I don't agree. So far, it is much more difficult to find terrorists that do not fit the profile - so it is more difficult for them to cause a problem - and a "determined" bad guy will eventually work out how to beat the scanner too. It is about what works best for the least money and it is probably not possible to stop anything bad from happening at all.

I don't agree. So far, it is much more difficult to find terrorists that do not fit the profile - so it is more difficult for them to cause a problem - and a "determined" bad guy will eventually work out how to beat the scanner too. It is about what works best for the least money and it is probably not possible to stop anything bad from happening at all.

I said that about 16 posts back, nothing is foolproof.

My issue with profiling is that it's not not only unfair... I know I know, life isn't fair, terrorists aren't fair, the SAS isn't fair... hang on, yes they are they must be they're on our side... but wide open to abuse. The government of the day can then stop anyone they don't approve of from flying... or more so than they do already.

I do not see your connection with Middle Eastern-looking men and the Undie Bomber.

The Xmas bomber did not look Middle Eastern. If you made the profiling to take in him, you'd also take in Obama and my dad.

As Flying has said....if he had been scanned, he may have been caught....profiling by appearances is absolutely insufficient.

You don't need to look Middle Eastern. The name "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" is enough.

Profiling may not be perfect, but it isn't accurate to say that it is "absolutely insufficient".

Initially you wrote, "Well, for those of us who don't look like the type that would have to worry about being profiled it's a great idea.", implying that profiling relies on looks. I replyed to that (in bold above) to which you responded about the guy's name....adding an extra criterium. You then went on to ignore my complete statement (in bold above) in your usual side-step and sleight of hand to try to refute it.

You can not, with any sincerity, refute my statement: Profiling by appearances is absolutely insufficient.

Regardless of a limited profiling system that takes in names as well as appearances..... those two criteria are also absolutely insufficient as there is no guarantee that even slightly canny terrorists would ensure the profiling system is skirted by using less obvious names and appearances.

It does not take much thought to see this, but it would take an arrogant and stupid man to settle for a profiling system that could be skirted simply so that he himself does not need to be scanned or inconvenienced.

If I were the one doing the profiling there would have been no 9/11, no shoe-bomber, no underwear bomber. Just because you would suck at the job of profiler doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

I do not see your connection with Middle Eastern-looking men and the Undie Bomber.

The Xmas bomber did not look Middle Eastern. If you made the profiling to take in him, you'd also take in Obama and my dad.

As Flying has said....if he had been scanned, he may have been caught....profiling by appearances is absolutely insufficient.

You don't need to look Middle Eastern. The name "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" is enough.

Profiling may not be perfect, but it isn't accurate to say that it is "absolutely insufficient".

Initially you wrote, "Well, for those of us who don't look like the type that would have to worry about being profiled it's a great idea.", implying that profiling relies on looks. I replyed to that (in bold above) to which you responded about the guy's name....adding an extra criterium. You then went on to ignore my complete statement (in bold above) in your usual side-step and sleight of hand to try to refute it.

You can not, with any sincerity, refute my statement: Profiling by appearances is absolutely insufficient.

Regardless of a limited profiling system that takes in names as well as appearances..... those two criteria are also absolutely insufficient as there is no guarantee that even slightly canny terrorists would ensure the profiling system is skirted by using less obvious names and appearances.

It does not take much thought to see this, but it would take an arrogant and stupid man to settle for a profiling system that could be skirted simply so that he himself does not need to be scanned or inconvenienced.

If I were the one doing the profiling there would have been no 9/11, no shoe-bomber, no underwear bomber. Just because you would suck at the job of profiler doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

BS. I don't know where you get the idea that I would be useless...would you like to back that absurd statement up with something concrete?.....for a start, if I was a profiler, I would not settle for name and photo....which has been one of my points thus far.

So far you have indicated that you would profile by name and appearance....which is patently not foolproof.....so YOU would suck at the job.

You can talk about history, but you have ignored, or fail to see ahead (more likely), that any profiling can be circumvented by a hijacker with just a little nouse.

The government of the day can then stop anyone they don't approve of from flying... or more so than they do already.

You keep ignoring the fact that no one has said anything about not allowing anyone to fly - unless they have a bomb strapped to them. Profiling is just for figuring out who to concentrate on to search, so you do not have to search everyone.

If I were the one doing the profiling there would have been no 9/11, no shoe-bomber, no underwear bomber. Just because you would suck at the job of profiler doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

BS. I don't know where you get the idea that I would be useless...would you like to back that absurd statement up with something concrete?.....for a start, if I was a profiler, I would not settle for name and photo....which has been one of my points thus far.

So far you have indicated that you would profile by name and appearance....which is patently not foolproof.....so YOU would suck at the job.

Me: Look at the person, look at the name on the boarding card, pull them aside, arrest them for carrying home-made bombs. Lives saved, Hollywood super stud plays me in blockbuster hit movie about my common sense heroics. I marry some foxy babe and live happily ever after.

You: Not wanting to offend anyone even at the risk of the lives of hundreds of people on the plane, you let everybody go through without checking - except for that suspicious 93-yr old grandmother. Plane gets blown out of the sky, 266 people die plus those on the ground from the wreckage, ACLU awards you medal for standing up for your beliefs in face of diversity. Relative of survivor awards you a different type of "metal" right between the eyes.

You can talk about history, but you have ignored, or fail to see ahead (more likely), that any profiling can be circumvented by a hijacker with just a little nouse.

So you never lock your car or front door because thieves can find a way around it?

The government of the day can then stop anyone they don't approve of from flying... or more so than they do already.

You keep ignoring the fact that no one has said anything about not allowing anyone to fly - unless they have a bomb strapped to them. Profiling is just for figuring out who to concentrate on to search, so you do not have to search everyone.

I truthfully wasn't aware that that was what would happen, I just get this nightmarish, 1984 type picture of people being on the big government computer with NOT ALLOWED IN AIRPORTS stamped on their file on the basis of race, religion or youthful indiscretions.

Be assured, what you want happens already. I've quoted several examples that I have witnessed personally.

I'm still slightly bemused by the sight of Australian Federal Police officers questioning Muslim men in KL airport.

If I were the one doing the profiling there would have been no 9/11, no shoe-bomber, no underwear bomber. Just because you would suck at the job of profiler doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

BS. I don't know where you get the idea that I would be useless...would you like to back that absurd statement up with something concrete?.....for a start, if I was a profiler, I would not settle for name and photo....which has been one of my points thus far.

So far you have indicated that you would profile by name and appearance....which is patently not foolproof.....so YOU would suck at the job.

Me: Look at the person, look at the name on the boarding card, pull them aside, arrest them for carrying home-made bombs. Lives saved, Hollywood super stud plays me in blockbuster hit movie about my common sense heroics. I marry some foxy babe and live happily ever after.

You: Not wanting to offend anyone even at the risk of the lives of hundreds of people on the plane, you let everybody go through without checking - except for that suspicious 93-yr old grandmother. Plane gets blown out of the sky, 266 people die plus those on the ground from the wreckage, ACLU awards you medal for standing up for your beliefs in face of diversity. Relative of survivor awards you a different type of "metal" right between the eyes.

You can talk about history, but you have ignored, or fail to see ahead (more likely), that any profiling can be circumvented by a hijacker with just a little nouse.

So you never lock your car or front door because thieves can find a way around it?

Your scenarios show your state of mind....delusions of grandeur. Never mind.

You miss the point by soooo much. Of course I lock my house and car.....and I take extra security the more valuable a possesion is.

You on the other hand, prefer to install a system that can be overcome, even though LIVES are at stake.

Just because you and those that look like you will not be inconvenienced.

If lives are at stake, I would implement the system that is least likely to be thwarted....even though people like you may be inconvenienced by a few extra minutes in the queue.

I would be very much against not allowing people to fly because of a profile that was not based on information about a known terrorist plot or perhaps a violent criminal past.

If lives are at stake, I would implement the system that is least likely to be thwarted....even though people like you may be inconvenienced by a few extra minutes in the queue.

If so, why would you support a system where time and resouces were squandered on searching numerous individuals who have very little possiblility of terrorist activity. Why not spend more time searching those who are much more likely to be terror criminals?

If lives are at stake, I would implement the system that is least likely to be thwarted....even though people like you may be inconvenienced by a few extra minutes in the queue.

Where did anyone here ever say that only one system could be used? They didn't. Scanning, profiling, do everything it takes to keep people safe. If some people feel offended by being scanned or don't like the way security looks at them, then they can find another way to travel or stay home.

I would be very much against not allowing people to fly because of a profile that was not based on information about a known terrorist plot or perhaps a violent criminal past.

Exactly...this is what I said many posts ago....there is not enough information available to make profiling a good enough defense.

No one is talking about not allowing innocent people to fly. We are talking about who should be interrogated and searched most thoroughly.

If lives are at stake, I would implement the system that is least likely to be thwarted....even though people like you may be inconvenienced by a few extra minutes in the queue.

If so, why would you support a system where time and resouces were squandered on searching numerous individuals who have very little possiblility of terrorist activity. Why not spend more time searching those who are much more likely to be terror criminals?

I recognise your point that profiling could isolate some of the crims with little effect to the harmless people.....however, if you agree that it is not realistic to gather all the information neccessary to produce an effective profile (keeping in mind that the modern terrorist WILL quickly learn how to avoid the profile flags), then there is only one solution available at this time....scanning of everyone......if it saves lives, then it is not squandering.

I have no problem with scanning everyone, but due to limited resources, it was a mistake not to profile in the past.

I have no problem with scanning everyone, but due to limited resources, it was a mistake not to profile in the past.

I agree. In the past, good profiling would have stopped some incidents.

We should indeed learn from history.....but keep in mind, our enemies will learn also. The thing to do is to keep several steps in front.

Agreed!

If I were a terrorist there are hundreds more targets that are far less risky than trying to blow up an airplane. At full capacity most planes seldom carry more than 400 passengers. A football stadium has up to 100,000, and a crowded theatre or restaurant would be a better target with little chance of getting caught. In Vancouver BC our idiotic politicians voted to have the winter Olympics in that general location. It is a big, 2 week boondoggle party to make money for the already wealthy, and at the expense of the public purse. And, most of the public can't afford to attend anyway. British Columbia will be on the hook for about a billion dollars for security alone.

I don't want to go on a rant about airport security, but there have been a couple of times where I was within a second of stripping naked because of some officious security person. Most often it happened in US airports where staff seem to be overly conscious of a so called threat because my belt buckle is too big or I have metal buttons on my shirt.

If I were a terrorist there are hundreds more targets that are far less risky than trying to blow up an airplane. At full capacity most planes seldom carry more than 400 passengers. A football stadium has up to 100,000, and a crowded theatre or restaurant would be a better target with little chance of getting caught. In Vancouver BC our idiotic politicians voted to have the winter Olympics in that general location. It is a big, 2 week boondoggle party to make money for the already wealthy, and at the expense of the public purse. And, most of the public can't afford to attend anyway. British Columbia will be on the hook for about a billion dollars for security alone.

I don't want to go on a rant about airport security, but there have been a couple of times where I was within a second of stripping naked because of some officious security person. Most often it happened in US airports where staff seem to be overly conscious of a so called threat because my belt buckle is too big or I have metal buttons on my shirt.

You seem to be another frequent flyer Ian.

I pretty well take security for granted, just go with the flow.

Strangely the airport that sets their metal detectors to the most ridiculous level that I've come across is my former home city of Adelaide. I never get through with out setting it off, and rarely have problems elsewhere. Maybe it's the pins and screws in my right ankle?