FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   TSA behavior detection program (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1241951-tsa-behavior-detection-program.html)

FliesWay2Much Nov 13, 2013 8:40 pm

Here's The Report
 
...all 99 pages of it.

This will take a long time to review. When I skimmed it, the TSA basically disagreed with the GAO every step of the way -- not surprised. For some reason they vigorously defend this program.

Page 76 caught my eye -- the education level of SPOTNiks:


Level of education at time of hire by TSA
High school or less: 1,436 65.3%
Some college: 512 23.3%
College graduate: 251 11.4 %
...and this tidbit from footnote #30:


30 TSA has designated “serious prohibited items” from TSA’s prohibited items list. See 70 Fed. Reg. 72.930 (Dec. 8, 2005). TSA defines “illegal items” as those items which may be evidence of criminal wrongdoing, such as possession of illegal drugs, child pornography, or money laundering.
From page 44:


The SPOT database identifies 6 reasons for arrest, including (1) fraudulent documents, (2) illegal alien, (3) other, (4) outstanding warrants, (5) suspected drugs, and (6) undeclared currency.
FYI, the public -- i.e.: us -- have the ability to comment on these reports directly to the GAO.

jaytcsd Nov 13, 2013 9:14 pm

TSA Should Limit Future Funding for Behavior Detection Activities
 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159

Available evidence does not support whether behavioral indicators, which are used in the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security. GAO reviewed four meta-analyses (reviews that analyze other studies and synthesize their findings) that included over 400 studies from the past 60 years and found that the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance. Further, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) April 2011 study conducted to validate SPOT's behavioral indicators did not demonstrate their effectiveness because of study limitations, including the use of unreliable data. Twenty-one of the 25 behavior detection officers (BDO) GAO interviewed at four airports said that some behavioral indicators are subjective. TSA officials agree, and said they are working to better define them. GAO analyzed data from fiscal years 2011 and 2012 on the rates at which BDOs referred passengers for additional screening based on behavioral indicators and found that BDOs' referral rates varied significantly across airports, raising questions about the use of behavioral indicators by BDOs. To help ensure consistency, TSA officials said they deployed teams nationally to verify compliance with SPOT procedures in August 2013. However, these teams are not designed to help ensure BDOs consistently interpret SPOT indicators.

Caradoc Nov 13, 2013 9:33 pm


Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 21781349)
ROTFL

And you expect to be taken seriously?

I don't need to be taken seriously.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465412a.html

There's not one scintilla of evidence supporting "behavioral detection" as a science. The TSA knows it. Anyone who's been through their "training" knows it.

The larger question is why anyone who espouses the "SPOTnik" nonsense is allowed into public without an escort and incontinence undergarments, as nobody that dumb should be trusted not to pee on the floor.

Caradoc Nov 13, 2013 10:00 pm


Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much (Post 21781519)
...and this tidbit from footnote #30

Looks to me like that oversteps the whole "WEI" argument that this is all just "administrative searching."

Scratch that - it clearly demonstrated that the TSA has not merely crossed that line, but pole-vaulted it.

(Hopefully, the mental image of Pistole or any of his minions engaging in the activity of pole vaulting will get someone to chuckle.)

Spiff Nov 13, 2013 10:11 pm


Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 21780970)
Such as?

You're way out on a limb clamoring for criminal sanctions here ...

Sexual assault, theft, elder abuse, child abuse...

These are serious crimes and TSA commits them daily. "I was only following orders." is no defense and consent under duress is not consent.

MikeMpls Nov 13, 2013 10:45 pm

.....

Caradoc Nov 13, 2013 11:25 pm


Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 21781971)
The idea that federal employees are going to be prosecuted for being hired and trained and then doing what they were trained to do -- junk science or not -- is ludicrous.

Almost as ludicrous as their original hiring and "purpose" as presented.

Caradoc Nov 13, 2013 11:27 pm


Originally Posted by Spiff (Post 21781867)
Sexual assault, theft, elder abuse, child abuse...

These are serious crimes and TSA commits them daily. "I was only following orders." is no defense and consent under duress is not consent.

Careful, there. Mike says it's ludicrous to expect them to be prosecuted for carrying out exactly what they were "trained" to do...

MikeMpls Nov 13, 2013 11:34 pm

.....

MikeMpls Nov 13, 2013 11:38 pm

.....

BubbaLoop Nov 14, 2013 12:48 am

I´ve been pointing this out for years:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465412a.html

In 2010, Nature, one of the World's leading scientific journals, tried to locate the scientific evidence behind the SPOT program and found none.

GUWonder Nov 14, 2013 2:37 am


Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 21781971)
The idea that federal employees are going to be prosecuted for being hired and trained and then doing what they were trained to do -- junk science or not -- is ludicrous.

It's unfortunate that federal prosecutors don't often go after current or previous federal government employees who violated the laws of this country under the color of authority with the Executive, Legislative and/or Judicial branches want to provide cover for the violations of law and do just that.

Those who authorized the SPOT/BDO/profiling nonsense -- and those whom they hired for training people in this junk "security" -- are pick-pocketing shysters. Following orders to scam others isn't a very good excuse in my opinion. Not that my opinion will get US(A)As to run with a case against DHS/TSA for participating in this SPOT/BD/"profiling" scam.

RadioGirl Nov 14, 2013 4:09 am

Ac-cent--u-ate the positives...
 

Originally Posted by FearFree (Post 21779220)

You and I read this:

Originally Posted by NBC
GAO: $1 billion TSA behavioral screening program 'slightly better than chance'

TSA management reads this:

Originally Posted by NBC
GAO: $1 billion TSA behavioral screening program 'slightly better than chance'


bdschobel Nov 14, 2013 7:11 am


Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 21780862)
Presuming that Congress appropriated the funds for that purpose, on what grounds?

This is a silly argument. The fact that Congress appropriates funds for an agency (or for an agency initiative) doesn't mean that everything that agency does is automatically legal. For one thing, the courts have never ruled on the legality of the SPOT program, to my knowledge. Until that happens, we just don't know if it's legal, funding or not.

Congress funds all kinds of agencies (the military, for instance), but they -- and their employees -- do illegal things from time to time.

Bruce

halls120 Nov 14, 2013 7:17 am

Could someone please explain to me how possession of illegal drugs, child pornography, fraudulent documents, being an illegal alien, subject of an outstanding warrant or possessing undeclared currency has anything to do with aviation safety?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:11 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.