...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:

...and this tidbit from footnote #30:

From page 44:

FYI, the public -- i.e.: us -- have the ability to comment on these reports directly to the GAO.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

.....

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

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

.....

.....

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.

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.

You and I read this:
TSA management reads this:

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

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?