Is intelligent profiling the only way to anticipate a successful terrorist plot?
Even a foiled terrorist plot is successful in their point of vue* in a way....
Is it safe to rely only on high-technology equipment?
In fact, terrorists have shown an impressive degree of adaptability in their tactics. But one thing is sure: the fundamentals of human nature do not change.
Why then always search in variable elements, when there is one stable element: the fundamentals of human nature.
Intelligent profiling would then be the solution.
But for intelligent profiling you need intelligent profilers. And that is a quality one cannot ask from a screener!
A single profiler would cost xtimes more than a single screener.
*any harm done is beneficial to the perpetrator side, if not, it hurts the opponents.
Is intelligent profiling the only way?
Moderator: Latest news team
There is already a profiling made by customs based on the nationality of the traveler, how the ticket has been bought, how long before the flights, destinations and these people have to go through deep scanning 
It seems to work quite well for drug enforcement and money smuggling, maybe they have to find new criterias for terrorists threat.
It seems to work quite well for drug enforcement and money smuggling, maybe they have to find new criterias for terrorists threat.
From an article Aug 15 in Timesonline
Stupid and criminal leaders result in stupid rules.
Well, this give me the shivers: before such a system could work properly, I think we need a intelligent-screening profile of the political leaders.The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.
Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.
Stupid and criminal leaders result in stupid rules.
-
Comet
- Posts: 6484
- Joined: 05 Jul 2003, 00:00
- Location: Scarborough, North Yorkshire, England
- Contact:
Before I get a panning for my political affiliations, please let me say one thing:
What do the 9/11 hijackers, the Madrid bombers and the 7/7 terrorists have in common? They are Asian or non-white (not being racist but stating a fact here). It is natural that individuals of such origin arouse suspicion and anxiety in fellow travellers and as such they should be subject to more rigorous airport screening.
Muslims recently said they would boycott Glasgow Airport because of the security, but you have to ask why they are so worried by security if they have nothing to hide, and why they find such security offensive?
I'm sure that many more people find the thought of 10 passenger jets being blown apart offensive. That many people find blowing buses and trains apart offensive. That many people find it repellent to hijack four passenger airliners and fly them into buildings with the loss of thousands of lives. It is time we listened to the concerns of such people rather than the constant bleating and wailing of those who communities produce the terrorists in the first place.
What do the 9/11 hijackers, the Madrid bombers and the 7/7 terrorists have in common? They are Asian or non-white (not being racist but stating a fact here). It is natural that individuals of such origin arouse suspicion and anxiety in fellow travellers and as such they should be subject to more rigorous airport screening.
Muslims recently said they would boycott Glasgow Airport because of the security, but you have to ask why they are so worried by security if they have nothing to hide, and why they find such security offensive?
I'm sure that many more people find the thought of 10 passenger jets being blown apart offensive. That many people find blowing buses and trains apart offensive. That many people find it repellent to hijack four passenger airliners and fly them into buildings with the loss of thousands of lives. It is time we listened to the concerns of such people rather than the constant bleating and wailing of those who communities produce the terrorists in the first place.
Sabena and Sobelair - gone but never forgotten.
Louise
Louise
it is indeed irrational to subject a 75-year-old grandmother to the same checks as a 25-year-old man who had just paid for his ticket with cash.Comet wrote:I'm sure that many more people find the thought of 10 passenger jets being blown apart offensive. That many people find blowing buses and trains apart offensive. That many people find it repellent to hijack four passenger airliners and fly them into buildings with the loss of thousands of lives. It is time we listened to the concerns of such people rather than the constant bleating and wailing of those who communities produce the terrorists in the first place.
Just because someone is a 75-year-old grandmother doesn't mean they will not blow up a plane.
The thing with the extra screening minorities is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy though. First you piss people off, then a few of them decide to actually do what you think they will do. Then they additionally find a way to not be part of the 'usual suspects'. Remember all those reports of suicide bombers in Israel dressed as orthodox Jews?
In The Human Zoo, famous anthropologist Desmond Morris explains how the vicious circle of stereotyping and prejudice develops, by generalising and ascribing qualities and behaviour of one individual to the whole group to which he or she belongs - and acting accordingly.
The thing with the extra screening minorities is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy though. First you piss people off, then a few of them decide to actually do what you think they will do. Then they additionally find a way to not be part of the 'usual suspects'. Remember all those reports of suicide bombers in Israel dressed as orthodox Jews?
In The Human Zoo, famous anthropologist Desmond Morris explains how the vicious circle of stereotyping and prejudice develops, by generalising and ascribing qualities and behaviour of one individual to the whole group to which he or she belongs - and acting accordingly.
Let me illustrate what happens, using an imaginary example. These are the stages:
1. Look at that green-haired man hitting a child.
2. That green-haired man is vicious.
3. All green-haired men are vicious.
4. Green-haired men will attack anyone.
5. There's another green-haired man - hit him before he hits you. (The green-haired man, who has done nothing to provoke aggression, hits back to defend himself.)
6. There you are - that proves it: green-haired men are vicious.
7. Hit all green-haired men.
Absolutely true earthman. A trerrorist is not defined by skin colour or religion. As noted by the IRA, ETA, Richard Reid was a white guy, Timothy McVeigh was a white guy. As stated by two epxerts on tv last night, all this does create a viscous circle of felt oppression. Now - checking EVERYONE propoerly may be the only course of action in future - if it means checking in extra early then thats the way it goes. It was also pointed out that Timothy McVeigh would have passsed EVERY profiling test currrently being discussed.......this being the nice chap that blew up a kindergarden in Oklahoma City.
Here in Luanda i have just reconfirmed by return on SAA for Sat - they recommend checking in 5 hours before the flight.....and that is normal for here!!!
Here in Luanda i have just reconfirmed by return on SAA for Sat - they recommend checking in 5 hours before the flight.....and that is normal for here!!!
The problem is indeed, that anyone can come in line for the 'job*'.
Or better, anyone is a suspect.
But you don't sell shampoo to a bold, do you?
If marketeers can target their customers, security profilers should also be able to reduce the target, other than 'anyone is a suspect"
btw, did you read about the israeli lady that was saved by her implants. The explosion blew the windows out, and pieces of glass got in her breast, centimeters close of her heart....
Implants saved her live. What is the content of implants?
Liquids, gel....
Now, when terrorists know they're going to die anyway, what can stop them to have implants....
No screener can see the difference between, the regular implant gel, and the more dangerous gel, isn't it?
In the history of breast implants, the silicone gel breast implant has been the most controversial.
So screeners should look for women, travestites with huge boobs. A kind of "bigboobsalert"....
*a terrorist act
Or better, anyone is a suspect.
But you don't sell shampoo to a bold, do you?
If marketeers can target their customers, security profilers should also be able to reduce the target, other than 'anyone is a suspect"
btw, did you read about the israeli lady that was saved by her implants. The explosion blew the windows out, and pieces of glass got in her breast, centimeters close of her heart....
Implants saved her live. What is the content of implants?
Liquids, gel....
Now, when terrorists know they're going to die anyway, what can stop them to have implants....
No screener can see the difference between, the regular implant gel, and the more dangerous gel, isn't it?
In the history of breast implants, the silicone gel breast implant has been the most controversial.
So screeners should look for women, travestites with huge boobs. A kind of "bigboobsalert"....
*a terrorist act
I fully agree with Comet!
There is a certain terrorist threat we have to deal with, and we only have limited resources available to counter it. Therefore, the most rational thing to do is to prioritize who you screen. A simple analysis does the trick: just pick a few parameters describing your population and determine which ones predict terrorist threat the best. It is sad that a parameters such as religion or even nationality are the ones with the hightest predictive value, but hey, that's the way it is...
To the ones who feel offended, I can only say that although their 'community' is screened more thorougly, not to punish them, yet to minimise the probability that it will happen again. Hell, in two weeks I'm having my flight and I can tell you: if they find that Belgians are very likely to commit terrorist attacks, I'll even voluntarily have a maximum security check. If that can be my contribution to safer skies, why not?!
bAIR
There is a certain terrorist threat we have to deal with, and we only have limited resources available to counter it. Therefore, the most rational thing to do is to prioritize who you screen. A simple analysis does the trick: just pick a few parameters describing your population and determine which ones predict terrorist threat the best. It is sad that a parameters such as religion or even nationality are the ones with the hightest predictive value, but hey, that's the way it is...
To the ones who feel offended, I can only say that although their 'community' is screened more thorougly, not to punish them, yet to minimise the probability that it will happen again. Hell, in two weeks I'm having my flight and I can tell you: if they find that Belgians are very likely to commit terrorist attacks, I'll even voluntarily have a maximum security check. If that can be my contribution to safer skies, why not?!
bAIR
Britain considers airline passenger profiling
Britain considers airline passenger profiling
....in the wake of that scare it is understood the Blair government is considering introducing a controversial screening technique known as "passenger profiling"...
There is a vdo in the link.
....in the wake of that scare it is understood the Blair government is considering introducing a controversial screening technique known as "passenger profiling"...
There is a vdo in the link.
I saw the link was from Fox News so didnt need to open it!!!
On one side we have a group that indiscrimanatly allows and condones the slaughter of innocent muslims, christians and jews through terrorist attacks on aviation and other transports in the name of the islamic faith and believe they are doing the right thing by god.
On the other side we have a few countries that have allowed a group indiscriminately attack and condone the murder of innocent civilians in order to get to these terrorists (Hezbollah) or other people they don't like (Countries with oil and difficult leaders). The leaders of these countries are devout christians or jews and believe they are doing the right thing by god.
Now - for me they are as bad as eachother and deserve equal contempt.
On one side we have a group that indiscrimanatly allows and condones the slaughter of innocent muslims, christians and jews through terrorist attacks on aviation and other transports in the name of the islamic faith and believe they are doing the right thing by god.
On the other side we have a few countries that have allowed a group indiscriminately attack and condone the murder of innocent civilians in order to get to these terrorists (Hezbollah) or other people they don't like (Countries with oil and difficult leaders). The leaders of these countries are devout christians or jews and believe they are doing the right thing by god.
Now - for me they are as bad as eachother and deserve equal contempt.
The terrorism we are referring to e.g. blowing up passenger planes, is just an economical war. The terrorists don't have to succeed to actually bring down a plane. Just the tread causes such a high costs that the impact on our societies is big. And that is the aim of them, to cause damage.
We saw the same kind of mentality in the eighties when south american rulers promoted cocain exports to the USA, to damage that economy.
It is difficult to imagine, but many years ago there were no security checks at airports. No scanners, no sniffer dogs, to tapping, no high security taxes. Fences around airports were to keep sheep of the runways.
Btw the first hi-jacking happened in the USA on a commercial plane.
We saw the same kind of mentality in the eighties when south american rulers promoted cocain exports to the USA, to damage that economy.
It is difficult to imagine, but many years ago there were no security checks at airports. No scanners, no sniffer dogs, to tapping, no high security taxes. Fences around airports were to keep sheep of the runways.
Btw the first hi-jacking happened in the USA on a commercial plane.
Spot on???ElcoB wrote:Yah..... that's an example of intelligent profiling, you are spot on.Now - for me they are as bad as eachother and deserve equal contempt.
It is quiet easy to critique an existing system without formulating a valuable alternative! What other system do you suggest to stop such terrorist attacks from happening? Am I the only one seeing some rationale behind all this? Don't understand me wrong: I don't support the system. Yet, I have to admit that it could be an effective instrument in countering terrorist threats. So my question: any alternative suggestions?
Profilling outside the airport would probably work better. It is obvious that the policy to bring liquids on board planes at the moment is the only way governments could stop such a plot, but the reality is, like Michael Boyd of the Boyd consultant group said, the policy is going way too far, and it doesn't guarantee safety in the long run. The reality is, the best way to keep planes safe from terrorists is to hope they don't get on one with the intention to blow it up or crash it deliberately, and if they do get on a plane, hope that there are armed sky marshals with great accuracy and marksmanship. The fact of the matter is, you can't always guard yourself against terrorists or terrorism, and adopting Orwellian type security messures for Airports, will not keep the plane 100% safe, what if the terrorists go out and get commercial pilot lisence and become real pilots, and then do harm? How would you guard against that? As SN30952 on his post wrote, terrorists adopt to changes in technology etc.
This kind of profiling is the best guarantee to blow a plane up 
It tells the really bad guys how to reduce the chances of being caught:
Hairs can be coloured, passports faked, different food can be ordered, even drinking a beer before boarding would be possible...
Sreening must happen to every passenger on the same level - special attention to one group makes terrorists move over to another group which is less targeted.
Bernhard
It tells the really bad guys how to reduce the chances of being caught:
Hairs can be coloured, passports faked, different food can be ordered, even drinking a beer before boarding would be possible...
Sreening must happen to every passenger on the same level - special attention to one group makes terrorists move over to another group which is less targeted.
Bernhard