Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

allgov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#31

Post by pyrophane »

fijal wrote: post #11

So this is codified racial-profiling and intuition-profiling (that singles out people with dreadlocks, arabs, sick people, stressed people etc.) unlike all other un-codified profiling employed by virtually all agents of all border security things all over the planet. If you don't believe me, try flying visually sick and you'll be questioned over and over again (not about being sick or having ebola, mind you).

Yes, exactly. It makes the criteria for singling out someone subjective and impossible to verify, so it empowers TSA to target whoever they please without any real fear of being held accountable for it.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#32

Post by jacquesm »

josefresco wrote: post #19
briandear wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armed screeners? That's ridiculous. I don't hear too many stories of shoot outs at the airport. The last thing we need is to turn TSA screeners into a police force. Customs agents are often armed, but they are trained law enforcement as opposed to the misfits making $10 per how searching for smuggled barbecue sauce in a carry on.

What about machetes and Molotov cocktails? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-orl... I don't think the TSA agents should be armed, but I'm sure everyone (even the TSA agents) were happy deputy Slyve was.

You can't really screen against crazy one-offs. This could happen again tomorrow and the rest of the days of the year without anybody being able to come up with a plan to effectively screen out people like that before they can do harm.

The only way you can do that is by completely uprooting society. Any idiot can take a machete to the airport or a schoolyard or any other place where there are a lot of people and act out their ill fantasies.

An airport is actually a really stupid choice exactly because there are a ton of armed officers floating around.

Suicide-by-police officer is a pretty good description of acts like these.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#33

Post by excitom »

josefresco wrote: post #30
u23KDd23 wrote: post #12

I've observed the horrible nature of this program in person while traveling. During the practice, the TSA staff talked loudly to threaten passengers and then also made "jokes" to passengers about finding chemicals on them. Essentially they try to escalate the fear among all the passengers and then single out someone who responds the most poorly. Not to mention the fact that anyone who has protested or complained abou…

Consider this counterpoint experience posted on Slashdot... "I recall going through security at the Charlotte, NC airport once, a few years ago, and noticed TSA agents out in the queue making smalltalk with all of the passengers. "Hey, how are y'all doin' today?", "Goin' someplace warm?", "Be sure to take off that belt buckle sir.", "Were are y'all headed?", "Y'all fly much?", and so forth. At first I thought that th…

I'd like to see some statistics that corroborate the effectiveness of this technique.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#34

Post by joshbuddy »

briandear wrote: post #9
Shivetya wrote: post #6

Sadly there isn't one good site running with this story so I am not sure how we get the facts in the case. It seems the one problem standing in the way of getting the facts is the TSA itself; an agency whose screeners may soon be armed

Armed screeners? That's ridiculous. I don't hear too many stories of shoot outs at the airport. The last thing we need is to turn TSA screeners into a police force. Customs agents are often armed, but they are trained law enforcement as opposed to the misfits making $10 per how searching for smuggled barbecue sauce in a carry on.

Shootouts seem rare, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Los_Angeles_International...

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#35

Post by u23KDd23 »

josefresco wrote: post #30
u23KDd23 wrote: post #12

I've observed the horrible nature of this program in person while traveling. During the practice, the TSA staff talked loudly to threaten passengers and then also made "jokes" to passengers about finding chemicals on them. Essentially they try to escalate the fear among all the passengers and then single out someone who responds the most poorly. Not to mention the fact that anyone who has protested or complained abou…

Consider this counterpoint experience posted on Slashdot... "I recall going through security at the Charlotte, NC airport once, a few years ago, and noticed TSA agents out in the queue making smalltalk with all of the passengers. "Hey, how are y'all doin' today?", "Goin' someplace warm?", "Be sure to take off that belt buckle sir.", "Were are y'all headed?", "Y'all fly much?", and so forth. At first I thought that th…

I've observed this as well by the TSA which is probably a good implementation. What we should be worried about however are the poor implementations and exploitations of these concepts and ideas. I'm concerned about the occurrences that probably generate misguided animosity towards people who are genuinely concerned about the safety of passengers. When you have events like what unfolded in New Orleans and LA we should wondering what motivated such actions.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#36

Post by EC1 »

tempodox wrote: post #13

Maybe someone should suggest the study of physiognomy to the TSA. Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form. Had the term “terrorist” been invented by then, they would have doubtlessly detected that, too. So we may just as well say, the TSA is about 100 yrs out of date. But then, not letting people bo…

> Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form.

Do you have anything more about this?

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#37

Post by Osiris »

josefresco wrote: post #19
briandear wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armed screeners? That's ridiculous. I don't hear too many stories of shoot outs at the airport. The last thing we need is to turn TSA screeners into a police force. Customs agents are often armed, but they are trained law enforcement as opposed to the misfits making $10 per how searching for smuggled barbecue sauce in a carry on.

What about machetes and Molotov cocktails? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-orl... I don't think the TSA agents should be armed, but I'm sure everyone (even the TSA agents) were happy deputy Slyve was.

Except for the bystander and TSA agent that were shot by the officer.

I actually find it irresponsible to fire a weapon in a crowded security line. Two innocent people were shot.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#38

Post by pcl »

EC1 wrote: post #36
tempodox wrote: post #13

Maybe someone should suggest the study of physiognomy to the TSA. Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form. Had the term “terrorist” been invented by then, they would have doubtlessly detected that, too. So we may just as well say, the TSA is about 100 yrs out of date. But then, not letting people bo…

> Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form. Do you have anything more about this?

The OP is making a (presumably) tongue-in-cheek reference to phrenology -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#39

Post by arafa »

fijal wrote: post #11

So this is codified racial-profiling and intuition-profiling (that singles out people with dreadlocks, arabs, sick people, stressed people etc.) unlike all other un-codified profiling employed by virtually all agents of all border security things all over the planet. If you don't believe me, try flying visually sick and you'll be questioned over and over again (not about being sick or having ebola, mind you).

SPOT is based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), a method developed by Paul Ekman to read faces (familiar to fans of the show Lie to Me): http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24533526/face-it-tsa...

While the data behind using FACS to spot emotions (EMFACS) is solid (https://books.google.com/books?id=W_npWdrHGFcC&pg=PA47&lpg=P...), the record on using it to spot lies, terrorists, or otherwise discovering the intentions behind those emotions is not good (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/gao-...).

One huge issue is that a scared terrorist looks the same as a scared person singled out for screening, and there are many times more of the latter. This is a specific issue Ekman brings up in his work when using FACS for lie detection. FACS is much better in finding out how someone is feeling rather than what they're thinking. But you need to know intentions to figure out if someone is a terrorist.

Re: $1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

#40

Post by tempodox »

pcl wrote: post #38
EC1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form. Do you have anything more about this?

The OP is making a (presumably) tongue-in-cheek reference to phrenology -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Yes, that can be regarded as part of the field. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_criminology
Post reply on HN