The moment you encode your biases in policy, you create vulnerabilities.

What I’m hearing is that if I want to get something past your security policy, I need to route it through the Netherlands, possibly via a travel agency.

You don't have to profile people to police, and that's very poor policing. You need to assess actual risk, not fake proxy risk like the color of people's skin.

The problem with profiling is that it sucks both ways. People who are regular degular get fucked for the sake of fake policing, and then real threats are more likely to slip through.

> Nah I disagree. A charter plane with 200 Dutch tourists is lower risk than a flight coming out of Bolivia.

What a weird and random thing to say. There's literally no data that can support for or against and neither have a history of terrorism.

Ironically KLM ('dutch') has had more terrorism per flight than any Bolivian airline. Both minimal (Bolivia 1954, KLM 1973,1994). There's literally no other piece of data between these countries that I could find to support this "lower risk".

Further, the travel advisory for Denmark and Netherlands cite terror risk while Bolivia cites civil unrest.

While being woke is not helpful, neither is 'winging it' based on 'what feels white, ahem, right'. At least do a Google search.

How about a flight coming out of Bolivia with 200 Dutch tourists on board? Is it more or less risky than a flight coming out of the USA with 200 Donald Trumps on board? Is there a list?