What is happening at DTW security?

Old Jan 31, 13, 3:54 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in F, hopefully
Posts: 665
Angry What is happening at DTW security?

Ticket checkers are asking all pax where they are going and why. If you answer business, they want to know who you work for. What? This isn't customs. I answered the first two questions very vaguely and refused to answer the third. I cannot believe the sheeple just going along with this nonsense.
sunnyjl is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:00 pm
  #2  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,709
I wouldn't answer them at all.

"I am not interested in speaking to you." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Spiff is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:05 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in F, hopefully
Posts: 665
I acted completely unamused. I answered "home" consulting" and "that's personal". If I said "I'm not interested in talking to you", bit probably would have gotten ugly. Fellow pax were having all-out convos with these rent-a-cops, telling them every nuance of their travel plans, if not their life stories. Good grief.
sunnyjl is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:08 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 182
I bet it's a customer survey (by the airport or Delta) so they can provide "better services" to customers.

I would say nothing as well, they're not customs and it's not important to anyone - except me - on any who/where/why/what, etc. If they want to know where, they should read the boarding pass itself, which they should be checking anyway.
Spoddy is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:10 pm
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in F, hopefully
Posts: 665
No offense Spoddy, but you are quite naive.
sunnyjl is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:26 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by sunnyjl View Post
No offense Spoddy, but you are quite naive.
Perhaps, but that was my first thought.

The US Government (and its agencies) know more about me than my own Goverments. I don't need to provide verbal anything to a mall cop who doesn't need it.

.. and I was referring to the ticket checker at the beginning of the line, not the TSA agent who scribbles on the BP before the scanners.
Spoddy is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 4:38 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in F, hopefully
Posts: 665
No it was the ticket checker. Apparently this is not uncommon at DTW.
sunnyjl is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 5:31 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Programs: UA-1k, AA-EXP, SPG-Plat
Posts: 118
Why. Why why.
xxmimxx is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 6:08 pm
  #9  
Senior Moderator/Moderator: Coronavirus, United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: UA Plat/2MM [23-yr. 1K, now emeritus] WN-A List; MR LT Titanium; HY Whateverist.
Posts: 12,224
Please follow the discussion as the thread moves to the Practical Travel Safety Issues Forum. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.
Ocn Vw 1K is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 6:10 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,336
No news here

It's nothing new. DTW was an early pilot city for TSA's Behavior Detection Officers... along with BOS. This technique has been advocated by security experts for years because of its combination of relative effectiveness and being within U.S. discrimination laws (what you say in response to their questions is irrelevent -- it's how you respond that they are observing).

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informat...etection-pilot

As part of TSA’s risk-based, intelligence-driven security approach, TSA is piloting an expanded behavior detection program in which specialized behavioral analysis techniques are used to determine if a traveler should be referred for additional screening at the checkpoint. The vast majority of passengers at the pilot checkpoints will experience a “casual greeting” conversation with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO) as they go through identity verification. This additional interaction is used by security agencies worldwide and enables officers to better verify or dispel suspicious behavior and anomalies.
cptlflyer is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 6:23 pm
  #11  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,557
Originally Posted by sunnyjl View Post
No it was the ticket checker. Apparently this is not uncommon at DTW.
Then it is none of their "you know what" bidness
goalie is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 6:31 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,251
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
I wouldn't answer them at all.

"I am not interested in speaking to you." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Same here & I wouldn't be to nice either.
coachrowsey is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 7:18 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (usually), GVA (occasionally)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by cptlflyer View Post
...This technique has been advocated by security experts for years because of its combination of relative effectiveness and being within U.S. discrimination laws (what you say in response to their questions is irrelevent -- it's how you respond that they are observing).
Are you able to point to any evidence whatsoever of the "relative effectiveness" of this technique? That is, other than Paul Ekman (who refuses to submit his work for peer review and who makes money by peddling his theories) or claims by the TSA/DHS that "we're pretty sure it works."

In 2008, a major report by the National Research Council reviewed behavior detection techniques and concluded:

Originally Posted by NRC report
Scientific support for linkages between behavioral and physiological markers and mental state is strongest for elementary states (simple emotions, attentional processes, states of arousal, and cognitive processes), weak for more complex states (deception), and nonexistent for highly complex states (terrorist intent and beliefs). ... Indeed, there is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all in the counterterrorist context given the present state of the science.
In May 2010, the well-regarded science journal Nature published a paper in which they concluded:
Originally Posted by Nature
"No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent," declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation's airports "without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment", stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress.
TSA has never responded to this criticism nor undertaken the scientific validation that the GAO called for.

More recently, the journal Regulation published by the Cato Institute had an article by two medical professionals who apply the accepted analysis of risk/benefit tradeoff of medical screening to the TSA's SPOT program: "Screening Tests for Terrorists - Does the latest TSA procedure make us safer?" (pdf warning) Guess what? They also concluded that even from a purely statistical basis, the behavior detection program is bogus.

Originally Posted by Regulation journal
Utilizing this construct, we believe that Americans should not tolerate the charade of mini-interviews of all passengers. It would add virtually no additional security to our airports, but it would come at great cost. This is modern-day phrenology, with components of mysticism and mind-reading resulting in an avoidance of rational examination. There is a very real risk of systematic bias from the subconscious transference of the “behavior detectors,” repeated persecution of “nervous fliers,” and degeneration of detection into simple racism or religious appearance-based screening.
So I've got three reputable scientific studies; what have you got?
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 9:37 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
So I've got three reputable scientific studies; what have you got?
The TSA's website. Must be true then.

Oh wait, "the website is out of date".
See: petard; hoist.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 31, 13, 10:32 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by cptlflyer View Post
combination of relative effectiveness
My pet rock has also been relatively effective at detecting and keeping away terrorists.
saulblum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: