What do you think about racial profiling?

[Tequila Zaire]

It's no great issue to be honest...it's just a fancy term for what has gone on and will go on until the majority in power is no longer "afraid of them foreigners". No matter what the case is they always manage to pigeonhole a person from whatever minority the white man is freaked out about this month anyhow. Right now it's Arabs or anyone from the Mid-East...same problem...new flavor.

You don't see this kinda shit pulled on Swedes, Germans, and scandanavian countries in general though...that's kinda annoying. But I guess I'm just use to the hassle at this point....oddly enough I have what's been described to me as "middle eastern" features...as a result people try to talk to me in arabic, persian, etc. a lot.

You can bet LAX is a hell of a lot of fun for me these days!

[One Eyed Cat]

I don't like racial profiling in general. I am more inclined towards it when I see an 88 year old woman being searched in the airport.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I don't like racial profiling in general. I am more inclined towards it when I see an 88 year old woman being searched in the airport.

OEC

Why? If she decides she has a grudge she is as likely as anyone to act out. Possibly more so since she may feel she has nothing to lose. But that goes back to my whole unobtrusive security thing.

One of the problems with racial profiling is that it lets people who don't fit the profile slip though the cracks. If you are going to search people there are much better criteria to choose than appearance and dress since a smart criminal is going to do his best to not fit the stereotype you are looking for and dumb criminals will make pleanty of other mistakes.

[One Eyed Cat]

Why? If she decides she has a grudge she is as likely as anyone to act out. Possibly more so since she may feel she has nothing to lose. But that goes back to my whole unobtrusive security thing.

One of the problems with racial profiling is that it lets people who don't fit the profile slip though the cracks. If you are going to search people there are much better criteria to choose than appearance and dress since a smart criminal is going to do his best to not fit the stereotype you are looking for and dumb criminals will make pleanty of other mistakes.

It would be impossible to search *all* people boarding or deborading planes. Based on this, I believe you have to consider probabilities to some extent. I would agree to a point on people slipping through the cracks. For example, Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims are caucasian and would attract much less suspicion. Singling out Grandma Bertha from Kansas seems a bit over the top.

OEC

[ninth-solstice]

I hate racial profiling;my dad is Asian and we had just finished an awesome vacation touring the east coast of the US (we're from England) and everything had gone great until we got to Washington airport where my dad was so badly discriminated against. Our last name is Hossain...I mean that is a really common Asian name, and on that reason alone the check in staff took our passports from us, saying that there was some kind of 'problem'...when they returned like 20 minutes later, my dad asked if it was because of our name and they said that it was...blatant discrimination. My dad has like no criminal offences, he hasn't even had any parking tickets, he's so kind hearted, you know? I just couldn't believe how we were humiliated, all the other people queueing up to get their luggage checked in were just staring at us like we'd done something...anyway, yea racial profiling sucks...it's just blatant discrimination which is dead wrong...but it's never going to change because people are so completely ignorant. Apparently everyone from Asia is a terrorist, which is just bullshit.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm opposed to racial profiling, all factors considered

OEC

[OliX]

I don't think about it... not at all

[eat-my-stockings]

no matter how much we (generalisation there guys) tell ourselves we are a modern, civillised, 21st Century society there's still the same racist, sexist, elitist and generally discriminating assholes everywhere. racial profiling is sick, pathetic and an poor excuse for white idiots to convince themselves they're superior to everyone else.

[Amelia G]

I think a better question I should have asked is what do you think about profiling for the purpose of law enforcement?

I probably added the word racial to my question because I find the racial aspect of it very troubling.

On the other hand, I think that OEC's point about 88-year-old grandmothers is exactly the issue. I don't care if she "acts out" and bitches out a flight attendant for not having Fresca. I only care if she is planning to hijack the plane and crash it into a national landmark. That is what I, as both a traveller and a patriotic American, want to be safe from.

My father, for example, simply won't fly these days. He feels it is humiliating for a man his age to be pushed around and told to remove his shoes. This is a man who has lived all over the world and he hasn't flown since 9/11 and probably won't fly ever again.

The way we are, as a society, making air travel unpleasant for everyone is bad for the economy and just bad for humans in general.

And, as anyone with green hair can attest, the people they have doing security do profile, they just do it according to personal ignorant prejudice and not institutionalized statistical analysis.

[Amelia G]

I hate racial profiling;my dad is Asian and we had just finished an awesome vacation touring the east coast of the US (we're from England) and everything had gone great until we got to Washington airport where my dad was so badly discriminated against. Our last name is Hossain...I mean that is a really common Asian name, and on that reason alone the check in staff took our passports from us, saying that there was some kind of 'problem'...when they returned like 20 minutes later, my dad asked if it was because of our name and they said that it was...blatant discrimination. My dad has like no criminal offences, he hasn't even had any parking tickets, he's so kind hearted, you know? I just couldn't believe how we were humiliated, all the other people queueing up to get their luggage checked in were just staring at us like we'd done something...anyway, yea racial profiling sucks...it's just blatant discrimination which is dead wrong...but it's never going to change because people are so completely ignorant. Apparently everyone from Asia is a terrorist, which is just bullshit.

This is exactly what I am talking about in terms of profiling being done based on local personal ignorant prejudice. It sounds like your dad might have fit one data point in terms of last name, but he probably fit zero data points having to do with demeanor, sweating, type of luggage, verbal patterns, and similar factors professional profiling systems in other countries take into account.

So, by avoiding institutionalized profiling, we end up with really defective profiling like this which is just based on the personal ignorance of the untrained security people at the local airport.

[devil13]

I think a better question I should have asked is what do you think about profiling for the purpose of law enforcement?

I probably added the word racial to my question because I find the racial aspect of it very troubling.

On the other hand, I think that OEC's point about 88-year-old grandmothers is exactly the issue. I don't care if she "acts out" and bitches out a flight attendant for not having Fresca. I only care if she is planning to hijack the plane and crash it into a national landmark. That is what I, as both a traveller and a patriotic American, want to be safe from.

My father, for example, simply won't fly these days. He feels it is humiliating for a man his age to be pushed around and told to remove his shoes. This is a man who has lived all over the world and he hasn't flown since 9/11 and probably won't fly ever again.

The way we are, as a society, making air travel unpleasant for everyone is bad for the economy and just bad for humans in general.

And, as anyone with green hair can attest, the people they have doing security do profile, they just do it according to personal ignorant prejudice and not institutionalized statistical analysis.

so what racial profile did he fit? or these kids? do they fit a profile?

[One Eyed Cat]

I think if they just used a *little* common sense in who they search, regardless of race, noone would even consider going to racial profiles.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

What common sense do they apply? Age, race, hight, facial tatoos? How do you pick the killer out of the crowd?

While some sorts of profiling can help, the simple fact of the matter is that it is never simple. For every Arab terrorist there is a ETA seperatist or IRA terrorist and that is without looking at domestic (for the US) terrorists. And that is putting aside drug smuggling hich opens an entirely different demographic. Random searches are not the ideal method, even when you use common sense. The best approach is to make sure if weapons or people with malicious intent get on board that you can minimize the damage they can do.

[Morning Glory]

so what racial profile did he fit? or these kids? do they fit a profile?

tim mcveigh fit the profile of gun toting asshole redneck. I for one would love to see people that fit that profile regualry checked out and searched by police. or would that offend middle america? they don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

those kids fit the profile of little children with ak-47, which is a hilarious profile. rember that tape of USB firing that puppy and getting his ass knocked back about five feet? now imagine a 4 foot kid shooting one of those things. pure slapstick.

[One Eyed Cat]

What common sense do they apply? Age, race, hight, facial tatoos? How do you pick the killer out of the crowd?

While some sorts of profiling can help, the simple fact of the matter is that it is never simple. For every Arab terrorist there is a ETA seperatist or IRA terrorist and that is without looking at domestic (for the US) terrorists. And that is putting aside drug smuggling hich opens an entirely different demographic. Random searches are not the ideal method, even when you use common sense. The best approach is to make sure if weapons or people with malicious intent get on board that you can minimize the damage they can do.

If a person with weapons and malicious attempt gets on a plane at 30,000 feet, this conversation is moot. Common sense would dictate searching passengers who look suspicious for whatever reason. You oppose profiling based on age, race etc and random searches. That would leave everyone or noone being searched. We are never going to pick every killer out the crowd. I still think you want to at least make an effort. You aren't going to be able to minimize the damages of a bomb at 30,000 feet.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

tim mcveigh fit the profile of gun toting asshole redneck. I for one would love to see people that fit that profile regualry checked out and searched by police. or would that offend middle america? they don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

those kids fit the profile of little children with ak-47, which is a hilarious profile. rember that tape of USB firing that puppy and getting his ass knocked back about five feet? now imagine a 4 foot kid shooting one of those things. pure slapstick.

That'd be the first "profile" I searched. You can spot an applehead from a mile away I bet. I'd hire some old punks to weed out the McVeighs

OEC

[mollycase]

That'd be the first "profile" I searched. You can spot an applehead from a mile away I bet. I'd hire some old punks to weed out the McVeighs

OEC

You have my vote. I think they should utilize solid profiling based on science. Law enforcement claims they cannot profile without racial profiling, but describing someone like McVeigh as white is only one small piece of the puzzle. His race would be part of the profile but only a part of it, so it would be racial profiling, but to be effective, it would need to be much more than that.

[devil13]

You have my vote. I think they should utilize solid profiling based on science. Law enforcement claims they cannot profile without racial profiling, but describing someone like McVeigh as white is only one small piece of the puzzle. His race would be part of the profile but only a part of it, so it would be racial profiling, but to be effective, it would need to be much more than that.

most cops that I have delt with profile me. once at a sobriety check point one cop yells to another to check me out because I have tattoos. when I pull up I was kinda pissed that he would say that just based on the fact that I had tattoos not on what kind of tats I have. they are not gang related, white supremacy, or anything like that. cops can be stupid about stuff. I have had plenty of cops ask me about what I am into and whats the meaning behind my tats, my look, my music, my overall outlook on things, etc. just because they dont know and would like to understand it better. but when they just assume that I am up to no good just because of the way I look, it does piss me off.
you and I might be able to pick someone out of a crowd who might be up to no good but we cant be right all the time. there are those who might look like a McVeigh but are just NASCAR fans. are you going to profile everyone because you think they are a McVeigh type? if so then you are just as guilty as the cops who profile me on something as meaningless as the fact that I have a tattoo.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

If a person with weapons and malicious attempt gets on a plane at 30,000 feet, this conversation is moot. Common sense would dictate searching passengers who look suspicious for whatever reason. You oppose profiling based on age, race etc and random searches. That would leave everyone or noone being searched. We are never going to pick every killer out the crowd. I still think you want to at least make an effort. You aren't going to be able to minimize the damages of a bomb at 30,000 feet.

OEC

So what looks suspicious? Age and race? Hieght? Dress? That is the problem we keep running into is that there is not criminal look that is reliable. Behaviour is a little better, but only if you use trained proffesionals as opposed to say a guy with a guard card. Also it is a lot easier to get a bomb into luggage than carry it on in person. But if I have to choose between everyone or no one getting searched, or the false sense of security people get from having extra scrutiny paid to the people who look dangerous, I would go with everyone or no one. If everyone got searched they would have to stream line the process to stay in business. They would have to become more efficient and effective. If they searched no one then they would have to do things like seperate the pilots from the passengers. There is absolutely no good reason for the two to mix. With racial profiling, or whatever other sloppy profiling methods they use, they can continue to do flawed work and claim a success every time they accidentally turn up something and claim that a criminal mastermind was at work every time something slips by.

[Amelia G]

My gut response is certainly that it should be everyone or no one. Not sure if that would really work though.

I feel like maybe IF profiles could be built based on statistics and not prejudice AND not involve massive invasion of privacy, then I might be okay with that. Kind of like car insurance works now.

But I am really really not okay with the increased unpleasantness and invasiveness of the flying experience, which will indubitably be followed by the major airlines looking for a government bail out when they can't bring in enough revenue because no one can stand flying.

[Morning Glory]

I really don't mind having to take off my shoes and get to the airport an hour earlier. It's a small price to pay to know that someone isn't going to kill me.

[karyn]

I really don't mind having to take off my shoes and get to the airport an hour earlier. It's a small price to pay to know that someone isn't going to kill me.

how often do you fly?

[Amelia G]

I really don't mind having to take off my shoes and get to the airport an hour earlier. It's a small price to pay to know that someone isn't going to kill me.

I've had to take my shoes off for years, but I didn't mind that. My time is scarce and valuable and airports make me sick, so I do mind the extra time spent in them. I mind extra that the rules for each airline and each airport for when to show up change frequently and are difficult to find out beforehand. I mind that it is much much more unpleasant now.

I don't believe taking my mother's nail scissors away keeps her plane from being hijacked. I'm pretty sure she still has a very high classified security clearance. I think that, if she can be trusted with matters of National Security, then she can be trusted with a manicure kit.

Let them spend the security money on enough oxygen on the airplanes and air marshalls and quit pestering the people who are trying to support a national economy and enjoy their rights and freedoms as Americans by flying.

I don't believe that hassling people like me makes any of us safer in the air. There is more air rage now and more innocent people suffering, but there is less freedom and less joy. If we let terrorists take away our freedom and our joy and our ability to move about our own country, then we've let them win.

[One Eyed Cat]

So what looks suspicious? Age and race? Hieght? Dress? That is the problem we keep running into is that there is not criminal look that is reliable. Behaviour is a little better, but only if you use trained proffesionals as opposed to say a guy with a guard card. Also it is a lot easier to get a bomb into luggage than carry it on in person. But if I have to choose between everyone or no one getting searched, or the false sense of security people get from having extra scrutiny paid to the people who look dangerous, I would go with everyone or no one. If everyone got searched they would have to stream line the process to stay in business. They would have to become more efficient and effective. If they searched no one then they would have to do things like seperate the pilots from the passengers. There is absolutely no good reason for the two to mix. With racial profiling, or whatever other sloppy profiling methods they use, they can continue to do flawed work and claim a success every time they accidentally turn up something and claim that a criminal mastermind was at work every time something slips by.

I'd go with everyone as well. I'd still separate the pilots from the passengers via enforced doors. Will a plane still get hit again? Absolutely.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I've had to take my shoes off for years, but I didn't mind that. My time is scarce and valuable and airports make me sick, so I do mind the extra time spent in them. I mind extra that the rules for each airline and each airport for when to show up change frequently and are difficult to find out beforehand. I mind that it is much much more unpleasant now.

I don't believe taking my mother's nail scissors away keeps her plane from being hijacked. I'm pretty sure she still has a very high classified security clearance. I think that, if she can be trusted with matters of National Security, then she can be trusted with a manicure kit.

Let them spend the security money on enough oxygen on the airplanes and air marshalls and quit pestering the people who are trying to support a national economy and enjoy their rights and freedoms as Americans by flying.

I don't believe that hassling people like me makes any of us safer in the air. There is more air rage now and more innocent people suffering, but there is less freedom and less joy. If we let terrorists take away our freedom and our joy and our ability to move about our own country, then we've let them win.

I don't mind being searched, personally. I think the answer is to search everyone (as sad as that is)

OEC

[Morning Glory]

that's a real great attitude, i'm sure the passangers that died on those planes in 9/11 were glad that the men who held them hostage weren't searched for dangerous objects because their time is valuable and it would have made it less pleasant for them.

[Kidthorazine]

that's a real great attitude, i'm sure the passangers that died on those planes in 9/11 were glad that the men who held them hostage weren't searched for dangerous objects because their time is valuable and it would have made it less pleasant for them.

yeah well the problem is security was a bit too lax when 9/11 happened however what they are doing now is overkill not to mention the fact that after 9/11 no one would be stupid enough to do that again because the passengers would just kick their ass.

[Amelia G]

that's a real great attitude, i'm sure the passangers that died on those planes in 9/11 were glad that the men who held them hostage weren't searched for dangerous objects because their time is valuable and it would have made it less pleasant for them.

And what method of search would you employ on everyone where a dedicated terrorist on a suicide mission couldn't hide a boxcutter. Do you really think airport security should do a body cavity search on the 88-year-old grandmother because someone might have a plastic knife in his or her ass?

[Morning Glory]

that's just extreme. the current security features which you find so invasive and time waisting are nowhere near body cavity searches. as to your question, I would employ the current search method because I think it works best under the circumstances. of course it's impossible for us to 100% prevent anything bad from happening becuase if someone really wants it bad enough they'll find a way to do it. but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any precautions and make it easy for them. so i'll ask you the same question, what method do you think we should use?

[Amelia G]

that's just extreme. the current security features which you find so invasive and time waisting are nowhere near body cavity searches. as to your question, I would employ the current search method because I think it works best under the circumstances. of course it's impossible for us to 100% prevent anything bad from happening becuase if someone really wants it bad enough they'll find a way to do it. but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any precautions and make it easy for them. so i'll ask you the same question, what method do you think we should use?

If I thought I knew all the answers on this one, I'd run for public office. I think we could look to countries which have dealt with terrorism more effectively than we have and study their methodology. What works elsewhere is not necessarily a perfect fit for the U.S., but what we are doing now simply does not work. Reporters for a number of reputable newspapers including The New York Times smuggled guns and knives onto airplanes to demonstrate how ineffective the security measures are. If a journalist could get a firearm onboard, I'm pretty sure a well-funded, fanatical, suicidal mass murderer could handle sneaking a box cutter in. Again.

I am stone cold 100% certain that the current security methods do not make us one bit safer and do make us unhappier. I believe in that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. Destroying the American airline industry and curtailing the ability of Americans to move freely about their own country is not making anyone happier or, for that matter, any more safe.