Slashdot Mirror
TSA Investigates... People Who Complain About TSA
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 'behavioral indicators' that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially 'high risk' passengers at the nation's airports, and report that arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator TSA officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists. When combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny. 'Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that's a First Amendment-protected right,' says Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. 'It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate.' Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."
...and it's getting boring to have to read things which imply it.
So all I need to do to get felt up by a guy who's clearly as unhappy about it as I am is to bitch about the lines at the airport and how poorly the TSA's uniforms fit? Where do I sign up again?
One could assume from this that the TSA is here to teach us to not talk back to the Authority, rather than to actually catch terrorists.
If you're not guilty then you won't have anything to hide. ( which, ironically, I think we should apply generously to politicians/corporations )
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Please Remove Your Shoes In this documentary, it shows the agreement between the FAA and airlines industries to put security at a low priority while getting passengers on planes as quickly as possible was the highest priority. A "red team" agent who audits security put a bomb in a suitcase, threw clothes on it and put a water bottle on top of the clothes. The screener detected the bag, opened it up, confiscated the water bottle and allowed the bag to go through. TSA agents complained because he "thought outside the box" and invalidated the test because it was "unfair" to their procedures on how to audit security. This documentary is from ex/current TSA, FAA, and air marshal agents. Did you know the TSA was more interested in having an air marshal dress code than actually "blending in" on the plane? The guy in a suit and tie sitting on the plane to Hawaii was a dead giveaway when everyone else was dressed appropriately.
ticketswapz.com - Buy, Sell, Trade Sporting Event and Concert Tickets
Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.
This seems like the most obvious flaw in reasoning, and probably didn't require expert research to predict. What nefarious character is going to draw attention to themselves when trying to get away with something evil? This didn't stand out as a "duh" to the folks crafting this list? That scares me too... assuming the goal of these criteria was to catch the bad guys, of course.
Who are the real terrorists? I'm not sure about you, but I'm almost afraid to fly.
As for "rights" ... you don't have any "rights" when it comes to the TSA.
TSA is an agency of the United States Government. If you can't make the connection I will draw you a picture. :o)
Glenn?!
>_>
Well, this is certainly the finest pat-down, X-Ray scan, cavity search and bowl of hot grits down the shorts I've ever experienced at SFO! I feel like flying every week!
Terror Alert Elevated from Plaid to Paisley
nab scuffle throw-down hammer-lock vulcan-death-grip
Ahhh, nooooooo! I was sincere! Really!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wrong quote.
"Facecrime: An indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression."
The article isn't about surveillance, it's about BDOs and SPOT agents on the lookout for facecriminals.
"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, was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime"
If the Orwell's getting tired, I'd settle for a quote from the other design document on which TSA is based.
"Happiness is mandatory. Are you happy, Citizen?"
- Paranoia XP, the post-9/11 revision of the classic 80s role-playing game.
I'm not so paranoid that I'm reluctant to post this as an AC, but I am paranoid enough that I didn't want to use the acronym for "role-playing-game."
Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."
No kidding. As someone trying to evade detection in a crowd I could (a) do something that draws attention, or (b) try to be as unremarkable as possible and take steps to make any interaction dull and quickly forgotten. The first is more likely to bring the authorities my way, and the second is less likely. So ... let's see ... I'm going to ... wait, wait, don't tell me ... I'll pick ... um ...
(Warning, this post contains high concentrations of sarcasm. Use with appropriate caution.)
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
This is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't complain about even the slightest inconvenience obviously is not from here. So why would they check the people who do complain when that's the American way?
Defective Logic
Complaining got you send to gulag.
According to CNN, the TSA is actually more ineffective than I initially thought:
False Positives-
Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified.
Effectiveness at detecting terrorists-
Experts agree that the fact that there is an extremely small number of terrorists makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral observation programs. The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified. But it is not known if the behavior detection officers were working at the time, the agency said.
So, in the best case scenario, for every person ultimately charged with a crime (not necessarily convicted) 86 are misidentified. And that is using "trained" behavioral analysts. Most TSA searches are random, which results in one charge for every 794 false positives. Note also that nearly 40% of the charges are immigration related. Most of the rest are probably drug related.
The TSA can't point to a single incident where its random searches or behavioral analysis actually has prevented a terrorist attack. Despite their utter failure, the TSA plans to spend another $1.2 billion over the course of five years on behavior analysis techniques.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/index.html?hpt=C1
Just like people carrying drugs in their cars might suddenly get angry and combative with police about being pulled over "for no good reason".
Who told you that nonsense?
They don't. The people moving drugs use rental cars, since the car can get seized, and they tend to do the speed limit or right around it. If they get a ticket they are as nice as possible, no reason to want to attract attention. Your average methhead does not of course fit the description I gave, but that is because he is a moron meth user not someone moving large amount of drugs for profit.
Or SO I HEARD.
The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.
Full Testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_melendez.htm
"saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."
Why did you have to tell them that? Now they'll consider everyone blending in to be potential al-Qaeda terrorists.
1) unlikely and pain in the ass to catch since lots of stuff sets off the detectors.
2) define weapon? I bet I could kill a man with a pen if I wanted.
3) how you plan on finding those?
4) or maybe I am nervous because I hate having the TSA hassle me.
The reality is terrorism is such an edge case we would do better by spending all this money on fixing our roads. We would save many times as many lives per million dollars spent.
Shoot the tiger from 500 yards away with a scope sighted 30-06 and you have no tiger, and maybe a few good steaks.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Interesting. I know first hand that detective instruction and manuals state that one should focus on those in an investigation that are overly compliant when searching for suspects.
It is common sense anyway? When you cold call a neigborhood, those that have nothing to hide, invariably people are hostile to anything beyond "have you seen anyone suspicious out on the street."
"Where were you on x date?" and things go rapidly downhill. Normal people get upset and start making a fuss.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
1984 was not an instruction manual.
Sincerely,
The rest of the World.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
...who never cause any trouble: until they blow the place uP!
That's how you can tell them from the Americans -- they always bitch.
> Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.
Not for the most part. Mostly they just find it annoying and respond by being authoritarian because they're pissed off. When reporters report on torture in Chechneya by the local strongman, they get killed because they're a pain to him. Not because the guy who tortures people every day is somehow afraid of them. He *should* be afraid of them. But mostly he's pissed at them. And he runs the apparatus of the state. He's not afraid of them--at most he's afraid that his bosses will replace him if anybody cares about new public knowledge that Russia sponsors terrorism.
Similarly (and obviously very differently, since most TSA employees are good people who are not actively torturing lots of innocent civilians, but similarly for the point about whether terror is inspired), TSA employees, like cops, are generally not terrified by dissident speech. They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
1) Use smarter screeners. We don't need better scanners or more of them, just screeners able to stay alert and recognize a problem.
2) Anything that can take down a plane (aka the pilots). As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they secured the doors, a 9/11 style attack is no longer possible (and nobody's tried it again). Killing a few passengers doesn't matter because other passengers will react quickly now to defend themselves.
3) As long as it can't blow up the plane or kill the pilots, it shouldn't be on the list anyway.
4) There's a difference between irritation and nervousness. The former is a typical reaction associated with normal travelers, the latter is an atypical reaction associated with terrorists and criminals.
We shouldn't be worried about anything getting on a plane unless it can hijack the plane or cause parts of it to rain down in little pieces. Anything else can be just as effective as a terrorist act anywhere else on the ground. We've secured cockpit doors to prevent hijackings. Now the terrorists are more interested in explosives. They've used new methods pretty much each time, and we've only been playing catch-up. What's the one common factor in all of them? Passengers reacted quickly and put a stop to it. Personally I don't mind if there's a guy on my plane who tries to light his shoe on fire, as long as flight attendants and other passengers react quickly when they see him try. So for goodness sake, let me keep my shoes on in the security checkpoint.
And let's not forget, if the terrorists are smart enough to make it to a security checkpoint without detection already, they're smart enough to get through the security checkpoint without being stopped. TSA should be our last line of defense, not our only line of defense.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Anything that cannot be separated from revenge-by-cop is something that I question in the utmost terms.
I.e., if it resembles someone complaining about the IRS and then getting audited, I call it a likely government abuse, no matter the "justification".
C//
Decent terrorists and criminals are not going to be nervous, they will take drugs to ensure that if needed.
These are edge cases not worth wasting money on. The only real security is what you said, locked doors and a plane full of folks who will not tolerate such bullshit.
Just like people carrying drugs in their cars might suddenly get angry and combative with police about being pulled over "for no good reason".
Huh? If you ask my cop friends, this almost never happens. Usually the confrontational people are the ones with nothing to hide, and they know it. The ones with drugs in their trunk are always very reasonable, in the hopes they'll get to 'go on their way.'
The TSA has ALWAYS been about nothing more than taking away the liberty of law-abiding citizens and teaching them to subjugate themselves to the State. Their methods and actions are unconstitutional, irrational, and morally bankrupt. The only thing more pathetic than the TSA is the fact that so many citizens are willing to submit themselves to their illicit scrutiny and authority.
Frankly, I'd rather take the risk of being killed by a religious extremist (chance extremely remote) than regularly groped, prodded, scanned, documented, or otherwise subjected to the TSA (100% chance for every flight). That makes the TSA a far GREATER EVIL than the terrorists.
You realize that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" didn't even come around until 100 years after the country was founded and it was in a speech commemorating the dead in a battle during the civil war right? You know, the war where one side was fighting to remove themselves from the ruling of the federal government who wasn't listening to them and the other side was fighting to keep them under control of it?
It's no wonder that one liners get so much attention, but I don't think it means what you think it means in the correct context.
Good one but in truth virtually nobody complains at the actual checkpoint, to TSA people. I fly a lot more than most people, generally at least twice a month. My experience is in general everybody falls in line, does what they are told and gets the hell out of there as fast as possible. Rare is the case when somebody is outwardly angry. Even people who have to dump out entire bags of over 3.4oz size toiletries do so with a smile and only complain once they've made it through.
So yes, somebody who is bitching and moaning is going to stick out.
He's a TSA agent, airport annoyance specialist style.
A relative by marriage, I hasten to point out.
He's a fat lazy idiot and was incompetent at his other jobs. And he's now a TSA agent.
I'm not saying these two things are related, necessarily.
This space available.
So we should just bend over and take it -- just so we can move along as quickly as possible? I'm not criticizing you if that's your choice, but, well, I'm not wired that way...
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You mean the brave patriots who were selflessly fighting the Federal Tyrants on the basis of things like the infamous Cornerstone Speech?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Ya, those Federal bastards wouldn't listen to them as they whined and moaned that their evil, inefficient "economic system" should not continue to be expanded. Oh those poor, poor patriots. They wanted their grand Southern Aristocratic Republic, built upon the backs of slavery. Not that we didn't build our own aristocracy of financial pirates, but trying to call a bunch of slave owning, backwards looking racists "Patriots" is a stretch, to say the least.
So lets go and lynch some niggers! Long Live the CSA!
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? TSA/DHS has also been investigating using the AIT technology on the effing STREET, too (source: epic.org -- look it up). For that matter, I can print whatever I want on the ticket to an event I host, but if I were to try to force people to submit to either an AIT scanner or "enhanced pat downs" you and I both know I'd end up in jail.
Nice try, but go back to your high school civics class, kid.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
its funded by public dollars and just as public as the streets.
by printing something on paper, that alone does not make it correct interpretation of law.
they also post 'no photos allowed' but that is a KNOWN falsehood and of course photos are 'allowed'. they make fear-mongering rules up all the times. does not make them completely legal.
go ahead and add me to the fucking list for complaining. I stopped flying about a decade ago. my dollars are not going to help the airline industry or anything directly related. I vote with my dollars since my elected officials stopped voting for what was right.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Your premise is false, therefore your rhetorical question without meaning.
That's the cry of someone who wants the system kept as it is. The "official" mechanisms for changing the system don't work; they exist because they don't work. The system is stable, and one of the means by which it achieves that stability is by diverting those who would change it into ineffective paths. One of the other means, of course, is the cruder method of imprisoning or killing those who would change it.
And what did all this politeness and tolerance get you? Right... more onerous searches and greater restrictions.
That's not their job.
TSA was founded for several purposes:
1. To shift the power over airport security to the federal government (several subpurposes to this -- among them shifting responsibility in the case of another failure, and creating a single point of influence for contractors to target.)
2. To, simply by being created, be a visible act of "doing something", regardless of substantive effectiveness or lack thereof, in the immediate, wake of a major terrorist attack, and
3. To condition the public to accept greater arbitrary intrusions on personal liberty.
#2 was a short term goal and was probably reasonably successful (it was a political measure, and there were lots of others at the same time, so its pretty hard to isolate its effectiveness); #1 was obviously successful in general (and its subpurposes seem to have been achieved effectively). Despite some pushback over some measures, #3 seems to have been successful at least in the context in which TSA operates (though its less clear how successful it has been at conditioning the public to except more intrusion generally.)
Instead of the Million-dollar scanner, I choose to get the "pat down." I don't complain, in fact -- just the opposite.
I'm not sure if I get on the security list or not, but my involuntary groans of pleasure, sure seem to BOTHER them a lot.
Try going back through security, and if questioned, say, "I'm not sure if I was searched well enough the first time." Get some friends with torn clothing, and whisper to each other about your "favorite" inspector.
Ask them if they are coming out with a "Hunks of TSA" calendar.
If we don't let terrorists on the plane -- they'll just be blowing us up in the parking lot anyway. /sarcasm
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Someone I know is a drug runner. We were talking about some random stupid procedure somewhere (it might have been TSA I don't remember) I was telling him how I give them as hard of a time as possible. He told me that I can do that because I have nothing to fear as I am squeaky clean. Meanwhile he doesn't want to be noticed. Even when he isn't running. So he stays as quiet as possible, and tries to fly under the radar. The guy complaining the most is most likely not a criminal, he is just being pissed off because he is being treated like one.
The TSA surely realizes that actual trouble-makers will want to blend in. Therefore they want to alter *everyone's* behavior so that people are as submissive as possible. The obvious strategy is not to alter the behavior of the terrorists directly, but to make regular law-abiding citizens act *all the same, all the time, with total submission to authority.* That way, in order to "blend in" as any true trouble maker would want to do, the trouble-makers will have to be as cowed as everyone else. This is an obvious example of law enforcement wanting everyone to give up legitimate rights and submit unquestioningly to authority in order to force criminals to come in line with that obsequious standard.
2) define weapon? I bet I could kill a man with a pen if I wanted.
Well, it IS mightier than the sword...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I have had problems with the concept of "probable cause" for several years now since I was in a car with a friend who was stopped for going about 10 Mph over the speed limit. When the police officer asked if my friend would mind if they searched his car he politely stated "You may not search my car without probable cause or a search warrant". The officer then called for "backup" and 3 other police cars then showed up and we were promptly detained there at the side of the road for 4 1/2 hours until they could obtain a search warrant: so much for the 4th amendment. At the end of it all after searching the car they let us go with an $80 fine for speeding. I suppose the cop could have said there was "probable cause" because we were speeding and that we could have been fleeing the scene of a crime but even that would have been tenuous at best. I wonder why police don't use such an argument at all traffic stops whenever they want to search a vehicle? All it would take is a convoluted Latin expression to justify the concept.
It is simply amazing how Americans' civil rights are being thrown right out the window while just about anyone wearing a government issued uniform is deified as a "hero". The parallels of what is going on in the US now and Germany in the late 1930s frightening; e.g. there is a lot of talk now about how illegal aliens [gotta' love that word!] are much to blame for the country's problems and that they could also be terrorists. Sound familiar? I find it ironic that as an American living in Germany I feel as if my rights are more safely guaranteed here than they are in the US. I am not as concerned about my personal right to bear arms (If I want a gun here I could probably go through the trouble to get one but I can't be bothered) as I am about the right to open my mouth and be safe from undue search and seizure which is definitely not the case in the US. Americans seem to be far more obsessed about their 2nd amendment rights but their first and forth amendment rights be dammed unless it has to do with defending the KKK or Black Panthers' freedom of expression.
In the rest of the world, were air travel is likely to cross borders, checks have always been more strict. And with good reason. Hijacks were once common. Aircraft made good targets. It was tried with both ships and trains but they lack a sense of urgency, are to big, to open. So, something had to be done.
As an expat who is lived in quite a few different countries from South America and Latin America to Asia and has traveled to 50-60 different countries you are flat out simply dead wrong. Whether you are trying to be intentionally deceptive or not I don't know. Please provide citations to back up your comments. There isn't a single country in the whole world that has airport security even close to what the US has. Period. Even Cubans and citizens of other communist countries have more freedom to travel than we do. Also, hijackings were never common. Not ever.
If the current genital searches and naked imaging, even of small children, are so necessary then what about cavity searches? All of your arguments would apply just as well there. Ministry of Truth leader Pistole has said that currently cavity searches are not on the agenda, but he refused to specifically rule them out either. Clearly the time isn't right for them yet, but it will come. When it does what will your position be?
Does it work? Lots of people claim that ZERO attacks have been stopped. But you can turn that bit right around. ZERO successful attacks SINCE the TSA. Shoe-bomber? Detroit flight? NOT successful. Because the attackers used stupid primitive tech that didn't stand a chance in hell?
So the TSA gets the credit because a couple of wanna be terrorists were dumb? The attackers you are referring to were just stupid. It is quite possible to smuggle genuine explosives through TSA checkpoints. The nude scanners cannot detect them if you flatten the explosives into a pancake shape without sharp edges and tape it to your abdomen. If you get caught you just press the button and destroy the entire busy checkpoint. And there are other methods of smuggling explosives onboard the plane. For instance a body bomb. You could surgically plant a large amount of plastic explosives into your abdomen.
Airport security doesn't fix everything but I don't think it would be smart to go back to the early days of commercial flight and just open the whole place up. That was tried. It didn't work.
When was this tried?
People break the law, in general most normal people (A lot of slashdot does not apply) want the law to be enforced and so airports are now enforcing the laws.
Even if it means living in a police state? Also I don't support laws against drug or cash smuggling. The whole idea of cash smuggling being a crime is absurd. Money should not be illegal.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I've often wondered why the TSA's "Behavioral Detection" crap can't detect thieves like Brown, Burton, Simmons, Defelis, Noukeo, Burley, German, Persad, Webb, Pepper, and Arato, or actual sex offenders like Sean Shanahan and Charles Henry Bennett, or complete suicidal whackjobs like Diego Gonzales who was an actual TSA BDO. Shouldn't his fellow BDOs have noticed... I don't know... something wrong?
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Complaining too much? Denying that witches exist? - That was one of the things listed as indicators for being a witch.
The Spanish Inquisition (TSI) used to have some extra questions for them.