|
Originally Posted by Mats
(Post 26532024)
But I'm stuck on the idea that behavior detection questions are a form of screening, and this screening is taking place before the TSA has jurisdiction. This was a mock customs inspection in which travellers were given fake contraband, and judgments of their behavior were made by customs inspectors versus "laymen." Behavior predicted if a passenger would be searched, not that he or she was carrying contraband: My research and the research of many other scientists found that when there’s a lot to lose (death or imprisonment) emotions are generated which are very hard to conceal and often leak out in what I call micro-expressions. The SPOT personnel are trained to identify these and many other signs of emotional overload. When there is not only the threat of dire punishment for failure but great reward promised for success whether it be money or 72 virgins it puts a lot of pressure on people's ability to think, producing cognitive overload, and subtle changes in speech. The SPOT people are trained to detect the subtle signs of emotional and cognitive overload. Of course they didn’t catch the play-actors. They had nothing to lose and nothing to gain if their “bombs” were detected. There was no cognitive or emotional overload. I am all for testing it, but lets not do it in such a shoddy, half-baked, invalid fashion. |
Originally Posted by gingersnaps
(Post 26532363)
Wouldn't TSA response be "Well there is a sign when you enter the queue that informs you of screening will take place." I know that has been a legal standard for many years when reviewing airport screening, consent, and the 4th Amendment - that standard being was the individual on notice that screening was occurring. So I would agree that BDO questions is a form of screening.
Paul Eckman wrote something recently that "mock" situations do not provide an accurate view of things. My research and the research of many other scientists found that when there’s a lot to lose (death or imprisonment) emotions are generated which are very hard to conceal and often leak out in what I call micro-expressions. The SPOT personnel are trained to identify these and many other signs of emotional overload. When there is not only the threat of dire punishment for failure but great reward promised for success whether it be money or 72 virgins it puts a lot of pressure on people's ability to think, producing cognitive overload, and subtle changes in speech. The SPOT people are trained to detect the subtle signs of emotional and cognitive overload. Of course they didn’t catch the play-actors. They had nothing to lose and nothing to gain if their “bombs” were detected. There was no cognitive or emotional overload. I am all for testing it, but lets not do it in such a shoddy, half-baked, invalid fashion. |
1. Ekman declined to release his data for peer review.
2. Charles Honts PhD at the University of Utah attempted to replicate Ekman's findings. It didn't work. Ekman's research was undisputed until Lisa Feldman Barrett PhD at Northeastern showed Ekman's design. He asked subjects to select from six discrete emotions. When subjects were asked to identify emotions without discrete categories, they were inconsistent. Ekman argued that he couldn't share his findings because his research could fall into the hands of foreign powers. We need science. That means robust study design, data, peer review, and replicated results. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26532486)
So there is no method to prove or disprove TSA's BDO program? If something can't be proven isn't it just a theory?
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26532486)
So there is no method to prove or disprove TSA's BDO program? If something can't be proven isn't it just a theory? I don't believe that TSA should be spending taxpayers money on an unproven theory.
And even according to Eckman's own criteria his defense is idiotic. Of course the testers have something riding on the outcome. If there's actually a terrorist threat and behavioral detection is real, they want to make sure it's done right and what's riding on the outcome is the safety of their country. Another benefit to them personally is doing a good job and winning a game. Like poker. Eckman's a dowser saying that any testing process messes up the conditions needed for dowsing. |
FWIW:
1. TSA's BDO training manual specifically says that pax have the constitutional right to not answer questions. It doesn't dwell on that very much, though. And it does say that SPOTting starts in the pre-TDC line itself — it's even called "walk the line". 2. Ekman's the reason why I went into cogsci / cogneuro to begin with. His early work was great. I find it really sad that he's stopped doing real peer-reviewed science since then. Hell, his earlier work explicitly contradicts SPOT; it was very clear that even accurate emotion recognition cannot tell if someone is lying or not, let alone without a baseline for that specific person, because emotional reactions have all sorts of causes. |
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26537962)
FWIW:
1. TSA's BDO training manual specifically says that pax have the constitutional right to not answer questions. It doesn't dwell on that very much, though. And it does say that SPOTting starts in the pre-TDC line itself — it's even called "walk the line". 2. Ekman's the reason why I went into cogsci / cogneuro to begin with. His early work was great. I find it really sad that he's stopped doing real peer-reviewed science since then. Hell, his earlier work explicitly contradicts SPOT; it was very clear that even accurate emotion recognition cannot tell if someone is lying or not, let alone without a baseline for that specific person, because emotional reactions have all sorts of causes. |
More smoke, and I'm not sure what kind. ;)
|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26537962)
FWIW:
1. TSA's BDO training manual specifically says that pax have the constitutional right to not answer questions. It doesn't dwell on that very much, though. And it does say that SPOTting starts in the pre-TDC line itself — it's even called "walk the line". 2. Ekman's the reason why I went into cogsci / cogneuro to begin with. His early work was great. I find it really sad that he's stopped doing real peer-reviewed science since then. Hell, his earlier work explicitly contradicts SPOT; it was very clear that even accurate emotion recognition cannot tell if someone is lying or not, let alone without a baseline for that specific person, because emotional reactions have all sorts of causes. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26538109)
More smoke, and I'm not sure what kind. ;)
|
TSA is still pimping the SPOT program to other entities:
Pimping SPOT TSA is working to expand its First Observer™ national security awareness program later this fall. Under the new name of First Observer Plus™, the program will train surface transportation professionals to be alert and to observe, assess and report indicators of potential terrorist activity that may target any of the various modes of surface transportation. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26538266)
With some of the oddball stuff TSA comes with you'd think someone was smoking something.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 26538341)
|
To keep from getting scared of having my innermost secrets detected by the diligent and wise behavior detection officers, I do what I always do whenever I feel afraid:
I hold my head erect And whistle a happy tune So no one will suspect I'm afraid. |
Originally Posted by Carl Johnson
(Post 26538878)
To keep from getting scared of having my innermost secrets detected by the diligent and wise behavior detection officers, I do what I always do whenever I feel afraid:
I hold my head erect And whistle a happy tune So no one will suspect I'm afraid. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:35 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.