Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Pistole's take on BDOs

Haven't seen this posted yet, so here goes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-08-16/behavior-detection-TSA-Pistole/57102024/1

Haven't seen this posted yet, so here goes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-08-16/behavior-detection-TSA-Pistole/57102024/1

IOW...

"We don't profile. We just look for behaviors that fit a typical profile, and, er, um, did I just say that?"

Mike

Haven't seen this posted yet, so here goes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-08-16/behavior-detection-TSA-Pistole/57102024/1

from the article;
Using these same techniques, TSA behavior-detection officers engage in casual conversations with travelers while looking and listening for behavioral cues such as facial expressions, body language or other behavior that may indicate a security risk

Here's the flaw in their thinking. By definition, no conversation with the TSA is ever 'casual', therefore all responses from the traveller are distorted. In addition? Travelling is itself stressful - my responses to anyone after a Sydney to LAX flight will be, shall we say, slightly less than normal. Blame the lack of sleep, back pain or grogginess due to jet lag.

BDO, as performed by the TSA, is a joke.

The national Community-Organizer-in-Chief apparently doesn't have enough audacity to take on the TSA's ways or his appointed head of the TSA. Thus it is not surprising that the head of the TSA is defending something that -- unsurprisingly -- has been recognized as an invitation to racist "security" at airports where the TSA has any sway.

Pistole should be fired for continuing to back the voodoo airport "security" of "behavior-detection" as a counter-terrorism measure, but the national Community-Organizer-in-Chief has been backing the non-sober "security" plan inherited from his non-sober predecessor -- that being the former national Teetotaler-in-Chief. And so we get what we get regardless of who rules the roost and so shall it be for years more.

The TSA has way too much national support providing it cover for its ridiculous "security" ways, but it is nice to see that Pistole currently feels the TSA is under attack for its ridiculous ways -- this time, specifically the TSA "profiling"/"behavior detection" idiocy. This is his reaction to the TSA coming "under fire".

Does this mean a regular TSA screener without BDO training wouldn't have been able to thwart the poorly conceived kidnapping plot at MIA or noticed the guy having a heart attack? It's good the BDO's were there to notice the badly beaten and bruised lady trying to cover her face. A regular screener would have let her pass without question apparently.

Pistole didn't mention the profiling issues at BOS. I want to hear him explain the quota system to find drugs and arrest warrants. Of course that will never happen since the TSA never does anything wrong, or at least that's what they always tell us.

Does this mean a regular TSA screener without BDO training wouldn't have been able to thwart the poorly conceived kidnapping plot at MIA

Yes, it does mean that. Without some sort of behavioral awareness, TSA personnel would give to shakes of a snake about a person hiding their face and so forth.

or noticed the guy having a heart attack?

Most likely anyone trained in CPR would have jumped in.
It is very unlikely that the TSA went out of its way to certify people in CPR. Most likely, the Upstanding Citizens of Society, who administered CPR did so because they are good upstanding people. What these good upstanding people did HAS ZERO RELATION to the BDO program and it is pathetic that the TSA is trying to justify the BDO program based on what two upstanding good citizens did.

Pistole didn't mention the profiling issues at BOS. I want to hear him explain the quota system to find drugs and arrest warrants. Of course that will never happen since the TSA never does anything wrong, or at least that's what they always tell us.

everyone has quotas' but no one who has a quota will talk about their quotas.

I would also like to note that one of the first articles on the "Chat Down" program, indicated that EVERYONE who did not answer the questions was referred to secondary screening, which in full hands on bag searches. The article I mention is from late fall last year.

I would also like to note that one of the first articles on the "Chat Down" program, indicated that EVERYONE who did not answer the questions was referred to secondary screening, which in full hands on bag searches. The article I mention is from late fall last year.

I've refused to participate in "Chat down" and I've never been referred to secondary.

This may be an old point that's already been rehashed, but something that occurred to me: Even aside from the issue of racial profiling, is there any issue here for people with disabilities? I'm thinking of people with Asperger's, or severe social phobias, or other conditions that make them not respond "normally" to casual conversation, through no fault of their own, even though they're no more danger than anyone else and are capable of doing the minimum that's actually required to fly. Seems unfair if this kind of screening would repeatedly single them out.

This may be an old point that's already been rehashed, but something that occurred to me: Even aside from the issue of racial profiling, is there any issue here for people with disabilities? I'm thinking of people with Asperger's, or severe social phobias, or other conditions that make them not respond "normally" to casual conversation, through no fault of their own, even though they're no more danger than anyone else and are capable of doing the minimum that's actually required to fly. Seems unfair if this kind of screening would repeatedly single them out.

TSA has claimed that BDOs are looking for specific indicators of intent to deceive; in principle, those indicators wouldn't have anything to do with those traits exhibited by those with social disabilities.

In practice, of course, nobody knows whether those indicators could be confused, since TSA won't publicly state what they're looking for.

So ... it all depends on whose story you're more likely to believe.

"Intelligence driven" ? I guess that's not the same as common sense. :p

from the article;
Using these same techniques, TSA behavior-detection officers engage in casual conversations with travelers while looking and listening for behavioral cues such as facial expressions, body language or other behavior that may indicate a security risk


How many of the 9/11 terrorists even spoke English?? Just a thought.

from the article;
Using these same techniques, TSA behavior-detection officers engage in casual conversations with travelers while looking and listening for behavioral cues such as facial expressions, body language or other behavior that may indicate a security risk

Here's the flaw in their thinking. By definition, no conversation with the TSA is ever 'casual', therefore all responses from the traveller are distorted. In addition? Travelling is itself stressful - my responses to anyone after a Sydney to LAX flight will be, shall we say, slightly less than normal. Blame the lack of sleep, back pain or grogginess due to jet lag.

BDO, as performed by the TSA, is a joke.

See my bold above.

As evidence, I offer my experience. The TSO was completing my usual bag check, when a second TSO walked over to the area and asked my name. Since my screening was done I was suspicious of his motive. It was a vary thorough bag check involving multiple swabs and running back through the xray. The checker even made a comment that most Pelican cases in up checked and they do not see them carried on. The question was after all of this.

I asked defensively, "Why do you need to know?"

"Sir, I just need to know your name."

"Why is it needed?"

"Well, someone left their travel documents in the bin and we are trying to find the owner." He then showed me a ticket envelope.

A very innocent and appropriate question was immediately suspect because I was dealing with a government actor that had potential to make my life miserable. Had he said that someone had left travel documents and was attempting to find the owner first, it would not have been at all suspicious. When I realized that I had overreacted to the intent of his question I said, "They are not mine, I put mine away and know where they are."

So, yes, a lot of us consider no conversation innocent until proven otherwise. Wrong in this case? Probably. Wrong in every case? Not likely.

How many of the 9/11 terrorists even spoke English?? Just a thought.

If not all of them, most of them.

They all could easily pretend not to speak any English. For such persons, the TSA routine often is to scream louder as if loudly shouting English makes their English more intelligible to non-English-speakers.

...Since my screening was done I was suspicious of his motive. It was a vary thorough bag check involving multiple swabs and running back through the xray. The checker even made a comment that most Pelican cases in up checked and they do not see them carried on. The question was after all of this.

I asked defensively, "Why do you need to know?"

"Sir, I just need to know your name."
Not quite on topic but it's not worth a separate thread, so I'll bounce off this.

I flew two flights within Australia today (SYD- x and x-SYD). At both SYD and the other airport, there was no line to speak of, I was able to get through the WTMD with my stupid metal hip without an alarm, and I had minimal carry-on (handbag and ASUS Transformer) so the main checkpoint part was painless. But in both airports, I got stopped after I collected my bags for the "random" ETD.

I decided to see how far I could push it before they got difficult. This morning I said to the guy in a half-joking tone: "I get this every time*, how can you call this random?" and this afternoon when the guy asked "have you done this before?" I said "Every. single. time. including this morning. You guys must think I look really suspicious." Notably, there was no attitude in response, and both times a few seconds after they put the swab in the machine they said "Okay, you're fine."

* I don't actually get picked for ETD every time, but it's way above "random" - maybe 3 out of 4 transits... And without much effort, I've never had an alarm.

TSA has claimed that BDOs are looking for specific indicators of intent to deceive; in principle, those indicators wouldn't have anything to do with those traits exhibited by those with social disabilities.

The "Behavioral Detection" nonsense has been thoroughly debunked as "voodoo science" by Nature Magazine (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465412a.html) and Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tsa-dumb-security-rules-not-science-based) has attacked the TSA's policies as "not based in science - or reality."

So it doesn't really matter whether or not someone going through the checkpoint has Asperger's or some other social disability...they're still better off on socio-behavioral level than anyone "working" at the checkpoint.

See my bold above.

As evidence, I offer my experience. The TSO was completing my usual bag check, when a second TSO walked over to the area and asked my name. Since my screening was done I was suspicious of his motive. It was a vary thorough bag check involving multiple swabs and running back through the xray. The checker even made a comment that most Pelican cases in up checked and they do not see them carried on. The question was after all of this.

I asked defensively, "Why do you need to know?"

"Sir, I just need to know your name."

"Why is it needed?"

"Well, someone left their travel documents in the bin and we are trying to find the owner." He then showed me a ticket envelope.

A very innocent and appropriate question was immediately suspect because I was dealing with a government actor that had potential to make my life miserable. Had he said that someone had left travel documents and was attempting to find the owner first, it would not have been at all suspicious. When I realized that I had overreacted to the intent of his question I said, "They are not mine, I put mine away and know where they are."

So, yes, a lot of us consider no conversation innocent until proven otherwise. Wrong in this case? Probably. Wrong in every case? Not likely.

No, I don't think you overreacted at all. You were justifiably cautious because of the TSA culture. Hindsight is 20/20, but I would have pointed out to him that you didn't answer his question because you assume that the any TSA employee's questioning is a criminal interrogation. (Overstated, I know, but it would get the point across that they make it impossible for passengers to be nice to them.)