I understand what you mean now. Your original statement was: They even admitted to subjecting him to additional security because of his "background". This

I understand what you mean now. Your original statement was: They even admitted to subjecting him to additional security because of his "background". This is ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way. How I interpreted what you said: 1. He sets off the chemical detector 2. He is pulled aside for "additional security" You can see why I disagreed as anybody ought to be pulled aside for additional security if they set off an explosives detector. Upon reading your reply, the interpretation you were going for was: 1. He sets off the chemical detector 2. He is pulled aside for "additional security" 3. They probe into his background to build a profile 4. This profile yields further rounds of "additional security" that people not matching that profile wouldn't be subject to I lack knowledge on whether or not making security-related decisions based on a profile is useful or irrelevant, so I'll bow out of this aspect of the conversation.