Question on SPOT program
 

As I understand it, the premise of this program is that people have certain things they do (sometimes called "tells") that show that a certain kind of deception may be occuring. Is that correct?

Then we're told that these things are involuntary and people cannot stop doing them. Is that correct?

If so, then why is a description of such things SSI? As I understand SSI, it relates to information that can be used to subvert security systems. But if this is involuntary, then knowing about them can't stop them. Right?

But if that's true, then how is the information legally SSI?

It is SSI so that the "science" can't be reviewed and called out as nothing more than traveling carnival side show tricks.

On the plus side, BDO's get something like TWO DAYS of training. :rolleyes: More than enough to separate someone who is nervous about flying from someone who has had a recent mild stroke...:rolleyes:

As a reminder, no one is under any obligation to speak with a BDO, nor does a BDO have any legal authority to arrest or detain. Once you're in the sterile area, i.e. you've submitted to and passed screening, the BDO can not remove you.

If you have any problems with a BDO or anyone other TSA employee, immediately demand to speak with the GSC.

I'm not saying it's much more, but the training is longer than two days. Also, a lot of the BDO's I know are retired cops. FYI.

What does ones past career have to do with being a BDO?

Isn't it the specific training that you receive that supposedly enables you to pick up on these unconscious signals?

Based on what has been disclosed on PV with training even a rock could do what BDO's do.

First, I'm not a BDO. LEO's learn over their careers how to pick up on the subtle signs that BDO's learn about in a week. Guess they must be smarter than me. :) My point is, someone who is a retired LEO and now a BDO will be better at picking out the "bad guy".

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm

Some people refer to these behaviors as "tells" because it seems to be better understood by the general public. It's not an exact analog.

Your statement is close to correct. The difference is that the behaviors BDOs look for are related to "fear of being discovered," not necessarily just "deception."

Correct.

The tricky part is that the SSI regulation doesn't actually say that it relates only to info that can be used to subvert security systems. I'm guessing, but I think this is the relevant part:

49 CFR 1520.5(b)(9)(i) and 49 CFR 1520.5(b)(9)(ii)

Of course, the stated purpose of the SSI regulation is to prohibit the release of info that could be used to subvert security.

Be careful with this one. First, you do have to pass through screening at the checkpoint. If you exit the checkpoint into the sterile area before TSA personnel (BDO or not) complete your screening, bad things will likely happen to you.

Second, TSA considers gate screenings to be part of their screening operations. If you refuse gate screening, you are refusing TSA screening procedures. This may make for an interesting test case one day, but it may also cause problems for your immediate flight plans.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._at_gates.shtm

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._bdo_spot.shtm

Prior knowledge and experience in the field tend to make one a better BDO, and allow one to pick up on the specifics of the program more quickly.

I can't find a source for statistics at the moment. The BDO selection process and training class both have significant washout rates. So, no, it is not something that "even a rock could do"

Also, what items on PV led you to this conclusion? I don't always agree with what they post, but I don't recall anything that would lead a reasonable person to this conclusion.

Which is what I said.

If you're referring to a BDO who approaches me on the other side of the WTMD, after my things have been x-rayed, I believe you are mistaken. As I read the case law, you can exclude me from the sterile area if I have weapons or explosives -- that is the sole and very limited function of the administrative search procedure. I am not required to answer any of your questions, nor am I even required to talk to you. You can not physically prevent me from leaving the checkpoint and, if you call for a LEO and tell him that you wish him to detain me because I refused to answer your questions, you and the TSA will find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

I am aware of that. I consider them unconstitutional, based on the my review of the case literature that defines the scope of the administrative search procedure, as well as related case law involving random checkpoints. If you're interested, I'd be happy to explain, with cites to the cases, why I believe gate searches are unconstitutional. However, it will have to wait until this weekend as I am too busy tomorrow with work.

If I refuse gate screening, I am refusing an unconstitutional usurpation of rights reserved to the people pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

I would expect it to cause problems for my immediate flight plans. That's a prerequisite for the suit against Janet Napolitano, i.e. there must be actual harm that results from the government's violation of constitutional rights. I might add, and please don't take this personally because it's not so intended, that I find it disgusting and completely un-American that TSA's position is, essentially, challenge our procedures because you believe they are illegal and we will make trouble for you.

I don't know why you've included this link. TSA does not make the law nor does it determine whether its administrative procedures are constitutional. That is solely the function of the judiciary, who decide the constitutionality based on legal arguments presented by lawyers like myself, and not based on PR published on TSA websites. I am no stranger to arguing before federal District Court judges, and justices who sit on Circuit Courts of Appeal. I am admitted to the United States Supreme Court and, should I decide to pursue an action against DHS and Ms. Napolitano, I expect that I would receive plenty of support from the ACLU and similar organizations that find the usurpation of constitutionally-secured rights by TSA as repellent as I.

You seem like a reasonable and intelligent person (and unlike one or two other TSOs who post here). In fact, overall, with the exception of the aforementioned one or two, I'm impressed, overall, with most of the TSA personnel who post on FlyerTalk. I'm sure you're all sincere and only trying to do your jobs to the best of your abilities. However, though I may respect you as individuals, I feel it is my civic duty, both as a citizen and an officer of the court, to oppose attempts by my government to usurp powers expressly denied it by the Constitution.

I will take you up on the offer. Do me a favor and do not dumb it down.
Thanks.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My response to you was meant to make sure we both had a clear understanding of current TSA rules and procedures. (At least, to the extent where such things are clear and available to the public. :rolleyes:)

I know this puts me in the role of TSA apologist. For the record, I don't like that role very much, although I think it is important for people reading this forum to understand the way TSA seems to think and react on these issues.

In this case, I was attempting, to the best of my unofficial ability, to explain the TSA position and approach. My personal beliefs are quite another matter.

Just wanted to make sure we understood one another.

Correct. As I understand it, you are not required to answer questions or talk to any screening personnel. You are required to submit to screening of your person and property at the checkpoint in order to access the sterile area. That screening is supposed to check for weapons and explosives. If you decide to leave the checkpoint into the sterile area before the TSA personnel decide the screening is completed, TSA will attempt to stop you from doing so with non-physical methods. If that doesn't work, a security breach will be called, and LEOs will be asked to escort you out of the sterile area. Is this more clear? If not, I can try again.

I am always interested in a discussion of Constitutional law, if you wish to so indulge me. I can certainly understand if you're busy with work until the weekend. I won't likely have time for heavy reading until Tuesday or Wednesday, anyway.

I wouldn't stop with the 4th and 5th amendments, actually.

I am glad that you understand what you would be getting into with such a battle. I'm not sure every reader in this forum has a similar perspective.

I try to be somewhat careful to keep my personal political beliefs out of online forums, especially if people do not specifically ask for said beliefs. Suffice to say, were I to get into a heated political discussion about the current state of the executive branch, I would likely say things I shouldn't say in unknown company.

The page is not loading right for me at the moment. I assume, from context, that this statement refers to the gate screening link.

I included that link because I try to take my statements of TSA positions and policies from published public sources whenever I can do so. I do not offer it as an argument for the legitimacy of the TSA policy/position, but as proof that such a policy/position exists. It also puts me on firmer ground if I were ever to be accused of violating SSI regulations, as official material developed and published for public consumption is defined as "not SSI."

Thank you for the compliment. In my experience, I find that most of my coworkers are decent people who are trying to do the job to the best of their abilities.

As to civic duty:

From the PV Blog BDO thread and other comments that is my take on the program.

It has been stated that the things looked for are unconscious things the observed person does and they are not in control of those actions. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to teach a person to look for certain actions. Will some be better observers than others? Certainly, just in all other areas of education and training.

So tell me, what are the educational requirements to enter the BDO program?

No degree required? A degree in any field required? A degree in human sciences? A degree in Law Enforcement? An advanced degree?

Just wondering!

Behavioral detection is not hard to figure out. There are several books published available to you to read from dozes of sources. Take your pick and figure it out. I find it most amusing in these posts the threat of lawsuit if "this or that happens". What a farce. Do it, dont just run your mouth. Go ahead and fork out your $$$$$$ Lets see what you got.

I don't have enough funds to initiate a lawsuit against the government. They own lots of ink, the paper, and the printing presses. TSA IMHO greatly exceeded their authority when they began expanding into other secondary activities. When you have an organization with great powers while being held accountable to no one (at least anyone willing to shut down the quasi-legal actions) you're now running with an open loop, out of control agency.

None of the bdos I know in my station were former leos. IMO they are not very with it either:eek:

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.:rolleyes:

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:p

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.

Shouldn't BDO's be able to "spot" Red Team members even before they reach the WTMD? :confused:

They wear blue uniforms with tin badges. ;) (Just joking but dang it don't give such a wide opening)

Tell us about the freaks, if we are spending money on the BDO program we should at least get entertainment value.

There is variation in the population's ability to accurately see the type of behaviors which SPOT uses. I certainly wouldn't say that it requires a great deal of intelligence. The training class is, however, quite rigorous.

From the BDO job announcement at www.usajobs.gov :

Actually, the more I work as a BDO, the more I am convinced that TSA should add significant education and/or experience requirements.

That's probably related to the decision making or applicant pool quality at your station.

This statement mostly fits my understanding of the law and regulations applying to TSA. A few caveats:

1. Screw ups sometimes happen on the checkpoint. In this case, the TSO or BDO should politely explain the mistake, and the actions necessary to complete screening. (ie: "I'm sorry sir, your bag was mistakenly let out of the x-ray tunnel too early. I will need to check the bag because there is an unclear area in the bag.") This shoud not be based on refusal to talk to any TSA personnel.

2. I would say that BDO conversations are not meant to discover illegal intent. If there is legitmate reason to believe the passenger has illegal intent, the BDO should have articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause which can (and should) be passed along to law enforcement.

As the link I posted earlier states, BDOs look for behaviors linked to "fear of being discovered." This may or (more likely) may not indicate illegal intent.

I look forward to reading it, when you're able to post it. :)

Yes, and a few others, especially if we're expanding to TSA as a whole. That's a discussion for a new thread, though. (I also don't have time to do all the research and referencing at the moment)

This is part of the concern for a Federal employee. Law and politics are too easily interwoven. I would, for instance consider the following link to be a legitimate discussion on the second amendment. It includes statments that might very well get me fired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MU12ensIWg

The penalties for SSI disclosure are mainly directed towards the individual disclosing the info.

I do have to be very concerned about the employement conditions which prohibit me from unauthorized disclosure of SSI.

Its not all about widgets, its evolving and it always will.

Red Teams are SPOTTED all the time.

I have had discussions with vampire hunters, aliens, zombies etc etc. Most of these have several medications in their bags. You just never know what you will encounter.

*****

*****

Prohibited items list? Do you mean weapons, incendiaries, explosives, etc or do you mean liquids in containers greater than 100ml? The first group I agree with whole heartedly. The second group - no way, but your agency continues to miss items in the first group on a fairly regular basis.

*****