
$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science - alexcasalboni
http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/1-billion-dollar-tsa-behavioral-screening-program-slammed-as-ineffective-junk-science-150323?news=856031
======
u23KDd23
I've observed the horrible nature of this program in person while traveling.
During the practice, the TSA staff talked loudly to threaten passengers and
then also made "jokes" to passengers about finding chemicals on them.
Essentially they try to escalate the fear among all the passengers and then
single out someone who responds the most poorly. Not to mention the fact that
anyone who has protested or complained about any of these controversial
programs are being targeted without any basis. Psychological warfare is being
conducted on American soil against innocent Americans.

~~~
josefresco
Consider this counterpoint experience posted on Slashdot...

"I recall going through security at the Charlotte, NC airport once, a few
years ago, and noticed TSA agents out in the queue making smalltalk with all
of the passengers. "Hey, how are y'all doin' today?", "Goin' someplace warm?",
"Be sure to take off that belt buckle sir.", "Were are y'all headed?", "Y'all
fly much?", and so forth. At first I thought that this was a misguided effort
at public relations. But then it occurred to me that those agents were
probably pre-screeners looking for nervous and evasive passengers who would
then be subjected to additional traditional screening. I don't know what SPOT
is and have no opinion of its effectiveness. But it seems to me that chatting
up passengers in order to spot potential trouble-makers is probably the single
most effective part of the whole TSA process."

~~~
otakucode
>it seems to me that chatting up passengers in order to spot potential
trouble-makers is probably the single most effective part of the whole TSA
process

I don't understand this. I assume that its meant from an intuitive 'I feel
like this would be effective' standpoint. Because as far as actual
effectiveness is concerned, we know that it has stopped 0 attacks. The only
way we could know it to be effective is if there were people actually trying
to carry out attacks and being caught. Neither of those things are happening,
though, so we really can't tell. Thus far, it's just a massive waste of
resources.

Really, 9/11 guaranteed that there will never be another airline hijacking for
a very, very long time. No passenger will fight with anything less than every
fiber of their being to stop any hijacker now. It doesn't matter what kind of
weapon you've got, the instant you stand up and say 'I'm taking over this
place', you immediately have the entire crew and passengers willing to die to
stop you. Before the idea of planes as weapons was tried, everyone presumed a
hijacked plane would just fly to Cuba and everyone would be OK. But now that
they know the possibility everyone is going to die in an intentional crash,
hijackers have no chance.

------
tempodox
Maybe someone should suggest the study of physiognomy to the TSA. Over a
hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and
other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form.
Had the term “terrorist” been invented by then, they would have doubtlessly
detected that, too.

So we may just as well say, the TSA is about 100 yrs out of date. But then,
not letting people board a plane because you don't like their nose or the way
they scratch their head is the only hope of fighting “terror” that we have,
isn't it?

~~~
EC1
> Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral
> fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face
> and skull form.

Do you have anything more about this?

~~~
pcl
The OP is making a (presumably) tongue-in-cheek reference to phrenology --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)

~~~
tempodox
Yes, that can be regarded as part of the field. See also:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_criminology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_criminology)

------
fijal
So this is codified racial-profiling and intuition-profiling (that singles out
people with dreadlocks, arabs, sick people, stressed people etc.) unlike all
other un-codified profiling employed by virtually all agents of all border
security things all over the planet. If you don't believe me, try flying
visually sick and you'll be questioned over and over again (not about being
sick or having ebola, mind you).

~~~
arafa
SPOT is based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), a method developed by
Paul Ekman to read faces (familiar to fans of the show Lie to Me):
[http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24533526/face-it-
tsa...](http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24533526/face-it-tsa-
behavioral-screening-is-failing)

While the data behind using FACS to spot emotions (EMFACS) is solid
([https://books.google.com/books?id=W_npWdrHGFcC&pg=PA47&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=W_npWdrHGFcC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=EMFACS+studies&source=bl&ots=LauXrYExMj&sig=srjWc94XJma8hnFmZWPihXYdvZI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n3wRVYLwKIiayASdj4LABg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=EMFACS%20studies&f=false)),
the record on using it to spot lies, terrorists, or otherwise discovering the
intentions behind those emotions is not good
([http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/gao-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/gao-
says-there-is-no-evidence-that-a-tsa-program-to-spot-terrorists-is-
effective/2013/11/13/fca999a0-4c93-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html)).

One huge issue is that a scared terrorist looks the same as a scared person
singled out for screening, and there are many times more of the latter. This
is a specific issue Ekman brings up in his work when using FACS for lie
detection. FACS is much better in finding out how someone is feeling rather
than what they're thinking. But you need to know intentions to figure out if
someone is a terrorist.

~~~
technofiend
What if I'm scared I'm going to miss my flight? Or I have to go to the
restroom urgently and I'm afraid all these questions will have unintended
consequences? LOL. As you say no way to read intent.

------
Zigurd
Reading "microexpressions" is charlatanism. The results are as vague as a
Tarot card reading, for the same reasons. We've been defrauded by the
purveyors of this junk. Among the places it's been debunked:
[http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2013/06/25/emotio...](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2013/06/25/emotions-
facial-expressions-not-related/)

------
Shivetya
Sadly there isn't one good site running with this story so I am not sure how
we get the facts in the case. It seems the one problem standing in the way of
getting the facts is the TSA itself; an agency whose screeners may soon be
armed

~~~
briandear
Armed screeners? That's ridiculous. I don't hear too many stories of shoot
outs at the airport. The last thing we need is to turn TSA screeners into a
police force. Customs agents are often armed, but they are trained law
enforcement as opposed to the misfits making $10 per how searching for
smuggled barbecue sauce in a carry on.

~~~
josefresco
What about machetes and Molotov cocktails?

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-
orl...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-orleans-
airport-attack-scene/25136201/)

I don't think the TSA agents should be armed, but I'm sure everyone (even the
TSA agents) were happy deputy Slyve was.

~~~
burger_moon
At every airport screening point I've been to there's always been at least 1
deputy there on post. I feel that is sufficient. The tsa screeners are not the
kind of people I would trust with a firearm.

------
otakucode
This should be a very easy test. In the years since these 3,000 behavioral
observation officers have been hired, how many people have they identified as
dangerous?

If this number is greater than 0, the number of actual terrorists which
existed to be stopped, then we know that it is an ineffective program. If they
did identify 0 people, then we know it probably works!

It's like school counselors looking for 'warning signs' of school shooters. If
this is a reliable tactic, the counselors would identify 2 or 3 people every
several years across the entire US. As it is, they identify dozens of students
at every single school every single year - proving that they are monumentally
incompetent.

------
davidf18
I have flown to Israel many times from different countries and I can tell you
that the Israelis, who are probably the world's authorities on airport
security, do have conversations with passengers where they ask questions and
look for the passenger's affect when responding. The questions and brief
discussions are not direct, eg, "How are you feeling?" but indirect such as
conversations about NYC where I live or Israeli tourist spots, etc.

------
hn_user2
Not arguing that it effective, as I haven't done any research on this, but the
article does little to show that it is ineffective or that it is "Junk
Science".

Not a big fan of TSA, so I can reasonably believe that they screwed up, but
would like to see at least a little more data if they are going to pull the
"Junk Science" card.

~~~
nmc
From the ACLU⁰:

 _" Both Congress’ Government Accountability Office¹ and an independent
scientific advisory group² found that there is no evidence that people can
identify deception by observing the behavior of others."_

Claiming the opposite without showing any proof, like the TSA is doing, looks
disturbingly like _" junk science"_ to me.

0: [https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-
records...](https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-records-
discredited-behavior-detection-program)

1:
[http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159](http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159)

2:
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/pdf/465412a.pdf](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/pdf/465412a.pdf)

~~~
res0nat0r
Maybe the TSA screening is junk due to lack of training or proper
implementation, but behavioural observation is hardly junk science, Israel
does exactly this and has one of the safest airports in the world due to their
security screening processes.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/what-israeli-
air...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/what-israeli-airport-
secu_b_4978149.html)

~~~
nmc
There is not a single word in the article about any scientific research
supporting these methods.

Of course you can say _" look, the airport is safe, it must be working"_, but
this is no proof.

Moreover, these _" security screening processes"_ you mention look very much
like racial profiling to me. The article states that the duration of security
interviews is _" based on such factors as age, race, religion and
destination"_.

~~~
res0nat0r
Racial profiling is an evil word in the USA, but not so much overseas. If cops
are investigating a serial killer possibly living in my neighborhood, I'm not
going to be offended if they look closer at me since I'm a youngish white guy
who fits the profile and is more likely to be a serial killer than other
demographic groups.

I don't see why doing the same thing and focusing on groups in airports whom
are statistically more likely to do harm on airplanes is a bad thing.

The reason why the TSA is a joke is because it is wrapped up in politics and
tries to tiptoe around the whole profiling aspect, where if they just focused
on behaviour and also people who are more likely to fit the bill of someone
whom might commit a crime, a lot of the other annoying crap that comes with
screening could go away and still have improved screening results.

Also feel free to explore references outward from here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling)

------
mg1982
I'm just going to say this out loud since no-else has: A BILLLLLION DOLLARS! A
billion! One. BILLION. Dollars.

Aghhhh!

I'd have done it for half that.

~~~
chrismcb
That is cheap compared to the cost if the scrapped rapidscan systems

------
adrianhoward
I'm just glad that I seem to have passed through whatever set of factors that
caused me to be "randomly" selected every time I entered the US for years on
end.

~~~
chrisBob
Do you usually dress the same, and go through the full body scanners? My wife
was upset that she got patted down _every time_ at logan, and then she looked
at the display and found out that the TSA didn't like the buttons on the
hoodie she liked to fly in. Now she just wears the grey one instead of the red
one and flies through every time.

~~~
adrianhoward
This happened pre-TSA and pre-body scanners too.

Literally _every_ time I went UK->US 1996 to 2010 I got "randomly" selected by
some/all of immigration, security, and customs. I can only assume I
looked/behaved dodgy in some way, was on some kind of list, or was just darn
unlucky!

Incidents within the EU. Zero.

I've only just got the point where I've stopped scheduling a couple of extra
hours of security-slack into my travel schedule ;-)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe it was something you habitually wore, triggering the scanner to single
you out (as another poster in this thread had happen).

------
joelrunyon
I thought this was common knowledge for a while now.

~~~
chanux
Gov takes some time.

~~~
shit_parade
And the people who defend gov even longer.

