Airport Security and Racial Profiling Part 2

     After rereading my last post on racial profiling and doing some thinking I realized that the issue of racial profiling in the context of airport security is a much more complex issue to which there is probably no clear correct answer. No matter what position we take, we are going to have to compromise on some of our (commonly) held values.  Also, coincidentally about a month ago on NPR there was a very interesting panel debate with some of the top experts in the world on the subject, which got me to figuin'.  I'm going to recap the main themes of some the arguments and give some of my own thoughts.  By the by, here's the link to the debate if you're interested:


http://www.npr.org/2010/11/24/131575316/should-airports-use-racial-and-religious-profiling


     There are 3 main issues that I find interesting:  the legality of racial profiling; the "human" aspect of profiling; and the efficacy aspect.  


The legal issue
     Lets look at the legality of racial profiling in the context of airport security.  I find it interesting that in the mainstream media you don't hear too much about this.  Maybe it will be mentioned indirectly in conjunction with the human aspect but I've never read (maybe I just haven't looked hard enough) an article devoted exclusively to legal considerations.  So, being the US constitutional scholar that I am, I will endeavour to fill this void. 
     The legal argument revolves around the 4th amendment.  For those of you aren't rabid libertarians or don't have wikipedia on hand, the amendment concerns search and seizure without probable cause.  Off the top of my head (not lifted from wikipedia, I just like to pepper my writing with the occasional blue) the 4th amendment


"guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a 'probable cause' to believe a crime has been committed."


So, from this perspective it seems a legal argument against profiling might have legs. There doesn't seem to be much probable cause.  However, there is more to the 4th amendment.  The 4th amendment regarding search and seizure without a warrent or probable cause is generally directed at actions occurring within someone's domicile.  For this reasons there are some important exceptions that are relevant to our investigation, and as a long time constitutional legal scholar specializing in the 4th amendment article on wikipedia.org I can cut and paste the additional information for you:


Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.^[68] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion."^[69] The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.<sup>[70]


So, like it or not, it seems that there is a general legal argument for search without warrant and probable cause in airports.  An interesting issue does arise however:  wikipedia tells us that "border searches may be conducted entirely at random".  Does that mean, that they don't have to be at random? That is to say, they can be carried out "unrandomly"?  I don't feel like clicking on the link to "US Customs and Border Protection" to read all the specifics so I'm just going to hypothesize that, who is searched is up to each border officer.
    Tangential but relevant to all this is the interpretation of "probable cause":


the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]”


So where do we stand with the legal argument?  Basically, it seems that in international airports the US government has a legal right to search individuals with or without probable cause.  I have not found anything on the wikipedia 4th amendment page concerning biasing "random" searches toward certain groups; therefore, information regarding this matter does not exist.  Were I a betting man, I wager there's probably another wikipedia page about another amendment that could indirectly support the no profiling position.  
     On the other hand, any 1st year philosophy or political science student can tell you that pretty much the only role of government all people of all political stripes agree on (excluding anarchists, of course) is that of national defence.  If the populace, right or wrong, feels that the government is failing in this regard, that government is fair game for overthrow.  This means that given conflicting legal principles the government, and probably most segments of the population will lean toward the interpretation that favours (perceived) national security rather than violation of civil rights (profiling).</sup>
     Conclusion?  Racial profiling in US international airports in probably legal. 


^{The "Human" Issue
     I'm going to do something I don't usually do.  I'm going to appeal to anecdotal emotional arguments to illustrate the issues here.  First a story about a family friend}


      I have a friend who is Egyptian-Canadian. He is quite successful and holds an executive position for a very large US firm, in the US. As part of his job he has to fly all over the US. After the airports reopened after 9-11, naturally he had to fly all over the US for business meetings. On one of his first post-9/11 flights he got up from his seat in the business section to use the lavatory. As he was making his way to the lavatory the stewardess yelled at him "you better sit your ass down or I'm gonna tackle yer ass!"
     There are so many things wrong with this scene it's hard to know where to begin. The basic issue is this, when you paint everybody from one group with the same brush, you end up with injustice to those who are innocent of any wrong doing. Do we really want to live in a society in which this occurs? What if, by chance, holding our personalities constant, those of us who have almost no pigment in our skins were born with higher levels of pigment? And/or were born into a family that believed in one set of beliefs (Islam) rather than other? To put it poetically, that would suck.

     But I'd like to counter this anecdotal argument with one of my own. When I lived in Japan, I lived in small and mid sized cities. In the non-cosmopolitan parts of Japan some business won't serve foreigners, apartments won't rent to you, and even video stores won't give you a membership. I'm not making this up. I lived it. But there were some instances where I felt this profiling was justified, and I even begrudgingly approved of it.

       In one of the towns where I lived there was only one night club, so if you wanted to go out, your options were limited. This night club would not let foreign men in without a Japanese friend that would "vouch" for you. At the door, you'd give your Foreigner ID card number and your Japanese friend would give his name. Sounds a bit much, doesn't it? The Japanese love of protocol and bureaucracy notwithstanding, what was this all about?

      Well, since the first foreigners came to Japan, they have for the most part acted like savages by drinking and fighting and abusing the women. The latest culprits are Brazilian imported labourers and US military personnel. If anyone has spent a night in Roppongi (the foreigners' nightclub district in Tokyo) you could not blame the Japanese for their policy. Roppongi is notorious for fights and drunken debauchery. I lived and worked in Roppongi for a year, at not once did I see a fight, or problem that involved a Japanese national, but I didn't observe a shortage of instances involving foreigners, especially US military.
      The was also a foreigners' bar in that same aforementioned mid-sized town. I saw plenty of fights there, all between foreigners.
     So, to wrap it up, I don't blame the Japanese for painting us white devils all with the same brush. Could I reasonably expect them, at a glance, to identify me as one of the "good" ones? In fact, when I went to the Japanese club with my Japanese friends I never had to worry about fights and drunken slobs. The atmosphere was much more pleasant, and even though it was a bit more trouble for me to get in, I benefited from the profiling. So, in an indirect way, this is an argument for profiling.
     There are of course many objections that can be raised. People don't have to go to night clubs but may have to travel for their business and livelihood; Japan is 97% ethic Japanese, US and A is not ethnically homogenous, and so on. This is true, but I only seek to illustrate a principle.
     So, is racial profiling ugly? Yup. But should national security policy be based on the "yuck" factor? Probably not. Have I lost the thread of my argument? Yup.
     I guess the human issue comes down to values. If racial profiling can be shown to be more effective than not in airport security, should we adopt it regardless of the undesirable consequences to a segment of the population? Or, phrased other way, do the negative consequences to a segment of the population outweigh potential increases in security efficacy?
     Lets use another anecdote to illustrate the point. The man who sold the tickets to some of the terrorists on one of the 911 flights felt suspicious about them. Something to do with the fact they they were wearing "poor man's shoes" but they had bought 1st class tickets, and of course they looked middle eastern. The three factors converged to raise the man's suspicions. Normally, in such a case, he'd walk the passengers over to security and give the security guys a signal to select them for a "random" security check. But on that day he didn't. He said he didn't because he didn't want people to think he was a racist. If his account is true, this man lives with the knowledge that he might have stopped a terrorist act.
     So where do we stand now? Having been subject to profiling (although, not as a terrorist, just as a barbarian) myself, given the history and other considerations I understood the why. On the other hand, my heart goes out to my friend. I certainly don't want anyone to have to go endure physical threats every time they get up to go to the bathroom. But that was an extreme case. No one is going around to Muslims now saying they are going to "tackle their ass". They are being pulled out of line to be searched more thoroughly. Annoying, yes. Humiliating and hateful? I'm not sure.
    Ok, this entry is getting too long to be a blog entry. I'm going to stop here and do a part 3, regarding empirical evidence of efficacy of methods later. Ta!ta!
    By the by, I'd love to hear what y'all think about this. I think it's a really interesting issue.

Airport Security and Racial Profiling

If found this post in my "drafts" page from when I first started this blog.  I guess I'd forgotten to press "publish".  Anyway, given the recent changes in airport security measures it seems serendipitous that I found it now... 


Wednesday January 27 2010

First of all, I obviously wasn't able to comply with my new schedule. Band rehearsal ended up being post-poned for 30min but I didn't know how long it was going to actually be when I started waiting. One of the guys in the band had to do a media interview so we couldn't start until it was done. Usually they like to do several takes so the duration of interviews is always unknown. While waiting I practised my stick toss. Then I was supposed to do a "meet and greet" after rehearsal, so I got ready and waited...and waited. I guess it got cancelled because the next thing I heard was 20min to curtain. Maybe tomorrow will go according to plan...HA!

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets all huffy about what I'm going to write, I want to say that this is a thought experiment. Policies that I find logically compelling I have trouble with on other grounds. Besides, this is my blog, and if you don't like it, go write your own! (or leave me angry comments...as you please!) One more thing: please feel free to exchange the word "freedom fighter" with "terrorist" depending the side for whom you feel the most political sympathy.

I listened to a really interesting interview on my favourite podcast "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe". It was about racial profiling for airport security. Although I'm not an airport security expert (big shock, I know) I'd always leaned toward racial and geographical profiling in this context. I know, I know, racial profiling is not something one should publicly support unless you are spend your afternoons in rocking chairs swatting flies and telling any newcomers to your neighbourhood "we don' like yur kahd 'round here". However, in the context of airport security there seems to be an intuitively strong case for it. If a given group that is identifiable racially and/or geographically openly declares that they will attempt acts of terrorism against you, does it not make intuitive sense to screen people that fit this profile a little more carefully than others? I know it's not fair for the innocent majority members of this group to be screened more that non-group members but who said security had to be fair?

The interviewee was an international airport security expert and he asserted unequivocally that racial profiling does not work for airport security. Airport security is much more effective when secondary screening is random. Apparently, this isn't even a debate amongst security experts. That's food for thought. The reason racial or geographic profiling doesn't work is because the terrorists already know what security is looking for, so they will send someone who doesn't meet the profile. For example, when Chechnian terrorists blew up two planes both bombers were women. The terrorists knew that Russian security rarely gives secondary screening to female passengers, so the obvious thing to do was to recruit women. Security will never see what it is not looking for and it is not difficult for the freedom fighters to know what airport security is looking for. When secondary security screening is done randomly, there is no way for the freedom fighters to anticipate who will be screen and on what grounds.

Basically, the way airport security operates now, almost by definition, cannot work because they are always fighting the last battle. When terrorists knew that shoes wouldn't be screened, they put da' bomb in da' shoe. When carry-ons were screened for solid explosives, the terrorists used liquids. When security started screening shoes, terrorists put da' bomb in da' underwear, and so on.

According to the security expert the solution is to take the resources (money and people) that are being wasted in "security theatre" and put it it intelligence gathering and the training of all airport employees to be able to do security interviews and learn to recognize suspicious behaviour. When it comes to profiling, behaviour profiling will yield better results so airport employees should be trained to be able to profile based on behaviour.

Why am I writing about airport security? A couple of reasons I guess. First is that I travel a lot so I directly suffer the consequences of onerous airport "security". Second, prior to listening to the interview I thought that racial profiling for airport security made sense from a logical point of view, although I was never quite comfortable with it's unintended side effects. Listening to the interview showed me my logic was flawed and I learned something new. Contrary to many people I actually enjoy when a belief I hold is methodically disproven with evidence. I like the feeling I get when I can discard an erroneous point of view. Third, I wrote this as a practice for when I'm back in school and I have to be able to assimilate and reproduce what a professor has said during a lecture. Finally, I thought that I there may be a chance that I am not the only one in my circle of friends who isn't a security expert and might also benefit from listening to what an expert has to say on the topic.

In the end, however, I agree with the security expert's arguments for measures that would lead to actual airport security but regarding racial profiling I'm not entirely convinced that it needs to be discarded entirely. I agree that racial profiling on it's own is not the best security method but I'm still unsure why his method would have to exclude racial profiling. I still think that from a purely logical point of view, in cases where there is a racially and/or geographically identifiable group that overtly promises to attempt terrorist acts, there is a reasonable case for profiling. Here's an grossly oversimplified example to illustrate the principle: Imagine you lived in a country where everybody had 5 eyes and there was a country of people with 3 eyes. A group of people from your country, because they harbour grievances against the 3-eyed people, openly declare on behalf of all 5-eyed people (but without consulting you) that they will attempt acts of violence against 3-eyed people. Would it not be reasonable for the 3-eyed people to regard any 5-eyed person with suspicion? How can the 3-eyed people reasonably discern who are the terrorists among the 5-eyed people in their airports? I suppose they could conduct lengthy interviews with each passenger, regardless of the number of eyes: it would be effective and fair, but security wait lines would take even longer than now. Or you can just secondarily screen all people with 5 eyes.

It sounds good in the over simplified example and establishes the principle but racial profiling on it's own might not translate too well in the complex real world of US airport security. First of all, there are several examples of home grown, white terrorists (McVeigh, Unibomber), so if you are only secondarily screening Arabs, the home grown crazies can easily slip through. Also, and this may come as a shock to most of you, but Americans are largely ignorant when it comes to distinguishing between Hindus, Arabs, Israelis, Turks, and other darker skinned people or knowing who their political allies are. An Israeli friend of mine that I work with told me a funny/sad story that happened shortly after 9/11. He was talking to a group of girls who were either in the military or who's husbands were in the military. They asked him were he was from because he has an accent. When he told them "Israel" one of them yelled "you better get the fuck away from us before I try to kick you ass"! Yup, somehow the "subtle" political distinction between the Israelis and Arabs escaped her keen military mind....(by the way, for my American friends reading this---as defined by the state department, the Israelis are your friends!) Anyway, you'd probably have better luck training airport security personnel methods of behavioural profiling rather than trying to undo a life time of ignorance :)

So, where am I going with all this unnecessary rambling? I'm not sure. Maybe something like this: scanning bags, shoes, etc.. has benefits, but by itself it's not the best solution. It probably acts more as a deterrent to the average crazy person than to the well organized, highly motivated terrorist. Behavioural profiling and intelligence gathering are the security expert's methods of choice but it's going to be years before current staff are adequately trained and intelligence networks put in place. Racial profiling is far from perfect but if there are members of an identifiable group that overtly announce their violent intentions, it is not unreasonable to check people that fit the profile.

As one of my heros, Mark Crislip says, please post your comments and hate mail below, I'd love to hear from you"!