Sam Harris - anti-profiling position

[Cubo de Sangre]

@ehtheist, I guess you'd agree then that mandating private companies conduct those searches would be problematic, same as forcing those companies to hire the government to conduct the searches on their behalf? We do agree that it is a violation for the feds to require tens of millions of people be searched just to access basic/effective transportation?

 

[JDragon]

Profiling works. Profile 100%. When white males start blowing airplanes up profile them as well.

Richard Reid?

 

[ehtheist]

@ehtheist, I guess you'd agree then that mandating private companies conduct those searches would be problematic, same as forcing those companies to hire the government to conduct the searches on their behalf? We do agree that it is a violation for the feds to require tens of millions of people be searched just to access basic/effective transportation?

Nope, I wouldn't agree. There is legal precedent indicating that it is totally legal in this case. You can hear from the court on the issue here.

"We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.”  United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973);  see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006);  Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.   Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent 4 or irrevocable implied consent.5

The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.6  Such a rule would afford terrorists 7 multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.   This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks.   Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory.   Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger’s election to attempt entry into the secured area 8 of an airport.   See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. "


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fe...endment-challenge-to-tsa-nude-image-scanners/

Kind all hinges on the "reasonable" part of the clause and the courts have weighed in on this already.

"“As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an ‘administrative search’ because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack"

Plenty of legal precedent back to the 70's, I believe, for administrative searches being fine. So, supreme court suggests VS you suggest... Tough call. I like how you keep slipping more adjectives in in front of transportation to make it seem like more of a violate. You should try "God given" and "inalienable" next. I mean, flying on a privately owned airplane is pretty much the same as walking down the street to vote, right? Do you or do you not have any legal grounding for your mentioned right to transportation?

 

[King of Fists]

Israel regularly uses profiling and they have a much longer history of dealing with terrorism so I trust they are doing it right.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

We are gonna profile white people too right? The IRA has been known to attempt blowing up planes.

Not in the US, though. But Muslims come in all ethnicities. There are white, brown and black Muslims. Moreover, it's not like you can keep profiling, as a tactic, secret. Groups that want to inflict harm would adapt to such policies. Even assuming that ONLY brown (Arab) people from the Middle East would blow up planes (or hijack, etc), I'm not sure it would justify the intrusion into the privacy of the lives of the 99+% of Arabs in the US who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. I don't think Harris makes a very compelling argument here.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I have a bit of a different point of view as it applies in this case. I don't personally believe that religions deserve any special protection from discrimination.

Religions by their very nature are simply a collection of beliefs adhered to by the practitioners. I don't see what makes them distinct by nature from a terrorist group, or a hate group under any other guise. If Neo Nazi's started blowing up planes, I don't think anyone would complain about them receiving special scrutiny at airport security. So what exactly is the justification for a religion which is every bit as vile as the worst Neo Nazi groups from increased scrutiny? Based on the fact that they are a religion? That seems absurd to me.

 

[MicroBrew]

Israel regularly uses profiling and they have a much longer history of dealing with terrorism so I trust they are doing it right.

Israel's El Al is a bad example , and here's why:

El Al is a small carrier that has a limited destination service; they do not serve any Muslim country except Egypt.

Muslims will not fly El Al . When the demographic that supplies the biggest threat to airline safety boycotts your airline then ofcourse it is considerably easy to profile and lessen the risl

 

[King of Fists]

Israel's El Al is a bad example , and here's why:

El Al is a small carrier that has a limited destination service; they do not serve any Muslim country except Egypt.

Muslims will not fly El Al . When the demographic that supplies the biggest threat to airline safety boycotts your airline then ofcourse it is considerably easy to profile and lessen the risl

Perhaps, but at the same time it's naive to think that basic profiling wouldn't help. I mean, look at every terrorist who has attacked the US in the past 2 decades. Don't tell me there's not some basic profiling that couldn't have identified each and every one of those terrorists.

 

[sloppypie]

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.

i kinda have to agree with this. flying is a choice, and quite honestly the intrusion is pretty minimal even by profiling standards. you already know you are going through a security checkpoint, to have your bag searched more thoroughly or to have a patdown takes like an additional 15 minutes, maybe 20-30 depending on how much shit you have.

which i get it kinda sucks, i have it happen to me sometimes because i have a black beard. and once, the TSA woman took my laptop out and was real rough with it, setting it on the table kinda hard and i told her to please be careful with that, it's expensive. and she continued being rough with it anyway and even put a large scratch on the bottom. i was pretty furious, but not much i could do about it. if she had damaged the hardware in the computer, i probably would've lodged a complaint and sought damages from the TSA for it.

now if the profiling consisted of being interrogated in private rooms on your itinerary and shit like that, then that's absolutely too far. it's not hard to draw common sense boundaries on what's acceptable and what isn't. and i sadly think sam harris is right, but my only concern is if too much attention is given to profiling muslim looking people, we miss other crazies of different ethnicities. it's been white guys, for example, that have been putting shit in their underwear and shoes and god knows what else. there's a lot of crazies out there, diligence requires more than just saying "next" until you get a guy with a turban on his head. who probably isn't a muslim anyway and he's a sikh.

 

[dontsnitch]

People miss the point that when profiling, you don't search some people more, but you search some people less. I always get harassed and I accept that it's part of crossing borders.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Definitely profile. Just be sure to include shifty looking 20-50 year old white males in that profile

I completely agree. There was a time when leftists were the biggest terrorist threat in the United States. There were terrorist groups like the Weather Underground, the Women's Brigade. The way things are going now, leftists are looking to once again become the biggest terrorist threat in the country.

 

[oldshadow]

Profiling works to an extent and should be used with it's limitations in mind (as well as constitutional restrictions).

Private (and in most cases public) transportation is not a right it's a privilege. You have the right of free travel (with restrictions on private property and rules about use of public property).

When you purchase a transportation ticket (plane, bus or say a train) you do so with the expressed consent of search of person and property in your control. You willing give up part of your 4th amendment rights by consent in exchange for the use of the transportation mode you chose.

 

[MicroBrew]

Perhaps, but at the same time it's naive to think that basic profiling wouldn't help. I mean, look at every terrorist who has attacked the US in the past 2 decades. Don't tell me there's not some basic profiling that couldn't have identified each and every one of those terrorists.

I agree with profiling and I have no problem with the US singling out certain demographics for extra attention.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

No you are not getting another job because of how you look , you are getting another job because you don't want to go through added security procedure in the airport. Since when is using the airport a right?

You want to inconvenience everyone or put everyone at risk because you have a problem with being security screened .

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

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Is telecommuting impossible? Whats your job?

It was managing people who did onsite inventory audits.

 

[The ScorpioN]

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

If you have a private jet, like you'd have a car, I'm sure no one will search you when you fly to your destination.

But since you're using an airline company, you're subject to their rules, so your right to travel freely doesn't apply.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Security at airports are a joke because you can smuggle on board a prison shank?

 

[2DUM2TAP]

If you have a private jet, like you'd have a car, I'm sure no one will search you when you fly to your destination.

But since you're using an airline company, you're subject to their rules, so your right to travel freely doesn't apply.

The private company that I booked with and will be traveling with isn't the one searching me. The gubment is

 

[The ScorpioN]

The private company that I booked with and will be traveling with isn't the one searching me. The gubment is

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.

 

[lifelessheap]

If you don't profile you are retarded. Profiling is essential to stay safe.

If I see some scary looking dudes regardless of color, I am going to steer clear.