Slashdot Mirror
Fewer Than 1% Arrested From TSA's "Behavior Detection"
An anonymous reader writes "Fewer than 1% of airline passengers singled out at airports using the much vaunted 'suspicious behavior detection' techniques are arrested, Transportation Security Administration figures show. The TSA program, launched in early 2006, looks for terrorists using a controversial surveillance method based on behavior detection and has led to more than 160,000 people in airports receiving scrutiny, such as a pat-down search or a brief interview. It has resulted in only 1,266 arrests, often on charges of carrying drugs or fake IDs, the TSA said. The TSA has not publicly said whether it has caught a terrorist through the program." In related news, the odds of sanity coming to the TSA plummeted today when Schneier said he's not interested in the top job there.
If some villagers are mauled by a tiger, and I promise to catch the tigers, and I implement a system of nets and snares around the village, and I don't catch any tigers, then I have failed to keep my promise, regardless of how many snakes and wild boars I do catch.
If there haven't been any tiger attacks in the whole time the net has been up then there's no basis to say that it has been a success or a failure. You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.
Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?
Note that I'm not saying it actually has been a success, I'm saying I see no example of it having failed and I don't see how some random arrest figure with no context whatsoever proves anything one way or they other.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Oh my...looks like I spoke too soon.
And you spoke too soon again because my next line clarified that that wasn't what I was saying. That was very trollish of you to respond to this line having obviously read the following one and knowing precisely that this wasn't what I was saying.
No, but you're certainly insinuating it rather loudly...
No I'm not. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating things quite clearly: The numbers given in this article prove nothing whasoever without context.
As I made clear above, the complete lack of any terrorism related arrests clearly spell out the failure of this program. Either the terrorists are there, and are not being caught, or they aren't there at all, in which case the program is pointless...assuming, of course, that "capture of terrorists" was its actual goal...
As I made clear above, the lack of arrests for terrorism do not prove anything about the success or failure of the program.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Really, You're really going to try to claim you weren't trying to insinuate anything with this line?
I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating it. If I didn't write it then it isn't what I'm saying. If you inferred something from my words then that is entirely your own doing, not mine. I don't know how else I can phrase that to make it clearer. There's no dishonesty here, only your lack of comprehension of the subject and inability to read an entire post correctly.
They prove that the program (as far as its stated goals go) is either a failure or pointless. Take your pick.
No it doesn't prove either of those things. If something doesn't happen over an arbitrary amount of time that doesn't mean it cannot happen at any point in the future. Do you really not get that?
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
I shouldn't venture out in the morning without a parachute, on the off chance that gravity will malfunction and fling me skyward?
OMGZ, look what I made you say by quoting part of your post!! LULLZZ
Read my entire post. Don't post two lines out of context ignoring anything that doesn't support your trolling and then try to claim I implied something. The subject of my original post was "I don't know if that's good or bad...", I suppose you'll quote that back to me as "I [...] know [...] that's [...] good" to prove my implications, right?
You sir are an idiot. I think we're done here.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
I addressed that under "subsequent mealy-mouthed attempts at evasion", thanks.
It's not "subsequent" if it's the sentence imediately BEFORE and AFTER the sentences you keep quoting, dumbass. Since you're too frightened to quote my qhole post here it is. I've bolded the parts that shows you're a fucking idiot:
If there haven't been any tiger attacks in the whole time the net has been up then there's no basis to say that it has been a success or a failure. You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.
Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?
Note that I'm not saying it actually has been a success, I'm saying I see no example of it having failed and I don't see how some random arrest figure with no context whatsoever proves anything one way or they other.
Once again: You are an idiot.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Likewise, I'm terrified of a person who thinks Bin Fucking Laden should be allowed to continue to live. It means you don't believe in justice for the murdered. You don't believe in protecting the "right to life". You just let the assholes run free.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.