Slashdot Log In
TSA's "Behavior Detection Officers"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Aug 18, 2007 07:04 AM
from the picking-on-an-easy-target dept.
from the picking-on-an-easy-target dept.
Stanistani sends us to MSNBC for a dyspeptic Newsweek commentary on the TSA's latest attempt to make air travel safer: the rather ominously named "Behavior Detection Officers" now working in a dozen US airports, and slated to go nationwide in 2008. They are trained in the discipline of reading "micro-expressions." The editorialist calls that a pseudo-science, but in fact it's a well-understood skill that can be taught and learned. A cursory look at this TSA program might put one in mind of Orwell's "facecrime," and that's the road the Newsweek writer goes down. Yet some who bemoan the security theater historically run by the TSA point to the gold standard of airport security, Tel Aviv airport, and wonder why TSA officers can't act more like the Israelis. Bruce Schneier wrote recently about one reason why the Israeli security model isn't completely transplantable to these shores: scale. And here's Schneier's take on behavioral profiling from a year ago. That's what the BDOs will be trying for: scrutinizing intent instead of pocket knives. Let's just hope they don't get swamped with false positives.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Okay, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
-b.
Re:Okay, and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one of the annoyanc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds a lot like what El Al does (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds a lot like what El Al does (Score:4, Informative)
In practice this method is not used, as someone intending to cheat could simply learn how to say these words properly.
smile, smile, smile (Score:3, Interesting)
"Gold standard" (Score:5, Insightful)
For a different take on this program... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You quoted the one case where a police officer noticed someone acting "suspiciously" and ended up being right.
You didn't quote the 1000 other cases everywhere around the country - not just in airports - where police
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For a different take on this program... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, does that mean I can ignore them? I mean, if they're not police, they're just regular citizens. The most they can do is talk to the airlines and ask that I not be allowed to board. On the other hand, that's a great basis for me to sue the airlines. I mean, I paid them for a service, and they're denying it. The only way out of that is, of course, to have TSA screening as a part of the contract. Or are you willing to admit that the TSA is a federal police force, and so they do have authority to arrest you or force a search upon you?
Well, that's good to know. You do realize that a lot of people at airports are there to see other people off, right? And given that airport security will screen family that's seeing someone off, I can only imagine that the TSA does as well. So, sure, the TSA isn't "out on every street". They are screening people who aren't flying, though.
In short, because the TSA is unreasonable in its security, we should expect more unreasonable security procedures and not complain about it. Yea, that's *totally* logical...
Well, since it's a fairly new program, we'll just ignore the clear absurdity of it until it rears its ugly head. I mean, it's like if tomorrow there was made a law that every second born child under 12 should be executed on sighting. Since it'd be "a fairly new program" and there wouldn't instantly be "provide[d] any instances of real people encountering problems", we'll just have to wait until the body count grows to a large enough amount to start complaining. And even if the law gets overturned, if Congress kept passing new second-born-child-execution laws, carefully worded to be different yet do the same thing, after a while we'd just have to accept that that's how things are. I mean, it's not like they'd be killing adults or the first born. Irrational tradition beats Constitutionality or sanity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with someone well-trained being assigned to watch the passengers as they check in and boar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Israeli's have it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
We Americans aspire to be something better.
Nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
"Arabs" != Muslims.
There exist non-Muslim Arabs, and there exist non-Arab Muslim groups (Iranians for a start).
-b.
not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, there are demographic
Re:not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, wait, he wasn't an Arab. (Or even foreign.) Or a Muslim. (Or even religious.)
In fact he was a white American agnostic. Didn't stop him committing one of the worst acts of terrorism in America's history, of course.
Okay, so you want to look only at cases where Muslim fundamentalists are trying to blow up planes, do you? Okay, please explain how racial profiling would have helped catch Richard Reid, who was, uh, a white British-Jamaican man, who easily made it onto a plane with a bomb and would have succeeded in downing a trans-Atlantic flight if another passenger hadn't spotted him trying to light the fuse.
But hey, let's not let the truth get in the way of indulging our xenophobia, shall we?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I might be in the minority here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this open to abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that airport security is a tough issue, and something that needs to be done right, but allowing an interpretation of a micro-expression to be used to select people for further investigation basically gives the airport staff the option of pulling over anyone, any time under this pretext.
Do they collect statistics on how powers like this are used? In the UK, the police have had to start collecting statistics on the use of stop and search powers, because of concerns about racial profiling. The statistics have verified claims that the behaviour of the subjects is not what's being used by officers when deciding to search, the race of the subject is. Of course, this has lead to claims that the police are trying to find excuses to stop and search large parties of other ethnic group, to alter their statistics, without any probable cause (eg searching all passengers coming of a train for weapons, when they had no evidence that any existed)
I'm not necessarily against this kind of selection, but I do believe that it needs to be implemented carefully to prevent abuse and unfair treatment of certain sections of the population, so that not only is the security done right, it's seen to be done right.
Isn't the current system more "open to abuse"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have this option!
This is designed to make that option actually, you know, useful.
Even if you think it could be "abused", they can already effectively select anyone, for any reason, for secondary inspection. That's the whole point of trying to use some kind of behavioral cues, instead of just randomly doing it to anyone (or young blonde women), or only persons who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent.
Yes, as you say, it needs to be done right. But please read Schneier's article [schneier.com] and the New York Times story [iht.com] on the topic.
Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh great, let's emmulate the Israelis. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really where we should be heading in America, is it now? So, since our Palestinians equivalents are the Mexicans then I suppose our lovely new Israeli style airport security policy ought to include strip searching and fondling all young Mexican girls in order to discourage them from travel. I mean after all, that's the example the Israelis offer. It has worked so well for them so far, hasn't it.
If we really want to stop terrorism, then perhaps we should start by not dropping bombs on foreign countries and killing hundreds of civilians each week. That might be an even more effective method than assigning the gestapo to the airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and thanks for asking. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm willing to assume you're not one of those fascist cunts and that you really are interested in the facts. In that case, this is the video I refer to:
Easiest Targets: The Israeli Policy of Strip Searching Women and Children
description:13-minute video: Five women - Palestinian, American, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish - tell stories of humiliation and harassment by Israeli border guards and airport security officials.
In fact, you will find testimoney by American Christians and Jews as well as Palestinians if you take the time to watch the video.
You can watch it at Google Video with the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-69116100
In addition, you can download the torrent from www.onebigtorrent.org which was formerly known as chomskytorrents.org.
I would say enjoy the film, but it's not meant to be an enjoyable film.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It actually *IS* a pseudo-science (Score:5, Insightful)
There are exactly zero citations in MEDLINE and PsycINFO for a peer-reviewed study done on normal people using this technique. There's one where it was used to help people with schizophrenia learn emotional cues in others. The only other citation was a book chapter (which isn't a study).
So yes, when you have little or no science in the psychological and medical databases to back up your psychological technique, we call that a pseudo-science -- it's not a real, proven technique.
And because of this, it definitely should NOT be used at airports. There is a great deal of science showing how lousy humans are at detecting lying, including nonverbal cues.
--
Get your psych on: http://psychcentral.com/ [psychcentral.com]
Nope, there are publications (Score:4, Interesting)
The question isn't whether the study of micro-expressions is science or not; the question is whether particular claims or assumptions about micro expressions exceed what is scientifically defensible, particularly whether inferences made from the study of micro-expressions are reliable. They're almost certainly, in this context, not.
It all has to do with the nature of evidence. Evidence forms a network, within which inferences can be made. Any single strand of that network will tend to be unreliable.
For example, if you know a person well, you probably could use micro-expressions very effectively. If you knew a lot about what the person is doing, you probably could as well. However, as a screening test, it is bound to be extremely unreliable. Even if you catch a fleeting glimpse of anger, disgust, or contempt on somebody's face in an airport security line, even presuming you are correct, it tells you absolutely nothing about that person, other than he is angry, disgusted, or contemptuous. Anybody who has done much traveling by air is bound to feel those things from time to time.
This is the problem with all screening tests that look for something extremely rare in the general population. Even with a highly reliable test, the rate of false positives will tend to be much higher than the rate of true positives. This is the problem with random drug tests; unless you are testing for a drug that is very commonly used, you don't have a great deal of certainty from a positive test, unless you have other evidence leading you to suspect drug use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More money wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Passengers are not the only worry for airport security. For most of modern US history, passengers have posed little concern. At the same time, the US has had many international enemies.
Airports are full of security holes. Other freight handling systems are full of security holes. "Appearing" to do things to improve security is a political strategy.
The USA is not more secure. But government is much, much bigger... and has more power than a supposed democracy should give it.
Astrological profiling next? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps that's the key - from now on the TSA can do natal charts for all passengers and use horoscopes to work out which ones are terrorists!
The calmest and most collected persons (Score:2, Informative)
Probable cause NOT required (Score:5, Insightful)
A much bigger question is whether these officials should have those powers. Whether passers rights should not be more respected. This is a deeply political question, to be settled by political means. Denying tools is only very indirect criticism.
I would vastly have preferred airport security stay within the control of the airlines. Perhaps with federal "guidence". Then no question of 4th Amendment could come up. Or maybe "fruit of the poisoned vine" doctrine should be imposed: "20kg cocaine? Hmm ... that's not explosive. Have a nice flight, sir." :)
Never again (Score:5, Interesting)
The over-the-top security measures at our airports are simply political theater and not effective policing methods. I can't believe they still have everyone removing their shoes...thank goodness no one tried to smuggle an IED on board in a bodily orifice. And if anyone swiped MY kid's formula bottle because of some Kubrickian fear of fluids, I'd be on my way to Gitmo for attempting to bend a TSA agent into a pretzel.
Why can't they simply take a nod from Israeli Airlines and stick a guy with an Uzi on board each plane? Lord knows I've been on flights where his presence would have been welcome, if only to subdue the toothless trailer park escapee trying to open the window at 30,000 feet.
And why aren't these same security procedures in place at U-Haul? After all, they haven't always used airplanes to blow up buildings...
All of the money being spent on this bloated home security apparatus, all of the money spent keeping the military stocked with munitions, all of the money spent devising better prosthetic limbs before all of the returning veterans hobbling around begin to make 'victory' in Iraq seem a bit of an oxymoron,,,all of this money might have been better spent reducing our dependence on fossil fuels three decades ago when it first became obvious how vulnerable we were to the vagaries of Middle-Eastern politics. If we'd spent even half the money we have wasted making ourselves feel safe from threats both real and imaginary since 9/11 on alternative fuel research ten years ago, Bin Laden would be penniless and living quietly in a tent in some arid desert, pulling the legs off of scorpions for his sick amusement, instead of enjoying eternal life as the bogeyman of the 21st century.
It would be wise to remember that, througout history, many more people have been killed or imprisoned by their own government than any foreign power. It's probably not such a good idea to make it easy for them.
Re:Never again (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd go several steps further.
It therefore follows that only the most mentally deranged terrorist group would even consider an aircraft hijacking today. It's expensive, and the chances of it all going to plan these days are practically zero.
Israeli airport security is easily gamed (Score:4, Interesting)
Americans who are visiting Israel once or twice tend to be deeply impressed with Israeli security. Once you get used to it, however, it is easily gamed -- many of the procedures haven't changed for decades, most of the inspectors are 20-somethings making minimum wage and subject to the same levels of boredom as the TSA, and increasingly they don't have the language skills required to do a good interrogation. Once you've gone through a few times, you know what to expect and, assuming you aren't Arab and aren't "in the computer", you can pretty much choose the level of harassment you want assuming you know how to convincingly lie, which is not a particularly difficult skill to learn (and pretty much a required skill for anyone doing work in the area, on either the Israeli or Arab side). And in fact even Palestinians know quite a few ways around the system -- sure, they will be harassed, but it is fairly predictable.
I once did a business trip that involved visiting, in a two-week period, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon (illegal at the time for US citizens, though plenty were there), back to Jordan, back into Israel, Egypt, then Israel again, then out Tel Aviv. I answered lots and lots of questions about where I had been, what I had done, etc etc, lying the whole time, never once came anywhere close to getting stopped. Again, it just isn't that hard...comes with the territory, for better or worse.
Security going into Israel on carriers other than El Al is incredibly lax, worse at times than flights within the USA. So if someone wanted to try to smuggle explosives onto an airplane, in-bound would be the way to go, not out-bound through Tel Aviv. Given that the passenger profiles going into Israel are more or less the same as the profile going out, you'd make the same political statement.
So yes, it is mostly theater and pseudo-science, but makes a great first impression. And folks are making huge amounts of money "consulting" with the Dept of Homeland Security, who no one has ever accused of being the sharpest pencils in the box, on various hare-brained schemes like this.
The freedom to feel contemptuous of government (Score:3, Insightful)
And through your hard earned tax dollars you are funding them and their cronies to do this to you. As much as 60% of your working life will be directly to fund the government that is doing this to you, that government whose agents are shouting and you with a boot on your head, with your trousers dropped, and an agent's cold hand - big brother's hand - telling you it is for your own good, that if you would only fall in line they would not have to do this.
But don't worry, so long as you smile, keep your mouth shut, and fall in line, you won't be bothered, citizen.
It is only a matter of time if we do not dramatically reverse course now. If this presidential election comes down to a race between Hillary or Obama and Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney, the decline will only accelerate. If we do not reverse course now, in 8 years we will very likely have passed the point of no return, where these policies are accepted by the populous, where the police state propaganda has thoroughly subdued them, and we will be unable to rouse them to fight.
To avoid this fate you must act now. Get behind a candidate who you can count on not to sell us out to the military industrial complex, who you can count on to wrest us free from the interests of large bankers and financial institutions, who you can count on to defend the letter of the Constitution in its original spirit, for which the blood of many patriots was shed.
And that doesn't mean just posting on internet forums. That means volunteering to travel to, to write to, and to call citizens in the primary states. If we do not get wins for these candidates in the primaries, it will be as good as lost. Now is the time to act to defend your freedom, or you will soon find it has been taken from you and it will be too late. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]
And even if you do sweat... (Score:3, Informative)
I visited Israel thrice. On the first visit everyone was searched — in a remote terminal in El Al's [wikipedia.org] exclusive use in a German transfer-point. It was rather annoyed by having to drag my checked-in luggage (which I planned not to see until Tel Aviv) and re-check it in again.
On the second flight, I went through a detailed search both ways — in and out of the country. Somehow these experts read my body-language as suspicious... First, at JFK, they took me to a special room, where they even took my shoes away for X-raying...
On the way back in Tel Aviv, I was also flagged, and the searchers' zeal went even further as they took a test-shot with my camera (to see, if it was real).
Only on the third flight, which was not by El Al did I escape the scrutiny. Either because Continental is not as paranoid (much to the annoyance of some of the Israelis on the flight), or because I was flying with my (very) significant other — a couple is always perceived to be of lower risk.
Now, here why I was not offended. First and foremost, because the Israeli searchers were always extremely polite, well-mannered, and respectful — unlike a typical TSA asshole. (I don't know, why that is. Maybe, because America's low unemployment forces TSA to hire and keep lower quality people...) When they asked for my shoes, for example, they pulled me a chair, so I would not have to stand on the floor bare-feet. After the search, one of them escorted me all the way to the plane chatting and apologizing continuously and handed me over to the stewardess (cutting the line of the boarding passengers), who apologized once more.
Or, maybe, because they weren't looking for bullshit like scissors and other implements, which no terrorist will ever use on a plane again, because it just would not work any more... Because now that we learned, that some hijackers may not be interested in ever landing the hijacked vessel — the passengers and crew will fight them head on (as they did the Shoe Bomber [wikipedia.org]).
Or, more likely, a combination of both factors.
Just for the record (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been warned (and I actually saw a sign in the air port in France to that effect) that my return trip will not be so lenient.
Shachar
What crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just hope they don't get swamped with false positives.
Lets hope they DO get swamped with false positives and stop with this nonsense. Damn. What a bunch of fascist crap.
RS
Yay Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Same old, same old (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Um, no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, I got bumped from my flight to Frankfurt last month, only to be put back on at the last minute. The TSA people walked the group that was reinstated through the checkpoints with practically no security since the plane was leaving in 5 min. Some of those people were "volunteers" who )_asked_ to be on a later flight since there was a eu.400 payment for being bumped.
-b.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, we must make sure the hijackers don't get control of that plane. If, by some miracle, they do get control, there must be little payoff and control must be difficult to maintain, and those facts should be publicized.
As a corollary, if getting control of a plane remains easy and the payoff is large (or perceived to be large), there is nothing you can do to keep the hijackers out. All you can do is put everyone in a TSA-approved, pocketless, uniform flight suit and disallow all carry-ons without medical certification (pre-certified, doctor authorized medicine/equipment, positive ID).
All you can do is to deny them weapons.
We are headed in this direction because of the hysterical intent to keep all undesirables off an insecure plane. If this is truly our intent, status quo in-flight security to protect the airline industry from having to spend money (or brook government influence in their business practices if the government were in charge of in-flight security), then let's forget the patronizing baby steps and go there already. Bring out the jumpsuits already!
That's the consequence of not securing the plane.
Personally, I say put sane security measures in place on the plane and let them try. We need to spend the appropriate money on in-flight security, and we need to stop hemming and hawing about how it's going to be done. If we can spend this much money trying to sponsor a failing democracy in Iraq, we can find the money for in-flight security.
--
Toro