Thanks for the interesting insight provided, but what is the exact point you’re making? Are you supporting the freakonomics observation?

What the prediction of Levitt and Dubner implies is that Muslim first and last names will be given high weight in the algorithms to come. Why? Higher weights for these names would have resulted in fewer errors. That does not mean, however, that weights for other features play no role in the classification. They do. Take a look at how many clues about Maj. Nidal Hasan’s behavior and attitudes were missed or overlooked.

It makes common sense, too. For every David Headley, there could be, and there are, hundreds of Nidal Hasans, Khalid Mohammad Sheikhs, and Ajmal Kasabs. It’s not easy to change names, at least not here in the United States. There are court records of prior names and all that. Background checks are quite thorough, if only the politically correct refrained from intervening. Today, if a Muhammad Ibrahim were to walk into a Bank to change his account name to Ian Smith, all sorts of alarm bells will be turned on, if it is at all feasible. Even the terrorists have only limited resources, and they are more likely to be expended on a few puppeteers, not the puppets. If I know this, I expect the algorithm designers to know a lot more.

I don’t mean to lecture on statistics, but it is important to separate politics from science. Failure to do so will be costly in terms of lives lost, as in Fort Hood.

And now they have taken on the holy cow of Western Political Correctness post 9/11 – these guys need to watch their back.

Apparently terrorists didn’t need mathematical models to understand this. Why don’t more do it? Also, it is a way to beat border crossing profiling.