Security Screening/Profiling
 

What do you guys think about this article?

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/50716.htm

ISRAELIS KNOW:
PROFILING'S KEY

By YISHAI HA'ETZNI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 26, 2005 -- SINCE 9/11, U.S. officials have struggled with how to protect the American public without infringing on individuals' rights and sensibilities.
The touchiest issue of all is "profiling" — using various factors, including race or ethnicity, in security checks. So, it wasn't surprising that, when New York announced last week that it would begin screening passengers on the city's subway, officials promised loudly and insistently that the checks would be random and racial profiling would not be used.

Such a policy avoids discrimination against certain ethnic groups — in effect, inconveniencing, embarrassing and perhaps even punishing individuals for crimes they did not commit. This is an important value and a worthy goal. Unfortunately, however, blanket avoidance of profiling undermines the entire point of checking passengers.

Following a spate of terrorist hijackings and other attacks on civilian aircraft and airports in the late 1960s and '70s, Israel developed a security system that utilized sociological profiles of those seeking to harm Israelis, among other factors.

The American system developed at the same time relied primarily on technology like scanning devices, which checked people and baggage uniformly.

Facing a less benign threat, Israelis found this system insufficient: Explosives and other weapons could slip through too easily. Since it wasn't feasible to perform extensive security searches on every passenger, Israel used sociological profiles in addition to screening devices: Each passenger is questioned briefly and then airport security personnel use their judgment to identify suspect would-be passengers, who are then questioned at greater length and their bags searched more thoroughly. It is targeted and far more effective than random searches, which end up being nearly cosmetic.

Screening and random searches would not have averted the tragedy that profiling stopped on April 17, 1986. Anne-Marie Murphy, a pregnant Irish woman, was traveling alone to Israel to meet her fiancé's parents. Her bags went through an X-ray machine without problems, and she and her passport appeared otherwise unremarkable.



But in a perfect example of the complexity of profiling, a pregnant woman traveling alone roused the suspicions of security officials. They inspected her bags more closely and discovered a sheet of Semtex explosives under a false bottom. Unbeknownst to Murphy, her fiancé, Nizar Hindawi, had intended to kill her and their unborn child along with the other passengers on the plane.

Unfortunately, the rise in terrorist assaults on Israeli public transportation, entertainment venues and public spaces necessitated that the airport security model be implemented in those areas as well — for one simple reason: it works better than anything else.

In May 2002, a would-be suicide bomber ran away from the entrance to a mall in Netanya after guards at the entrance grew suspicious. Though he killed three people when he blew himself up on a nearby street, he would have murdered far many more people had he been able to enter the mall.

His ethnicity — along with his demeanor, dress, even his hair — was merely one of many factors security personnel use in profiles. But it was a factor.

The American system's "blindness" cuts off the most important weapon in the war against terrorism: Human capability, judgment and perception. Now that the United States faces a higher threat, it cannot afford to neglect those tools.

Using sociological data as well as constantly updated intelligence information, trained security personnel know who is most likely to be perpetuating an attack, as well as how to identify suspicious individuals through behavior. (Again, it is important to note that ethnicity is only one factor among many used to identify potential terrorists.) Removing intelligence and statistical probability as tools would render this model far less effective.

Israelis understand — and other Westerners need to accept — that no system can ever be 100 percent effective. But this is a system that has stood up remarkably well under a vicious and unrelenting assault of terror.

Is profiling worth the resulting infringement on the democratic values of equality? Yes. After all, protecting human life is also a democratic value, perhaps the supreme one.

Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe. The attacks of 9/11 and the attacks on public transport in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life.

Today's terror threatens not only individuals' security and lives, but is an assault on open, democratic societies as a whole. Terrorists use our society's openness against us. Free, democratic societies must carefully balance our rights and responsibilities, lest we saw off the branch upon which democratic freedom sits.


Yishai Ha'etzni is executive director of the Shalem Center, the Jerusalem research institute that publishes the journal Azure (www.azure.org.il).

There was a time, maybe still when customs inspectors were very astute at reading body language.

Profiling makes sense. It isn't a matter of just black and white. McVey and Nichols were pretty white but most of the suspects I have seen are pretty similar in complexion.

Reminds my of a comment reputedly from an Israeli security expert: Americans look for bombs, we look for terrorists. Seems to me to be a lot more efficient and a lot less invasive (unless you're one of the profiled groups). Catch 22 - the left screams about loss of individual rights and racial/ethnic prejudices that would result from profiling (demonstrably true), but what they've forced on us by denying reality is worse - just for being stupid and ineffective. Government has more to fear from the contempt/scorn and laughter of the governed than it does from active threats. FWIW - Peregrino

Profiling?? Let's back up to "Equal Rights" !! What would be wrong with a new Law, or an ammendment to the Patriot Act, that would disallow the application of "EqualRights" to those whose Religions or Government's doctrinal tenets did not believe in/practice the same !!!

We would then be selecting these folks because it appears that the possible aforementioned irregularitiy is likely to exist.


Another option is to search twice as many that do not match the "profiled" as the profiled. You see two comming through the line, you search the two in front of them and the two behind, you make them part of a "Packet" !!

Not entirely clear what you mean...

So if you see a passenger coming through whose government or religion doesn't practice what it preaches, you then search them?

Not a bad idea really. However, I think we should just scrap the whole Racial Profiling outcry entirely and do what works. From what I understand, RP came about after complaints that minorities got stopped by cops more than whites.

(As you know...) We're not dealing with your run of the mill civil law enforcement however. We're talking about security screening to combat terrorism. I say they should give each and every security officer full discretion over who they search and to what extent. If the minorities don't like it, they don't have to travel. Same goes for the grandmothers and senators and dumb white guys like myself. Besides, we're all volunteering for it anyways right? If I go to the airport, I expect to be searched.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we waste time and money searching people who wouldn't otherwise be searched so that we can avoid hurting the feelings of people we need to search.

The article put it best...
"Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe. The attacks of 9/11 and the attacks on public transport in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life."

Also, I agree with QRQ30 that it's not just about black and white. I think sociological profiling could go a long way. On the other hand, I don't think that race should be completely excluded as a factor for performing searches either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we yet to find a single bomber* that wasn't a middle-eastern male between the age of 18-30?

All of this IMHO and with all due respect...
--Aric

* I use the term "bomber" to denote any terrorist who has used a bomb to attack the US, or our allies, in the course of the GWOT. This excludes other terrorist conflicts such as the Isreal/Palestine conflict or the OK City bombing.

What works and what doesn't? Go to the country with the most experience and learn from them. In this case it's Israel.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Doc

What I meant was that if you saw someone that "fit" the likelyhood that they were from a designated region, you would process them accordingly !!

My thought is that we need to put this whole Politically Correct BS behind us !! Our enemy does not respect us or our ways of life and is using it against us. When in the F**K are the people of this country going to wake up. We've got Ted Kennedy and his like driving the WHOLE bus load of US and heading for Chappaquidock !!

Gotcha...

Amen.

Regards,
Aric

We never got many Muslims or Arabs visting the Embassy, funnily enough. We searched (with both of the metal detecters and x ray) ALL people coming in. Didn't matter who you were (well, that's not quite true. Ambassadors and whatnot were let through), you got searched.

Personally, I looked at body language more than anything else. Oh, and if they were wankers. Then they got a through going over.

Was thinking the same thing as I read that. I like the idea of a "sociological profile." Wonder how the ACLU, et al., would combat that in the SCOTUS.

I would not be a very good screener. I would be preoccupied with searching hotties. :D

Doc: I think you are mistaken on that. I believe the UK has more experience with the IRA. Its a lot safer to go out shopping or to diner in the UK than in Isreal.

As for civil rights I saw an interview with a black member of the American Civil Rights movement and he was for it as long as profiling is based on real facts and not just ethnic.

Terry,

Thanks,

Wouldn't be the first or the last time I was mistaken about something. Maybe we should learn as much as we can from all of the sources available to us? Israel, UK, etc. Just a thought.

Doc

Terry, I'm going with Doc on Israel having the most experience for one simple reason: Israeli security is set up to thwart an enemy attempting to get amongst them and initiate explosives with as many people about, while the IRA is/was more about initiating explosives to conduct massive property damage - hence their coded warnings. I believe the Brit system has now changed to include the suicide bomber template, with training received from the Israelis.

On another note the Israeli system will never work here. All of the contracted personnel working for El Al have undergone extensive back round checks and training - both in technician tasking with security equipment and professional interview/interrogation skills. Each set of security personnel work in concert with one another and make a great 360 degree bubble.

We on the other hand have TSA Shaniqua the 5'2" 245lb welfare mom standin' at the gate wit attitude tellin you "you gots to take tem shoes off", Byron the illegal immigrant/criminal loading the hold with luggage hoping he didn't piss hot or was run for a criminal records check, or the supervisor in charge who, in some of our Eastern cities were ex "exotic" dancers hired for their people skills (?) and their uniqueness - since one possessed a 10 digit social security number.

We are not, and will not be serious about security until we can remove PC and politics from our hiring practices - remember, we grandfathered in the same people who didn't have a clue before 911, and now look to them for security leadership - hey, this could also be applicable to the FBI....... naw, thats just too easy.

Here, here, Casey my brother. Preach on it!

Nice avatar, BTW.

TR