Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @03:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @03:15AM (#466430)

    That's too broad a statement.
    That said, the "terrorism experts", specifically those affiliated with Lamestream Media, get it wrong about 80 percent of the time.

    The Orlando shooter was just a gay guy who was mixed up about his sexuality.
    He claimed allegiance to both al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (2 groups that hate each other's guts).
    An "expert" who knew anything about terrorism would have spotted that at 200 paces.

    The dude wasn't making a political statement; he was just having a really bad day and had easy access to firearms.

    ...and, apparently, didn't have easy enough access to mental health professionals.
    Thanks, Ronnie Raygun.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @04:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @04:58PM (#466653)

    "and, apparently, didn't have easy enough access to mental health professionals."

    because ssri pushers have been so successful in the fight against "gun violence".