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.""

56 of 676 comments (clear)

  1. "behavior-detection officers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you Americans realize that you are heading towards a totalitarian regime?

    1. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by ubernostrum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the scientific knowledge wasted trying to fight the consequences could be used to fight the causes. But that's way too smart for the current administration to understand.

      Let's hope the next is not so stupid, but I don't foresee significant changes.

      We, people of the 1st World, will be happily marching towards fascism (again) frightened of those darky, weirdy baddies with long fangs dripping blood. There were the Indians, the Jews, then the Commies, now the Muslims, tomorrow someone else.

    3. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Informative

      idiot. the Dutch have arrested 2 terrorist cells in the last couple of years, plenty in the UK and plenty in Germany.

      I wished I could say we don't go out and invade other countries illegally (since we are part & parcel of the lapdog parade and have sent our military into Iraq as well, which in the longer term will hopefully lead to the jailing of those responsible, if they don't manage to squash the investigations over and over again).

    4. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by Holmwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're talking about two different things -- you're talking about a collective power, the power of a majority collectivity to read signs in the language they wish to, and their power to ban, fine and imprison those who put up a sign in another language or try to speak another language in the workplace. (Read Bill 101, the Quebec sign law, and its successors if you're not familiar with it).

      I cannot believe you have any significant familiarity with the concept of freedom if you truly believe that arresting people who put up a sign in English represents "freedom". No one could credibly claim this is "freedom" in any reasonable sense of the word.

      Having a state police force to monitor people's speech and signs is "freedom"?

      The earlier poster was talking about the freedom of individuals to put up signs in whatever language they wish.

      In any non-Orwellian fashion, freedom of speech refers to the latter, not the former.

      If any English-first people in the US try to pass laws forcing private businesses to put up signs only in English, I predict they'll be shot down by the First Amendment. I certainly hope they will.

      Now, does that mean the US is "freer" than any other country? I'd say no. While the US has an extremely strong Bill of Rights, the tentacles of federal agencies and departments -- ATF, Justice have remorselessly expanded over the last few decades.

      There was RICO -- to be used only against organized crime. Now it's used routinely. Then there were all the drug laws, and confiscation laws for the "War on Drugs". Look at how widespread that's gotten. Now there's the Patriot Act, to be used only on terrorists.

      Does anyone seriously believe that Patriot Act provisions won't be routinely used ten years from now against ordinary citizens in the same way that RICO provisions are now?

      The state will monitor people's speech in the US in exactly the same way that it does in Quebec. The ostensible goals will be different, "to prevent terrorism" vs. "preserve linguistic purity", but the effect will be similar.

      -Holmwood

    5. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- A large mob of terrorists were gunned-down in front of the White House today, after an attempt to assassinate the President. White House officials called the move "an attack on freedom," while onlookers were not so sure.

      "They didn't look like terrorists to me," said John Smith, a local resident. He explains, "these people seemed to be angrily protesting some new government policy. One of them was even waving around a sign saying 'Welcome to China'."

      President Bush was unavailable for comment.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    6. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Woah, hang on a second here.

      "The government is employing state-of-the-art behaviour tracking and monitoring software? Totalitarian! They want to store all your biometric details on a chip on your passport? Totalitarian!"

      Fair enough. Now look at this:

      "Airport security are being trained to look for unusual behaviour and nervous looks on people's faces? Totalitarian!"

      I would be quite upset if airport security *weren't* trained to look for these things. It's not a faceless computer doing the work, it's not a magical checklist in the sky, it's not invasive, it doesn't need strip search, it requires you to carry no more documentation, it won't slow down security. It will help spot people doing unusual things or looking out of place with a certain element of humanity behind it. Yes this may include a few errors, but overall I'm a lot happier with a real human being trained to better spot dodgy behaviour than any of the other stuff.

      Not every change to airport security is a massive invasion of your privacy. Grow up and realise that.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    7. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by EllisDees · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quite a few people protested against going into Iraq this time around. In fact, they were the biggest protests since Vietnam. For some reason, you didn't hear much about them in the media. Hell, there were even some large ones in 2005 yet somehow they were marginalized to the point that people don't even seem to remember they happened. After all, supporting our troops means agreeing with whatever stupid situation our president puts them into.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    8. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by jahudabudy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man, I'm glad somebody else here isn't taking crazy pills. I mean, behavior profiling is wrong?! If we shouldn't make judgments about people based on their behavior, what exactly should we use?

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    9. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by dryueh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's exactly the opposite: there are protests, large ones, every day in America. The problem is that they're all pre-approved by police and don't really affect any change. Nearly every protest/demonstration I've gone to (and yes, like many protestors, I went to a bunch when I was a sparkly-minded undergrad) takes the atmosphere of a party or some other social event. You'll see kids banging on drums, playing music, dancing, or whatever.

      It would take something pretty extraordinary to elevate a protest to the 'angry mob' you're referring to, given how sanctioned demonstrations are these days.

    10. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...got to wonder what kind of misinformed loonies are making all these decisions Well I think it's pretty clear what kind of loonies we have currently running the country, and it's by no means limited to the president or the republican party. All of congress is pandering to fear-monger tactics in order to attain or keep their spot.

      The biggest irony of all is that we have gone down the path that 'The Terrorists', whomever falls under that category, would have wanted. Killing a few thousand people, albeit very tragic, is nothing compared to turning a government against it's own citizens and keeping an entire populous in constant fear. Which they could never have accomplished without the aid of said government.
      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    11. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I would be quite upset if airport security *weren't* trained to look for these things.

      A question: can these mindreaders detect the difference between "I'm scared of being found out about something illegal" vs "I'm surly and evasive because I don't feel I should have to impress secret police with my joviality"?

      The article says that 70,000 people were referred for further screening, of which 700 were booked for some offense like drug possession, weapons charges, or outstanding warrants. So by those numbers, 99% of the people hassled by the program were innocent.

      So this super duper collection of fear-detection techniques is (a) inconveniencing the sh*t out of a ton of innocents, and (b) producing results that a blind monkey could produce just as well through sheer statistical accident.

      Color me impressed. Don't beat me, I'll smile! Go Amerikka!

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    12. Re:"behavior-detection officers" by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
  2. Note to terrorist self by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Play more poker.

    1. Re:Note to terrorist self by st0nes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good one, but what about people like me who, due to bad experiences in the past are shit scared of authority figures? I always get stopped going through customs & immigration because I can't help looking guilty, even though I'm completely innocent. I've just resigned myself to putting up with the inconvenience of having my bags thoroughly searched and a grilling from uniforms every time I travel. I haven't been to the USA for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised to get a free trip to Guantanamo next time I go...

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
  3. Predicted long ago by timon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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
    1. Re:Predicted long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's worth it to note that the oppressed/watched people for the most part in 1984 were the bourgeois, or the upper and middle class, who were part of the Party. You'll notice that the proles were left pretty much alone to do what they wanted.

      Also, I for one am not weary, or tired, of my rights at all. I'm weary of them being eroded, and I'm wary, or watchful, of anyone who says otherwise.

    2. Re:Predicted long ago by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Read the article again. It is less than 1%:

      Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants.
      The scary thing is that there is absolutely no way to oversight this. These officers could start plucking people for absolutely any reason they want, they are being asked to make a value judgment with an expected accuracy of 1%!! It would take thousands of abuses before an officer's abusive behavior could be successfully identified, and the outcome of that could then simply be, "He needs more training." Further, anyone he finds who really is acting fairly suspicious, he could also pluck, an keep closer to a normal success rate, perhaps close enough that the officer's behavior was never abnormal enough to warrant investigation, while he's actively abusing his power the whole time.

      Government forces should never for any reason be given authoritative powers which are unable to be subject to external oversight.

      Maybe you look like the guy who cut him off in traffic this morning. Maybe he decides to detain a large group just before he detains you, to guarantee that you miss your flight before they can process and pass through the previous group. The point is you simply cannot give unchallengeable power such as this to human beings without it being abused, and with such a small success rate, abuse is both certain and unidentifiable.

      Counting catching people on outstanding arrest warrants against their success tally is all the more indicative of their low actual success rate. They want to make their numbers look as good as possible, so they include people they probably had prior knowledge of. These are people whose names and pictures are on a computer screen that morning, the officers know to watch out for them, and would be caught completely independent of this bogus system, but they count it as a win to this system in order to at least hit that 1% mark.

      Also what do they mean by weapons violations in the above quote? Is this some guy who forgot he had a pocket knife? If it's something more serious like a gun, isn't he again going to get caught in existing security? I would like to see the number of people they caught who would have slipped through normal security. I'd be surprised if it beat 1 in 10 of the people they did arrest. Even fudging their numbers they can't offer a better number than 1% success rate. This program is a failure out the gate, and it is only an opportunity for abuse without oversight.
  4. New Buzz-Phrase For 2008 by blcamp · · Score: 4, Funny


    "Don't FACE me, bro!"

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  5. Racial Profiling by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The officers ask simple questions:

    "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!"
  6. America's getting scary by tech49er · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solution: Stay away from America ... if they keep going the way they're going that probably wont be such a sacrifice!

    --
    "... always going forward 'cause we cant find reverse! "
  7. What is a terrorist facial expression? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly this is awful. From TFA -

    "When someone lies or tries to be deceptive, ... there are behavior cues that show it. ... A brief flash of fear."

    Now, creative editing aside (lotsa dots in there), what happens when I display a fear microexpression when I'm asked if I have any bomb?

    Because that's what's going to happen, because with all this overhyped security I'm tense and slightly afraid when I'm dealing with these people anyway. Why? Because they have the power, on suspiciuon alone, to really ruin my day, my entire holiday, my business trip or perhaps even my life, depending on just how far they want to take everything.

    So yes, when I get a grilling from a security agent, he's going to see fear. And the fact I now know (s)he's looking for it will make it even more likely.

    Welcome the new world where paranoia becomes a self fulfilling phenomenon.

  8. False positive much? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants.
    So what they are really saying is that this technique has a 99.9% false positive rate. Nice.
    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:False positive much? by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worse than that, if you take 70,000 completely random people in any public venue and search them, you'll probably get a few hundred minor drug posession, weapons, and outstanding warrants. So really this has 100% failure rate.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  9. Trouble with the police by wrook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  10. Could you speak up? by maillemaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I couldn't hear you over the latest TV gossip program.

    Besides. I feel safe.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Could you speak up? by TheDrewbert · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently your "sarcasm detection officers" are on strike.

      --
      http://www.CelloFourteGroupie.net
    2. Re:Could you speak up? by LLKrisJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... Wait until the next disgruntled teen steps up to your favorite Wall-mart totin' a bigass shooter.

      Anyways enough of the stupid talk,

      I strongly feel that the US should focus more on taking away the causes of all this senseless terror. You might feel safe but the root of the evil is still there.

      And this evil doesn't stem from some crazy ass muslims here and there who just happen to like offing people, just because there are crazy bastards or something.

      No, these problems all arise because people, Muslims, Jews and Christians (and throw in some Hindus for good measure) alike are falling victim to injustice, thus making them susceptible to the warmongering of only a handfull of so called 'leaders'.

      The Jews got killed in WWII, so the were a bit pissed (and reasonably so). So they went of and conquered themselves some Palestinian land, thus making these guys unhappy (again, reasonably so). You end up with a bunch of Palestinians having nothing anymore, living in the stone age and no discernible way out. In a situation like that it only takes one nut to step up and say 'it's them Jews ho did this to us, lets go out and kill a few...'

      Palestinians kill some Jews, Jews blow Lebanon to pieces with some clusterboms and padabing padaboom, you have a full scale war on your hands.

      Whose fault is this? Nobodies, except maybe the allies (I explicitly don't blame the US all on it's own) from WWOII who decided to try and create Israel in the way they did. This should have been done using more diplomatic ways I think, even if that would have taken 50 years. Hell, I'm no geopolitical expert, but even a child can see what went wrong.

      Same deal with Afghanistan. Russians needed to go so Mujahedein got funded. Once the Russians were gone there was nobody to support the merging nation of Afghanistan. They ended up piss poor and frustrated, a feeding ground for extremists.

      Saddam and the whole Iran vs. Irak story... same thing.

      Why do you think North Koreans are so pissed?? Because they like to lob a nuke in our backyard and because they think this will make things better for them? NO!!!! Because they are piss poor (They were pawns in the cold war between USSR and USA) and because some Chateau-Neuf-Du-Pape drinking bastard tells them it is our fault and if we go away they wil magically become un-poor.

      The problems mentioned here are global problems, caused by the whole world just looking on instead of taking reasonable action. They are not just the USA's fault but the USA is a big player on a global scale, economically, morally and military... They should behave accordingly and not let a bunch of extremists in their own country take over.

      It's not 'them vs. us', it's not 'Christians vs. Muslims', it's about people having the right to live freely and not taking everything from them, making them blind with rage so they cannot think straight and do all kinds of stupid crap to eachother.

      The US and Europe should do something about THAT instead of herassing me at the airport because I happen to look funny (and I do sometimes, really :) ... Just my two cents

    3. Re:Could you speak up? by Latinhypercube · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with a lot of what you have written. But it is only part of the picture. You assume all this chaos and hatred has somehow been accidental and a knock-on effect. It isn't and hasn't. It is the result of a sustained effort by various empires (namely the US). The US has consistently entered a country and separated it into 2 regions or clans or whatever and then armed them both, before raping that region of everything. Divide and conquer. Over and over again. Guns and ammunition don't build themselves. It takes investment, planning and expertise to arm an army, and a constant input of ammunition and money. The fact is most people are kept oblivious to this because the truth is so repugnant.

  11. Scary? by taskiss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 -
    1. Re:Scary? by Umuri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, here's your scenario.

      Two people walk through airport security, one gets through, the other doesn't.

      One person is a normal citizen, who hears about the horrid things that happen to detainees and people at the hands of airport security, cannot miss their flight home to visit their grandma who is about to die from cancer, and only has the bare minimum time to get through security and onto the plane.

      The other is an actual INTERPOL top 100 criminal. They have survived for years by being able to control their outward appearance and are a master a social engineering in order to avoid security or police in localities.

      Guess which one gets through?

      There's an old saying, only the bad hackers get caught. That applies to criminals. 99% of anti-criminal measures in place such as this will only stop the poorly conceived, the unintelligent, or the unlucky. It will do nothing about people determined, intelligent, and with a plan, which is the attributes the supposed terrorists who want to blow up planes have.
      I'm all for security measures that work, but these aren't it. And that is assuming you subscribe to the group that believes they really are supposed to help catch criminals instead of just promote a more.... federally empowered american government.

      I'm not saying my stance, I'm just saying the sides you can view it from.

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
  12. Yeah, Right by Ed+Almos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone seeing my facial expression as I pass through a US airport will immediately see someone pissed off at the delay, disruption and unbelieveable hassle involved with TSA controlled air travel.

    Ed Almos

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
  13. Care to cite that? by amstrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    where did you get that bullshit?

    1. Re:Care to cite that? by Carbonite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm also going to have to call bullshit. There's no way the TSA has the technology, resources or competence to match passengers' destinations with their clothes. Even if such a system did exist, it would be utterly useless due to the number of false positives it would produce.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
  14. uh-oh, better ban sunglasses at airports by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful
    or better still make it a "guantanamo-able" offence.

    If you can't see people's eyes, it's very difficult to interpret their expressions. Obviously sunglasses-wearing travellers have something to hide. Just to be sure, ship 'em off (modern day transportation of criminals?)

    Just as a side-bar, how many of the errrr... ZERO terrorist attacks in the last couple of years would this measure have prevented?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. This isn't funny by Crock23A · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you really think someone who is willing to hijack a plane and then fly it into a skyscraper doesn't already have a poker face? I'm also sure the would-be terrorists already travel regularly so they be well accustomed to the different facets of airport security.

    First it's facial expressions, next it will be the thought police.

  16. I wonder if this is evidence-based at all? by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they have any way of validating that these techniques actually work?

    How did they do the experiments? Did they have a pool of real terrorists and anxious innocent passengers and a way of doing double-blind testing?

    Or was it the training just done by some expert consultants who possess an air of authority and a confident manner?

    Is this any better than using graphology on the passenger's signature... or having a computer run a quick horoscope... or following the methods of the Malleus Maleficarum?

    Is there any, any, any reason at all to believe in the validity of these techniques?

    1. Re:I wonder if this is evidence-based at all? by The+Mgt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there any, any, any reason at all to believe in the validity of these techniques?

      You're looking at it the wrong way. Somebody somewhere is making money from this.

  17. How beautifully naive. by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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 /."

    Oh me too. We all want bad guys doing bad things to be caught. But here on /. you'll find that people aren't quite as willing as average to submit to full body cavity searches in the name of their own security. Or being hassled for hours in an interrogation room because you looked at someone funny. Maybe because we're more socially dysfunctional than average and are always giving people funny looks by accident...

    You might also find the roots of the more prevalent anti-authoritarian attitude here on /. have something to do with the constant flow of stories here on /. (and, to be fair, anywhere else people with half a brain gather) about bad legislation, bad policing, corrupt or transparently bought-out government.

    I fundamentally do not agree with the current crop of legislators on who is a "bad guy doing a bad thing", and I also fundamentally disagree with using unreliable methods to detect said individuals.

  18. About time they look at my face by bamwham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the last five years I have been doing the following when I fly: From the moment I step up to the TSA agent checking id's and boarding passes I look them in the eyes. I would say nine times out of ten they check my id against my boarding pass and initial the bp without ever looking up at me. I want them to do what I did when I ran a cash register at a liquor store, check the picture, check the face, check the picture again. I'm to scared that they'll ruin my day to ever point out to them that they never checked my face against the one on my id. About time some of them are at least being taught to look at our faces.

  19. Well spent money and efforts? by flajann · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants.

    Out of 70,000 people that were harassed by these so-called "Airport Profilers", only about 700 of them were found to be guilty of anything at all. That's a pretty lousy false-positive rate of 99%, which means, of course, 69,300 of these people were needlessly bothered and harassed and humiliated and personally violated.

    Of the 700 or so that was guilty "of something", none were found to be "terrorists".

    Am I missing something here? When was the last time a "terrorist" was found by the TSA in the US? And how much money is being spent on the TSA?

    How many people die in traffic accidents per year? 41,000 or so? How many people in the US die of terrorism in the US per year? Let's average over a decade to account for 911. Over the past ten years, an estimated 410,000 died on our roadways, yet only 3000 by terrorists. So nearly 137 times the number of people in the last 10 years died on the road vs. terrorism, and yet how much money is spent on traffic safety vs. Homeland (In)Security? Am I missing something here?

    You wonderful hard-earned gun-extracted Tax Dollars being put to such useful and meaningful work!!!

  20. 100% fool proof plan to defeat terrorism by Sir_Real · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop being afraid.

    There it is. Can't get much simpler than that.

    That sure didn't cost 500 billion dollars (a staggering number, no matter the value of the American fiat peso these days). Nor were uncounted lives wasted on the deployment of this plan, or the occupation that followed its deployment.

    Now that the war is over, and that I've won it, can we fucking stop now? Can we have our airports back? Can we travel freely amongst ourselves without being scrutinized by the sigmoid wielding high school dropouts? Can we speak freely about liberty and freedom of speech without being branded as 9/11 accomplices?

    Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

  21. Easy by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

    I pick the line with the female screener and just stare at her tits the whole time.

    1. Re:Easy by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Funny

      I pick the line with the female screener and just stare at her tits the whole time.

      This is the TSA. Those tits aren't very good. Even the TSA men have better tits.

  22. Fear, anger, surprise, contempt by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure I show all those emotions in the course of a trip through security:

    Fear: I'm afraid that these idiots are the ones in charge of "making air travel safe"
    Anger: That so many millions of people buy into the farce that is the TSA
    Surprise: That the 85 year old lady in a walker ahead of me in line seems to be the biggest prospective threat of the day
    Contempt: Take your pick.

    I guess I should stop traveling by air?

  23. Re:Airport Security by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's because the terrorists were done messing with airports as of September 12, 2001. Once a battle is won, why keep fighting it?

  24. Re:Behavioural profiling by iBod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Bear in mind you don't get shot for looking suspicious

    Oh really?

    In London you do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

  25. But the target isn't the 'Interpol top 100' by murderlegendre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First and foremost, they are screening for suicide bombers and hijackers.. I think it goes without saying that it's difficult to become a seasoned, experienced suicide bomber. Likewise, with a few notable exceptions, hijackers have a pretty long track record of getting busted on their first go-round.

    While I'm sure the TSA would be perfectly happy to catch slippery international career criminals, it's the disposable cannon fodder which most concerns them. Just a guess, but I suspect that the TSA officers receive considerably more training in detecting the behavior of these types, than the criminals themselves receive in suppressing the same.

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  26. Note to self by e-scetic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get botoxed before travelling.

  27. Yes, you are mistaken... by encoderer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, you are mistaken.

    The Million Man March was held on the Mall in DC in 1995, with somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.

    This garnered a lot of attention and the "Million * March" naming scheme was borrowed by a number of later groups, such as the:

    - Million Mom March, May 2000, about 150,000 - 200,000 women advocating for gun control laws
    - Million Worker March, 2004, about 10,000 people protesting globalization and free-trade treaties
    - Million Family March, 2000, tens-of-thousands of people

    Furthermore, there have been an enormous amount of anti-war protests against the war in Iraq, starting in 2002 and continuing to today

    There was also a lot of coverage for the 1999 Anti-WTO protests in Seattle, WA that brought out an estimated 50,000-100,000 people.

    And, of course, there were so many protesters when Bush was inaugurated into Office in 2000 that he was the first President in over a hundred years that couldn't walk from the capitol to the White House after being sworn-in. He had to be taken there in an armored car.

    And you'd be surprised about the proximity to the White House. Nearly all marches/protests are held on the Mall in DC, which is a huge expanse that runs between the US Capitol on one end and the Washington Monument on the other end, with the White House right in between. It's set back a couple hundred yards from the mall, but the protests where abutted right against the White House gate.

    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.

    1. Re:Yes, you are mistaken... by encoderer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your ignorance still astounds me.

      First, I named 6 large protests. Not "4 or 5."

      Second, I alluded to NEAR CONSTANT PROTEST of the Iraq War since 2002. Millions of people have been involved in these.

      Third, It's a bit pedantic of you to assume that I, a mere mortal, was able to name EVERY LARGE PROTEST in our VAST nation over the last 30 years, isn't it? Especially considering I'm 25....

      Fourth, what makes you think they didn't accomplish anything?

      Fifth, I've heard your former Prime Minister Blair call the US the "last remaining super power" more than once. I'm not bragging, i'm just stating the facts. The measure of a "Super Power" is not how many nukes does one have. That's the measure of a "Nuclear Power." ..."Super Power" is about economic power, military might, and global influence. I'm seriously not interested in getting into a pissing match over this. I mentioned it only to illustrate that it's patently ABSURD to assume a country like the US has not had an enormous number of protests. You decided to fix upon those 2 words in my post, probably because you found yourself unable to say much about the crux of my argument.

      And finally, most Americans haven't protested fuel prices because it's an inconvenience, not an atrocity. Most of us just drive less, drive slower, and drive more efficient vehicles.

    2. Re:Yes, you are mistaken... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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
  28. Re:And voting for "tax-and-spend" Dems helps? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmmm... the gov't does one thing badly, so the gov't shouldn't do anything? How stupid is that. Hey, I believe in small government, but there is no logic to your argument.

    I guess we should all take care of our own roads, buy a fire truck to park in each driveway, take turns policing the streets, pay a local company to do medical research on diseases we don't have (and hardly anyone has), etc.

    I have no idea whether government managed health care is a good idea. But politicizing the issue doesn't help us learn anything. If you must bring politics into it, I'll just note that the "tax-and-spend" Republicans haven't done much better at managing the country - the just spend the money on different things.

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
  29. TSA Training by Ixtl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  30. Re:And voting for "tax-and-spend" Dems helps? by illumin8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But, you think medicine is bad now...wait till the US govt is in charge. We'll sink under the $$$ and bureacracy that will engender.
    Thank you for spouting the same "we don't want the people that run the DMV to run our healthcare" FUD that you hear on Fox News 24/7.

    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
  31. Re:Oh Noes by notasheep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, catch up with the times. The 80s and 90s have passed with the 90s posting 1 hijacking of a US flight. (Out of the tens of thousands of flights a year.) So, obviously, it's time to start detaining people based on some behavioral traits that are sure to be kept secret by those doing the watching. (Can't let the terrorists know what we're looking for.) After all, just like with the No Fly and Watchlist there's no way this will be abused...

    --
    Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?