TSA to test behavioral profiling
Oct 2, 2004 | 2:20 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
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.
The most dangerous threat to commercial aviation is not so much the things bad people may be carrying, but the bad people themselves. That refrain heard constantly from airline security experts over the past three years appears to have finally been heeded by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Aviation sources tell TIME that the TSA plans to address the problem by launching its own passenger profiling system. The system known as SPOT (Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques) relies more on the human dimension in detecting threats, and is to be tested at two northeastern airports starting later this month.
. . .
SPOT is instead based squarely on the human element: the ability of TSA employees to identify suspicious individuals by using the principles of surveillance and detection. Passengers who flag concerns by exhibiting unusual or anxious behavior will be pointed out to local police, who will then conduct face-to-face interviews to determine whether any threat exists.
. . .
SPOT is instead based squarely on the human element: the ability of TSA employees to identify suspicious individuals by using the principles of surveillance and detection. Passengers who flag concerns by exhibiting unusual or anxious behavior will be pointed out to local police, who will then conduct face-to-face interviews to determine whether any threat exists.
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.
Oct 2, 2004 | 4:24 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MSY
Programs: NW Gold and now Delta Gold
Posts: 3,072
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.
This program sounds like it will waste lots of time screening neurotics, though.
Originally Posted by studentff
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.
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.
Oct 2, 2004 | 9:23 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
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.
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.
Oct 3, 2004 | 9:33 am
#4
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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.
Oct 3, 2004 | 1:24 pm
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by eyecue
Some of our people can not even get the shoes and pat down criteria straight.
Originally Posted by eyecue
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
Of course, if we had adaquate screening initially, there wouldn't be the need for secondary.
Originally Posted by eyecue
Timothy Mcveigh was not middle eastern. Neither was Ted Kazinski (sp?) So this process is going to have to overlook race as a qualifier.
Oct 4, 2004 | 2:03 am
#6
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Programs: Vanishing
Posts: 1,681
Originally Posted by eyecue
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.
Oct 4, 2004 | 4:23 am
#7
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by AArlington
In principle I'm for some sort of profiling system.
Originally Posted by AArlington
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.
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.
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.
Oct 4, 2004 | 5:10 am
#8
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Of course... and if it's race-based or religious-bigotry promotion, then some are even more for it, right?
Oct 4, 2004 | 5:39 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by AArlington
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.
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.
Oct 4, 2004 | 8:26 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
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.
Oct 4, 2004 | 9:13 am
#11
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
hmmm
Originally Posted by AArlington
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.
Last edited by eyecue; Oct 4, 2004 at 9:13 am Reason: typo
Oct 4, 2004 | 10:46 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by eyecue
If someone buys a one way and gets the full service lane, then you are basing your secondary screening on a behavior.
Bruce
Oct 4, 2004 | 11:39 am
#14
Used to be Sydneysider
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CPH
Programs: AS MVP/Gold (and 75K aspirant)
Posts: 2,984
Originally Posted by AArlington
Compared to what?
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!
Oct 4, 2004 | 1:59 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by bdschobel
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
Bruce
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?