Behavior Detection: Article
 

An interesting read for those who have questions. Written by Paul Ekman, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California at San Francisco.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102701478.html

This is why this program needs to be abolished. Harassing a passenger that is grieving for the loss of a loved one. Totally unacceptable.

Ron, where is the TSA's big catch from this program?

Not exactly an independent opinion

yeah...'Emeritus'

translated from the Latin it means 'you're not fired, but get lost'.

This article is nothing but biased hogwash.

Yeah...not only that....he probably needs to keep his "supplemental income" stream going (gotta milk that golden goose)...so lets do this at all airports!!! :D

Almost lost my lunch reading this pile of crap!:mad:

As another poster already said, harrassing somebody who lost a loved one is about as low as one can go. Maybe, I should not say it - they will come up with a new one.:mad:

Actually, in general, the title of emeritus faculty is a matter of considerable distinction, bestowed only upon retired faculty who have distinguished themselves during their active time of employment at the university.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're always right.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the article in question --- yet. I'm just objecting to disparaging his title ...

The question I have is that how many x-ray machines with better bomb-detection technology could the TSA have purchased with the salaries and training of these people?

What strikes me the most is the absence of data and research. Has anyone TESTED these behavioral analysis techniques? Is there data? If so, where is it? (Let me guess, it's secret.)

Look at personality testing for example. Although still hugely popular, this has not been shown to be accurate, applicable, or consistent.

Much of what this article describes is too ethereal... "I just had a bad feeling about that guy."

When I taught, I would freak when my students would use these zen observations like, "I could just tell she had a pulmonary embolism." No. You didn't magically sense it: you noticed that she was breathing fast, had changes in her electrocardiogram, and that she was taking an oral contraceptive on a 15-hour flight. A good physician or nurse uses OBJECTIVE data and pieces it together.

A low-facing glance or checking one's pockets isn't reliable, objective information. It's not specific or sensitive to constitute a reliable screening test.

Or they could have bought new, pretty uniforms with shiny metal badges.

Oh wait, they did. :rolleyes:

There's never been one, of course, just as TSA has never caught any of those elusive shoe-bombs or shampoo-bombs.

Of course, one also has to wonder why Ronny is posting a two-and-a-half year article that predates USAToday's reporting about the utter failure of the BDO nonsense to catch anyone or anything who presents a threat to aviation.

my tow or so hockey pucks.....

i will give the author credit as (he says) he has been doing behavioral analysis for some 40 years.....but......what is the training time for spotniks (we can't call them 90 day wonders as iirc, the training time is less tan that

emphasis mine: excuse me?????? when did this happen as the tsa would have been gloating, gloating and gloating over it's big catch.

emphasis mine: wrong professor....the screener you refer to did have the training and it's called "your own gut feeling". ask any bank teller who's been on the job for 6 months and they can tell you all about gut feelings when someone comes into the bank trying to cash a stolen check.

what a load of baloney sandwiches and to show you that spot doesn't work.....i wear a black leather jacket (a2 style for those that know ;)), a sweater and jeans every time i travel. it doesn't matter if i'm going to bos in january or las in august, i never change my outfit and you would think that with me in las in august or at iad when it's 95 degrees and humid, i would stand out, right? nope-i have yet to be spotted

The one I ran into at STL was in my face & all but trying to pick a fight with me. That's not behavioral detection, that's provocation.

This agency needs to be trimmed down to minimum staffing needed to operate the checkpoint lanes & inspect checked baggage.

goalie, ya gotta learn TSAspeak.

They were "suspected terrorists" or in English, suspected of being terrorists. Turns out they weren't, but TSA feels it can still claim some kind of victory.
Twisted minds twist words.

How annoying.:td::td:
Has TSA started a BDO quota program?
I wonder how they deal with Tourette syndrome? :eek:

And Tourette's Syndrome Association has a website! www.tsa-usa.org

Actually, the National Research Council published a document a few months ago saying there is no scientific data on these techniques, and that they should not be adopted.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07...ior/index.html

emphasis mine: oh, you are soooooooooo right ;)

These techniques are largely the work of one man, Paul Ekman. The same Paul Ekman whose methodology the TSA adopted, presumably at some financial gain for Mr. Ekman.

A few minutes of googling will yield numerous counterpoints and downright dismissal. This is not a proven, tried and true scientific discipline despite what some would believe. Are some people better at it than others ? Yes, intuitively. Can others be taught it effectively ? Not in my opinion; certainly not in a few days.

(from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2367156

See also: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/0...ogy_of_be.html

Google further at your own inclination. Or not.

Another reason to not speak to anybody playing SPOT
 

From an interview witharticle about Ekman:

Ekman also says that humans share 5 of the 7 facial expressions with other primates. A research paper I found Paperstates:

Further, if Ekman and his daughter can learn to "manufacture" facial expressions, would not a determined trained terrorist be able to do so also and thus defeat any "trained" BDO?

Facial expressions

At which point there should have been a complaint filed with the FSD.

Ronnie keeps grasping for any straw that he can find to try to prove what he believes to be true. He's got a Don Quixote complex. However, the good Don finally saw the truth - unfortunately, I don't think Ronnie ever will.

Mark Twain never had to deal with TSA. ;)

In the 19th century travel really was risky. I deleted the last part of my tag line which was "TSA doesn't get out much".

Or to put it another way, "passengers." :(

The junior senator from Wisconsin would be very, very happy today. (were he still alive)

and one that was published almost 3 years ago.

Where it goes on about Ekman's daughter making being a great facial mimic, could it be because she's not had... botox?!?! and I think this might be in Ekman's most recent published work!

Sweet! As a value added service they are going to let me know if I have uncontrolled high blood pressure or an arrhythmia!

Wait...they can't do what they're supposed to yet.

So they can do a psychiatric assessment, check your rate and blood pressure, then do a full body x-ray. I think that Blue Cross should require a prior authorization before going through the checkpoint.

Maybe we could bring the TSA down with malpractice insurance. We'll hold the TSA liable if someone is in emotional distress, in atrial flutter, and has a tumor evident on the full body x-ray. Snap.

Regardless of opinion on this article, I can tell you the Spots in my airport are a total waste & joke. I observe them when I'm on break & I can tell you they are not paying attention. All they are doing is talking with each other & wasting our money:td:

Hmm, perhaps the TSOs played so well in the sandbox because they were being observed for a newspaper column? Nahhhh.

Mike

hehe... my thoughts exactly!

No 'micro-expressions' or whatever he calls them that a good shot of botox can't fix!

The objective of posting the article was to show that Behavior Detection has some scientific backing. That there is a basis in science for Behavior Detection. Its not voodoo, not magic, but it is also not completely proven (or even close). The same can be said for psychology, astrophysics, and a few other areas where one can get a post-graduate degree. Behavior Detection is mostly psychology, which may very well be voodoo but I have seen it used effectively around the world.

You can always find someone out there who will poo-poo what someone else claims (Flat Earth-ers, Moon Landing, Area 51), someone out there believes that “Math” is not an exact science. Go figure. It does not matter how old the article is, nor how the professor is reimbursed or not reimbursed for his time with the TSA, but if it provides a “value add” to the TSA and its mission. Obviously the TSA thinks so, but Behavior Detection has its limitations and the TSA knows this. It cant tell you if someone is a terrorist. Sorry, not going to happen. It CAN tell you if someone is displaying the signs of deception in an unconscious way. What happens from there is up to the BDO and the other part of their training.

(disclaimer: I am not a BDO, nor do I have the training as one, but I find the concepts of their job fascinating)

you got that right :(

generalissimo joseph mccarthy is still dead ;)

Actually, it matters very much to me how the TSA spends my tax dollars.

I know next to nothing about behavior detection, so I'm not going to question how effective it is. Here's my issue with the BDOs: They've caught nobody but drug carriers and a few people with fake ID's. Nobody related to terrorism. Given how the brass trumpets every pot bust it makes, I have no doubt that it would let us know if it caught somebody even remotely related to national security. But the mission creep is astounding.

Mike

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.

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." Like the War on Shampoo, the TSA or DHS has never produced any shred of peer-reviewed science concluding that the basic science underlying the SPOTNik program is sound. By parading around a bunch of people as SPOTNiks, you place innocent people into the position of being intimidated and spilling their guts -- sometimes even incriminating themselves by unwittingly surrendering their 5th Amendment rights. Someone exercising their rights by ignoring or ripping a SPOTNik a new one is immediately turned over to an airport cop for further harassment. Cost and questionable science aside, needless intimidation and harassment is what I assert most of us find quite objectionable.

... as is William Proxmire who succeeded him ...

Has there been any hijacking since the programme started? ;)

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.