Your view of profiling

I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?
Fred.

Fred Kay wrote:
I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?


They may be safe, but compared to some of the main airports around the
world, they handle relatively few passengers. It is easy to have highly
trained interviewers you can trust when you only need a small gang to
interview all passengers.

But scale that to one of the world's large airports, and you will need
very large number of very experienced people and that is not so easy to
do because you will always get some less competent ones and perhaps some
corrupt ones as well.

And you need to deal with logistics of transfer passengers, as well as
the fact that more and more people bypass the check-in lines because
they already have their boarding passes (if I remember correctly, they
interview passengers as they wait in line to get to check in).

They could do the interviews before security, but that would add
significant amount of time needed between arriving at airport and
boarding aircraft.


Remember that they interview everyone.

"Fred Kay" wrote in message
...
I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?
Fred.

From a security pov, profiling is fine provided that you use it to impose
*even* higher check on some people whilst still keeping the high level for
the rest at today's level. (which AIUI is what Israel does).

Using profiling to justify reducing checks on the masses is asking for
disaster to happen.

From a human rights pov - I've no comment.

tim

In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

"Fred Kay" wrote in message
...
I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?
Fred.

From a security pov, profiling is fine provided that you use it to impose
*even* higher check on some people whilst still keeping the high level for
the rest at today's level. (which AIUI is what Israel does).


And it doesn't have to be all involved either. The Christmas
attempt could have been prevented by profiling. He bought the ticket at
the airport, paid cash, one-way, and had no luggage. He might have made
it on to a plane in the US, but only because he slipped away while TSA
and DEA argued over whether he was terrorist or drug mule. (G).

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

"Fred Kay" wrote in message
...
I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?
Fred.

From a security pov, profiling is fine provided that you use it to impose
*even* higher check on some people whilst still keeping the high level
for
the rest at today's level. (which AIUI is what Israel does).


And it doesn't have to be all involved either. The Christmas
attempt could have been prevented by profiling. He bought the ticket at
the airport, paid cash, one-way, and had no luggage. He might have made
it on to a plane in the US, but only because he slipped away while TSA
and DEA argued over whether he was terrorist or drug mule. (G).

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"


Profiling is much more sophisticated than simply looking at the purchase,
one way etc. It's also not about how people dress or their colour or
religion. All these things can be part of the profile process but it can
also involve watching people during their progress through the airport to
see their reaction to incidents and, as in the case of El Al and Israel
actually questioning the person asking what many would consider trick (but
subtly so) questions. Unfortunately too many governments don't understand
a many layered approach and go for the simple, up front, obvious solution
because then you and I can see they are "doing something".

In article ,
"Graham Harrison" wrote:

Profiling is much more sophisticated than simply looking at the purchase,
one way etc. It's also not about how people dress or their colour or
religion. All these things can be part of the profile process but it can
also involve watching people during their progress through the airport to
see their reaction to incidents and, as in the case of El Al and Israel
actually questioning the person asking what many would consider trick (but
subtly so) questions. Unfortunately too many governments don't understand
a many layered approach and go for the simple, up front, obvious solution
because then you and I can see they are "doing something".


Basically profiling is looking at a bunch of things and deciding from
them to what to do. While you are right that a FULL profile will include
many things, you don't remotely need all of them. I can guarantee you,
at least in the US, that just buying a ticket for cash at the counter,
no luggage, and one-way WILL get the attention of at least DEA. The
other things can be used to supplement the above or used in place of.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:21:09 -0000 "tim...."
wrote:

:"Fred Kay" wrote in message
...
:I understand that airlines of Israel are considered the safest due to
: passenger profiling. Also that at least one of the 9/11 planes may
: not have left the ground if profiling was acceptable. Any thoughts?
: Fred.

:From a security pov, profiling is fine provided that you use it to impose
:*even* higher check on some people whilst still keeping the high level for
:the rest at today's level. (which AIUI is what Israel does).

:Using profiling to justify reducing checks on the masses is asking for
:disaster to happen.

By using proper profiling, the US can reduce the ridiculous checks on the
masses to the proper base, and then use the freed manpower to check the
serious cases.

Leaving Israel / Ben Gurion, you can wear shoes and take liquids - probably
what you would consider "reducing checks on the masses". These are "show"
security that impresses your ilk as "doing something".

:From a human rights pov - I've no comment.

No human rights problem at all.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.