Why Profiling Makes Sense and Should Be Done

[Revoltingest]

It's a joke about stereotyping. New Atheism - Wikipedia

Can't teach an old atheist new jokes.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.

For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.

What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.

Don't they all go through the same metal detector anyway?

 

[robocop (actually)]

What if surveillance wasn't reducing killings and suicides and might actually contribute to them, would you still be a big fan of it?

No.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If the statistics indicate that white men are the greatest threat, then, yes, white men should undergo the strictest security checks. The argument remains the same.

Which lines would you select based on, and how do you account for the bias in selection criteria?

For example, would you have a problem with university educated women of colour who are evangelical Christians being given a pass at a security check if they have a median income of more than 100k?

 

[Revoltingest]

Once profiling is established, terrorists could select
their operatives to be in the ignored groups.

 

[George-ananda]

I can agree with demographic profiling based on statistical disproportions. The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Depends on how you define "prejudice" I suppose. Why should people with different probabilities of harming others based on their demographics undergo the same security checks? There is no logic to that. To use Harris' example, do you think it's fair for a 3 year old child or 90+ year olds in wheelchairs who are obviously not threats to be subject to the same level of security checks as young adult men?

Yes everyone should be treated the same way, that is the only answer. If you worry about terrorism I know of many white terrorists and yes of colored terrorists too. So everyone should be seen as one until they have been screened.

All of us are human beings, no matter if you are white, black, hispanick, asian, or other races.

 

[Augustus]

What would a Persian man be doing in Saudi Arabia?

If he ain't doing a terrorism, then something to do with magic carpets I reckon, or giving someone 100 camels for his wife. That's what all them folks over there what all look the same are into, innit?

 

[epronovost]

The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.

You are aware that when practiced by the police in the US it didn't reduced criminality in the targetted community, that innocents are often wrongfully arrested and sometime even condamned and that it alienates entire communities. For **** sake have people suddenly forgotten the lessons of the last 20 years in terms of global security and police work? Racial profiling is a catastrophic failure as is security theatre.

 

[Gambrinus]

So you hire profilers one is a 18 year old white woman and the other is a 36 year old
Persian man how do you make sure they don't bring their bias to work?

 

[Augustus]

Which lines would you select based on, and how do you account for the bias in selection criteria?

Australia definitely profiles folk arriving (or did, not been for a few years).

When they tell you which customs line to go into there is some that are families and kids, businessmen, etc. then if you get sent to 'number 1' (can't remember the actual number) then it's all blacks/Africans, Taliban looking dudes, and old Chinese folk (who if TV is to be believed are all carrying suitcases full of penises harvested from endangered species).

I have repeatedly been profiled 'randomly' assigned to the problematic ethnics and other assorted miscreants completely normal queue number 1 for being a male, traveling on my own from SE Asia, on a ticket from a travel agent I didn't purchase myself but paid in cash.

What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.

Even if we assume it is more efficient, the problem is that it breeds a lot of resentment if you know you are being profiled. Once you know you belong to a group being profiled, all people stopped who belong to that group assume it is due to profiling alone.

It's not simply 'if you have nothing to hide then why care', as being detained at customs for 30 mins-1 hour while being aggressively questioned and having people stick their hand down you pants to check if you are hiding anything under your ball sack isn't really that enjoyable. Having to remain polite while it happens to avoid making it worse also gets just a bit annoying.

The you go home and tell your friends about it, and soon you have a large section of the population who are resentful which detracts from any 'efficiency' savings.

 

[Heyo]

I recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.

For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.

What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.

I think Harris is right. Profiling, based on good data and good statistics is a good thing.
That's why profiling should not be done. As good data and good statistics show, more often than not, profiling in practice is usually not based on good data and good statistics. It is usually done based on prejudice and the "scientific" label is only attached to make the prejudices look objective.

 

[exchemist]

You don't "investigate" any group more than any other. You simply look at already available demographic data on crime and terrorism. And there are CLEARLY demographic differences. What causes them is beside the point.



What "we" call in Stats? I'm nearly finished with a Master's Degree in Statistics. Are you saying you have more statistical knowledge than I do?

It begins to look like it.

Since the probability that either your Karen from Kansas or your Persian is a terrorist is very small, it looks like a waste of resources to focus on their nationality and skin colour , rather than actual terrorism intelligence.

What are you going to do, as a consequence of this profiling of yours?

And in any case, since there is no problem of imported terrorism in the US, why waste time on that when you could instead be profiling the people most likely to carry out mass shootings, which you have just about every month? Oh but I was forgetting, it’s white men that do that. No need to spend time trying to stop that, then.

 

[Stevicus]

Don't they all go through the same metal detector anyway?

Yes, although some people are selected to be subjected to an even more intrusive search. It's supposedly "random," although I don't know what criteria they use to determine who gets the extra search and who doesn't.

They also have those full body scanners which are a pervert's delight. But not everyone has to go through those.

But it does lead to weird situations where they decide to strip search old ladies in wheelchairs. I don't know if the TSA employees just do it for their jollies or what, but the whole process has turned into a sick joke. Not to mention the number of times TSA has been accused of stealing from people's luggage. If TSA personnel can be so easily tempted to steal, how easily could they be bribed?

If we wanted to profile TSA employees, one might argue that they have a reputation for being depraved, creepy, perverted thieves. So, maybe they shouldn't be entrusted with airline security.

They had security screening before 9/11, and it obviously didn't work to prevent terrorism. If someone is determined to get on a plane and commit an act of terrorism, they will find a way to do so, security check or no.

For one thing, it seems clear that flight crews are exempt from the security check. They have a separate entry. So, that's a gap in security which could be exploited by a terrorist infiltrating a flight crew. All they have to do is apply for a job at an airline.

 

[Kenny]

I recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.

For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.

What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.

Expert: US Needs to 'Profile' - Defense/Middle East

Interesting read, I think.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Australia definitely profiles folk arriving (or did, not been for a few years).

When they tell you which customs line to go into there is some that are families and kids, businessmen, etc. then if you get sent to 'number 1' (can't remember the actual number) then it's all blacks/Africans, Taliban looking dudes, and old Chinese folk (who if TV is to be believed are all carrying suitcases full of penises harvested from endangered species).

I have repeatedly been profiled 'randomly' assigned to the problematic ethnics and other assorted miscreants completely normal queue number 1 for being a male, traveling on my own from SE Asia, on a ticket from a travel agent I didn't purchase myself but paid in cash.

They wound it back a little, but yes, it still happens. There is now a completely random element introduced to checks, but this is supplemented by discretionary checks. Whether 'human nature' or profiling, certain 'types' of people are stopped more often than others.

My issue with profiling is a little more nuanced than simply 'profiling bad' but overall I think it often causes more harm than good.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.

I think you honestly believe this.

 

[George-ananda]

You are aware that when practiced by the police in the US it didn't reduced criminality in the targetted community, that innocents are often wrongfully arrested and sometime even condamned and that it alienates entire communities. For **** sake have people suddenly forgotten the lessons of the last 20 years in terms of global security and police work? Racial profiling is a catastrophic failure as is security theatre.

The criminality problem is because people of that group commit disproportionately more crimes. The good in those communities generally want stronger police protection.

The good and innocent have almost nothing to fear from the police when they co-operate politely from the start of the situation. Belligerent attitude and yes things can escalate in an ugly way. The police have an often terrible job and deserve our respect and politeness for doing that job.

 

[George-ananda]

I think you honestly believe this.

Yes I do honestly believe that. Belligerent attitudes involved and things can escalate in an ugly way. If one is polite and co-operative from the start problems are exceedingly rare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others.

Care to show your work on that assumption? I don't think this is obvious at all.