All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Doesn't everyone agree that the government should pay more attention to people who are more likely to pose a threat and pay less attention to people who are less likely to pose a threat?

Isn't that the definition of profiling? So doesn't that answer your question of " I don't understand the obsession with profiling."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty gets at neither sticking point. The trouble is not with the concept of profiling. Nor is the trouble with what the profile is (or profiles are) in general. The issue is whether race or ethnicity or national origin should be an element (or the only element) of a profile. That's what the ACLU is bent out of shape about.

how about profiling based upon how many vowels you have in your name? no one complained with they profiled Italians and ran roughshod over our rights in the Mafia prosecutions so there is precedent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they should give everyone a gun as you get on the plane, like you get glasses at Disneyland for the 3-D rides.

You think anyone would start mixing lotions together if we were all taking a bead at them?

So you would close the restrooms and make people squat in the aisles? Intriguing. I think they tried that on a recent flight, and it didn't go all that well.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The ACLU disagrees. And Taxwonk disagrees.

maybe you just need to define the words and Taxwonk will agree. Taxwonk seems to not understand some basic English vocabulary.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So you would close the restrooms and make people squat in the aisles? Intriguing. I think they tried that on a recent flight, and it didn't go all that well.

2 words. "batroom buddy. or "slop pots."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The issue is where they should be allowed to use race, national origin etc. as one of the factors. Of course they should. The ACLU doesn't think they should be allowed to.

Cite, please.

When profiling has been successfully challenged in court, I believe the basis has been that the profiles were so broad that they essentially gave law enforcement unfettered discretion, and that this discretion was abused. I'm not sure that anyone thinks that using a profile in any way is per se illegal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't that the definition of profiling? So doesn't that answer your question of " I don't understand the obsession with profiling."

What is the definition of "profiling"? I asked Penske and he ducked the question.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
How so? Facial hair and clothing? Is that part of the "racial" profile too?

If so, a shave and a change of clothes wouldn't be so hard.

Edited - should have been in pM.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please.

I could be wrong but the ACLU just brought a case against - I think LAX - for using race in their profiling criteria.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is the definition of "profiling"? I asked Penske and he ducked the question.

I kind of liked your definition: Where the "government (pays) more attention to people who are more likely to pose a threat and pay less attention to people who are less likely to pose a threat".

Profiling is coming up with a likely description of a person who is more likely to highjack a flight (or as you say, pose a threat). Nervous, figity, muslim, one way ticket, Middle Eastern descent, flying without children or wife, flying in groups of males etc. If someone has a few of those characteristics they get searched more thoroughly, if most of them, a full interrogation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I could be wrong but the ACLU just brought a case against - I think LAX - for using race in their profiling criteria.

It seems to me that nationality and religion are much more useful in profiling terrorists than race.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hijack. Reid did not try to "hijack" any airplane. He tried to blow one up.

Well, I suppose that's true.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The ACLU disagrees. And Taxwonk disagrees.

That's not what I disagree with. I disagree with the notion that "Arab" per se makes someone more likely to blow up a plane.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't that the definition of profiling? So doesn't that answer your question of " I don't understand the obsession with profiling."

The problem isn't profiling. The problem is making ethnicity a basis for profiling.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It seems to me that nationality and religion are much more useful in profiling terrorists than race.

I would agree. Mainly because race is way to vague a term. I think national origin is a better term. But I am pretty sure the ACLU means national origin in their case. They were discussing it on the News Hour and the impression I got was that the ACLU was mad that they were focusing on people of middle eastern dissent. Of course I was getting my derrier kicked by the NYT's crossword (OK Slave - I admit - the NYT has one redeeming quality) so I may have completely misheard what they were saying.