|
Originally Posted by Yaatri
(Post 12081839)
Has there been any hijacking since the programme started? ;)
|
Originally Posted by LessO2
(Post 12081866)
Then why is the TSA wasting taxpayer dollars for something that even you say is not proven?
Oh, in case you are wondering, I have stood up to DHS - successfully - to cast a disinfecting light on their stupid idea of the day. :cool:
Originally Posted by LessO2
(Post 12081866)
Updating the x-ray system would be of more benefit to the TSA than it realizes. As it is right now, one of the largest reasons there's a big line at the checkpoints is because us passengers need to accommodate for the many TSA shortcomings. We need to take the liquids out, because the TSA doesn't have the technology to tell what's in that bottle of Aquafina, we need to take the laptop out because the x-ray can't see it in a bag properly, we need to take our shoes off because the TSA can't figure out what's in them. We need to take out CPAP machines because some moron at Long Beach decided a Wii was a bomb.
Originally Posted by LessO2
(Post 12081866)
And last but not least (for the TSA), it would give them some positive PR. Not to mention something other than lowering itself to to brag about catching some college kid with fake ID.
We're into year number eight of the TSA. Three changes to the uniforms, no changes to x-ray technology. That's pathetic, and it's time the TSA start protecting the traveling public instead of talking about it. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 12081869)
Severus Snape remains unpaid for his potion of anti-terrorism. @:-)
Mike |
Ekman is the guy on whom the lead character on the Fox show "Lie to Me" is based. Interestingly, in the pilot episode of that show, the doctor recruits a TSA screener who has demonstrated an innate ability to catch people lying (she's termed a very rare "natural").
I won't deny that his theories probably have some validity... but the idea that you can train anyone to use them in a few hours is utterly ridiculous. |
Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
(Post 12081796)
I think most of are objecting not to the science itself, but to the way how it is being used to harrass innocent people.
I think most of us believe in the subject of psychology, but strongly object when it it becomes a tool of harrassment and oppression in the form of BDOs in airports. Let me give a more extreme example: psychiatry. Few would dispute its value. But in the USSR it was used as tool to suppress any form of free thought. For instance, people who believed in God were often declared insane and locked up in mental institutions where they were "treated" with powerful mind-altering drugs. OTOH, I have not seen either mathematics or astrophysics used in this manner. BTW, I have a Ph.D. in both physics and math. I think I made my point. |
Originally Posted by whitearrow
(Post 12082418)
... but the idea that you can train anyone to use them in a few hours is utterly ridiculous.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082501)
And it’s the people who control its use, which is why it is just as important to bring the people into the whole checkpoint equation, and the BDO's are doing just that.
|
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 12081818)
At the risk of speaking for some of my fellow FTers, the thing I think we object to the most is just what you state -- the unproven aspects of "behavior detection."
Cost and questionable science aside, needless intimidation and harassment is what I assert most of us find quite objectionable. |
Okay, let's try applying the same screening credentials to medicine.
"Here is a machine that can test for glioblastoma, an extremely rare form of cancer. I can't tell you how it works--that's secret. I have no data to show that this machine is effective, safe, sensitive, or specific. Let's make everyone go through the machine." Although I could go on for days about this, screening technologies rely on specific criteria: it has to be a common enough disease, the screening test has to be sensitive and specific, the test has to be acceptable to the study population, and so on. Here we have a screening test for a very rare "disease." The test has no published data, yet the test is in widespread use. From a scientific perspective: social, behavioral, medical, or hard sciences... this is unacceptable. It's well worth reading Anne Murphy Paul's "The Cult of Personality." It's about personality testing and its misuse. It's very much analogous to behavioral detection. |
Originally Posted by LessO2
(Post 12081866)
Then why is the TSA wasting taxpayer dollars for something that even you say is not proven?
Something that is proven is x-ray technology. And the fact of the matter is most, if not all, of the TSA checkpoints are still using the two-dimensional technology that was used back when the Tony Orlando & Dawn were hot. Updating the x-ray system would be of more benefit to the TSA than it realizes. As it is right now, one of the largest reasons there's a big line at the checkpoints is because us passengers need to accommodate for the many TSA shortcomings. We need to take the liquids out, because the TSA doesn't have the technology to tell what's in that bottle of Aquafina, we need to take the laptop out because the x-ray can't see it in a bag properly, we need to take our shoes off because the TSA can't figure out what's in them. We need to take out CPAP machines because some moron at Long Beach decided a Wii was a bomb. Diverting money from the unproven, wasteful BDO program to updating x-ray technology would be a boon to the TSA. First, it might actually convert 90% failure rates to 90% detection rates. Second, it would speed up the lines when passengers don't have to accommodate for the TSA shortcomings, as listed in the previous paragraph. And last but not least (for the TSA), it would give them some positive PR. Not to mention something other than lowering itself to to brag about catching some college kid with fake ID. We're into year number eight of the TSA. Three changes to the uniforms, no changes to x-ray technology. That's pathetic, and it's time the TSA start protecting the traveling public instead of talking about it. There is far more to the BDO program than you might think. Give it a little thought and you might be able to glean some of the same tidbits of information that I have. |
Very few people know what a BDO is or does. So intimidation is not really a factor. As far as harassment, well most folks here would say that an odd look is harassment. So I hope you don’t mind if I take that with a grain of salt, or two. |
Originally Posted by Mats
(Post 12082538)
Here we have a screening test for a very rare "disease." The test has no published data, yet the test is in widespread use. From a scientific perspective: social, behavioral, medical, or hard sciences... this is unacceptable.
It's well worth reading Anne Murphy Paul's "The Cult of Personality." It's about personality testing and its misuse. It's very much analogous to behavioral detection. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
X-Ray is only as good as the individual reading the image.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
Behavior Detection is not a technology, it’s a process, and it also is only as good as the one applying it. I don’t know enough about it, and honestly I don’t think anyone here really does, to give definitive any answers about its effectiveness.
The point was that the TSA could be using the millions in salary and training done for SPOT and apply them to proven technology, such as x-ray.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
We have the 3D X-rays at my airport. They still cant tell what’s in the bottle, and never will be able to. Interpretation of the image is why humans are a mandatory part of the picture, along with all their flaws.
The point is, the technology IS out there on the liquids. The TSA has been busy buying strip-search machines and new uniforms instead of putting safety as a priority.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
Unfortunately those shortcomings you mention are always going to be there, no matter the technology added. Humans are and must be a part of the equation, machines cannot make judgment calls.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
TSA is finally getting a budget. Congress has blessed us with an actual appropriations bill of our very own. You would be surprised how much difference a little money will make.
The fact of the matter is, technology should be replacing humans at the TSA. The "secure flight" program essentially takes out the need for one "team" at a checkpoint. With the demise of SSSS, the TSA doesn't need the staffing it once did (in evidence with all the jetway staring contests and gate searches). That's hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary taht can be saved every year and spent on new technology. But the TSA is clearly trying to stay relevant and bloated.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
There is far more to the BDO program than you might think. Give it a little thought and you might be able to glean some of the same tidbits of information that I have.
Given how the TSA regularly fails at what is supposed to be its core competency, they should concentrate on the basics, namely catching ALL of the prohibited items. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
Behavior Detection is not a technology, it’s a process, and it also is only as good as the one applying it.
Somebody mentioned psychology. That's only part of it; you are dealing with physiology and anthropolgy and a couple of more arcane disciplines as well. BD&E can be useful and give results in a controlled environment, it can not pick a "bad guy" out of a line of passengers from across the lobby which AIUI is the BDO's modus operandi.
Originally Posted by TSORon
I don’t know enough about it, and honestly I don’t think anyone here really does, to give definitive any answers about its effectiveness.
If any methodology is used incorrectly, it gives incorrect results. Mostly; even spotniks can get lucky. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
X-Ray is only as good as the individual reading the image. Behavior Detection is not a technology, it’s a process, and it also is only as good as the one applying it. I don’t know enough about it, and honestly I don’t think anyone here really does, to give definitive any answers about its effectiveness.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
We have the 3D X-rays at my airport. They still cant tell what’s in the bottle, and never will be able to. Interpretation of the image is why humans are a mandatory part of the picture, along with all their flaws.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
There is far more to the BDO program than you might think. Give it a little thought and you might be able to glean some of the same tidbits of information that I have.
Sincerely, greentips, PhD |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082586)
TSA is finally getting a budget. Congress has blessed us with an actual appropriations bill of our very own. You would be surprised how much difference a little money will make.
(Again, where is the smiley beating its little head against the wall for comments like this one...?) |
Behavior Detection is not a technology, it’s a process, and it also is only as good as the one applying it Not that I expect you to admit to that.. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12082501)
OK Doc, here is another, point that is. Mathematics: Without which the Atomic Bomb could not have been built. Nothing throughout the history of mankind has oppressed more people than that one invention, and continues to. Anything can be used for purposes other than peaceful. ANYTHING. And it’s the people who control its use, which is why it is just as important to bring the people into the whole checkpoint equation, and the BDO's are doing just that.
I would say that governments have oppressed more people then nukes have. Add in that nukes are used by governments to oppress. -Mike |
Originally Posted by colmc
(Post 12083460)
Behavior Detection is not a technology, it’s a process, and it also is only as good as the one applying it Given the questionable quality of a huge segment of the TSA workforce and of the TSA's leadership, an unacceptable level of incompetent results are to be expected of the TSA. |
Originally Posted by colmc
(Post 12083460)
Which is part of it's inherent flaw, really and why it's not a very good tool for the woefully awful TSA, never mind more competent organisations.
Not that I expect you to admit to that.. Whether the TSA should be doing this is as is certainly cause for debate and discussion. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 12084127)
I think it's a problem of execution rather than principle. I'd rather have security people, in principle, be looking for the weapon wielder rather than the weapon. Lots of things can be used as weapons, but all of them require a wielder. Security people in general should be looking for him/her.
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 12084127)
Whether the TSA should be doing this is as is certainly cause for debate and discussion.
Since 9/11™ many thousands of muggers and illegal border crossers have been correctly identified and prosecuted. Money spent training, employing and equipping city cops, or Border Patrol, produces measurable and positive ROI. For air hijacking, millions spent have produced a number in the low single digits. Richard Reid, the most dangerous example, was ID'd and controlled by FAs and pax. FAMs, if present, would not have changed initial contact by much. ROI may not be zero, but when damage to the air travel industry, the businesses that use it, and public confidence in government agencies are factored in, it goes steeply negative. Granted Richard Reid is a gimme example; other events might prove out differently. Except there haven't been any. The tactics used on 9/11 became obsolete that same day. Flight 93 had a tragic outcome but, by its perpetrators' standard, was a failure. Now, cockpit doors are reinforced. Passengers may yet be intimidated by coercion or force, but will nevertheless resist, not passively cooperate. The 2006 liquids plot was indeed a plan, just not a feasible plan. The Glasgow attempt used better-educated actors to achieve a cruder result, and still failed. Also, the shock value of the initial operation is used up. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get operatives and weapons onto an aircraft, when a suicide bomber with a device costing under a hundred could be sent into a slow, crowded checkpoint where everyone waits to have their laptops booted and swabbed? TSA, as constituted, is the Maginot Line of transportation security. They spend an enormous amount of effort and treasure to defend against an event, and techniques, that will never occur again, while ignoring weaknesses that might be usefully addressed. The main difference is that the Maginot Line did not seriously compromise the rights of the citizens whose taxes paid for it. |
Originally Posted by JSmith1969
(Post 12082518)
Would you please repeat that in English, Ronny?
TSA and other airport security measures have always focused on the "things" that cause security concerns. Guns, bombs, flammables, etc. Finding them and preventing them from getting on an aircraft. But that has been shown to not work so well. The hijackers of 9/11 used that against us and thereby created the situation we have now. They brought non-prohibited items on board and used them to kill 3000+ people. TSA cannot prevent every possible weapon or item that can be used as a weapon from being brought on board an aircraft, no matter how hard we try or the policies they put in place. Just not possible. But what can be done is prevent those folks that want to do harm to that aircraft and those passengers from ever getting on board. That’s what the BDO’s and some other programs are designed to do. BDO’s can’t tell if a person is a terrorist, but they can tell if a person is exhibiting the signs of someone hiding something significant, and they can use that information to find out if what they are hiding is the intent to harm an aircraft or the passengers. Its not 100% perfect. People hide all kind of things for all kinds of reasons. Other issues can get in the way of Behavior Detection working properly as well. Medical, emotional, chemical. But it does provide us with another layer of prevention / security prior to someone boarding an aircraft. Some of the folks out there have complained about the cost of the program. Perspective. How much did the hijackers of 9/11 cost the USA with their act of terrorism? Not just the cost of the buildings and the people, but the cost to the airline industry, the cost of sending the military into Afghanistan (I’m not going to discuss Iraq)? The total cost to us for the actions of those 19 terrorists is in the high trillions, and continues to mount to this day. A few billion for the TSA and its programs/equipment is pocket change in comparison. Perspective. |
Perhaps, Ronnie, if TSA actually had some arrests/discoveries of actual terrorists at the airport screening points then the public might agree with you. The near total lack of arrests for actual terrorism at US airports still hovers around zero.
Give us more money and we'll be able to detect terrorists. Excuse me, but your job is to keep the WEI off of aircraft. A disarmed terrorist isn't a threat. So Ronnie, tell us again how TSA is the point of the spear in keeping air travelers safe from terrorists when TSOs/airline employees routinely get arrested for baggage thefts. What comes out could just as well go in. Please tell us why TSA is incapable of following a Congressional mandate for 100% cargo screening. Could it be that TSA has misspent the funds alocated to it on programs that show a nearly 100% failure rate (i.e. BDO)? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085253)
A few billion for the TSA and its programs/equipment is pocket change in comparison. Perspective.
From the NY Times back in April: "Infant mortality has been declining slightly in the United States. But 28,000 children under the age of 1 still die every year...... "In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary...In 1960, the United States had a higher rate than only 11 countries. “We think the increase in preterm birth and preterm-related causes of death are major factors inhibiting further declines in infant mortality,” said Marian F. MacDorman, the lead author of the report and a statistician at the C.D.C. “Infant mortality is a major public health problem, and it’s not improving.” Let's spend our money where it will do some actual good. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085253)
BDO’s can’t tell if a person is a terrorist, but they can tell if a person is exhibiting the signs of someone hiding something significant, and they can use that information to find out if what they are hiding is the intent to harm an aircraft or the passengers.
Its not 100% perfect. People hide all kind of things for all kinds of reasons. Other issues can get in the way of Behavior Detection working properly as well. Medical, emotional, chemical. But it does provide us with another layer of prevention / security prior to someone boarding an aircraft. Anyone exhibiting your "signs" is highly unlikely to be hiding something significant, as you put it. Check your track record; hint: drugs, money, false IDs, gel packs and blocks of cheese don't count. A player intent on harm is probably either a psychopath or exhibiting psychopathic tendencies which render BD useless. Get back to us if (not when) your BDOs find anyone significant. |
The problem with the TSA approach is that unless you spend an enormous amount of time and effort training agents in psychology and to an extent psychiatry then the success rate (and well, BDO hasn't had any notable successes against potential terrorist plots as of yet) is going to not much better than it was before the program. I'd suspect that indepth knowledge of this area is too specialised for many (not all, I say, but a vast majority) of on-the-ground TSA agents to acquire in sufficent quality to be effective.
Giving a monkey a spanner does not make him a mechanic. So really, apart from finding the odd block of cheese, bottle of perfume or bag of coke (none of which seems to immediately threathen the safety of an airliner), the current scheme is useless. Which leads me to.. A player intent on harm is probably either a psychopath or exhibiting psychopathic tendencies which render BD useless. And this is apart from the fact (as also pointed out) that physically the same kind of operation is now obselete to all intents and purposes. That loophole has been closed - and they are way too busy looking at the next one to be exploited. |
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
(Post 12085300)
Perhaps, Ronnie, if TSA actually had some arrests/discoveries of actual terrorists at the airport screening points then the public might agree with you. The near total lack of arrests for actual terrorism at US airports still hovers around zero.
If there has been, would you or I know about it? Not likely. Most terrorists are unknown, who ever heard of Tim McVey before the bomb in Oklahoma? Or Nawaf al-Hazmi before 9/11? Or Eric Robert Rudolph? They were all unknowns to 99.9% of the planet, before they became famous for their actions. So who is to say that the guy with the pistol in his bag at JFK is not a terrorist? Or the one in Atlanta? Or the woman that wanted to get her bottle of “water” through the checkpoint in Kansas? Your reasoning is faulty AM, and I suspect it’s because of 2 things. Lack of information, and prejudice. Give us more money and we'll be able to detect terrorists. Excuse me, but your job is to keep the WEI off of aircraft. A disarmed terrorist isn't a threat. So Ronnie, tell us again how TSA is the point of the spear in keeping air travelers safe from terrorists when TSOs/airline employees routinely get arrested for baggage thefts. What comes out could just as well go in. Please tell us why TSA is incapable of following a Congressional mandate for 100% cargo screening. Could it be that TSA has misspent the funds alocated to it on programs that show a nearly 100% failure rate (i.e. BDO)? |
Originally Posted by red456
(Post 12085427)
No, Ronnie. This is perspective and top priority:
|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 12085447)
So in essence you are saying that all this checkpoint search and screening rigmarole is insufficient to discover "something significant". Don't let your boss hear you say that (true though it may be). And spare us the layers BS.
Nothing is 100% wally. Much as you may want it to be, or think it is, its not. Sorry to bust your balloon, but facts are facts. Anyone exhibiting your "signs" is highly unlikely to be hiding something significant, as you put it. Check your track record; hint: drugs, money, false IDs, gel packs and blocks of cheese don't count. A player intent on harm is probably either a psychopath or exhibiting psychopathic tendencies which render BD useless. Get back to us if (not when) your BDOs find anyone significant. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
BDO’s find things significant with passengers every single day wally. I know you don’t believe that, but then again to see it you would first have to get your head out of the sand.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
The layers I have to wade through to get to the end of your post? No, sorry, your going to have to omit them yourself. I didn’t put them there.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
I don’t know enough about the system the BDO’s use to give definitive answers, and it seems you know even less.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
..even when pointed out you (not you specifically) will refuse to acknowledge it. Frightening.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
BDO’s find things significant with passengers every single day wally. I know you don’t believe that, but then again to see it you would first have to get your head out of the sand.
In the sand is better than up your... Ah, hell what's the use. I'm done here. Carry on. |
I don't even know why anyne is attempting to answer Ron in this thread he has created. We all remember Ron's recent thread on the subject of Why We Screen. Where he used examples from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq of suicide bombers to show why passengers are screened in the United States, of course. When he realized he had painted himself into a corner he posted this non-answer
Originally Posted by shiner Did we ever get an answer to this? TSO Ron Said In this thread? Nope. I chummed the waters here and let the sharks have at each other. But I have answered it, several times, in other threads and in other places. As you look for that answer I’m sure you will learn even more than you had intended. Frankly I think Ron is either close to becoming a troll. Or he is frustrated by the fact that the TSA never selected him to become an official commenter on the TSA blog that he is creating is own version of it here. Either way I've learned to read these types of threads and see the humor in his evidence to support his theory. |
Originally Posted by red456
(Post 12085427)
No, Ronnie. This is perspective and top priority:
Red, you're huntin' the wrong dog if you think Ronnie is going to give this a second glance. See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...n#post12053836 |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 12085850)
I don't even know why anyne is attempting to answer Ron in this thread he has created.
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 12085850)
Either way I've learned to read these types of threads and see the humor in his evidence to support his theory.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085722)
Sorry AM, that dog won’t hunt.
If there has been, would you or I know about it? Not likely. Most terrorists are unknown, who ever heard of Tim McVey before the bomb in Oklahoma? Or Nawaf al-Hazmi before 9/11? Or Eric Robert Rudolph? They were all unknowns to 99.9% of the planet, before they became famous for their actions. So who is to say that the guy with the pistol in his bag at JFK is not a terrorist? Or the one in Atlanta? Or the woman that wanted to get her bottle of “water” through the checkpoint in Kansas? Your reasoning is faulty AM, and I suspect it’s because of 2 things. Lack of information, and prejudice. The 19 on 9/11 WERE disarmed, at least to the standards of the day. Yet they caused untold amounts of destruction and cost. Again, your reasoning is faulty. I don’t remember hearing about anyone getting killed because of a TSO or a baggage handler taking something out of their bag AM. But hey, I admit I could have missed that story. Gimmie a link to it and I’ll review the information. And a giant elephant eating amoeba could crawl out of your nose tomorrow. Its just as likely as you opening your mind enough to let your prejudices concerning TSA escape and allow you a look at the facts. Anything is possible AM, we can “what if” all year long and never get to an answer. Last I heard TSA was on target with the congressional mandate, 100%. Again I admit I could have missed that story. Gimmie a link to it and I’ll review the information. Anything is possible AM, we can “what if” all year long and never get to an answer. What a useless game. |
Facts are facts indeed. The TSA is a whopping big waste of money, with its behavior detection approach conducted by inconsistent and poorly-performing employees being yet another sign of the organization being a waste of resources.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085762)
BDO’s find things significant with passengers every single day wally. I know you don’t believe that, but then again to see it you would first have to get your head out of the sand.
Oh, wait. You're lying. Forgot who I was talking to for a second. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085253)
Sure jimmie.
TSA and other airport security measures have always focused on the "things" that cause security concerns. Guns, bombs, flammables, etc. Finding them and preventing them from getting on an aircraft. But that has been shown to not work so well. The hijackers of 9/11 used that against us and thereby created the situation we have now. They brought non-prohibited items on board and used them to kill 3000+ people.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085253)
That’s what the BDO’s and some other programs are designed to do. BDO’s can’t tell if a person is a terrorist, but they can tell if a person is exhibiting the signs of someone hiding something significant, and they can use that information to find out if what they are hiding is the intent to harm an aircraft or the passengers.
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Fewer than 1% of airline passengers singled out at airports for suspicious behavior are arrested, Transportation Security Administration figures show, raising complaints that too many innocent people are stopped. A TSA program launched in early 2006 that looks for terrorists using a controversial surveillance method has led to more than 160,000 people in airports receiving scrutiny, such as a pat-down search or a brief interview. That has resulted in 1,266 arrests, often on charges of carrying drugs or fake IDs, the TSA said. The TSA program trains screeners to become "behavior detection officers" who patrol terminals and checkpoints looking for travelers who act oddly or appear to answer questions suspiciously. Critics say the number of arrests is small and indicates the program is flawed. "That's an awful lot of people being pulled aside and inconvenienced," said Carnegie Mellon scientist Stephen Fienberg, who studied the TSA program and other counterterrorism efforts. "I think it's a sham. We have no evidence it works." TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the program has been "incredibly effective" at catching criminals at airports. "It definitely gets at things that other layers of security might miss," Howe said. In many cases, the extra scrutiny is a casual conversation with a TSA behavior officer that shows someone is innocent, Howe said. Studies are underway that analyze the program's effectiveness, she added. The program has grown from 43 major airports last year to more than 150 airports, including some with just 20 flights a day. The number of behavior officers will jump from 2,470 to 3,400 by October. The TSA has not publicly said if it has caught a terrorist through the program. The agency says that some who are arrested, particularly on fake ID charges, may be scouting an airport for a possible attack. Some scientists say the TSA effort is just as likely to flag a nervous traveler as a terrorist. "The use of these technologies for the purpose that the TSA is interested in moves into an area where we don't have proven science," said Robert Levenson, a psychologist at the University of California-Berkeley. Although observers can perceive whether someone appears anxious or is acting deceptively, they can't tell whether that person is planning an attack or something such as an extramarital affair, Levenson said. Levenson and Fienberg were part of a National Academy of Sciences team whose report last month said "behavioral surveillance" has "enormous potential for violating" privacy. The report calls for more research and says surveillance should be used only as "preliminary screening" to find people who merit "follow-up investigation." That is how the TSA uses the program, Howe said. Paul Ekman, a San Francisco psychologist who helped design the TSA program, said it can be effective. But it needs more study, he said. "The shortcoming is, we don't know how many people are showing suspicious behaviors and aren't being noticed," Ekman said.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 12085253)
Some of the folks out there have complained about the cost of the program. Perspective. How much did the hijackers of 9/11 cost the USA with their act of terrorism?
|
El Al uses the same principles.
Should they stop doing it because they haven't had a successful hijacking in decades? |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12087000)
El Al uses the same principles.
And what they do, they do correctly.... |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:47 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.