Warp wrote:
>   Well, that was kind of my point: If the store clerk is not assuming your
> guilt, nor is the guard at the airport, what makes a policeman checking
> someone's ID different?

Because it's not your behavior triggering it.

If you don't want the clerk to see your ID, pay cash or walk away.

If you don't want your bags inspected, don't take bags on the plane, or 
don't take a bag at all.

How do you avoid having the policeman ask for proof of legal residence? And 
do you get to walk away if he asks and you refuse?

I can't believe you're not seeing the difference here.

>> Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.
> 
>   You mean that in the US the police can construct criminal profiles on
> everything else *except* skin color? Hair color is ok, as well as eye
> color, the color of clothes... but not skin color?

No.  Features irrelevant to the commission of crimes aren't to be used to 
stop people.

Note that there's a difference between profiling in the "serial killers are 
more often white males" case than in the "pull over white males and ask if 
they killed someone" case.  The difference is that in the first, you're 
*reducing* the number of innocent people you bother, and in the second 
you're *increasing* the number of innocent people you bother.

>   Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if that really is so, it seems
> like a real hindrance to police work, in the name of political correctness.

No, in the name of reducing racism.

>>>   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
>>> to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
>>> the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
>>> concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
>>> Nobody is crying sexism because of that.
> 
>> Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.
> 
>   You mean there are people who are complaining about the police investigating
> only males in rape cases?
> 
>>>   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
>>> profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
>>> ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
>>> feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
>>> toilet. Sheesh.
> 
>> You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
>> ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
>> those to make hiring decisions.
> 
>   Ok, I think we are using a different meaning of the word "profiling".
> It's possible I have understood the term wrongly.
> 
>   I have heard about criminal profilers on the police force who try to
> get a picture of what kind of person the criminal might be based on the
> available clues, and this can include things like ethnicity (such as
> for example "serial killers are typically white middle-aged males"),
> but maybe that's just in TV series and movies?
> 
>   If making a criminal profile based on ethnicity is illegal, does that
> mean that the police cannot say things like "serial killers are typically
> white males"?
> 
>> Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
>> to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
>> the night, just for safety's sake.
> 
>   I assume you are exaggerating. I have hard time believing there are
> enough policemen to do that.
> 


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message