BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Profiling is consistent with individual rights:

Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag."[1] Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.”[2] The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected.  According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers."[3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up. The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later. Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports. [1] Reagan, Michael.  "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010. http://onlineathens.com/stories/112710/opi_741985618.shtml [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6924417/Musli... [3] Reagan, Michael.  "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010. http://onlineathens.com/stories/112710/opi_741985618.shtml
Profiling is racist:

Profiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues:  “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.”[1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: its reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens."[2] In any legal system which claims to give its citizens equal rights or equal protection of the law, security profiling is unacceptable. Profiling will target certain groups more than others. Even innocent members of these groups are made to feel like second-class citizens, and that the government suspects them of being terrorists without evidence – simply because of who they are. These individuals will be very visibly reminded of this every time they are segregated out at airport security, while they watch other non-suspects (who will be predominantly white and Christian, or at least non-Muslim) not being subject to the same scrutiny. The non-suspects will see this as well, and this may re-enforce any notions they have that all Muslims are potential terrorists and thus are suspect. Therefore because security profiling harms certain groups of citizens in unacceptable ways, it should not be instituted. [1] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/will-profiling-make-a-... [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010. http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2010/11/29/profiling-political-correc...
Profiling is consistent with individual rights:

Airport profiling is a violation of individual rights because it targets and harms certain groups more than others. Muslims and ethnic minorities will be especially harmed by security profiling as it will predominantly be members of these groups who are detained at departure gates and subjected to extra scrutiny. This will make them feel like second-class citizens; they will believe that the government presumes them to be terrorists, even when they are innocent. Consequently, Arab, Asian and African Muslims, and migrants from majority Muslim states will benefit much less from security profiling than whites and non-Muslims do. If the proposition is correct and profiling is successful these groups may benefit from being safer when flying, however many more of them will also suffer far more and more detailed checks in order to be able to fly. Individual rights suffer when a particular person or group is subject to unwarranted discrimination; something which profiling, particularly if it had an ethnic component would bring. The government violates individual rights here by treating and benefitting its citizens unequally on the grounds of race and religion.
Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:

Broad screening at airports does make travellers safer. As Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, argues:  "As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children."[1] This is because otherwise terrorists can observe what profiles our security forces are using, by seeing who is stopped and checked more closely, and thus adapt themselves to not be caught by them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that al-Qaeda could recruit children or the elderly to be its suicide bombers, and hence random checks are essential in order to allow us to have some chance of catching these terrorists,. If we simply resort to profiling, we will always be one step behind the terrorists and will have no chance of catching any of their operatives who fall outside the profiles. [1] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/will-profiling-make-a-...
Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:

More screening of travellers who display suspicious behaviour does not mean no or insufficient security surrounding travellers who do not. Security profiling would simply me a part of the security operation. What it does mean is individuals who buy one-way tickets with cash and no luggage will be more closely investigated. Yes terrorists may adapt to this, but this will make it harder for them to operate (as their operatives have to act identically to normal passengers or face exposure) and increase the chances that a ‘slip-up’ of theirs will actually be noticed and investigated by airport security. Moreover it is not so easy for terrorist organisations to find ‘clean’ operatives: the process of radicalization and terrorist training is bound to bring such individuals to the attention of police or security forces at some point, meaning most such individuals will be identified as potential terrorists and observed accordingly. Security profiling could actually aid this process.
Profiling is racist:

As conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.”[1] There is simply no reason why security profiling necessarily has to be, or be perceived as, racist or targeted against certain groups. The vast majority of Muslim travellers do not display the kinds of suspicious behaviour which profiling will largely be based on, there will be no reason for them to seem nervous, and so will not be negatively impacted: indeed they will benefit by not being forced to submit to invasive pat-downs or body scans. They will similarly benefit from being safer in the air, as security profiling will improve the efficacy of airport security and decrease the chances of a terrorist attack which would kill Muslim and non-Muslim passengers alike. If profiling does end up resulting in more of a particular ethnic group being checked then this will not be because the profiling is racist but because these people are acting suspicious – at very most the ethnic profile would be one among many factors for deciding who should submit to greater security. [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/29/airport-security-lets-p...
Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested.  For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.[1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider). [1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”.  Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...
Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures

The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to confuse and misdirect public sentiment away from where it might do the most good in the furtherance of change. If anything deserves intense scrutiny it is the power structures themselves, such as Oxbridge in the United Kingdom, not on the individuals who are mere products of it.
All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy

Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and as a result the powers they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their private lives. This is exactly the same as outside politics; the more senior and powerful the job the more rigorous the checking of the qualifications and background of the candidate must be.
Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves

While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained.
The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media

Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide as much information as possible, including information about their representatives’ private lives. Without that information they would never be able to adequately gauge who might best represent their interests.
The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy

Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision.
The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office

A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is the only way true representativeness may be achieved.
Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them

Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies.[1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this.[2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure.[3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/humanities/articles/2011/06/does-the-public-really-have-the-right-to-know-about-politicians-private-lives.html [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/mitt-romney-drops-his-3-am-phone-call/262285/ [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/obama-wins-3-am-phone-call-test
Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service

When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles.[1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians.[2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/humanities/articles/2011/06/does-the-public-really-have-the-right-to-know-about-politicians-private-lives.html [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/03/france.sex.politics/index.html
Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures

The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical.[1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy. [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70.
All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy

Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us.[1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy. [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68. https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/privacy-as-a-political-right
Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves

Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the politician’s family can never be considered to have wholly consented to the arrangement, even if they support them in the election. They are in many ways innocent bystanders, yet when politicians are treated as having no freedom of privacy, their families too are stripped of that right unjustly.[1] Thus, the right to privacy is worth protecting for politicians even if it could be shown that they had no real personal right to such respect. Rights exist in part to protect innocent parties, and the families of politicians are innocent, and would undoubtedly be prime victims of limitless media intervention. The recent ads produced by the National Rifle Association that target President Obama’s daughters and their security detail has dragged girls who did not choose to be the president’s daughters into the spotlight.[2] Additionally, the fear of scrutiny of family might well have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might seek public office, resulting in a worse candidate pool, harming everyone. [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68. https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/privacy-as-a-political-right [2] AFP, “White House slams NRA ad targeting Obama daughters”, Google News, 16 January 2013, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5htfEzGvkt7AQoOEG9wv9kbltsZxQ?docId=CNG.e0843333a301cd62e11c5aa64af78d26.511