A Case Against Profiling

Noa Zrk

Alex.
Funny how, during "the troubles" in Northern Ireland no one worried overmuch about the profiling of either Roman Catholics or Protestants who might be suspected of wanting to go bang in the night.
But, to take a lesson from that, lets simply operate and maintain lists of suspected terrorists who might blow up trains, planes, buses and tubes. Alphabetically structured and based of course, not ethnically profiled and comprehensive in its nature from A to Z, from Abdullah to Zenab, and including the Provos and UDA.

A Muslim

The idea of profiling people based on their apparent race or country of origin is based on an assumption that terrorists are stupid. Surely there is strong evidence suggests otherwise given that they've been able to outsmart the "US Intelligence" services on more than one occasion.

So we harass a bunch of Arabs (etc); what is to stop someone with a non-Arab/non-Muslim name, who is from a non-Arab country, from becoming a terrorist? Richard Reid, anyone? Surely we should expect to see more blonde haired blue eyed John Smiths -- or perhaps JANE Smiths -- as the next terrorists.

There is strong (anecdotal) evidence that when Black people in American cities felt like they were being harassed by authorities, they STOPPED assisting and informing the police. As the author of this article mentions, we're just going to alienate the one group of people that we MOST need on our side.

ndm

Thanks for another great and sensible post.

As regards the effect of profiling on the Muslim Community all the commentary I've seen suggesting an Israelization of airport security has ignored the effect of this on the Israeli Arab community. But then their concerns have never been given much shrift by Israel. The real problem with Israelization is the spreading of its toxic racism among many Western commentators of the once decent right.

ndm

Anyone interested in security knows that making exceptions to a rule increases the probability of an error occurring. One of the principal problems of profiling is that it creates an exception that can lead to error - in some cases catastrophic error. A recent example is this story:

The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan was an al-Qaeda triple agent, US media reports say.

He is said to have been a doctor from Jordan who was arrested by Jordanian intelligence a year ago.

He was then reportedly recruited by the Jordanians and CIA - who thought they had successfully turned him - and given a mission to find al-Qaeda leaders.

A US official, also a former CIA employee, told the Associated Press news agency that such people were often not required to go through full security checks, in order to help gain their trust.

"When you're trying to build a rapport and literally ask them to risk [their lives] for you, you've got a lot to do to build their trust," he said.

This attack succeeded because the attacker was profiled as being trustworthy.

kiwi

The authorities don't have to profile young Muslim males. But how about profiling 66-year-old grannies from Brisbane, 30-year-old party girls from Auckland, and 50-year-old carpenters from Christchurch. That would be a sensible start.

Olaf Rye

The case for profiling is quite good. Look at the terrorists: Arab and black, from nations with large Muslim communities. Naturally, the terrorist organisations will alter their strategies, but they do not seem to currently be especially successful at recruiting white people. As for the nonsense about Muslims being offended and not assisting authorities, we can only surmise that their childish spite would make them prefer to see a terrorist outrage ? Is this tantamount to blackmail ? Profiling is not a complete solution, but it is part of the package. Continuing with other intelligence gathering operations is essential, but there is no doubt that we are looking at a terrorist movement that draws its adherents from certain ethnic groups and a particular religion.

Fergus Pickering

Judging by the last few chaps, it appears that most terrorists are indeed stupid.

Arthur

Mr Massie,

Your rejection of profiling simply demonstrates your ignorance of how profiling works.

Profiling is not about 'muslim (or arab) passengers,' but about suspicious passengers - those that sweat profusely, those that seem distracted (or incredibly focussed) and those who fit a 'profile' of a potential terrorist. Yes, an Asian, Arab or N. African racial profile might have relevance, but race is not the driver of profiling, behaviour is. But then you don’t know that so you pretend it is the same (or very similar) as internment.

Just because it will not prevent all attacks does not mean that it should be rejected out of hand. Profiling is an addition to existing measures, not a substitute. What is this 'decrease in security in other areas' you talk about? And if you suspect that it will make a negligible difference, just talk to a proper security expert.

The one relevant point you make is that, handled badly, profiling could alienate people who feel themselves being targeted because of their colour or dress habits. But, how about all those people who are being alienated now by waiting hours to be checked through?

The airline industry will cease to operate if we subject everyone to the same checks. We have to be clever, and human profiling is a key component, not as the only approach, but as an approach which complements existing physical security measures.

You also suggest that profiling would 'demonstrate that the islamic and christian worlds must and almost by necessity be at war with one another.' This is ludicrous. Firstly, that is what the extremists already think and no extent of hand-wringing will stop that. Secondly, I was unaware that Christians ran our airports and security services. And thirdly, there IS a fundamental conflict going on between the West and Islam - not all of Islam, but Islam is what motivates these people, and for us to pretend anything different is self-defeating.

You make the classic error of Western liberals in thinking our actions are constrained by not wanting to strengthen our enemies worldview. All that does is allow the terrorists to dictate the pace and direction of this conflict. And pretending that there is not some 'civilisational war' going on already is mind boggling - that is exactly what is going on. They know it, but we seem not to and we will lose if we do not get our act together. And anyway, improved security at airports is not going to aid them, it will hinder them.

When countering a terrorist threat, it is essential that security personnel operate in an inquisitive culture. They must not be afraid to use their brains and look out for those tell-tale signs that betray the terrorist. To insist against the intelligent use of profiling is to deny them the freedom to use their heads, relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. That is how people switch off. And we don’t want that.

You seem to have distilled this debate down to a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between a 'deliberate, explicit, unabashed targetting of a given societal group,' and no profiling whatsoever. Your final admission that there might be a de facto profiling policy in place anyway shows up the error in your analysis. Profiling is subtle, it is intelligent and if sensitively handled will improve security and reduce disruption to the airline industry. That is what we want, not liberal contortions that make our enemies laugh at us.

David Bouvier

Alex

Like others you are conflating any profiling at all with "PC Savage" profiling based on skin tone and funny names.

The recent attempt was made by someone who had come to the attention of the security services and placed on a watch list. Perhaps as a first measure we could flag for special attention the 500,000 people the intelligence services apparently have concerns over (or some other appropriately generated list).

To go beyond that we could develop algorithms like those of credit card companies real time transaction screening, where some combination of background, patterns of travel (e.g. regular visits to multiple suspect countries not just regular visits to country of origin), ticket type and method of purchase, etc could be used to identify a small subset of travellers not known to intelligence services but considered high risk.

Confusing this with informal racial profiling is just rabble rousing. And actually if you have travelled with the colleagues I have, you will realise that olive-skinned young men get "randomly" stopped a lot more than old white blokes like me. As for that matter do pretty young blond women, though one suspects for different reasons.

Beer Moth

'A Muslim' raises a sound point in that if profiling consists merely of a blunt categorisation which targets the typical young, male, dark haired, olive skinned, Arab named; then it would be so easy for terrorists to circumvent this by recruiting operatives whose features are the complete opposite.

However, this argument is not a reason to abandon profiling. All that this suggests, is that the appraisal of travellers needs to be made with much more in mind than only the proposed criteria.

Yam Yam

Much of the recent narrative has focussed on the seeming incompetence of the present wave of Al Qaeda superheroes. However, never under-estimate the capacity for guile of a truly cunning and determined terrorist.

One of the reasons Saadi Yacef's urban terrorists achieved such deadly efficacy during their war against the French in Algeria in the 1950s was that they specifically recruited light-skinned Arab girls who spoke fluent French and then dressed them in pencil skirts and low-cut blouses so that they could plausibly pass themselves off as Pied-Noir teenagers, the better to smuggle their handbag bombs into Pied-Noir milk bars.

Therefore, I suspect that when Al Qaeda get round to using women suicide bombers in Britain, they won't necessarily be turning up at airports dressed in burqas.

Beer Moth

The basic premise of Doc Massie's argument is that there is a conflict here between certain outlandish factions of the Islamic faith, and 'the West'.

"We all, I think, know that we have problems with some muslim malcontents who reject the ideas underpinning a modern, western, liberal society..."

Further, that the only way that the West has a chance of prevailing, is by enlisting the help of Muslims of a lesser antipathy. Any wrong move on our part will tip those 'moderates' into the extremist abyss.

This then is the classic liberal appeasement line which insists that there is a deal to be struck between decent folk. The truths it fails to recognise are that (a) not all people are decent, and (b) that western liberalism, in its fullest form, provides aggressors with the very means to enter into it and to hollow out its core.

Given that the Ummah will never be rid of its aggressive element; the repeated assurance that there is such an entity as the moderate Muslim, and that herein lies the salvation of the West, is an argument which grows weaker by the day.

Laban Tall

"When you stigmatise the innocent and treat them, implicitly, as guilty until proved otherwise you create problems that strike at the essence of the open, liberal society itself and quite possibly increase the number of young men who might be attracted to violence and terrorism"

I don't think anyone's suggesting one blanket set of security procedures for Muslims and another for the rest. But given that (currently) nearly all potential UK terrorists are acting specifically in the name of Islam, it would be foolish not to take that into account.

The argument that "if we alienate ordinary Muslims, you'll create more Islamist terrorists" - has some force, but it also comes remarkably close to "if you attempt to defend yourselves, you'll only make things worse".

I'm reminded of Churchill's description of Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, "like an unfortunate man in a cage with a tiger, hoping not to provoke him while steadily dinner time approaches"

A Muslim

The last few terrorists may have been "stupid", I'll grant you that, but we don't need to stretch our imaginations much to realize the following:

In Beslan terrorists attacked a SCHOOL. In London terrorists attacked the SUBWAY (Underground). In Madrid terrorists attacked a TRAIN. In Mumbai terrorists attacked a HOTEL. In Israel terrorists attack BUSES and NIGHTCLUBS. In Manchester terrorists (the IRA) attacked a SHOPPING MALL. I can see racial/national/religious profiling making zero difference to this list. Patting down a foreigner at an airport and then letting them into the country will just give them access to all of the schools, trains, buses, etc, where there is no "enhanced screening". It gives them access to HomeBase where they can buy some flammable materials and pay in cash without anyone batting an eyelid, and they'll be nice enough to even let you rent a truck to carry it all to your victims.

Yeah, profiling at airports is gonna make us so much safer...

ndm

[via Andrew Sullivan]

Under the headline Profiling makes us less safe Bruce Schneier writes:

-- And, even worse, profiling creates two paths through security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. And once you do that, you invite the terrorists to take the path with less scrutiny. That is, a terrorist group can safely probe any profiling system and figure out how to beat the profile. And once they do, they’re going to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time.