Maybe I’m wrong, but my interpretation of profiling is the narrowing down of suspects. We can see from recent events, ie: absolutely nothing found despite ludicrous 100% security processes, that we need to do something to make the very necessary security process efficient. Last week was not what was needed!
We all profile, consciously or not. If you’ve ever walked through a train and decided not to sit with the loud drunks or the muttering looney, then you’ve profiled. That’s not to say that when you eventually sit opposite the suited businessman, he won’t start doing something you don’t like.
From the above, it would appear that to satisfy other pax the bomber would only have to shave his beard off and dress for the beach to get through. Of course, that clearly isn’t the case, as he still would have to go through security. And no, there is NOT a clue in the name!
My original post about profiling was to say that maybe exclusion profiling is needed so that security can focus on those who remain. That is NOT to say that they are guilty, just that they failed the first or second hurdle, and should be screened further. I don’t mind at all which group I fall into, I just do not want to waste half my life in crowded airports.