Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

ACLU Claims: TSA's Behavioral Detection Program is Useless, Biased, and Based on Junk Science

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

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
ACLU Claims: TSA's Behavioral Detection Program is Useless, Biased, and Based on Junk Science | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 56 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 13 2017, @10:24AM

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Monday February 13 2017, @10:24AM (#466526) Homepage
    So, what blew up the Arndale Shopping Centre, when I lived only miles away (and was planning on heading into down later that day)? What was it that kept me, and everyone else, on an underground train, between stations, for over an hour as it was unable to pass through Harrow on the Hill station? The freaking tooth fairy?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @04:13PM (#466633)

    The attitude displayed by grandparent poster is unfortunately all too common. A danger doesn't "exist" until it happens to them personally. "Ignorance is bliss."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:03PM (#466705)

      Of course terrorists exist. Just the damage they manage to inflict is quite insignificant. There are plenty of boring everyday things which cause much more mayhem. You're much more likely to die because a filing cabinet falls over you than because somebody decides to blow you up...

      So it's good to get worked up about some things but it's also good to carefully and logically choose the things you worry about.