TSA customer relations in checkpoint queue
 

I can't quite work out how I feel about this so I thought I'd share and get everyone else's perspective. I was travelling from BZN to EWR on 7/14 and found that two out of four checkpoints were operational with around a five minute wait to get to the belts, although this was probably going to increase over the next ten minutes as the EWR, LAX and ORD bound pax moved airside. Most pax appeared to be travelling for leisure.

A TSO came through the checkpoint and started asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process, and also asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?" and telling me about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base not far from where I live.

The guy was totally pleasant, polite and professional, but a part of me wondered if his time couldn't have been better spent expediting pax through the checkpoint. Having said that, the two checkpoints that were open were well staffed and he clearly couldn't have opened another one on his own. On the other hand, if he wasn't fulfilling an essential role then why was he there at all? Presumably it takes (your) tax dollars to have him there?

Thoughts welcomed.

A guess only, but I get the feeling you had an encounter with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). Their job is in particular to observe passengers for behaviors that might signal a threat to an aircraft. Asking questions and providing advise enhances the officers ability to observe actions and reactions, and therefore assists them in their job. Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

Just a guess mind you, but it sounds about right to me.

So, waste of taxpayer money.

Yes, you nailed it.

Stipulated, the "behavioral detection" portion of it is a waste. However, if it somehow manages to get a TSA employee to function in a helpful fashion (even directing a lost passenger to the nearest washroom) it's less wasteful than anything else the TSA is doing.

That said, I see no reason for such to be a federal position when there are volunteers doing that exact sort of thing at some airports. (The "Sky Harbor Navigators" in their purple jackets, as one example.)

So are you implying that by simply ignoring said BDO -- not in a brusque manner, just simply not wanting to engage in conversation -- he could have escalated the matter and had you tagged for additional screening?

Which airport was it where the TSA escalated the screening because the woman was wearing a rival team's jersey through the checkpoint?

It would seem that a TSA employee can escalate the screening for any reason all, whether valid or not.

Why would I be nice to someone trampling on my Constitutional rights? :confused:

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

PHL, traveling due to the death of a family member:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5gtmRsyofk

"How does it feel to be a Cowboy's fan in Philadelphia?" - TSA clerk

And some of us can not hear well enough to engage in conversation at a noisy CP. Sometimes I do not know people are talking to me. If I ignore a BDO because I can not hear the BDO does that mark me for extra screening?

It sounds right to me, too.

Question: What happens if I'm preoccupied or simply not interested in engaging in conversation with a TSO who, like you, I suspect is a BDO? As we both have agreed, a TSO can ask anything he or she wants. However, I am not aware of any enforceable law that requires I respond. I don't know your opinion of the the BDO program, but mine is that it's utterly ridiculous -- I've explained why in other threads and won't go into it again here. My inclination when a state actor asks me something which he has no business either asking or knowing the answer to is to say, more or less politely (depending on the question, the context, and how it's asked), "None of your business."

What happens then?

That's all true but it doesn't go far enough. What kind of person is in a bad mood when talking to a screening clerk?

The kind of person who flies a lot and therefore encounters screening clerks frequently.

What kind of person is friendly and cooperative when talking to a screening clerk?

The kind of person who wants to avoid calling attention to himself.

What kind of person most wants to avoid calling attention to himself?

So yeah, what you say above is true and that by itself makes the BDO and SPOT and other rubbish an outrage, but in addition, the judgments they make are the opposite of the judgments they should be making.

Leave aside the fact that they are not trained enough or intelligent enough to make any judgments. IF somebody does want to do something to harm an aircraft, that person is going to engage with the screening clerk politely and respectfully and answer whatever idiotic questions the screening clerk asks. That person is going to hand over his water bottle at the gate for magic-strip testing, while leaving his deadly 11-ounce shaving cream can concealed in his roll-aboard. That person is not going to hand a suspicious NEXUS card to the document scribbler, and is going to answer promptly and accurately when the document scribbler asks for his or her name, without pointing out that the name is written on the boarding pass, or stating shock that the document scribbler can't read.

The scary terrorist who is going to blow up a plane with toothpaste, water, and a nail file is going to exhibit all the behaviors that the TSA takes to indicate that a passenger is not a threat.

I'm not sure if TSORon was implying anything of the sort.

However; you are 100% correct. A BDO can tag you for additional screening simply because you did not want to engage in conversation. You can also be tagged for being the wrong color, having (or not having) an accent, wearing loose fitting (or skin tight) clothing. In fact a BDO can tag you for additional screening for any reason whatsoever. Since the whole concept is nothing but voodoo science any reason is as good as any other.

google "tsa chatdowns"

USATODAY

"Chat-downs already are controversial in their trial stage. Civil-liberties advocates and some critics of the TSA see them as another government invasion of fliers' privacy, a hassle for mostly law-abiding passengers or ineffectual.

"They're asking questions that people have a right not to answer," says Mike German, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. "It's nobody's business — and certainly not the government's business — where you're traveling and why."

So far, only 48 travelers out of about 132,000 who have been questioned here at Logan have refused to answer the questions, and instead their carry-on bags were physically searched."

My SOP when presented with this nonsense by a TSO is to simply ask the TSO if they are a BDO where I proceed to ask them questions like

Does the SPOT program work?

Have you caught someone other than one with a fake I/D or someone who has drugs on them?

Did you know that the Israeli BDO's receive upwards to a year to 18 months of training as compared to your two weeks?

Etc...

And usually after the second question, the TSO has presented the deer in the headlights look in perfect form and is so flummoxed that they either stop and/or move off to another location

I am pleased that the ACLU has validated my legal opinion as to the legality of the BDO process.

I'm sure that's a figure provided by TSA. I'd wager it has no more basis in fact than TSA's insistence that back-scatter x-ray scanners are "perfectly safe."

I love it! That's what I'm going to do next time.

Except in some Southern states where TSO might speak Spanish, the TSA is essentially an English only outfit. If speaking with a BDO is a mandatory part of boarding a plane, then one of two conditions must be met.

One, since TSOs are English only, then speaking English must be made a condition for all pax who want to fly.

Or, two, TSA must make a reasonable effort to have speakers of all the languages they would reasonably expect to see daily at their checkpoint. Otherwise a terrorist just pretends not to speak English and avoids detection. For example, at the TBIT at LAX the TSA would need speakers of all the Asian languages at the checkpoint. I am sure every day elderly Asian who speak no English come to the US to visit their grandkids.

If speaking to a BDO is a preconditon to fly, it is up to the TSA to speak the pax's language, not the other way around. Otherwise, there can be no requirement for a pax to talk to them.

I have no idea what language they're usually bellowing at ATL, but it certainly isn't anything I'd call "English."

Substitute "all" for "mostly law-abiding" and "and" for "or" and you pretty much have a working description of the TSA.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

The problem is that the most respected scientific journal in the World has not managed to uncover a single grain of scientific support for methods adopted by BDOs. This is a pure waste of time and resources.

I understand your objection ... but I think there is a point to the objections.
Here's the problem, at least from my perspective. (Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL).

When you're interacting with a LEO, and you're a suspect in a criminal proceeding, the LEO has to inform you of that fact, and make your rights clear to you before proceeding with questioning. Thus, you're fully informed as to the intent of the questions being asked, and how your answers will be used. If you're uncertain as to how to proceed, you have every right to request legal counsel, and for the interaction to cease until that point without any consequence to you.

When you're interacting with a TSO, having one of these conversations, the situation is far different. If the TSO is a BDO, the BDO does not have to identify him/herself to you as such. The TSO does not have to tell you that the answers to your questions are being used to determine your admissibility past the checkpoint, or to determine whether you should be subjected to additional screening. It is not clear at all what the consequences are for refusing to engage in such conversation; anecdotal information suggest that at least some TSOs use such refusal as a basis for retaliatory screening or denial of admissibility (D-Y-W-T-F-T). Of course, since TSA will not publicly discuss the standards for behavioral screening, citing "SSI", there's no way to know if such TSOs are acting within or outside the scope of their duties.

(To be fair: the consequences are very different in the two situations. The LEO can arrest you. The TSO can only deny you the opportunity to make your flight --- and in the case of larger airports, perhaps only temporarily.)

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

IMO, no answer is better than a wrong one. I do not make small talk at the CP. From the TDC to final clearance, I consider it the same as a criminal investigation. They are not there to make me happy or make it easier. The are there to find reasons to impede my progress. I try to not give them any. Now some here will say staying silent is evidence that I may be suspect. Think about that. By not communicating one becomes a suspect. Not probable cause or suspicious action, but by what one chooses to not do.

To me, that is scary.

As a woman who often travels alone, I would rather not have a discussion with a stranger about where I am traveling and what I will be doing there. Others could overhear and use the information to my disadvantage - decreasing rather than increasing my security.

I don't necessarily want to listen to some stranger blather about his kids, especially when I wish to focus removing shoes/belt/laptop, and on avoiding irradiation.

If I have questions about the security process I might ask them, or I might not, since a TSO may give an inaccurate answer - such as an assurance that the backscatter is absolutely safe. If they are patrolling in uniform, those who have questions can ask, without being prodded "Do you have questions?"

Ron suggested that the guy was a BDscreening clerk. That whole process is violation of constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. If he wasn't a screening clerk, it's a waste of taxpayer money.

It is not true that you could say that you saw a screening clerk chewing gum and people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. We criticize the TSA because of what it does, not because we have a reflexive hatred of it.

One has to assume that the motivation behind any conversation with anyone wearing a TSA badge is to interrogate you. I, too, wish is wasn't this way. But, the TSA did it to themselves, and it's up to us to remind the "nice people" that we are treating them this way because of their agency's policies and because of their choice of employer.

You miss the point. None are a violation of rights -- TSOs can ask anything they want. Demanding a response or, worse, penalizing you if you fail to respond by, for example, subjecting you to secondary screening is a violation of rights.

Nothing, unless of course you exhibit the behaviors they are trained to look for. The BDO will still do their job.

You "might" want to read what PTravel has to say. Despite my personal misgivings about his career claims, many here believe that he is indeed an attorney and has some knowledge on the subject. Unless of course you are an attorney, which I doubt for some reason.

This!!!

I've never understood why the TSA doesn't seem to get it that many women aren't comfortable chatting away with strangers in strange places. Does no one in the government read the news about kidnappings and sexual assaults?

Evidence of the lack of knowledge displayed by many TSA screeners can be found in numerous videos of TSA screeners telling people they can't video record the screening area. If TSA can't provide effective training and teach its employees something as simple as video recording is permissible then why should we expect TSA screeners to be competent in any other area of TSA processes?

You mean #17? If you think PTravel's comment at #17 undermines my viewpoint, I have another question:

Is English your native language?

Not according to this article --

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...wns/50757204/1

Passengers who refuse to play along and chat with the BDO face retaliatory searches that passengers who do play along do not face.

I'll have to remember this. :)
I too tend to not want to chat about my travel plans with strangers, figuring it's better to be safe.

And it's not just other passengers overhearing that you need to be worried about. I personally don't show a drivers license at the checkpoint because the TDC then knows my address AND that I'm leaving town and for where (at least the first destination). Now, you might argue that they aren't smart enough to remember addresses, but do you want to take that chance? Besides - it's best to not miss a chance to let them know they are more criminal than you are.

I'd certainly never have a chat with any TSA employee about my travel plans. Who knows what kind of shady background they have? Who knows if they're going to take some kind of criminal interest in you?

that's not limited to women. I regularly respond with "I'm sorry but I don't discuss the personal details of my life with strangers". Seems to work.

Exactly. The percentage of TSOs who have been prosecuted for crimes is far higher than the percentage of all air travelers who are terrorists.

It is not a violation of anyone's rights for a TSO/BDO to ask you questions which are "general in nature" as if in fact a BDO, is is their job to ask simple non-invasive questions and to "try and trick you up". However, it is also within my rights not to answer them and by doing so and/or asking the TSO if they are a BDO, I am not interfering with the screening process