I support requiring something akin to an amateur radio license to operate high powered parametric ultrasonic speakers.
No one actually cares about the sunk cost fallacy.
I'm still yet to figure out what they achieved by seizing my backpack (that had all of my personal documentation) and damaging my brand new MBP 2016 and Pixel tablet (by very clearly dropping them a dozen times) had to do with security. Especially when they lied about putting it on the plane and I arrived at Ben Gurion with literally nothing other than a passport in one pocket and a dead phone in the other.
El Al's actions say the opposite about what you say about Israelis: El Al clearly believes that they are better at what they do than the IDF or Ben Gurion airport security, so they take it upon themselves (as private citizens) to pick up the slack. For what it's worth, the woman who interviewed me at Ben Gurion didn't have a lot of nice things to say about El Al either.
Fortunately I was in Israel for 4 months, so a minor inconvenience in the scheme of things, but still, seemed a bit over the top...until I stepped out of the airport and saw teenagers wielding machine guns (serving in military), the Israelis aren't messing around ;-)
If you're Israeli I'd imagine the security measures aren't nearly as stringent.
They promised they'd put it on the plane and they didn't. I got it two or three days later as El Al doesn't fly during Shabbat.
Sure, it may offend people to include race, it's not required. EX: People without children are a higher risk than those with children. On it's own not a big deal, and you can't trust any one thing, but screening even 1 in 3 people is still vastly cheaper than everyone.
In the end we can be just as effective without including race if we simply spend more money to profile more people. Making more people suffer for little gain vs. standing up for your principles is less clear cut than people want to admit. Still, both options are viable.
It does seem more fair to simply put everyone through the same process. If you're annoyed at why you (an innocent) have to be subjected to such stringent and time consuming security, that's how innocents who fit "the profile" might feel as well.
If we examine the background of anyone who has ever committed terrorism, every major race and religion would be covered. And so much of crime comes from social context, so at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat. You can take any race and put them in a hostile, violent context and see them either continue the violence or die.
Or, if you say the majority of terrorists are men, so let's stop profiling women, I'm sure you would find more women committing terrorism. Then are women the greater threat or is it simply that we've made it harder for men to be terrorists?
I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics.
> "so much of crime comes from social context"
Agreed. This is why I advocate taking that context into account. Not profiling would mean treating every single individual the exact same way, removing all social context from consideration.
> at what point could you ever say: it's safe to assume that anyone with X ethnic background is not a threat
This is not the point of profiling. The point is to build probability distributions, and hone them.
> I don't see a way to profile without affecting the statistics.
This is literally the point! You want to profile on such an exacting superset of factors (behavior, history, autonomous responses, forensics...) that you cause the incidence rate of terrorism to go down, across the board.
A brittle policy like "only screen middle eastern men" will of course get gamed, but that is terrible profiling. It builds a one-dimensional "profile"--you want a profile that is harder to fool, and based on actual behavioral cues.
I mean maybe if the profiling is being done by robots, but in reality I have my doubts.
If that's not the case, would you mind providing some details about your own experience, since you mentioned being pulled aside repeatedly?
With El Al, you're interrogated before you board the plane. When you go to check in, there is a "pre check-in" where you show staff your passport and they check your name off against a paper list. That paper list would already indicate whether or not you're going to be interrogated and at what level.
My coworker flying with me was also red flagged, and he was explicitly told it was because of my country of birth and that he was flying with me.
He had much less of a rough time than me, though, where I was being interrogated over where I got the 100 shekels they found in my wallet (apparently exchanging a nominal amount of Aussie dollars for shekels at Sydney airport "just in case" astounded El Al security, and it was much more likely that there was something much more sinister going on).
The interrogation interests me. It sounds you don't feel it was useful? I had heard about this kind of interrogation over mundane stories, and understood it as a way of "testing" individuals' stories (especially under duress). But that would depend on it being repeated/prodded thoroughly, which it seems isn't the case.
If you're a regular guy, you're likely to react by becoming bored and tired. If you're doing sinister stuff, there is a chance that you might start to stress out from the interaction. I believe similar techniques are used when screening people for government security clearances using a polygraph. They seem to push people hard and accuse them of lying. I can only assume it's with the intent of causing legitimately guilty people to "crack".
I am not trying to justify the practice, just speculating about the purported rationale. Not a very fun experience as an innocent person.
The takeaway I got is that they just don't want people to visit Israel and made it as difficult as possible for me (which involved taking away my personal documentation, such as my invitation letter and copies of my citizenship, to give me a tough time when I got to Ben Gurion).
It was bizarre.
But then, I'm Jewish Israeli, so I don't have a lot of first-person experience with the full interrogation experience, just second-hand accounts from both sides of the table.
They tried to intimidate me with their faux "all seeing eye" - asking about whether or not I trained judo (in reference to the jiu-jitsu Gi I had in my luggage) but aside from that, the questions about the shekels in my wallet and also taking issue with the rubber waistband on my pants, they didn't really ask about anything else. The shekels thing and the issue they took with it was just absurd.
It was really just civilian employees on a power trip trying to mess with me... because they can.
Is this what Canadian border guards are supposed to be doing? I hate dealing with them, and therefore minimize my border crossings. I just want to pour money into the Canadian economy as a tourist from time to time, and actual Canadian cops (RCMP) are much less aggressive than their US counterparts, but the border crossing is almost always unnecessarily miserable.
Surely that's a feature, not a bug, when the police have to deal with civil rights protesters. Recall the dogs, batons, and water cannons of the south.
Why can countries like South Korea, Taiwan or Japan provide public services like roads, internet infrastructure, police and healthcare at an incredibly small fraction of the cost that is lightyeaes ahead in quality and competency (for the 99%)?
please elaborate
What I meant in my comment was something else though - that strong individual liberty/independence causes difficulties in coordinating people on large-scale infrastructural projects. I.e. by the time you get through all the lawsuits and payouts, your new rail line takes 10x time to build and costs 20x the money a less liberal country would need to spend.
Some back of the envelope calculations:
Length of US/Canada border: 8,890km [1] Population of Canada: 36,708,083 [2]
Assuming ALL of Canada's population lives within 100km of this border a rough estimate of this area might be 889,000km^2 giving a population density of 41 people per square kilometre. This conservative estimate is in the same ballpark as the US population density of 33 people per square kilometre [3] with the caveat that this population is spread across a long, thin 9000 km ribbon increasing the cost of roads and any other infrastructure versus the US's more favourable shape. And let's not forget that Canada's GDP per capita is $46,437 while America's is $57,467 [4]. This is a factor of 1.24 in favour of the United States.
Given all this, why is the US incapable of providing the kind of single-payer healthcare that Canada does to its population?
[1] https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-...
[2] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/f...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
You make a good point about policing. Density wouldn't explain why policing in Tokyo is better and cheaper than in New York.
The rest of the country isn't paying for a thing in NYC - it's the other way around. Just leave us more of our own tax money and we could do all sorts of things that aren't currently considered possible.
At (roughly) what number of people does that argument stop working? 5M? 500K? 50K? 5?
I see people in this thread doing what Muckrock likely desired and getting all worked up because the police used an LRAD, but I also see that it was used as an announcement system not as a loosely-targeted weapon. Does its use for announcements carry dangers that aren't clear to those of us without technical knowledge of it?
Even when an parametric speaker is playing 'silence', it is probably blasting 120dB of ultrasound. Soundlazer's faq on Kickstarted mentioned this explicitly: "...you will be hit with 120.5Db of sound pressure that you can't hear! It starts hurting your ears after 10 minutes."