Sam Harris - anti-profiling position

[Islam Imamate]

I wonder if the biases of the employees of the TSA might make Sam's position less viable. If he says its rational to assume an irrational response and plan for it I could see that applying to that view in a another way aside from the one OP pointed out. There's the potentially irrational response from Muslims but could we also see an inconsistent application of this idea? On paper most people would still be screened according to this principle but are the TSA employees well trained and experience enough to put this in practice as advertised?

I might be underestimating them but I have heard they are under trained and inexperience compared to the airport security of some other developed nations(apparently not Belgium though) and relative to other government employees in the US who are vital to preventing terrorism. If this is true then does the possibility and cons of the TSA employees handling this practice poorly outweigh the likelihood that it will bring benefits? Perhaps the security theater we see is the result of the level of our airport security employees; that is, we can trust them to better follow a security script than to trust their instincts and ability and that some more rational approaches to airport security might involve some overhaul of the way employment practices and standards of the TSA which is ultimately a more costly and complicated endeavor.

Spoiler

Did that make any sense? Because I'm really high right now and I'm only 50% confident it does

 

[2DUM2TAP]

For the safety of airline customers.

Again, if you want a right to uninterrupted travel, you need a private jet. Otherwise you're subject to safety checks.

I don't object to safety checks. I object to other people being safety checked every time they fly because they have brown skin.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I don't object to safety checks. I object to other people being safety checked every time they fly because they have brown skin.

Religion correlates somewhat with skin color when talking about the statistical likelihood of people blowing up a plane. Also males get profiled more. Middle aged. People going from and to countries that house terrorist organizations. There are tons of other metrics, not just brown skin.

I see nothing wrong with maximizing your resources and not wasting time for the sake of some notion of fairness.

 

[Skip Reming]

So I would have to get another job because of how I look and that doesn't sound like discrimination to you?

What are you talking about with jobs??? Are we talking about the same thread? This thread is about things like TSA and also things like intensifying anti-terrorist agents in predominantly muslim areas since most terrorists come from these muslim areas. Also it is like stop and frisk that used to be in NYC.

It is just going by looks to question you. It has no fucking effect on your job..

Is there some point you are making relevant to the OP that I am totally and completely missing???

I don't object to safety checks. I object to other people being safety checked every time they fly because they have brown skin.

LOL, it is not because they are brown. Now look at what your are saying that it is JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN. Which is a stupid and ignorant thing to say as well as false. It is because they fit a profile of statistically high number of offenders.


If a certain type of group of people are being checked more you can bet that it is because statistics show their group is more likely to be offenders.
It is BEING FUCKING SMART. It is saying that PUBLIC SAFETY and LIVES are more important that having some dumb shit butthurt because they got questioned.

again ignoring statistics is like an engineer ignoring the laws of physics when building a sky scraper

By your dumbass logic we should spend more than 0% of resources for anti islamic terrorism investigating people living in mormon neighborhoods in utah.

 

[Zoti]

Richard Reid?

Fits the profile.

 

[MicroBrew]

I'm pretty sure I have a right to travel freely.

And I am pretty sure the government's security checks at the airport is not infringing on your right.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

And I am pretty sure the government's security checks at the airport is not infringing on your right.

They do if I'm getting them statistically more than other people based on perceived biases.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

What are you talking about with jobs??? Are we talking about the same thread? This thread is about things like TSA and also things like intensifying anti-terrorist agents in predominantly muslim areas since most terrorists come from these muslim areas. Also it is like stop and frisk that used to be in NYC.

It is just going by looks to question you. It has no fucking effect on your job..

Is there some point you are making relevant to the OP that I am totally and completely missing???



LOL, it is not because they are brown. Now look at what your are saying that it is JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN. Which is a stupid and ignorant thing to say as well as false. It is because they fit a profile of statistically high number of offenders.


If a certain type of group of people are being checked more you can bet that it is because statistics show their group is more likely to be offenders.
It is BEING FUCKING SMART. It is saying that PUBLIC SAFETY and LIVES are more important that having some dumb shit butthurt because they got questioned.

again ignoring statistics is like an engineer ignoring the laws of physics when building a sky scraper

By your dumbass logic we should spend more than 0% of resources for anti islamic terrorism investigating people living in mormon neighborhoods in utah.

Jobs... people fly for jobs. Sorry if that is a difficult concept for you. And if your k so interested in statistics then what are the exact statistics on the number of people that have been killed by terrorists.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Do you or do you not have any legal grounding for your mentioned right to transportation?

Yes. The 4th Amendment. I don't see wiggle room for fancy named administrative blah blah. If the government can search everybody traveling by plane (under the guise of preventing terrorism) then why is that limited to one form of transportation?

Oh, I just noticed that you said right to transportation even though I've already clarified that I'm talking about the right to not being searched by the government without a warrant or probable cause. If you're just looking to be an argumentative asshole to somebody I'll bow out here.

By they way, what happened to those assertions of how it doesn't limit my movement to be restricted from flying? Did the couple folks who I asked to follow up on that thinking realize there was a flaw in their argument? Usually people are happy to prove others wrong around here.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Do you have something to say that pertains to the thread that you'd like a response to?

I think you are obsessed with guns

 

[MicroBrew]

They do if I'm getting them statistically more than other people based on perceived biases.

You are not being prevented to travel ; having to undergo some additional checks is not prevention.

There is no leagal right that allows for you to fly without undergoing security checks. You enter a government building and are using a private entity's transport.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think you are obsessed with guns

Most hobbies don't have much to do with politics. Mine does. I understand how you might let that influence your perspective.

 

[Fedorable]

Racial profiling is illegal, but criminal profiling is fine (at least where I live). It can get confusing though.

 

[Breakitdown]

Well if we're talking about Sam Harris's view; yes. His view on profiling that he puts forth is that there are some people that very obviously shouldn't be stopped and frisked. His favorite examples are a woman who looks like Betty White and an Amish man. He said that middle aged white men have been successfully recruited for jihadism and therefore should reasonably be stopped.

So you're in favor of disclosing exactly what you DO NOT / WOULD NOT profile for in these circumstances. Sounds like an awesome idea, lmfao.

Good thing you and Sam Harris hold absolutely no sway (nor should you ever) on security protocol. Leave this to the experts (again - absolutely not you and Sam Harris). Thanks.

 

[Dayman1984]

So you're in favor of disclosing exactly what you DO NOT / WOULD NOT profile for in these circumstances. Sounds like an awesome idea, lmfao.

Good thing you and Sam Harris hold absolutely no sway (nor should you ever) on security protocol. Leave this to the experts (again - absolutely not you and Sam Harris). Thanks.

See post #19. Then take a Klonopin.

 

[nixkid]

I support profiling at airports 100%

If you don't want to be profiled, then don't fcuking fly.

Flying is a priviledge Not a right.

Being profiled for using the airport is not like being profiled while driving a car or just walking because the later 2 are essential/close to essential to maintain a normal life in many parts of America. You can live perfectly fine without flying.

Driving is also a privilege and not a right.

There are poor people in cities across America (including cities with poor public transportation) that do not own a car. It is not essential. Its just really inconvenient to not own one. Also, profiling someone who is driving does not prevent them from driving...it just makes it more inconvenient.

I really don't see the difference between this and driving.

 

[nixkid]

I actually agree with Cubo here. If the 4th amendment makes the search of a car illegal without a warrant or probable cause (race, gender, religion not being sufficient for probable cause) then why is air travel so different? TSA agents are agents of the state like police officers.

I think putting a piece of luggage through a x-ray machine/metal detector is fine. Its the equivalent of bringing in a drug sniffing dog to check out a car but more fool poof since the machines can't be trained to give alerts even when it doesn't find anything (unlike drug sniffing dogs). If the metal detector finds something then you have probable cause if not then you do not.

Patting down someone in the airport based on religion is not that much different than stop and frisk, IMO. It also doesn't make anyone safer.

 

[jeffk]

Harris says he should be screened more than someone who looks like Betty White. He isn't saying the extra screening should be done based upon skin color or sex - Anyone who looks like he/she could be a jihadist. That would be a white guy or a white lady or black or whatever color person. His argument is that screeners could look at someone and be reasonably certain that they are not a jihadist.

The argument against this idea is that there are too many people who could be potential jihadists. The number of people who could be eliminated from possible additional screening is limited and it is wasting time and resouces to implement this type of strategy.

A second argument against it is that liberal Muslims will be justifiably angry that they are not being treated equally based upon beliefs they may hold. They will align with more conservative and even Islamist groups and groups like CAIR or other like groups will get sympathy and support.

So the process would not be able to be implemented in a way that would provide better security and shitty groups will gain more sympathy and support.

The lady on the podcast said that they do profile based upon behaviors. ex if past behavior correlates to how a jihadist might travel. And this is done before passengers are at the security gate. I am all for profiling based upon behavior. It is much more difficult to try to anti-profile based upon what you suspect someone may believe.

 

[Fawlty]

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

This is a tough one. He's willing to overspend on airport security but not willing to overspend on fairness. What I'll grant him is that the first example- overspending on security- has an obvious logic to it. On the other hand, how true is it to say that the appearance of persecution adds to the radicalization? And how true is it to say that not screening old ladies adds to the appearance of persecution? This is less obvious to me.

 

[jeffk]

Jihadists feel like they are protecting their people. If it is spun that Muslims are systematically being persecuted, it would energize them.

And moderate American Muslims would be angry too. They don't want to be seen as any different than anyone else. They would let groups like CAIR speak for them. And groups like CAIR have some Islamist like members and they provide cover to Islamists.