Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (16370)	7/1/2002 10:19:52 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

I'll bet I beat you to this one. Good get.

To: E who wrote (16370)	7/1/2002 11:39:45 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Great article, E. This bit struck me: What we need is not profiling but smart profiling. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations is among the leading homeland-security experts in the country. Flynn argues that you start with reverse profiling. People who are low risk should be ?precleared.? When you buy your ticket, the airline asks the FBI to run your name through its database. If you come out clean, you go through a ?green line.? That way the inspections process can focus on the much smaller group of people about whom the government has either suspicions or too little information?the ?red line.? (Every one of the September 11 hijackers would have had to go through such a red line had it been in place.) ?That narrows the field,? says Flynn, ?not in a dumb way as race or religion would, but in a smart way.? Flynn argues that above all else, interrogation and intuition are what works. ?The Feds need to be able to observe and talk to the small number of suspicious people rather than doing broad or random searches,? he says. ?Behavior is usually the giveaway, in terrorism as in crime.? I'm not sure about the pre-clearance idea. It seems too easy to switch bags or plant small explosives in bags without a stressed-out passenger knowing what's going on. Another point raised in the article was the opinion that the US has received too many warnings of possible attacks after 9-11, resulting in confusion. I don't think this is true. Would be interested in hearing others' thoughts about it, though.