Operation Spot: Airport Passenger Behavior Screening

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:17:55 PM EST
Tags: airport screening (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

What will they think of next?

A Transportation Security Administration effort to screen air travelers for suspicious behavior is on track to come to Denver International Airport this year, subjecting passengers to observation and small talk from agents looking for signs of deception.

The SPOT program - short for "screening passengers by observation technique" - is modeled after Israeli security measures that pick up on facial expressions, body language and other involuntary reactions that occur when people lie. TSA officials won't list which behaviors raise concerns or say how many screeners are involved, citing security concerns.

What are they looking for?

"We're not just looking for people who seem suspicious, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said. "We're looking for behaviors that have been proven by scientific research to indicate that an individual is suppressing high levels of stress or fear or deception. People who are up to something, basically."

More...

So what happens when you're flagged?

Travelers who raise behavioral flags or give evasive answers to casual questions about their trips can be taken aside and searched or turned over to law enforcement.

And, they have the nerve to call it science.

"We're looking for behaviors that have been proven by scientific research to indicate that an individual is suppressing high levels of stress or fear or deception. People who are up to something, basically."

This sounds like a revamped version of the drug courier profile.

< The Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill:What's Going On? | Boris Yeltsin Has Died >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Operation Spot: Airport Passenger Behavior Screening | 95 comments (95 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wow, I'm excited, aren't you? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by profmarcus on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:34:42 PM EST

it's interesting to me to note that traveling in and out of other countries which used to be infinitely more bothersome security-wise than travel within the u.s. has become much easier relative to u.s. airports... going through u.s. immigration and customs feels more like a perp walk than a routine... going the other way, i always like to open my luggage at my destination to find the tsa flyer lying on top of my clothes, informing me that they have physically inspected my bag... and that's not to mention the increasing degree of disrobing that's necessary to pass through the security screen to the concourse... i am all for adequate and thorough security,,, i handled dulles lobby security for united airlines immediately following 9/11 and know whereof i speak... what the u.s. has in place now feels more like harassment than security, and i question whether it's effective... i have zero doubt that, if someone wanted to get something into the secure aoa and, ultimately, onboard an airplane, they could do it without very much trouble...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Professor (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:19:42 PM EST

Did you have anything to do with UAL security, or any airport security BEFORE 9/11?


Prof (none / 0) (#66)
by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:47:50 PM EST

Pajamas,

What difference does it make?

Most of us (airline pilots) know that "airline security" is a joke.

The entire thing has to do with keeping the Repukes in power, and nothing to do with actually creating "security".

I, for one, am waiting to pull the trigger on a easy security breach at a major airport. Yes, the airport manager received and acknowleged my certified letter, the TSA acknowleges the easy breach but disclaims responisibility and all point the finger at Bush, your bull milking buddy.

I'd be your friend except some of you friends are kinda creepy.


Skyho (none / 0) (#82)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:15:53 AM EST

you post on FI also?


SkyHo (none / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:43:40 AM EST

I don't believe you are an airline pilot.

I don't believe you did a security breach.

I think you are a 16 year old kid who's Dad whon't let him drive the car.


What (none / 0) (#92)
by Jen M on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:53:56 PM EST

You think its hard?


: Jen M (none / 0) (#93)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:19:13 PM EST

I don't think an airline pilot would get into a deliberate confrontation with TSA and the airport management.... Those are the same people who the pilot's management has to deal with and get along with, as well as the Pilot's union
So, I don't think he did it, and I don't think he is an airline pilot.
You have to remember that SkyHo has lived in Israel, has rental property in LA (but doesn't rent to illegal aliens, thank you very much), has access to information that the rest of us don't and deemed correct the strategy of initally attacking Iran at night during a FULL moon using stealth aircraft.
But he does have a thing for me. See his comment:
BJ (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:58:55 PM EST
At first I thought it was he in the bushes outside my bedroom window last night, but after further consideration I think he was that guy three urnials over at the Mirage last week. I knew he was staring... ;-)

Freedom-lovers.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:18:34 PM EST

we need to come up with some counter-ops....how about Operation Mind Your Own Damn Business?

Eh? (none / 0) (#12)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:36:30 PM EST

No matter how ineffective we may think government operations may be, I think it's probably a mistake to go out of our way to make them more ineffective.

First, we wouldn't want to foil whatever useful purpose is served by the program, even if that usefulness is very small. Second, such an attempt would most likely be viewed by the public as an attempt to make air travel less safe over something so trivial as a non-invasive government program.

This second point is more crucial than one may think. Folks argue against intrusive safety screenings at airports because they believe that the inconvenience and intrusion outweighs the safety benefit gained. That's a plainly logical, even wise, argument. But where there is no intrusion, as in this program, protesting the program makes it appear as if the point is not really inconvenience, but rather to simply stick it to the Man.

And isn't that kinda adolescent?

kdog, I guess my point is: why should we come up with some "counter-ops."


Something has got to be done...... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:12:13 PM EST

to offset the rising trend of dime-dropping. I think we all could use a reminder to mind our own business and stop running to a state agent everytime somebody makes us nervous or "doesn't look right". Too Orwellian for my taste...

This program, to me, is nothing more than the state asking it's citizens to tell them who to intrude upon and harass. Not me babe....


I misunderstood.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:24:26 PM EST

I thought it was another T.I.P.S.-type program.

I see that it is state agents that will be doing the psychological probing...it is they that need to mind their own business.


: Cross-posted (none / 0) (#19)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:36:29 PM EST

Just ignore the first part of my reply. ;)

OT & OT (none / 0) (#18)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:35:01 PM EST

OFF TOPIC: That's the second time in about a week that I've seen the phrase "dime-dropping" here at TalkLeft. It's one that I've never heard before, so I looked it up, or tried to. I see it used in many places, but not with much consistency of meaning. I'm fairly certain that you're using it in the sense of "tattling," though I get the idea that it's a bigger deal for you than just running to MommyState.

ON TOPIC: It wasn't my impression that this program is looking for tips from passengers. Rather, security agents will be deployed among passengers merely to observe their behavior. I think the idea is that passengers may not even realize that the guy they're sitting next to is a security agent (although that didn't work all that well with the airmarshalls, did it).

In any case, "running to a state agent" when people are afraid or think something may be wrong is exactly what we have security and police officers for. People shouldn't have to ignore obvious warning signs just because you think it's too Orwellian. They should be free or even encouraged to bring their concerns to officials and the government should have procedures to efficiently and lawfully handle those concerns.

Also, on a more humorous note: it's nice to see a lefty (hell, to see anyone) these days who's for less government interference in our lives.


different POV (none / 0) (#24)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:54:52 PM EST

People shouldn't have to ignore obvious warning signs just because you think it's too Orwellian.

Like middle eastern musicians, or Muslim religious groups or a guy who got shot for having an anxiety attack?

My main concern is that they say it is a 'scientific' method. That's pure BS. There is no metric in psychology or any study of human behavior that let's one know whether a person is worried about flying or if they set the timer right.

To me this is just another case of 'he was acting suspicious', 'I saw something shiny', or 'we pulled him over because he was going just over/exactly/just under the speed limit.'

Off Topic:

"it's nice to see a lefty (hell, to see anyone) these days who's for less government interference in our lives."

Then you haven't been paying attention. No illegal wiretaps; no imprisonment w/o charges; no torture; no kidnapping (rendition); No secret prisons; No searches w/o warrants ... that's a consistent theme here by the authors and most commenters.

BTW, 'dropping a dime' is snitching, referring back to when a phone call cost a dime.


Sailor (none / 0) (#29)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:21:31 PM EST

Sailor, I didn't say that suspicious people should be shot, I said that alarmed bystanders should feel free to go to the officials with their concerns.

BTW, 'dropping a dime' is snitching, referring back to when a phone call cost a dime.

Oh. Well I wouldn't know anything about that. :-D


: Gabe ... (none / 0) (#79)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:34:02 PM EST

... while it's probably not mutual, I've frequently thought you make some good points.
Could you address this point?
No illegal wiretaps; no imprisonment w/o charges; no torture; no kidnapping (rendition); No secret prisons; No searches w/o warrants ... that's a consistent theme here by the authors and most commenters.

I was mistaken.... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:11:44 PM EST

you are correct, it is not a citizen-based snitch program. I made an arse of myself by skimmimg the post instead of reading. Makes my point irrelevant in regards to this new program, though I stand by the sentiment. Now that I understand the new program, it just seems like the usual bullsh*t to make us feel safe, and will lead to a lot of people getting unnecessarily hassled.

As to why I am personally against dropping dimes, this is because the state has decided to make me an adversary. Why on earth would I run to the same people that bust down the doors to the card rooms I play in, stealing everybody's money. The same people who have slapped the cuffs on me for my choice of smoking herb. Now they want my help to catch their other adversaries? F*ck that bro. When I sense danger I'll deal with it in my own way, on my own. fwiw, most times I sense danger in my world, danger is wearing a badge.

If and when the state decides to allow me to make the decisions that affect my own life, maybe then I'll be willing to help them catch some bad guys. Until then, I'm forced by conscience and circumstances to deal with bad guys on my own.

BTW...You're right, my love for freedom and choice often leaves me at odds with the "left", as well as the "right". Safe to say I'm best described as a libertarian. And I can't believe you never heard of "dropping a dime" before, maybe its more an east-coast figure of speech. Not only are ten cent pay phone calls a thing of the past, so will pay phones themselves before we know it.


Narcs (none / 0) (#36)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:36:13 PM EST

fwiw, most times I sense danger in my world, danger is wearing a badge.

Aight. We must come from totally different places. I haven't had any problems from the police, although I did get stopped once for being a white guy in a bad neighborhood. I didn't mind the pretextual stop. It's their job to be on the look out for things that don't seem right.

Of course, I probably didn't mind the stop because I wasn't doing anything wrong and they let me go as soon as that became clear. (Alternatively, I'm sure you could get Edger to explain how us Republicans like to roll over and present for authoritariarian types. Go with whichever you like; I'm not excitable.)

And I can't believe you never heard of "dropping a dime" before, maybe its more an east-coast figure of speech. Not only are ten cent pay phone calls a thing of the past, so will pay phones themselves before we know it.

I just can't think of any conversation where that phrase would have come up when "snitch" or "informer" or especially "narc" would have worked just as well. The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang says "Esp. underworld: 'to place a telephone call; (specif.) to inform on someone by making a phone call to police.'" It also references the 1960s. Those two reasons are probably why I've never heard it.


Different places.... (none / 0) (#48)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:03:55 PM EST

That is probably very safe to say. Police have given me nothing but grief, while taking my money my property, and my freedom. Like I said...adversaries. It's unforunate, but I didn't make the rules.

I must be the unlucky sort...two of the things I enjoy most on this earth are prohibited or excessively restricted by my government. If I enjoyed booze and the lotto instead of reefer and poker, I might feel different about cooperating with the state. But booze makes me feel sh*tty and lotto is a suckers bet, so here I am:)

Poker (none / 0) (#57)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:45:44 PM EST

I share your love of poker. Fortunately, grad students with mega-loans are not exactly playing with enough money to make it worth anyone's time to bust up our games.

Come to think of it, I'm not getting enough poker these days. My buddies all freak out at the end of semesters and start studying for finals. It makes it difficult to get games together.


: Gabreil (none / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:58:31 AM EST

Stay focused on school.
You'll have plenty of time for poker.

"dime-dropping" Definitions (none / 0) (#94)
by ThrowingGallStones on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 10:45:53 PM EST

Have you tried urbandictionary.com?
It's one ofthe first places I go.


Thought crimes (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by baked potato on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:57:31 PM EST

which is to say, non-conformist attitudes, will make you subject to arrest.

I've seen signs at airport security check-in lines saying that being disrespectful or joking will make you subject you to arrest.

Being nervous about being interrogated by strangers in a Kafkaesque fashion will make you subject to arrest.

Being well-informed and concerned about your 4th Amendment rights will be taken as a sign of your "having a bad attitude" and make you subject you to arrest.

Kurt Vonnegut was right. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was actually elected.

: No..and enough already (none / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:07:54 PM EST

The disrespect bit is simple. They don't want the screeners having to put up with trash talk. Would you want to in your job?
The joking bit should be self-explanatory. One man's joke is another's declared intent.
The program doesn't make you subject to arrest, it just gets you looked at closer. Nervous or not, if you have no illegal materials and make no threats, improper jokes...you're not going to get arrested.
But hey, parnoia is perfect for some people...

So people with anxiety disorders (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:49:39 PM EST

and panic attacks are the new terrorists? Can you imagine some poor person trying to contain a panic attack being yanked aside and shaken down? Some people are so afraid to fly it isn't funny. I used to be when I was a child. It has subsided as an adult but I have an Aunt that has to take Xanax to fly anyplace. A few years back my favorite Uncle in the whole world committed suicide and out of no where close to boarding to go to his funeral I started having some kind of anxiety thing. I was alone so that probably would have made me even more suspicious, my husband stayed home with the kids because they had school. I was able to self soothe myself and a martini in flight, but I can't imagine if someone took my panic and fear to be terrorist like and in my state I probably would have flunked all the preliminary questioning and ended up with the royal treatment from TSA. This can only end very very badly someday soon.

No Tracy (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:15:53 PM EST

these people aren't the new terrorists, or even the old terrorists.

If you get observed and your actions cause you to be further screened, that will be the end of it.

Of course since you have no problem with what the UN's plan for GW prevention will cost, you probably won't be able to afford to travel anyway.


damn skippy (none / 0) (#40)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:43:42 PM EST

goodbye plane
hello train


How do you know my actions (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:51:54 PM EST

won't cause me any further body cavity screening? I am that crazy Militarytracy person, that wouldn't be too hard to find out during my "prescreening" before the big screen! I'm being all stressy before boarding a plane and I don't like George Bush, that's sort of obvious. I'm feeling violated already just talking about it.


WTF? (none / 0) (#46)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:58:58 PM EST

"Further" body cavity screening? Really? What body cavity screening have you been getting so far?

I understood that only El Al did body cavity searches and only if they had reason to believe that the person was concealing something, uh, in there.

The fellow who was recently stopped for sticking a magnet in his butt only received a body cavity search after he set off the machines and when wanding revealed that he had something in his ass.

Other than that, can you actually point to any body cavity screening going on at our airports?


Somehow I don't think this'll make (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:03:45 PM EST

I'm being all stressy before boarding a plane and I don't like George Bush, that's sort of obvious.

you stand out from a crowd.


: Wow, I forgot about that amid (none / 0) (#61)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:14:58 PM EST

all the Be Afwaid Be Vewy Vewy Afwaid stuff. I'm the majority now. I feel much calmer. Things have changed a lot since 9/11 haven't they ;)

Tracy (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:20:38 PM EST

won't cause me any further body cavity screening?

Does this mean that you have previously been "cavity" screened, or does it mean that you think that the program will cause you to be cavity searched?

If it is the former I have no comment. If it is the latter, I think you know better.


Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:52:13 PM EST

They tried to do a cavity search on me, i told them I wanted a private screening room, they detained me. They released me in time to conduct my flight.

Harrassment all around.

There is only one reason there has not been another terrorist event. Bush&Co has been doing such a good job of terrorising their own populace. I mean, why intervene if your boy is doing such a good job?


: Good Lord! (none / 0) (#78)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:33:45 PM EST

How horrible! My husband shared a story with me about a friend who went through what you went through, because of that I knew it was a possibility but my God they did that to you?

shy people (none / 0) (#39)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:42:53 PM EST

will have a hard time


fortunately, no. (none / 0) (#42)
by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:49:14 PM EST

The background research is very sophisticated and covers this sort of thing.


given the way (none / 0) (#50)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:11:34 PM EST

people have been misinterpereting my shyness all my life, I don't believe it.


It's important to know that there really now (none / 0) (#51)
by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:15:07 PM EST

is a science and people can be trained to distinguish shyness and deceit.

I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but the research has been going on for decades and in fact that's a huge amount of supporting evidence.

We ordinary people, however, are not all that good at getting subtle differences, your case suggests.


jpete.... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:52:22 PM EST

having perused your links a little, maybe you can answer this for me.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that one person might express feeling shy with one set of facial muscle contortions, while the same contortions in another might represent a different emotion? Like how one person talks a lot when they are nervous, and another gets quiet when they are nervous?

This all seems way to subjective to me...even though you are scientifically measuring facial movements.


kdog (none / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:36:41 PM EST

Do you believe in "tells?"


: Of course.... (none / 0) (#64)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:43:15 PM EST

but one man's nervous "bluff" tell is another man's excited "holding the nuts" tell. Same tell, different meanings.

it depends. (none / 0) (#67)
by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:54:15 PM EST

the hypothesis is that some behavior doesn't vary among individuals. For example, push some one over and their arms will shoot out to protect them, with a very few pathological exceptions. (Old people with slowed down reaction times are vulnerable here.)

Similarly, it is said, people who lie will tighten some muscles around their eyes. And, if the research is right, we really do it and it will be almost impossible not to without a great deal of training.

I don't want to get in the position of a whole sale endorsement of ALL the research, but it seems to me important to realize that this whole area of human behavior has been the subject of a very great deal of research.

One reason for the research is that human emotional expression is incredibly important and it ramifies in many different directions. So, for example, autists are greatly disadvantaged by not having the "natural" equipment for picking up emotions. The conference I was at very recently revealed that it is controversial whether psychopaths can do it.

All this impacts our understanding of human morality, communication, schooling, and so on. So a very great deal of the ground has been tread.


Thanks a lot..... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:21:23 PM EST

I appreciate it. I like food for thought. It is without dispute that our faces express emotions. Whether we should let airport security, or the state, use such info as probable cause for further search or detainment is up for debate. Personally I'm very against.

I can't help but think how packed the searching pens would be if everybody who should the "normal" facial signs of anger, frustration, or nervousness was pulled aside in an airport. To catch a one in 500 million shot.


: thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:38:57 PM EST

I share your doubts about the state using all this.
Is it all out of our control now? I hope not, but the gov't right now seems to know no limits. We must get the gov't back to the people.

ridiculous (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by eric on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:36:03 PM EST

They've been searching and probing and scanning like crazy for over 5 years now. How many hijack plots have they uncovered? None. Why in the world to they need even more ways to harrass us?

It's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Seriously, there is simply no evidence that any hijacker or would-be hijacker has outwitted all of our searching such that we need to implement something like this. It's ridiculous.

eric (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:16:16 PM EST

Did you ever think that part of prevention is the knowledge, by the terrorists, that airport security is ten times better than the morning of 9/11 when
moslem males between the ages of 18 and 35 were let on board commercial airliners with boxcutters?

BTW - How much flying do you do??


and how many times (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:53:15 PM EST

have ordinary people and testers gotten stuff past security?


I do a lot of flying (none / 0) (#32)
by BJohnM on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:28:50 PM EST

Never a month goes by I'm not on a plane, and often it's weekly. This week is three cities in three days.

I do NOT believe that security is significantly better today than it was prior to 9/11. Remember, those guys did not smuggle bombs or guns onto the planes. Security today looks more extensive, so we all feel like it's better. Take a close look at the people doing the screening. I'm sure many of them are good people, but they are not the highest paid people in the country. They're doing their time at their job like most of us. Just getting through the day.

Oh, and Eric, I'll bet they've uncovered a bunch of hijack plots and hijackers, but remember, it's all classified. <snark> Just take the government's word for it. </snark>


Not the full story. (none / 0) (#37)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:37:07 PM EST

Oh, and Eric, I'll bet they've uncovered a bunch of hijack plots and hijackers, but remember, it's all classified. <snark> Just take the government's word for it. </snark>

It's not just about what they've uncovered, but what they've deterred.


BJ (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:44:39 PM EST

Do I think security is better? Of course. The results speak for themselves. Do I think they are perfect? No.

And I agree we aren't paying the screeners enough. Not even half enough.


BJ (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:58:55 PM EST

Security is not better. Results have nothing to do with implimentation.

In fact, little boy. The rules are the same as pre-11Sep. Knives over 4 inches are removed, which, even by your penis envied folks like PPJ, do not include "box-cutters", the instrument du jour on that day.

Security is much worse than in Europe. Crappy X-ray machines as well a multiple diversions enable any half-assed terrorist to take advantage and cause yet another reason to be afraid, as it were.

I would be more than willing to export anyone that is afraid of terrorists, being more willing to live amongst the brave than the hair on fire idiots.


: SkyHo (none / 0) (#84)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:31:20 AM EST

even by your penis envied folks like PPJ
You say my penis is envied??? Why?
So that was you peeping in my bedroom window last night...

lack of evidence is not evidence (none / 0) (#81)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:07:41 PM EST

This also applies to fighting them in Iraq so we don't fight them here.

Molly B. (none / 0) (#83)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:27:25 AM EST

We're speaking results here.

Not evidence of attempts. Doesn't matter why or how. It matters "if."


You know I ate shrimp last night (none / 0) (#85)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:06:50 AM EST

and every night I eat shrimp, we don't have a lunar eclipse. Works every night I eat shrimp.

Thanks Molly (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:56:58 AM EST

I was just finishing up an long standing daoist alchemical experiment last night, and a lunar eclipse would have sent me back years, maybe ruined the whole thing.

Glad that you were thinking of me.


Molly B (none / 0) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:53:53 AM EST

You know, my comment was:

Security has improved, but not enough.
There have been no hijackings.

So please keep on eating shrimp if you think that is the reason. As I said, results count.


: You are absolutely right results count (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:15:17 PM EST

I eat shrimp. Result: no eclipse.

My understanding is that the Israeli program is (none / 0) (#3)
by jerry on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:14:29 PM EST

effective and doesn't bother grandmothers in wheelchairs.

Yes, it is profiling, but it seems to be targeting behaviors and not "just" ethnic characteristics.

It probably does target ethnic, age, religious attributes, but on top of that it presumably looks for other behaviors associated with would be terrorists.

Jeralyn do you believe that "FBI Profiling" works or is basically bogus? I don't know myself, but I lean to the basically bogus...

Assuming it works in some degree, what are the civil liberty implications of this use of profiling in an airport?

It seems potentially more effective than the current mechanisms and actually seems less intrusive overall.

If it is like what I have been told about Israeli security, it also requires more highly trained officers and places them in the actual crowd.

I can see some problems due to profiling, but I have never been certain why it must absolutely be condemned if it is not being implemented purely on racist, sexist, ageist, religious .... grounds.