Sunday, October 21, 2007

This seems counterintuitive

In an article on profiling in today's NYT, the following assertion is made:

Passengers with frequent-flier memberships are more often suspected of having malicious travel plans than those who don't participate, according to Professor Schauer.

There is no explanation given as to why this might be.

Not that I'm willing to reveal my secret identity as a master crimestopper or anything, but this is opposite to what I'd think. Absent any other information, I'd be more suspicious of someone who didn't want the frequent flier miles, because I'd think such a person (a) didn't have plans for a life long enough to use them and (b) wanted to stay out of a database.

Your speculations?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I imagine the idea is that if you were a terrorist and planning to take over a plane you'd have to fly the route many times to size up how to take it over, what the habits of the crew are, at what point in the flight the attendants serve meals, when the pilots take a piss break and the routines like that. Since you're going to be flying the same flight over and over for an extended period you might as well get the price break and keep money in the Al Queda treasury. Also the crew might get to recognize you and figure you're just a businessman or something and after you've flown with them a number of times they wouldn't be so alert that you might have a nefarious plan in mind and call security. No chance they're going to identify you later in a line up since they are all going up in the big fireball. That's my speculation. fwiw

bjkeefe said...

The idea of "casing the joint" was something that had occurred to me, but I rejected it for a couple of reasons.

First, how many flights does one need to take before figuring out any of the details you listed? One? Second, how hard would it be to gather these data by asking any of your friends who fly on planes?

The second thing is just that it's hard for me to believe that most people on any flight aren't FF members. It just doesn't seem like a narrow enough criterion -- it's about as fine a mesh as predicting that adults are more likely to be terrorists.

Anonymous said...

>>First, how many flights does one need to take before figuring out any of the details you listed? One?<<

The fact that the pilot took a piss break one hour after his coffee was served doesn't necessarily mean that he does on every flight. If he does it on 5 flights in a row, however, you can start taking that into consideration when you plan to rush the cockpit.

Noting that the flight attendants are in the aisles serving food one half hour into the flight doesn't necessarily mean they do that every time. It may vary depending on how the head stew organizes her team and thus depend on who is the head stew and you'd have to figure out when she is on duty.

You'd also want to size up the flight attendants and figure if they are the types that might resist a takeover or are "flighty" types (pardon the pun)that would just lose control, and you have to get their schedules figured out so you'd know when the crew you want is on. All small women rather than the big guys.

It may be that only Captain Smith has the prostate problem and has to piss after drinking coffee, and would be in the bathroom when you plan to rush the cockpit. A different pilot might fly right through.

It seems to me those are the sorts of things you'd want to nail down in a careful operation and couldn't be done with one flight or by asking others how it went on their flights.

>>The second thing is just that it's hard for me to believe that most people on any flight aren't FF members. It just doesn't seem like a narrow enough criterion -- it's about as fine a mesh as predicting that adults are more likely to be terrorists.<<

You may be right on this one, but I'm not sure about so many frequent flyers on every flight. On some business routes it's probably true, but people like my mother never had a ff card. She only flew every 10 years or so to attend a funeral or something and it was never worth the trouble once the miles started expiring after a certain amount of time, instead of being good forever. Without really knowing I'd guess that most people flying are not frequent flyers except certain routes that business people use often. If you're going to hijack a 747 with a full tank of gas, it would probably be an international flight rather than a business route. Most of those people could well be flying to Europe for the first time ever with no current plans to ever do it again. And those kinds of passengers wouldn't be as likely to be familiar with the routine and thus might be better targets. But I accept your point and acknowledge that I'm struggling to find support for my original speculation on this one.

bjkeefe said...

I don't know about watching the pilot's bathroom habits. Aren't the cockpit doors secured now? But I suppose there's not nothing to idea of surveilling a flight before you attacked it.

It's always worth signing up for FF membership, even if you never plan to fly enough to accumulate to the degree that you'd get a free ticket. When your miles get near to expiring, you can donate them, or use them to buy magazines.

Unknown said...

I'm adding a comment here, because there doesn't seem to be a place to comment on the new poll. (Another reason why I didn't do well on SATs. I'm never content just filling in a box. I want essay answers.)

I was torn between Romney and Guiliani as the one who creeped me out most, but then I decided that rank hypocrisy was the creepiest thing of all.

ShareThis