FlyerTalk Forums - TSA behavior detection program

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 26538940)

Ah ha, Whistling, a suspicious behavior.:eek: behavior.

Don't scoff, I'm sure many a suicide bomber has whistled a happy tune before blowing himself to Crom. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 26538940)

Ah ha, Whistling, a suspicious behavior.:eek: behavior.

Suspicious? I hadn't thought about it like that. Well, I suppose maybe, because I have noticed that

the result of this deception
is very strange to tell
for when I fool the people I fear
I fool myself as well!

"I don't care if you've been whistling at the White House. There will be no whistling at my checkpoint!"

Quote:

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.

Ekman is correct in many of his statements. Mock situations are completely different than real situations. The stress load generated is completely different, and there is no serious worry about the end game. I wish I c0uold find it, but there were studies being done with folks having similar behavioral training (to TSA BDOs), and observing videos of folks in interviews, videos of interviews as well as discreet surveillance videos, and the results were surprisingly positive. One ran along the lines of 80% identified the individual that was lying, or being misleading. If I find the link I will include it later. It is not a "smoking gun" that many here are wanting, but it did show promise in being able to use scientific methodology to gain a better understanding of how the behavioral observation systems work and can be improved on - or inevitably scrapped as non-viable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 26557240)

There are "tests" all over the internet that allow the average Joe to do the same thing with very accurate results for those who are observant.

Here's one: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/1...hind-the-eyes/

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 26557240)

Clerk West, if any of that were true, there wouldn't be so many thefts and so false police reports and so much perjured court testimony by TSA clerks, because the behavior detection clerks would spot the criminals in their midst.

And you do know, don't you, that we have access to the behavior detection checklist. One of the items is "contempt for the screening process," and the others are equally risible.

BDOs are not tasked with observing their co-workers. They've had background checks and are presumed to be above reproach until proven otherwise by an outside agency.

Besides, misbehaving TSOs know they are above suspicion or accountability, so they aren't nervous or stressed.

Meanwhile, the bad guys can study and train. Micro-expressions? Botox the heck out of your face. Whistling/yawning? No-no's. Contempt of security? Keep in mind that means that praise for security is also suspicious, because it's what an unpredictable bad guy would do, knowing that the BDOs are expecting bad guys to openly display contempt - but savvy BDOs realize this and now focus on anyone who seems to enthusiastically support TSA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 26557240)

So it doesn't work unless it's real world but then try to claim it does work in non real world situations.

Lets see some peer reviewed studies.

Precheck with Behavior Detection interviews.

*While this is about Precheck, I think it is appropriate here as it is about Checkpoint policies.*

Recently TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger stated:

"WE'RE PUSHING A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE BACK INTO SCREENING SECURITY DUTIES THIS SUMMER."

"Those people" (how personable of you Neffenger) are Behavior Detection Officers. A few articles have mentioned have mentioned that "these people" will be staffing TDC positions.

H.R.5338 - Checkpoint Optimization and Efficiency Act of 2016, which is currently in a US Senate Committee, would require that "those people" staff TDC on Precheck lanes.

This would mean, you are Precheck - the majority of Precheck having undergone a background check, interview, fingerprints searched - would be subject to "those people", as explained on The TSA Blog:

Behavior analysis is based on the fear of being discovered. People who are trying to get away with something display signs of stress through involuntary physical and physiological behaviors. Whether someone’s trying to sneak through that excellent stone ground mustard they bought on vacation, a knife, or a bomb, behavior detection officers like me are trained to spot certain suspicious behaviors out of the crowd. Once we make our determination, we refer these passengers for additional screening or directly to law enforcement.

So despite being vetted, TSA and Congress feel the need to subject this vetter population to "those people" because vetted populations are "trying to get away with something" and have a "fear of being discovered".

I read this differently. I was thinking that it suggested that BDOs who were not "interviewing" people could serve as TDCs to reduce backlog at the TDC counter.

TSA screening program risks racial profiling amid shaky science – study

Quote:

A new study based on thousands of internal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) documents has excoriated a controversial screening program as reliant on dubious behavioral science and amounting to surveillance of scores of unsuspecting air travelers, particularly Muslims and Latinos.

Here

Quote:

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 27882430)

Here

Particularly hitting "brown" people -- Muslims, Latinos, or otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 27882430)

Here

I would hope this study would be enough to convince TSA to abandon the BDO program.

I have always questioned if anyone could be trained in Behavior Detection well enough to put in place the practice in just a couple of weeks, especially on people who the TSA employee has never had any interaction with. Given that the Behavior Detection isn't a proven science I really question is some quickly trained people could even grasp the most basic concepts of the program. And who would start answering questions from a stranger in an airport?

If TSA wants to ask me a question they had better be identifying exactly who they are and why the questions.

Looks like I had cause for my concern.