Brive1987 wrote:welch wrote:Brive1987 wrote:Amazing how people conflate profiling with skin colour sterotypes. Like there's not a whole array of markers a sophisticated system could use. Special muppetry that.
If you want to point to a post of Harris's where he's discussing profiling in terms of OTHER THAN religion/race, by all means, please do so. Everything i've seen from him, he's only ever going on about 'looking muslim'.
Firstly and importantly the "look like a Moslem" line of Harris is clunky. Given the topic it would be charitable to interpret this to mean 'identify as'. This is clear from the quotes below.'
There is also a premise at play here that there's a correlation between Islamic terrorism and the threat the profiling is meant to stop. Ie the goal is to narrow the field down to Moslem potential terrorists - or their likely directly related associates. If we don't accept that then we've moved into another intriguing debate.
I also assume that we can agree there is a subset of the 'target' profile that visibly identifies as Islamic? Where that line is drawn is open to dispute. And as you see below this is only one of a number of possible markers.many of my detractors (like Greenwald) have used this quotation in ways calculated to make readers believe that I want dark-skinned people singled out—and not just in our airports, but everywhere. What my critics always neglect to say, however, is that in the article in which that sentence appears, I explicitly include white, middle-aged men like me in the profile (twice). This still leaves many millions of travelers outside the profile. My point is that we should be giving less scrutiny to people who obviously aren’t jihadists.
What. The. Fuck. Does. A. Jihadist. OBVIOUSLY. Look. Like?
Do they run around screaming "I BLOW SHIT UP FOR ALLAH?" That's the bullshit part. The complete bullshit part.
Brive1987 wrote:To assert that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest.
Again, how the fuck do you tell a jihadist by:
Ethnicity, gender, age, dress, or traveling companions?
How do you tell *nationality* by that?
He never EVER deals with that. Because again, keep in mind that you can look like a lot of fucking people and still be born in the USA as much as harris. You can be all shades of brown, yellow, red and white. So what fucking good is ethnicity in determining nationality? what the FUCK does GENDER have to do with it or dress?
Harris is clearly, clearly dancing around the fact that in his world, he has a very, *very* specific idea of what a "danger" is and it's not very young, it's not very old, and it's not fucking female, and thank god he's not in charge of anything because his clear prejudices as to what a "danger" is are almost as outdated as that of a member of the British Admiralty circa 1920 suddenly deposited in modern society.
It is neither crazy nor dishonest to assert that you can't tell fuck all about either someone's jihadist status or nationality by ethnicity, gender, age or dress. In fact, he's the one being either dishonest or stupid in insisting that you can.
Brive1987 wrote:But, as I pointed out, and Schneier agreed, the Israelis profile in every sense of the term—racially, ethnically, behaviorally, by nationality and religion, etc. In the end, Schneier’s argument came down to a claim about limited resources: He argued that we are too poor (and, perhaps, too stupid) to effectively copy the Israeli approach. That may be true. But pleading poverty and ineptitude is very different from proving that profiling doesn’t work.
The israelis have a very specific set of entry points to cover, and a very specific set of criteria to worry about. Their problem is rather different from ours.
Harris would do better to admit that he simply doesn't consider anyone who isn't a fit male between the ages of 18 or so to their early 50s as being capable of being dangerous, and that he's simply ignoring the rather large body of evidence that terrorists are looking outside that range.