Yesterday's entry on Veteran's Day and the previous entry about the tragedy at Fort Hood morphed into a discussion on profiling. Profiling is "identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of crime and the way it was committed" (http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling.htm). Other examples of profiling include predictive and racial. Predictive profiling attempts to construct a framework that identifies people who are likely to commit a crime while racial profiling, the more controversial profiling, bases a framework on consideration of the perpetrator's skin color alone.
In the wake of the rampage at Fort Hood many feel that political correctness is hampering the ability of law enforcement and the intelligence community's ability to establish profiles. While racial profiling gets the most press there is a need for profiling. Robert Clarke proposed a definition of profiling as "a technique whereby a set of characteristics of a particular class of persons is inferred from past experience, and data-holdings are then searched for individuals with a close fit to that set of characteristics" (http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PaperProfiling.html). The definition proposed by Clarke makes sense as it is applicable not only to law enforcement but to marketers as well.
I recall the adage of learning from history to ensure mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future. The question is how do we as a society, a free society, establish and apply profiles without trampling on the rights of people afforded them by the United States Constitution. A byproduct of our free society is that we must accept the unsavory elements of society's right to assemble and voice their unpopular views. A friend of mine on Facebook commented that, in response to my entry on Fort Hood, by saying that my suggestion of profiling is "McCarthyism at its finest. Anyone that thinks/speaks/acts differently is targeted. And acting in this way would infringe upon several amendments to the constitution, not the least of which is the 1st amendment. It's not illegal to have radical ideas. It's illegal to incite others to violent acts through your words. And given that Hasan was a citizen, he is entitled to all the protections the constitution offers. This is why his communications with the radical Imam were disregarded. And it's the same rights that are afforded [you] and I."
I agree with my friend that the United States Constitution protects radical speech. At the same time I argue the fact that predictive profiling is needed to protect society. Benjamin Franklin quipped; "Those who forego essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither" was aptly applied to the conversation by the same Facebook friend that raised the issue above. That being said, how do we develop predictive profiles without infringing on the rights of American citizens to assemble, speak, and associate with others without fear of retribution from the government? Or is profiling an affront to the principles our Founding Fathers instilled in the United States Constitution?
First of all, I hope you can segregate anonymous commenters on this blog because some of them hold too disrespectful of a tone and I don't want to be characterized by that.
ReplyDeleteNow...as you probably know, racial/religious profiling will never disappear entirely. Much like rasicm, we will always have some trickle of people who will link horrible events to a stereotype of someone and something will ensue.
However, I believe that we need to completely tone down rhetoric that surrounds the Islamic faith. Our world-wide connections reach everyone up to the radical people in Islam and only inflames the anger and passion that they have against us. That in turn recruits more members of their radical ideals.
I have asked in the past if you would want to be profiled...your response was that if you didn't actually commit a crime then you would have no problem with it.
That is a ridiculous answer-once may be OK. But if this was an ongoing thing, like if you had different colored skin or wore a Sikh turban or dressed of Saudi descent, it wouldn't be just once that you were pulled over or questioned. The reality is that you would feign some sort of resentment for a government agency that did this. As I said, behavior like this for any government agency to do only eboldens those who think that every American is racist towards them. That our hatred towards their culture is a hatred towards their God, and they call us ifidels because of it.
I like a more technology driven approach that watches people, everybody. Truthfully a lot of the technology is there to monitor people without the serious inconvenience of one-on-one profiling. Currently, technology is available in lots of different countries that would enable a world-wide sharing of data. It can be easily done without the risk of seriously offending those peaceful people who come here to contribute to our society.
The risk of terrorism in your back yard is almost miniscule. But to TV networks it is ratings gold. And I think that is somewhat of the problem. I think terrorism wins somewhat when our reaction to it is panic and distrust of foreign-looking people.
Thank you for your time
Unfortunately I am unable to discern betwenen the anonymous postings unless the poster designates in some manner. None the less, I don't lump people into the bucket that you are leary of being apart of.
ReplyDeleteI agree that profiling can be abused when people who harbor ill will toward a segment of society. I am sure I am being profiled as we speak through the type of words I choose and the topic I speak on in my blog.
Major Hasan warned people during this powerpoint presentation at Walter Reed that the profile established on the Islamic ideology was flawed. As a former classmate of mine pointed out in another thread, the profiling has assisted those in the Middle East to identify potential threats.
Can we as a society make proper use of profiles without trampling on ones right to associate, assemble, and participate with people without fear of retribution by government?