« Just because they want to take away your freedom doesn't mean we have to let them | Main | Someone is awake over there »

July 28, 2005

The pointlessness of random searches

Today, in a New York Times Op-Ed, When the Profile Fits the Crime, explores whether in this case profiling would be much more effective than the current system of random searches. I've commented about how hard it would be to actually patrol the entrances to the subways to prevent bomber infiltration. The staff required is simply too great. But it is nice to know that even if it could work, the way we are doing it insures that it will fail.

Two great quotes:


...done properly, profiling would subject relatively few Muslims to searches. Elderly Muslim women don't fit the terrorist profile. Young Muslim men of Arab or South Asian origin do. But rather than acknowledge this obvious fact, the New York Police Department has advised subway riders to be alert for "people" in bulky clothes who sweat or fiddle nervously with bags.

Truth be told, commuters need to be most aware of young men praying to Allah and smelling like flower water. Law enforcement knows this, and so should you. According to a January 2004 handout, the Department of Homeland Security advises United States border authorities to look out for certain "suicide bomber indicators." They include a "shaved head or short haircut. A short haircut or recently shaved beard or moustache may be evident by differences in skin complexion on the head or face. May smell of herbal or flower water (most likely flower water), as they may have sprayed perfume on themselves, their clothing, and weapons to prepare for Paradise."


Further philosophical justification here.

A challenge to the effectiveness of profiling here.

Posted by OneEyedMan at July 28, 2005 8:46 AM

Comments

The subway searches are a terrible waste of money. Like you said, there are multiple entrances to all of the many subway stations, plus, the searches are very superficial (similiar to searches in museums and the JCC). In addition to this, people are now whining about racial profiling. Let's make this even more inefficient! The little old lady over there looks mighty suspicious. Let's search her and then I suppose we can search the man over there who looks like middle eastern descent.

I guess what New York is trying to do is please the crowd. If people don't see the police actually doing something (as ridiculous as it may be), they think the problem is being ignored and nothing is happening to prevent another London attack. But if they think "certain people" are being singled out, they complain about that as well. So, they really can't win.

I am against these searches because they are a huge waste of time and money that could used to fight terrorism in a more logical and sophistocated manner. Furthermore, the way the searches are carried out is unconstitutional. If you are searched and caught with something illegal (say pot), you can be arrested for that. The amendment says that there should be no "unreasonable" searches. The pro-argument is that these searches are reasonable due to the day and age we're living in. I will grant them that, but if you're looking for a bomb and find pot, you should turn a blind eye since the pot was confiscated under unconstitutional methods.

Posted by: BlueEyedGirl [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 28, 2005 5:34 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?