Full body scans for US bound flights

[Monique]

I think it will be a big mistake to only suspect people with a certain outward appearance or with a certain nationality. No matter what you say, I'm pretty sure that the US intelligence services will be aware of that as well.

Different topic but what's wrong with Guantanamo?

It appears to me that Cyrus is not concerned with human rights, when it comes to national security. That's why I was wondering about his opinion about Gitmo.

I think the following marine officer Brig. Gen. Michael Lehnert has conveyed the message well:

"I think we lost the moral high ground," Lehnert said. "For those who do not think much of the moral high ground, that is not that significant.

"But for those who think our standing in the international community is important, we need to stand for American values. You have to walk the walk, talk the talk."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marine-gitmo25-2009sep25,0,1946707.story"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/counter-terror-with-justice/guantanamo-bay---a-human-rights-scandal/page.do?id=1108202"

 

[Borek]

I have a feeling that both Monique and me are treated as people who are against screening, while it is quite the opposite - we think that everyone should be screened.

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

 

[lisab]

I haven't read every post in this thread, so sorry if this has already been mentioned.

The problem with any sort of profiling is that it's very simple for terrorists to figure out what profile is being scrutinized. They will adjust, and before you know it we'll have blonde hair, blue eyed women being recruited for suicide bombing missions.

The best way IMO to fight this is with feet-on-the-ground intelligence. We should have seen this underwear bomber coming months in advance (the clues were there, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8435266.stm" who was thwarted at Mogadishu, of all places).

Only with intelligence can we get out ahead of them. We need better methods to mine the data, of course, to sort out the signals from the noise.

That said, airport screening should continue, but with the knowledge that those systems are tooled to look for MOs that are already known to authorities.

 

[Galteeth]

Man, if you really believe this you don't know politics. I want to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Practically speaking, such "realpolitik" actions do in fact have long term negative consequences besides the moral issues. The CIA refers to this as "blowback." Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, wrote a book on this subject. It could be argued, with merit, that the taliban and Al-Qaeda are US created monsters.

EDIT: Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government as well.

 

[Newai]

But I don't care about global hijackings. I care about hijackings that concern the united states, there is no need to obfuscate the issue.

I thought all hijackings concern the United States, and every country the plane can possibly reach.

 

[Newai]

If they choose that option as a majority solution, it simply proves they were morally degenerate to begin with, and even more severe measures against them are justified, and should have been enforced from the start.
The reason for that is, of course, because that option is an IMMORAL choice.

They should instead choose the option of ridding their own sub-communities of those with terrorist leaning, i.e, "ratting on", for example, ideological leaders preaching unwarranted hatred against non-members, rather than the wall of silence which is this sub-populations preferred choice to evil committed, and celebrated within their ranks.


To avoid to implement an extremely effective scan measure merely out of the justified fear that some immorals will become unjustifiedly enflamed by it and resort to violence is to make the immoral choice of submitting to the cruel, wilful master as a slave, and require that others do so as well.

The differences in opinion following since this post are summed up with prevention versus reaction. It makes sense to me that in the theory of security, we do not focus on the individual but rather the holes those individuals sneak through. Gleaning over the current efforts, it looks like an attempted balance on both prevention and reaction.

I don't see much accomplishment in the arguments in this thread for prevention when digging through history, but the effort for prevention looks to be based on that theory. Of course, the can of worms appears to be inherent in arguing between perceived security and real security. Anyway...

I do not understand how your solution is realistic. Yes, their community has a burden of ratting out their own, but this is assuming they are in that capacity, which I doubt is often present. Instead, what I see, and I bet many others here can share, is a completely different way anyone of Middle Eastern descent feels just walking around in public now. The now new alien among us is a bitter and fearing stranger.

But you didn't answer my question. So with this in mind, can you assure me that focusing security on this group will not increase tensions, and inadvertently create more terrorism? Because from where I stand at least, I'm willing to put up with the extremely painful extra three hours in line if that means less possibility of terrorism.

 

[arildno]

But you didn't answer my question. So with this in mind, can you assure me that focusing security on this group will not increase tensions, and inadvertently create more terrorism?

It is an irrelevant concern.
Even if there is a tenfold, or thousandfold, temporary increase in terrorism due to that morally degenerate individuals throw a totally unjustified bleat about how they are "unfairly" treated, that is not sufficient reason to spare them that treatment.

Such terrified withholding is simply to subject oneself, and others, into a state of pitiable slavery before the cruel master.

And THAT is a deeply immoral choice of action.

 

[Borek]

temporary increase

I think that's where you are mistaken.

 

[ranger]

It is an irrelevant concern.
Even if there is a tenfold, or thousandfold, temporary increase in terrorism due to that morally degenerate individuals throw a totally unjustified bleat about how they are "unfairly" treated, that is not sufficient reason to spare them that treatment.

Such terrified withholding is simply to subject oneself, and others, into a state of pitiable slavery before the cruel master.

And THAT is a deeply immoral choice of action.

Are Muslims, and those in resemblance to the westernized stereotype, now morally degenerate? And it *is* justified for any group to throw a bleat for unfair treatment, even at the expense of your false sense of security. Furthermore, luckily, security officials can't be that naive because surely the increase will be long term. Not from the 'morally degenerate' group, but from the other groups placed on the pedestal, because face it, tactics can be changed easily.

 

[dotman]

This is no argument whatsoever against monitoring
a) those actively engaged in hate-generating sub-cultures (for example, readers/contributors at jihadist websites, members of the local KKK club, academics with a zeal for marxist revolutions and so on)

b) wider cultures where sub-cultures of type a) is greatly over-represented.

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:

Therefore, it is pointless to bother about them, until the identifiable traits of such individuals can be detected reliably, in a cost-effective way.

With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.

 

[Galteeth]

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:



With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.

Perhaps not, but common sense profiling does to some extent. As somone pointed out, white women above the age of 70 are unlikely to be a terrorist threat (although I supposse if terrorists knew this loophole, they could try to recruint a 70 plus white looking woman, but still)

EDIT: Similarly, I as a 25 year old punk, am not a likely terrorist.

 

[mgb_phys]

EDIT: Similarly, I as a 25 year old punk, am not a likely terrorist.

No but you are a likely: drug user, music pirate, drunk driver, starter-of-fights-in-bars an anti-government protester so we will have you on a no-fly list anyway

 

[dotman]

Perhaps not, but common sense profiling does to some extent. As somone pointed out, white women above the age of 70 are unlikely to be a terrorist threat

No, 'common sense' profiling does not. To use your example: an American of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist threat. For that matter, a foreigner of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist.

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes, or massive security systems whose rules are easily learned and bypassed.

The people we are fighting are not stupid.

 

[Cyrus]

Practically speaking, such "realpolitik" actions do in fact have long term negative consequences besides the moral issues. The CIA refers to this as "blowback." Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, wrote a book on this subject. It could be argued, with merit, that the taliban and Al-Qaeda are US created monsters.

EDIT: Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government as well.

I am familiar with Johnson, and the concept of blowback. What I fail to see, however, is any relevance to airport screening. This is not about us creating the taliban or Al-Qaeda, so...<shug>

 

[Cyrus]

I thought all hijackings concern the United States, and every country the plane can possibly reach.

If the airplane is not registered as US and is hijacked and heading for the United States, you can probably count on it being shot down before it gets anywhere close the ADIZ.

 

[Cyrus]

No, 'common sense' profiling does not. To use your example: an American of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist threat. For that matter, a foreigner of Arab descent is also unlikely to be a terrorist.

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes, or massive security systems whose rules are easily learned and bypassed.

The people we are fighting are not stupid.

This thread is about airport security. There is, and always has been, a need for it. Putting "feet on the ground" does nothing towards direct airport security. That is another topic for another thread.

 

[Loren Booda]

Could a scanner set off explosives?

 

[arildno]

I think that's where you are mistaken.

In that case, let the war come, rather than capitulate witout resorting to arms.

 

[arildno]

Are Muslims, and those in resemblance to the westernized stereotype, now morally degenerate?

If they choose to react with terrorism, definitely.
Therefore, it is you, and everyone else who think specialized profiling will lead to a huge increase of violence from their part who are implying they are morally degenerate to begin with.

If they are not, then they will NOT react with increased terrorism, and YOUR prediction is the one that fails.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, luckily, security officials can't be that naive because surely the increase will be long term. Not from the 'morally degenerate' group, but from the other groups placed on the pedestal, because face it, tactics can be changed easily.

No, they can't.

Any change will represent an increased COST,for example in how recruitment programmes would have to be conducted.

An arms race puts increased costs on BOTH sides, there is no such thing as free/arbitrary recruitment, free technology, free adaptivity and so on.

 

[arildno]

We need to put our dollars where they will be most effective, and I believe this is intelligence... more feet on the ground, as someone said earlier... and not ineffective profiling schemes

A profiling scheme is NOT ineffective if it forces those it targets with profiling to radically change their modus operandi in order not to be caught.

Rather, that profiling scheme is to be regarded as HIGHLY effective.


To say differently is just about as idiotic as to say:
"DNA tests of sperm left by rapists is an ineffective investigation method because more rapists will start wearing condoms during the rape, or practice coitus interruptus."


Your flaw lies in thinking that an effective scheme implies reduction of incidence.

This is totally false, an effective scheme implies that the modus operandi must be changed in order for the prospective perpetrator to be successful.

That is to say, if a perp can continue much as before AFTER the introduction of the profiling scheme, THEN that profiling scheme has proved itself ineffective.

 

[arildno]

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:



With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.

Religion is not ethnicity.

Furthermore, let's look at a totally hypothetical case:

Suppose we have a large culture with many branches, but where a core principle is such a morally horrendous feature as to regard a mass murderer and warlord from the 7th century as the morally perfect man, and any criticism of his life-choices is liable to death penalty.

Think if such an utterly perverse culture existed (this is, OF COURSE, merely hypothetical!).

Should we not regard those who adore such a vile monster from the past to be generally more morally suspect than people from a culture in which abhorrence toward such barbarian ruthlessness is instilled in its members?

 

[Borek]

In that case, let the war come, rather than capitulate witout resorting to arms.

Please stop assuming that just because I am pointing to places where I feel you are wrong I am against security measures and fighthing terrorits, or I am ready to give up. This is a straw man.

 

[arildno]

Please stop assuming that just because I am pointing to places where I feel you are wrong I am against security measures and fighthing terrorits, or I am ready to give up. This is a straw man.

Well, then you should make a better case for yourself!

Customs officials, who are in the business of preventing people to import alcoholic beverages or cigarettes above their legitimate quotas, have, of course, some groups they are particularly prone to check out.

That is to say, rational sampling procedures are well established, but when it comes to the mine field of terrorists, then people like you advocate NO such rational sampling procedures, but demand that either EVERYONE should be equally subjected to scans or, when that is impossible, IRRATIONAL sampling procedures ought to develop instead.

 

[Borek]

Well, then you should make a better case for yourself!

No, you just should read my posts before answering them. I have never stated anything that supports your claims, please browse the thread.

people like you advocate NO such rational sampling procedures

Seems like you know better than I what I think. Second straw man today.

Stop overgeneralizing. Just because I have stated "2 is an even number" doesn't mean I mean "there are no odd numbers".

 

[arildno]

Borek1:

Perhaps we should allow for separate planes for those that don't want to be scanned?

Silly nonsense not worth bothering about.
Borek2:

Common sense in society? You must be kidding.

Seriously - I am with you here, this is the same blend of idiocy/media hype/policy/PR that is responsible for most simple reagents being banned from schools so that nobody gets hurt during chemistry lessons or for sharp knives being banned from art classes - but you can still break your leg playing American football. Proportions have been lost long ago. We (in Poland) follow, albeit slowly.

Generally false.

A PROPER sense of proportion also includes consideration of the types of incidents, the typical motivation behind them and the extent to which the incidents will actually be preventable by, say, a ban.

People leaving their home in rage are most likely as probable to get involved in traffick accidents, relative to those placing themselves in the driver's seat in a state of pleasurable drunkenness.

Whereas the second form might conceivably be reduced through a ban on driving in a state of drunkenness, the first form is largely unpreventable.
That is why rational legislation, and a proper sense of proportion will focus on the second form.

Borek3:

Not many, perhaps none. But you are making a mistake assuming that Muslims are the only source of danger and that it is so obvious that white Marine can't be a Muslim terrorist. I suppose that's what Monique means and all are equal is not an idealism - she just points to the fact that everyone can be a terrorist and should be treated in exactly the same way.

Completely false, as has been pointed out to you many times over.

 

[dotman]

A profiling scheme is NOT ineffective if it forces those it targets with profiling to radically change their modus operandi in order not to be caught.

Rather, that profiling scheme is to be regarded as HIGHLY effective.

...

Your flaw lies in thinking that an effective scheme implies reduction of incidence.

This is totally false, an effective scheme implies that the modus operandi must be changed in order for the prospective perpetrator to be successful.

Haha, so if we implement a security measure, and planes continue to be blown up, but in new ways, that security measure was effective.

You should be the TSA administrator.

An effective scheme stops attacks before they happen. This is about saving lives. This is all it is about.

Ethnic Profiling does not do this.

 

[arildno]

Haha, so if we implement a security measure, and planes continue to be blown up, but in new ways, that security measure was effective.

Quite correct, as long as the previous modus operandi was made impossible by that security scheme.

An effective scheme stops attacks before they happen.

Nope.
That is fuzzy thinking, totally disregarding the im,possibility in providing ALL-encompassing, ALL-effective schemes valid for all time.

Because you are so steeped in fuzzy thinking, you are completely unsuitable as a TSA administrator.

A proper method is a combination of
a) selective profiling
AND
b) continued random searching.

a)'s are continually watched for its probable success by means of b)'s, that will pick up changing trends with regard to high-risk groups.
When a previous high-risk group detected in b), that warranted the implementation of an a)-profiling seems to be on the wane, then it could be discussed whether an a)-profiling on that sub-group should be discontinued.

Similarly, when the strictly random b)'s detect some new group's over-representation, that should initiate discussion whether it warrants an a)-treatment.

 

[dotman]

If you believe a security measure that doesn't prevent attacks is worthwhile, well, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Borek]

Silly nonsense not worth bothering about.

It was intended to be sarcastic.

Generally false.

A PROPER sense of proportion also includes consideration of the types of incidents, the typical motivation behind them and the extent to which the incidents will actually be preventable by, say, a ban.

Proper sense of proportion - yes. But proper sense of proportion is not present in general population. Quite the opposite - trivial accident can get much publicity after being reported in media, then people want to prevent such accidents in future, then politicians pass stupid laws just to get popularity. Things are getting bown out of proportions all the time.

If you can get arrested for owning Erlenmeyer flask in Texas and not being licensed chemist, proper sense of proportion has been lost long ago.

I am afraid instead of trying to understand that I am referring to the general picture, you will now state that I am against any reasonable regulations. Another straw man, there are no odd numbers. Let be it.

That is why rational legislation, and a proper sense of proportion will focus on the second form.

I have never stated different. Proper and rational being key words. We live in an overregulated world in which both words are abused and twisted.

Completely false, as has been pointed out to you many times over.

There is a difference between repeating something and proving something. I state "someone pretending to be marine can be a terrorist", I am told it is "completely false". To prove my statement I give examples of people that are very close to the "terrorist marine" category, I am told it is "completely false". My only chance is to wait till some marine goes nuts.

Then, you may refer to the fact that I think every passenger should be treated the same way. I have already stated in one of the posts

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

but somehow you have missed it when quoting my "silly nonsense" posts.

 

[arildno]

There is a difference between repeating something and proving something. I state "someone pretending to be marine can be a terrorist", I am told it is "completely false".

Nope. You are told that it is completely false to treat different sub-groups in exactly the same way, which was your (and Monique's) conclusion.

That it is possible that little green men in oversized hats MIGHT become terrorists, too, does NOT mean we should expect the great leprechaun take-over.

That it is POSSIBLE that both marines and 90-year old great-grandmothers might turn out over-grouchy, does not mean we should regard them as representing the same security risk as some other groups. Yet.

 

[arildno]

If you believe a security measure that doesn't prevent attacks is worthwhile, well, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

Why not kill off ALL humans as a pre-emptive strike against terrorism?

THAT would be a security measure that GUARANTEED the extinction of terrorist acts, or at least their effectiveness..

 

[arildno]

I have a feeling that both Monique and me are treated as people who are against screening, while it is quite the opposite - we think that everyone should be screened.

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

Okay, so the policy that EVERYONE should be screened is the conclusion at the "highest, most general level".

But, clearly, this is not possible at the PRACTICAL level, and then your "highest level" policy just floats about in the sky somewhere, totally disconnected with reality..




Besides, if you wish to hear an alternate "highest level" policy I might ascribe to (given almost unlimited means), it would be to divide the population into various sub-groups, on basis of some criterion of variance-minimization, and then monitor each such group proportional to the expectation that a group member might be a security risk.

 

[arildno]

Well, you need to be SELECTIVE in what you gather intelligence about, since there is too much information "out there" waiting to be gathered.
For example, by monitoring..MOSQUE activities, rather than monitoring the activities within a synagogue?

That effective profiling schemes should incorporate intelligently gathered intelligence is, of course, a trivially valid point.

 

[BobG]

There's a functional fallacy to using profiled screening - mainly because the number of terrorists is so incredibly small.

There were 809 million airline passengers in 2008. (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html ).

I can't find a statistic for the number of passengers denied boarding because of luggage or personal screening, I think it's safe to say that over 99.9% were screened unnecessarily regardless of their appearance (there's no way anywhere close to 809,000 passengers failed screening). If a certain ethnic group is twice as likely to be a terrorist as a different group (and the 99.9% were anywhere near accurate), then 99.8% of screenings for that group would be wasted, vs 99.9% for the less risky group.

Compared to all screenings, there's virtually no improvement in efficiency by limiting screenings to certain profile groups. And the number of terrorists is so small, there's almost no disadvantage to choosing terrorists that don't fit the traditional profile. This isn't traditional warfighting tactics where you need a high number of successes and a high success rate for the attacks to be successful. It's a tactic where a 99.999999% success rate by us is a total and humiliating failure (8 terrorists a year successfully boarding a plane).

For finding a needle in a haystack, you need something that cuts across the board with as little inconvenience as possible. I think the full body scans will meet that objective at least as effectively as screening luggage (similar accuracy, similar time cost, personnel cost, etc). There's privacy issues, but I find it hard to consider full body scans to be as severe an invasion of privacy as random people in airports ogling attractive, fully clothed people in airports (in fact, the latter would probably cause more discomfirt than the full body scan where your "transparency" is known to you more intellectually than emotionally).

I wouldn't poo-poo ID's as a useless security tool, either. Yes, modern IDs can be faked, but they can't be faked by anyone willing to do so. They take above average resources and skill to fake the good ones. Military IDs are a good example of an ID that's difficult to fake. Having the equipment on hand to detect fake IDs are a different matter, however, since it is another expense that's only justified as the more sophisticated IDs become more common place.