Profiling - Straw Poll

[TightSlot]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers' ethnic or religious background, according to media reports

So, taking a moment to consider the implications, how do we feel about this? Please consider voting in this poll, if only for clarity on how a majority of contributors to this forum feel...

[spork]

Could exclusion profiling take place? ie: Decide if pax are extremely low risk? For example, if pax already holds an MOD pass with high level of security clearance, is it really worth spending time on them?

[SXB]

Spork
I think that would be part of the profiling. That said it depends on how people are profiled and who is doing the profiling. For example the fact that someone has a certain level of MOD clearance is sensitive information in itself and I would think, though I don't know, that the Police, for example, would not be aware of such a clearance if they checked someone's criminal history (the Police being severely limited on what computerised records they can keep) MI5, on the other hand, I would think and hope, have access to a much wider range of information. Of course the different departments of HMG are notorious for withholding info from each other.

I don't know which part of HMG MI5 work for, though I would assume it's the Home Office, therefore I would assume that MI6 is part of the Foreign Office and those two ministries NEVER talk to each other. Also what does MI stand for in both those names ? Is it Military Intellengence ? Which would infer MOD. Mental note to ask my Father, recently retired RAF flyer and Officer...

[Wile E. Coyote]

Due to my ancestry (Eastern Med.), the colour of my skin (olive), my hair (black) and my eyes (brown), I frequently get searched when passing through security and have had "private interviews" when entering countries such as Canada, USA and the UK... even though I am a British Citizen.

I have nothing to hide, I remain calm and polite, and don't care that I am delayed by all of 5 minutes. It's just part of life, there are much more important things to get upset about.

(But insist that my camera - which cost $1,800 - and the lenses that go with it must by checked in to the hold and I still don't get upset... because until sensibiilty returns, my trips across the pond which requires me to take such items will be by ship. I don't blame the baggage handlers; I blame the systems they work with that can cause severe damage to the strongest of cases and the most carefully protected luggage...)

[radeng]

Interestingly, although in the UK, you're not supposed to know your clearance level (or were, when I had clearance), in the US, not only do you know it, but for some jobs in industry, you need to be able to quote it in applying........

[RevMan2]

Profiling exists and has for years.

Compare the proportion of passengers of non-Anglo Saxon ethnicity to those selected for inspection by Customs at Heathrow or Manchester.......

And yes, I believe that profiling must include all relevant factors, including religious affiliations and ethnicity.

[PaperTiger]

Can't vote for any of the above I'm afraid , you have loaded the questions by equating ethnicity with religion. They are two entirely different charcateristics which the media (and others) seem to have conveniently melded.
I am in favour of behavioural profiling. That does not include ethnicity which is an inheritance, not a behaviour; but does include religious affiliation since that is made through choice (ie. behaviour). Or at least can be chosen or eschewed by those whose minds still function.

[gorgeous spotter]

Originally Posted by TightSlot

So, taking a moment to consider the implications, how do we feel about this? Please consider voting in this poll, if only for clarity on how a majority of contributors to this forum feel...

TightSlot,

Thanks for the opportunity..... may the most sensible and pratical option stand out; this affects us all.


Gorgeous

[skydriller]

Two Points :

1 - As I think someone has already pointed out - Ethinicity and Religion are not the same thing.....

2 - I believe profiling should be used all the time, with the intension of singling out those that are NOT a risk.... then you can concentrate security screening on everyone else.....

Regards, SD..

[TightSlot]

Thanks, and point taken about ethnicity/religion from both of you: However, this would make for a rather complicated poll with numerous questions.

As a basic (Straw) poll with no inherent value beyond being a reflection of views held at the time, I'm happy that it should stand for now.

[P Muzzy]

Originally Posted by TightSlot

Thanks, and point taken about ethnicity/religion from both of you: However, this would make for a rather complicated poll with numerous questions.

As a basic (Straw) poll with no inherent value beyond being a reflection of views held at the time, I'm happy that it should stand for now.

I take the point on religion - as how could you tell in the case of Irish terrorism that we suffered in this country who was Catholic of Protestant by looking at them.

With ethnicity i would presume that this depends on the intellegence that the airports/security are working on. If the profile fits a particular ethnicity then that should be taken into consideration.

[SXB]

Pmuzzy

take the point on religion - as how could you tell in the case of Irish terrorism that we suffered in this country who was Catholic of Protestant by looking at them.

I don't think anybody is suggesting profiling should simply be done by the guys carrying out searches in the airports (this being the last line of defence) Profiling can be based on many factors including the personal details provided by the passenger when they bought their ticket. In the case of Northern Ireland their address would probably be sufficient to indicate whether they are catholic or protestant, assuming the details provided were accurate of course, though depending on who's doing the profile such details can be verified.

[bealine]

I take the point on religion - as how could you tell in the case of Irish terrorism that we suffered in this country who was Catholic of Protestant by looking at them.

Answer: You could tell by appearance to a reasonably accurate degree (about 80%.) The Irish catholics have almost black hair and heavier features than their Protestant counterparts (most of whom are of Scottish descent). There is, actually, quite a marked difference between Scottish Celts and Irish Celts!

However, you could be reasonably certain as soon as you knew the person's name. This was at the root of the 1969 "troubles", the feeling that if your name was Eamonn Murphy, Bernadette O'Connor or Sean Devlin then you were unlikely to get any sort of decent job in Ulster - on the other hand, if your name was John Stewart, Peter McMichael or James Brown then your future was reasonably secure!

......Indeed, many a Catholic or Protestant was targetted by sectarian gunmen purely based on appearance! The IRA and UDA paramilitaries (and their offshoots) weren't too particular about whether they got it right or not I recall!

[10secondsurvey]

Bealine,

I'm just curious where you got the info about hair colour for catholic and non catholic Irish people. Lots of scots of any religion have very dark hair. It just doesn't tally with my personal experience of Ireland.

Without going into detail, I find most of what you said a bit odd, to say the least. I am not questioning your own personal experience - I hope you understand.

I always find the sectarianism (that still exists) is an area best kept away from in forums like this, as it is very easy to offend unintentionally, regardless of your own understanding of the situation. Even acknowledged academic experts get criticised on this subject area.

As regards the general point of this discussion, I guess the big advantage of profiling is it's inherent flexibility, and ability to change rapidly in response to new security intelligence. Todays little old lady from the home counties could be next years shoe bomber (well almost!)

[fyrefli]

Originally Posted by TightSlot

So, taking a moment to consider the implications, how do we feel about this? Please consider voting in this poll, if only for clarity on how a majority of contributors to this forum feel...

I voted yes even though I was once held and almost refused transit through the US due various political affiliations. The alternative is chaos.

Cheers,

Rich.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Absolutely yes. There should also be scope for 'positive profiling' - for example, it really isn't that likely that as a British serviceman with 20 years in the mob that I'm going to be the one becoming a radical terrorist of any persuasion! Most of my travel is also booked through an MOD travel centre/approved agent.

I should say that there are many other professions in the same boat....


SBG

[bealine]

10secondsurvey - you're probably right. Sectarianism is best kept away from forums such as these. As you may have gathered, I love Northern Ireland - the province and its people and, yes my summarising is far too simplistic for a problem that has lasted centuries.

My experiences were based upon spending (too much) time in the British Army on street patrols or manning checkpoints. Maybe my description of "Scottish" celt or "Irish" celt aren't strictly accurate, but I maintain that I could (and so could my fellow soldiers) make a fairly accurate guess as to which persuasion a citizen in Ulster belonged to. (Perhaps the way people dressed, or the way they walked, or other features might have given a clue as well.)

[PAXboy]

I should like to think that profiling could be done by looking at each individual but I doubt that it will. Mankind is by nature, a tribal animal.

Also, those that wish to damage us must, by now, be fairly well advanced with recruting caucasian supporters. Whether they will be knowingly recruited as suicide bombers or be duped in to placing items that will explode sooner rather than later, we cannot know. BUT looking at religion and ethnicity will not work. The voting options in this straw poll must, perforce be simple and so it is not possible, for me, to vote.

[BellEndBob]

I am in favour. It should be done on several levels i.e Intelligence etc but ALSO on appearance. If a group of young Asian males are travelling together then they should expect closer scrutiny than a bunch of elderly females on a SAGA holiday.
Mind you, I find it ironic that we are panicking about this one aspect yet airlines are still happy to shovel on groups of pi$$ed males and females to fly them to Prague/Amsterdam etc. They are a far bigger threat to safety IMHO but if you dared suggest that we made all flights alcohol free the BAA and the airlines would have a hissy fit.
Likewise, if car manufacturers were told to limit every car to a maximum of 30mph in order to cut down on the thousands of deaths on the roads every year, the same people worried about terrorism on flights would be taking to the streets demanding their rights be observed.

Crazy world.

[Lucifer]

The broad definitions in the poll are too close, since it must involve a greater degree of intelligence than offered simply by religion or ethnicity.

For example - recent bombers (and nutters who might pose a similar risk) who are neither Muslim nor Arabic/South Asian:

Timothy McVeigh
IRA
UniBomber
The Washington Sniper
Bader Mainhof Gang
November 17 (Greeks who killed our military liaison a few years ago)
ETA
FARC

Looking at the link at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/45394.htm, there are a proliferation of national liberation groups who might pose a threat as well, some of whom are white and Christian.

So therefore, I would rather we were all treated as a threat, than some of my good friends being singled out for race and religion alone, while I might be the one in the terror group.