Profiling, a Defense

Yishai Ha'etzni writes in the New York Post:

But in a perfect example of the complexity of profiling, a pregnant woman traveling alone roused the suspicions of security officials. They inspected her bags more closely and discovered a sheet of Semtex explosives under a false bottom. Unbeknownst to Murphy, her fiancé, Nizar Hindawi, had intended to kill her and their unborn child along with the other passengers on the plane.

Unfortunately, the rise in terrorist assaults on Israeli public transportation, entertainment venues and public spaces necessitated that the airport security model be implemented in those areas as well — for one simple reason: it works better than anything else.

This example of the pregnant woman illustrates the insufficiency of the pro- and anti-profiling arguments. Profiling is what you do subconsciously when you are well versed in the tactics of your enemy, it is not something you do knowingly, or, if it is, it will not be effective because the particular ways of attack will always be more numerous than what can stay in the front of your mind.

Profiling, then, is a skill, not a policy, and it needs and demands training.

Robert Redford, in the movie Spy Game, says:

Every room, every picture, every situation is a snapshot - I'm checking the room, memorising, people what there're wearing, and ask the question: What's wrong with this picture? Anything suspect? You got to see it, assess it and dismiss most of it without looking, without thinking...

The pro-profiling crowd is all deduction. Arab men hit us before, lets look for Arab men. It is the same complaint we've had about American generals, that they are always fighting the last war.

If profiling is to be serious and successful, we have to teach it as a skill. We aren't going to prevent an attack through painting by the numbers. We need to hone the senses of the screeners, and above all, we need to encourage induction.