Uh why dont you just pick up a book on the subject. Reading body language wasn't created by the TSA.

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police whose job it is to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

Still, its not like they require a degree in Psychology.

Back in the eighty's a friend of mine was followed around for months by a LEO who was convinced he was a drug dealer. The LEO saw a nice new BMW, an uptick in spending, etc. My friend's mother had died, leaving him her estate.

While there are plenty of books on the subject. What would make things clear is to know what the guideline are for people to be accepted to a a BDO and what their training consists of. For all I know the book I read may not be what the TSA trains.

Believe me,every BDO unit has a library of several books on the subject and each are pretty much the same, but each author puts their own little spin on the subject. This practice has been in use for years by many.

I don't think "several books" qualifies as a "library."

The question I asked was that you provide us with the requirements to become a BDO and how they are trained. If all it took to become a BDO was reading a couple of books anyone could be a BDO, including me.

You could also tell us the titles and authors of the books in your airports library so we could have some sense of what is considered acceptable by the TSA. The degree of spin each author uses for behavior detection would be helpful to learn.

And I think we all appreciate you're doing so. The problem, however, is exacerbated by the TSA PR machine, as exemplified by the TSA blog, which contains official lies and misrepresentations that, while satisfying to the casual and uninformed flier, makes frequent fliers like those who post on FT even more hostile to the agency.

I don't think you're deliberately trying to be obscure, but neither am I. Specifically:

Once I have walked through the WTMD without alarming, completed secondary (if selected), and been cleared to retrieve my possessions as they come out the other end of the x-ray (and no bag check has been called for), as far I am concerned (and, I believe, as far as the law is concerned), I have completed screening.

If, while I'm putting on my shoes or waiting for my bag, a BDO decides that I shouldn't be cleared to the sterile area because either I've refused to talk with him, or because he doesn't like my demeanor, preventing me from doing so, either by trying to stop me in a non-physical manner or by calling over a LEO to detain me, exceeds the constitutional limits placed on an administrative search. By law, the administrative search must be minimally intrusive and is confined to confirming that I have no weapons or explosives on my person or in my possession. BDO questioning goes to questions of whether I have illegal intent (theoretically). LEOs can detain me, temporarily, if they have a reasonable suspicion. Non-LEOs, like BDOs and TSOs, can not. Moreover, refusal to engage in conversation with a government agent in this context does not constitute reasonable suspicion, without considerably more, even for a LEO.

I'll try to do so. My wife is currently in China with my sick father-in-law, so I have an empty weekend looming before me. I have Westlaw access and have already done some preliminary research so, if I can, I'll try to start another thread in this forum on the constitutional considerations of gate searches and BDO screening at checkpoints.

I suspect there is also a First Amendment concern as well.

I've written about this before in other threads. I would need the right combination of circumstances, i.e. a trip which can be delayed a day without significant prejudice to me, and a clear and egregious violation.

I see this less as a political issue and more of a constitutional one.

That's correct.

I once had a supervisor tell me that "there would be trouble," if I had seen TSA SOP because it's SSI. I haven't looked at security issues, other than the fact that I once held a Secret clearance when I worked in aerospace. I am not aware, however, of any legal basis for holding me liable for learning the contents of anything that is supposedly SSI. Though I'm sure you have a contractual obligation as a condition of employment not to disclose SSI, I'd frankly be surprised if it was subject to the same criminal penalties as disclosing state secrets.

And that's been my experience of TSA as well. The overwhelming majority of TSOs that I encounter are polite, professional, efficient and good-humored. My objection is not to specific TSOs, but to what TSA requires that they do.

I see we're on the same page.

A great resource for case law and statutes is Justia.

http://law.justia.com/

http://www.justia.com/ (front page)

Very interesting. It looks to provide a lot of the functionality of Westlaw and Lexis. I'll have to take a further look at it. My company will still keep our Westlaw subscription as there are other features I need besides case and statutory research, but this looks like it might be a good tool.

Most "authorities" on the subject are primarily interested in selling those books. And videos, and seminars, yadda, yadda.

It's not a science, perhaps an art to those with an aptitude for it; and (bottom line) it's by no means foolproof. A person who either doesn't know he/she is lying or believes the lie to be true will not exhibit any behaviour even a highly experienced observer would pick up. The average BDO has no chance.

They (BDOs) are supposed to be looking for terrorists (as opposed to just fishing) and since terrorists are psychopaths or utterly convinced of their actions, or both, they won't be exhibiting anything out of the ordinary.

But go ahead, keep catching druggies, "money launderers", under-age college kids, deadbeat dads etc.

It Keeps Us All Safe. Barf.

A SPOTNik serves the same purpose as a polygraph exam. Both are junk science. I can't speak for a SPOTNik, but I know that a polygraph result on its own is not admissible evidence in court. The REAL value of a polygraph or a SPOTNik interrogation comes from people who get spooked by either the "box" or the SPOTNik's questioning and voluntarily spill their guts. The victim's statements to a SPOTNik or to a polygraph examiner are admissible and are considered voluntary.

I have to agree, people with character or other anti-social disorders will probably breeze right through. Just look at Madoff- that's the kind of person, violent or not, that would be nearly impossible to stop. Those types of disorders affect 3-4 % of the population, so 60-80 thousand of them are passing through the check points on a daily basis. Best of luck

I will agree that it is a art and that it is by no means fool proof, but maybe you could share a terrorist profile and save me alot of time and paperwork by stopping the freaks that we do encounter.

Your job is to prevent knives, guns, and explosives from getting on board planes, you don't need a terrorist profile to do that. You have all sorts of widgets to help you. Before you start concerning yourself about catching Osama Bin Laden, try concentrating on improving the abysmal failure rate you have with Red Team tests. As well as the reports that the GAO has issued about the failure of TSA to deal with its primary mission.