Warp wrote:
>   I consider myself to be the exact opposite of a racist

Note that I haven't called you a racist. I've said that what you suggested 
is racist. There's a difference.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I think that you are seeing a difference because you are assuming a racist
motivation for the ID check in the last case. Do you deem it completely
implausible for the police to check someone's ID for other reasons than
racism?

> >> 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.

  "Stopping people" and "profiling" aren't the same thing.

> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
> > was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
> > original discussion.

> All of those examples have nothing to do with whether you're in the country 
> legally.

  You just refuse to understand what "example" means, don't you?

  "If ethnicity is a distinguishing factor, then..." is an example. It's
not making a claim about what is and isn't a distinguishing factor.

> >   I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
> > someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".

> Not at all.

  Then why do I get the feeling? Ethnicity really seems to be a touchy
subject.

> >> And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
> >> feature, which happens to be probable cause?
> > 
> >   And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?

> OK. At this point, you're again not answering the questions that would clear 
> up the confusion, so have a good one.

  Are we having reading comprehension problems? Or difficulties in
understanding rhetorical questions? Let me translate:

  "And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?" means
"I have not made any such argument".

  Maybe you should learn literary techniques sometime.

> >> And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
> >> using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
> >> they'll behave in a certain way.
> > 
> >   "Racism" is exclusively used as a negative and derogatory term. There are
> > no neutral uses in practice.

> Yet you're suggesting exactly that there are neutral and even beneficial 
> uses of the *act* of racism.

  Firstly, I'm not suggesting that (and I'm getting really tired of you
claiming I do, over and over), and secondly, you are comparing apples to
oranges. I was talking about the term "racism" as being used exclusively
with negative connotations, which is why I don't appreciate you insinuating
I'm one.

  If you keep making that insinuation, I'm going to end this conversation.
I'm not going to continue this if you keep insulting me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:47:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.

There is a difference between "we have a specific crime that we are 
looking for suspects for" and "we are doing random checking to see if 
someone might have committed a crime".

To use your rape example, suppose instead of "we're looking for a white 
male because of this specific case we're looking into" the police started 
by collecting DNA samples from all white males just *in case* a crime 
were committed.

That's the difference.  What the Arizona law does is not tie the act of 
"being an illegal immigrant" to a specific instance of a crime.

Does that make sense?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:49:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue
>> law enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks
>> their neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do
>> nothing about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to
>> take action (so I understand).
>>
>> Jim
> Yeah. One person put it like this: "Damned if you do, damned if you
> don't, so you are just damned 'period'."

Yep.  And a cop of Hispanic descent in Tucson has actually filed a 
lawsuit over this now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:39:17 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
>> > entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
> 
>> Because that's the way the world works, Warp.  In fact, some people who
>> immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin
>> because their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with
>> them?
> 
>   Maybe that's how it works in practice. It still doesn't mean it's fair
> in my opinion.

When it comes to the laws of the US, though, your opinion really doesn't 
matter much.  In Arizona, my opinion doesn't matter either.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:43:47 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> >> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone
>> >> to live in a Nazi state.
>> > 
>> >   I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.
> 
>> I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread
>> by invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.
> 
>   No. Godwin's law says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
> 
>   It's precisely a comparison which was not made to invoke the law, but
> came as a result of the discussion. In fact, I think there's someone
> else's corollary that says that a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law
> isn't.

Except that in Nazi Germany, this sort of thing is pretty much precisely 
what was done - racial profiling to identify those of Jewish (or other 
'undesirable') descent.

It's actually relevant to this discussion, not like other instances where 
a thread is Godwinned by a comparison that really is not realistic at all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> You said
> >>>   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> >>> the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> >>> of them by how they look.
> > 
> >> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
> >> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
> >> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
> >> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
> >> investigate all the europeans.
> > 
> >   I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
> > not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
> > then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
> > efficiently.

> No, I'm saying that the math you presented is flawed.

  No, you didn't. You said, and I quote: "This is actually incorrect, *if*
you have ... etc."

  In other words. The example I gave was correct. You then presented a
*different* example where the same formulation doesn't work in the same
way.

>  One more time:

> You can't use the math of proportions of different subgroups of illegals to 
> target which unknowns you question. You must use different proportions of 
> subgroups of illegals relative to subgroups of legals.  Once you do that, 
> there's no reason to favor one particular way of splitting the total 
> population into subgroups over another way of splitting the total population 
> into subgroups.

  I don't see the logical line of reasoning there. It's a non-sequitur.

  "You must use different proportions of subgroups" -> "there's no reason
to favor one particular way of splitting over another" does not logically
follow.

> >   But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
> > indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
> > correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
> > formula".

> Except that the different formula applies to things other than ethnicity. 
> There are huge numbers of correlations you can make, and not knowing which 
> is accurate will cause you to fail to apply the math right.

  I never said you can't use anything else than ethnicity to come up with
the formula. My example was simple for the sake of example.

  It intended to demonstrate a *point*. The numbers weren't important,
no matter how much you like to nitpick about them.

> >   Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
> > example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
> > situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
> > arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
> > this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.

> Except I also gave you the *best* formula, which is to *not* check randomly, 
> but rather check based on the statistical relationships with the *best* 
> power to make policing more efficient. And you equated that with giving up 
> completely.

  Where? All I said is that your implication "your example doesn't work in
this case" -> "statistics cannot be used at all" does not follow.

> >> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
> >   Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?

> Outrageous and outlandish have very similar meanings here. I simply 
> misremembered which word you used.

  Really? I would say that outrage and strangeness are quite different
things. Not even comparable. The first describes a feeling while the second
describes the understandability of something.

> >   Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
> > somewhere.

> Now who is picking nits?

  I'm not nitpicking. I'm amused at your curious sudden infatuation with that
word, which seemed strange.

> Had you simply said "police should use statistical models to figure out 
> which possible suspect is most likely breaking the law and concentrate on 
> those," I would have said "They already do. It's called Probably Cause. And 
> the current law in Arizona is targeted at preventing police from doing that."

  Yeah, using ethnicity as an example is forbidden because you are immediately
a racist if you do.

> >> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
> >> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
> >> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
> > 
> >   Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
> > on their best interest.

> Given the history of *this* country, I'm pretty sure it's in *our* best 
> interests.

  Maybe distrust of authorities is a self-feeding process which never ends.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:07:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US
>> the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people
>> over "just because".
> 
>   Well, then it's different here, as I have mentioned with the traffic
> police.

Police patrolling the roads here can pull people over for very minor 
infractions (and in some cases, they do in order to 'get a nose in the 
door' to see if there's something illegal going on; for example, between 
Lincoln and Omaha NE, there's a stretch of road that's often used by 
people trafficking drugs.  The profile is cars with out of state license 
plates driving after a certain time at night.

The cops along that stretch of freeway will pull cars over that have out 
of state plates - but only if they have seen a *specific* traffic 
violation.  I've been stopped two or three times along that stretch for 
various things, like not staying in my lane or failure to signal for 50 
(or 100) feet before changing lanes.  It was late, I was tired; the stops 
were perfectly legitimate.

But if I had been a model driver in that section of freeway and they 
pulled me over because I drive a car that does not have NE license 
plates, *that* would be an illegal traffic stop.  Further, under US law, 
if they *did* find illegal substances in my car, if the traffic stop was 
not legal, they would not be able to prosecute because they would have 
lacked probable cause to pull me over in the first place.

Jim

Post a reply to this message