Article: TSA to focus on passenger behavior now
May 19, 2006 | 3:05 pm
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,228
Originally Posted by sjc_longhorn
STOP SPOT.
)
May 19, 2006 | 5:23 pm
#47
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Bart
I still maintain that there's a "gut instinct" that is inherent in all of us. However, due to our own cultural upbringing, we dismiss these instincts or rationalize them away. Human interaction is far more than verbal communication. Body language is a key part of communication. In fact, 80% of communication is non-verbal, yet many of us dismiss it so quickly and rely on the 20% that is verbal.
As an intelligence officer, I had to be sensitive to the whole package. I've seen some intelligence officers take a scientific approach to the business and fail miserably. They were too mechanical and they failed to take cultural differences into account. There were others who had this knack of picking up on the subtleties of non-verbals and were quite successful.
As an intelligence officer, I had to be sensitive to the whole package. I've seen some intelligence officers take a scientific approach to the business and fail miserably. They were too mechanical and they failed to take cultural differences into account. There were others who had this knack of picking up on the subtleties of non-verbals and were quite successful.
--PP
May 19, 2006 | 5:44 pm
#48
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by VideoPaul
Bart, you continue to impress me. If the other TSA screeners had real LEO or intelligence experience, the TSA would actually be effective and not such a wandering joke. My big question is, why aren't more people like you with a functioning brain, some experience in security and the right atitude and training in the TSA? The difference between you and that moron in EWR TA that gave me the infamous "I nah dem, dey nah me!" response is as far as you can get and yet you wear the same uniform. Something is seriously wrong here. Why, I'll bet you've never cracked gum in front of a passenger!
--PP
--PP
If only we could put Bart at the head of the TSA, the airports would become much better places. There would probably be no need for most of these discussion or even this forum.
If only...
May 19, 2006 | 11:16 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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?
I meant to say that there were reports of screeners being afraid to select "middle-eastern"-looking people for additional screening at all because any such screening would look bad. These reports occurred mainly just after 9/11.
Of course, there was plenty of discrimination against "middle-eastern"-looking people too, but to some extent it did go both ways with favoritism by some and discrimination by others.
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.
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.).
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.
Any time you inject race into a process searching for something that is supposed to be race-neutral, it corrupts the process. That's why I refuse to fill out racial data on job applications and HR forms; the only purpose it can serve is to make people focus on something other than merit.
May 20, 2006 | 12:26 am
#51
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
SPOT hacking made easy
SPOT will be sooo easy for bad guys to hack (assuming there is something about a bad guy that would be detected by a secondary inspection that wouldn't be detected by the regular screening procedure).
You send a bunch of nervous-acting guys in turbans carrying manicure scissors or lighters on ahead of the real bad guy, a white guy in a suit.
You send in a bunch of hippies wearing patchouli oil and carrying baggies of oregano on ahead of the real dope smuggler.
You send a bunch of nervous-acting guys in turbans carrying manicure scissors or lighters on ahead of the real bad guy, a white guy in a suit.
You send in a bunch of hippies wearing patchouli oil and carrying baggies of oregano on ahead of the real dope smuggler.
May 20, 2006 | 12:36 am
#52
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Originally Posted by dw8146
This new focus might explain why I've been hearing more of the "engaging" questions from TSA the last couple of trips, especially when I decline their invitation to remove my non-profile shoes.
I'm fine with "have you enjoyed your stay", "nice weather we're having" types of questions, but draw the line at some of the more personal questions like, "where's home", "are you on a business or pleasure trip", etc. Within the borders of the US, what would be the repercussions of declining to answer those questions that I felt were none of TSA's business?
I'm fine with "have you enjoyed your stay", "nice weather we're having" types of questions, but draw the line at some of the more personal questions like, "where's home", "are you on a business or pleasure trip", etc. Within the borders of the US, what would be the repercussions of declining to answer those questions that I felt were none of TSA's business?
I didn't really like the TSO's calling me by first name which they did at BWI each time -- I suspect it is part of the plan to see what the reaction is.
SDF_Traveler
May 20, 2006 | 1:32 am
#53
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 studentff
Lesson to me: Posts will make more sense and exclude double negatives if not made before/during breakfast. Of course, now I'm posting late at night, which may be no better.
I meant to say that there were reports of screeners being afraid to select "middle-eastern"-looking people for additional screening at all because any such screening would look bad. These reports occurred mainly just after 9/11.
Of course, there was plenty of discrimination against "middle-eastern"-looking people too, but to some extent it did go both ways with favoritism by some and discrimination by others.
That's individual overzealousness/stupidity and not government. Any crank can call in such reports. They could call them in on me because I have a beard. The subset of people who think they can pick out "middle easterners" on sight is almost certainly less accurate at such selection than the general public.
Among the PC crowd, anyone who is not a white male U.S. citizen is in a protected category. Among the crowd of overzealous/stupid individuals I mentioned above, anyone who is not white is suspicious. I think both crowds are somewhat wacko.
I disagree that such data collection would be meaningful. LEOs/screeners who knew of the data collection but wanted to do racial profiling would do so and simply fix their percentages by stopping otherwise unsuspicious white people. LEOs/screeners who are just scared of getting in trouble will end up selecting people to meet the appropriate racial breakdown instead of based on actual suspicion. Neither scenario improves security.
Any time you inject race into a process searching for something that is supposed to be race-neutral, it corrupts the process. That's why I refuse to fill out racial data on job applications and HR forms; the only purpose it can serve is to make people focus on something other than merit.
I meant to say that there were reports of screeners being afraid to select "middle-eastern"-looking people for additional screening at all because any such screening would look bad. These reports occurred mainly just after 9/11.
Of course, there was plenty of discrimination against "middle-eastern"-looking people too, but to some extent it did go both ways with favoritism by some and discrimination by others.
That's individual overzealousness/stupidity and not government. Any crank can call in such reports. They could call them in on me because I have a beard. The subset of people who think they can pick out "middle easterners" on sight is almost certainly less accurate at such selection than the general public.
Among the PC crowd, anyone who is not a white male U.S. citizen is in a protected category. Among the crowd of overzealous/stupid individuals I mentioned above, anyone who is not white is suspicious. I think both crowds are somewhat wacko.
I disagree that such data collection would be meaningful. LEOs/screeners who knew of the data collection but wanted to do racial profiling would do so and simply fix their percentages by stopping otherwise unsuspicious white people. LEOs/screeners who are just scared of getting in trouble will end up selecting people to meet the appropriate racial breakdown instead of based on actual suspicion. Neither scenario improves security.
Any time you inject race into a process searching for something that is supposed to be race-neutral, it corrupts the process. That's why I refuse to fill out racial data on job applications and HR forms; the only purpose it can serve is to make people focus on something other than merit.
)
May 20, 2006 | 11:30 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler
I didn't really like the TSO's calling me by first name which they did at BWI each time -- I suspect it is part of the plan to see what the reaction is.
My favoriate, however, are the telephone CSRs who call themselves by their last names, and address customers by their first.
May 20, 2006 | 12:53 pm
#55
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Doppy
More likely they were just being rude. Thanks guys, but I'll let you know when we're on a first name basis.
May 20, 2006 | 8:55 pm
#56
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by studentff
And in their fervent zealousness to ensure they don't look like they're using race and to show that using race would be harmful (even though they almost certainly have not done an objective study to determine if race would be a useful qualifier), they will almost certainly pull aside otherwise non-suspicious white people for questioning and decline to pull aside "suspicious" looking "middle-eastern" types.
Sounds to me mainly like this is another excuse for them to deny legitimate claims of mistreatment by innocent passengers as there's no way more than one in a thousand pax will actually be doing something suspicious enough to warrant such investigation. (And in those cases, I'd rather the TSA leave it to the pros and let the LEOs do their job.)
Sounds to me mainly like this is another excuse for them to deny legitimate claims of mistreatment by innocent passengers as there's no way more than one in a thousand pax will actually be doing something suspicious enough to warrant such investigation. (And in those cases, I'd rather the TSA leave it to the pros and let the LEOs do their job.)
May 20, 2006 | 8:59 pm
#57
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by studentff
Agree with the second part but not the first.
In the months following 9/11 when random pullasides and gate checks were much more common (even without SSSS), there were all kinds of media reports from airport security workers of them being told from above not to avoid intentionally extra screening for arabs or "middle-eastern-lookng" types even if they were "suspicious," because it would give the appearance of racial profiling and generally look bad. There were also stories that some checkpoints were given "quotas" of the maximum number of arabs or "middle-eastern-looking" types they could pull aside over a given timeframe.
This was the same era when flight crews and elderly people were even more likely to be pulled aside because screeners would look like they were "fighting terrorism" but knew these groups were least likely to complain.
A problem with any racially-aware policy (law-enforcement, hiring, whatever) is that because of the sensitivity of the issue it becomes an excessive focus of the implementers, often to the detriment of the "non-protected" categories. I've often wondered how many times LEOs in districts accused of racial profiling conciously decide, "OK, it's time to pull over a white guy so my numbers look better," and then harass the next white guy that comes along for no reason other than his race.
In the months following 9/11 when random pullasides and gate checks were much more common (even without SSSS), there were all kinds of media reports from airport security workers of them being told from above not to avoid intentionally extra screening for arabs or "middle-eastern-lookng" types even if they were "suspicious," because it would give the appearance of racial profiling and generally look bad. There were also stories that some checkpoints were given "quotas" of the maximum number of arabs or "middle-eastern-looking" types they could pull aside over a given timeframe.
This was the same era when flight crews and elderly people were even more likely to be pulled aside because screeners would look like they were "fighting terrorism" but knew these groups were least likely to complain.
A problem with any racially-aware policy (law-enforcement, hiring, whatever) is that because of the sensitivity of the issue it becomes an excessive focus of the implementers, often to the detriment of the "non-protected" categories. I've often wondered how many times LEOs in districts accused of racial profiling conciously decide, "OK, it's time to pull over a white guy so my numbers look better," and then harass the next white guy that comes along for no reason other than his race.
May 20, 2006 | 9:07 pm
#58
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 PatrickHenry1775
Welcome to PC common sense in the United States of 2006. Kind of like the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under the street light right in front of the bar. Disregard the fact that he parked his car in the dark parking lot behind the bar. It is easier to look for the keys under the street light.
Originally Posted by studentff
Agree with the second part but not the first.
In the months following 9/11 when random pullasides and gate checks were much more common (even without SSSS), there were all kinds of media reports from airport security workers of them being told from above not to avoid intentionally extra screening for arabs or "middle-eastern-lookng" types even if they were "suspicious," because it would give the appearance of racial profiling and generally look bad. There were also stories that some checkpoints were given "quotas" of the maximum number of arabs or "middle-eastern-looking" types they could pull aside over a given timeframe.
In the months following 9/11 when random pullasides and gate checks were much more common (even without SSSS), there were all kinds of media reports from airport security workers of them being told from above not to avoid intentionally extra screening for arabs or "middle-eastern-lookng" types even if they were "suspicious," because it would give the appearance of racial profiling and generally look bad. There were also stories that some checkpoints were given "quotas" of the maximum number of arabs or "middle-eastern-looking" types they could pull aside over a given timeframe.
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.
Last edited by GUWonder; May 20, 2006 at 9:12 pm
May 20, 2006 | 9:17 pm
#59
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Post#31:
The "PC common sense" in the US nowadays: it's not ok to be racist, but if the subjected persons are "arab" or "muslim", well then the gloves are off as long as a good show can be put together. Welcome to 2001-2006.
The "PC common sense" in the US nowadays: it's not ok to be racist, but if the subjected persons are "arab" or "muslim", well then the gloves are off as long as a good show can be put together. Welcome to 2001-2006.
Given the statistics, if the shoe fits... And I do not give a rodent's posterior about Tamil Tigers. As long as they only involve the eastern hemisphere, the Indian subcontinent and Ohe South Pacific, I personally do not care about their activities. Terrorists who are active in the West - that is, Europe and the Middle East where Westerners are likely to travel - should be the ones who should be counted.
May 21, 2006 | 2:32 am
#60
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 PatrickHenry1775
Given the statistics, if the shoe fits... And I do not give a rodent's posterior about Tamil Tigers. As long as they only involve the eastern hemisphere, the Indian subcontinent and Ohe South Pacific, I personally do not care about their activities. Terrorists who are active in the West - that is, Europe and the Middle East where Westerners are likely to travel - should be the ones who should be counted.
And included are one's who have operated "in the West", including where "Westerners" are "likely to travel" according to you. Including one's who've killed "Westerners".And the hypocrisy that places greater value on some civilian lives -- persons that are more "white" than "others" -- while discounting the lives of the "other" on few grounds but racism/tribalism is not my cup of tea either. It may be for others, but it's not for me. Also, such racism-based beliefs cloud judgment and feed the kind of ignorance that gets some surprised more than they should be when it comes to both means/methods of being hit and when it comes to who hits whom where, when, how and why.
Last edited by GUWonder; May 21, 2006 at 6:00 am