"Belly Bomb" Threat Could Encourage Profiling by TSA, Says Expert

An administration which is concerned enough to issue official warnings about al-Quida's plans to surgically implant bombs in suicide passengers may want to reconsider its reluctance to adopt terrorist profiling, says legal expert
 
July 7, 2011 - PRLog -- An administration which is concerned enough to issue official warnings about al-Quida's plans to surgically implant bombs in suicide passengers may want to reconsider its reluctance to adopt terrorist profiling - a system which uses factors like ethnicity, national origin, sex, and age - especially since a detailed mathematical analysis shows that it substantially increases the likelihood of stopping terrorists, as well as reducing needless searches of low-risk passengers like toddlers and elderly Asian women.

Moreover, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Department of Justice have said that using such factors is constitutional, provided that factors such as ethnicity and sex are not the sole criteria for enhanced searching, but rather are used along with other recognized factors like nervousness and using one-way tickets, says law professor John Banzhaf, a public interest lawyer who is also a well known mathematician.

"Despite the very grave risk that terrorists will be able to bring bombs on board aircraft - either surgically implanted in their bodies, or in other devious ways - too many people still oppose sharpening the criteria for enhanced searches by using obvious factors like ethnicity, religion, sex and age along with other more traditional factors, even though it's perfectly constitutional and substantially increases the chances of stopping dangerous terrorists," says Banzhaf.

A detailed mathematical study says that the current TSA screening policy of treating everyone the same - providing the same screening for young Arabic or Muslim males as for toddlers and elderly Asian women - is not an efficient way of stopping potential terrorists, and that the effectiveness of the procedure could be improved substantially by giving added scrutiny to passengers based upon factors like age, gender, and ethnicity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0813202106.a...

Under such a system, TSA screeners would use ethnicity, age, and sex as factors in deciding whom to select for enhanced screening, especially of the kind which might detect implanted bombs. These would be used in combination with other factors, and would only increase the changes of an additional search, not mandate one in each case where a factor was present.  On the other hand, toddlers, elderly women, etc. would be less likely to be selected for enhanced screening, although a few would still be subjected to it at random.

This could substantially reduce the intrusiveness of screening for many passengers, especially those in very low-risk categories like toddlers, older women, pilots and flight attendants, etc., says Banzhaf, whose work in creating the mathematical tool known as the Banzhaf Index has led to many different awards.  Intrusive searches of very low-risk passengers, such as toddlers and elderly diaper-wearing women, and groping by TSA inspectors, has aroused great public concern.

Banzhaf, who is a Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, notes that the Supreme Court and the Justice Department have both said that it is constitutional for government employees to consider factors like age, gender, religion, or ethnicity, provided that it serves a "compelling state interest" like preventing terrorist bombings, and is considered along with other factors (e.g., nervousness, suspicious behavior, etc.).
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_...

"Terrorist profiling is not the same as racial profiling.  The latter is illegal because it is based upon only one factor, whereas using religion, age, and gender along with other factors in selecting passengers for added security screening is not only constitutional but logical according to a precise mathematical analysis."

This mathematical study, explains Banzhaf, has shown that using factors like age, gender, and ethnicity in airport and other screenings to reduce terrorism can substantially increase their effectiveness, but only if the "Goldilocks" approach of  "not too much and not too little" is used.  More specifically, "square-root biased sampling" procedures should single out those meeting a terrorist profile for extra scrutiny, but only in proportion to the square root of their propensity to be terrorists.

Banzhaf notes that, at least on international flights, the TSA already has used a form of terrorist profiling, but not a very efficient one.  The operating procedures manual accidentally posted some time ago on the Internet by the TSA shows that the agency was using both ethnicity and religion, at least indirectly, as factors in screening. The manual instructs TSA screeners to automatically select, for secondary screening, all citizens of 12 named countries. Aside from 2 Communist nations, all of the others have large Muslim populations, including 8 which are at least 90% Muslim, and most are Arabic. This hardly seems to be just a coincidence.

But since all travelers from these countries are automatically singled out for secondary screening, the system fails to distinguish between toddlers or elderly women from the suspect country on the one hand, and young males from these same countries on the other.  Thus elderly women, young children, and others from these countries less unlikely to pose any threat are automatically singled out simply because of their country of origin: virtually all Muslim and most Arabic.

In any event, it does not appear that the TSA is openly using any terrorist profiling to provide added scrutiny to those who potentially pose a higher risk on domestic flights, which is where much of the recent controversy over intrusive searches seems to be taking place.

Banzhaf argues that terrorist profiling is logical but not stigmatizing.  He notes that, if he as a white man were visiting South Africa at a time when a white supremacist  group was actively trying to place suicide bombers on airplanes, he would hope that white males would be singled out for enhanced screening, and that blacks would be less likely to be subjected.  "I would feel much safer and not stigmatized." he says.

Moreover, since airport screeners would not have to spend as much time screening black passengers - who are extremely unlikely to sacrifice themselves for the cause of white supremacy - the time it would take for him to go through the security checkpoints would also be much smaller, he argues.

Prof. Banzhaf was made a Fellow of the World Technology Network, and was awarded an honorary doctorate by Thomas Jefferson University, for his work combining math and law.  His contributions to Game Theory were recognized by Newsweek magazine in "The Games Scholars Play" [9/6/82], in Paulos, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (The New York Time Book Review concluded "Mr. Paulos's little essay explaining the Banzhaf Index . . is itself worth the price of the book."), and in many other books, newspaper editorials, and Congressional hearings.  For additional information on this topic, see:

Math Can Prevent Terrorist Deaths:
http://www.prlog.org/10815871
Stopping Airline Bombings May Require Terrorism Profiling - Screening by Ethnicity/Religion is Both Effective and Legal:
http://www.pr-inside.com/print1646255.htm
TSA Uses Profiling, But Inefficiently - Simple Fix Would Make It Better and Fairer:
http://www.pr-inside.com/print1647733.htm
TSA Stepping Up Religious/Ethnic Profiling, Legally -- But It's Ineffective:
http://www.prlog.org/10477184
TSA Discriminates, But Inefficiently - Risks Lives and Wasting Resources:
http://www.prlog.org/10470771

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
Creator, Banzhaf Index of Voting Power
2000 H Street, NW, Suite S402
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/

# # #

John F. Banzhaf III is a Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School [http://banzhaf.net/] where he is best known for his work regarding smoking [http://ash.org/], obesity [http://banzhaf.net/obesitylinks.html], etc.
End
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf News
Trending
Most Viewed
Daily News



Like PRLog?
9K2K1K
Click to Share