[Banthum]

"If you antagonize one class of people, you reduce their willingness, as a group, to cooperate with authorities."

The question is whether this effect is stronger or weaker than the gains you get from profiling.

The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless.

We don't need to focus on: -70-year-old British grandmas -4-year-old children -Chinese women -etc.

Obviously this doesn't preclude someone slipping something into their bag without their knowledge, so bags would still have to be checked.

But at the end of the day, there's a lot of simple things you could do to make the whole process faster and easier for everyone, including 23-year-old Arab men with congenital overactive sweat glands.

[noir_lord]

> The middle solution: Anti-profiling. It's not about going after certain groups, it's about ignoring certain groups that are harmless.

That is still profiling.

Given four groups, A,B,C,D with a property of dangerous/not dangerous.

If I say only A,B and D are dangerous then I'm saying C is not dangerous.

If I say only C isn't dangerous then I'm saying A,B and D are dangerous.

[oculusthrift]

if you anti-profile everyone but black people, what does that end up meaning? that's essentially a wiley political word.