Did you really mean to use a double negative-type phrasing there with security workers "told from above not to avoid intentionally extra screening" "arabs" & "middle easterners"? As it is stated, it could be read by some to indicate that security screeners were given the "wink-wink, nod-nod" to go ahead and intentionally extra screen like xenophobes, which is exactly what they did. But I don't think that is what you are saying. Could you please restate that without the double negative-type phrasing which can lead to ambiguity?

Anecdotal news reports being just that, the number of frequent traveling males cross-referenced as being "Middle Eastern" and aged between the ages of 18-40 (or something like that) that flew out of DCA on one airline on one route were far more likely to be selected for additional gate-area screening than any other demographic group sampled and found to have similar travel patterns.

Also, the number of phone calls from airports that were handled by certain FBI field offices on matters that appear to have been related to people of "Middle Eastern" "origin" flying out of certain airports jumped up while calls from those same airports related to people not of "Middle Eastern" origin didn't seem to have skyrocketed in number.

This "behavioral profiling" idiocy will, in effect, be much the same, with selection based on xenophobia and then a lot of "easy targets" (e.g., elderly, flight crews "'accustomed' to the routine", etc.) to make it seem like xenophobia hasn't infected America.

Contrary to reports about "Middle Eastern" types being a "protected category", such persons are anything but a "protected" category when it comes to selection by security idiocy at airports (i.e., the haraSSSSment-producing engines, various blacklists, picked on by ignorant xenophobes at airports, etc.).

Even if security were given a maximum quota of the absolute number of "Middle Eastern" types that can be subjected to this nonsense per day, that number wouldn't rule out such types of persons from being selected 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, or even 10x more often. The only meaningful quota that would have the meaning you may be giving to it would be one that said that not more than X% of all "Middle Eastern" paxs at a particular airport may be selected on a given day and that X% was the same percentage as applicable to the majority/dominant ethnic group(s) too. That kind of numbers-based real opposition to xenophobic security selection won't happen this time either, and we'll just get more of the "wink-wink, nod-nod" xenophobia in action; and with this (like that), it'll be with the same kind of anecdotal news reports that mislead in such a way as to annoy the people who believe in racist profiling while making the "do-good-feel-good" (and "lip service") crowd believe that xenophobia hasn't infected more of us than it has.

Deleted

What "panicked posts"? Opposing idiocy does not equate with panic.

About the "intentionally avoiding eye contact", that's not necessarily true in Latin and "Arab"/"Middle Eastern" cultures. I've spent my fair amount of time -- and then some -- immersed in such cultures and I don't much see that "intentionally avoiding eye contact" thing as systematically routine in most all Latin and Arab majority areas. And isn't minimizing contact with LEOs/security people who may focus "on me" more or less common even in the US? If the cops go to your neighbor's house, the busy bodies in the neighborhood will be curious, right? You think the people getting the unsolicited visit in the US are going to want the visit, whether at home or not? I have my doubts that all people -- in the US too -- welcome unsolicited drop-ins/interactions with the cops/security folks.

Deleted

So you claim, but you may be surprised yet again regarding the former (and other matters too).

Opposing idiocy does not equate with panic. So what "panicked posts" in this thread are you trying to talk about?

When I'm stubborn, then I am. That's called both having principles and using common sense even in the face of idiocy. Nothing to do with panic.

Different perspectives and experiences? Certainly in some regards and then some. And in any event, I would hope so. I've visited places -- sometimes even the same place -- in various capacities, and not all -- or even most -- would qualify as "pleasure" either.

My point -- amongst others -- is that cultural factors don't trump individual or biological factors. That's the first rule of trying to understand human behavior and it "must be considered before attempting to interpret any human behavior."

Also, given these "behavior" based screenings are looking for "social" exceptions, there's the intrinsic assumption anti-social elements and other sociopaths are obviously identifiable in their doing more routine functions or that they do not understand how "the rest" operate. And there's no guarantee that is the case either -- especially not with terrorists, many of whom may not even be considered anti-social but for in the aftermath of a criminal act.

HA!

This deserves the

:-: :-: POST OF THE WEEK AWARD :-: :-:

Good one, Mats.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Deleted

This is going to be very interesting for me. I intentionally avoid making eye contact with screeners, TSA people, etc. I found this to be an extremely effective way to avoid being pulled out for secondary gate screening back when they were doing that. The first few flights I took after 9/11, I sat in the gate area and specifically watched to see if there was any pattern to getting selected. The only one I came up with was that the people who made eye contact or smiled or somehow acknowleged the screeners were the ones who got picked. The people who focused on their boarding passes, their carryons, their companions or just stared off into space hardly ever were selected for additional screening.

I am, for the most part, not interested in making conversation with strangers and generally do whatever I can to avoid it. So if someone from TSA attempts to engage me in conversation, they're going to get the same response anyone else gets: the cold shoulder. I'm curious whether avoiding eye contact will continue to be effective as it was before.

They did it at a number of airports; not sure if DFW was one of them, but that's what this sounds like.

The problem is twofold: (1) the techniques can't tell the difference between someone smuggling drugs or nervous about having "too much" money on them and (2) there are almost no terrorists, but lots of other people doing other potentially illegal stuff.

So what you end up with is a lot of catches of people who are no threat to aviation security. Since I don't favor using the TSA as an arm of the DEA, I've got mixed feelings on such a program.

Actually, as I understand it, it was the behavioral profiling people who said that something was not right with this guy - two days in a row - but the airport security people said he was OK to fly over their objections and let him on.

I for one hope this plan does not come to pass. This smells to me like El Al security and I don't think that TSA or any local airport police are staffed sufficiently to actually carry this out in an effective manner. I'm an introvert by nature, and I don't like answering questions at the airport either.

And, it is difficult NOT to racially or ethnically profile when the majority of hijackings/terrorist incidents have been perpetrated by one or two ethnic groups. Realistically, I don't know of any elderly people or young children carrying out any sort of nonsense, but to be fair, they would be targeted by this as well.

I hope our leadership making the decisions thinks long and hard before implementing a plan such as this. I've watched too many of our civil liberties erode in the last few years in the name of national security.

With regards to Mr. Reid, I think that is what i read somewhere as well. However, it is my understanding that security (both behavioral and regular) said that he shouldn't fly and it was either AA or the ground personel there who overrode their concerns on the second day and allowed him to board. They figured it was the security overreacting.

What I would like to know, and i don't know, is has behavioral screening actually ever failed? I don't consider the Ried case to be a failure, because they caught him, twice only to have someone else override them. I know that behavioral screening will select non-threats, but has there ever been a documented case where behavioral screening totally missed a person who intended to do harm?

If it actually works that is great, all they have to do is figure out how to eliminate the false positives. However, if the failure rate, i.e. missed threats is there, then it doesn't add anything.

One other thing, while I don't necessarily like this, it at least shows me that someone is actually realizing that it isn't the sharp pointy things that we have worry about, it is the person who has them.

I would actually prefer to have those travelling on fake IDs busted. Weren't some of the legitimate 9/11 hijackers using fakes? It might contribute to safety. I hate the organization as much as anyone but would support the detection of fake IDs, but not via this SPOT nonsense. Stop contracting out the ID checking to 16 year-olds and we might get somewhere. I've dealt with federal agents who can't pull off kinesics (interpreting body language) -- why on earth would we assume the TSA can do it?

Drug runners and drug possessors? Eeek. Even when I was in law enforcement, I hated those cases. But they are criminal violations and are not for the TSA to be dealing with. Nabbing a personal use quantity of pot isn't going to stop the next 9/11.

TSA: you don't even belong in the airports. Stop trying to force your services on the railroads, subways, etc.

:td: STOP SPOT.

If we're talking the obviously intoxicated, the airlines can police that themselves. Otherwise we're getting into TSA mission-creep (enlargement) mode.

Screening to hire such people fails routinely too. After all, someone "can't package it and sell it wholesale" for others to buy it with any systematic assurances. Furthermore, it's rather common knowledge -- at least in some circles -- that women and babies are far better at picking up non-verbal cues. So does that mean more "'chicks' in uniform"? :D And "child labor" too? :eek:

Yes, I've said it before here: El Al has screened and let terrorists get on board LY flights. That those terrorists were not going to kill LY passengers -- at least not on that day -- doesn't change the fact that terrorists got on board (repeatedly) on those flights despite "behavioral screening" being in play.