home

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! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

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

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    I don't believe you did a security breach.

    You think its hard?


    Parent

    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...  ;-)

    Parent

    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."

    Parent

    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....

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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. ;)

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    Like middle eastern musicians, or Muslim religious groups or a guy who got shot for having an anxiety attack?

    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

    Parent

    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.


    Parent
    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.    

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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:)

     

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    "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.

    Parent
    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...

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

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

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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 ;)

    Parent
    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.


    Parent

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

    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?


    Parent

    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?

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

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.  

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    Do you believe in "tells?"


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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??

    Parent

    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?

    Parent
    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>

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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...

    Parent

    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.



    Parent

    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."

    Parent

    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.



    Parent

    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.

    Parent

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

    1. Security has improved, but not enough.

    2. There have been no hijackings.

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

    Parent
    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.



    Parent

    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.

    El Al security ... (2.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    ... does "bother grandmothers in wheelchairs."

    Israel is a police state and doesn't deal with anywhere near the traffic the US does.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#9)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    I guess it depends on your definition of "Police State" is, doesn't it. I don't think Israel looks anything like East Germany and the Stasi, but then again most democracies don't...

    Parent
    Israel is not a police state (none / 0) (#10)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    Israel is not a police state.  Perhaps you are referring to her neighbors.

    I thank you for the link, that is interesting.  I note that Ms. Schwartz still flies El Al.

    I do think your point about whether this can possibly scale to American amounts of traffic is reasonable.


    Parent

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    , but if the airline has all your personal info before you arrive at the airport;  I think that's a police state.

    They believe in assasination. All of their citizens do not enjoy equal rights.  They wage war against civilians using illegal weapons.

    Sounds like a police state to me.

    I note that Ms. Schwartz still flies El Al.
    Yes, most sheeple are willing to give up their rights ... they just shouldn't be allowed to give up others' rights.

    Parent
    As I said, (none / 0) (#15)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    It's all about how you define Police State - I think you would feel freer in Israel than in almost any other country (especially Israel's neighbors). But I could be wrong...

    You would also feel safer on an El Al flight than most others, but then again, I could be wrong...

    Parent

    As I said, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    Are you nuts?

    I have lived in Israel as well as neighboring states.

    Isrealis very obsession with security guarantees them a place right next to, if not ahead of, Nazi Germany.

    The regime needs to be overthrown.  Nearly all of the world would have championed the simultaneous overthrow of Saddam and Israeli worlds.  Too bad the Us chose to support the evil group.

    Parent

    Suspicions confirmed. (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    Those damn Jews and their car bombs...

    (sarcasm alert)

    Parent

    You don't need car bombs ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    ... when you have bombers and artillery. Especially when you are willing to use illegal weapons on innocent civilians.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    You must be referring to  the Stern Gang.

    The members of the Stern Gang were ardent students of violence, self-declared Jewish admirers of Mussolini who steeped themselves in the terrorist traditions of the pre-1917 Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the Macedonian IMRO, and the Italian Blackshirts. As the most extreme wing of the Zionist movement in Palestine -- "fascists" to the Haganah and "terrorists" to the British -- they were morally and tactically unfettered by considerations of diplomacy or world opinion. They had a fierce and well-deserved reputation for the originality of their operations and the unexpectedness of their attacks. On January 12, 1947, as part of their campaign to prevent any compromise between mainstream Zionism and the British Labor government, they exploded a powerful truck bomb in the central police station in Haifa, resulting in 144 casualties. Three months later, they repeated the tactic in Tel Aviv, blowing up the Sarona police barracks (5 dead) with a stolen postal truck filled with dynamite.


    Parent
    I take it you are (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    against gun control.  Good.

    Parent
    Did you read the article you linked to? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    The wikipedia articles seems to suggest that Israeli Arab citizens enjoy full rights and that is written into the constitution.  It also says that outside groups say that Israeli Arabs are discriminated against, but it doesn't say they don't have full rights.

    Discrimination against its citizens makes a country a police state?

    Israel uses cluster bombs against its neighbor.  That makes it a police state?

    We apparently used cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We still discriminate against some of our citizens.  Citizens here no longer enjoy habeas corpus.  Citizens here have their meds monitored, and potentially their email and their phone calls.  Citizens here are arrested for carrying guns, knives, and have their right to peaceful assembly taken away for speaking out against the President or being thought to maybe be a person that might speak out against the President.

    Israel is not a police state.

    Parent

    Police state (none / 0) (#73)
    by Skyho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    by your postings, apparently, the US, along with the Israelis, are police states.

    Parent
    No constitutional concerns, yet. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    jerry, I don't think that Jeralyn is objecting on constitutional grounds. I think she's just saying that the program is stupid, wasteful, and probably ineffective.

    As far as constitutionality, if it operates in a non-discriminatory manner, it'll be fine. That's why I say "no constitutional concerns...yet."

    Parent

    yeah, this sounds "scientific" (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    "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."

    i'd be curious to see the actual research forming the basis for this program. oh, wait, i'm sure that's classified.

    see, that's the cool thing about national security, you can make any ridiculous claim you want, and never be required to actually support it with verifiable evidence, merely by citing "national security" as your basis.

    Actually, there's been a lot published. (none / 0) (#35)
    by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    Here's an example:

    Title: Research methods in detecting deception research.

    Series Title: Series in Affective Science

    Author(s): Frank, Mark G., Department of Communication, School of Informatics, The University of Buffalo (The State University of New York), Buffalo, NY, US

    Source: The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research. Harrigan, Jinni A. (Ed); Rosenthal, Robert (Ed); Scherer, Klaus R. (Ed); pp. 341-368.

    New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 2005.

    Abstract: (from the chapter) Although deception is a large topic, for this chapter we will focus on the methodology employed in studying nonverbal aspects of a specific subset of deception research--humans telling lies. These nonverbal behaviors include facial expressions, eye movements, and other actions; head, hand, leg, and other body movements, gestures, or postures; and voice tones and other paralinguistic information. ...

    I work in a related area; emotions and facial expressions are heavily studied and there is a ton of collaborating research.


    Parent

    desertwind (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertwind on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    Well, this agoraphobic is gonna avoid Denver Airport.

    3 multiple points about airline security (none / 0) (#23)
    by walt on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:25:34 PM EST
    1. It may be useful to request, or require, that until the Transp. Safety Admin. can assure Congress that every bag, box, suitcase, container, etc. that goes on board an aircraft has been inspected or analyzed or X-rayed or evaluated, no other funds may be piddled away on hare-brained, Roger Rabbit, phony schemes.

    2. I don't personally care if even Osama bin Laden, his-satanic-self, gets on an aircraft with me so long as he's totally unarmed, his carry-ons have been inspected & his checked bags have been examined in a process using some demonstrably effective methodologies or technologies.

    3. I think the civil rights approach here is not workable.  My state has an implied consent view of such things as drivers' licenses--if "probable cause" traffic stops seem intrusive to you, then walk, and mind your legal manners there also.  Similarly, when someone buys a ticket to get on someone else's aircraft from a public air terminal, etc., it seems that a great deal of implied consent gets dragged along with all that.  I'm not sure how far is too far, but it seems that most USA citizens will accept quite a lot in exchange for the semblance of safety on an aircraft.  This scheme may be too far, but it might turn out to be somewhat acceptable to a lot of people.


    There really has been (none / 0) (#26)
    by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    a huge amount of research recently on facial expressions and emotions. One of the prominent names in security research is Mark Frank.  Here's what NSF's web site said in Sept. 2006:


    In terms of airport security, Dr. Frank has been studying behaviors related to hostile intent in checkpoint situations. Simulating an airport screening scenario, Dr. Frank has been studying the types of behaviors that may betray an individual intent on committing a malfeasant act. These contexts involve stand up and face to face interviews. He has been a pro-bono consultant to TSA and their behavioral SPOT (Screening Passenger by Observational Techniques) program, helping them to understand in a variety of ways the science behind what it is they see daily. He has [been] in the airports with these teams from TSA and the Massachusetts State Police observing them and their procedures and engaging in a dialogue with them from the point of view of a practitioner/scientist.

    Dr. Frank has research funding from NSF (0454183, 0534183, 0627822) to develop a real-time prototype to measure the face for emotion, which would have enormous utility for airport and other screening situations, and will examine how these procedures fit with human operators and decision making to optimize the utility of any product developed.

    It is very unlikely to be 100% accurate, but it really has a solid basis. My bet would be that they won't be misled by panic attacks, but we'll see.

    My own huge concern will be over how they treat people who show up positive.  Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty.  And they won't get proof from these techniques.

    jpete (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    What they'll get is a reason to inspect much closer.

    Parent
    A reason? (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    Sounds more like a guess to me buddy.  Or a prejudice.

    Parent
    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    it sounds an awful lot like a fancy, scientific-sounding way of saying "I (or my machine) don't like the look on your face, please step out the line so I can bust your chops."

    I'd be surprised if it was 5% accurate, much less anywhere near 100%.  

    As for airpost security...bomb-screening, metal detectors, and impenetrable cockpit doors is good enough for me.  Forget the profiling, face-readers, and other such nonsensical measures.


    Parent

    kdog (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure I remember you posting that you only like playing poker face-to-face because playing on-line doesn't allow you to look the other players in the eye and "read" their faces.

    If you, an amateur I assume, can sniff out someone's "tells," shouldn't someone with actual training be able to do so also?

    Parent

    Sniffing out a tell.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    in poker is far from an exact science sarc.  Really, really far.  I'd best describe it as a  guess based on body language. Plus, when I'm wrong nobody gets hurt but me.

    When a security screener is wrong, and if they are using physical "tells" to pick out terrorists they will be wrong a vast majority of the time, somebody gets hassled or worse.

    If this facial recognition stuff is anything remotely like reading poker tells I'm even more against it...if thats possible.  I'm gonna check out jpete's link in detail...cuz now I'm really curious.

    Parent

    I should add.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:29:27 PM EST
    tells are just part of the equation in poker, used in conjunction with the info gained during the betting rounds. I don't see what other info any facial recognition screeners will have to go on...besides ethnicity.

    If you paid attention to nothing else but physical tells at a poker table you would most certainly be a lifetime loser.  It's merely a tool in the shed.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    as this is only being used as an adjunct to standard TSA screening procedures, I'm not sure it needs to be an exact science.

    That said, maybe you should get some of the training and see if it helps you "guess" better more.

    Anyway, instead of all of us making declarations of fact about something that we have zero knowledge about as to its effectiveness, maybe someone who's less lazy than me should do some googling to see how well it works on El Al...of course, we could also just wait a month or so and see how well it's working in Denver...

    Parent

    I was thinking of checking out... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:02:48 PM EST
    some of the books or the dvd from jpetes link on my next library trip.  Even if it is bunk, it can't hurt to check it out.  Interesting stuff, though I remain very skeptical.

    An emotion-reading machine is a scary thing to me and my over-active imagination...I kinda hope it doesn't work.  It wouldn't be the first time mankind invented something we'd be better off without, know what I mean?  

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    Gonna look or some "tell" help?

    Parent
    SUO (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    I think that was me knocking internet poker. Kdog won an entrance into the WSOP last year on one of the Internet sites.... lucky dog ;-)

    I can't explain tells. The great players can, and some even give "fake" tells.

    In poker I think it is the granularity of the game. Hand position, is the player losing/winning, is the player a normal winner/looser, is the player loose or tight...is the player playing at a higher/lower limit than normal... BTW - To know most of these things it is necessary to have played with/been around the other players.

    "Body language" means little to me in a game.

    So I'm not a big believer in this new program.

    I do believe it is better to be searching 18-40 year old Moslem males than it is 60 year old grandmothers.

    Parent

    Point well taken (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    but, like I said above, none of us has any real knowledge at all of this whole issue with the probable exception of jpete - surely it isn't too hard to see if it's effective or not for the Israelis? Failing that, in a month or so, we should know if it's effective in Denver.

    For me, it does not seem to be illegal and the results should be interesting.

    Parent

    SUO (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    True... I reminded of the punch line:

    "Can't hurt!?"

    Parent

    I'm sorry to say that the research (none / 0) (#41)
    by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    is really in much better shape. It's been developed for 40+ years.  Have a look at the site of a genuine pioneer who started the research and trained (I THINK)the current science adviser to the TSA:
    http://www.paulekman.com/

    There are academic disputes about Ekman's research; for example, it debated whether expressions  are as universal as he says.  However, it is VERY respected and influential.

    The NYT best seller Blink discusses some of this.

    I should perhaps say that I was at a conference very recently dealing with a closely related subject; researchers from all sorts of fields are building on this research.

    Parent

    Wonder If (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    His research is in the typical terror or CIA manual.

    Parent
    Ekman and Frank (none / 0) (#49)
    by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    seem to give lots of talks to law enforcement.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    What about the terrorists? Sounds to me like it would part of the training, especially if it is so developed and used widely.

    The people with bad chemistry, and who pose no threat but are really uncomfortable with social interactions, seem the most likely to be culled/harassed.

    While the terrorists will have trained their reactions to pass their way on to the plane.

    Parent

    Good questions. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jpete on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    As it turns out, the facial expressions of states of mind are a combination of voluntary and involuntary muscle movements.  Some of it just cannot be faked, without incredibly extensive training.  And of course the involuntary muscle movements are the ones that will be watched.

    After decades of research there is a good data based on facial muscles and emotions/moods/states of mind.

    Parent

    Chatting up by the security people,,, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Grindhouse on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    All the years that I've flown out of London-Heathrow on US-bound flights, either by myself, with my wife, or entire family, there is a mandatory chat on check-in with security types, who casually ask seemingly innocent questions, but are looking for certain "cues", the display of which will initiate much deeper Q&A before a passenger can go through the boarding procedure.  At LHR, all this predated 9/11 by years, and in most cases is done in 2-3min, if you're a middle-aged white businessman or travelling family, that is.  More than once did I notice non-whites really getting grilled, and one can only presume that the same "selection process" will surface at US airports as well.

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

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment