Warp wrote:
>   I think that you are seeing a difference because you are assuming a racist
> motivation for the ID check in the last case. 

No. I'm seeing a difference because in the first two cases, you're doing 
something that triggers the ID check, and refusing the ID check simply means 
you don't get to do that which requires an ID check.

In the last case, you're doing nothing that would trigger an ID check other 
than simply being, and refusing the ID check means you go to jail.

 > Do you deem it completely
> implausible for the police to check someone's ID for other reasons than
> racism?

Not at all. We call it "probable cause."  Police check ID all the time. They 
just don't do it *randomly*, nor do they do it based on your facial 
features, your clothing style, etc.

>> No.  Features irrelevant to the commission of crimes aren't to be used to 
>> stop people.
> 
>   "Stopping people" and "profiling" aren't the same thing.

If you use profiling to *not* arrest innocent people, nobody complains. 
Police do that all the time.  "Look, he's of the profile of people who 
aren't speeding. Let's not stop him."   "Look, he's of the profile of people 
who were in a different country when the store was robbed. Let's not 
question him."

>> 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.
> 
>   I don't see how you are increasing the number of innocent people being
> bothered when you are dropping 50% of the population from the suspects list
> outright.

By suggesting that you ask for ID without probable cause, rather than asking 
for ID only with probable cause, you are in fact increasing the number of 
innocent people you stop, because probable cause is the leading statistical 
indicator that you are indeed doing something wrong.

Driving dangerously is the best statistical indicator that you're driving 
while you've been drinking enough to make driving dangerous. Not the color 
of your car, the style of your hair, the neighborhood you're driving 
through, the number of people in your car, your age, or the color of your skin.

And we all support the sort of profiling that says "only stop people who did 
something to make you think they, as an individual and not just a member of 
a group, did something wrong."

What you're suggesting as possible efficiency improvements is statistics 
*not* based on whether the particular *individual* you're stopping is doing 
something wrong, but based on features shared in common with other 
individuals who commit a particular class of crime. And since there's no way 
to look at someone at random and determine whether anything about them other 
than ethnicity, that tends to turn into racism.

If you said "go around to companies where they're not paying the amount of 
taxes they should be based on how much product they're building and knowing 
how many workers it takes to build that product", then that isn't profiling 
any more. That's probable cause.

If you say "Go around to random companies and ask to see the paperwork on 
people who look mexican" or "go around to random companies and ask to see 
the paperwork on people who are christian", then that's not probable cause, 
that's profiling innocent people who have done nothing related to the crime 
you're checking them on.

-- 
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