Yeah, in the real world TSA does racial profiling, which is evil, instead of studiously strip-searching everyone except those who trigger suspicion, which is stupid.
Or was it the other way around?
What was the good solution again? I'm so confused.
i dont know about evil, or even whether i would call it racial, but on the whole TSA pretty consistently does profile male bearded men, especially those who are darker hued and especially especially those who arent wearing standard American clothing. Speaking as a member of a religious group that has worldwide conferences every year, I've seen plenty of examples myselfm and had an avalanche of examples related to me from others, that I know its a real phenomenon and not just a fluke.
Neither am I really complaining, per se, since the vast majority (actually, all, that I know about anyway) of these incidents result in the TSA letting the traveler go, which is the correct result since no one in my community has any interest in any mischief aside from getting there, and getting back.
Yes, this IS a problem, though, and not because it is evil or unfair or whatever. Its a problem because anyone inclined towards mischief need simply trim/shave, wear perfectly normal clothing, and do a number of other innocous things (which I wont get into) and evade almost all suspicion entirely. Since shaving my beard is not an option, its not something I plan to do to increase my convenience while traveling. However I know others who are not quite so orthodox who are able to game teh system easily and effortlessly.
rest assured, grandmas never get pulled aside. In fact I could be bearded, dark skinned, wearing a turban and a prayer rug rolled under my arm, and if I am escorting my grandma, I'm not going to be harassed either.
And thats bad too!
So what sthe solution? obviously, truly random searching. I mean well and truly random. Any "grandma" loophole you build in, to appease the perpetually outraged, will become a loophole of convenience. So close them all. Yeah, maybe grandma might get pulled aside, but you know what? boo frackin hoo. If I get pulled aside, its for the greater good, and causes me a slight delay. I think granny can bear it too.
(not to say that just because there shouldnt betriggers that pemrit someone to breeze throughm there shouldnt be triggers that flag someone to be pulled aside. One way tickets paid for in cash, or single males traveling alone and in standby, for example.)
So what sthe solution? obviously, truly random searching. I mean well and truly random....
(not to say that just because there shouldnt betriggers that pemrit someone to breeze throughm there shouldnt be triggers that flag someone to be pulled aside. One way tickets paid for in cash, or single males traveling alone and in standby, for example.)
Honestly, Aziz, I think that's exactly the situation. I do see grandmas searched on random searches. And I do see clearly targeted searches as well. And I think that's all to the good.
I also think that there's a benefit to both obscurity in the search criteria and varying criteria at different airports or by different workers. There should be no discernable pattern. Varied patterns and undisclosed patterns are both good things.
Martin, I'll accept that you have seen a grandma being searched, because I think you're an honest person. But I assure you that I have a lot more accumulated anecdotal evidence to pretty much guarantee that such an event is very rare. There might be a slightly random component in there, bit its not truly random. Not even close.
Evil Rob got searched a lot for a while. One time it was pretty obvious— it was when he flew out to Denver so we could drive our stuff to Cali. 1) Male, 2) twenty-something, 3) traveling alone on a 4) on-way ticket purchased 5) less than a week before 6) over the internet.
That was the trip he deciphered the secret code for "extra-special search." (Not strip-search, thankfully...)
I think this may be one of those rare cases where anecdotal reasoning is actually very helpful.
Some kind of poll, accompanied by each participant's demographic profile, might be a more instructive place to start the discussion from than statements of principle.
Not that it would resolve the question of whether "random" or "targeted" or "perversely anti-targeted" searching is best any faster, of course. :)
Some kind of poll, accompanied by each participant's demographic profile, might be a more instructive place to start the discussion from than statements of principle.
No, thank you. I would rather not know what the rules are. It's bad security to go probing the rules.
Not that it would resolve the question of whether "random" or "targeted" or "perversely anti-targeted" searching is best any faster, of course. :)
Aziz is correct: random plus targeted is the only good answer. Profiling known risk factors is necessary; but since the hostiles are actively trying to figure out what you're profiling for, you have to add random in as well. It both increases your chances of catching them evading the profile and makes it harder for them to determine what the profile truly is.
"Perversely anti-targeted" is a media myth. It has never happened. What has been perceived as anti-targeted is simply random, being misinterpreted by people who don't understand the importance of random checks.
1.25.2008 9:24pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Or was it the other way around?
What was the good solution again? I'm so confused.
Neither am I really complaining, per se, since the vast majority (actually, all, that I know about anyway) of these incidents result in the TSA letting the traveler go, which is the correct result since no one in my community has any interest in any mischief aside from getting there, and getting back.
Yes, this IS a problem, though, and not because it is evil or unfair or whatever. Its a problem because anyone inclined towards mischief need simply trim/shave, wear perfectly normal clothing, and do a number of other innocous things (which I wont get into) and evade almost all suspicion entirely. Since shaving my beard is not an option, its not something I plan to do to increase my convenience while traveling. However I know others who are not quite so orthodox who are able to game teh system easily and effortlessly.
rest assured, grandmas never get pulled aside. In fact I could be bearded, dark skinned, wearing a turban and a prayer rug rolled under my arm, and if I am escorting my grandma, I'm not going to be harassed either.
And thats bad too!
So what sthe solution? obviously, truly random searching. I mean well and truly random. Any "grandma" loophole you build in, to appease the perpetually outraged, will become a loophole of convenience. So close them all. Yeah, maybe grandma might get pulled aside, but you know what? boo frackin hoo. If I get pulled aside, its for the greater good, and causes me a slight delay. I think granny can bear it too.
(not to say that just because there shouldnt betriggers that pemrit someone to breeze throughm there shouldnt be triggers that flag someone to be pulled aside. One way tickets paid for in cash, or single males traveling alone and in standby, for example.)
Honestly, Aziz, I think that's exactly the situation. I do see grandmas searched on random searches. And I do see clearly targeted searches as well. And I think that's all to the good.
I also think that there's a benefit to both obscurity in the search criteria and varying criteria at different airports or by different workers. There should be no discernable pattern. Varied patterns and undisclosed patterns are both good things.
That was the trip he deciphered the secret code for "extra-special search." (Not strip-search, thankfully...)
Some kind of poll, accompanied by each participant's demographic profile, might be a more instructive place to start the discussion from than statements of principle.
Not that it would resolve the question of whether "random" or "targeted" or "perversely anti-targeted" searching is best any faster, of course. :)
No, thank you. I would rather not know what the rules are. It's bad security to go probing the rules.
Aziz is correct: random plus targeted is the only good answer. Profiling known risk factors is necessary; but since the hostiles are actively trying to figure out what you're profiling for, you have to add random in as well. It both increases your chances of catching them evading the profile and makes it harder for them to determine what the profile truly is.
"Perversely anti-targeted" is a media myth. It has never happened. What has been perceived as anti-targeted is simply random, being misinterpreted by people who don't understand the importance of random checks.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.