Slashdot Log In
You Have Been 'Randomly' Selected?
Posted by
Cliff
on Mon Sep 04, 2006 04:30 PM
from the less-random-than-a-PRNG dept.
from the less-random-than-a-PRNG dept.
dpbsmith asks: "One thing I've noticed is that the people who are told by the TSA that they have been 'randomly' selected for baggage inspection have a tendency not to believe it. I know one couple whose wife has been 'randomly' selected four times, while the husband never has been. The wife believes that it is because each of those times, she was traveling by herself, without checked baggage, (whereas she has never been inspected when traveling with her husband with checked baggage). In 'Uncommon Carriers', John McPhee accompanied a truck driver to write about the experience, and bought a trucker's cap to blend in. He says 'I would pay for my freedom at the Seattle-Tacoma airport when, with a one-way ticket bought the previous day, I would arrive to check in my baggage.' His baggage was 'randomly' selected for inspection, and later he was 'once again "randomly selected" for a shoes-off, belt-rolled, head-to-toe frisk.' So, what about it? Is the TSA simply flat-out lying when they tell you that you have been 'randomly selected?'" The better question to ask is: "Are random searches effective in keeping everyone safe?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's two seperate questions here:
If 'enough' random searches are done then I expect they would be effective. Clearly, it is unresonable to search everybody so it's a trade-off between cost, time and hastle. The exact number of searches you conduct will depend precisely on how you way up these trade-offs. It will also depend on how much training your provide to the people conducting the searches.
I believe that profile-driven searches are flawed. The flaw is that the attacker can always avoid the profile you're trying to detect. For example, if I profile for young Muslim men with turbans the attacker can simply pick disaffected white middle-class women. Sure, such people are hard to come by but it is fool-hardy to suggest that they do not exist.
Profiling by race and religion flies in the face of everything we've struggled to achieve in the last century. I think it was Martin Luther King who said:
Those words transcend race, religion and colour. We should not judge because a man reads the Koran any more than we should judge because he is Black. Muslims are not terrorists. To quote another great mind, master Yoda:
There's already a dark cloud gathering. The question is how dark can it get?
Simon.
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Informative)
Minor nitpick: the vast majority of turban wearers are Sikh, not Muslim.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need to do is come to the realization that the ONLY way to make technically fragile public transit work is to promote an atmosphere where people do not want to attack us, instead of trying to prevent the few who do from being able to. "They" will always be able to, especially with increasingly cheap and effective technology.
Parent
Re:Appeasement = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right, not protecting ourselves against known threats would be suicidal.
On the other hand, doing provocative, stupid things that are guaranteed to turn otherwise friendly or neutral people into our enemies is equally suicidal.
The whole "fuck what everybody thinks, we'll keep ourselves secure through military force alone" mentality is based on the assumption that we have the physical ability to do so. The hard truth, however, is that that simply isn't the case -- our military can barely keep the lid on Iraq, let alone any of the other 3-4 dozen countries where terrorism is a concern. Our only option is to enlist the aid of the rest of the world's governments and people in helping us stop terrorism. The good news is that that shouldn't be too difficult to do -- almost nobody likes terrorists. But to work with people (or governments), you have to treat them with respect -- in particular, you have to understand that it's a two-way street. Double-standards do not go unnoticed by the world's public.
Parent
Sure they can... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake: Our military is quite capable of dealing with Iraq, or just about any other nation on earth.
The problem lies in that no one has the stomach for really turning them loose to do just that, and thanks to the speed of modern news networks, no one can get away with Dresdens or Hiroshimas anymore.
Steve
Parent
Re:Appeasement = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you are fear mongering: using single incidents and news reports to support statements about whole nations.
Second, you are ignoring that there is a wide and available gap between peace and appeasement.
Our options are not just "appease" or "war" - there is a huge middle ground. It used to be called "diplomacy".
When I say "an atmosphere where people do not want to attack us" - don't assume that only can occur because they love us - just that others don't hate us SO MUCH they are willing to die for their cause. Everyone living in peace and love would be great (but to get there we need to eliminate property entirely) - and we should shoot for that, but it's not feasible in the short term. There are lots of ways to get to the place where people don't want to attack you. It takes a LOT of fear and hate and misery to get a group of people who are so downtrodden and lost they resort to suicide bombing.
Parent
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Interesting)
And what Assad was able to do within his own country is not something that would work for the US to do to another country. Like the ripples leaving a pebble thrown into a pond, unintended consequences go beyond our capacity to predict, and a nuke ain't no pebble. Simplistic solutions only solve simple problems, and this isn't a remotely simple situation. Strong military response is an important part of the solution, but it simply won't be enough. These are folks who are used to being treated badly by people they consider brothers -- we don't have the stomach to treat them badly enough to really make them fear us, and the world wouldn't tolerate it if we tried. Identifying and killing the worst is a good step, but we can't find them and kill them quickly enough.
Parent
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really that stupid?
How will that make them less likely to want to attack you? These are people who are willing to blow themselves up to prove a point. What on earth makes you think that unfounded retribution will make them hate you any less?
All you'll end up doing is making even more people who want to attack you.
Parent
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Informative)
Canada.
Parent
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
North Korea
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Those are just the N's...
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other factors include travel / purchasing habits etc...
At at least 2 airlines I've flown, you will see them write one "S" on your ticket for each flag you set off, which increases your likelihood of being "randomly" selected. The whole random thing is a complete misnomer. You're being profiled - not necessarily racially, but you're definitely being profiled.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, my wife is in the military and we have to go through "random" security screenings for our cars. Somehow my Saturn gets nailed 10 to 1 over my wife's car every month. There are times when I just want to run the damn guards over.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I flew, I got 4 S's on my ticket, as did the rest of my family.
I asked the TSA employee if the SSSS was why we were getting the special treatment and he said "the airline determines who gets marked for extra treatment"
I just didn't realize that each extra "S" meant "+ 1 we think you're a terrorist"
Parent
"+ 1 we think you're a terrorist" (Score:5, Funny)
Now THAT would be an awesome addition to the Slashdot moderation system!
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that I really don't understand. Who are they trying to catch, the really thick terrorists who will spend several years of their lives and invent diabolical explosive devices, etc, and then risk it all to save $400 on airfare? Surely any terrorist worth his 72 virgins can figure out that it's better to buy a round-trip ticket even if you're not planning to use the second part...
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Profiling" - for security reasons - is generally not performed on anything close to the level of simplicity most people criticising it think it is.
"Profiling" - performed properly - helps by directing scarce resources where they are most likely to produce a positive result.
Suggesting that a young single woman flying out of Sweden with a round-the-world ticket is equally as likely to hijack/destroy the plane as a group of young single "middle eastern" men with one-way tickets flyng out of Saudi Arabia, is letting your idealistic bleeding-heart-leftist-stupidity get in the way of common sense.
Not to mention, *everyone* "profiles", every day, all the time. It's impossible (not to mention stupid) not to. Some people just can't admit to it.
Those words transcend race, religion and colour. We should not judge because a man reads the Koran any more than we should judge because he is Black. Muslims are not terrorists.
Selecting *solely* because of skin colour I can certainly agree with, because it is both a) out of a person's control and b) utterly irrelevant to how a person behaves.
However, the same cannot be said of religion.
How a person behaves is strongly influenced by their culture. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, intolerant and short-sighted religious beliefs are a significant contributor to culture.
Skin colour (more accurately, ethnicity) is not. However, there are many areas in the world where ethnicity and culture are strongly correlated. To ignore this - or, even worse, actively deny it - is folly.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except young Swedish women aren't exactly queuing up to commit suicide via exploding aeroplane, just in case you haven't noticed.
Suggesting that such people do not exist and such a plot would not be possible is the true folly.
Fortunately, I am making no such suggestion. What I *am* doing, is pointing out that such a plot is _vastly_ less likely to eventuate than the aforementioned one involving a group of disaffected Muslim youths.
As to idealistic-leftist-etc., I know many people (including several in law enforcement) from MANY backgrounds who agree profiling is ineffective and dangerous, and who don't have the slightest bit of the beliefs you listed. Surely you can make your point without name-calling or presuming about your opponents.
I'm afraid I can't come up with any other description for people who think everyone is equally likely to be a religiously fanatical suicide bomber than "stupid".
I'd be more than willing to bet there's *at least* as many "experts" out there who think profiling (done properly) would be affective, as there is who would disagree.
I'll freely admit to it! However, most people (including me) profile on objective and non-bigoted criteria.
Which is precisely what proponents of profiling are suggesting should be done.
When history and statistics currently show that terrorists are overwhelmingly young muslim males, then focusing more attention on young muslim males is neither subjective, nor bigoted, it's mathematics.
Also, "everyone" is not a government agent, which changes the rules 100%. I am -personally- allowed to hate black people, or women, or those with red hair, and refuse entirely to associate with or speak to them. (Note: I don't -support- this behavior in any way, I'm just noting it is allowed!) However, if I work at the DMV, and one of those people walks up to my desk, I -must- give them a driver's license if they meet the criteria for one.
Because handing over a drivers license and letting someone onto a plane are such similar situations...
Your criticism is based on a flawed assumption - that focusing on certain cultural and religious beliefs is done without justification, and is inherently subjective and bigoted.
However, any profile we use will by definition be able to figure out and subvert (are 90% of the searches against Arab-looking guys? Find someone white! Or black! Are 90% of the searches against males? Find a woman!).
Your circumvention techniques assume that suitably different people can simply be drop-in replacements. Again, I'll point out that this assumption is false.
Therefore, statistically and psychologically, the safest way is to make sure EVERYONE knows they have a chance of getting a search, be they Grandma or Mohammed in the turban.
What statistics are you using to support your argument that Grandma is equally as likely to be a suicide bomber as Mohammed *right now* ?
What psychology are you using to support your argument that people prepared to commit suicide by explosion will be deterred from doing so by the possibility of being discovered before they actually board the plane ?
Ah, you're RIGHT! You mean like white Baptists from Mississippi! We must bar them at once from boarding an airplane!
How many white baptists from Mississippi have blown up aeroplanes lately ? How many of them are calling for - or at least condoning - the destruction of the western world ?
Wait, did that just sound silly? I bet it did! Why? Because it's a hideously bigoted statement, but it's bigoted against those who are more like the picture of "us" (bit different flavor of Christianity, same skin color).
No, it's stupid because it
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the real real world- muslim terrorists are a small portion of all terrorists. By targetting muslims you actually reduce our security in two ways. First, you'll completely miss the non-muslim terrorists. Secondly, you give them an easy way to sneak through- hire or trick someone who isn't muslim (or does not look muslim) to do the work for them. So not only are you a bigot, you're actively comprimising the safety of the country.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Informative)
That's bullshit. The term terrorist was in wide use before 9/11. I remember it being used in the 1980s - for example to describe the suicide truck bombing of American Marines stationed in Beruit. I also remember it being used to describe the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City bombing.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and it was used incorrectly from the start to describe any actions by the enemy, and the enemy themselves, rather than simply (and correctly) the tactic. The bombing of the marines, as much as it sucked, was an attack on a military target. The attack on the world trade center (the first time and the second) were terrorist attacks because it is a civilian target. The attack on the pentagon is borderline, since it was a military target, but since it used a civilian airliner overall I would say it is terrorism.
Any time civilians are purposefully targeted with the use of violence for political effect it is terrorism. The identity of the doer does not decide whether it is terrorism or not.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
ETA. IRA. Ulster Unionists. Tamil Tigers. Aum Shinrikyo. RAF. Clinic bombers. Unabomber. Hate groups like Nazis attacking immigrants in some parts of Europe. KKK. FARC. Jewish Defense League.
That's just off the top of my head.
I think that you have a reality distortion field. It's common among racist idiots.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
It does, if you assume that past behavior is the sole predictor of future behavior. The problem is that there's no guarantee that future anti-US-aircraft terrorism will also be carried out by Muslims -- in fact, if you go with a Muslim-oriented profiling system, you end up creating a very inviting target for non-Muslim terrorist groups (existing or yet-to-be-created), who know that they will be able to walk right through "security".
To give a computer analogy: if you are adding security to a web site, do you just put in security software that detects last year's virus and stops it, or do you design the site to make it as difficult as possible for any type of virus (present or future) to get through? If you're smart, you'll do the latter, otherwise you'll end up continuously getting sucker-punched from places you didn't expect.
Parent
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Insightful)
While everyone else piles on this bigoted response, I'd like to point out how widespread this person's misconception is. Probably the most damaging thing done by Bush and the Republicans is to play to this sort of bigotry and, in doing so, make us much less secure. Rational procedures are difficult to implement when frightened people are being goaded into acting from prejudice. A random search at airport security would be much preferable to a profile that can be easily gamed and outwitted.
But it's always a good policy to call a bigot a bigot.
Parent
Re:Wha?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed 100%. There are muslims of pretty much all ethnic groups. It'd be the simplest thing for them to hang up a cross on their neck and stuff a bible on their pockets. Racial profiling wouldn't do much good there.
It might be a fluke, but whenever I tried to board a plane with a 3 or 4 days beard, I was "randomly" selected for further inspection (including swabbing my luggage for drugs at the destination, go figure). Whenever I go clean shaven, I pass right thru. I havent' flown that much so, as I said, it might be a fluke.
Parent
random, not uniform random (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you keep asking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do you keep asking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because as long as the TSA continues to search John Q. Public "with significance", it perpetuates the perception that it's needed to deter terrorists; if there were to be no terrrorist incidents despite the TSA not stomping all over people's privacy, then people might get the impression that all of the other invasive measures that Shrub claims are "absolutely necessary" to prevent terrorism in our country are equally unnecessary; his agenda requires that he perpetuate the state of fear in order to allow him to continue to implement the policies that God has chosen him to carry out.
Parent
Random Distribution (Score:5, Funny)
For example, I've been randomly selected as a finalist in the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes almost every year. What are the odds?!?!
Unprofiled (Score:5, Funny)
I have never been randomly selected when I was travelling with my wife and two screaming children.
Perhaps they don't want to deal with my wife's reaction. This would be wise.
Perhaps they believe that I wouldn't want to blow up a plane with my own children on it. This would be foolhardy.
The check-in agents can get you selected too (Score:5, Informative)
Funnily enough, on checking in at Nassau, my pass had the SSSS stamp too, but no-one batted an eyelid at it, and I didn't get any security checking different from that which my wife or anyone else around got.
My experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
I got "randomly" selected three times out of these six flights. In addition to this, my (checked-in) bag was "accidentally" delayed before being loaded onto the plane, and the flight attendant had to come and ensure that I was onboard before the "delayed" bag was brought onboard, just before landing (which was delayed due to my bag).
I'm mid-20s, with an Arab-sounding name, not married, travel a lot (including Eastern Europe), didn't carry a lot of baggage (I was only visiting for a couple of days).
Every time they told me they "randomly" selected me for inspection, I smiled and let them do their thing.
"Random" selection is profiling under a PC name. Of course they profile people. And of course they won't tell you that they do. Before travelling to the US, I was thinking about how suspicious I may appear and how many times they would search me, dig through my luggage and ask me questions. Surprise, surprise, they did it. Three times.
Not so random for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Random my ass (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is, I expect it. But random? Yeah, right.
Randomly selected (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, after the metal detector I was informed that I had been selected for additional screening. I was briefly stopped in a funny looking box with a red sign, less than 30 secs later a guard took me to behind the metal detector lines. My hand luggage, shoes and jacket were carefully inspected, I was checked with a metal detector wand, and then I was on my way. The whole process must have taken about 5 minutes and didn't cause me a single inconvenience.
Even though I'm caucasian, I'm from south america, so I could cry "I was targeted because I come from a third world country". I didn't. I also didn't notice people looking at me like I was doing something wrong. Essentially, this was routine, no different than going through the metal detector itself or the brief questions by the immigrations officer. I guess you'll say "that's how it starts" or that it's a matter of principle, but what's the big deal with this?
VIBRATORS, BUTT PLUGS, and DILDOS...Oh my!! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I look forward to embarassing any airline dummy who wants ot inspect my stuff!
Re:VIBRATORS, BUTT PLUGS, and DILDOS...Oh my!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I'm ex-TSA... read my previous comments (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't pretend to know how the process works or what the criteria may be, but I can offer some advice:
1. Just go through with it... plan on it. It's about as annoying as a traffic jam.
2. The air carriers have more to do with the "selection" process than the TSA does. (I'm 90% certain of that) So take your bitches and complaints up with the airline... they just might put you on a white list somewhere if you threaten to give your money to another "almost bankrupt carrier." They can't afford to lose your business... none of them can.
To expound upon that, if "the people" want all this crap to get better, start complaining where the money moves, not with congress, not with the president and not with the TSA. (True, there's money there, but the influencial money starts with the air carriers.) If people start complaining enough and changing airlines, they'll listen.
A game theory angle (Score:5, Insightful)
An important concept in game theory is the mixed strategy. That is where you randomise over certain choices because it is optimal to do so to prevent your pattern of play being anticipated and counteracted by your opponent. (Consider a game of matching pennies - you choose heads or tails and reveal it simultaneously to your opponent. If they match you win, if they don't your opponent winds. The optimal strategy is to randomly pick 50/50 heads and tails. Skillful players of games in general are ones that can a) randomise themselves properly, and b) exploit the fact that their opponents don't randomise properly)
Thus, in the case of 'random' searches it needs to be random to ensure that the searching strategy can't be circumvented. But that doesn't mean that the odds of every given person being selected need to be the same. For example, if it is much harder for terrorists to convince mothers with young children to become scuicide bombers that means that they are less likely to do so or, completely dispasionately, if they do there will be fewer terrorist attacks because they have fewer volunteers. This would still be better than the alternative. Importantly, for the discussion here it is provably optimal to do this.
Thus, an optimal screening strategy is random, but the probability of selection need not be uniform.
(And a statistics aside: even though the chance that someone who flies 4 times gets selected every time would seem to be 1/10000 - if they individual odds are 1/10 - given that over 10,000 people fly, you are almost guaranteed that someone will be selected 4 times in a row.)
kind of random.. (Score:5, Informative)
Is this effective? I have no idea, some of those parameters might but they are easy to alter as well and a lot of those above are done by real every day Joes as well. That is why every day Joe gets those random checks as well. I doubt anyone outside the TSA really knows exactly what they look at to determine who might be a risk or how effective it really is.
Insurance companies profile as well. 16-24 year old male? You pay the highest rates regardless of your driving record. That age sets off a flag that you are of the highest percentage of unsafe drivers. Own a home or have a 4.0 GPA? You get lower rates then the person that does not own a home or is the sick in school. They have determined through profiling that home owners and kids that buckle down in school are more responsible and less likely to be involved in an accident.
Don't act so suprised that the TSA/NSA/FBI and what ever other 3 letter law enforment types think they can profile as well. Is this passenger profile thing worse then truely random? I have no idea. If you do not meet what ever criteria they are looking for, I guess you would have a less chance of being picked at random assuming they only pick a certain percentage of people overall. If they pick a certain percentage of truely random people AND pick people that meet a certain profile then profiling is not worse then random.
Of course they're not "random" (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy does so, then looks at me and offers to move me to a window seat. I say, "Sounds good" and hand back the boarding pass I've already received. Sure enough, the one I get back has a bunch of S's drawn on it. I get the VIP treatment at security, of course.
So, was that question really a big terrorist tipoff or something? Or did I just irritate the guy a bit and he decided to have some fun with me? And either way, am I supposed to feel safer?
Selected is selected random is random (Score:4, Informative)
If you buy a one way ticket, you were not randomly selected, If you buy your ticket at the last moment you were not randomly selected. If you did one of the many unknown "bad" things you were not randomly selected.
The airlines ticketing system is set up to flag certain actions, and prints out that line of SSSSSSS on your ticket and you get extra screening... nothing random about it.
Random screening happens when the screener at the walk through metal detector sees that one of the people running the hand held detectors are not searching anyone so whoever is next is sent that way. Or when the screener searching bags out of the X-Ray machine finishes a bag, they just grab the next bag out of the machine and search that.
So random in this case comes from just keeping the screeners busy.
TSA told me why i was always searched.. (Score:4, Informative)
In a word, no. Arguably the opposite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Random searches wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. They used box cutters to threaten lives, but if such searches had been in place they would have used dental floss garrotes or their bare hands for the same purpose. Several times people have successfully defeated the searches just to prove it could be done and do not prevent even untrained citizens from bringing contraband on planes.
Random searches are not effective in keeping us safe. What they are effective at is lulling the public into accepting routine violation of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection. Back in the 80s, during the cold war, the paranoid and abusive treatment of travelers by the USSR due to "national security" concerns was properly seen as proof of a fascist government and held up for scorn and ridicule. How sad it is that we have allowed the destruction of a few buildings and loss of 3030 [vikingphoenix.com] lives to turn us into what we fought against. Something several wars with much higher losses both economic and human failed to do. Many free and democratic nations suffered repeated terrorist violence before 9/11 but did not allow it to warp their societies. In contrast we have sacrificed our rights as citizens and our values as a country in response to a single attack and promote such sacrifices of rights and values by our allies.
The random searches and other intrusive treatment of passengers has not resulted in the conviction of many (any?) terrorists, but it has endoctrinated millions to accepting treatment they would not have tolerated previously. In pursuit of physical safety, we have sacrified liberty. A libertarian might say that the undefined risk of pre-9/11 security was less objectionable than the daily violation of the rights of tens of millions of citizens that takes place under post-9/11 security. It is worth thinking about.
Re:Why be random when you can be EFFECTIVE? (Score:5, Insightful)
The analogy from the talking head also fails to make sense, because we're not looking for the nineteen guys who executed the September 11th hijackings. We already know what happened to them, and they're beyond the reach of our justice. What we're looking for are people who might be attempting to do something similar. A less superficial analogy would have your one-armed bank robber cracking his skull open on the sidewalk as he exited the bank, and having the bank respond by demanding all people with missing limbs undergo a background check before opening a checking account.
There are a dozen reasons why racial profiling is counterproductive. My primary objection is that it feeds the belief among many Muslims that the "War on Terror" is really a war on Islam, and as such it makes even moderate Muslims more inclined to be our enemies than our allies.
But even if we ignore that it may be creating new potential attackers, it's ineffective at thwarting a given attack. First, there is the fact that whatever profile you select, the attackers will be able to learn how not to match the profile, even if that requires skin lightener, fake IDs, and voice training. More likely, though, the attackers would look for someone who sympathized with the cause, but didn't fit the profile. Beyond that, a focus on skin color is going to distract from more useful indicators, like behavior. Given the choice between screening the scruffy Arab and the white businessman, I'd search the one who is shaking and sweating like the proverbial whore in Sunday School.
In the end, the best way to avoid another September 11 is not to seek out and destroy those who hate us, or to closely scrutinize every person who reminds us of someone who hated us in the past. We can't lock down the 'bad guys' to the point where the 'good guys' are completely safe, because there is no such clear distinction, and we're in danger of losing our freedom as we make the attempt. Consider that it won't be remotely possible to secure every conceivable vector of attack. If we lock down air travel, our buses are still vulnerable. If we stop everyone from buying explosives and their precursors, they can fall back on our abundant firearms. If we protect our stadiums, they can go after malls, hospitals, dams, etc. Targeted assassinations, random arson, destruction of fiber optic cables and power lines... and that's leaving out the scenarios where something manufactured abroad is snuck into the country.
No, our best defense is to reduce the number of people who passionately hate us, and are willing to act on their anger. Killing them doesn't work--not on the scale that any reasonable person is willing to contemplate--because even the people who hate us are still people, people with families and friends who will learn hate as they watch us butcher their loved ones.
Parent
Re:Why be random when you can be EFFECTIVE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I can identify (Score:4, Funny)
Do you really want to know that?
Parent