more on NYC to search transit riders' bags -- but ...

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: anitaclaremadsen () netscape net (anitaclaremadsen)
Date: July 24, 2005 7:38:42 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] more on NYC to search transit riders' bags -- but ...


Please withhold my name:

Would the rules of mathematical probability change if authorities  
were to remove an unlikely group from the screening pool? E.g., until/ 
unless terrorists are capable of recruiting and training middle-aged  
and older, white females to be suicide bombers, I fail to see the  
logic in random screening which includes this group. Or is this  
simply too politically incorrect to be considered rationally? If  
advertisers are better at targeting their demographic markets than  
anti-terrorist agencies, we are in deep trouble indeed.




David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brad Templeton <btm () templetons com>
> Date: July 24, 2005 5:08:38 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: Rick.Adams () Cello Net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on NYC to search transit riders' bags --  
> but ...
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:20:31AM -0400, David Farber wrote:
>
>
> > If:
> >     "truly random searches are likely to be more effective
> >     than searches that follow a system."
> >
> > then it clearly follows that systematic searches are likely to be
> > less effective
> > than random searches, which means that systematic searches will
> > likely perform worse than just getting lucky.
> >
> > Somehow I continue to not be reassured...
>
> Random or selected searches are not really a means of catching
> attacks.   They are a deterrent, or a means of increasing the
> cost of attacks.  If the attackers fear being caught, the random
> search (or even the selected search they haven't figured a way around)
> in theory should deter them from attacking at all -- if their view of
> the risk of capture is high enough.
>
> If they are suicide attackers, they don't so much fear getting caught
> and punished as they fear wasting themselves/being wasted and  
> attaining
> nothing.   One severeley hopes that suicide attackers are a scarce
> resource for the terrorists(*).   Random searches may convince them
> to use those resources elsewhere -- which is about the most anybody
> can do.
>
> Random searches and a fast communications system could also prevent
> the "coordinated" attack strategy, where the killers discover a
> weakness,
> and do several attacks at once, as in 9/11, 7/7, 3/11 etc.  In
> this case, if you send 20 armed hijackers on to planes, it's extremely
> likely the random searches would find one of them, and sound the alarm
> for greater scrutiny that stops all 20 of them.
>
> (Consider that even if you search as few as one passenger in 30, the
> odds
> are 50-50 that you will find one, and then all, of a 20 person  
> team. If
> you search one passenger in 10, there's only a 12% chance the team of
> 20 could get through.)
>
> In fact, only with non-random scrutiny can the team of 20 hijackers  
> feel
> they have a chance, something that's quite counter-intuitive.  Once
> the evil organization has identified 20 operatives who do not trigger
> the flags of selective scrutiny, they can now mount their operation  
> with
> some confidence.  With truly random selection they can not do this, it
> inherently limits the size of the group.
>
>
> (*)One of the most bizrre elements of London 7/7 was that the  
> murderers
> used suicide bombing when there is almost no tactical need to kill
> yourself
> to blow up a train compartment.  It seems they were sent to kill
> themselves
> almost entirely for the shock value, and perhaps to make sure they
> could not
> be caught.
>
> They seem to want to show us that suicide attackers are so plentiful
> that
> they can be wasted.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as anitaclaremadsen () netscape net
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


--
Cheeries, Anita


__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/ 
register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/