"You were randomly selected!"
 

So… how many of you have heard that line, under what circumstances / plausibility, and with what result?


IMHO: actual totally random secondary screening would probably be a good thing for security, but AFAICT TSA just lies and claims as "random" whenever they want to profile you.

I have a cheap suggestion for fixing it though: give people two six-sided dice just before they get to the WTMD/NOS.

Roll snake eyes (~3% chance), and you get secondary screening.

Roll a seven (~17%), and you get a lollipop or something.

That way it would, at least, be clearly random. Make 'em big, really high contrast dice, so that it's visible on the CCTV.

Not that I expect TSA to do this; then they wouldn't get to lie to you. ;)

As someone with actual mathematical training, I cringe whenever I hear people talk about "randomness". Most of the time, people who think they are acting randomly (including TSA employees) are actually acting arbitrarily. "Randomness" implies all sorts of things about the mathematics of the results which simply aren't true about human-directed activities.

I'm not willing to go as far as others who want to claim that TSA employees are "lying" when they tell you that you've been "randomly" selected. I prefer to think that they simply don't understand how randomness works.

But TSA is hardly unique in that regard. Nevada is filled with many large buildings that were built from the proceeds of playing "random" games of chance.

FWIW, I have personally been lied to and told I was "randomly selected" when in fact other evidence showed that I was selected based on some specific thing (e.g. my episodic mutism, which is one symptom of my neurological motor system disability).

And yeah, ditto re randomness. There's some joke to be made here about not knowing the difference between uniform, Gaussian, exponential, power, & Tracy-Widom distributions, but I think we'd be getting too geeky for the thread. ;)

I believe that other federal agencies that rely on "random" screening will employ procedures as simple as deciding ahead of time that, say, every 5th person will be selected for additional screening.

That is random. The passengers coming thru is the random variable. :)

… IF they are counted reliably, and the screeners have no influence on the order of the passengers, etc.

Which isn't the case.

Influenced in part by shuttle busses from hotels, tour groups, flight times etc.

Having a working grasp of what you're talking about, I can't think of any way it would be a funny joke. :D Especially not if it involved TSA. :cool:

With all due respect ... this is absolutely NOT random.

Part of what it means to be a truly random process is that the results are unpredictable. Choosing every fifth person for additional screening is completely predictable to anyone who observes the process. It is also, therefore, trivial for anyone with ill intent to arrange to take their place in line so that they won't be one of the folks selected for screening.

This reminds me of the old days immediately post-9/11, when gate screenings were much more common, and lo-and-behold, the first person who ran up to the gate when general boarding was called was always selected for "random" screening. Seasoned travelers learned not to jump up when the general boarding call was made, in order to allow the "kettles" to be picked for screening while they breezed by.

I seem to recall a FlyerTalk participant relaying an amusing anecdote about one flight where, when general boarding was called, absolutely nobody moved to the gate, because there was a gate screening team there. The gate agent was perplexed because absolutely nobody moved. Finally, one person stood up and announced to the crowd that he would volunteer to be the "victim", stepped up, and ... lo and behold, was "randomly" selected for additional screening.

TL;DR: part of being "random" means being unpredictable.

Yup. There are screening points in Australia where they "randomly" pick for explosives checks the first pax through after a gap with no passengers. Most times I can avoid the inconvenience but sometimes it is unavoidable (e.g. I'm the only transit passenger or can't wait long enough to let someone else go through first). I make a point to explain to the screener that their "random" selection is anything but random. Most of them don't get it but sometimes (rarely) you get one who understands.

At many airports, TSA has a "randomizer" that points an arrow in one direction or another to decide who goes through Pre-check and who gets regular screening. I believe this is truly random.

Other than that, they are confusing random with arbitrary.

Or perhaps it's not even arbitrary.

Is this actually a problem? Unless...
You are late for your flight. In which case, your problem not theirs. Or...
You are trying to take something through security that you shouldn't. In which case, good for them. Well spotted.

It's 5 minutes of your time - smile at them and cooperate. They may even smile back.

It is a problem in that we have a government agency that can limit or restrict ones liberty under the rubric of the administrative search doctrine, excluding them from the niceties of The Constitution, and they do this employing either false pretenses or while being ignorant of what they are actually saying. The process they use is a serious process made legal by very specific application of case law and they apply it in a frivolous and and inconsistent manner by employees that are poorly trained or refuse to be trained, and are supported by management that is neither responsive to problems nor do they seem to care.

In which case, not good for them.

Which is precisely the problem. If there's no objective standard for making the "arbitrary" selection (e.g. every Nth passenger), then the TSOs will end up using subjective standards ... and those subjective standards are subject to bias (conscious or subconscious).

Yeah, they aren't random when they just grab the next person out of the primary checkpoint when they're done with their last "random" subject.

Which airports?I've been through a number of airports (SFO, LAX, SEA, ORD, RDU, JFK, CLT, PHL, BOS, DTW) since they reportedly started using them. I've never seen one.

I have seen a tablet randomizer at MDW and ABQ, but at least at ABQ, it does not seem like it is always in use.

I just saw one at LAX T4 recently. They are only used during peak times when the lines are long, and the idea is to funnel some people into Pre-check. The program is called "managed inclusion".

When you say 'a randomizer that points one way or another', I'm picturing the TSA using dowsing rods…

One more screener educated. Many more to go.

The screener tried to explain it was random selection because she didn't know who would be coming through first (after a spell with no transit passengers). When I said I know from experience I'll get the explosives check if I'm first through and therefore if I really had something to hide I could just make sure I was second, a light bulb went off.

It's inevitable, so sit back and enjoy it?

Kiwi Flyer,
I am curious whether the screener decided to make any changes after the "light bulb went off." Is the screener even empowered to do so?

I think that this system is stupid, but I like it better than the random system because it makes it so easy to avoid the extra nonsense. I would feel differently if I felt that the swab had a real purpose besides theatre.

This one was in Australia. It is my understanding the screeners on explosives duty do have some discretion as long as a reasonable proportion of passengers are tested (i.e. near continuous usage of explosives test).

Unless I get the same screener on another transit I won't know if she actually makes any changes. There have been some I've recognised from previous transits where I've noticed a change in behaviour to make it a bit more random.

A few years ago, just as I walked through a WTMD, a screener standing on the other side said I'd been "randomly selected by my airline" for additional screening. And he hadn't even seen my BP, and (when asked) didn't even know which airline I was flying.

I'm now convinced I was being targeted for theft because after removing everything from my pockets, I was surrounded by THREE screeners who conveniently tried to block my view while a fourth picked up the bin with my wallet in it with his back to me. They immediately stopped when I protested loudly about not being able to see my belongings. As punishment I was then subject to a full-on BDO interrogation accompanied by a complete baggage dump. And within earshot of the gate agent paging me for final boarding call.

Do you know if there was a long beep from the metal detector? This is generally what the random selection beep sounds like. Also, there have been reports that sometimes, flight crews get the random beep but are not given random selection, so random selection is given to the next passenger going through the WTMD. Perhaps the person was ready for the next passenger to be randomly selected in advanced.

Thanks for your efforts to educate them, but it's true about "many more to go." The Australian airport model is certainly based on "as soon as you've finished with one victim, pick the next person who comes through."

In one* airport I use a smaller checkpoint where I know that I won't set off the WTMD with my metal hip, but there's usually only a few other passengers there. I'm getting very good at adjusting the rate of repacking my laptop bag, while watching the ETD person in my peripheral vision, to let someone else get "randomly" selected for the swab.

At another* airport, though, I always get caught by the WTMD, get the grope, and the ETD station is harder to see while repacking, so I always get swabbed as well. The last time (just after Australia raised its security alert :rolleyes:) I had a particularly unfriendly groper and then the ETD woman waved me over. And there was none of that "do you mind?" or "have you done this before?" or "here a laminated sheet of paper" - just a rude "come over here, I need to check your bags." I rolled my eyes and said "this isn't really random if I get chosen every time" and she said "you don't have to do this; you can go back out the way you came in." Then while swabbing, she informed me that "this is an airport, you know." :rolleyes:

*I'm not going to identify airports 'cause I don't want them changing the WTMD settings or anything.

Nope, no long beep, no flight crew anywhere in sight, and checkpoint was not very busy (i.e., roughly 2-3 people in line at any given time).

Security at the international terminal in AKL used to do this, but switched to "as soon as you've finished with one victim, pick the next person at the x-ray". The difference being if you are selected no fumbling or other tactics will disuade the screener from testing you. There are still ways around this, but much harder.

True enough, selecting every fifth person to arrive is not technically random, but it's a lot closer to random than letting TSA agents choose whomever they feel like.

Fact is, however, they do that even when there's a putatively 'random' process in place.

Random is the world that sets them free from "Discrimination."
Imagine a world where gov't speaks the truth.
"Excuse me sir, we're going to rummage through your bags because, well, there's some vague, undefinable quality that sets people here on edge, makes us nervous."

Or "Your race and nationality match those of the 911 hijackers."

Perhaps --- though neither is close to an effective security mechanism.

I think it was in 1986, I was with my family at Heathrow Terminal 4. There was a group of gentlemen in front of us checking in. I don't remember where they were from. The BA agent turned to the woman at the next desk, she asked, "Do you have any more red stars?" She then stuck a red star on each boarding card.

My father, having no boundaries, asked, "What are the red stars for?"

"Random security search, sir."


I think that the notion of random screening really helps as a buffer if someone claims to have been unfairly targeted. There was litigation against US Customs about unfair targeting ("Flying While Black.") See the GAO's March 2000 report: "Better Targeting of Airline Passengers for Personal Searches Could Produce Better Results."

The bottom line is that the TSA and other agencies should really focus their attention on those who present with more obvious threats. But this requires a level of thought processing, analysis, and protection of civil liberties that the TSA is unable to achieve.

Since the TSA can't really figure out those passengers who might warrant further inspection, and because they are "needles in a haystack," they resorted to random screening. This long predated the TSA.

I've seen many permutations of randomness

- The button one presses for a green or red light at customs in Mexico

- "Continuous Secondary" in which a TSA agent must stop and frisk a passenger as soon as he or she is done with one. This was in place at SFO for quite a while. This is still the case for secondary screening at the gate for US-bound international flights operated by US carriers.

- Machine-controlled random. Modern metal detectors can be set to go off at genuine random intervals. One can just set the total number of random "long beeps," but they can occur consecutively or at long intervals. It is genuinely random. The operator can just set the percentage of passengers subject to long beeps.

- Screener discretion

- Computer assisted profiling that includes random screening ("SSSS") for no apparent reason

- Some metal detectors are equipped with silent alarms. This can give the screener the ability to say that a passenger was "randomly selected" even though there was no indication to the passenger. This can also give the screener the ability to call "random!" when the machine itself had not alarmed.

The nature of the random inspection varies widely. In the UK, it might mean a profoundly thorough frisking, baggage inspection, and trace detection swabs. In Germany it might mean a 5 to 10 second wanding. Until this month, it meant hand swabbing for explosives in the US, but that has sadly given way to body scanning and/or frisking.


I oppose random screening in just about every context. Random locker searches have not been shown to reduce school violence. Random drug testing of teenagers has not been shown to reduce substance abuse. And the incidence of substance abuse in teenagers is far greater than the incidence of weapons on commercial flights.

going through the PreCheck line at DSM on a recent saturday morning at 5 am, I cleared the WTMD (no metal alarm) and 2 seconds later it beeped, TSA told me I was randomly selected for secondary screening, and directed me to the scanner. Informed them that I was opting out. As I waited for my "male assist", the next 2 people through the PreCheck WTMD also got the "random secondary alert". Random indeed.

Actually ... if the selection process is truly "random", then a run of three consecutive selectees should happen from time to time. Otherwise, a ne'er-do-well could game the system by only getting in line for the WTMD one someone else was selected. ("Oh, darn, I can't seem to find my LGA bag ... please, go ahead of me, kind sir ...")

Aside from the pointlessness, I feel like the TSA should have a very low percentage of randoms.

If I put myself in the shoes of a TSA staff member, I would dread having to tell people who went through background checks, paid $100, etc. that the machine was set at 30 percent random long beeps.

It also seems particularly pointless to let someone into a full-body scanner with shoes, outerwear, etc. The machine can see through those. So it either results in a total waste of time or a frisking. I see no value in this method, and I dare the TSA to explain it.

In principle, I have no problem with random searches. Many government agencies use random searches, for example the IRS randomly audits people and customs randomly inspects cargo containers. However, I would impose two conditions.

1. It needs to be truly random, with no human input. The output of the machine that selects people should be plainly visible, so that there is no room for staff to manipulate it.

2. The additional search given to selectees should be constitutionally permissible for the general public. Being randomly selected does not constitute an elevated level of suspicion that justifies a more intensive search than what the doctrine of administrative search normally permits.

Was a selectee on QR , DOH JFK flt this week. They removed everything from the carry on to a tub, xrayed, had to repackage it and on my way. about seven minutes.

Does anyone have a guess for what the "random" selection percentage is for pre-check metal detectors? I am curious about whether they have a higher selection rate at airports with body scanners in the precheck lanes than in airports that only use the hand swab for this. Also, I have seen TSOs press buttons at the top and have wondered about whether they are adjusting the rate when they do this.

I've grown to fear the beep. I had it three or maybe four times in a row. It's a cruel master, that beep. Sometimes it makes you think all is okay, even to the point of letting you start to grab your bags and walk off, then - BEEP!

On the plus side, and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry about this, I do get to keep in practice with my opt out procedure.

I have the same fear as well. After going through the precheck WTMD at MDW yesterday, I was bothered that it took the person behind me in line so long before going through the WTMD with the fear that the beep would come about during the time that it took him to do whatever he was doing before going through. Fortunately for me, the beep came through during or after he went through and that person was selected for the body scanner (which I would have opted out of) instead of me.

In the future, I may try to wait to go through until there is another person right behind me as it seems that this will lessen the odds that I am selected.

I dunno. It's either going to beep or not beep. Last week, after I failed in the gauntlet and got a beep, the 7yo kid right behind me got a beep as well.

They actually questioned if they give him the rubdown. Thankfully, he did not receive one. I stood, ready to film.