Slashdot Mirror
Airport Profilers Learn to Read Facial Expressions
nldavepc writes "There has been a rather scary development in airport security. Airport profilers are watching people's facial expressions for clues of terrorist intent. According to the article,"Travelers at Sea-Tac and dozens of other major airports across America are being scrutinized by teams of TSA behavior-detection officers specially trained to discern the subtlest suspicious behaviors.""
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
-- 1984 by George Orwell
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
"How are you today?"
"Where are you heading?"
"Is this all your property?"
"It's almost irrelevant what your answers are..." That's because I'm not a black grandma carting a bunch of grandkids around.
This holiday, every person that I saw pulled out for secondary screening was an elderly black woman with a bunch of little kids. "We're looking for behavior indicators that show a certain level of stress, fear or anxiety above and beyond that shown by an anxious member of the traveling public." Wow! What a fantastically detailed legal threshold for a full body search! The TSA considers the program a powerful tool to root out terrorists, but also an antidote to racial profiling. ..."Not!"
Like every good /.er I didn't RTFA. But this reminds me of something that happened to me recently.
I was walking down the street late at night with a friend of mine. All of a sudden he yells out, "Crap!" and starts getting all agitated.
"What are you doing", I asked.
"Don't look! It's the police", he replied. "I always have trouble with them. Every time I see them they follow me and then I end up getting into a hassle."
I looked at him. Then I looked at the police. Then I waved at the police and they drove off.
"How did you do that??", he asked incredulously.
It never occurred to him that his nervousness was the only thing that way attracting the police's attention. For some reason he thought they had it in for him or something.
I suspect that there will be a lot more people being detained if nervousness is a reason to detain someone. There are just people who are nervous around authority figures. And since that nervousness usually gets them into trouble, they become even more nervous. Welcome to longer lineups at the airport...
I WANT the airport security looking for people acting odd. There's only so many ways someone can put themselves into a position where they can injure or kill the other passengers on a plane and having security folks check for people acting odd seems to be an obvious procedure to follow. Someone acting nervous needs to get greater scrutiny. Profile all you want 'cause I'm thinking a blue haired Grandma ain't the best candidate for security to detain and search.
/.
Then again, I don't insist on wearing tinfoil hats. I WANT bad guys doing bad things caught. I guess I'm in the minority here on
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Oddly enough, we aren't the first country to do this, and those who have aren't totalitarian regimes. And as strange as it sounds, when done properly (admittedly, not likely given the "lowest pay and least training wins the contract" system used for American airport security) behavioral profiling is actually an effective security measure; even Bruce Schneier, a Slashdot favorite for debunking silly security theater, is in favor of behavioral profiling when done correctly.
That's because the terrorists were done messing with airports as of September 12, 2001. Once a battle is won, why keep fighting it?
To my shame and discredit, I was a TSA Security Officer for about four years (Somebody had to pay the bills while my wife went through med school). If this new program follows any of their other training procedures, it's essentially worthless. They introduced a position for a specially trained "Bomb Appraisal Officer" whom you call in when you see a potential explosive device on the x-ray screen or in a bag search, and this officer's job is to decide whether to call the Bomb Squad. The intense training regimen for this position was two thirty-minute CD-ROMs sent from headquarters. How that is supposed to turn an average screener into an explosives expert, I couldn't say. Aside from a handful of improvements, mostly in terms of physical security (locks, fences around airfields, reinforced cockpit doors) TSA is just window dressing--an elaborate and expensive sleight-of-hand to make the public think that their government is "doing something" about terrorism. But I was obscenely overpaid to do a very simple job for a few years, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
"You know.. I'm so sick of arrogant Europeans talking trash about how ignorant Americans are, when so many show that same ignorance about Americans themselves. I mean, no offense, in a country like America, with 300,000,000 people and, as the only remaining "Super Power", LOTS of things to protest, to assume that we've had no "major" protests in 30 years just shows an alarming bias/ignorance of our culture."
You miss the point. In Europe, a "major protest" means
- shutting down a country's whole train system
- Shutting down a country's highway systems by blocking the roads with trucks or farm implements
- Shutting down a country's flagship university
- Rioting and arson all over amajor city.
The first 2 don't happen here because the country is just so damned large, no one can get a "nationwide" anything done. The third happens infrequently, on smaller campuses, but not over national issues - Gallaudet students shut down teh school for a few days because the proposed president wasn't deaf enough (really). As for the fourth, they happen - they are called riots and dealt with by police as criminal acts, not protests.
While Europeans talk about international issues a lot, their outlooks tend to be very provincial when looking at the US - they don't understand the size of the country ( I had relatives visit PA once who wanted to visit Texas because they thought it was a day trip), nor the political system, nor the people. In many ways, we are still the trash that they were glad to see leave in the great immigrant waves of the previous centuries - low class and low brow. Now that they are moving closer to political union with looser borders, they are getting a taste of our world - regional interests vying on a larger stage, immigration, and underclass of a different color, and an unaccountable leadership.
My ancestors left Europe for a reason; as far as I'm concerned, not a lot has changed except the lack of warfare for 50 years - an historical fluke which someone will remedy soon enough. I'm guessing Germany or France - you just don't shake Hitler or Napoleon out of the collective consciousness with the wave of a hat.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Hey there geezer. Last time I checked, it was my parents' generation, the Baby Boomers, who were driving this entire national security/loss of freedoms deal. My generation is well aware of it, and hates it.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that all of the proposed mandatory health insurance plans are just that: mandatory health insurance. The government is in no way going to "take over" healthcare and start running hospitals and put all doctors on government payroll. It is ridiculous to think we would just throw out our entire healthcare industry, as it is one of the biggest parts of our US economy.
What the government would do under some of the proposed plans is make health insurance mandatory. That means that every American will be insured. If they can't afford to pay the premiums, they get government help to pay (your tax dollars at work), but if they're working their premium is usually paid partially by their employer and partially by themselves.
The healthcare system stays the same. You can still pick your doctor, pick your hospital. The coverage is mandatory.
Quit spouting the republican FUD about the government taking over all healthcare. It will never happen. The republicans are trying to sell this image of countries like the UK who actually run their own hospitals and hire doctors. This is pretty inefficient, as we've already proven that capitalism works for things like this.
Most reasonable Americans would agree that everyone should have health insurance. The current system for poor people, which is basically, you wait until you're really sick, almost dead, then go to the emergency room for unscheduled, extremely expensive ($$$) healthcare, which you'll never be able to pay the bill for, doesn't work. What does work and is much less costly ($) is to have everyone insured, so that the poor people have the option of going to a regular doctor who might be able to find and resolve health issues early, before they become major emergency room operations that we all have to pay for indirectly (unpaid emergency room bills increase hospital costs, which increases the rate of all healthcare).
But far be it from the Republican and right-wing controlled media to tell you what the healthcare plans are really about. It sounds much more scary and gets more viewers to show some dingy DMV office with lines out the doors and say "POLITICIAN A WANTS TO TURN YOUR HOSPITALS INTO THIS! STORY AT 11!"
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon