This is a very complicated issue. We have many organizations that carry political clout and place pressure on Government and other privates not to discriminate, and profiling in the scope of policing/LE has come to be seen as an umbrella term for undue discrimination. Yes, all LEOs and Security still profile (offender profiling is central to the Law Enforcement mission), but it has to be done somewhat subvertly or under a more attractive subheading, since the technique is not in favor with standards and practices. TSA has been accused of racial, religious, and ethnic profiling, and as recently as this year in response to the "underwear bomber," TSA has been accused of unfair profiling by calling for greater screening for passengers from 14 countries (Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.).leftcoaster wrote: The TSA needs to start profiling. Senior citizen white grandmothers are not terrorists.
The confusion stems from "Racial/Religious/Ethnic" v "Offender" v "Psychological" Profiling. Because the three are so interrelated, the differences are minor yet definitive, any attempts at "profiling" these days are seen as illegitimate by many sensitive groups. This is because society-at-large often mirrors the profiling behavior, but without understanding the meaning of "profiling" itself, nor the differences between Racial/Religious/Ethnic, Offender, and Psychological. Thus, society-at-large (those outside of the Legal community) blends all three into one, and this is offensive, since social 'amateur' profiling does encompass Racial/Religious/Ethnic aspects, even if the corresponding professional profiling tries to distance itself from the taboo form.
