# Profiling: Not 100% avoidable, and also subject to different race/gender standard **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693 "2016-03-31T04:33:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/21 "2016-04-01T19:26:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But not as much as giving special scrutiny to all people. Agreed, which is why I’m not suggesting giving special scrutiny (on the level of the individual interrogations that “profiled” passengers get) to **all** people either. Nor is any security service capable of providing that combined breadth and depth of scrutiny. [QUOTE=DrDeth] Look, let us take your lower 1-10000 as a number, than compare it to the 1-100,000,000 of random Americans that pose _any kind of security threat_, then the numbers say- the chance a Muslim poses any kind of security threat is 10000 times greater than the population as a whole. [/quote] But the chance that a **random member of the population** poses a security threat is **so small that even 10000 times that chance is still quite insignificant.** [QUOTE=DrDeth] I’d say that a single young male, who appear devoutly Muslin- _should_ be screened. [/quote] Nope, pointless waste of resources. The smart approach is not to look at a **whole bunch of _minuscule_ risks** and devote a lot of expensive resources to scrutinizing whichever of those minuscule risks happens to be larger than the others. The smart approach is to **find a way of identifying _non-minuscule risks_ and scrutinize _those_ risks carefully**. E.g., it is well known that people involved with terrorist organizations have a much higher likelihood of being security risks. Identifying people who are **actually involved with terrorist organizations** will thus be a useful security measure. Trying to use age or gender or race or religion or fabric type\* as a vague proxy for such **genuine specific** risks is inefficient and wasteful. - A feeble pun on your “Muslin/Muslim” typo. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/22 "2016-04-01T19:33:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope, pointless waste of resources. The smart approach is not to look at a **whole bunch of _minuscule_ risks** and devote a lot of expensive resources to scrutinizing whichever of those minuscule risks happens to be larger than the others. The smart approach is to **find a way of identifying _non-minuscule risks_ and scrutinize _those_ risks carefully**. > > E.g., it is well known that people involved with terrorist organizations have a much higher likelihood of being security risks. Identifying people who are **actually involved with terrorist organizations** will thus be a useful security measure. Yeah, do you have a idea of how we can do that? \*All the worlds Security organizations combined can’t do that. \* and when they do find someone, they are supposed to be put on the No-fly list. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/23 "2016-04-01T19:48:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yeah, do you have a idea of how we can do that? > > \*All the worlds Security organizations combined can’t do that. \* > > and when they do find someone, they are supposed to be put on the No-fly list. Which does happen sometimes. But no, of course no security effort is ever going to be _100%_ effective in screening out genuinely high-risk people. That doesn’t mean that putting a lot of resources into screening people for superficial characteristics associated with **negligible** risk increases is a smart thing to do. Face it, travel these days is subject to small but non-zero risks from terrorism. That’s going to continue to be true for the foreseeable future. Profiling people who **superficially** resemble certain groups of terrorists, but who **on average** are not **statistically significantly more likely** to engage in terrorism than the general population, is just dumb and wasteful pandering to the public’s anxieties. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/24 "2016-04-01T19:55:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which does happen sometimes. But no, of course no security effort is ever going to be _100%_ effective in screening out genuinely high-risk people. > > That doesn’t mean that putting a lot of resources into screening people for superficial characteristics associated with **negligible** risk increases is a smart thing to do. > > Face it, travel these days is subject to small but non-zero risks from terrorism. That’s going to continue to be true for the foreseeable future. > > Profiling people who **superficially** resemble certain groups of terrorists, but who **on average** are not **statistically significantly more likely** to engage in terrorism than the general population, is just dumb and wasteful pandering to the public’s anxieties. All very nice, but what’s _your_ solution? Since it can’t be " \*Identifying people who are actually involved with terrorist organizations \*" since they can’t do that with any sort of certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/25 "2016-04-01T19:57:29Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > So your point is that it is okay to single out groups of people for more intense scrutiny if members of that group is indeed more likely to commit whatever act we are trying to prevent? I’m saying that “people who appear nervous at airport security” and “people with anxiety disorders” are two different groups. Is there overlap? Sure. But a person’s behavior can be the basis of a reasonable suspicion; a person’s race, ethnicity, and religion can’t (except in the context of searching for a particular individual, based on a description). I’m also taking it for granted that “appearing nervous” would be the sort of thing a competent air security force would be looking for, but have no expertise on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/26 "2016-04-01T20:13:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > All very nice, but what’s _your_ solution? That’s it. Screen **actual** high-risk behavior as effectively and efficiently as possible (e.g, carrying bombs in luggage or pockets, being a member of a terrorist group, abandoning luggage in public places, etc.), and then just accept that you’re not going to have 100% success in averting disaster. Spending billions of dollars scrutinizing particular groups of people on the basis of extremely weak proxy categories in the hopes of being able to reduce the disaster risk from 0.00000096% to 0.00000093% is not worth the time, money or effort it requires. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/27 "2016-04-01T20:19:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s it. Screen **actual** high-risk behavior as effectively and efficiently as possible (e.g, carrying bombs in luggage or pockets, being a member of a terrorist group, abandoning luggage in public places, etc.), and then just accept that you’re not going to have 100% success in averting disaster. So, then- not screen at all then.:dubious: Obviously if we knew who was carrying bombs, we wouldn’t need to screen. if we already knew all the members terrorist groups, we woudlnt need to screen either. **BUT WE DONT KNOW THOSE THINGS!** :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/28 "2016-04-01T20:27:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Spending **billions of dollars** scrutinizing particular groups of people on the basis of extremely weak proxy categories in the hopes of being able to reduce the disaster risk from 0.00000096% to 0.00000093% is not worth the time, money or effort it requires. Pulling certain passengers aside for additional screening does not require “billions of dollars.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/29 "2016-04-01T20:39:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > SObviously if we knew who was carrying bombs, we wouldn’t need to screen. That’s why you inspect luggage, to see who’s carrying (identifiable) bombs. [QUOTE=DrDeth] if we already knew all the members terrorist groups, we woudlnt need to screen either. [/quote] That’s why you check “no-fly” lists, to see who’s plausibly identified as having terrorist connections. No, you’re not going to catch every genuinely high-risk person every time. But you won’t significantly improve your chances of catching them by diverting resources into screening for characteristics **that are not in themselves high-risk**. [QUOTE=DrDeth] **BUT WE DONT KNOW THOSE THINGS!** :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] That’s why you check for them. I don’t get why you’re apparently finding this concept so difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/30 "2016-04-01T20:48:15Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Pulling certain passengers aside for additional screening does not require “billions of dollars.” Not on a single flight, certainly. However, airlines worldwide carry well over 3 billion passengers a year. If even 0.5% of those passengers are selected for additional screening that includes additional identity verification at check-in, physical examination and questioning by security staff, and the use of various testing and detection instruments, that could easily amount to more than $100 in costs for each additionally screened passenger, which is over a billion dollars annually right there. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/31 "2016-04-01T21:46:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s why you inspect luggage, to see who’s carrying (identifiable) bombs. > That’s why you check “no-fly” lists, to see who’s plausibly identified as having terrorist connections. > > No, you’re not going to catch every genuinely high-risk person every time. But you won’t significantly improve your chances of catching them by diverting resources into screening for characteristics **that are not in themselves high-risk**. > > That’s why you check for them. I don’t get why you’re apparently finding this concept so difficult. Bombs can be carried in pockets, in shoes, etc. Sure, but that’s only the terrorists we know about. Most terrorism is done by those we dont know about. Here’s how El Al and Israel does it: > **[How the Israelis do airport security - CNN.com](https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/)** > > In the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253, authorities are ramping up air passenger screening, particularly for those flying from 14 nations that the U.S. describes as "state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of... Yeffet: _It’s mandatory that every passenger – I don’t care his religion or whatever he is – every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system…Yeffet: When you come to the check-in, normally you wait on line. While you wait on line, I want you to be with your luggage. You have to meet with me, the security guy. We tell you who we are. We ask for your passport, we ask for your ticket. We check your passport. We want to find which countries you visited. We start to ask questions, and based on your answers and the way you behave, we come to a conclusion about whether you are bona fide or not. That’s what should happen. CNN: Every passenger should be interviewed, on all flights? Yeffet: Yes, 100 percent… I want to interview you. It won’t take too long if you’re bona fide. We never had a delay…_ ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/32 "2016-04-01T22:18:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Bombs can be carried in pockets, in shoes, etc. Which you will note I already remarked back in post #26: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Screen actual high-risk behavior as effectively and efficiently as possible (e.g, carrying bombs in luggage or pockets, being a member of a terrorist group, abandoning luggage in public places, etc.), and then just accept that you’re not going to have 100% success in averting disaster. [QUOTE=DrDeth] Sure, but that’s only the terrorists we know about. Most terrorism is done by those we dont know about. [/quote] Nobody’s disputing that. The point is that you don’t come to “know about” actual terrorists with significantly greater effectiveness by profiling them for categories like race, religion, etc., that in themselves are **not** statistically significant indicators of likelihood of terrorist activity. [QUOTE=DrDeth] Here’s how El Al and Israel does it: > **[How the Israelis do airport security - CNN.com](https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/)** > > In the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253, authorities are ramping up air passenger screening, particularly for those flying from 14 nations that the U.S. describes as "state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of... > [@](#): > > Yeffet: _It’s mandatory that every passenger – I don’t care his religion or whatever he is – every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system…Yeffet: When you come to the check-in, normally you wait on line. While you wait on line, I want you to be with your luggage. You have to meet with me, the security guy. We tell you who we are. We ask for your passport, we ask for your ticket. We check your passport. We want to find which countries you visited. We start to ask questions, and based on your answers and the way you behave, we come to a conclusion about whether you are bona fide or not. That’s what should happen. > CNN: Every passenger should be interviewed, on all flights? > Yeffet: Yes, 100 percent… > I want to interview you. It won’t take too long if you’re bona fide. We never had a delay…_ [/quote] 😕 Did you really fail to notice that this source is **explicitly _AGREEING_ with my fundamental point here** and **disagreeing** with yours? Namely, these security services, by their own account, _ **don’t** selectively profile passengers for religion or race._ They subject all passengers to the **same** intensive scrutiny. So your endorsement of specific group profiling, as follows— > [@DrDeth](#): > > I’d say that a single young male, who appear devoutly Muslin- _should_ be screened. —would be **rejected** by the Israeli agencies you’re quoting. As for the issue of giving **all** passengers the **same** intensive scrutiny, including interrogation and so forth: Sure, nobody disagrees that exhaustively screening **everybody** is a highly effective way to suss out the bad apples. The question is simply whether it’s going to be feasible in most circumstances to exhaustively screen everybody. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/33 "2016-04-01T22:32:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which you will note I already remarked back in post #26: > > Nobody’s disputing that. The point is that you don’t come to “know about” actual terrorists with significantly greater effectiveness by profiling them for categories like race, religion, etc., that in themselves are **not** statistically significant indicators of likelihood of terrorist activity. > 😕 Did you really fail to notice that this source is **explicitly _AGREEING_ with my fundamental point here** and **disagreeing** with yours? > > Namely, these security services, by their own account, _ **don’t** selectively profile passengers for religion or race._ They subject all passengers to the **same** intensive scrutiny. > > So your endorsement of specific group profiling, as follows— > > —would be **rejected** by the Israeli agencies you’re quoting. > > As for the issue of giving **all** passengers the **same** intensive scrutiny, including interrogation and so forth: Sure, nobody disagrees that exhaustively screening **everybody** is a highly effective way to suss out the bad apples. The question is simply whether it’s going to be feasible in most circumstances to exhaustively screen everybody. No, since _everyone, i_ncluding the single young male is interviewed and screened. So, either we smart profile, or we smart screen everyone. TSA is useless. Either profile or do it like El Al does. Your method of letting everyone thru tha_t isn’t carrying a bomb in their luggage and isnt on the No Fly list_ is foolish and irresponsible. Your method isnt at all like El Al does it. There’d be planes falling from the sky like snowflakes in a Alaska winter with your idea. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/34 "2016-04-01T22:47:06Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Your method of letting everyone thru tha_t isn’t carrying a bomb in their luggage and isnt on the No Fly list_ is foolish and irresponsible. [/quote] Remember, we’re talking not only about bombs but about **all** weapons here, and about screening not only luggage but also persons. So why **shouldn’t** we let everyone travel who isn’t carrying any weapons and isn’t a known terrorist? [QUOTE=DrDeth] Your method isnt at all like El Al does it. There’d be planes falling from the sky like snowflakes in a Alaska winter with your idea. [/QUOTE] Why? What’s going to happen? Give me a scenario of how you think weaponless passengers with no identified terrorist connections would suddenly be destroying flights left and right. And tell me how you believe current practices of racial/religious/ethnic profiling for additional screening are managing to prevent that from happening so far. Sure, we all agree that rigorously interrogating and searching **every** passenger every time would be the most effective approach to security. But given that that’s **not** going to happen for most security services, why exactly do you think a second-best security approach needs racial/religious/ethnic profiling to make it work? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/35 "2016-04-01T23:28:55Z")
Of course profiling is necessary and prudent in many situations. Liberals just wanna keep their panties from not bunching up by pretending they are above it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/36 "2016-04-02T00:29:46Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Of course profiling is necessary and prudent in many situations. > > Liberals just wanna keep their panties from not bunching up by pretending they are above it. Should we then say that conservatives just want to make sure those brown people know their place? That statement, (with which I do not agree), makes as much sense as your threadshitting. Profiling on behavior makes sense. Profiling on appearance makes no sense. Your appearance-based profiling would have done nothing to apprehend [Colleen LaRose](http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/140106-colleen-larose-jsw-935a.jpg) or [Jamie Paulin-Ramirez](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/09/article-1364520-0D8A4132000005DC-701_233x383.jpg) or [Michael C. Finton](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/09/28/us/springfieldman190.jpg) among others. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/37 "2016-04-02T02:19:16Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Of course profiling is necessary and prudent in many situations. > > Liberals just wanna keep their panties from not bunching up by pretending they are above it. Name a situation where profiling on race, religion, or ethnicity is “necessary and prudent”. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/38 "2016-04-02T02:50:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > … > The smart approach is not to look at a **whole bunch of _minuscule_ risks** and devote a lot of expensive resources to scrutinizing whichever of those minuscule risks happens to be larger than the others. The smart approach is to **find a way of identifying _non-minuscule risks_ and scrutinize _those_ risks carefully**. > … And that is a very nice description of applying quality metrics to decision making. However, I suspect that we do not have enough, or at least the right type of, data to identify the useful metrics, and **that** is the source of much frustration and poor decision making. We just do not know. Your point, I assume, would be that the resources should be spent on identifying the available data, collecting and collating it, and running statistical analyses to develop effective predictive models. But then no one gets to slam suspiciously olive complected people around small cinder block rooms with tables and chairs bolted to the floor. What fun is that? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Name a situation where profiling on race, religion, or ethnicity is “necessary and prudent”. Medicine. Read up on Gift of Life; people of a specific ethnicity and religion were targeted - profiled - for tissue donor registration. So, yeah, not often. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/39 "2016-04-02T03:06:24Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Medicine. Read up on Gift of Life; people of a specific ethnicity and religion were targeted - profiled - for tissue donor registration. > > So, yeah, not often. Not sure that counts: [Profiling:](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiling) 1. the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling. 2. the use of these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity, as in racial profiling. Gift of Life sounds like just quality marketing. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693/40 "2016-04-02T04:00:14Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not sure that counts: > > [Profiling:](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiling) > > 1. the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling. > 2. the use of these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity, as in racial profiling. > > Gift of Life sounds like just quality marketing. I don’t know that I accept those definitions. I’d say any decisions made based on the perceived race, religion, or ethnicity of a person constituted profiling. (Those were the traits in the post to which I responded.) (ETA: As you probably know, as it was your post …) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profiling-not-100-avoidable-and-also-subject-to-different-race-gender-standard/750693.md?page=3)