Disagreeing with Sam Harris on profiling

[Jack]

As much as I enjoy Sam Harris' books and outlook on most topics, what he has recently written in his blog about profiling contains an egregious error in logic.

He starts out with a premise that TSA screening is impractical and unproductive, a point on which I agree.

Much has been written about how insulting and depressing it is, more than a decade after the events of 9/11, to be met by “security theater” at our nation’s airports. The current system appears so inane that one hopes it really is a sham, concealing more-ingenious intrusions into our privacy. The spirit of political correctness hangs over the whole enterprise like the Angel of Death—indeed, more closely than death, or than the actual fear of terrorism. And political correctness requires that TSA employees direct the spotlight of their attention at random—or appear to do so—while making rote use of irrational procedures and dubious technology.

Then he appears to forget all about his premise, that screening is useless, and launches into defending profiling.

Is there nothing we can do to stop this tyranny of fairness? Some semblance of fairness makes sense—and, needless to say, everyone’s bags should be screened, if only because it is possible to put a bomb in someone else’s luggage. But the TSA has a finite amount of attention: Every moment spent frisking the Mormon Tabernacle Choir subtracts from the scrutiny paid to more likely threats. Who could fail to understand this?


Imagine how fatuous it would be to fight a war against the IRA and yet refuse to profile the Irish? And yet this is how we seem to be fighting our war against Islamic terrorism.

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

Needless to say, a devout Muslim should be free to show up at the airport dressed like Osama bin Laden, and his wives should be free to wear burqas. But if their goal is simply to travel safely and efficiently, wouldn’t they, too, want a system that notices people like themselves? At a minimum, wouldn’t they want a system that anti-profiles—applying the minimum of attention to people who obviously pose no threat?

Nowhere does he address the fact that even if the TSA followed his suggestions and profiled everyone who appeared to be from the Middle-East (how does someone appear to be of a particular religion?) that still would have no impact on the quality of screening done by the TSA. How would profiling improve the screening methods currently in use? Why should we add another layer of worthlessness to an already worthless endeavor?

Harris has reached a conclusion, and a dubiously effective one at that, not supported by his original premise.

[JimmyNic]

I'm not sure I agree with you that Harris' opening spiel disagrees with his conclusion. He appears to be criticising political correctness rather than screening.

The trouble we have is that there are crimes predominantly committed by certain demographics. Hence the concept of white-collar crime and blue-collar crime. A man in a suit is less likely to shoplift a chocolate bar than a schoolkid. This is not a pointless observation, as it is not only useful to police attempting to catch a criminal, but it also leads us to the cause of such crime. And this logic is used to justify screening.

The cliché that being a Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist is one that is not fully mined for its usefulness. To become a Jihadist one must not only subscribe to some portion of the Koran, one must agree with a very select branch of Muslim theology. And it seems to me that one's theological dispositions cannot be inferred from the luxuriousness of one's beard, nor their sense of dress. Certainly if I was planning to bomb an aeroplane and was from the Middle East I'd attempt to look as Westernised as possible.

Harris' support of what he terms "anti-profiling" is rather well stated in my opinion. The old woman pictured in his blog is as unlikely to be a Jihadist as it is possible to be. The issue I have is that anti-profiling and profiling are much the same thing, once implemented.

[grandpa]

I'm not sure I agree with you that Harris' opening
spiel disagrees with his conclusion.
He appears to be criticising political correctness rather than screening.

Here's my question: After people like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber did their stuff, why was there no call to profile white people? Why not profile people who live alone in small cabins? Some serial killers were in the military (far more than some seem to claim).

The list of reasons to profile any group could go on and on, because the argument could apply according to anyone's taste. That, to me, is the soul of the issue.

Grandpa h.

[Senor Hoint]

I was actually thinking earlier today that they should probably let families with small children through with a minimum of security, if any.

[minorwork]

So Harris made two points in a single blog. May not be a good idea to do so. Separately I've argued against a position, say Obamacare's enactment. Later, after its passage, argue that all should be treated equally under it with Catholic employees being treated no differently.

Seems that Harris argues against what he later argues is futile to argue against, and so argues to modify.

[Darklordabc]

The list of reasons to profile any group could go on and on, because the argument could apply according to anyone's taste. That, to me, is the soul of the issue.

Choosing who we profile isn't some arbitrary choice we make depending on our tastes, it is wholly dependent on statistics. And statistically young arab men are the most likely group to be terrorists. Its only common sense to pay them more attention because of this fact.

Why not profile people who live alone in small cabins?

If you can show evidence that people living alone in cabins are more likely to be terrorists then you would be justified in profiling them (If you can somehow know they live alone in a cabin).

Certainly if I was planning to bomb an aeroplane and was from the Middle East I'd attempt to look as Westernised as possible.

Ethnicity and Age is not something that is easily hidden. And I'm sure the terrorists are chomping at the bit to get white, asian, old etc terrorists, but young Arab men is probably the best they can do most of the time.

How would profiling improve the screening methods currently in use? Why should we add another layer of worthlessness to an already worthless endeavor?

I think its pretty obvious how it would improve the system. If even one person is searched instead of toddler or a retard getting searched, it think its an improvement.

[Jack]

If even one person is searched instead of toddler or a retard getting searched, it think its an improvement.

When the searching itself is worthless why does it matter who gets searched. The TSA employs flawed techniques. Their methods are flawed regardless of who they submit to them.

[Darklordabc]

When the searching itself is worthless why does it matter who gets searched. The TSA employs flawed techniques. Their methods are flawed regardless of who they submit to them.

How are they flawed?

[Jack]

How are they flawed?

An example from Harris' own post quoted in the OP:

I have noticed such incongruities before. In fact, my wife and I once accidentally used a bag for carry-on in which I had once stored a handgun—and passed through three airport checkpoints with nearly 75 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. While we were inadvertently smuggling bullets, one TSA screener had the presence of mind to escort a terrified three-year-old away from her parents so that he could remove her sandals (sandals!). Presumably, a scanner that had just missed 2.5 pounds of ammunition would determine whether these objects were the most clever bombs ever wrought.

[Peter]

When the searching itself is worthless why does it matter who gets searched. The TSA employs flawed techniques. Their methods are flawed regardless of who they submit to them.

There's no doubt that their search techniques aren't 100% effective, but worthless? Your saying that because of this it doesn't matter who they search or, if taken to it's logical conclusion, if they search anyone at all? Even if the technique is flawed and they can't search everyone shouldn't they strive to maximize the probability of preventing an incident by concentrating on likely perpetrators? I think that's all Sam is saying.

[arX]

Harris responds to critique:

On Knowing Your Enemy : Sam Harris

[ironeagle]

It's a red shoe. Muslims are radicals and rely on misrepresentations of the old testiment to justify being terrorists that being said the musilims while not a race can often be easily spotted by their attire, which is obvious. I agree with tother members he is saying forget frisking random kids and grandmas, check the bags, and check the red shoe.