Full body scans for US bound flights

[Galteeth]

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:



With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.

Perhaps not, but common sense profiling does to some extent. As somone pointed out, white women above the age of 70 are unlikely to be a terrorist threat (although I supposse if terrorists knew this loophole, they could try to recruint a 70 plus white looking woman, but still)

EDIT: Similarly, I as a 25 year old punk, am not a likely terrorist.

 

[mgb_phys]

EDIT: Similarly, I as a 25 year old punk, am not a likely terrorist.

No but you are a likely: drug user, music pirate, drunk driver, starter-of-fights-in-bars an anti-government protester so we will have you on a no-fly list anyway

 

[dotman]

Perhaps not, but common sense profiling does to some extent. As somone pointed out, white women above the age of 70 are unlikely to be a terrorist threat

No, 'common sense' profiling does not. To use your example: an American of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist threat. For that matter, a foreigner of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist.

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes, or massive security systems whose rules are easily learned and bypassed.

The people we are fighting are not stupid.

 

[Cyrus]

Practically speaking, such "realpolitik" actions do in fact have long term negative consequences besides the moral issues. The CIA refers to this as "blowback." Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, wrote a book on this subject. It could be argued, with merit, that the taliban and Al-Qaeda are US created monsters.

EDIT: Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government as well.

I am familiar with Johnson, and the concept of blowback. What I fail to see, however, is any relevance to airport screening. This is not about us creating the taliban or Al-Qaeda, so...<shug>

 

[Cyrus]

I thought all hijackings concern the United States, and every country the plane can possibly reach.

If the airplane is not registered as US and is hijacked and heading for the United States, you can probably count on it being shot down before it gets anywhere close the ADIZ.

 

[Cyrus]

No, 'common sense' profiling does not. To use your example: an American of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist threat. For that matter, a foreigner of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist.

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes, or massive security systems whose rules are easily learned and bypassed.

The people we are fighting are not stupid.

This thread is about airport security. There is, and always has been, a need for it. Putting "feet on the ground" does nothing towards direct airport security. That is another topic for another thread.

 

[Loren Booda]

Could a scanner set off explosives?

 

[arildno]

I think that's where you are mistaken.

In that case, let the war come, rather than capitulate witout resorting to arms.

 

[arildno]

Are Muslims, and those in resemblance to the westernized stereotype, now morally degenerate?

If they choose to react with terrorism, definitely.
Therefore, it is you, and everyone else who think specialized profiling will lead to a huge increase of violence from their part who are implying they are morally degenerate to begin with.

If they are not, then they will NOT react with increased terrorism, and YOUR prediction is the one that fails.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, luckily, security officials can't be that naive because surely the increase will be long term. Not from the 'morally degenerate' group, but from the other groups placed on the pedestal, because face it, tactics can be changed easily.

No, they can't.

Any change will represent an increased COST,for example in how recruitment programmes would have to be conducted.

An arms race puts increased costs on BOTH sides, there is no such thing as free/arbitrary recruitment, free technology, free adaptivity and so on.

 

[arildno]

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes

A profiling scheme is NOT ineffective if it forces those it targets with profiling to radically change their modus operandi in order not to be caught.

Rather, that profiling scheme is to be regarded as HIGHLY effective.


To say differently is just about as idiotic as to say:
"DNA tests of sperm left by rapists is an ineffective investigation method because more rapists will start wearing condoms during the rape, or practice coitus interruptus."


Your flaw lies in thinking that an effective scheme implies reduction of incidence.

This is totally false, an effective scheme implies that the modus operandi must be changed in order for the prospective perpetrator to be successful.

That is to say, if a perp can continue much as before AFTER the introduction of the profiling scheme, THEN that profiling scheme has proved itself ineffective.

 

[arildno]

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:



With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.

Religion is not ethnicity.

Furthermore, let's look at a totally hypothetical case:

Suppose we have a large culture with many branches, but where a core principle is such a morally horrendous feature as to regard a mass murderer and warlord from the 7th century as the morally perfect man, and any criticism of his life-choices is liable to death penalty.

Think if such an utterly perverse culture existed (this is, OF COURSE, merely hypothetical!).

Should we not regard those who adore such a vile monster from the past to be generally more morally suspect than people from a culture in which abhorrence toward such barbarian ruthlessness is instilled in its members?

 

[Borek]

In that case, let the war come, rather than capitulate witout resorting to arms.

Please stop assuming that just because I am pointing to places where I feel you are wrong I am against security measures and fighthing terrorits, or I am ready to give up. This is a straw man.

 

[arildno]

Please stop assuming that just because I am pointing to places where I feel you are wrong I am against security measures and fighthing terrorits, or I am ready to give up. This is a straw man.

Well, then you should make a better case for yourself!

Customs officials, who are in the business of preventing people to import alcoholic beverages or cigarettes above their legitimate quotas, have, of course, some groups they are particularly prone to check out.

That is to say, rational sampling procedures are well established, but when it comes to the mine field of terrorists, then people like you advocate NO such rational sampling procedures, but demand that either EVERYONE should be equally subjected to scans or, when that is impossible, IRRATIONAL sampling procedures ought to develop instead.

 

[Borek]

Well, then you should make a better case for yourself!

No, you just should read my posts before answering them. I have never stated anything that supports your claims, please browse the thread.

people like you advocate NO such rational sampling procedures

Seems like you know better than I what I think. Second straw man today.

Stop overgeneralizing. Just because I have stated "2 is an even number" doesn't mean I mean "there are no odd numbers".

 

[arildno]

Borek1:

Perhaps we should allow for separate planes for those that don't want to be scanned?

Silly nonsense not worth bothering about.
Borek2:

Common sense in society? You must be kidding.

Seriously - I am with you here, this is the same blend of idiocy/media hype/policy/PR that is responsible for most simple reagents being banned from schools so that nobody gets hurt during chemistry lessons or for sharp knives being banned from art classes - but you can still break your leg playing American football. Proportions have been lost long ago. We (in Poland) follow, albeit slowly.

Generally false.

A PROPER sense of proportion also includes consideration of the types of incidents, the typical motivation behind them and the extent to which the incidents will actually be preventable by, say, a ban.

People leaving their home in rage are most likely as probable to get involved in traffick accidents, relative to those placing themselves in the driver's seat in a state of pleasurable drunkenness.

Whereas the second form might conceivably be reduced through a ban on driving in a state of drunkenness, the first form is largely unpreventable.
That is why rational legislation, and a proper sense of proportion will focus on the second form.

Borek3:

Not many, perhaps none. But you are making a mistake assuming that Muslims are the only source of danger and that it is so obvious that white Marine can't be a Muslim terrorist. I suppose that's what Monique means and all are equal is not an idealism - she just points to the fact that everyone can be a terrorist and should be treated in exactly the same way.

Completely false, as has been pointed out to you many times over.

 

[dotman]

A profiling scheme is NOT ineffective if it forces those it targets with profiling to radically change their modus operandi in order not to be caught.

Rather, that profiling scheme is to be regarded as HIGHLY effective.

...

Your flaw lies in thinking that an effective scheme implies reduction of incidence.

This is totally false, an effective scheme implies that the modus operandi must be changed in order for the prospective perpetrator to be successful.

Haha, so if we implement a security measure, and planes continue to be blown up, but in new ways, that security measure was effective.

You should be the TSA administrator.

An effective scheme stops attacks before they happen. This is about saving lives. This is all it is about.

Ethnic Profiling does not do this.

 

[arildno]

Haha, so if we implement a security measure, and planes continue to be blown up, but in new ways, that security measure was effective.

Quite correct, as long as the previous modus operandi was made impossible by that security scheme.

An effective scheme stops attacks before they happen.

Nope.
That is fuzzy thinking, totally disregarding the im,possibility in providing ALL-encompassing, ALL-effective schemes valid for all time.

Because you are so steeped in fuzzy thinking, you are completely unsuitable as a TSA administrator.

A proper method is a combination of
a) selective profiling
AND
b) continued random searching.

a)'s are continually watched for its probable success by means of b)'s, that will pick up changing trends with regard to high-risk groups.
When a previous high-risk group detected in b), that warranted the implementation of an a)-profiling seems to be on the wane, then it could be discussed whether an a)-profiling on that sub-group should be discontinued.

Similarly, when the strictly random b)'s detect some new group's over-representation, that should initiate discussion whether it warrants an a)-treatment.

 

[dotman]

If you believe a security measure that doesn't prevent attacks is worthwhile, well, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Borek]

Silly nonsense not worth bothering about.

It was intended to be sarcastic.

Generally false.

A PROPER sense of proportion also includes consideration of the types of incidents, the typical motivation behind them and the extent to which the incidents will actually be preventable by, say, a ban.

Proper sense of proportion - yes. But proper sense of proportion is not present in general population. Quite the opposite - trivial accident can get much publicity after being reported in media, then people want to prevent such accidents in future, then politicians pass stupid laws just to get popularity. Things are getting bown out of proportions all the time.

If you can get arrested for owning Erlenmeyer flask in Texas and not being licensed chemist, proper sense of proportion has been lost long ago.

I am afraid instead of trying to understand that I am referring to the general picture, you will now state that I am against any reasonable regulations. Another straw man, there are no odd numbers. Let be it.

That is why rational legislation, and a proper sense of proportion will focus on the second form.

I have never stated different. Proper and rational being key words. We live in an overregulated world in which both words are abused and twisted.

Completely false, as has been pointed out to you many times over.

There is a difference between repeating something and proving something. I state "someone pretending to be marine can be a terrorist", I am told it is "completely false". To prove my statement I give examples of people that are very close to the "terrorist marine" category, I am told it is "completely false". My only chance is to wait till some marine goes nuts.

Then, you may refer to the fact that I think every passenger should be treated the same way. I have already stated in one of the posts

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

but somehow you have missed it when quoting my "silly nonsense" posts.

 

[arildno]

There is a difference between repeating something and proving something. I state "someone pretending to be marine can be a terrorist", I am told it is "completely false".

Nope. You are told that it is completely false to treat different sub-groups in exactly the same way, which was your (and Monique's) conclusion.

That it is possible that little green men in oversized hats MIGHT become terrorists, too, does NOT mean we should expect the great leprechaun take-over.

That it is POSSIBLE that both marines and 90-year old great-grandmothers might turn out over-grouchy, does not mean we should regard them as representing the same security risk as some other groups. Yet.

 

[arildno]

If you believe a security measure that doesn't prevent attacks is worthwhile, well, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

Why not kill off ALL humans as a pre-emptive strike against terrorism?

THAT would be a security measure that GUARANTEED the extinction of terrorist acts, or at least their effectiveness..

 

[arildno]

I have a feeling that both Monique and me are treated as people who are against screening, while it is quite the opposite - we think that everyone should be screened.

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

Okay, so the policy that EVERYONE should be screened is the conclusion at the "highest, most general level".

But, clearly, this is not possible at the PRACTICAL level, and then your "highest level" policy just floats about in the sky somewhere, totally disconnected with reality..




Besides, if you wish to hear an alternate "highest level" policy I might ascribe to (given almost unlimited means), it would be to divide the population into various sub-groups, on basis of some criterion of variance-minimization, and then monitor each such group proportional to the expectation that a group member might be a security risk.

 

[arildno]

Well, you need to be SELECTIVE in what you gather intelligence about, since there is too much information "out there" waiting to be gathered.
For example, by monitoring..MOSQUE activities, rather than monitoring the activities within a synagogue?

That effective profiling schemes should incorporate intelligently gathered intelligence is, of course, a trivially valid point.

 

[BobG]

There's a functional fallacy to using profiled screening - mainly because the number of terrorists is so incredibly small.

There were 809 million airline passengers in 2008. (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html ).

I can't find a statistic for the number of passengers denied boarding because of luggage or personal screening, I think it's safe to say that over 99.9% were screened unnecessarily regardless of their appearance (there's no way anywhere close to 809,000 passengers failed screening). If a certain ethnic group is twice as likely to be a terrorist as a different group (and the 99.9% were anywhere near accurate), then 99.8% of screenings for that group would be wasted, vs 99.9% for the less risky group.

Compared to all screenings, there's virtually no improvement in efficiency by limiting screenings to certain profile groups. And the number of terrorists is so small, there's almost no disadvantage to choosing terrorists that don't fit the traditional profile. This isn't traditional warfighting tactics where you need a high number of successes and a high success rate for the attacks to be successful. It's a tactic where a 99.999999% success rate by us is a total and humiliating failure (8 terrorists a year successfully boarding a plane).

For finding a needle in a haystack, you need something that cuts across the board with as little inconvenience as possible. I think the full body scans will meet that objective at least as effectively as screening luggage (similar accuracy, similar time cost, personnel cost, etc). There's privacy issues, but I find it hard to consider full body scans to be as severe an invasion of privacy as random people in airports ogling attractive, fully clothed people in airports (in fact, the latter would probably cause more discomfirt than the full body scan where your "transparency" is known to you more intellectually than emotionally).

I wouldn't poo-poo ID's as a useless security tool, either. Yes, modern IDs can be faked, but they can't be faked by anyone willing to do so. They take above average resources and skill to fake the good ones. Military IDs are a good example of an ID that's difficult to fake. Having the equipment on hand to detect fake IDs are a different matter, however, since it is another expense that's only justified as the more sophisticated IDs become more common place.

 

[ranger]

If they choose to react with terrorism, definitely.
Therefore, it is you, and everyone else who think specialized profiling will lead to a huge increase of violence from their part who are implying they are morally degenerate to begin with.

If they are not, then they will NOT react with increased terrorism, and YOUR prediction is the one that fails.

Errrrrrr...you CANNOT accuse an entire group of something, then suppress them, and expect them to NOT do anything! Stop using this as a shallow justification to call Muslims morally degenerate. The enemy we are dealing with is not stupid. They can move their tactics easily from the target group to another. So the "THEY" becomes whatever new group is carrying out the attacks. Now, according to you, we have another morally degenerate group.

Which era do you think we are living in? The time when the whites suppressed the blacks and nothing was done for a significant amount of time is over! ANY group suppressed WILL retaliate. Most people have the common sense to know this. Most people have the common sense to know that ethic profiling is not a solution. Furthermore, officials are not naive to accept, as you claim, a temporary thousandfold increase in attacks, whether such an increase be true or not. I wonder if you even understand what you yourself are saying. A thousandfold increase is not a small number, especially since this is not guaranteed solution. Yet this is another reason why this your proposed solution is blatantly illogical.

Not only are your claims and proposals insulting, they are also farfetched. No need to do something stupid for your perceived false sense of security.

 

[rewebster]

I think the full body scan with soon be incorporated with the 'sniffer' into one machine/process.

If the people who analyzed the images weren't right there at the area where they saw the 'real' people, and that women analyzed 'females', and men 'males', that may help (especially after the 5000th scan) it wouldn't be that much of a 'thing'.

 

[Cyrus]

Errrrrrr...you CANNOT accuse an entire group of something, then suppress them, and expect them to NOT do anything! Stop using this as a shallow justification to call Muslims morally degenerate. The enemy we are dealing with is not stupid. They can move their tactics easily from the target group to another. So the "THEY" becomes whatever new group is carrying out the attacks. Now, according to you, we have another morally degenerate group.

Which era do you think we are living in? The time when the whites suppressed the blacks and nothing was done for a significant amount of time is over! ANY group suppressed WILL retaliate. Most people have the common sense to know this. Most people have the common sense to know that ethic profiling is not a solution. Furthermore, officials are not naive to accept, as you claim, a temporary thousandfold increase in attacks, whether such an increase be true or not. I wonder if you even understand what you yourself are saying. A thousandfold increase is not a small number, especially since this is not guaranteed solution. Yet this is another reason why this your proposed solution is blatantly illogical.

Not only are your claims and proposals insulting, they are also farfetched. No need to do something stupid for your perceived false sense of security.

I think arildnos post you are responding to flew over your head. Also, your comparison of selective airport screening to suppression of blacks is in very poor taste. It is a weak argument and has nothing to do with anything. What's next, comparison of Jews and Nazis? Enough is enough.

As a side note, It would be nice if people would stop arguing in hypothetical. "They will modify their tactics and get blonde people. They will...xyz." If you have no way to verify this, then don't say it.

 

[BobG]

I wouldn't poo-poo ID's as a useless security tool, either. Yes, modern IDs can be faked, but they can't be faked by anyone willing to do so. They take above average resources and skill to fake the good ones. Military IDs are a good example of an ID that's difficult to fake. Having the equipment on hand to detect fake IDs are a different matter, however, since it is another expense that's only justified as the more sophisticated IDs become more common place.

Of course, up until recently, there's never been much advantage in using a fake ID to board a plane: How to make a fake boarding pass.

The fake boarding pass wouldn't get you on a plane, but it would match your ID so you could get past security. A person could buy a ticket under a fake name (identity theft, anyone?) and never have to produce an ID to be compared to his real boarding pass.

This year, security check points are finally starting to install scanners to make sure the boarding passes presented at security are real. (It wasn't the sort of problem with an instant fix, since boarding passes are processed by each of the airlines, making it difficult for one airport scanner to match every airline's boarding pass.)

 

[arildno]

Errrrrrr...you CANNOT accuse an entire group of something,

1. Of course I can, for example, accuse Muslims for being extremely over-represented in terrorist attacks.
Because it is true. Whether you like it or not.

2. I make a daring accusation now, and say that the upper middle class is over-represented in tax frauds. Because they have better opportunities to engage in fraud, and hence, I expect it to be true that they engage in it more.

then suppress them,

1. It is not an act of suppression to perform a full body scan of a 90-year old grandmother.
2. Nor is it any act of suppression to perform a full body scan of a Muslim, niqab or not.

and expect them to NOT do anything!

Since they haven't been suppressed in any way, they are not entitled to "do anything against it".
If they do, then they prove their moral degeneracy, if they don't, they get the benefit of doubt.

Stop using this as a shallow justification to call Muslims morally degenerate.

I call every individual who thinks, for example, a mass murderer, serial rapist and child molester is the perfect moral role model for a morally undeveloped individual. Such individuals can improve morally by turning their backs from such unwarranted idolizations.

The enemy we are dealing with is not stupid. They can move their tactics easily from the target group to another. So the "THEY" becomes whatever new group is carrying out the attacks.

And again, you don't bother with the costs involved in such a change of tactics.

Now, according to you, we have another morally degenerate group.

If such happened, of course it would be another morally degenerate group. So?

Which era do you think we are living in? The time when the whites suppressed the blacks and nothing was done for a significant amount of time is over!

So being black is the same as being muslim?
Furthermore, specific profiling is not an act of suppression.

 

[Tobias Funke]

arildno, we get it. You don't like Muslims and probably any religious group. But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity for a one in two million chance of dying on a plane instead of a one in one million chance.

Somebody (maybe you or Cyrus) used Israel as an example of effective safety measures! Yeah, look at what it got them (or is continuing to get them I guess). A rocket attack every week and a war with no end. I'd rather not end up like that.

And as a preemptive measure, this post is inappropriate and off topic. Saved you some time, Cyrus.

 

[BobG]

There is not much that can be done other than
- improving the Western image among Middle east population
- subduing the terrorists through force
- increasing the defenses
at the same time, in parallel.

I believe #1 (Middle east culture and religion) is the source.

One other thing that can be done is to improve Muslim residents view of their own future in the country they currently reside in. The most effective terrorists are those that already reside in the country they're committing terrorist acts in. Crossing borders to commit terrorism can work, but it's not the most effective method.

That's one key reason Islamic terrorism hasn't been as prevalent in the US as in other countries. They come much closer to sharing the same opportunities for a better future that other Americans have - as opposed to congregating in areas of poverty that they have little chance of escaping.

The US has had civil rights problems in the past that were resolved with less violence than ethnic clashes in other countries -even if not resolved perfectly. In fact, civil rights struggles in the US show you don't have to do a perfect job resolving ethnic strife as long as you're making a good faith effort to resolve them.

The US also faces future ethnic strife with the Latino population - especially if illegal immigrants become clustered in areas of poverty with no hope of creating a better future. In other words, some day the US could face a bigger terrorist threat from within our own borders than from Middle East terrorists.

Of course, having handled civil rights problems in the past is a plus for handling immigrant problems of the future, but it's still a more realistic threat than Islamic terrorism.

 

[arildno]

There's a functional fallacy to using profiled screening - mainly because the number of terrorists is so incredibly small.

There were 809 million airline passengers in 2008. (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html ).

I can't find a statistic for the number of passengers denied boarding because of luggage or personal screening, I think it's safe to say that over 99.9% were screened unnecessarily regardless of their appearance (there's no way anywhere close to 809,000 passengers failed screening). If a certain ethnic group is twice as likely to be a terrorist as a different group (and the 99.9% were anywhere near accurate), then 99.8% of screenings for that group would be wasted, vs 99.9% for the less risky group.

Compared to all screenings, there's virtually no improvement in efficiency by limiting screenings to certain profile groups. And the number of terrorists is so small, there's almost no disadvantage to choosing terrorists that don't fit the traditional profile. This isn't traditional warfighting tactics where you need a high number of successes and a high success rate for the attacks to be successful. It's a tactic where a 99.999999% success rate by us is a total and humiliating failure (8 terrorists a year successfully boarding a plane).

Of course it is.

Suppose that the vast majority of terrorists are Inuits, that 1 in 10.000 Inuits perform acts of terrorism.

Suppose that for the population at large, there is only 1 in 10 million of non-Inuits who perform acts of terrorism.

By increasing the surveillance a thousandfold for Inuits, while keeping the surveillance/scan level constant at the other group, we will vastly increase our success rate at catching terrorists.
In this case, we will avoid attacks involving burning, rancid seal oil, and that would be a definite relief, at least olfactorially..

For finding a needle in a haystack, you need something that cuts across the board with as little inconvenience as possible. I think the full body scans will meet that objective at least as effectively as screening luggage (similar accuracy, similar time cost, personnel cost, etc). There's privacy issues, but I find it hard to consider full body scans to be as severe an invasion of privacy as random people in airports ogling attractive, fully clothed people in airports (in fact, the latter would probably cause more discomfirt than the full body scan where your "transparency" is known to you more intellectually than emotionally).

Again:
What is the necessary amount of screening time here in order to test ALL?
And what are the costs we need in order to keep delays within acceptable boundaries?

If there is a glitch somewhere in these calculations, that prevents full screening of all passengers, then, NECESSARILY, sampling procedures MUST be implemented.
And those ought to be as rational as possible, i.e, by singling out identifiable high-risk groups.

 

[arildno]

But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity ..

People brainwashed into worshipping a serial rapist and mass murderer is thereby deprived of common decency&morality development by their own parents.

Those in active denial of these features, like yourself, are already soiling your own pants bigtime..

 

[Tobias Funke]

I guess that settles it. Somebody's gone off the deep end...I'm not a big fan of religion either. But I have a few Muslim friends and Christian relatives. They're not active child rapists or blood drinkers. You're claiming to look at this logically, but you're clearly biased.

 

[arildno]

I guess that settles it. Somebody's gone off the deep end...

Indeed.
People on the loony left, like yourself.

Before you reply, please write an essay on "how child molestor adoration produces positive morality development in an individual"

 

[Cyrus]

arildno, we get it. You don't like Muslims and probably any religious group. But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity for a one in two million chance of dying on a plane instead of a one in one million chance.

Somebody (maybe you or Cyrus) used Israel as an example of effective safety measures! Yeah, look at what it got them (or is continuing to get them I guess). A rocket attack every week and a war with no end. I'd rather not end up like that.

And as a preemptive measure, this post is inappropriate and off topic. Saved you some time, Cyrus.

What does rocket attacks on Israel have to do with their airline? Could you stay on topic.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Back to topic or we lock

 

[BobG]

Of course it is.

Suppose that the vast majority of terrorists are Inuits, that 1 in 10.000 Inuits perform acts of terrorism.

Suppose that for the population at large, there is only 1 in 10 million of non-Inuits who perform acts of terrorism.

By increasing the surveillance a thousandfold for Inuits, while keeping the surveillance/scan level constant at the other group, we will vastly increase our success rate at catching terrorists.
In this case, we will avoid attacks involving burning, rancid seal oil, and that would be a definite relief, at least olfactorially..

If you're getting up to numbers like "1 in 10,000", your logic would start to make sense. You fail to appreciate just how small the numbers for terrorism are across any ethnic group (in fact, 1 in 10 million for terrorists across any ethnicity is probably a gross overstatement).

In fact, stating there's any ethnic group 1,000 times more likely to commit terrorism than others is probably a huge overstatement. It's definitely an overstatement for airline terrorism, since I don't believe we've had 1000 Islamic terrorists on airlines in the entire world, let alone one country, let alone in one year.

 

[arildno]

If you're getting up to numbers like "1 in 10,000", your logic would start to make sense. You fail to appreciate just how small the numbers for terrorism are across any ethnic group (in fact, 1 in 10 million for terrorists across any ethnicity is probably a gross overstatement).

In fact, stating there's any ethnic group 1,000 times more likely to commit terrorism than others is probably a huge overstatement. It's definitely an overstatement for airline terrorism, since I don't believe we've had 1000 Islamic terrorists on airlines in the entire world, let alone one country, let alone in one year.

1. Religion is not an ethnicity.

2. To say that Muslims are at least a thousand times more involved in terror attacks is an understatement, not an overstatement.

Since 9/11, well above 14.000 deadly terror attcks have been committed by Muslims
(see for example thereligionofpeace-website), a trend already well-known in the 1990s when "Clash of Civilizations" came out. "Islam has bloody borders"

(That figure alone is more than triple it would have been if the 1 in 10 million estimate had been true (i.e, an expected level of about 500 terror attacks per annum))



Scanning ALL Muslims on airlines most likely would take up less time than scanning ALL grandmothers, with much "better" results.

 

[rewebster]

well, if I was going to look for morel mushrooms, I wouldn't look on asphalt driveways

 

[dotman]

Scanning ALL Muslims on airlines most likely would take up less time than scanning ALL grandmothers, with much "better" results.

Now this, I'm certain, is unconstitutional. I don't think you would be speaking this way if you yourself were a Muslim.

Getting a little closer to the topic, here's what Bruce Schneier had to say, which I agree with:

If we spend billions defending our rail systems, and the terrorists bomb a shopping mall instead, we've wasted our money. If we concentrate airport security on screening shoes and confiscating liquids, and the terrorists hide explosives in their brassieres and use solids, we've wasted our money. Terrorists don't care what they blow up and it shouldn't be our goal merely to force the terrorists to make a minor change in their tactics or targets.

Our current response to terrorism is a form of "magical thinking." It relies on the idea that we can somehow make ourselves safer by protecting against what the terrorists happened to do last time.

Unfortunately for politicians, the security measures that work are largely invisible. Such measures include enhancing the intelligence-gathering abilities of the secret services, hiring cultural experts and Arabic translators, building bridges with Islamic communities both nationally and internationally, funding police capabilities -- both investigative arms to prevent terrorist attacks, and emergency communications systems for after attacks occur -- and arresting terrorist plotters without media fanfare.

You can read the full text of this article http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html" .

 

[BobG]

1. Religion is not an ethnicity.

2. To say that Muslims are at least a thousand times more involved in terror attacks is an understatement, not an overstatement.

Since 9/11, well above 14.000 deadly terror attcks have been committed by Muslims
(see for example thereligionofpeace-website), a trend already well-known in the 1990s when "Clash of Civilizations" came out. "Islam has bloody borders"

(That figure alone is more than triple it would have been if the 1 in 10 million estimate had been true (i.e, an expected level of about 500 terror attacks per annum))

14,000 is just a number unless compared to terror attacks by non-Muslims. And it includes all terrorist attacks, not just airline terrorist attacks, so I'm not sure what you use to get a 1 in 10 million estimate (attacks vs total Muslim population?)

Here's a study on terrorism pre-9/11: http://www.crim.umd.edu/Faculty/userfiles/23/FTPV_A_224594.pdf . Rather than giving a snapshot of a current condition, it illustrates how the terrorist threat changes over time.

Islamic terrorism may be the current "big threat", but I doubt it's 1000 times higher than non-Islamic terrorism. Until the 90's, there were three times as many terrorist attacks in Latin America as in the Middle East (page 191). In the 90's, Sub-Saharan Africa became the hotspot for terrorism (many of these terrorists may be Muslim, since it's a common religion in Africa, but I doubt the majority of terrorist attacks in Africa are motivated by religion). Middle East terrorism has had peaks in the past (most related to Israel-Palestine), but I think it's safe to say terrorism has never been as bad in the Middle East as it is today and I think it's safe to say Islamic terrorism is the biggest current threat. There's just no way it's 1000 times higher than the other threats, though.

In the US (page 197), the Islamic threat is even lower, in spite of one very prolific success. Most terrorist attacks in the US from the 80's on have been by anti-abortion activists. Anti-abortion activists usually don't target airlines (so the Islamic threat is still the biggest current airline threat in the US, even if not high enough for profiling to be effective).

 

[Cyrus]

Now this, I'm certain, is unconstitutional. I don't think you would be speaking this way if you yourself were a Muslim.

Why does his religion or ethnicity have any bearing on the relevance of his statement?

 

[dotman]

Why does his religion or ethnicity have any bearing on the relevance of his statement?

I didn't say anything about the relevance of his statement.

 

[mgb_phys]

To be fair these targeted approaches have worked.
Since that redneck blew up the FBI building with a truck bomb made from diesel and fertilizer the security checks on any rednecks with a truck, diesel or fertilizer have prevented any other federal building bombings.

 

[turbo]

That post certainly contains irony. If having a truck, diesel fuel, and fertilizer makes you a mad bomber, we'll have to put all the farmers in federal prison, just to eliminate the threat. Can't be too careful.

 

[mgb_phys]

we'll have to put all the farmers in federal prison, just to eliminate the threat. Can't be too careful.

Obviously not all of them that would be silly
You would just have to screen those that had two first names with a hyphen, wore mesh back hats or a large belt buckle - that's how you can spot them in a crowd.

 

[Cyrus]

Obviously not all of them that would be silly
You would just have to screen those that had two first names with a hyphen, wore mesh back hats or a large belt buckle - that's how you can spot them in a crowd.

Joking aside, he was not your average Joe redneck that just happened to blow up the FBI building. He did it because of the Waco incident, failure to mention this is ignorance of history. He did it because the FBI stormed the compound he was at and shot up the people there.

 

[mgb_phys]

Joking aside, he was not your average Joe redneck that just happened to blow up the FBI building.

The hijackers on 9/11 weren't your average arab but the Sikh guy that gets pulled out of line at security because he is wearing a turban doesn't care about that.

For very rare events statistical profiling like this does not work.
Targeting Arabs (or middle eastern origin) because the hijackers were arabic doesn't work. If you have 1 in 10,000,000 people that are terrorists and 1:1000 people that are arabic it does not give you much of a statstical advantage.

It's all about fear and who you decide to target the fear at. There is a TV ad running right now for a childrens charity - it claims that 97% of abused children know their attackers and of 100 child homicides/year almost all are by family members. Yet we are scared of strangers near our children.