Attacks in Paris Reignite Interest in Legal Terrorist Profiling

WASHINGTON - Nov. 17, 2015 - PRLog -- The terrorist attacks in Paris have reignited interest among many political leaders and others in possibly using targeted terrorist profiling in screening people allowed to fly into the United States, and perhaps also in screening refugees for admission to this country.

        Such targeted terrorist profiling - as distinguished from racial or ethic profiling - is constitutional, and has been proven to substantially increase the effectiveness of the screening process, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who is also a leading mathematical game theorist.

        Governor Jeb Bush stated that the U.S. should “absolutely” be profiling in order to prevent Islamic terrorists from being admitted to the U.S.  Senator Ted Cruz Sunday said the U.S. should accept Christian refugees but not Muslims.  Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, said "This is not profiling. This is common-sense policing we have to do." Donald Trump said he would “strongly consider” shutting down some mosques.

        Fortunately there is a simple way to substantially increase the effectiveness of screening techniques to detect terrorists, and to do so by taking into account factors like religion in a constitutional manner - targeted terrorist profiling compared with racial or ethnic profiling - argues Banzhaf.

        Thus targeted terrorist profiling could be far more effective than simple religious profiling, and fail to detect far fewer security risks, if the profiling included several factors which are perfectly legal, and if it were done in accordance with what mathematics shows is the best way, claims Banzhaf.

        Fortunately, there is a well established mathematics of selection and testing which is used thousands of times every day to detect everything from rare genetic disorders to manufacturing defects on an assembly line, says Banzhaf, a mathematician who created a statistical tool called the “Banzhaf Index.”

        Not surprisingly, the screening technique is based in large part on concentrating searches where one is most likely to find a problem, rather than ineffectively treating all subjects equally, or varying scrutiny in many situations based on age or gender, but ignoring ethnicity, religion, and national origin.

        Targeted terrorist screening is clearly effective, says Banzhaf, noting other areas where targeted screening is commonly used. Screening for Tay-Sacks disease is concentrated on Jews, and for sickle-cell anemia on African Americans; two common situations in which targeted screening has long been used.


        Applied to situations like airport screening for terrorists, a detailed mathematical study shows that treating all passengers equally - and selecting elderly Asian females and toddlers for secondary screening no more frequently than young Muslim males - is illogical as well as inefficient in stopping terrorist attacks.


        Instead, the mathematical study shows that certain groups known to present a statistically higher risk than others should be selected for heightened pre-boarding screening more frequently - a frequency determined not just by age and gender, but also by ethnicity, religion, and national origin.  In this way, scarce resources are most effectively concentrated where the greatest chance of a problem lies.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that factors such as race and ethnicity - much less religion, gender and age - can be used in making selections, provided that it serves a compelling governmental interest, and that it is not the only factor used. That's why state universities may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity in their admissions process, notes Banzhaf.

        Even the U.S. Justice Department has proclaimed that, while factors like race cannot ever be used in criminal investigations unless there is a clearly identified individual suspect of that background, race and similar factors may constitutionally be considered in preventing terrorist attacks and screening persons entering the U.S., even if there is no specific suspect, provided only that it is not the only criteria considered.

        In the case of terrorists, Banzhaf suggests, these other criteria might include not just age and gender, but also dress,, certain behaviors; all in addition to age and gender.

        If members of groups with a higher risk potential were singled out more frequently for secondary screening, everyone would benefit, including even members of those very groups. We would be more likely to stop potential terrorists and at a far lower cost, and even innocent young Muslim males would benefit because lines - and the waiting time on them - would be much shorter for everyone (including for young Muslim males) because of the inspection time now being spent on most low risk passengers.

        Everyone is concerned about not being blown up, and also about not missing their plane because of inspection delays. Concentrating inspections on those most likely to be involved in complex terrorist conspiracies would benefit the great majority of young Muslim males who are law abiding, since it would increase their chances of not dying, and also of not missing their flight due to security delays.

        Similar targeted terrorist screening techniques might also be applied in establishing priorities and criteria for admission to the U.S., says Banzhaf, because the same analysis would seemingly apply.