Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F'

Jose wrote:

This assumes equal willingness of young Arab males and older German
females to be mass murderers.


Perhaps. But don't underestimate the ability of ideas to cross
boundaries. There is nothing particularly Arab about this whole thing -

Islam is not restricted to Arabic countries but then Islam is not the
problem. Specific Arabic terrorist groups that use Islam as a blind are
the problem.

Ever since 9-11 I have been eating yoghurt and fruit for breakfast, and
I believe that this has kept the terrorists at bay.

This is a good thing, especially since you are much more likely to die
of a heart attack than a terrorist attack in this country.

We may have made it
more difficult to accomplish a certain kind of action, but we've also
made it more difficult to thwart it should it occur.

Sorry, not following this argument...

It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It ceases to
be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable. Profiling is
just one way this happens.

I don't, for the most part disagree, but, consider this: Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
for "two humans?" The reaction to so called "profiling" is, for the
most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights movement in this
country rather than a fundamental issue.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:40:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
for "two humans?"

Would you say that we should all watch out for white males because they are
potential bank robbers?

#m

--
http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:40:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:


Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
for "two humans?"

Would you say that we should all watch out for white males because they are
potential bank robbers?


We may be actually getting closer to the point. Try to keep in mind
that the objective of profiling in law enforcement is not to target a
particular group but rather to not waste time on low risk possibilities.

DHS and the FBI have lists of people who are known terrorists in this
country under false ID. Not looking for them seems silly.

Islam is not restricted to Arabic countries but then Islam is not the problem. Specific Arabic terrorist groups that use Islam as a blind are the problem.

.... which means that profiling would not be all that effective. That
is, unless you profile so narrowly that you essentially just get the
criminals themselves. The whole point of profiling is to detain people
based on surface similarities to the group you are targeting, hoping
that you'll snag someone.

I have no problem with detaining members of "specific Arabic terrorist
groups that use Islam as a blind". But this isn't profiling.

We may have made it more difficult to accomplish a certain kind of action, but we've also made it more difficult to thwart it should it occur.

Sorry, not following this argument...

We ban pocket knives on airplanes. Terrorists will find it harder (but
not impossible) to use a pocket knife to carry out their plan. But
should a terrorist manage to get one aboard, the rest of the (now
unarmed) passengers will have a harder time preventing the terrorist
from actually completing his deed. Further, a terrorist will know how
to use a sharp pencil as a weapon, and the average person will be at a
disadvantage in such an attack. Perhaps we should outlaw sharp pencils,
and only allow people to do their work using lipstick.

While I'm not advocating shootouts at thirty thousand feet, it's only
half in jest that I submit an alternate plan: everyone who boards an
aircraft is issued a gun, and if he hasn't used it by the end of the
flight, he has to explain why.

I have no problem with good people having weapons, and I think disarming
=all= people is more apt to disarm good people than bad people. This
tips the odds in favor of the bad, and I do =not= believe that this is
compensated for in this case by trusting in law enforcement.

Would you suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking for "two humans?"

For the time that we are actively looking for the actual bank robbers,
we should be looking for people who match the description. However,
once they are caught (or no longer being sought in any given venue) we
should no longer harass folks who innocently resemble the robbers.

If we are just trying to prevent bank robbery in general, the fact that
two white males robbed a bank once is of little consequence. Detain
white males and the next robbery will be committed with a trained dog
and a hand grenade.

The reaction to so called "profiling" is, for the most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights movement in this country rather than a fundamental issue.

It is a reasonable reaction, considering the abuses of authority that
occured then, and are occuring even now. The DC TFR is an abuse of
authority which accomplishes nothing. Talk about profiling - the
attackers were giant jumbo jets, and it's the little mosquitos that are
kept away. AIRLINERS should be banned from DC, and all air transport
there should be by four seat single engine propeller planes weighing
less than 18,500 pounds.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The whole point of profiling is to detain people
based on surface similarities to the group you are targeting, hoping
that you'll snag someone.

We may have a disconnect here. I think you are talking about one
possible action you might take based on a profile match. What I have
seen proposed is *not* asking the extra questions, taking a second look
at paperwork, etc. of those people who clearly *do not* match the profile.

Profiling does *not* mean arresting everyone in a given group (at least
in the USA).

We ban pocket knives on airplanes. Terrorists will find it harder (but
not impossible) to use a pocket knife to carry out their plan. ...
...Perhaps we should outlaw sharp pencils,
and only allow people to do their work using lipstick.

Work quality might improve Keep in mind that banning sharp things
serves only to reduce collateral damage to the passengers. With the
replacement of cockpit doors and the change in pilot procedures, the
erstwhile terrorist can freely saw away at the cockpit door all day
long. The pilot will simply land the plane and let a SWAT team deal
with the problem.

We may lose a few passengers to sharp pencils but at least we keep the
airplane out of buildings.

While I'm not advocating shootouts at thirty thousand feet, it's only
half in jest that I submit an alternate plan: everyone who boards an
aircraft is issued a gun, and if he hasn't used it by the end of the
flight, he has to explain why.

I agree. Stats clearly show violent crime rates going down whenever gun
laws are relaxed. Shoot (pun intended), I don't think you would have to
issue guns; I'd be happy to bring my own

Sadly, this is impractical since jittery, untrained passengers would
probably spend more ammo shooting each other than the very occasional
terrorists anyway

If we are just trying to prevent bank robbery in general, the fact that
two white males robbed a bank once is of little consequence.

Except that in the case of terrorists we have long lists of them that
are in the country using fake ID. Seems like a good idea to look for
them. The point of profiling is not to arrest everyone in a given
profile but rather to not waste time on extra questions and paperwork
checks for those who do not meet the profile.

The DC TFR is an abuse of authority which accomplishes nothing.

I don't like it either but if you have ever launched to the North from
DCA you can see that its not practical to shoot down an attacking
aircraft before it nails the capital or white house.

There does not seem to be a good solution for this. Airlines are
clearly the biggest tank of jet fuel but if a PC-12 loaded with TNT make
it to the Mall I don't think people would be happy with that either.

We may have a disconnect here. I think you are talking about one possible action you might take based on a profile match. What I have seen proposed is *not* asking the extra questions, taking a second look at paperwork, etc. of those people who clearly *do not* match the profile.

What's the difference? In both cases, you are treating one group to
more harassment and inconvenience, based on a superficial resemblance to
the hate-club-of-the-week.

Keep in mind that banning sharp things serves only to reduce collateral damage to the passengers.

Here we have a disconnect. I have never heard this as a stated reason,
nor is it a plausable reason. If a terrorist decides to crash the
airplane I'm flying in, I'm not sure what collateral damage to me will
result from my carrying a nail clipper.

Sadly, this is impractical since jittery, untrained passengers would probably spend more ammo shooting each other than the very occasional terrorists anyway

Darwin.

Except that in the case of terrorists we have long lists of them that are in the country using fake ID. Seems like a good idea to look for them.

Fine. Look for them. But that's different from filtering people as
they enter an airport.

I don't like [the DC TFR] either but if you have ever launched to the North from DCA you can see that its not practical to shoot down an attacking aircraft before it nails the capital or white house.

So the solution is to 1: allow airliners, which can do huge amounts of
damage, to take off to the North, because, well, they are airlines.
And 2: to prohibit the little guys (who would have a hard time breaking
a window) from doing the same thing, because, well, they are little
guys. I think I get it.

There does not seem to be a good solution for this.

Bingo. And where there is no solution, one should not try to solve it.
Accept the fact that there is no solution. Either that, or find a
number that's greater than six and less than four. Do that and I'll
accept any solution you provide.

Airlines are clearly the biggest tank of jet fuel but if a PC-12 loaded with TNT make it to the Mall I don't think people would be happy with that either.

They wouldn't be happy with it making it to the mall either, and there
are many more malls than Malls.

The DC TFR is much like putting am eight foot door on the border between
the US and Mexico, and then insisting that a big lock on the door will
stop illegal immigration.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Doug Carter posted:
Jose wrote:
It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It
ceases to be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable.
Profiling is just one way this happens.

I don't, for the most part disagree, but, consider this: Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be
looking for "two humans?" The reaction to so called "profiling" is,
for the most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights
movement in this country rather than a fundamental issue.

The reaction to "so called 'profiling'..." is because of the way it is
implemented. Where its application has violated civil rights, it is an
issue, though not an emotional one. Does anyone recall how
"middle-eastern" people were suspected of the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg.
bombing? It's *not* OK to trample peoples' civil rights on the basis of
such erroneous and prejudicial notions.

Neil