From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 15:01:15 MDT
On Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 03:03 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> I have the impression that "profiling" is being used here to mean
> "organized
> sloppiness" in security. What is not "real" information in profiling?
> The
> fact that grandmas from Kansas are unlikely to blow up planes is real,
> and
> it can be used for profiling, at least as long as terrorists don't
> develop a
> method for posing as low-risk persons.
Women can't be terrorists? Old people can't be terrorists? Americans
can't be terrorists? Exactly what magical formula are you using to make
people above suspicion? And what does any of this have to do with
searching people and luggage on airplanes?
I'm not going to go through this whole argument again. As the article
Hal posted shows, profiling *can't* be used. It doesn't work. We can't
exclude any gender, we can't exclude any age, we can't assume that
birthplace records are accurate, we can't assume the bag tags haven't
been switched, we can't assume that poor old grandma isn't unknowingly
carrying something put in her bag by others. The bottom line is that it
is just plain safer to search all the bags. As soon as you make a rule
for who doesn't get searched, you inform the terrorists how to avoid
security.
What part of the article posted by Hal did you dispute? You seem to be
starting up the same old argument with the same old arm-chair reasoning
without any reference to the scientific facts or studies. Is there some
reason to disregard this study or other similar results?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:40 MST