Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the come-fly-the-discriminatory-skies dept.

TechDirt reports

Thanks to FOIA requests (and lawsuits), the ACLU has gathered enough documents to provide a comprehensive report [PDF] on the worthlessness of the TSA's "Behavioral Detection" program. Meant to give the agency a better way of proactively thwarting acts of terrorism, the program instead opts for lazy profiling, dubious readings of behavioral cues, and junk science.

The documents[1] show the evolution of the behavior detection program and make clear the extent to which it is a program of surveillance of unsuspecting travelers based on unreliable indicators. "Behavior detection officers", some of them dressed in plain clothes, scrutinize travelers at airports for over 90 behaviors that the TSA associates with stress, fear, or deception, looking for what the TSA calls signs of "mal-intent". The reliability of these so-called indicators is not supported by the scientific studies in the TSA files. The behavior detection officers may then engage travelers in "casual conversation" that is actually an effort to probe the basis for any purported signs of deception. When the officers think they perceive those behaviors, they follow the travelers, subject them to additional screening, and at times bring in law enforcement officers who can investigate them further.

The TSA has repeatedly claimed that the behavior detection program is grounded in valid science, but the records that the ACLU obtained show that the TSA has in its possession a significant body of research that contradicts those claims.

[1] Duplicate link in TFA.

[Ed. Note: Non mobile link here to source article here.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:54PM (#466360)

    I'm all in favor of the ACLU, but in this case I'm wondering if there is an upside.

    I'd be opposed to violating people's rights even if it were effective. Government thugs need to get out of airports, period.

    Note to youngsters: there has been security in airports for a very long time. For example, a relative had an obviously heavy carry-on package at check in, this was early 1960s. The counter person asked what it was. It was late, he'd had a long day and joked, "Oh, nothing, just a bomb".

    Here's another one of those situations that just doesn't make any rational sense. Joking about doing something doesn't mean you're more likely to do it. Either the package contained a bomb or it didn't; a joke would have no effect on the probability that it did contain a bomb. If no risk is too small to ignore, then they should have called the FBI whether or not there was a bomb joke, and in fact they should call the FBI on every single person in existence. The 'We're just covering our ass.' excuse doesn't work because the entire situation is still illogical and violating people's rights to cover your ass is unacceptable. If these people are going to work in airports, they should actually possess a brain and understand statistics. People also shouldn't be able to sue companies and win just because a terrorist killed some people and their security didn't catch that, since that leads to ever more draconian levels of security.

    This is the danger of having government thugs in airports (or police in schools, etc.), and a populace that is terrified and subservient to said thugs. Something as simple as a joke has a chance to cause you significant damage, even if there is no logical reason for that to be so.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 13 2017, @12:16AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @12:16AM (#466370) Journal

    The 'We're just covering our ass.' excuse doesn't work because the entire situation is still illogical and violating people's rights to cover your ass is unacceptable.

    But it is not "just covering our ass", it's more likely to be "sending a message".
    Want proof, you say? I only have anecdotes [nytimes.com].

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:37AM (#466378)

      I always thought that joking about a bomb in an airport was like "yelling fire" in a crowded theater -- neither is protected speech?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 13 2017, @12:51AM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday February 13 2017, @12:51AM (#466386)

        That isn't a good thing to think, yelling fire is only illegal if there is no danger, joking about having a bomb should be treated similarly. If it is a joke, or they quickly claim it was a joke, either let it slide or search their bag to determine if it is a joke. Anything else is human stupidity allowing fascism to run rampant. "Report any suspicious activity" blared every 5-10 minutes is a clear indicator of the world we live in, and it sure as hell isn't a free one. Seriously TSA??? You're directing scared old people to report anyone suspicious, and we have enough examples of anyone with a turban, middle eastern descent, or even just a big beard being harassed because some idiot felt scared.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday February 13 2017, @01:20AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @01:20AM (#466397) Journal

        Except the linked anecdote shows a case in which:
        1. the tweet happened 3 weeks in advance
        2. the language used was so blatantly not menacing and lack of specifics (""Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."), the authorities' reaction really smells of "sending a message" [bbc.com]

        Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming trips, particularly after 9/11.
        "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC.
        ...
        In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up".

        See also Twitter Joke trial [wikipedia.org] before - took two years and two High Court appeals (with celebs joining the cause) to restore a tiny bit in British (jurisprudential) common sense.

        On 6 January 2010,[7][8][9] an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 28,[10] posted a message on Twitter:

        Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!![11]

        A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search.[9] The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat,[9] but contacted the police anyway.
        ...
        Chambers' conviction was quashed on 27 July 2012.[6] The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]"

        The USian authorities... mmm... still can't get British humour through their skull, eh? Or maybe they are really shitting themselves in fear inside the "home of the brave"? No?
        Isn't it more likely they want to send the message of "Don't mock us, we're dam' serious. Better fear us and behave, we'll accept nothing less"?

        (As undoubtedly interesting US may be as geography, people and things to see, I'm sorry guys: the above is among the reasons I resolved to not have US as a tourist destination for myself. I don't know how representative I am, but if many people think like me US may be missing some serious money. Electing Trump doesn't help either)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @04:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @04:49AM (#466452)

          The US is no longer the home of the brave. Crime is at an all time low but you still hear people saying shit like "in these times you can never be too careful" because they've bought into the fear pumped 24/7 through the media. Maybe it isn't intentional, maybe it is. Regardless, turn off the news networks and enjoy a happier life.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:53AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:53AM (#466920) Homepage
          Ditto on the "not going to the US" principle. There's plenty of stuff still to see in Europe, and if I want to get exotic, there're four other continents. And Canada's quite appealing too.

          "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation."
          Well, ... you're welcome to it.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @08:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @08:50AM (#466516)

        They're not protected speech? According to whom? Not the first amendment. You much be referring to our treacherous courts which ignore the Constitution, but they are simply incorrect.

        Anyway, telling a joke is different from someone trying to cause a panic, even if you think the latter should not be allowed.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 13 2017, @12:51AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @12:51AM (#466385) Journal

    "a joke would have no effect on the probability that it did contain a bomb."

    That seems pretty naive. Cracking a stupid joke shouldn't put you on a terror list, we can agree on that. But, your sense of humor results from a multitude of things. If your background has conditioned you to find certain jokes funny, then *maybe* that same background has also conditioned you to perform certain actions that others would not.

    Prison convicts seem to find a lot of things funny, that I do not. I find a lot of things funny as a result of being a veteran, that most civilians only hear as a "whoosh". The medical profession has it's own lingo, and it's own sense of humor. People cracking jokes about bombs at an airport most certainly deserve some examination. But, as I said, the stupid joke doesn't warrant putting them on a no-fly list of suspected terrorists, UNLESS the examination turns up suspicious history.

    Don't ignore the stupid joke, but don't make a federal case out of it without investigation first.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @08:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @08:46AM (#466515)

      That seems pretty naive.

      What evidence do you have that someone telling a joke about a bomb makes it more likely that they actually do have a bomb? Because that's what matters. And even if there is an increase in probability, it still doesn't matter if the likelihood is minuscule. Extremely small risks should be ignored so as to not inconvenience innocent people, who are the vast majority of passengers.

      Also, the no-fly list shouldn't exist, or at least not without due process. It's just unconstitutional.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 13 2017, @12:17PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @12:17PM (#466544) Journal

        The no-fly list, I almost agree with you. No one knows who is on it, and it has been demonstrated that some pretty lame people have been denied boarding privileges. No one knows how you get on the list. The list is done all wrong, just like the rest of our security theater.

        But, there SHOULD be a list. Really, there should be. Known enemies of the state should be barred from flying. That much is pretty simple, really.

        No evidence needed regarding the stupid jokes. If you're stupid enough to joke about security in front of an armed man, then you may very well be stupid enough to try to sneak a bomb past him. That is "evidence" enough, in and of itself.

        Read Anonymous Coward's link - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-safest-airline/#mantle_skin [cbsnews.com]

        And, to hell with your interpretation of the constitution. When the bad guys are gunning for you, you shoot the bad guys down, however you can shoot them.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:47AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:47AM (#466919) Homepage
      > If your background has conditioned you to find certain jokes funny, then *maybe* that same background has also conditioned you to perform certain actions that others would not.

      Yeah, such as things that are entertaining? Or would you like to give an example of such a certain action that you think is more likely?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves