Posted on 07/27/2005 2:46:11 PM PDT by Chris_Shugart
Random Searches: A Sucker Bet
By Chris Shugart, 26 July, 05
One of the most interesting classes I ever took in school was a math class called Probability. I enjoyed playing poker in high school and I knew that successful gamblers knew how to play the odds. I thought it would be cool to be able to mathematically calculate different probability scenarios in different situations, and know how to get those numbers to work in my favor.
I though about this when the subject of profiling came up again in light of the recent efforts to step up security in our public transportation systems. Police in New York City will now be searching passengers before they board subways, buses, ferries and commuter railroads. Unfortunately these will be random searches and therefore will not be effective other than slowing down traffic.
The Random Search Method is the investigative procedure of choice of politically correct liberals and skittish conservatives who think that it’s unfair to point out that we’re at war with a select breed of radical Muslims of largely Middle Eastern descent. For the timid politician, the idea of profiling is so politically charged that no one dares speak its name. Instead, security personnel must conform to misguided policy that’s more public relations than public security.
The current method of conducting random searches is simply bad math, and most people intuitively know it. Anyone who supports the idea of random searches is only forwarding the false notion that all travelers have an equally likely chance of committing a terrorist act. Yet we know in real statistical numbers, this is not the case.
How does one logically explain the aversion to using statistical data to guide a plan of action? In other walks of life, such an approach would be considered good thinking. Does the successful investor pick stocks at random, or does he choose one based on an analysis of current trends? On third-and-long, does the defensive football coach close his eyes and pull a play out of his hat, or does he go with the percentages and look for a pass play?
Any intelligent person understands that when the odds are in your favor, you’re going to win more times than you lose. Yet political correctness is forcing us to go against what we know is beyond dispute: profiling potential terrorist suspects based on what we already know about them is going to get a better result than any system that uses random factors. It’s a mathematical fact.
In probability terms, random searches might be more foolish than trying to draw an inside straight. It’s certainly more deadly.
While we’re still in wagering mode, I want to put all my chips on the table right here and now. And I want an ACLU hand-wringer to step up and do the same. I will stake my security guard who uses profiling, against your politically correct security guard who only conducts searches at random. I will bet any amount of money that my security guard will produce more evidence and leads on possible terrorist activity than yours will. Winner takes all.
Is that fair? Not really. In fact, you might say it’s the opposite. By using profiling data, security personnel are gaining an unfair advantage over potential terrorists. In sports it’s called gaining an edge over your opponent. In Las Vegas it’s called playing the odds. In warfare it’s called military strategy.
I don’t know what’s wrong with liberals when it comes to national security. Don’t they want the country to be safe? Are they so locked into their left-wing mindset that they can’t use their common sense? Maybe their problem is simpler than that. Maybe liberals never learned to play poker.
Everything.
I think you just answered your own question...
Association of Independent Voters? Doesn't sound too independent.
What doesn't have something to do with math?
Poll time. How many more American civilians will have to be slaughtered by murderous Islamic lunatics before we get serious and start seraching all Islamic men between 18 and 50 who look and act suspicious? My bet is 3,000 - 5,000 more innocent Americans must die.
Place your bets...
It is very simple . . . a bureaucrat named Mineta.
Your theory sounds good, but if we started only searching people of Middle-Eastern descent, how hard would it be for the terrorists to send in someone who is fair-skinned or even a white American? They would be pretty much guaranteed not to get searched. Granted, they would probably have trouble finding someone like that, but it wouldn't be the first time either.
I started thinking about why I was singled out so far in advance -- it wasn't random at all; usually people are pulled aside once they get near the screening area.
I figured it out today. I changed my seat assignments on my flight online the night before, so I could get a seat with more leg-room -- the emergency exit aisle.
Obviously, the airline computers are programmed now to track such late adjustments to seating near critical areas of the plane. I think that is wise, in this situation.
I smilingly shook my head and one of the TSA clowns gave me a sheepish shrug.
It was her turn, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.