> "What, what would those characterists be that you've pointed out? I missed them." National origin, gender, and profession. I believe I've mentioned them a fe

> "What, what would those characterists be that you've pointed out? I missed them." National origin, gender, and profession. I believe I've mentioned them a few times. > "I'd say with profiling you spend LESS money" Which is why I pointed out that since nearly all terrorists we know about are men, your logic is that women should get less scrutiny in TSA lines then men. My logic is that if you are right, then gender-based screening is the easiest to implement, with the strongest correlation. So that's how you should start, because it gives you the biggest gains for very little cost. > "Illegal doesn't mean much with regards to the actual practice." I don't deny that. Just like you don't deny there are cases where screening was used to enforce racism and xenophobia. But now you've lowered the bar. Now you say that people screen "even subconsiously, but usually consciously too". I agree with that. What are your historical precedents for showing that those cases of illegal screening are more effective than not screening? And you still haven't mentioned how you might evaluate if screening on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or other protected category is effective.