Elsewhere, profiling is preferred method of airport security

[liberal N proud]

In many countries, singling out certain fliers is a matter of course

NBC News and msnbc.com

While U.S. air travelers struggle with strict new security checks, screening is generally less up close and personal at airports in other parts of the world, where preflight intelligence is emphasized. That puts the priority on identifying sophisticated threats in advance so that procedures many people consider personally invasive aren't the crucial last line of defense.

Security is almost universally considered most effective at Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. No plane operating from there has been successfully attacked since 1972, when 24 people were killed in a hijacking by a terrorist group calling itself the Japanese Red Army.

The state airline, El Al, which coordinates security at Israel's airports, is unapologetic about its use of passenger profiling — making judgments about a passenger's likelihood of posing a threat based on his or her background, behavior and associations.

Passengers can be questioned on arrival at the airport entrance and again at the terminal entrance. And all passengers are questioned individually once they're inside the terminal by security agents looking for abnormal behavior or any other reason to be suspicious.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318044/ns/travel-news/

[Mimosa]

1. Done right it's called *observation*

Followed with evaluation and investigation. Doing this takes some serious IQ.

[piratebay]

3. No, done right it's called looking for terrorists

not weapons. Not assuming everyone is guilty in order not to offend certain groups.

The 1st time they find my 87 year old MIL trying to blow up an aircraft on her way down to Arizona for the winter I'll accept pulling her out of line for a cavity search.

I won't do it, have you seen my MIL?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Shhh you are using a bad word!

That said when I flew from Mexico to Houston... I got some special treatment based on this.

Ok I got to sweating as I approached the counter... yes called menopause

So they wanted to take a looksie at my luggage, which is fine with me. They swabbed it for explosives, had a chuckle over where i packed my clippers, packed baggage, and my passport got a careful once over.

I thanked them for doing their job. Closed my bag and went on with my trip.

What triggered this ahem special treatment? The sweat... I was nervous... oh and they did enquire about that. Telling the 20 something female agent I was undergoing menopause gave her a chuckle...

As one of them put it, usually tourists give them grief... incidentally under our system my sweating was probable cause.

[jancantor]

15. Probable cause is not needed for a "border search"

and since you flew from Mexico to Houston, the border search exception kicked in. They can search ANYBODY without any cause whatsoever in those situations. A cavity search or x-ray does require a threshold of evidence, but a mere search does not.

[Igel]

4. We have profiling all around us.

Police use it for serial killers.

The IRS, to try to ID people likely to have underpaid their taxes.

Lots of businesses routinely use it when they use a credit report to gauge credit-worthiness.

Men use it when they eye up women (or, I guess, other men) in bars. Women use it in the same way.

The NSA and CIA use it when evaluating potential new hires.

Or did you perhaps mean "racial profiling"? (Even then, we use it and properly so in describing suspects. Not always accurate, but neither are things like heights, weights, and ages.)

[Skittles]

5. that takes intelligence

[Toucano]

6. There's an important distinction.

Racial profiling in the U.S. is just that: profiling based on the subject's race or perceived race.

Passenger profiling could rightly take into account a number of factors and not be arbitrarily unfair.

What we object to - and should object to - is the arbitrary use of one personal characteristic to determine who merits additional scrutiny.

Close scrutiny of everyone is impossible. So-called "random" screening is absurd.

We eventually will have to consider how to carefully craft an algorithm that calculates a passenger's "risk" based on a number of objective and weighted factors and data. We can protect the individual from personal prejudice and focus our efforts on a select group of high risk individuals in a just manner.

Like a credit score, but for flying. Those with a high score would face increased scrutiny based on something grounded in reality rather than simply their name appearing on a list or simply their religious or simply their color.

[liberal N proud]

7. Profiling does not need to be race based

It should be the person standing in line fidgeting and sweating, the one who is eyeballing everyone. There are simple questions that can be asked that determine level of anxiety in a person.

Where you headed today?
What are you planning on doing when you get there?
Do you know what airline you are traveling today?
Where are you from?

[Toucano]

10. True. There's no tech-based substitute for good police work.

You find, however, many liberals object to the concept of profiling due to the U.S. history of racism, segregation, and internment.

Historically, whenever it was time to look for a suspect, Mr. Dangerous Blackman was the suspect most easily found.

It's time to move beyond that mindset and recognize that it is possible to both profile passengers for the risk of threat the may pose AND be fair and equitable about it without singling out one particular characteristic.

We can be fair, rational, and safer.

[northoftheborder]

8. My experience in airport in Paris....

.... I flew back from a vacation in France about 7 years ago; (post 9/11) As I approached the ticket counter, I, and everyone else in line, was asked a few questions by a security officer. He asked questions about what I had been doing in Paris, what I did for a living, etc. One question contained a question about why was I going to "Arlington", which wasn't my destination, and so I answered that I wasn't going to Arlington, but to the city where I lived (which also started with "A"). He repeated the reference to Arlington in another question, which I also corrected. I wondered if he had misread the tag on my suitcase, or it was a deliberate mistake to see what I would say. Anyway, it took no longer than a minute or two, and didn't hold up the line. (Guess they decided I was not a threat!) I have heard it stated during this debate about what might other methods might be used at the airport to help with security, that interviewing everyone was impractical and not possible. That just is not true. That airport in Paris is one of the largest in the world, and a short face to face interview gave clues as to each passenger's state of mind. I'm sure if someone at that point seemed suspicious, other procedures would have been followed on the route to boarding the plane. Actually, on that same trip, a family was held back while standing in line to board. They were Nigerian, and were held off the plane. I never saw them after I boarded. I'm not going along with this body scan/pat search being the best choice. I haven't experienced this yet, hasn't been installed in any airport I've been through lately.

[outerSanctum]

9. I think profiling is fine

But, it will take a MUCH higher level of employee than the TSA uses now.

[jberryhill]

11. "higher level" in what sense?

[jberryhill]

12. This misses the point of "suspicionless search" US jurisprudence

It's really not a matter of being PC or some liberal fetish.

To do this is actually to lower the 4th Amendment bar.

Here's the deal:

As everyone has been screaming, we have a 4th Amendment which requires probable cause for a search. At a minimum, there must be a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, in order to conduct a search.

Now, there is an entire category of "suspicionless search" called administrative search, which are things like sobriety checkpoints. Because of legal challenges to suspicionless search, certain rules - made by courts and not the TSA - have evolved.

Principal among these rules is that the search be neutrally administered.

Second, searches based on a normal reasonable suspicion standard can also be conducted.

However, is is the "behavioral pattern" search which causes a 4th Amendment problem. It is a suggestion that there should be some category of individually targeted search on something other than a reasonable suspicion that the target has committed a crime.

What is odd in this discussion is that some people are screaming "Fourth Amendment" while suggesting that the 4th is best served by searching fewer people on a targeted basis on the basis of a standard that the 4th Amendment doesn't itself support.

It's not some odd liberal fetish - it is a genuine Constitutional issue. The notion that we should further weaken the 4th in order to save it, is not a fully thought-through analysis.

[Toucano]

13. A profile can be constructed based on multiple factors that could

rise to the level of probable cause. Your point is very well taken and important.

Say we look at 20 data points - all applied to every passenger evenly and weighted based on analysis of statistical relevance*.

For example (numbers for illustration only):

1. Age: under 12, 0 points; 12-17, 2 points; 18-28, 5 points; 29-40, 4 points; 40-60, 3 points; 61 and over, 1 point.


2. Frequency of flying in the last 12 months: never, 3 points; seldom, 2 points, moderate, 4 points; frequently, 2 points.


3. Sex: male, 5 points; female, 2 points.


4. National Origin: Canada, 2 points; Yemen, 8 points, Saudi Arabia, 20 points.


5. Marital status: single, 3 points; married, 2 points; widowed, 3 points.


6. Ticket purchase: day of flight, 5 points; months prior, 2 points; weeks prior, 3 points.


7. Name on no-fly list: 25 points


8. Cash ticket: 10 points


9. No luggage: 15 points

Say the trigger for a scrutiny interview is 25 points.

So a 25 year old single Saudi man is going to be subjected to an interview, the outcome of which may require further screening.

An 8 year old girl from Canada whose name is on the no-fly list will also get an interview. When it's determined that she's 8 years old, she will not require further screening.

In this way, both parties are protected against unreasonable search without probable cause, and no one characteristic can be attributed to prejudicing the process.

The multi-point profile has given the government reasonable suspicion to further scrutinize one person and not another. The interview could provide probable cause to proceed with further scanning of an individual. It's not entirely objective, but (depending on the value of the compiled statistics) it could be reasonable.

It also would be a lot more effective and efficient.


*Regarding statistics, I don't claim to know what these characteristics might be, but I have no doubt someone does.

[jberryhill]

14. The way it is usually formulated is not a statistical likelihood

That's the problem. A statistical likelihood is not a definite particularized suspicion.

I understand the rational appeal of the approach, but I don't see the appropriate foundation legally.

Because you can't keep this genie in the airport bottle if you jump to a statistical analysis as a basis for an individualized search.

Once you move to a "suspicion based search" you are outside of the administrative search umbrella, and it CAN be applied to people walking down the street.

[AlabamaLibrul]

16. Elsewhere, profiling is preferred method of "hunting illegals".

Hmmm...

:think: