When most people hear the term “profiling” they think of inner city police unfairly targeting racial minorities with arrests and citations. Profiling is just one of many law enforcement tools, and like any tool it can be misused. True profiling is a useful tool that is currently being vastly underused by U.S. law enforcement and security agencies in the struggle to protect you against terrorism.

The most recent terrorist plot uncovered in England is being hailed as a great victory, and I’ve heard many commentators say that air travel is safer due to the new restrictive measures regarding carry-on baggage.

I disagree at a fundamental level because our extreme reliance on technology to protect air travelers totally disregards the human element of terrorism. Technology changes constantly and criminals and terrorists are at least as adept as our security agencies at exploiting and utilizing new technology.

However, human behavior does not greatly change and a criminal of today will behave similarly to one of yesterday or tomorrow. Profiling uses technology to winnow the vast numbers of travelers down to a manageable number of individuals who are then interviewed and or observed by trained officers to assess the likelihood they are involved in terrorist or criminal activity.

Profiling is a more objective tool than the racist impression that most people have. Profiling, stated simply, is when law enforcement or security personnel know enough about a particular type of crime that they can develop a set of objective facts that predict when someone might be involved in that crime.

An example is the international drug trade: Police long ago identified patterns of travel and other objective facts that tended to identify drug couriers. Major police agencies used these profiles to single out suspicious travelers so specially trained officers can briefly interview them to assess their potential involvement.

The interviewing techniques are simple but effective, and travelers not involved in the drug trade were quickly ruled out and allowed to continue their trip. The interdiction teams were so successful that they have largely pushed major smuggling operations away from air travel.

U.S. police could easily use successful techniques from the war on drugs to combat terrorism. A U.S. law enforcement officer I know was in South America training local officers in drug interdiction techniques. He and his trainees spotted a person in the airport who met many of their criteria as a suspicious traveler and they approached him for an interview. He began sweating profusely and his story quickly unraveled.

The well-dressed man, a military officer in that country, might have been above reproach if he only had to produce his documents. After he did not perform well during the brief interview, he was detained and hand grenades were discovered on his person. He was a sympathizer with local terrorist group and had intended to board the aircraft with the hand grenades.

When used correctly, profiling relies on facts such as airport of departure, airport of arrival, overall itinerary, personal behavior and dress, luggage checked or carried on, method of payment, use of travel agencies that cater to criminal elements, and numerous other factors to identify suspicious travelers. Air travelers provide (knowingly or unknowingly) detailed information to airlines and the information is compiled in a computer database called CAPPS II. The Transportation Security Administration currently mines this database and performs rudimentary profiling, but rather than have trained interviewers speak to the traveler, they divert the person to be screened by another machine.

The Israelis have long used profiling to protect air travelers, and although Israel is largely surrounded by people willing to be suicide bombers, El Al, the Israeli airline, is one of the safest in the world. Israeli air security experts often say, “We search for the bomber, not the bomb.”

European countries have been faced with serious terrorism at home for much longer than the United States and many of them also employ profiling. I have been pulled aside and interviewed several times in my travels due to my travel patterns and frequent arrival/ departures in the Middle East. I always feel safer aboard the aircraft because it indicates to me a professional security apparatus.

I believe a combination of our current bomb detecting technology, combined with a secondary layer of passenger profiling would result in the safest possible air travel. Privacy groups often complain about profiling, but in truth it would result in much smoother travel for the vast majority of travelers. Only the small percentage of people singled out, based on objective facts, would come in contact with the officers. The bulk of travelers would continue on their way with no interruption.

Our current system puts security officials at a distinct disadvantage to terrorists because security agencies are always responding to the latest technological innovations and new techniques used by terrorists. Security and law enforcement officers play a deadly game where they can win 100 times and fail once, but that one failure outshines the 100 victories. Profiling based on objective facts can be the secondary layer of protection we sorely need right now but do not have.