over, as have Muslim women - it's not perfect here either, but it is better.) Most have not a drop of interest in causing the least trouble. This should be recognized and acknowledged. Otherwise, we are sinking to the Al Queda level of "Great Satan" awfully fast.

[omnirook]

I'd be against it as the only means for determining who to stop. But surely anti-terrorist activity must be intelligence led, not just based on "let's follow every civilian on the planet so we arent seen to be discriminating". If the intelligence says keep an eye on muslim male of a certain grouping, then do so.

If over time the intelligence changes, change who they follow, but dont waste resources following (to use the example above) middle aged japanese couples around when they have never been remotely implicated in any of the terrorist activity that is being tracked by the west. Once they do, sure.. start including them.

-Geoff
Discretion can be a pain in the ass, but anyone who has successful relations w/others knows that it's worth the effort. Singling out people and humiliating them in public is just plain bad policy. If it smoothes down ruffled feathers and soothes hurt feelings, I'm not against taking the extra step or spending the extra money. Besides, racial profiling gives bigots a license to go on being bigots.

[cafe]

I don't like the idea of it at all. The way I see it, if we begin to go against the principles our societies hold dear, we are destroyed just as much as we would be by any number of bombs. When we give the government the authority persecute one group of people, it's unlikely that the government will lay that authority down or restrain itself even if the threat someday passes. We will simply become a secular, western version of the facist Muslim states. We will become what we abhor. Maybe I've just heard too many Patrick Henry dramatic interpretations.

[Heleuiski]

I don't like the idea of it at all. The way I see it, if we begin to go against the principles our societies hold dear, we are destroyed just as much as we would be by any number of bombs. When we give the government the authority persecute one group of people, it's unlikely that the government will lay that authority down or restrain itself even if the threat someday passes. We will simply become a secular, western version of the facist Muslim states. We will become what we abhor. Maybe I've just heard too many Patrick Henry dramatic interpretations.

Yes, I have a similar view.

[sandwich]

I think it's better to do it officially than to deny that they do at all. It's going to happen either way.

[dubbeltop]

Lets call racial profiling what it really is: RACIST profiling.

[tinribz]

I knew a salesman once who explained how he had learned not to waste his time on certain ethnic groups because they took up more of his time, resulted in less sales and always argued over price.

He always gave preference on the white middle class customers that walked through the door.

He insisted he wasn't racist, he was just being efficient and any businessman who did not do the same was a fool.

He was a racist pig making judgments based on superficial appearances that people have no control over. And this is all a step backwards.

[Heleuiski]

My best friends bro always got stopped by the police because he was black and had a shit hot car... they just couldn't get their heads around the fact that he wasn't a drug dealer.

So racial profiling?
No thanks.

[immortalmack]

Like Omnirook said you can say what you want but theyre gonna look at muslim arabs anyway because thats where the threat is coming from. Now when you get polish women blowing themselves up in hair parlors then your profile changes.

Yea I been stung to by cops but in he case of mass destruction better be safe.

[EmmaPeel]

Don't they do enough already? Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. I don't think it will make a difference.

[Geoff]

So what is the alternative. Should they assume that everyone is a potential terrorist and spend equal time and resources on all demographics.

Should the monies spent infiltrating the terrorist groups, and as a result preventing a second 9/11 (10 planes = 3000 people-ish) that would have happened today, have instead been spent spread over a much wider net. For example, having people infiltrate the women's institute, and the pensioners groups, and the animal charities. After all, we cant be seen to discriminate, can we?

My point being, intelligence led anti terrorism is by the far the most successful method. Follow the most likely groups, track the known terrorists and their associates. If that means a particular group is more likely to contain terrorists, keep an eye on them. I dont mean that this translates as "stop every muslim", I just mean that it makes sense to examine a situation where, for example, a single unaccompanied muslim pakistani male books a seat on each of, say, 15 transatlantic flights on the same day.

I'd rather be alive and be accused of discriminating than dead.

-Geoff

[PlayerOfGames]

If over time the intelligence changes, change who they follow, but dont waste resources following (to use the example above) middle aged japanese couples around when they have never been remotely implicated in any of the terrorist activity that is being tracked by the west. Once they do, sure.. start including them.

That's precisely the problem. So now, any middle aged japanese couple committing terrorist activities has a big head start. Meanwhile, anti western sentiment grows due to discrimination against muslims.


For example, having people infiltrate the women's institute, and the pensioners groups, and the animal charities.

Well, certainly any organisation that could be a front for terrorisism should be checked out. However, likening treating people equally in security checks at airports to infiltrating charities as opposed to terrorist cells is a weak analogy.

Racial profiling would be akin to saying "examine businesses & charities not linked to terrorist interests on an extremely superficial level less than those owned by muslims or arabs of any kind" - again, hardly effective, but very effective at causing resentment.

If your goal was saving 3000 lives, a tiny fraction of all the money & energy spent on anti terrorist activities diverted to social upliftment would have had that effect for a fraction of the cost - and reduced the incentive for terrorism among many.

[Geoff]

That's precisely the problem. So now, any middle aged japanese couple committing terrorist activities has a big head start. Meanwhile, anti western sentiment grows due to discrimination against muslims.



Well, certainly any organisation that could be a front for terrorisism should be checked out. However, likening treating people equally in security checks at airports to infiltrating charities as opposed to terrorist cells is a weak analogy.

Racial profiling would be akin to saying "examine businesses & charities not linked to terrorist interests on an extremely superficial level less than those owned by muslims or arabs of any kind" - again, hardly effective, but very effective at causing resentment.

If your goal was saving 3000 lives, a tiny fraction of all the money & energy spent on anti terrorist activities diverted to social upliftment would have had that effect for a fraction of the cost - and reduced the incentive for terrorism among many.

I take the point entirely that the money spent could save more lives spent on social works. However, I suppose the money lost as a result of a successful terrorist attack (think the economic effect of 9/11) might cause more deaths in terms of less money to spent in western countries. Can't say it is easy to measure either way. But I see the point. I am not advocating the attempt to frustrate terrorist activity as being judged on a ? for ? success rate. It is something rather more (to me) - that to the man in the street is just too horrible to ignore. Something to fundamental to value on any other way than an attack against the most basic rights of society - to exist without random acts of destruction.

I can certainly see the "PC" - lets treat everyone equally - argument you raise. It is seductive, after all who wants to be racist, to discriminate.

How would you deal with basic terrorist activity, would it be intelligence led infiltration efforts? That seems to work best (as it does with most organised crime and related efforts). If so, how are you going to target it - by intelligence? And if that intelligence points over and over to specific groups, are you going to ignore them?

I wasnt talking about just stop searching muslims, that's insensitive, and unnecessary (and plain wrong) as a "rule". But I am advocating using intelligent policing / security research to determine who best needs stopping - this will change over time (but right now, japanese middle aged couples dont seem to be any threat). There should be random searches of everyone, but I'd much rather the services kept a closer eye on groups more likely to contain terrorists.

-Geoff

[PlayerOfGames]

However, I suppose the money lost as a result of a successful terrorist attack (think the economic effect of 9/11) might cause more deaths in terms of less money to spent in western countries. Can't say it is easy to measure either way.

This is a good point, too.



How would you deal with basic terrorist activity, would it be intelligence led infiltration efforts? That seems to work best (as it does with most organised crime and related efforts). If so, how are you going to target it - by intelligence? And if that intelligence points over and over to specific groups, are you going to ignore them?


Certainly, intelligence should be used as much as possible. However, I don't believe that it ever comes down in a sensible way to "search muslims more at airports". The problem is that this is almost inevitably how it will play out, and be implemented.
I'm not at all against truly using all available information. I just don't believe that a noticable security bias against particular racial groups would pay off, for reasons mentioned above.

[Stoic]

Two words: False flag.

I used to be a skeptic about this, but after researching 9/11, 7/7, and the recent terror scare in Britain I can't deny it. It's not something I want to believe.

[Geoff]

Two words: False flag.

I used to be a skeptic about this, but after researching 9/11, 7/7, and the recent terror scare in Britain I can't deny it. It's not something I want to believe.

Which conspiracy theory is it this time. Did we blow ourselves up for an excuse to attack the foreigners?

-Geoff

[Krill]

Two words: False flag.

One word: Huh?

[Stoic]

Which conspiracy theory is it this time. Did we blow ourselves up for an excuse to attack the foreigners?

-Geoff

Don't think America would ever do something like that?

Operation Northwoods. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

[Geoff]

Don't think America would ever do something like that?

Operation Northwoods. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

Well, I am British, so difficult for me to comment for sure. But I would be a bit surprised if Americans engineered crashing planes into the towers as a self inflicted shock tactic for wider effect. Not least of which, I dont think the American government (like most Governments) is capable of orchestrating it.

-Geoff

[Stoic]

One word: Huh?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

I take everything on this site with a grain of salt, I'm not one to typically buy into conspiracy theories, but the evidence is overwhelming.

And this isn't just stuff from prisonplanet, it cites CSPAN, NY Times, MSNBC, CNN ....etc.

[Zephyrus055]

I am totally against the idea of racial profiling. While it may have immediate short-term benefits, the terrorist organizations will somehow be able to easily adapt. They may manipulate the appearance of selective members, concentate their recruitment on different populations and bribe or deceive others to execute their tasks etc. Meanwhile, minority populations will develop stronger group identities because they share a clear common plight, putting our country at further risk for civil disorder.

I think it's very risky, and the government is moreover receiving more control over the population. I do not like that idea.

[Stoic]

Well, I am British, so difficult for me to comment for sure. But I would be a bit surprised if Americans engineered crashing planes into the towers as a self inflicted shock tactic for wider effect. Not least of which, I dont think the American government (like most Governments) is capable of orchestrating it.

-Geoff

Whether my gov't helped orchestrate it or not is what I am still not sure of, but I do believe they were capable.

I am however 100% sure that there was prior knowledge.

[Stoic]

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/tumbleweed.gif

[mancroft]

Whether my gov't helped orchestrate it or not is what I am still not sure of, but I do believe they were capable.

I am however 100% sure that there was prior knowledge.


http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/tumbleweed.gif

Are you people on drugs?

[omnirook]

Are you people on drugs?
... caffeine, nicotine, yes, but I don't do popular culture ...

[Ellipsis]

Back to the topic....I am unsure of the effefctiveness of this system...don't take terrorists or anyone else as a "complete" fool. Humans adapt thats the simple thing I am quite sure their are people out thier who are white and follow extremist groups ....(just look at the repulicains or NRA...lol just a joke or is it ;))

One more thing I find the war on Terror to be as stupid as a saying as any other...how can you have war with Terror unless you are creating Terror yoourself...Anyone who has lived through a WAR knows war is Terror. War is the creation of terror..