Get Profiling or Get Cancer

[xotoxi]

Good profiling would catch terrorists of all types.....but duh jethro....sure looks like about 99% are Islamic.....

specifically how to do it?......look to the Israelis for inspiration.....and for starters fire Janet Napolitano....

How would you know that this guy is Islamic?

OH....my bad! You could tell by his name: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Good point!

But what if he changed his name?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

INSTEAD let's get busy with an effective intelligent PROFILING security system and keep government HANDS OFF the 99.99% of innocent travelers...

Tell me more about this PROFILING security system.

How would it work?

Would it get this guy?

Probably....if the profiling system is done by pros who know their business....not all profiling is based on looks......minimum wage know-nothings couldn't stop a terrorist if they tried...

 

[noose4]

I'm certainly not going to tell you if you're that stupid.....

But for starters you could look at a Most Wanted Terrorists list....

You are the stupid one

This all American boy was captured by the U.S. in the early days of the war, he was fighting for the Taliban

This all American boy is currently known as the American Al Quaeda

A good shave and a hair cut and BAM!!! your profiling would fail miserably.

No it wouldn't....because good profiling would catch anyone who smells like a threat....those two would probably give off tells that any pro could spot...

How exactly would this profiling work? Are you saying they do not check those who arouse suspicion now?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No it wouldn't....because good profiling would catch anyone who smells like a threat....those two would probably give off tells that any pro could spot...

Have you ever been in an airport before?

Have you ever seen airport security?

They are a step up from a mall cop.

And by step up...I mean step up in pay ONLY.

That's why I advocate getting rid of all the "mall cops" who think they are "security" at the airports....

We need to get real professionals doing the job...

 

[xotoxi]

No it wouldn't....because good profiling would catch anyone who smells like a threat....those two would probably give off tells that any pro could spot...

Have you ever been in an airport before?

Have you ever seen airport security?

They are a step up from a mall cop.

And by step up...I mean step up in pay ONLY.

That's why I advocate getting rid of all the "mall cops" who think they are "security" at the airports....

We need to get real professionals doing the job...

How much would these real professionals get paid annually?

And how many would be needed for each airport?

Would there be special majors in college for airport profiling?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You are the stupid one

This all American boy was captured by the U.S. in the early days of the war, he was fighting for the Taliban

This all American boy is currently known as the American Al Quaeda

A good shave and a hair cut and BAM!!! your profiling would fail miserably.

No it wouldn't....because good profiling would catch anyone who smells like a threat....those two would probably give off tells that any pro could spot...

How exactly would this profiling work? Are you saying they do not check those who arouse suspicion now?

Obviously they DON'T check those who should arouse suspicion now....the Christmas Day bomber for example....guess they're too busy checking over grandma....

Profiling is not just a quick, easy 123 formula to describe for you....besides, pros would not want their secrets spread around in public....

However, read this to get an inkling...

Before our travel industry is completely destroyed and more lives are put at risk, we should look hard at the strict security methods used by Israel's EL AL Airlines, which interviews passengers and posts armed guards -- many of them former Israeli soldiers -- at every ticket counter.

It was one such guard who shot Hesham Mohamed Hadayet at LAX airport in 2002, after Hadayet shot two ticket agents. "If it hadn't been an EL AL counter, it would have been a lot worse," said a commentator at the time.

"In the blink of an eye, Israeli security would have pulled out a 23-year-old male travelling alone who had recently been in Yemen," said Mary Schiavo, former U.S. Transportation Department inspector general.

"He and his luggage would have been completely searched."

The problem is, Israeli procedures come up against western anti-discrimination laws.

"One of the major differences between us and Israel is that part of their profiling includes nationality, national origin, race, religion, age and physical appearance," Schiavo says.

A dilemma, I know. But the next time a security agent decides to shake down my son's teddy bear, I will be tempted to ask: Is profiling mothers and children working any better?

Profiling works for Israeli airline

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Have you ever been in an airport before?

Have you ever seen airport security?

They are a step up from a mall cop.

And by step up...I mean step up in pay ONLY.

That's why I advocate getting rid of all the "mall cops" who think they are "security" at the airports....

We need to get real professionals doing the job...

How much would these real professionals get paid annually?

And how many would be needed for each airport?

Would there be special majors in college for airport profiling?

Heck if I know....that's what people like Janet Napolitano are supposed to be figuring out...or is "Homeland Security" just a sad joke......?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why don't they used specially trained dogs? Lots of trainable ones in shelters across the country, so no shortage of supply. No risk of radiation, although maybe a little nibble from Spot now and then. Dogs can sense fear and stress too. Can a machine?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why don't they used specially trained dogs? Lots of trainable ones in shelters across the country, so no shortage of supply. No risk of radiation, although maybe a little nibble from Spot now and then. Dogs can sense fear and stress too. Can a machine?

I think trained dogs would be an EXCELLENT idea to add to the mix...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everything causes cancer. I'm not worried....

<lights another cigarette>

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why don't they used specially trained dogs? Lots of trainable ones in shelters across the country, so no shortage of supply. No risk of radiation, although maybe a little nibble from Spot now and then. Dogs can sense fear and stress too. Can a machine?

I think trained dogs would be an EXCELLENT idea to add to the mix...

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why don't they used specially trained dogs? Lots of trainable ones in shelters across the country, so no shortage of supply. No risk of radiation, although maybe a little nibble from Spot now and then. Dogs can sense fear and stress too. Can a machine?

I think trained dogs would be an EXCELLENT idea to add to the mix...

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

It takes a lot of money for anything and uncle sure doesn't seem to have a problem spending it so . . . . I don't buy that as an excuse not to do it. Yes dogs are in the mix now and they do excellent work, so why no expand on something that is already successful?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think trained dogs would be an EXCELLENT idea to add to the mix...

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

It takes a lot of money for anything and uncle sure doesn't seem to have a problem spending it so . . . . I don't buy that as an excuse not to do it. Yes dogs are in the mix now and they do excellent work, so why no expand on something that is already successful?

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Everything causes cancer. I'm not worried....

<lights another cigarette>

Your choice is to smoke.....may you continue to have that free choice.....

My choice is not to be herded through scan after scan that can be detrimental to my health when there is absolutely no real need for it...

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

Yes but more would help.....much better than body scans....you realize that companies that make scanners are lobbying the government to install them....? Who's really pushing for more dogs?

 

[Zoom-boing]

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

It takes a lot of money for anything and uncle sure doesn't seem to have a problem spending it so . . . . I don't buy that as an excuse not to do it. Yes dogs are in the mix now and they do excellent work, so why no expand on something that is already successful?

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Yep, I got that. I was just wondering out loud.

 

[Coyote]

Profiling leads to a false sense of security - it isn't very effective.

Mr. CHERTOFF: ... I'm going to argue that this case illustrates the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people's conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn't match reality. In this case we had a Nigerian, for example, not a person from the Middle East or from South Asia. If you look at the airline plot of 2006, two of the plotters were a married couple that were going to get on a plane with a young baby. The terrorists understand that the more they vary the kind of operative they use, the more likely they're going to be able to exploit prejudices if we allow those prejudices to guide the way we conduct our investigation.

Aside from that - if indeed full body scanners pose a cancer risk (not sure about that) then there are very real ethical and maybe constitutional concerns forcing innocent people to take greater health risks simply because they fall into a racial/ethnic/religious group.

Who besides Mr. Jerkoff says profiling is not effective? Tell that to the Israelis....

Sure...it would have worked great with the Washington snipers and the anthrax mailer eh?

Random checks 'as effective' as terrorist profiling - science-in-society - 02 February 2009 - New Scientist

...a statistical model for examining rare events suggests that some limited profiling by ethnicity or nationality is useful in apprehending terrorists, but too great a dependence on profiling passengers is ineffective.

“We have been told that strong profiling will somehow find and siphon off the worst offenders and we’ll be safe,” Dr. Press said. “It’s not true. The math does not support that.”

In addition, you avoid the central issue: if indeed full body scanners pose a cancer risk then what right do you have to force a certain demographic group of innocent people to take greater health risks then the rest of the population? Kind of reminiscent of Tuskegee.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everything causes cancer. I'm not worried....

<lights another cigarette>

Your choice is to smoke.....may you continue to have that free choice.....

My choice is not to be herded through scan after scan that can be detrimental to my health when there is absolutely no real need for it...

They have drug dogs and bomb dogs at most airports already - but it takes a long time and money to train a bomb dog or drug dog.

They're already "in the mix".

Yes but more would help.....much better than body scans....you realize that companies that make scanners are lobbying the government to install them....? Who's really pushing for more dogs?

And now we come to the real reason! There's no lobbyists for bomb dogs - although I'm sure they're about as effective, and much less invasive. But, as you said - the scanner companies have lobbyists.

Welcome to the American system.

 

[Polk]

Why don't they used specially trained dogs? Lots of trainable ones in shelters across the country, so no shortage of supply. No risk of radiation, although maybe a little nibble from Spot now and then. Dogs can sense fear and stress too. Can a machine?

I think that's a good idea.

 

[veritas]

How could they discern a packet of powder [PETN] in underwear from a sanitary napkin or some incontinence device? The xray won't cut it for that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Have you had your dose today? Body scanners are a health risk.

Infusing your body with radiation isn't exactly healthy....WHY should innocent people suffer both health risks AND indignities in order to fly when there are effective alternatives?

INSTEAD let's get busy with an effective intelligent PROFILING security system and keep government HANDS OFF the 99.99% of innocent travelers...

Health risk fears raised over airport full body scanners

The health risks are of biggest concerns to airline crew members, frequent fliers, pregnant women, infants, the chronically ill and immune suppressed passengers. The producers of these radioactive ionizing machines have declined to sign any guarantee of no long term harm to users which is telling in itself. The ionizing radiation in the x-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired then the cells begin forming cancers.

Health risk fears raised over airport full body scanners

The article is nonsense. First of all, there are two types of full body scanners being tested and used at airports, both of which are capable of giving photo quality images of the body surface - yes, including the genitals - and anything attached to the clothing, and only one of them uses x-rays. The other one is the millimeter wave scanner.

Millimeter wave uses electromagnetic waves to generate an image based on the energy reflected from the body. Active millimeter wave technology passes harmless electromagnetic waves over the human body to create an image that looks much like a fuzzy photo negative. TSA says it is safe and the energy emitted by millimeter wave technology is 10,000 times less than a cell phone.

TSA Tests Millimeter Wave Screening at Phoenix Sky Harbor | Air Safety Week | Find Articles at BNET

The other scanner is the backscatter x-ray scanner, which works on an altogether different principle from other x-ray equipment.

The X-ray scanners we send our carry-on bags through are usually dual-energy X-ray systems. In this type of system, the X-ray source sends out a single X-ray beam. Different types of materials -- organic, inorganic and metallic, for instance -- react differently to X-rays, which are basically very high-energy light photons. Depending on the density and atomic properties of an object, it may absorb X-rays, let X-rays pass right through or scatter the X-rays on impact. Organic material, like skin, bananas and liquid explosives, tend to let X-rays pass through them. In a dual-energy system, after the X-rays interact with the objects in your carry-on bag, they reach three barriers: a detector that picks up the pattern created by both high- and low-energy absorption and pass-through; a filter that then removes the lower-energy X-rays; and then a high-energy detector, which picks up the pattern of the high-energy X-ray absorption and pass-through. A computer program then compares the images from the two detectors in order to provide a very clear, color-coded image of the different types of materials in your bag. It's the comparison of the first detector's image with the last detector's image that highlights the "low-energy objects" -- mostly the organic stuff -- in the bag.

The Z Backscatter system made by American Science and Engineering works differently. Instead of relying on images created by the absorption and pass-through properties of the objects being X-rayed, the backscatter system picks up images produced when materials scatter X-ray photons. An X-ray scatter pattern is more specific than an absorption pattern when it comes to identifying organics. A scatter pattern changes depending on the element it's interacting with -- carbon, hydrogen or lithium, for instance. Elements with lower atomic numbers (fewer protons) on the periodic table scatter X-ray photons very powerfully, while elements located farther down on the periodic table tend to absorb more photons than they scatter. Most organics are located closer to the start of the periodic table. So backscatter systems are very good at imaging organic material -- much better than dual-energy systems. They easily pick up the scatter patterns of drugs and explosives and body parts. This ability to detect and identify organic material, along with a technology called "Flying Spot" that lets the machine pinpoint the location of a particular X-ray beam at any given moment in time, allow backscatter images to be incredibly accurate and lifelike.

As to safety:

The other issue besides privacy that has surrounded backscatter X-raying has to do with radiation exposure. Most of us do not get X-rayed on a regular basis; and when we do get X-rayed in a hospital or doctor's office, we've got a lead vest thrown over our vital organs. But at airports, there's no lead vest. So are people who travel a lot going to be subjected to dangerous levels of radiation if they get backscattered too often? Most experts say no. According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently.

HowStuffWorks "Do backscatter X-ray systems pose a risk to frequent fliers?"