Profiling
I never thought I would start a blog, but as it so happens, I had just stumbled upon an article that I simply had to - had to - write a reply for. The writer, Ms. Diane Dimond of Newsweek, unfortunately had no email link available, and thus I was led to... well, here.
In a nutshell: Ms. Dimond had experienced the stupidity of TSA regulations regarding passenger screening at US airports. Her story is almost painful to read. Sadly, though, she ends on such a frail note that it sort of sweeps the rug from under her feet. I mean, "Look in the passenger's eyes and give them respect"? Give me a bloody break.
Let's get this straight: we will never have effective screening at airports until profiling becomes the norm. Yes, you heard me, profiling. What is this whole business of random screenings? It is all a game of percentages, after all, and if you concentrate on targeting the people who have the highest likelihood of performing terrorist acts, you will get more terrorists in your net.
78-year old men with oxygen meters simply don't make that particular cut. Sorry.
I should know. I grew up in a place like that. Israel. See, Israel has perfected profiling to an art form. It had to. Airport security is tight, not because there are more security personnel or better technology in place (such as the seeming lack of say, ohh, metal detectors), but because the screeners are highly trained to pick on certain people. And nobody's shy about it. Sure, it means some of harassment is dished out to innocent people who happen to trigger a reaction. But guess what? Even then, in most cases, the screener is well-trained enough to be able to make the correct judgement call relatively quickly, without having to go through rote process that means nothing since the screener has no idea why the process is even there in the first place.
The screener in the story surely must have realized early enough that Ms. Dimond's father was not a real threat, buzz from the metal detector or not. To say that "he was just doing his job" is ridiculous - not on his part, but on the part of those who wrote the job description. Because while he was being pre-occupied with that elderly man he was not looking at other passengers, screening them, and profiling them so that those who actually might have harmful intents could be identified and really investigated.
Of course, I know where this comes from. It's the idiocy regarding privacy in this country, and the silliness called civil law suits with punitive damages. Profiling? Heaven forbid. That means that some people will be targeted more than others for screenings! Err, yes. Live with it. Some people are more suspicious than others - and not necessarily in obvious ways. Teach the screeners the tools they need to really pick them out of a crowd. And, TSA, stop harassing people like Ms. Dimond's father. You don't need to.
And you are putting all the rest of us in greater danger because you do.
In a nutshell: Ms. Dimond had experienced the stupidity of TSA regulations regarding passenger screening at US airports. Her story is almost painful to read. Sadly, though, she ends on such a frail note that it sort of sweeps the rug from under her feet. I mean, "Look in the passenger's eyes and give them respect"? Give me a bloody break.
Let's get this straight: we will never have effective screening at airports until profiling becomes the norm. Yes, you heard me, profiling. What is this whole business of random screenings? It is all a game of percentages, after all, and if you concentrate on targeting the people who have the highest likelihood of performing terrorist acts, you will get more terrorists in your net.
78-year old men with oxygen meters simply don't make that particular cut. Sorry.
I should know. I grew up in a place like that. Israel. See, Israel has perfected profiling to an art form. It had to. Airport security is tight, not because there are more security personnel or better technology in place (such as the seeming lack of say, ohh, metal detectors), but because the screeners are highly trained to pick on certain people. And nobody's shy about it. Sure, it means some of harassment is dished out to innocent people who happen to trigger a reaction. But guess what? Even then, in most cases, the screener is well-trained enough to be able to make the correct judgement call relatively quickly, without having to go through rote process that means nothing since the screener has no idea why the process is even there in the first place.
The screener in the story surely must have realized early enough that Ms. Dimond's father was not a real threat, buzz from the metal detector or not. To say that "he was just doing his job" is ridiculous - not on his part, but on the part of those who wrote the job description. Because while he was being pre-occupied with that elderly man he was not looking at other passengers, screening them, and profiling them so that those who actually might have harmful intents could be identified and really investigated.
Of course, I know where this comes from. It's the idiocy regarding privacy in this country, and the silliness called civil law suits with punitive damages. Profiling? Heaven forbid. That means that some people will be targeted more than others for screenings! Err, yes. Live with it. Some people are more suspicious than others - and not necessarily in obvious ways. Teach the screeners the tools they need to really pick them out of a crowd. And, TSA, stop harassing people like Ms. Dimond's father. You don't need to.
And you are putting all the rest of us in greater danger because you do.
posted by Blinkered at 7:19 PM
0 comments
