Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: capt. apathy on January 06, 2003, 12:19:04 AM
-
Please pause a moment and reflect back, by taking the following multiple choice test:
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Your grandmother
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, no patterns anywhere to justify profiling!
-
it easy to set up a pattern if you cut out the data points that dont match (OK City, trey arrow, John Hinkley jr, Guenther Parche, Frank Corder, etc)...#2 was as legit as Washington crossing the deleware river to shoot the $hi† outta the brits
-
13. In Jan 5th 2003, over two dozen innocent Tel Aviv (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_20) shoppers murdered & disfigured by two nutbag suicide bombers were murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Your grandmother
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
-
Kill all muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40!
-
All those lads in all that time have barely made a scratch on the US death by handguns yearly total.
-
Originally posted by UserName
Kill all muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40!
That's not what he is saying...change this to:
Search and question all Musilm males between the ages of 17 and 40 if they are attempting to board planes or trains.
Isn't that better than your suggestion?
-
And your point is?
I could do a similar list on the excesses of Christian nutjobs (male between age of 17 and 40) over the last 30 years.
Jesus, I could give you ten right now from Northern Ireland alone, including the murder of women and children by a Catholic Priest. Then there's the Balkan madness with clerics using the radio to incite people to ethnically cleanse their next door neighbours.
This is the point - every religion has its wackos and extremists. They use religion to push their cultural/territorial agendas while often completely perverting the religion itself.
In the case of Islam, the books of Hadith talk of many laws/rules on many issues within Islamic society. Within them are the rules concerning Jihad, or Holy 'struggle'. In terms of war, women and children are not to be harmed and neither should their crops and livestock.
To most moderate, Sunni Muslims (who make up by far and away the majority of Muslims) Jihad is the inner struggle, to resist temptation and lead a good and honourable life. To your Shiites, extremist nutcases etc it is seen as a method for Islamic expansionism. This difference of interpretation is a key fallacy of religion and it exists in Christianity alike.
-
"All those lads in all that time have barely made a scratch on the US death by handguns yearly total."
:rolleyes:
oh PULEEEEZE Mr H. there are SO many more things to get fired up over for causes of death than handguns. Where is your indignation over car accidents.. over SMOKING deaths.. over medical mistakes or heart disease .. all of which claim more by themselves than handguns do in the US.
-
Originally posted by Mr.H
All those lads in all that time have barely made a scratch on the US death by handguns yearly total.
Yeah, and imagine the Doctors that have killed many more than handguns!:eek: :p
-
Dowding,
Ireland and the Balkans were localised conflicts.
The Musilm nutjobs have declared war on the west..the whole of the west. This includes the US, Great Britain and even my little island (we lost two people from here on 9/11 - on a percentage of population basis this is the highest casulaty rate in the world in fact.) So, in order to prtect ourselves, in our home lands, it only makes sense to profile Musilms.
I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, or the sensibilities of the peaceful brands of Islam...but it is a matter of self presevation.
If any of my family or friends are hurt or killed by these nutjobs because racial profiling was NOT performed when it should have been I will be extremley pissed off with you liberal whiners who claim that the concept of profiling is "unfair". I just don't care how unfair it is. How would you feel if your family was killed by one of them? Would you still be here waving your liberal flag and claiming that we shouldn't profile potential terrorists. I think not...I think you would change your "tune" rather quickly.
Perhaps Islam should police itself...but, until it does I say "profile the hell out of 'em."
...and by the way, if white males between the ages of 17 and 40 were planting bombs around the world and threatened the peace-loving Musilms I would not be offended in the slightest if I was in a Musilm country and was profiled. They would be only doing what makes sense.
-
It has been proven that racial profiling is a faulty system for security as it leaves gaps that can be exploited. Random searches are more effective.
Basically, you have terrorist observe the system. Terrorists see that the system is racially profiling. Terrorists use a guy that looks western, system is defeated, people die.
-
good job on the chart, Ripman!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It has been proven that racial profiling is a faulty system for security as it leaves gaps that can be exploited. Random searches are more effective.
Basically, you have terrorist observe the system. Terrorists see that the system is racially profiling. Terrorists use a guy that looks western, system is defeated, people die.
Yea...like the shoe bomber case...gee that guy didn't look like he was a nutjob. I watched an interview with the large black man who held down the nutjob for the rest of that flight.
You know what Thrawn? The black guy was searched "randomly". The shoe bomber wasn't even questioned.
I think profiling would work better, sorry.
-
Ireland and the Balkans were localised conflicts.
That in no way negates the fact that nutjobs are not exclusive to Islam. In fact, it is irrelevant to my point.
If any of my family or friends are hurt or killed by these nutjobs because racial profiling was NOT performed when it should have been I will be extremley pissed off with you liberal whiners who claim that the concept of profiling is "unfair". I just don't care how unfair it is. How would you feel if your family was killed by one of them? Would you still be here waving your liberal flag and claiming that we shouldn't profile potential terrorists. I think not...I think you would change your "tune" rather quickly.
A moot point, since neither of us has lost family members to terrorism of any kind and no-one can truly judge how they would react to such a situation.
-
Dowding: "This is the point - every religion has its wackos and extremists"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it that so many more violent extremists seem to be Muslims? Am I just imagining this? Explain please, Dowding.
Thrawn: "It has been proven that racial profiling is a faulty system for security as it leaves gaps that can be exploited. Random searches are more effective."
Would you please provide the source?
-
Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
That in no way negates the fact that nutjobs are not exclusive to Islam. In fact, it is irrelevant to my point.
A moot point, since neither of us has lost family members to terrorism of any kind and no-one can truly judge how they would react to such a situation.
Yes it does negate it...because those conflicts were localised there was no need to racially profile Irishmen or Serbs entering the US, Great Britain etc.
I'm not saying they weren't nutjobs...they were/are. They are just doing all their "nuttyness" in their own countries.
The fact is that Musilm nutjobs have attacked the west IN the west. To protect ourselves we need to make sure the Musilms boarding planes and trains in the west are of the peaceful sort.
Easy to say it is a moot point...BUT I lost a friend in the WTC, not a family member and that alone makes me feel that profiling is warrented. If it was a family member my feelings would merely be STRONGER.
-
Perhaps, Gunthr, because a larger number of Muslims are poor, live in countries whose ruling class wouldn't look out of place in feudal Europe and will never relinquish any power to the populace. Add to this a lack of education, deliberate propaganda from terrorist, extremist groups in the poorer areas of the world. The existence of huge, dispossessed groups such as the Palestinians who are seen as an untermenschen by a Western supported government, with a level of human rights provision a Westerner would never accept. Nationalism and a feeling of injustice is used to fuel a fury aimed at those who perpetuate it - religion becomes a unifying power, as it has done many times before. Those in a position to do something about it, outside of strapping semtex to their torso and going on a bus ride, fund or fund-raise for organisations set-up to 'redress the balance'. These individuals tend to be highly educated religious nut-jobs who believe they have a mandate from the Islamic world for their actions. To some extent they probably do.
Perhaps those things have something to do with it, but I'm no expert.
-
Warrented or not, it might not be the best system for actually stopping them. Do you want to stop them or make muslims feel oppressed for revenge's sake?
-
Yes it does negate it...because those conflicts were localised there was no need to racially profile Irishmen or Serbs entering the US, Great Britain etc.
Really? Tell that to the families of the 12 year old lads killed in Warrington (England), or those killed in the Birmingham pub bombings (England). You did have nutcase Irishmen adept at planting semtex on the mainland - do you think we should have introduced racial profiling in that case?
Easy to say it is a moot point...BUT I lost a friend in the WTC, not a family member and that alone makes me feel that profiling is warrented. If it was a family member my feelings would merely be STRONGER.
I'm sorry that is case, I couldn't know that.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Really? Tell that to the families of the 12 year old lads killed in Warrington (England), or those killed in the Birmingham pub bombings (England). You did have nutcase Irishmen adept at planting semtex on the mainland - do you think we should have introduced racial profiling in that case?
I'm sorry that is case, I couldn't know that.
Technically, in the case of the Irish conflict and the events you describe were still "localised" by virtue of the fact that it remained in the United Kingdom.
It wouldn't have been "racial" profiling even if it was done. Irishmen and Brits are the same "race".
But, having said that I'm sure you will find that MI5 or Scotland Yard would have been watching the flow of people between Ireland and Great Britain very carefully...in fact they probably continue to do so.
There was no way for you to know...hell, I didn't find out about it until a year later. I had lost touch with the guy...but it was still a shock to find out he had been killed. I was all for racial profiling before I found out...since then I am even more "for it".
Thrawn...how about random searches AND profiling Mid Eastern types. That should cover both ends of the spectrum.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Thrawn...how about random searches AND profiling Mid Eastern types. That should cover both ends of the spectrum.
Hell, why not search everyone.
-
It would take too long silly.:p
-
Originally posted by Curval
It would take too long silly.:p
Yes it would be completely impractical.
Let's diddly around with some numbers I'm pulling out of my ass.
You got 100 passengers going on a flight. One of the passengers is a non-middle-eastern looking terrorist. 2 of the passengers look middle-eastern.
There are 10 security officer people to seach all the passengers. A sercurity officer can only search 1 person.
Using randon searches there is a 1 in 10 chance of the terrorist being caught.
Using racial profiling and random searches, 2 of the security officers have to search the middle-eastern looking passengers. There are now 8 officers to search the 98 remainin non-middle-eastern looking passengers.
The terrorist now has a 1 in 12.25 chance of being caught.
-
Just where are all these non Mid-Eastern looking terrorists?
You do realise that it would be difficult for Al Quieda to talk John Smith into killing himself in a Jihad War? All of the terrorists to date have looked the part.
Now, I do see your point where it relates to Asians. Lots of them, from Indoneia etc. could slip past the profilers, I suppose.
But, you are baseing your entire theory on the fact that Al-Quieda WILL change their modus operendi. How do you know this?
Your theory almost got a plane blown up going to the US from Paris...they randomly searched the black man who helped to prevent this while allowing the Shoe Bomber to board unmolested.
I have some proof..you have opinions and an interesting theory.
-
Until Thrawns army of white terrorists appear...
go one step further .. put all mid eastern men on their own flight ..
if numbers allow only one flight per week/month to a given destination ... so be it.
There is always Greyhound...
-
How about this guy?
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0202/walker0206.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
go one step further .. put all mid eastern men on their own flight ..
Make black people sit at the back of the bus, while you are at it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How about this guy?
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0202/walker0206.jpg)
I say one bullet in the head, what do you libs say?
This loser, McVie and who? Is that your swarm of whitie terror?
-
Originally posted by Curval
But, you are baseing your entire theory on the fact that Al-Quieda WILL change their modus operendi. How do you know this?
What happend after they unsuccesfully tried to blow up the WTC with a car bomb?
"Your theory almost got a plane blown up going to the US from Paris...they randomly searched the black man who helped to prevent this while allowing the Shoe Bomber to board unmolested. "
Even an effective system doesn't mean a 100% system.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Make black people sit at the back of the bus, while you are at it.
huh?
pull out a 60's race card and compare to Middle Eastern terrorism?
what a stretch...............
-
Originally posted by Eagler
huh?
pull out a 60's race card and compare to Middle Eastern terrorism?
what a stretch...............
Racism is racism.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Racism is racism.
and terrorism is murder
murder commited by middle eastern men
-
So what are you that are for profiling suggesting. Separate lines and different security procedures for anyone of middle-eastern descent?
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
So what are you that are for profiling suggesting. Separate lines and different security procedures for anyone of middle-eastern descent?
SOB
Nah, we are still dealing with a the same fixed number of people that can be searched before the system becomes impractical.
Whether the 2 security officers are searching the 2 middle-eastern looking guys in one line or another doesn't make a difference.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and terrorism is murder
murder commited by middle eastern men
Except when it's not commited by middle eastern men.
-
nothing that drastic, just check everyone that fits the profile as you would if it were a regular murder investigation & others that don't and not have the PC crowd tell the inspectors that have to search evenly ... the 80 year old war vet and skip the arab because they already checked an arab within the last x numbers of searches...
-
No need for separate lines...they can be dragged out of my line, I will make room gladly.
-
Thrawn, I havn't read the source you quoted yet, but I strongly disagree with you on profiling. Profiling works. It must be based on intelligence which is continiously updated.
You don't profile just based on race, necessarily. You use any number of data... origin of flight, destination, type aircraft, time of year, and yes maybe gender or race, or age, style of dress, or any other factor where a correlation is found. Why the emotional response to profiling? I don't get it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
No need for separate lines...they can be dragged out of my line, I will make room gladly.
So people of middle-eastern decent should be dragged out of your line and searched just because they look middle-eastern even though it might not be the best way to stop actual terrorism?
-
Ironically, "profiling" is the term used by media to mis-represent what professionals do.
Professionals themselves use the term "experience". An experienced professional differs from one with just theoretical education by having experience and using it to achieve objectives more efficiently.
Conclusions based on experience may sometime differ from ones based on theory - which for prefessionals themselves means that the theory should be revised but for some politicians it means that professionals are evil, inherently biased people.
Thrawn: Racism is racism.
That is not good definition for someone who may be trying to avoid being racist. Care to post a more usable one?
So people of middle-eastern decent should be dragged out of your line and searched just because they look middle-eastern...
Politely taken to the side and searched while everybody else is waiting. The plane will not leave without them.
...even though it might not be the best way to stop actual terrorism?
That would be for experts to decide.
miko
-
Good examples Eagler...I agree the current system can be pretty diddlyed up. I'll add to that a barrell full of scissors, half of which you wouldn't be afraid to let your child run with much less fear someone taking over a plane with. I see no reason to single out 17-40 year old middle easterners and skip everyone else. John Walker is only one man but he proves the point that it IS possible to have a terrorist that doesn't fit the description.
SOB
-
Gunthr,
I have not been arguing about profiling in general, but have my limited my points to racial profiling as it is the subject of this thread.
miko,
"Thrawn: Racism is racism.
That is not good definition for someone who may be trying to avoid being racist. Care to post a more usable one? "
Making people sit on the back of a bus because of race is racism.
Making people sit on a different plane because of race is racism.
"...even though it might not be the best way to stop actual terrorism?
That would be for experts to decide. "
That's nice. What problem do you have wtih paper I linked to?
Eagler,
"John Walker is only one man but he proves the point that it IS possible to have a terrorist that doesn't fit the description."
Nah, he is the only Al-Quade member that we know about that fits this discription.
-
play the odds
just like you do with everything else in life
it ain't about STOPPING terrorism (as this is impossible), its about MINIMIZING it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So people of middle-eastern decent should be dragged out of your line and searched just because they look middle-eastern even though it might not be the best way to stop actual terrorism?
The "might not be" part of the above sentance intrigues me.
It implies the possibility that it MIGHT BE the best way to stop actual terrorism.
-
The Religion of peace
1972 Munich Germany
1979 Embassy In Iran
1980 Lebanon kidnapping and murder
1983 Beirut bombing
1984 Achille Lauro 70 Jewish American in wheelchair thrown from ship
1985 T WA 487 hijacked from Athens
1988 Pan Am flight 103
1993 WTC
1995 Kabul Towers in Saudi Arabia
1998 Embassies: Sudan, Tanzania
2000 USS Cole
2001 WTC, Pentagon, Penn. Headed for Washington
2001 Shoe bomber plane
2001 Decapitation reporter Pakistan
2001 LAX airport shooting
2001 French tanker bombing
2002 Bali night club
2002 Snippier shooting USA Washington
2002 Moscow theater
2002 Business man in Jordan
-
profiling is just another word for paying atention to trends.
most of us do it at work. but since it's not 'racial' profiling it's ok.
for example. I have a '89 jeep cherokee with the GM straight-6. I had a exaust leak. so I take it to the machanic. I tell him I need an exaust leak found and fixed on my rig. he asks what I'm driving, so I tell him. without getting out of the chair, he tells me I have a cracked exaust manifold and quotes me the price to fix it right off the top of his head. I was kinda taken by suprise and asked how he knew the price so quick. he says the stock manifolds crack all the time and need to be replaced with the non-cast type. he says just about all of these end up with a cracked manifold and if you replace it with stock it happens again.
the point is that it is not an unusual thing. do jeeps have exaust leaks that are not due to a cracked manifold? yes. do other brands of cars get cracked manifolds? yes. but by paying attention to different problems and where they often come from he was able to diagnose my car with alot less effort, time, or money. he knew his job and went and checked the manifold first, saving alot of time looking around the car.
I see nothing wrong with taking a closer look at people who fit the discription of the guys who bring most of the problem.
-
Originally posted by Curval
The "might not be" part of the above sentance intrigues me.
It implies the possibility that it MIGHT BE the best way to stop actual terrorism.
Of course it might be, I also might win the lottery. No one has countered the Carnival Booth Algorithm paper yet, which indicates that it is not the best system.
JBA,
Religions don't kill people. People kill people.
Capt,
How would your analogy change if the mechanic was actively trying to defeat your profiling system?
-
Your mechanic is obviously a racist.
SOB
-
What a disturbingly anti-semitic thread.
-
Anti-semitic?
-
Sounds like the terrorists have almost won the war.
:(
-
Thrawn said: "It has been proven that racial profiling is a faulty system for security as it leaves gaps that can be exploited. Random searches are more effective."
I asked for your source. You gave:
"Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6805/stu...papers/caps.htm"
Thrawn, your source does not "prove" that profiling is ineffective.
Your source is a paper prepared by students for a project. It is regarding the FAA's use of a specific Computer Aided Profiling system in 1999 for airport passenger screening. The FAA then, and the Homeland Security agency now do not rely on that alone. It was a system in development back then anyway.
As pointed out elsewhere, profiling is never perfect, but it really does work.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Anti-semitic?
Sure..Arabs AND Jews are semites...surprised you didn't know that Dowding.
Funny me being called an anti-semite, but there you have it.
-
quote
_______________
Capt,
How would your analogy change if the mechanic was actively trying to defeat your profiling system?
___________________
I don't follow your point. are you saying the airport security people are activly trying to screw up any usefull profiling?
because if you pay attention and follow the analogy. the security people would be the machanic (searching for the problem).
-
Thrawn: Making people sit on the back of a bus because of race is racism.
Making people sit on a different plane because of race is racism.
I would agree with that. That is of course quite separate from my support of freedom of any private individual/business to practice racism, however disgusted I am with such individuals. Public companies and businesses operating under the public license should of course be disallowed from precticing racism.
But just listing cases is not enough if you can freely add to that list. Like, this whole thread is about airport searches and you did not list it. I was hoping for some more general principle.
That would be for experts to decide. "
That's nice. What problem do you have wtih paper I linked to?
I did not mean specific experts who's opinion becomes a digma, but experts entrusted with each particular thing. Experts views differ. Experts views change.
The linked study adresses possibly exploitable shortcomings of a particular computreised subcomponent of a security system. That is why such system are going to be improved and work in conjunction with human experts.
Eagler: it ain't about STOPPING terrorism (as this is impossible), its about MINIMIZING it.
You should add "in a cost-effective manner". We could eliminate 100% of traffic accidents tomorrow if we wanted. It's just that most of the population would die of desease and starvation within a year.
One of the most brilliant minds of our generation - economist Thomas Sowell, who is black, by the way, has a good book on the cost of knowlege in market economy - "Knowledge and Decisions".
It may serve as a good justification for many "rasist" practices based on the fact that obtaining particular knowlege is expencive and using general knowlege (about race/ethnicity) really helps cut down on the costs. Of course the optimum is a mix of certain proportions.
We successfully use encoding to compress files and save (money, bandwidth, storage) based on our knowlege of distribution of letters. Statement "the next letter is 'a'" contains much less information than "the next letter is 'z'" - because a is more common. That's why we can encode 'a' with 2 bits and waste 9 bits on 'z' and still save space - which we can use to fit in more letters into the same space. How much bits to spend per letter is determined scientifically.
Statement "this 'white person' is not a terrorist" contains much less information that the statement "this xyz is not a terrorist" because xyz are more likely to be terrorists according to the statistics. Spending 10 minutes in order to verify that is much more of a waste than spending 10 minutes in order to verify that xyz is not a terrorist.
So the queston becomes:
What strategy/mix we employ to get the highest probability that there are no terrorists among N people aboard a plane which contains a fraction M xyz with fixed limited number of resources (searches)? The random search is certainly not the optimal solution. It's pure and relatively simple math and has nothing to do with racism. It must lead to the search of some 'white' people but not proportional to their numarical representation.
Again, that is purely compurerised algorithm, subject to algorithms intended to break it's operation - that's why random element and human factor will always be present.
miko
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I don't follow your point. are you saying the airport security people are activly trying to screw up any usefull profiling?
I'm saying that Al-Quaeda is activly trying to exploit security problems with profiling.
Gunthr,
Can you give me some ideas on how this solution: (1) Probe the system by sending an operative on a flight. The operative has no intent of causing harm. He has no explosives. He has no weapons. He has nothing. He simply takes the flight and notes whether or not CAPS flags him. (2) If he is flagged, then send another operative in the same manner. (3) Repeat this process until a member who consistently eludes CAPS flags is found. (4) Now send this operative on a mission with intent to harm, complete with weapons or explosives. Since CAPS didn’t flag him last time, he likely won’t be flagged this time, so he incurs much less risk of special scrutiny., would not not defeat a profiling based security system?
Miko, thanks for the response.
-
miko, what happens when someone decodes your algorithm?
-
I'd like to remind you again - the goal of a system is not to prevent possibility of terrorism, but to make it not cost-effective.
Terrorists may come up with the optimal way to act. That way will not be 100% effctive and it may take them a lot of money and many years and exposure - during which their operations can be compromised - even if the algorithm they plan to defeat does not change, which is a stretch.
So they might try some other way - probably less hurtfull.
Likewise, the terrorists do not have to succeed with every act. They can come up with a strategy causing us a lot of loss with very few actual direct damage.
It's a facinating minimisation problem. Of course the expectation that our legislature does not operate on scientific principles and waste resurces trying for impossible "comprehencive" solutions must be part of their plan.
miko
-
Thrawn: miko, what happens when someone decodes your algorithm?
I am in a business of computerised stock trading. I know for sure that there are ways to make money on algorithms - which work against competitor's algorithms as well as "spontaneous" market dynamics. Decoding competitors' algorithms is part of what we do. Algorithms can be relied upon. But you do not have to sell me on a notion that any fixed algorithm can be eventually defeated.
The same algorithm is never good for longer than a few weeks/months. Market changes in responce to algorithms used. So one has to adapt. And one cannot avoid using live humans with their brains and intuition.
Anyway, this whole thread subject was originally human-vs-human affair. The algorithm cannot be rasist and an algorithm saying "skip all whites, check all arabs" can hardly be called an algorithm or need a computer to operate. :)
The issue was that humans "unfairly" subjected other humans to examination. They were certainly somewhat computer-assisted but the decision was theirs.
I was never arguing in favor of any algorithm, however successfull at the moment - just that "preferential" (not exclosive) treatment of certain identifiable categories of people is justified and does not violate civil rights.
miko
-
"Warrented or not, it might not be the best system for actually stopping them. Do you want to stop them or make muslims feel oppressed for revenge's sake?"
I don't care if we hurt their feelings. I will be concerned with their feelings when one of them parks a Tank in my driveway. Until then, screw em.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds like the terrorists have almost won the war.
:(
Close, a couple more perposterous statements from the left like the one Sen.Patty Murray recently said....and its set--match.
-
Thrawn, in answer your question - the students who wrote the paper set out to try to prove mathematically how that particular profiling system is easily defeated. (I suspect that they began with a bias against profiling to begin with - but that is beside the point).
Their theory makes a kind of sense on paper, but it does not take into account real life variables or human psychology or the fact that profiling is a fluid process. In fact, the students who wrote the paper assume that the system is static. Additionally the paper assumes that if some part of the system is exploitable, or if the system fails to identify an individual terrorist, the system is not effective.
That is not true. Profiling is only a part of the security system. There are also x-rays, dogs, manual searches, explosive sniffers, interrogation, etc. If your profiling is no longer effective, you change or update your parameters with incoming intelligence. Furthermore, random searches are always included.
Terrorism is a very, very, very effective way to use resources, especially if the operators are willing to die. There is very little you can do to stop it unless you want to lock down everything, as El-Al does. Its a balance between freedom and security.
Just my .02. Miko knows what I'm talking about.
The fact is, profiling is going to occur no matter what any of us think about it. PC people may force a different name to it, but profiling will always be put to use.
Maybe this is a semantics problem?
-
America was built on judism and christianity!!!
In my opinion if you aint one of the above then get out!!!!!!!
TEXAS justice when it bows to meca kick it square in the ass!!!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It has been proven that racial profiling is a faulty system for security as it leaves gaps that can be exploited. Random searches are more effective.
Basically, you have terrorist observe the system. Terrorists see that the system is racially profiling. Terrorists use a guy that looks western, system is defeated, people die.
No kidding. Wasn't the bomb that destroyed the PanAm flight that blew up over Scotland carried on by a white woman (who was manipulated by her boyfriend)?
Racial profiling would be useless in another similar case.
How many Hindus and Sikhs are going to have to be searched and detained because they were mistaken for arabs? How many "Muslim, extremist, terrorist" will be let go because they don't fit the profile (could be asian or caucasian looking)? Keep in mind that none of the "muslim extremist terrorists" wear turbans. (As Thrawn pointed out.)
Even if the US did not increase security at the airports since 9/11, what are the odds of another terrorist attack being successful using utility knives and fake bombs by any terrorist group?
Zero. I wouldn't know of any flight where the passengers wouldn't revolt and keep it from happening again. Chances are the passengers would kill the terrorists on the spot.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I was never arguing in favor of any algorithm, however successfull at the moment - just that "preferential" (not exclosive) treatment of certain identifiable categories of people is justified and does not violate civil rights.
miko
Heheh, for the most part, I'm not questioning the civil rights issues.
I think, we're pretty much in agreement when it comes to effective methods of actually stopping the terrorists.
If the FAA and any consultants can devise a algorithm, which is better then randomnessat detecting the message (terrorist) from the noise (other passengers), and it is complex enough that there is a next to nil chance of Al-Quaeda detecting it and decoding it, then exploiting it, before the algorithm is changed. Then I would agree that it would be better then relying on randomness.
I certainly don't think that racial profiling alone would meet these requirements.
2Slow,
""Warrented or not, it might not be the best system for actually stopping them. Do you want to stop them or make muslims feel oppressed for revenge's sake?"
I don't care if we hurt their feelings. I will be concerned with their feelings when one of them parks a Tank in my driveway. Until then, screw em."
I was saying "hurting their feelings" for no appreciable benefit was wrong.
-
Please explain to us all how 3 of the reportedly Islamic hijackers in the 9/11 attack have been found alive in their home countries?
Chimpy and his thugs are lying to us about a LOT of things.
-
Great Posts Miko. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Please explain to us all how 3 of the reportedly Islamic hijackers in the 9/11 attack have been found alive in their home countries?
Got a linK.
-
who really knows the truth??
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
-
Jeebus. Thanks for the link.
-
so what these three stooges missed there planes LOL
-
Hmmm very interesting. Great intelligence services we have if that story is true :rolleyes:
Thnx for the link weazel.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, and imagine the Doctors that have killed many more than handguns!:eek: :p
Rip,
Where do the deaths in the US from "Muslim male extremists" fall in your chart?
-
SaburoS: Wasn't the bomb that destroyed the PanAm flight that blew up over Scotland carried on by a white woman (who was manipulated by her boyfriend)?
Racial profiling would be useless in another similar case.
In fact exactly such an attempt was once thwarted by Israeli El-Al guards who thoroughly checked the bag of an innocent pregnant european girl after learning that it was packed by her palestinian boyfriend / fiancee.
That 'stupid' question "who helped you pack your bags" which is being discontinued in american practice as useless is apparently not so stupid after all.
Of course that method probably works better when there are motivated jews asking the question and judging the responce rather then our unionized "diversity" specimen.
If PanAm security profiled more, rather than less thoroughly and subjected that white woman to search based on who her boyfriend was, the tragedy could have been prevented, couldn't it?
How many Hindus and Sikhs are going to have to be searched and detained because they were mistaken for arabs?
Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.
weazel: Please explain to us all how 3 of the reportedly Islamic hijackers in the 9/11 attack have been found alive in their home countries?
The real hijackers used documents of real people? Nah, they wouldn't stoop so low as to steal someone else's identity in perpetrating their plot, would they?
So we don't know who the three of the guys really were. What's the big deal?
miko
-
Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Hmmm, what's unreasonable? Being searched before a flight? Being searched because of your race, before a flight?
-
What's the big deal?
The government lying to us?
I know it's no big deal to a lot of people...but it matters to me.
-
It is accepted that any person can be searched when borading a flight. There is proably a clause to that effect printed on tickets somewhere. That some people are not searched does not violate rights of people that are, however arbitrary the selection process.
Unlike many other issues, Constitution is all-or-nothing here, black and white, no gradations. If a search is unreasonable, it is unreasonable no matter what else is going on and whether or not anyone else is being searched for whatever reason.
Constitution is about State and Individual rights - not group rights.
If any search of any individual would be unreasonable because of Constitution (which may well be the case, for all I know), all of them would be, even if performed 100% randomly or on every passenger with no exceptions.
miko
-
weazel: The government lying to us?
I know it's no big deal to a lot of people...but it matters to me.
It's a necessary attribute of a democratic system, especially socialist democratic system.
A politician who is not lying just does not get elected. There are quite a lot of philosophical research dedicated to this question. Basically, it's the principle of nature, like gravity. Nothing specific to our culture or customs or quality of our people.
miko
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Close, a couple more perposterous statements from the left like the one Sen.Patty Murray recently said....and its set--match.
?? I guess I missed that. What are you talking about Rip?
edit... nevermind, found it.
-
Quote: "
Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Hmmm, what's unreasonable? Being searched before a flight? Being searched because of your race, before a flight? - Thrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thrawn, when you decide to pay your money for a seat on an airliner, you agree to be searched.
Of course, you can refuse. Just step out of line and start walking... maybe take a bus or boat instead. Nobody is forcing you fly. The searches are not necessarily unconstitutional - although obviously discriminatory searches could be a PR nightmare.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Thrawn, when you decide to pay your money for a seat on an airliner, you agree to be searched.
Of course, you can refuse. Just step out of line and start walking... maybe take a bus or boat instead. Nobody is forcing you fly.
Now I'm not convinced of the strenghth of my arguement, just trying to work it out at this point, so please bear with me while I shoot my mouth off for a bit.
In country A, you got purple people, who are the the majority. You got green people who are the minority. They live in Country A.
Some green people from Country B, killed some green and purple people from country A.
Security percautions are put in place. Security isn't allowed any unreasonable searching. Well is it reasonable to search people going on a plane? Sure.
Security searches a disproportionate number of green people.
Green people say, "WTF? My family has been here for 4 generations! I don't even follow the religion of those other green people. Why am I being singled out?"
Purple people say, "Then don't fly."
Green people say, "Thanks for the marginalization."
I don't know, there is something wonky here. But, I'm not sure where yet.
-
and the purple ppl say "You're Welcome"
-
Thrawn: the fact is that anyone searched who is an innocent will have hurt feelings or at least be inconvenienced. Let's say 100,000 have been searched since 9/11 and not a single terrorist found.
How is it worse that 50% of those innocent were green versus 5% or 1%? Unless the unreasonable procedure compromises the chance of success, which is not an issue here - someone is going to be arbitrarily and "unreasonably" searched anyway.
Last month they were searching for a white guy with a crew cut and a sniper rifle. Tomorrow they may search for blue-eyed guys or for guys with russian accent or for southern guy or for a hawaian guy.
As long as the plane does not leave without me and I am not detained without evidence, the search would not be illegal. Inconvenient maybe, but not really harmfull.
Why should I care more about a 4-generation green american rather than a purple one being inconvenienced?
I split humanity into "my family" and "strangers". Your arbitrary divisions may make a lot of sence to you but not to me. Quite possibly that the screeners have a set of rules very different from yours and mine.
miko
-
Quote: "Now I'm not convinced of the strenghth of my arguement, just trying to work it out at this point, so please bear with me while I shoot my mouth off for a bit.
In country A, you got purple people, who are the the majority. You got green people who are the minority. They live in Country A.
Some green people from Country B, killed some green and purple people from country A.
Security percautions are put in place. Security isn't allowed any unreasonable searching. Well is it reasonable to search people going on a plane? Sure.
Security searches a disproportionate number of green people.
Green people say, "WTF? My family has been here for 4 generations! I don't even follow the religion of those other green people. Why am I being singled out?"
Purple people say, "Then don't fly."
Green people say, "Thanks for the marginalization."
I don't know, there is something wonky here. But, I'm not sure where yet."
__________________
Ok, Thrawn, maybe this will help make things clearer.
In your example, race (color) appears to be the sole factor in profiling the passengers boarding the plane. In your example you say that a "disproportionate" number of greenies are searched. By that I infer that a larger percentage of greenies are searched in comparison with the percentage of purple people searched.
If the factor used in profiling the passengers is soley color - that is, if the intelligence says only that a terrorist attack is iminent and the suspect is green - you would certainly be searching more green passengers in addition to your random searches.
In today's world, all people will have to accept this reality... if you want security.
The goal is not fairness. The goal is not equality for all people. The goal is security. I think its an educational issue... that is until we resort to total measures like searching every single bag and every single person.
-
The proof of discrimination is not what proportion searched but what proportion is detected.
If 1 of every 100 whites searched proves to be a terrorist and 1 of every 100 arabs searched prooves to be a terrorist, that would mean no discrimination even if few whites are searched and many arabs.
Having found 1 terrorist among 1000 whites and 1 terrorist among 100 arabs would actually show discrimination of whites. That makes it clear why while arabs complain of being discriminated based on total percentage of searches, whites are also complaining of discrimination based on total likelihood. My elderly aunt was seriously pissed off when she had to undergo thorough search recently - she was sure she was discriminated for being white.
If all terrorists were whites but security still harassed mostly arabs, that would be discriminatory and counterproductive.
As it is, no one, not even arabs protest searching and detecting arab terrorists. What everyone protests is searching innocents. That is understandable but the security do not know in advance who those innocents are.
miko