TSA to test behavioral profiling
 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

I've called for something like this, so I won't be too quick to condemn it. Done correctly and with proper training, this sort of program would reduce secondary screenings of 85-year-old WWII vets and other such non-threats.

Of course, it will also increase accusations of racial/ethnic profiling of the racial/ethic groups that have committed the most terrorism against the US in the past 35 years. But hopefully TSA will resist the urge to randomly stop non-suspicious-acting people in other groups just to pad their stats. The LEO "interviews" must also be conducted in a polite efficient way that doesn't cause innocent people caught in the inevitable false alarms to miss their flights or feel harassed.

But we'll see. It shows some promise.

oh good now sociopaths will be free to glide through screening
 

I don't think this is a good idea or will work at all. The sociopaths I've known are very cool and relaxed people. Far from being people who will be instantly recognized as being anxious, they are the charmers who fool the majority of people with a smile. Maybe the feds need to re-read their copy of "The Mask of Sanity." Catching a Homeland Security undercover agent is hardly any proof that you could catch a real sociopath or terrorist.

This program sounds like it will waste lots of time screening neurotics, though.

In principle I'm for some sort of profiling system. But... as long as the refusal to remove one's shoes doesn't constitute "suspicious behavior" alone then it may be ok.

Is it possible to train all TSA'ers to consistenly correctly profile somebody? Profiling is not an exact sicent to begin with. I've met some fairly intelligent and nice TSA'ers but I doubt in an organization that large that a majority of the employees could easily be trained up to a level to make this truly effective. But if all they do is refer suspicious persons to a LEO that may be ok. We'll have to see how this works out.

The biggest thing is communicating a standard as to what is suspicious.

YIPES! As released:
 

This program is ripe to fail. There has been talk about it for over a year. There are some aspects of it that are not as posted but if they do it as it is alluded to here. there are going to be problems. Some of our people can not even get the shoes and pat down criteria straight. I think that it is interesting to note that there are people that think that all people of a certain race of country should be sent down for extra screening but then you have to remind them that Timothy Mcveigh was not middle eastern. Neither was Ted Kazinski (sp?) So this process is going to have to overlook race as a qualifier.

Then maybe TSA should relook its hiring standards.
Not necessarily; but eyebrows may justifiably rise in these situations, and given other variable inputs, they may get the secondory. Fair? No. But the country of origin critera makes much more sense than a one way ticket criteria.

Of course, if we had adaquate screening initially, there wouldn't be the need for secondary.
What airlines did they blow up? You've named two white american terrorists. Can you name any more? Screening may not catch every home-grown, anti-government, anti-abortion, anti-whatever nut; but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that a majority of aviation related terrorists happen to be from a particular region of the world and happen to be (in name only) followers of a particular religion.

That is a problem, but the interviews are not going to be conducted by the TSA staff, only the local police will do those. I firmly believe that you will have a higher degree of success that way. There are some very interesting parts of the program that this is based on (B..........) and I think this will give us a much better tool while we wait for adequate technical resources at the screening points.

Of course... and if it's race-based or religious-bigotry promotion, then some are even more for it, right? :rolleyes:

This "behavior" profiling will fail. People find suspicion when and where they want to and fail to find it where they see those who are like them.

The "standard" for "suspicious" will be "suspicious" in some instances and suspiciously "not suspicious" in other instances .... and failure will result and large numbers of people will be harassed.

Welcome to the police state of tomorrow .... and to its advocates who will run afoul of it too.

Probable-threat based. If you don't see it then we must live in different worlds. I'm sure Islam is a great religion. Unfortunately a large number of the worlds international terrorists claim to align themselves with it.

Probable-threat? :rolleyes:

Less than 1% of people of X group are murders but it's "probable" that (100% of) X group are due suspicion (aka racist/communalist profiling) for being potential murders (aka terrorists)? I think not! In any regard your "probable" is not "probably" going to result in my death or nearly anyone else's on FT while engaged in the F part of FT. That much is statistically probable. ;)

Time for a Refresher Course...
 

... on what authority the LEO has to question you and what rights you have. I've got to believe that refusal to remove shoes is suspicious behavior in the mind of at least one screener out there.

hmmm
 

I dont believe so, It is very difficult to get into TSA.

Not quite! If you pick someone out based on where they appear to be from, you are racial profiling. This is a no no. If someone buys a one way and the get the full service lane then you are basing your secondary screening on a behavior.
No argument here!


Thats true but you cant say that because a certain group of people used airplanes as weapons that airplanes are going to be the only choice of retalitation that they use. The opposite holds true also, just because someone uses anthrax in envelopes doesnt mean that they wont switch to airplanes. I could name other American terrorists but I seemed to have misplaced my watchlist. :)

That statement is technically correct but fundamentally nonsensical. Yes, secondary screening is based on the passenger's "behavior" (rather than racial or ethnic characteristics), but such behavior has absolutely no connection to terrorism or even to more mundane criminality. Do you believe that suicidal terrorists buy one-way tickets because they're going to die and don't need to return? I don't believe that the 9/11/01 hijackers bought one-way tickets. Using the type of ticket as an indicator of terrorist tendencies is about as reliable as the color of your car -- which is also a "behavior."

Bruce

Compared to what?

McDonald's?

It's an unpopular view, but I'll say it again: there are too many dim bulb TSA employees out there who can't tie their own shoes, much less perform any type of threat-assessment.

If we're paying all this money for "security" let's at least hire some true professionals to do it effectively. Stop the workfare!

i haven't seen a lot of agreement on what should be included in the pre-screening process, or if it should exist at all...

cancelling the newer version of the system (CAPPS II) leaves the old system in place by default. what should be done, or can be done to still serve the purpose of pre-screening, while still appeasing those who don't like pre-screening in most forms that we have today?

in the most recent threads it sounds like some people have had good experiences with some TSA agents, but overall-any bad experience overshadows any good experiences. how would the situation be any different with a different cadre of folks doing the same job?

I agree its unfair to paint all of TSA with the same (negative) brush just because of a few (or few thousand) poor screeners.

But that doesn't change the fact that this is essentially a customer facing, customer service (with undertones of 'National Security' organization). Screeners should be polite, friendly and firmly enforce the rules (and ideally the rules would be logical AND consistent). But this is not a job that requires advanced levels of education, nor is it one that undergoes ultra stringent background checks as required of other government/law enfocement jobs). Not to demean the position, just pointing out that it isn't rocket science or something that requires free and creative thinking; it simply requires adherence to policy.

If this is seen through to fruition, behavioral profiling when done by trained individuals (and I don't mean the 80-hours-of-training lackeys that comprise most of the TSA) can be an IMMENSE improvement for airline/airport security.

It takes an extremely well-conditioned terrorist to be able to slip by behavioral profiling, hence why Israel never has a single incident. However, where today's front line of "security" is based upon clothing and the ability for someone to take a cursory look at an x-ray monitor, the chance of a terrorist slipping through is as high as it was pre 2001!

This is great news. Maybe the TSA can take a hint from other more developed security systems and not subject every traveller to invasive bodily searches when they pass a brief behavioral interview/interrogation. Sounds good to me!

I agree. I think most of the problems FTers have with TSA are policy-based, not personnel-based. I have seen far fewer dim bulbs now than I did in the Wackenhut-Argenbright-ITS days. The difference now--and what makes FTers cranky--is the added rules and the lack of adherence to those rules in some instances. Neither of those would change under a privatized scheme. A private screener is no more or less likely to ignore or misconstrue what constitutes a "profiled shoe" than one on government payroll.

I would argue that having screeners on TSA payroll has benefits for when things do go wrong. For one, there's at least accountability of a governmental nature. Private contractors don't have to publish rulemaking notices in the Federal Register or respond to FOIA requests. The government does. You get to elect the people who have ultimate control over the DHS payroll...you do not get to elect the Wackenhut CEO. If you want a good example of how lack of accountability to the public can cause big problems, go back and read about the Washington Metro Transit PD's crusade against french fries and talking loudly.

Matches the people they are screening, dim bulb passengers. I have watched many passengers who can't tie their own shoes much less read signs which tell them everything they need to know.

its not a law enforcement position, and a comparable background check is not needed since it doesn't fit the job. the rules are made by higher ups like we've discussed before, and is separate of the screeners themselves. i agree on the logical/consistant part though.

i agree that it doesn't require advanced levels of education, but that doesn't mean that those working on the job are not educated.

i've talked to many who were former military who do fall under the same criteria that those advocating el al type screening. as well as others who are working the job to finish up a bachelors or masters then moving on to something that requires more "advanced levels of education" in a similar field. some may go on to become FBI agents or research better ways of doing things by the screening process. they have a better understanding of whats involved than probably anyone of us here (save for a few who are those individuals) and change (more common sense) probably won't come until those working the job right now displace those that got their position by political appointment.

not to knock those who spend the long hours at the helm of the ship, so to speak... but they were never screeners. its kind of like they (screeners) get it from both ends. they get the brunt of an unhappy and upset public, and they have to adhere to the rules that they were given.

c'est la vie.

I respectfully disagree. The issue is that there's no accountability. The TSA talking heads, who officially speak for the Director, routinely blow off the taxpayers. There are countless examples of this. The TSA responds to FOIA requests by not responding to them. The only thing the FOIA law states is that an agency has a specific period of time to respond that they received your FOIA request. They are under absolutely no obligation to anyone to ever respond. The only oversight that occurs is an agency head who makes it a priority to respond to the taxpayers -- their customers, by the way.

The TSA grew out of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security. After my retirement from the USAF in 1998, I interviewed for several senior positions in the FAA, including the deputy director position in the Civil Aviation Security office. (Thank God I wasn't selected!!!) I had a senior VP from one of the FAA's major contractors tell me that it's the FAA's style to "hunker down and retreat" (his words) when public criticism comes their way. Substitute "TSA" for "FAA" and it's very easy to see that the culture remains intact. Face it: The TSA is like the old Soviet Politburo. The main reason for their existence is to perpetuate their existence.

Wackenhut was doing just fine on 9/11/01. A whole lot of US Government counterterrorism things failed LONG before 19 terrorists passed through airport checkpoints.

I do agree with you. I was unclear in the original post. I'm not in a million years saying that TSA is a pinnacle of <i>actual</i> accountability. My point is there is at least a theoretical means with which to change the organization via our elected representatives. A private contractor is subject to exactly the same problems, except there is entirely zero legal recourse. With a governmental agency, that door remains at least slightly open. It's not that I'm anti-privatization, but I don't think the benefits of privatization come to fruition when it's by government contract and according to strict government rules. Then, the government still gets to set all the rules we hate, but can avoid accountability by saying "Well, it's our contractor who's doing them." The contractor could decide we all have to stand on one foot during screening with our eyes closed. The private actor means it's much harder to bring a constitutional case.

I'm with you on changing the culture within TSA. But, putting quasi-law enforcement -- especially with the powers TSA now has -- into the hands of private actors has some major legal consequences I don't think folks around here would appreciate.

Compared to a lot of jobs
 

To get into TSA you have to take the MMPI. An English comprehension test, A situational evaluation, a physical agility test, an x-ray interpretation test, two interviews and very complete physical plus a background examination that is equal to a secret clearance. Less than 1 in 1000 make it.

That's good; making sure people aren't nuts before putting them in positions of authority and/or trust.
Hablo Engles?
This is appropriate; check for eyesight and see if they can do the basic job; but without prior training, are the items they are checking for pretty hard to detect, or pretty obvious?
Hmm.. background equal to secret clearance? A computer check to make sure they aren't felons and a credit report??? Is smoking pot within the past few years a disqualifier?
Then perhaps the problem is with the applicant pool. The requirements listed, in my uninformed opinion, shouldn't be that hard for most people to pass, unless the applicatiants (the 999 who don't make the cut) are pretty poor to begin with.

Also, I gotta ask about this.

Is this number based on the fact that TSA isn't hiring anybody anymore, but still gets applicants? Or is this number based on when TSA was ramping up??

With (let's say) 40,000 employees; and only 1 out of 1,000 applicatants were accepted, that means TSA had 40,000,000 (thats forty million) applicants for positions. I find that number a bit hard to believe. :rolleyes:

Notice he didn't say you have to "pass" the MMPI.

I cannot and do not believe that every screener I've come in contact with has "passed" the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory. I've taken this test myself.

hmmm
 

Yep, I have had people tell me that they failed this.

SEE

Pretty tough for the untrained. I have seen people with prior training fail this part.

Yes the background check is the same as a secret clearance. They even check with all your schools, prior jobs, neighbors etc. We have random drug testing too. I have seen several people bite the dust this way.

This would kind of fly in the face of the remarks about workfare and things like that wouldnt it?

That's ridiculous. The TSA has 45,000 screeners. If fewer than 1 in 1000 applicants are actually hired, then at least 45 million people applied for those 45,000 jobs. Try again.

Bruce

That number
 

Is representative of the number of applications that have been received since TSA inception vs the number that was actually hired and held the job after all was said and done. Some people were weeded out immediately and some failed any portion of the process.

Its true
 

Passing is a given requirement. Why take a test if the results arent worth anything? I can guess where you scored. While it was probably high it was a little to the radical side. :D

As recently as November 2002 a passenger on an El Al flight was 'overpowered by sky marshals'. He may not have been a hijacker merely a nutcase, but I think it does constitute a profiling failure and hence an incident. Other El Al hijack attempts have been made in the past including the infamous Leila Khaled, but I can't say if that was before or after profiling interviews were started.

Let's not forget about the guy who tried to hijack a flight to IST with a knife a few years ago.

^

Even more ridiculous since the TSA started out with nearly 55,000 employees. It has since shrunk, but additional persons have been hired (mostly part time) since the ramping up in the summer of 2002. 1 in 1000 applicants would equate to over 60 million applicants since 2002. 60 million applicants? Hardly.

60 million would be nearly 43% of the total number of employed persons in the USA and over 40% of the total labor force in this country. :eek:

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Anyone who thinks the TSA received more than 5% of that 60 million number is not a math whiz.

At most, probably about 2 million applications, as 1.7 million had been received by the end of 2002:

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004...a-04-26-04.asp

There you go, trying to apply logic and reason to a discussion on TSA. :eek:

How many times have YOU been a member of an "elite" organization that only hires "the best of the best."? "Others would die for the chance to sit in the seat you are in." Blah blah. Organizational mind-control to feed people those lines. I wonder if those at TSA are hearing this? :confused:

I do appreciate the work they do (misguided though management directives seem to be). The people are doing a job for which they are paid; but mathemetical analysis proves there are not 1000 applicants for every hire. If the org is spreading those numbers it is simply false.

I can only go by what managers have told us on this issue. I cant find anything to back them up. However your link is a review of applications to check for hiring issues it is not a difinitive list of the amount of people that applied for the jobs.

The bolded portion (in conjunction with the outlandish assertion that the TSA received anywhere near 60 million applications in filling about 60,000 positions) speaks volumes about your managers.

You can only go by what they told you? The outlandishness of the assertion on its face isn't readily apparent to you??

That any TSA employee would swallow such a ridiculous assertion without breaking out in uncontrollable laughter at their idiot bosses' lack of math skills/lack of honesty/whatever, is sobering.

If Denver has 1,000 screeners (just a WAG, I don't know how many there are), the "1 in 1,000 applicant" BS means that 1 million people applied for those jobs. That would be every man, woman and child living in Denver plus another half a million outside Denver County. That would be practically every non-retired adult of working age in the Denver metropolitan area. Think that happened? Think it's even a remote possibility? :D

The article I linked said that the TSA received more than 1.7 million applications by the end of 2002. True enough, 60 million is "more than 1.7 million," but I'm confident that had the number been substantially greater than 1.7 million, the TSA would have said so.

At some point, common sense has to be employed.

I'm a blond haired, grey eyed American with an Irish background. When entering and leaving and flying about the UK (where I currently work and reside), I'm harrassed a bit more than most professionals in their late 20s and early 30s. I would assume this is because people of my demographic (Irish descent) have been known to blow things up in Britan with a greater frequency than other demographics.

You might apply this logic to the treatment of people of muslim or arab lineage in the US.

Does it suck? Sure. If the current trends hold, however, it's not a total logical fallacy.

Let's not fail to note the logic that anti-terrorism measures and other anti-criminal approaches that have a very apparent element of ethnic/racial/community profiling and/or communal punishment is more often than not followed by an increase in incidents of criminality and "criminal sympathizing" in more than one corner of the world. Is it causation or correlation? Well, that is another question and subject somewhat more to debate. However it is a logical truth that anti-terrorism measures that have resulted in innocents (perceived and/or real ones) becoming a "casualty" or a "victim" through extrajudicial means and/or institutionalized communalism boils over more than once in a blue moon.

Exclude such from the thought process and meld it with an advocacy of communalistic policies/practices that gets implemented and don't be surprised when the undercurrents are violent and getting sadly stronger while "the help" declines, disappears and then becomes counterproductive or distracting from real threats while fueling new ones.

Generally, a LEO is free to approach you and ask questions for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. And generally, you have the right to refuse to answer.

However... if the LEO questioning is part of airport security, I suppose the consequence of remaining silent could be that you don't fly. Whether that will be case, and whether such a penalty would "fly" (heh-heh) with the courts, I don't know. I'm inclined to think that if the questioning is restricted to situations where the LEO has at least "reasonable suspicion" that you're up to no good, then the courts would be more likely to allow a no-fly punishment for pax who won't chat with Officer Friendly.