[sionnsar]

"Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant, said that profiling should focus on ruling out people who obviously posed no risk rather than picking out Asian or Arabs."
Sounds good except that this is a distinction without a difference.

Not necessarily. I've long figured that the pre-boarding screening interviews I encounter (along with everyone else) in Europe upon return to the States are part of this profiling.

I'm not savvy as to exactly what they're looking for, but it's obvious (to me) that they're looking for tell-tales that could lead one on to a more "in-depth" interview. But whatever it is they're looking for (I can make some guesses, and they go to mental state more than political/religious orientation), I don't seem to match up.

Maybe if I'd been forced to pack a bomb things would be different. I do know my approach to these interviewers would not be as easy as it has been...

[Dog Gone]

Regardless, I think most here would agree that a purely random selection of passengers for in-depth screening is foolish. Profiling has been used because it works.

Now whether that profiling is based solely on appearance or is partly based on some initial questioning, I don't really care.

The ones that we know instinctively to pose a higher risk should be scrutinized more intensely. We should make it as pleasant and easy for anyone of any background to board a flight if they pose no risk. But let's concentrate our efforts on those most likely to wish us harm. It's not the Geritol crowd.