A question of enforcement

A long, long time back I had started writing a post about racial profiling. As always I looked up wiki for some background, I got a very vague description about the context. Unable to proceed I forgot all about it.

In the meantime Rohit wrote a post about racial profiling, which was rejoinder to some other dude's post. I am surprised, to say the least.
I think racial profiling (inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics) can only be understood in the context, so before starting posturing it is good idea to get the contexts clear.

The relevant context in this case is that profiling, racial or any other, should only be resorted to, in case of insufficient evidence or leads for investigation after event or intelligence gathering in order to prevent occurrence of event.

To give a rough and ready example, if (heavens forbid) some terror attack were to occur in Spain, it does make sense to pursue Basque, Islamic or possibly Catalan angles more rigorously, in case of insufficient evidence for purpose of investigation. However it would be ludicrous to climb every tree which is visible.

Security presents a complex picture. The issue which raises most hackles is intrusive searching at airports. Now as annoying or despicable it may seem, the matter of fact is the guards are responsible for security and safety, and if they are suspicious of someone they have full right to search, in fact I will expect them to search. And it is understandable if the guards "concentrate" on "browns", as at present all of the bombers have been of same skin, in future if white skin or black skin start blowing up planes and sky scrapers, then the perception will change.

Here I admit that it is a possibility that some guards can harass out of bigotry, but there is almost no less chance of preventing it. What is one going to say, "stop searching" or "for every brown person search an old white lady". Most absurd is of course giving sensitivity training to adults.

But the important point here is that intrusive search at public places, however severe they may be, are no guarantee against attacks for obvious reasons. In order that any strategy has any chance of succeeding in containing the threat, it should concentrate on the source rather than the target, and it is here I fully support profiling. Since it is mosques and madrases where jihadi ideology is indoctrinated, it is they who must be put under surveillance, and not some church or synagogue, since it is Muslim ghettos which are a breeding ground for "foot soldiers" for caliphate, I find nothing wrong, if effort of intelligence agencies is focused there. Denial as they say is not a river in Egypt.

Best ofcourse is prevention.