Sam has had Juliette Kayyem on his most recent podcast. They discuss a number of things. I liked Kaayem.
One of the things they covered was Harris position on anti-profling: At airports we know we are looking for jihadists. We don't need to worry about 70 year old Amish women. Therefore, we should spend the limited time and resources we have to screen those who could be Muslims or other factors that correlate to someone who could be a jidadist.
I disagree on his position and thought Harris gave the best argument why he should be against it too. Right before discussing his anti-profiling position, he was talking about how it is rational to foresee an irrational response to an action. He said that we are wise to spend more for safety on airport security than on car safety or other things that cause death and harm.
If an airplane goes down, it could cause a lot of fear and panic and cause people to act irrationally. So we pay upfront the costs to prevent the irrational effects.
I think he should consider the same line of thinking when it comes to his anti-profiling position.
He should consider the irrational effects.
First off: I think the security at airports are a joke. If someone wants to get weapons past security it would be very easy. Someone could get a job at Subway or other restaurant in the airport and smuggle stuff in. Or someone could rip open an aluminum can and mold it into a weapon or melt plastic bottles into a weapon. But no, you cannot take nail clippers on your carry on bag. So the security is just theater. It only is going to foil the dumbest of terrorist.
Combined with that factor say TSA said they are going to profile anyone who could be a Muslim. Islamist and jihadists would be energized by this type of policy. They would say look at how we are being persecuted. Moderate Muslims would be justifiably upset that they are being treated differently based solely upon what they might believe. They would give cover to Islamist who rant and rave on the news.
While Harris's position may make sense in theory, in practice it would not be a good policy.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-makes-us-safer
One of the things they covered was Harris position on anti-profling: At airports we know we are looking for jihadists. We don't need to worry about 70 year old Amish women. Therefore, we should spend the limited time and resources we have to screen those who could be Muslims or other factors that correlate to someone who could be a jidadist.
I disagree on his position and thought Harris gave the best argument why he should be against it too. Right before discussing his anti-profiling position, he was talking about how it is rational to foresee an irrational response to an action. He said that we are wise to spend more for safety on airport security than on car safety or other things that cause death and harm.
If an airplane goes down, it could cause a lot of fear and panic and cause people to act irrationally. So we pay upfront the costs to prevent the irrational effects.
I think he should consider the same line of thinking when it comes to his anti-profiling position.
He should consider the irrational effects.
First off: I think the security at airports are a joke. If someone wants to get weapons past security it would be very easy. Someone could get a job at Subway or other restaurant in the airport and smuggle stuff in. Or someone could rip open an aluminum can and mold it into a weapon or melt plastic bottles into a weapon. But no, you cannot take nail clippers on your carry on bag. So the security is just theater. It only is going to foil the dumbest of terrorist.
Combined with that factor say TSA said they are going to profile anyone who could be a Muslim. Islamist and jihadists would be energized by this type of policy. They would say look at how we are being persecuted. Moderate Muslims would be justifiably upset that they are being treated differently based solely upon what they might believe. They would give cover to Islamist who rant and rave on the news.
While Harris's position may make sense in theory, in practice it would not be a good policy.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-makes-us-safer
