Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Almighty Buck United States Science

$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed As "Junk Science" 224

schwit1 writes The Transportation Security Administration has been accused of spending a billion dollars on a passenger-screening program that's based on junk science. The claim arose in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has tried unsuccessfully to get the TSA to release documents on its SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques) program through the Freedom of Information Act. SPOT, whose techniques were first used in 2003 and formalized in 2007, uses "highly questionable" screening techniques, according to the ACLU complaint, while being "discriminatory, ineffective, pseudo-scientific, and wasteful of taxpayer money." TSA has spent at least $1 billion on SPOT. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2010 that "TSA deployed SPOT nationwide before first determining whether there was a scientifically valid basis for using behavior detection and appearance indicators as a means for reliably identifying passengers as potential threats in airports," according to the ACLU. And in 2013, GAO recommended that the agency spend less money on the program, which uses 3,000 "behavior detection officers" whose jobs is to identify terrorists before they board jetliners.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed As "Junk Science"

Comments Filter:
  • Security theater (Score:5, Informative)

    by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @07:57AM (#49326521)
    TSA policies are security theater. Film at 11.
    • Re:Security theater (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:19AM (#49326669)

      I refuse to visit the US because of this. It's not because of the people.

      When the TSA makes unreasonable demands of me and they try to explain it with "if you have nothing to hide..." I'll have a very hard time not to reply with "Post your private parts on the internet. Or do you have something to hide?"

      I don't think this tactic would go well over for the TSA employees. :)

      • I can assure you it's not just bad for people coming to the US, it's bad for everybody traveling within the US. The TSA security theater causes more delays than bad weather and the current "open, transparent" administration has put billions more into this charade. I travel sometimes every week and it's a pain in the ass. Because of this I always opt out of being scanned and force the pat down. It frustrates the officers and other travelers because you get to stand aside while a screening agent comes to

        • by gewalker ( 57809 ) <Gary.Walker@Astr ... m minus caffeine> on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:49AM (#49326845)

          The TSA is bad you US citizens including those that don't fly.

          1. Over 7 billion dollars in 2014 budget for TSA
          2. Who know how many lost tourism dollars>
          3. Long distance driving to avoid TSA.
          4. Loss of freedom encouraging government to further encroachment of freedoms.
        • by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @10:21AM (#49327477)

          The TSA security theater causes more delays than bad weather.

          Citation please. While I agree that the TSA is mostly annoying security theater, my personal experience has been that bad weather has delayed me in getting to my destination more that the TSA has.

          I travel sometimes every week and it's a pain in the ass. Because of this I always opt out of being scanned and force the pat down.

          If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program? It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure. Truly frequent travelers can get in the program free via their airline, otherwise the application fee is not significant with respect to other travel costs and is worth it.

          I get special satisfaction in doing it especially if I haven't used deodorant that day.

          You intentionally frequently travel on a plane in tight quarters with lots of other people and you opt not to use deodorant?

          • by spire3661 ( 1038968 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:04AM (#49327921) Journal
            "If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program?"

            Ihre Papiere Bitte.......
            • In San Francisco Airport (SFO) PreCheck is often the longer slower line now. It makes more sense NOT to do PreCheck now.

              An alternative would be to default people to PreCheck, call it "regular", and do away with the security theater parts of TSA immediately and forever. Like the quart container of liquids limit - which you can easily circumvent if you are a terrorist in several undefeatable ways - such as hiding liquids in prescription liquid bottles (hint: they do not ask you to produce any prescription
          • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

            > It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure.

            You mean, the excessive procedure that was security theater and hardly needed EVEN THEN? Yes paying more to get back to what was already excessive theater sounds like quite a win.

            at least back then the fact that the security had to answer to people with a reason to keep customers happy was a very important check on how ridiculous it got, we lost that.

          • If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program? It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure. Truly frequent travelers can get in the program free via their airline, otherwise the application fee is not significant with respect to other travel costs and is worth it.

            I'm already PreCheck but a lot of places don't have it yet and there is the random factor. For example, Las Vegas which is one of the worst places to go through with a domestic 2 hour pre-flight arrival recommendation. I guess they do that so you can gamble more before boarding the flight or going through the checkpoint.

            You intentionally frequently travel on a plane in tight quarters with lots of other people and you opt not to use deodorant?

            Not intentionally but only when I go through special airports on my list. It also cuts down on people reclining their seats. ;-)

          • If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program? It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure.

            No, it doesn't. It just moves a lot of the intrusive, unnecessary searching into the electronic realm instead of the physical. Personally, I think this is the worst possible option. I won't touch precheck with a ten foot pole.

        • For someone that travels so much you'd think you'd do PreCheck and not even have to deal with that shit? Even in the poverty line things move alright. Outside of the holidays it's extremely rare to have security take more than 30 minutes.
          • PreCheck isn't in all airports and terminals, yet. Of course there's been a resurrection of Clear as well but again, it's competing with PreCheck.

      • by jsepeta ( 412566 )

        If security theatre is the reason you refuse to visit the USA, you're an idiot. There's dumb stuff happening in other countries too, I assure you.

      • *NOBODY* wants to see the private parts of any TSA agent.
      • Security overall in US airports is an average hassle compared to most places. TSA isn't going to make any unreasonable demand. You're going to be in a line, read the signs and move through just like everyone else. Don't like millimeter wave? - They've got regular old metal detectors for that. People opt out all the time... mainly because they have no understanding of the technology. There was a harsh transition period when TSA got started because a lot of airports were not designed for having secure ar
        • You are the problem (Score:5, Informative)

          by cbhacking ( 979169 ) <been_out_cruising-slashdot@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:37PM (#49329591) Homepage Journal

          but it does feel a bit nicer when you're in a tin can miles above the earth

          Only if you're utterly ignorant or a complete coward. The TSA hasn't actually stopped any terrorist attempts. They haven't even stopped people from making terrorist attempts - there have been a few (leading to the reasons we now have to take off our shoes, for example) - but the TSA missed those.

          If you know how, it's utterly trivial to get shit past the TSA. I routinely opt out and go with the pat-down (which is significantly better security than the scanners, though only about half the time does the agent do a decent job of it) and still get prohibited items through the X-ray in my carry-on bags all the time. It's easy. For example, you're allowed to leave tablets in your bag (apparently, the dangerous part of a laptop is its keyboard? That's all that distinguishes it from a tablet these days) and the ones with metal cases do a pretty great job of blocking X-ray. You can get bottles full of liquids and gels through that way, no problem. I haven't actually tried it with anything that could plausibly be considered a weapon, but that's only subset of prohibited stuff anyhow...

          If security theater makes you "feel nicer", you're a weak-minded idiot and part of the problem.

          Note that I have no problem with the security practices of a lot of the rest of the world. Unlike the USA, India actually has a terrorist problem, and they are way, *way* better about screening people... but it still takes less time than the USA's checkpoints! (At least, that was my experience the two times I've flown through Delhi.)

          • Do you know how it was before TSA? Basically no separation between everywhere else and secured areas. Their function is so much as just standing there yelling about your bags, it's separating two areas that for the longest time were not separated. Also, having the cabin secure... crazy idea huh? I'm not for all of the practices, but changing a significant part of the infrastructure for airports is taking some time. Some airports are still adjusting. Sorry, but I do feel a little better knowing that so
    • TSA policies are security theater. Film at 11.

      It's a toss-up as to what irritates me more, the assertion/fact that it's crap or that they spent/wasted $1 Billion on it (even if it weren't crap).

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @07:58AM (#49326531)

    A billion dollar program to tell screeners that the Arab guy or black guy who is shaking like a leaf, mumbling "allah-ackbar" over-and-over under his breath, and wants to check a huge bag should maybe be singled out for additional screening.

    • Re:Let me guess (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:11AM (#49326617)

      Yeah, except terrorists dress as average tourists. They aren't completely brain-dead. They are trained.

      The 'Arab guy or black guy who is shaking like a leaf, mumbling "allah-ackbar" over-and-over under his breath' probably just has fear of flying.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Whew....

      General Ackbar and "its a trap" is ok then in the security line....

    • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      It's "Allahu Akbar". Allah Ackbar was the deity that Admiral Ackbar worshiped.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by schlachter ( 862210 )

      Except that would be racist and profiling, so while the black dude is checking in his ticking bomb bag, TSA would be forced to feel up some 4 yr old that their random algorithms chose from the line to ensure they don't unfairly target a black dude.

      Honestly, Israel uses profiling and interrogation on all their passengers and it's very effective. They hire intelligent people who don't give a fuck about you getting on that plane if you look suspicious. TSA is just to dumb to do this effectively.

      • by dave420 ( 699308 )
        It would just be dumb, as plenty of people would do that for any number of reasons not related to terrorism. Israel's approach is not as simple as you seem to think it is, nor does it rely on "oh that guy fits my stereotype of a terrorist".
      • Re:Let me guess (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@@@carpanet...net> on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:40AM (#49328331) Homepage

        Effective implies effect. Effect implies change, what is it you are looking to change? Currently we have an average of 0 terrorist attacks a day, adding up to 0 per year....a number which has, aside from a statistically insignificant number of anomalies, has been the case for well....more than my entire lifetime, which is a bit more than 3 and a half times the lifespan so far of the TSA.

        Implementing the invasive and expensive program of questioning everyone with trained staff seems excessive given the magnitude of the problem.

        • the logic is appealing, bit it's a bit like saying i don't need my pest control service anymore because i don't have insects in my home. until you cancel it and all the insects find out your home is available for rent, you don't know the base state of things.

          • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

            I wouldn't want to live in a home so unhospitable to life that it didn't have some insects.

            You may feel the need for constant pest control but, I have never had such a service nor felt the need. Most pest issues that have rarely cropped up have been quite easy to control without professional help, much less retaining a service.

            This is more like, retaining a pest service because you read in a book that insects exist and it made you shit yourself.

    • A billion dollar program to tell screeners that the Arab guy or black guy who is shaking like a leaf, mumbling "allah-ackbar" over-and-over under his breath, and wants to check a huge bag should maybe be singled out for additional screening.

      This is why the ACLU is involved. To imply Arab guys mumbling "allah-ackbar" with one way tickets might need extra screening is clearly just racism.

    • That's because there's never once been a white or east asian terrorist. Actual terrorists aren't going to be shaking like a leaf, they're going to blend in, they'll know the travel routine, no one's going to look at them twice. Some of these guys may be geniuses, like Kaczinski.

  • Thank you Captain Obvious.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:03AM (#49326567)

    For the libertarian-leaning members of the audience, there was a nice article in Cato "Regulation" journal awhile back looking at this issue:

    "Screening Tests for Terrorists"
    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/1/v35n4-4.pdf

  • by pellik ( 193063 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:09AM (#49326603)
    Before SPOT do you think the average TSA agent could readily identify and discriminate against very dark or very light skinned Arabic people? Well, after spending a billion dollars teaching them to do just that I'm sure they're slightly more consistent (maybe).
  • Of course it is ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:11AM (#49326613) Homepage

    TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same.

    They have a blank check to spend money on stuff with no proof it has any value.

    Other than harassing everybody, the TSA has accomplished very little. It's become a money pit which pretends to be keeping us safe.

    The TSA can point to very few incidents where they've actually stopped anything related to terrorism. Mostly they just serve to annoy everybody else.

    Meanwhile, the baggage handlers are the ones who keep getting caught smuggling stuff.

    The TSA is a pathetic joke, beefed up by reactionary politicians, and which utterly has failed to make anybody "safer" by any objective measure. In fact, everything they do seems to be devoid of "objective measure".

    • The TSA is a pathetic joke, beefed up by reactionary politicians,

      Having the state (in the form of the TSA) solve our real or perceived issues is a the opposite of a reactionary approach, It is actually a progressive one :-p

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nealric ( 3647765 )
      It's a real life manifestation of the Simpsons "Bear Patrol" episode.
    • by bentcd ( 690786 )

      TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same.

      It that were only the case it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

      One billion dollars of pork is just one billion dollars of pork: payouts to the friends of the king, business as usual.

      But what they are in fact doing is spending that one billion in order to make the entire rest of the economy less efficient. They are spending one billion so they can make sure another 100 billion is lost or never produced that otherwise would have been.

      The one billion isn't the problem, the one hundred is.

    • by Bonzoli ( 932939 )
      "TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same."

      I love this statement. :)
    • by hawkfish ( 8978 )

      TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same.

      They have a blank check to spend money on stuff with no proof it has any value.

      Other than harassing everybody, the TSA has accomplished very little. It's become a money pit which pretends to be keeping us safe.

      The TSA can point to very few incidents where they've actually stopped anything related to terrorism. Mostly they just serve to annoy everybody else.

      Meanwhile, the baggage handlers are the ones who keep getting caught smuggling stuff.

      The TSA is a pathetic joke, beefed up by reactionary politicians, and which utterly has failed to make anybody "safer" by any objective measure. In fact, everything they do seems to be devoid of "objective measure".

      I submit to TSA screening because it is the only kind of stimulus money one can get out of Republicans.

    • "Very few incidents"... I'm not actually aware of *any* scenarios where they stopped something terrorist-related. It feels like there probably ought to be at least one by now - surely some wannabe terrorist somewhere was too stupid to not get caught - but you'd think they would have made a big deal out of it and I don't remember any such thing. The only terror attempts on American flights that I can remember since Sep 11 made it past the TSA and then were stopped by the passengers.

      Meanwhile, the TSA generat

  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:17AM (#49326651)
    A vehicle to get money into the correct pockets.
    Who ever said that India and China could ever beat the USA at anything - even corruption.
    • I think we've got a long way to go to catch up to India [hindustantimes.com] or China [washingtonpost.com].

    • Really? The US as corrupt as China and India? I'm not saying we live in a bed of roses over here. Corruption is a real problem in the US, but 30 minutes off the plane in either of those countries and you'd do a 180 on that statement.
  • by DRichardHipp ( 995880 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:32AM (#49326731)
    I recall going through security at the Charlotte, NC airport once, a few years ago, and noticed TSA agents out in the queue making smalltalk with all of the passengers. "Hey, how are y'all doin' today?", "Goin' someplace warm?", "Be sure to take off that belt buckle sir.", "Were are y'all headed?", "Y'all fly much?", and so forth. At first I thought that this was a misguided effort at public relations. But then it occurred to me that those agents were probably pre-screeners looking for nervous and evasive passengers who would then be subjected to additional traditional screening. I don't know what SPOT is and have no opinion of its effectiveness. But it seems to me that chatting up passengers in order to spot potential trouble-makers is probably the single most effective part of the whole TSA process.
    • This is a lot like what the Israeli screeners ask of you when you are being checked out.

      However, the real difference is the Israelis actually have highly educated and trained people doing this checking and investigation.

      • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        However, the real difference is the Israelis actually have highly educated and trained people doing this checking and investigation.

        I've obviously never run into those, then.

        Back in the real world, a nutter who's expecting to be shagging his seventy-two virgins in two hours is unlikely to be nervous, whereas people faced with the thought of being dragged off for an interrogation if they look nervous.... probably will be.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Well. At least they tried.

    I guess it's time to go back to the previous method, reading of auras.

    • Well. At least they tried.

      It works spectacularly well - for funnelling taxpayer money to politically-connected corporations and government-employee unions.

      This was all it was ever designed to do. The ACLU needs to stop pretending there was ever some noble purpose - the most minimal an edifice that was required to get the program implemented was erected to placate the easily-fooled. Acknowledging any good intentions where there are none just encourages this kind of behavior going forward - ACLU might sink

    • Brilliant! Using Kirlian Photography to detect a passenger's intent... That sounds more legitimate than the Junk Science in the report.
  • Just like all the other science that they explored. Remember the devices that emitted such harmful radiation that they were relegated to scanning at prisons?

    Look, I'll give the TSA props for trying. But I draw the line when they go immediately from "hey, I got an idea" to "here's $1B to implement it before we know if it even works!"/

  • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:48AM (#49326841)
    The SPOT program is going exactly what it was created to do
    Funnel money from the government (my pocket), into the pocket of the consultants, companies, and employees of whoever built it.
  • The entire TSA scam organization is one giant waste of money and a blight on the Constitution.

  • 'Junk Science is us' is the motto of the TSA, so why so surprised?

  • There are whole TV shows written around this very idea. One can simply observe mannerisms and jump to fully detailed truths about people. These writers must have something to base these plots lines on - they couldn't publish a TV show if it weren't true ...right?!

    So why shouldn't a TSA executive use the idea, sort out the details, get the best scientists/consultants to provide the truthiness, and create the real thing. I mean - isn't this what the Lone Gunmen proposed in X-Files? Secret science that w

  • "Thousands, Standing Around" -- Thomas P. M. Barnett

    I've always wondered if he meant the obese clone army of Blue Shirts, or Security Checkpoints being a target-rich bottleneck.

Fast, cheap, good: pick two.

Working...