The Truth Behind the Title: Behavior Detection Officer
Ever get the feeling you’re being watched? Usually it’s just nerves or a good dose of electromagnetic energy, but if you’re traveling through a TSA checkpoint, chances are there are several sets of eyes on you. What are they looking at? Is your hair messed up? Looking flustered after problems at the ticket counter? Have toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe? No. You’re being watched by Behavior Detection Officers, or BDOs in government acronym-speak.
The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), a psychology professor at the University of California Medical School, San Francisco. He’s been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. He has even taught animators at Disney-Pixar to create convincing faces for film characters. After passing along his skills to US Customs, their “hit rate” for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.
Behavior analysis is based on the fear of being discovered. People who are trying to get away with something display signs of stress through involuntary physical and physiological behaviors. Whether someone’s trying to sneak through that excellent stone ground mustard they bought on vacation, a knife, or a bomb, behavior detection officers like me are trained to spot certain suspicious behaviors out of the crowd. Once we make our determination, we refer these passengers for additional screening or directly to law enforcement.
Just recently at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International Airport, (CVG) two of my fellow BDOs spotted behaviors on a passenger and conducted secondary screening. They were unaware at the time the individual was an undercover “passenger” involved in covert testing. The concealed item was an unassembled weapon in a carry-on bag. The BDOs caught this right away, and when the testing was over, it was revealed that the passenger also had plastic explosive simulants in the cups of her bra. This was an excellent catch, and proof the behavior detection program works. If this were the real thing, we would have caught it.
Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.
Some will say that it shouldn’t be TSA’s job to look for drugs, or money - our job is airport security. But when we spot someone behaving suspiciously, we don’t know what they have; all we know is they’re behaving in a way that says they might pose a threat. In many cases, we find things that might have otherwise gotten through security (money, drugs) and that’s a good sign because it could just as easily been plastic or liquid explosives. The behaviors these drug and currency smugglers exhibit are the same behaviors we expect a terrorist to exhibit.
In the ABC interview below, former United Airlines ticketing agent Mike Tuohey discusses gut feelings he had about behaviors Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari were displaying on 9/11. BDOs are trained to recognize behaviors and likely would have subjected them to secondary screening and questioning.
At a time when almost anything can be made into a weapon, it’s important to focus on the people with intent to do harm, not just on the items they might use. For more information on the program, click here.
Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team and Behavior Detection Officer
Labels: innovation, mission
posted by Bob at
4:12 PM
165 Comments:
Fine. I'll give you guys credit for trying at least to establish this program. However, I have a few issues with your SPOT program.
*Airport security is not a dragnet. People should know they're going through the security checkpoint just to be screened for dangerous items. If I bring a wad of $3,000, for example, does that make me suspicious? What if I just want to carry cash with me?
*The notion that drugs and money smugglers exhibit the same behavior as terrorists really bothers me. Are you saying that drug and money smugglers are terrorists? What next, "food smugglers"?
*What exactly is suspicious? What if I'm nervous because I have OCD/anxiety, or upset because my grandma just died, or even I had a big fight with my friend?
*I'm Deaf, so how would you communicate with me? Would you hold up the line to write with me? Would you waste my time trying to get an interpreter? How about those who are mute or have other communicative disorders?
*This kind of smacks of thought crime in George Orwell's 1984. How about being innocent until proven guilty? Going through a domestic airport security checkpoint is not going through a jail or prison, nor is it customs. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
*What if someone looks suspicious, is taken aside for additional screening, and misses his flight due to that--and he's completely innocent?
I would really appreciate it if someone from the TSA could reply with a comment to this. This is important to me.
Thanks.
February 29, 2008 5:55 PM
This program is a complete waste of time and money. I can't believe we're paying for this.
February 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Whether someone’s trying to sneak through that excellent stone ground mustard they bought on vacation, a knife, or a bomb, behavior detection officers like me are trained to spot certain suspicious behaviors out of the crowd. Once we make our determination, we refer these passengers for additional screening or directly to law enforcement.
That TSA has turned innocent travelers who just want to bring cosmetics, mustard, or juice for their kid (which does frequently get confiscated), into "scofflaws" who are nervous about their items, just devalues SPOT the program by increasing the false hit rate.
Wouldn't it be better if TSA had a sane prohibited items list and passenger-respecting policies such that innocent passengers wouldn't need to be nervous or agitated? Then maybe you'd be more likely to catch real bad guys.
Catching someone's mustard is not a "success" for TSA. Neither is catching some guy with drugs. Or someone with a multiple IDs. The only real catch for TSA is if you catch someone with a real threat to an aircraft: guns, explosives, and large knives.
February 29, 2008 6:41 PM
There is no way that they could have received enough hours of training to be effective at behavior detection. It's more likely likely they are falling back on their personally held stereotypes as they guess about people.
TSA should focus on screening all cargo that goes on commercial flights and should invest in real checkpoint explosives detection technology before they branch off into behavior detection.
Plus, these guys look like idiots.
February 29, 2008 6:49 PM
February 29, 2008 6:41 PM Anonymous Said: That TSA has turned innocent travelers who just want to bring cosmetics, mustard, or juice for their kid (which does frequently get confiscated), into "scofflaws" who are nervous about their items, just devalues SPOT the program by increasing the false hit rate.
I can count on one closed hand the number of times I've had to refer somebody and found that they were smuggling liquids on their person. I’m sure it’s happened elsewhere, but it’s rare. It was a lighthearted example. I seriously doubt this is increasing our false hit rate.
Catching someone's mustard is not a "success" for TSA.
Again, that was just a lighthearted example, but say they are trying to sneak mustard through the checkpoint... If they can sneak mustard through, think of the things that could fit in the mustard bottle. Think of the things that are the same size as the mustard bottle that could do harm.
Neither is catching some guy with drugs.
As has been mentioned on other areas of this blog, finding drugs is not our mission, but if we find them, we are mandated to report it to the authorities. I don't understand how we're being made the bad guy here when it's somebody else that's breaking the law. Passengers know better than to travel with drugs. They should also know there is a very good chance we’re going to go through their bags. I have no sympathy for somebody that gets themselves in a ringer for brining drugs through our checkpoints. Also, I'm sure you've heard stories where rapists and murderers and other criminals with outstanding warrants have been caught while being pulled over for routine traffic tickets or other minor offenses. The same thing applies here. You may not think the drugs are a big deal, but what if the police find out the individual has an outstanding warrant for child abuse or something else just as serious? I’m sure you wouldn’t want these types of folks to slip through the cracks would you?
The only real catch for TSA is if you catch someone with a real threat to an aircraft: guns, explosives, and large knives.
And how are we supposed to know who is concealing the real threat? We have been trained to recognize behaviors, and we follow through with our procedures no matter what.
Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team
February 29, 2008 7:12 PM
February 29, 2008 6:49 PM Carl said... There is no way that they could have received enough hours of training to be effective at behavior detection.
Have you been through the course? Have you performed the job? We’re not talking about FBI profilers that need a master’s degree in psychology. We’re talking about very attention to detail oriented people who are trained to recognize behaviors.
It's more likely likely they are falling back on their personally held stereotypes as they guess about people.
Just exactly who is stereotyping here?
Plus, these guys look like idiots.
Real classy...
Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team
February 29, 2008 7:23 PM
Al said, "This program is a complete waste of time and money. I can't believe we're paying for this."
Al, believe it. Looking for people not things is how we counter an adaptive, patient enemy that studies our rules and procedures and uses them against us. It's a key learning of the intel community and one we and most of the world's security experts wholeheartedly believe in.
It's not thought police or OCD police or profiling. It's using real science to observe recognizable, quantifiable behavior that requires additional scrutiny in the airport security environment. That scrutiny could be just watching a passenger for an extra few seconds, a 15-second conversation or a referral to law enforcement.
Christopher
TSA Evolution Blog Team
February 29, 2008 7:26 PM
If it were not for the seriousness of having the full weight of the Federal Government behind this, it would be silly to the point of a poorly acted scene of the theatre of the absurd. If the FBI is buying into this, check on their great successes (look up the late Richard Jewell as one example).
I've dealt with dangerous people. The most dangerous are the "normal" ones.
What's next, "Spectral Evidence"? Where do you keep the TSA Ouija boards? Do you use the low bid psychic? You do Voodoo?
February 29, 2008 7:31 PM
February 29, 2008 5:55 PMAndy said... Fine. I'll give you guys credit for trying at least to establish this program.
Thanks Andy.
*Airport security is not a dragnet. People should know they're going through the security checkpoint just to be screened for dangerous items. If I bring a wad of $3,000, for example, does that make me suspicious?
No.
*The notion that drugs and money smugglers exhibit the same behavior as terrorists really bothers me. Are you saying that drug and money smugglers are terrorists? What next, "food smugglers"?
What we're saying is the same behaviors are displayed if you are concealing a large amount of cash, drugs, or weapons. How do we know what you're concealing unless we follow through with our procedures? We have to trust our training and follow through with our procedures.
*What exactly is suspicious? What if I'm nervous because I have OCD/anxiety, or upset because my grandma just died, or even I had a big fight with my friend?
You have very good points here. Again, we have no idea why an individual is displaying behaviors until we submit them for secondary screening. We can assume all day long why somebody is displaying a certain behavior, but we’ve been trained not to assume. Unfortunately, we have had to submit some folks who were just having a bad day. You know what? When we were finished, they went on their way. No traceable personal information is recorded unless you have committed a crime.
*I'm Deaf, so how would you communicate with me? Would you hold up the line to write with me? Would you waste my time trying to get an interpreter? How about those who are mute or have other communicative disorders?
Either through writing, or finding an interpreter, we will do whatever it takes to complete our procedures and communicate with any passenger. We are very considerate of any disability, but we are also vigilant and will carry out our procedures by working with the passenger any way possible.
*This kind of smacks of thought crime in George Orwell's 1984. How about being innocent until proven guilty? Going through a domestic airport security checkpoint is not going through a jail or prison, nor is it customs. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
In each of our own hearts, we know we’re not terrorists. We know we’re not up to anything. Everybody else does not know that nor should they assume it to be true. What does a terrorist look like?
*What if someone looks suspicious, is taken aside for additional screening, and misses his flight due to that--and he's completely innocent?
What if someone looks suspicious, but they're running late, so we just let them go and they take down the plane? It is unfortunate for anybody to miss a flight, but we've been trained on recognizing certain behaviors. I would rather see somebody miss their flight than to just ignore the behaviors I’ve been trained to recognize.
Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team
February 29, 2008 7:49 PM
"This was an excellent catch, and proof the behavior detection program works. If this were the real thing, we would have caught it."
It sounds as if your "suspect" was intentionally giving off the behaviour signals that your BDO (hey, those are my initials! Can I have a job?) detected - that's great, but it won't help if you have someone who manages to remain calm enough to not give off any "bad vibes."
Don't get me wrong, I have no argument with the method...I'm just not convinced of the effectiveness.
February 29, 2008 8:01 PM
Ah yes, the thought police.
I'm running later than I like, I've had a hassle at the counter, because you have 3 of the 5 screening lanes closed it's taking 30 minutes to navigate the line, your document checker is claiming that a passport is "not a legal ID".... so I'm considered a "potential terrorist"?
Give me a break.
When you all make the process pleasant, stress-free, and reasonable, then we can talk about yanking us out of line because you "judge" a behavior to be "suspicious". We're not on Prozak, nor do I ever intend to be. We're not sheep, we believe in civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Yet by pandering to fear, and creating fear yourselves as a measure of control, you've created the perfect scenario to harass the public.
You say "I would rather see somebody miss their flight than to just ignore the behaviors I’ve been trained to recognize. "
I say "YOU and the TSA don't have to PAY for making an innocent person miss their flights. YOU and TSA don't have to be denied compensation by the airline. YOU and TSA don't have to be stuck for HOURS (or another day) because the later flights are FULL. YOU AND TSA HAVE JUST CREATED MORE FEAR IN A TRAVELER."
I remember when police in this country were considered to be folks that would help the citizen. Nowadays many people fear the police because there are so many minor and obscure laws tha folks fear the police. Same goes for TSA, now that the checkpoints have become dragnets (and even worse, there are thought police that don't give a rats-hiney about folks missing their flights.
Just take a look through this blog about the problems people face with the TSA. Is it any wonder that they're fearful of breaking yet another unwritten rule?
February 29, 2008 8:10 PM
Oh, and by the way, a good measure of how you're doing is to show the "false hit" rate.
So, TSA, what's the false hit rate for this program?
February 29, 2008 8:11 PM
When I worked for the government (not TSA), we had all kinds of stupid programs. Everyone in the agency tried to get assigned to the stupid program because it always beat out the dumb job that we were doing. All the big bosses noticed you, it looked good on your evaluation and you often got to go to good places (TDY) for training and conferences.
I bet being the BDO beats going through someone's dirty undies any day. Any you might get an award.
February 29, 2008 9:02 PM
Go ahead Bob... preach on brother..
February 29, 2008 9:09 PM
Paul Ekman has done some good, legitimate scientific work. Some of his stuff, though, is simply junk science--like using "microexpressions" to detect lies.
Although this program smacks of Orwell's "Facecrime" and "Thoughtcrime" (I often wonder if anyone at DHS other than me has read "1984"), I can understand how it has been paying off, raising rates of catching illegal activity. (I won't comment on whether or not detecting drugs or money keeps us safe from terrorists.) Here's how.
TSA has, for the most part, hired folks without law enforcement experience. An experienced beat cop, or a detective are very good at spotting anomalous behavior. Paul's training is a way of conveying a lot of that sort of experience quickly.
We can discount a lot of his flakey notions, but at the core there's some good practical knowledge.
Here's an analogy. Consider someone learning to be a psychic. Now of course there's no such thing as psychic powers, so they'll learn a lot of irrelevant junk about reading palms and such that's totally useless. But somewhere in there, they'll learn "cold reading" techniques--how to pick up subtle clues in language, dress, or body language that make the reading seem accurate. There's a core of useful knowledge, surrounded by junk.
I think that's what's going on here.
February 29, 2008 9:52 PM
Carl said: "Plus, these guys look like idiots."
Bob replied: "Real classy..."
Bob, your reply had no more class than Carl's.
February 29, 2008 9:55 PM
So, alot like how Europe has been doing for awhile. Good to see we're on the forefront here......
February 29, 2008 9:58 PM
Hi
I was wondering about something similar, more preceisely, the officer that stands at the x-ray machine.
Some of the reports I've read about them portray them as either blunt or plain vicious (at the lack of other explanation). Since the law clears them from any responsibility, they don't feel they have to be responsible, in fact placing them "above the law".
Can anyone comment about the incident described here, for example?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=26970261
Thanks,
SR
February 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Why did you choose to have the video on this page parked on what looks like an image of 9/11?
Chertoff actually had the nerve to ask if we are forgetting 9/11.
We have not forgotten 9/11 but some of us refuse to hand the terrorists the victory of being terrorized. Others, most especially those in government, seem determined to keep us fearful.
I wish those people in government who remind us of what we "need to fear" would instead find courage. I wish they could find the courage to realize 'that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Fear, terror, is another victory to the terrorists.
February 29, 2008 10:05 PM
Bob: What we're saying is the same behaviors are displayed if you are concealing a large amount of cash, drugs, or weapons. How do we know what you're concealing unless we follow through with our procedures? We have to trust our training and follow through with our procedures.
The way I read this, if your highly professional Behavior Detection Officers "refer" enough false positives that are "suspicious" but do not threaten aviation, they may eventually stumble upon someone who does in some way threaten aviation. Then Kip can go on Fox News and crow about the "spectacular success" of the SPOT program. Until that happens, we'll have to be impressed with a sufficiently spectacular quantity of "bye catch," including drug criminals, false IDs, and people wearing fake military jackets (the last being the subject of a TSA press release last year touting a SPOT "success").
I'm sorry, but nothing I've seen here convinces me that SPOT is anything more than just the latest way the TSA intrusively hassles millions of innocent passengers and subjects them to treatment as criminals, with nothing useful to show for it. As you even admit, the signal to noise ratio for behavior at an airport is close to zero. Even if the Behavior Detection Officers are as expert as you'd like us to believe, their ability in practice to distinguish an actual threat in a large crowd of people who have every reason to be stressed, anxious, upset, and nervous is necessarily very limited. To be convinced of effectiveness, I would need to see statistics about the hit rate vs. the false positive rate. But of course, if any such statistics exist they're conveniently classified for National Security reasons, so we must presumably accept on faith that it's effective. I have no reason to have any such faith.
You may not think the drugs are a big deal, but what if the police find out the individual has an outstanding warrant for child abuse or something else just as serious? I’m sure you wouldn’t want these types of folks to slip through the cracks would you?
Of course not! And if the TSA happens upon them while they're looking for threats to aviation, it's in Society's best interests to turn them over to the Authorities rather than letting criminals escape just because they aren't specifically threatening aviation. Expanding the TSA's role from merely protecting aviation from terrorists to running an all-purpose criminal dragnet checkpoint isn't "mission creep" at all-- it's giving taxpayers greater value for money! You're doin' a heck of a job, Kippie!
Unfortunately, we have had to submit some folks who were just having a bad day. You know what? When we were finished, they went on their way.
And I'm sure that a gentle TSA secondary screening and a nice chat with a friendly police officer made their bad day a whole lot better, especially if they missed their flight as a result! And next time they have to fly, they'll be sure to be cool, calm and relaxed as they stand barefoot waiting for their next encounter with the TSA!
February 29, 2008 10:49 PM
Thanks for your response, Bob.
Most of what you said does make sense... however, I believe the central responsibility of TSA is to screen passengers for dangerous items? If a passenger is screened for dangerous items and found to have none, but exhibiting suspicious behavior, how would s/he be a threat to the aircraft? After 9/11, we have air marshalls, aware passengers, and enhanced crews who know what to do. So, it all comes down to this: how far are you guys going with this? Why punish passengers who are having a bad day? What constitutes suspicious behavior?
It's called mission creep, my friend. What started with a simple mission to screen passengers for dangerous contraband has expanded to watching for suspicious behavior and acting like an intelligence agency. Leave the intel up to the FBI, CBI, and other certain agencies who have been more trained.
I forsee this program, while with good intentions, will cause a lot of problems for innocent travellers.
Sorry, but that's just my opinion.
Andrew
February 29, 2008 11:26 PM
Bob;
Once again - nice try - thanks for playing.
Now I'd guess that the majority of people "looking nervous" are probably so because they're standing in overly long lines trying to make a plane. They're watching as some TSA person uses a loupe to examine each boarding pass (!), and listening as TSA barkers scream the nonsensical policies over and over. This is enough to raise anyone's blood pressure. Maybe they're nervous pondering what a target the silly line would be! Add to that the thought that while all this nonsense is going on - you're failing 80% of the tests. Its enough to make anyone nervous.
The cockpit doors have been secured. Passengers are not going to allow another incident. Screen for the big obvious stuff and don't worry about the little stuff that really doesn't matter. Freedom isn't free - and it does come with risks. You can't protect me from everything and I'd rather you didn't try. especially as I have to pay for it.
I'd like to see you SPOT guys lose the title of "Thousands Standing Around" and do something. Don't stare at me. Open up another line and screen people properly - not for mustard or water, drugs, pocket knives or baby food either!
If you don't want to do that - then I'd like to see the SPOT budget cut - and resources turned to intel. That's where this war will be won - not with you guys,
February 29, 2008 11:41 PM
It seems long overdue that TSA is working on behavior detection. El Al has long had an excellent reputation for doing this effectively. But from the description of how it happens here -- as part of secondary screening in the security area -- I question the approach. I have experienced casual questioning in Europe at different points such as waiting to board AFTER screening and the check-in line. I believe at the security point people are more on guard.
March 1, 2008 12:30 AM
Of course I'm stressed when I go through the TSA Experience. I just had a harrowing ride to the airport, dealt with the ticketing experience, am concerned that the screener on the metal detector remembers that all shoes DO NOT have to be removed, had the boarding pass checker reject my retired military ID because there was no expiration date, and just dropped my CPAP while taking it out of the carry-on.
And you are using stress as a SPOTing technique? The number of secondaries with no "hit" will be soaring.
And to "Bob" who wrote "I can count on one closed hand the number of times I've had to refer somebody and found that they were smuggling liquids on their person. I’m sure it’s happened elsewhere, but it’s rare. It was a lighthearted example. I seriously doubt this is increasing our false hit rate."
How many times did you find nothing? How does that number compare with the amount of times you found something on the TSA prohibited list? Not something illegel, but on the list
March 1, 2008 1:34 AM
" and when the testing was over, it was revealed that the passenger also had plastic explosive simulants in the cups of her bra.
So, TSA only found the plastic explosive simulants" when it was revealed to them AFTER THE TEST WAS OVER!!..
In other words, if this women wasn't giving out these "signals", all of the other elaborate TSA screening methods would have FAILED! AND she was even sent for additional screening and still the simulants were missed!!
So, we have a potential terrorist, gets pulled aside by SPOT, gets extra screening, some bomb components are found but still walks away with a booby bomb! Nice try guys!!
Nice!
March 1, 2008 6:45 AM
anonymous said,
TSA has, for the most part, hired folks without law enforcement experience. An experienced beat cop, or a detective are very good at spotting anomalous behavior.
My checkpoint alone... I have one retired NOPD, shot in the back. I have a former Counterintelligence Agent from the DOD medically retired.... 3 others from the local PD that had back and leg problems from.... you geussed it, "beat work", you know patrol officers....
March 1, 2008 7:27 AM
Bob said:
"It is unfortunate for anybody to miss a flight, but we've been trained on recognizing certain behaviors. I would rather see somebody miss their flight than to just ignore the behaviors I’ve been trained to recognize."
That's just wonderful, Bob, what a fine attitude. Is the TSA going to pick up the tab for all the inconvenience your game-playing caused an innocent person to miss his/her flight? No, I didn't think so, but you're proud that your action made the person miss the flight.
How many people these days aren't nervous when they get to the airport?
On Wednesday, I was talking to a friend who was heading over seas to go to her ill sister's bedside. She's 80 years old and was extremely anxious to get to the airport because she was afraid that with all the hassel she might miss her flight and her connection. She knew already she was headed for the grope because of implants, a grope which simply mortifies her.
IOW, in other words, she's an emotional mess even before she gets to the airport.
Are you going to single her out for your game?
I learned a great response from FT when approached by a SPOTter and told my friend what my response is to you guys: "Go play SPOT with somebody else."
I personally don't care how many people with drugs, "excess" money, etc., etc., etc.,
get on a plane with me. As long as they don't have weapons, leave them alone.
Stop boasting about these people and tell us how many terrorists or potential terrorists who have caught. You haven't caught any because they aren't there.
March 1, 2008 7:55 AM
Bob asked; "Have you been through the course? Have you performed the job?"
Maybe Carl just sees how well your other training has (not) worked. Maybe he has just had too many encounters with too many indifferent, sloppy, abusive, loud people who have been empowered to act out their power trips.
March 1, 2008 8:52 AM
Originally posted by Bob:
Also, I'm sure you've heard stories where rapists and murderers and other criminals with outstanding warrants have been caught while being pulled over for routine traffic tickets or other minor offenses. The same thing applies here. You may not think the drugs are a big deal, but what if the police find out the individual has an outstanding warrant for child abuse or something else just as serious? I’m sure you wouldn’t want these types of folks to slip through the cracks would you?
The bad guys caught at routine traffic stops were pulled over by the cops because the cops had grounds to pull them over (speeding, illegal turn, etc.) There was already reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, that a crime had been committed.
Merely desiring to travel by air is not suspicious behavior and is not probable cause for any sort of criminal search.
Your statements are an excellent argument for putting checkpoints at every freeway entrance and major intersection. Why not check everyone's ID against the NCIC criminal database at all these points, if it will catch murderers, rapists, and child molesters?
The answer, of course, as we all should have been taught in junior-high civics, is that in a free society the government can't just stop and detain you, search you, and check you against the outstanding warrants list just because they want to. There has to be some belief that a crime has been committed. We are supposed to accept some degree of risk to maintain an even more important degree of liberty. That concept, however, seems to be lost in this age of "administrative searches," "implied consent," and "think of the children."
March 1, 2008 8:55 AM
Blog this one: TSA: Missing Luggage Totals $31 Million Over Three Years
March 1, 2008 8:59 AM
All the BDOs I know are good hardworking professional people, who take what they are doing very seriously. I'm thinkin most passengers at the airport don't even realize BDOs are around. Most passengers never even have contact with BDOs. I work in a coordination center for TSA. I receive phone calls from BDOs all the time. Their success rate astounds me. for example:(Drugs, weapons, false IDs) They find it all. When the BDOs discover something illegal they turn the individual over to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement decides what to do with the individual. It usually entails citing the individual, confiscating the illegal item and letting the passenger continue to fly unless the individual has outstanding warrants and then they are arrested.
Everyone has the opportunity to make sure there is nothing forbidden in their belongings before their person or belongings are submitted for screening. You are taking the risk of being caught if you don't follow the rules. When you are caught it's your own fault. It's not TSAs fault you were caught carrying a false ID, had a controlled substance, had a weapon (concealed or otherwise) or were trying to carry large amounts of cash out of the country. These things are illegal. If you have something illegal on your person you are obviously not exactly innocent.
March 1, 2008 9:57 AM
anonymous @7:27 am:
The singular of "data" is not "anecdote." The fact remains that the majority of TSA employees don't have substantial LE backgrounds. This isn't a slam against them: it's just showing how giving them a basic education in spotting suspicious behaviour will naturally raise the rate at which they detect contraband.
March 1, 2008 10:51 AM
"Merely desiring to travel by air is not suspicious behavior and is not probable cause for any sort of criminal search."
Our government at all levels -- from the President down to the screeners who have posted all this stuff obviously have a different view. Only We, The People, can do something about it.
March 1, 2008 12:32 PM
So what happens if the actions of TSA SPOT cause someone to miss their flight? It is more than possible, even if you arrive as early as everyone (from your airline to the FAA) suggests.
Don't say they should have arrived earlier. That is an insincere and straw-man argument. If everything everywhere says to arrive 2 hours early, that should be enough. You cannot expect people to arrive even earlier under the assumption they'll be singled out for a SPOT.
I know people say they would rather you miss your flight than let you go... while I disagree I'll still take you up on that point. Fine, miss the flight. BUT... who is now responsible for any financial damage? I can see the passenger getting stuck in a nether-world where the airline blames the TSA and the TSA blames the airline. If it is the last flight out, who is responsible for the hotel that night? Could you be re-booked on another airline to get you to your destination?
The bottom line: I'm guessing the TSA has not formally written anything down on paper or come to agreements with the airlines. The outcome will be a "screw the passenger" attitude expecting them to be grateful because they are somehow safer.
Where's the form on the TSA website to claim a loss of money because you were incorrectly detained by a SPOT despite being completely innocent?
March 1, 2008 12:36 PM
TSA devises a new way to waste everyone's time that does absolutely nothing to protect anyone. Meanwhile, TSA's luggage policies have led to the theft of $31,000,000 worth of goods from citizens' baggage. Typically pathetic -- it's good to have documented just how useless TSA really is.
March 1, 2008 12:39 PM
"So, TSA, what's the false hit rate for this program?"
Good question. Maybe if "Bob" is done throwing back insults, he could take the time to answer it.
March 1, 2008 12:50 PM
In each of our own hearts, we know we’re not terrorists. We know we’re not up to anything. Everybody else does not know that nor should they assume it to be true. What does a terrorist look like?
For that matter, what does a terrorist act like? Presumably, the BDO training purports to teach officers how to spot what terrorists act like. Do the trainers actually know what terrorists act like, with sufficient specificity to distinguish this from the way ordinary people act under the stress of air travel and the "screening experience"? Has the training been scientifically validated with actual terrorists (beyond the single data point of tapes of the 9/11 terrorists)? In short, is there any basis to believe that the BDO program is actually capable of spotting the one-in-a-million terrorist who happens to present himself at the checkpoint for screening? In short, is there any basis for the assertion that SPOT is a scientifically-validated program with evidence that it's effective?
If there are answers to those questions that aren't "necessarily classified," I'd sure like to hear them. Otherwise, I can only characterise SPOT as a program that makes semi-educated guesses about people based on how the government believes or assumes terrorists behave. While that's well-intentioned and possibly "better than nothing," the obvious result will be a great many false positives that cause a great deal of unnecessary expense and stress to a great many innocent people.
The fact that this broad dragnet incidentally uncovers significant "miscellaneous" criminal activity unrelated to the TSA's supposed mission to protect aviation should not be seen as evidence of its effectiveness. Rather, if that's the only benefit we get from the substantial cost (in dollars and intrusion into people's lives), it can only be proof that the TSA has failed in its assigned mission of protecting aviation. Of course, there may be good arguments for having checkpoints at airports to screen everyone for signs of criminal activity. But if that is indeed something valuable, Congress needs to specifically debate and authorize it. That's not the TSA's mission, and we should not allow the TSA to unilaterally expand its authority just so it can appear to be effective at "something."
Finally, those comments from TSA officials about how they don't care if their broad dragnet causes innocent people to miss their flights are very disturbing. If that reflects the TSA's arrogant attitude toward the flying public, they should not be surprised that the public has such a negative attitude toward the TSA, and also that people are so skeptical about BDOs and SPOT. It's just another arbitrary and stupid restriction like the quart baggies that makes air travel more difficult but no safer (as test after test and audit after audit consistently reveals).
I can only hope that the new administration does a serious top-to-bottom review of the TSA.
March 1, 2008 1:27 PM
Please consider the idea that some of your customers are acting nervous, flustered, or upset simply because they were just treated with extreme rudeness by your own TSA staff.
I just saw a screener treat a bewildered elderly couple with inexplicable and inexcusable nastiness. They didn't have their boarding passes held out in front of them (said passes having been checked 10 feet earlier in the same secure area by another staff member). There was no message anywhere saying that they would need them again, and no one said a word about it, so they sent them through the x-ray with the rest of their bags. Your employee was rude, loud, condescending, and generally nasty to everyone in line, even though the passengers were treating him with decency and respect. (And yes, he was nasty and rude to me, too.)
Most of us are willing to put up with the extra hassle, and most of us are polite - surely your staff could pay us a little of the same courtesy in return.
March 1, 2008 1:27 PM
I receive phone calls from BDOs all the time. Their success rate astounds me. for example:(Drugs, weapons, false IDs) They find it all.
tso phx, how many actual threats to aviation have they found? In my admittedly-naive understanding of the TSA's mission, I would think that "success rate" should be defined in terms of keeping hijackers and similar threats to aviation off of airplanes. Everything else is a "false positive," not a "success." There's a very big difference that seems lost on the TSA.
Has Bush or Cheney recently signed a classified executive order specifically expanding the TSA's mission into a general screening for all crimes at airport checkpoints? If so, that may explain why finding a plethora of suspect items is considered a "success."
If you have something illegal on your person you are obviously not exactly innocent.
Given the hundreds of thousands of laws in this country, I doubt that anyone who passes through a general checkpoint is "exactly innocent." But I ask again-- how does any of this worthy activity keep aviation safe?
March 1, 2008 1:27 PM
One of the whiners asked what happens if they miss their flight because of additional security...
I can testify that at SAN, ABE, PHX and BMI, I was close to my flight boarding (and with SSSS) I politely asked if any accommodation could be made. 9 times out of 10 they move me to the front, do a thorough search and I made my plane every time and never missed one because of security.
The only suggestion I could offer is that I seem to get the SSSS after a last minute flight/airline change when I didn't have it on the flight before. I complained to the Airlines who pointed me to TSA who pointed me to the Airlines...lol governments and corporations at their finest. Anyway I'm sure its the way the computers are programmed and if there could be some 'intelligence' to be programed in to check previous status and apply it to the new ticket and not automatically force someone to secondary would be pretty cool. When this happens I'm usually getting an earlier flight and time is tight..
From he who travels 100k+ annually...
March 1, 2008 1:30 PM
In any dictatorship it is not the laws that are understood that terrify and cow the people. It is the "laws" that are created on the whim of officials. The citizen can never know how to obey these "laws". They cannot know or comply and are thus exposed to unknown punishment at any time. All done under a whim, backed by "science".
TSA, an agency that knows this rule well, uses rules and laws that change from airport to airport the traveler can have little chance to obey. The traveler can be humiliated, molested or worse.
And, if all else fails, the traveler can be picked up for suspected bad thoughts. Be afraid, citizens, be very afraid.
March 1, 2008 3:07 PM
BDO's are as easy to SPOT as Federal Air Marshals.
They have many things in common, actually, including being a complete waste of money.
Why doesn't Kip realize he should be spending his money on better screening technology so we don't have to take our shoes off and deal with stupid liquid restrictions.
Then he can hire more ID checkers because the current ones take 1 minute or more to look at an ID, and more screeners and equipment to get the lines moving along quicker.
The TSA continues to be the biggest joke agency in our government.
March 1, 2008 3:19 PM
You caught an undercover agent acting the part!!!! Excuse me, but big whoop-dee-doo.
March 1, 2008 4:23 PM
Sandra said:
I personally don't care how many people with drugs, "excess" money, etc., etc., etc.,
get on a plane with me. As long as they don't have weapons, leave them alone.
everyone should have your attitude Sandra. who cares about the crack den and the drug dealers in my neighborhood, they don't have weapons, they're just trying to make a buck on the youth of america. "LEAVE THEM ALONE"
Stop boasting about these people and tell us how many terrorists or potential terrorists who have caught. You haven't caught any because they aren't there.
lets all take a page out of Sandra's book. Attention America, there are no terrorists. who needs national security. Sandra says there are no "real" threats.
I wish I lived in your state of reality.
March 1, 2008 4:58 PM
with all this TSA bashing, I would love to see a Department of Agriculture blog. Since all they do is take away passengers fruits, that has to be far more entertaining. or perhaps the complainers here like having their fruits taken away.
March 1, 2008 5:17 PM
anonymous 5:17:
Let's consider the difference between DoA's prohibition on some fruits, and the TSA's prohibition on knives and too much liquids.
The DoA wants to stop certain pests from entering the country. To accomplish this goal, they seize fruits at some ports of entry. (Hawaii, for example.) Note that the goal can be fulfilled by the action.
Now, the TSA wants to top terrorists from seizing control of, and blowing up planes. To accomplish this goal, they pretend that six ounces of liquid in one bottle can blow up an airplane, but two three-ounce bottles can't, and that knives can penetrate locked cockpit doors. Note that the goal is not accomplished by the actions--the actions are pointless.
So you've drawn a bad analogy.
March 1, 2008 5:53 PM
There seems to be some misperceptions about BDOs causing people to miss their flights. Only in the most serious cases do BDOs refer passengers to local law enforcement, which in term causes a significant delay. Otherwise, the only delay would be in having the passenger undergo secondary screening (only to determine if the passenger has prohibited items).
This process takes a matter of minutes and provides a high level of security.
Also, to those that don't believe we should refer cash smugglers to law enforcement, consider where this money is very well known to go. Drug cartels, terrorist organizations and other criminal networks. No, it's not catching a plot in progress, but it is known to disrupt and deter. For more info on this, check out http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/guam_cash.shtm.
Christopher
TSA Evolution Blog Team
March 1, 2008 6:58 PM
Let's see:
Furled brow? Check
Sweating? Check (failed to notice parka)
Unwillingness to converse with TSA? Check
In a hurry? Check (got there two hours early and boarding time in 15 minutes.
Must be a terrorist. The clown opera of security is in high gear and accelerating out of control.
March 1, 2008 7:21 PM
"This process takes a matter of minutes and provides a high level of security."
Christopher, TSA does nothing to provide security. Stop pretending it does.
March 1, 2008 8:03 PM
Or they could, of course, be travelling with cash, Christopher. It happens. I recently had to travel with about $3k in cash. I'm also a VERY nervous flier, and I tend to pace around a bit before a flight. Should I worry about being "referred to law enforcement" and having my cash seized? I've gotta fly a few more times in the upcoming months, just want to see where I stand...
Stop treating everyone like a suspect, actually work towards your mission, and maybe all these "whiners" will go away. Until then, I will continue to know that the TSA blatantly disregards the law and the constitution, and is completely unaccountable for it.
March 1, 2008 8:03 PM
Christopher said: "Only in the most serious cases do BDOs refer passengers to local law enforcement, which in term causes a significant delay."
Unless, of course, BDOs take a page from the other screeners' playbook and start calling LEOs anytime a passenger exhibits a lack of proper servile attitude, says something a screener doesn't like or some way manages to offend a screener's sense of authority.
Frankly, this just seems to me to be just one more opportunity for would-be Barney Fife's to show the passengers who's the boss.
If you thought retaliatory screening was bad before, wait until this program gets into full gear.
March 1, 2008 11:05 PM
WHY has commenting been disabled on the other threads???
March 1, 2008 11:24 PM
"In the ABC interview below, former United Airlines ticketing agent Mike Tuohey discusses gut feelings he had about behaviors Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari were displaying on 9/11. BDOs are trained to recognize behaviors and likely would have subjected them to secondary screening and questioning."
Ok, and since everything they were carrying with them was legal to carry on the aircraft at the time, why do you think they would have not gotten on the flight?
They did not break any laws until they hijacked the aircraft, even under todays TSA prohibited list, there are items that can be fashoned into weapons to do the same thing.
Bring back private screeners, pay them a living wage and let us get back to our lives. The passengers will not allow another 9/11, the cabin crews will not allow another 9/11 and the pilots will not allow another 9/11. So stop throwing money at a problem that will not happen and use it for Human Intel for other issues.
March 2, 2008 1:52 AM
I travel with cash, sometimes as much as $10k - it is the nature of my industry, Rock and Roll.
Frequently we require the promoter to pay cash from the box office receipts in settlement. Nothing illegal, and you can bet there is a paper trail along with taxes paid. And it is domestic travel, if you think I am going to place it in my checked luggage, you must work for the TSA.
MY issue is when I ask that the Cash be inspected in private - I don't exactly want any of my fellow travelers knowing I have $10k in a cardboard box in my carry-on - and the TSO is always hard-of-hearing, lacks sufficient attention span or thinks it is some sort of threat.
Asking for a supervisor is tantamount to threatening a TSO, so I usually demand an LEO immediately if there is any issue.
So when reading about the general attitude about carrying cash from TSO staff (that it is generally associated with some criminal intent) I am not surprised. I find myself educating the TSA - one staff member at a time - I only wish I could be paid for my time.
March 2, 2008 2:25 AM
Reality said:
everyone should have your attitude Sandra. who cares about the crack den and the drug dealers in my neighborhood, they don't have weapons, they're just trying to make a buck on the youth of america. "LEAVE THEM ALONE"
People carrying drugs are not a threat to national security or an aircraft. The TSA should not be wasting their time with people who might have a joint on them. They have enough issues finding threats placed by their own red teams than worry about joints and water and shoes.
March 2, 2008 3:00 AM
Strawman argument, Reality.
I said nothing about drug dealers in neighborhoods, only people boarding planes with drugs on their person. No neighborhood drug dealers are ever going to be found working back from one person with some coke or MJ on them.
I also did not say there are no terrorists. I referred to the fact that the TSA has yet to catch any terrorist.
Your "reality" must be very sad because you must be very afraid, which is the state your government wants you to be in so that they can perpetuate all this degredation upon us.
March 2, 2008 7:34 AM
Slightly off-topic, but perhaps this leads to why screeners gleefully talk about their pride at catching someone with a joint in their pocket.
I was talking about this after church today with some friends who in their day jobs are "Mr and Mrs Cop." Mr. Cop told me, "Well, you have to understand that most cops are lazy. They will solve a crime if it happens right in front of them, but very few are willing to take the initiative to do real police work. You'd be surprised at the high percentage of crimes that go unsolved because the police force just isn't motivated enough to solve them."
After saying "wow", I thought later that this could be a reason why both the TSA and local airport cops like to cite their success stories making the big catches of guys with a joint or two or some college student bar-hoppers with fake drivers licenses. They don't have to go out and solve crimes -- the criminals are coming to them at the airport.
March 2, 2008 1:28 PM
Okay so all the complainers want TSA to be gotten rid of, because its a waste of their money. Well if TSA is gone, your money will most likely then go to something else that you can surely complain about. You know there's things in life that could work better, be a certain way, but they aren't. but thank the INTERNET that you can come here and "make a difference" with your whining and TSA failure rate articles.
What happened? Did you all get tired of complaining that the BIG MAC looks nothing like it does in the picture?
btw I mean this all to be lighthearted. Because while "Thousands Stand Around", you guys are down in the trenches, fighting the good fight, making the world a place where you take "risks".
I SALUTE YOU.
March 2, 2008 4:04 PM
*Airport security is not a dragnet. People should know they're going through the security checkpoint just to be screened for dangerous items. If I bring a wad of $3,000, for example, does that make me suspicious? What if I just want to carry cash with me?
3,000 in and of itself will NOT trigger suspicion. Now, if you have 3k and you're acting strangely, you may be fingered for secondary screening and asked about the money. Truth be told, the amount of cash needed to raise suspicion is a bit higher than 3k.
March 2, 2008 7:02 PM
Does the US customs' 22.5 percent "hit rate" mean that 22.5% of those referred to secondary screening actually have contraband? Or that customs used to catch 4.2% of the smugglers and now catch 22.5% of them.
What's TSA's or the BDO's "hit rate"? 22.5%? What is the miss rate?
You can always up your sensitivity by referring more people to secondary, but then you lose specificity, and as a result your secondary screening will suffer.
If your BDOs observed 2,000,000 travellers per day for the 222 days stated (444Mpeople) and cause 514 arrests, your prevalence of evildoers is near 0.0001%, or 1 in a million. And the terrorists are less frequent than 1 in a million hit rate you are getting warrant offenders.
If your BDOs are as good as the customs agents' hit rate of 22.5%, you can only have referred 2284 people to secondary total, or about 10 people per day since July 1. That seems far lower than the level you would get if you had just 1 BDO referral per airport. If your BDOs refer at least one person per shift, which seems like a safe assumption if you don't want to earn the name Thousands Standing Around", your "hit rate" has to be much lower than customs.
Customs gets high hit rates because lots of people try to smuggle stuff across borders. Customs can then train themselves with real events. The terrorists you are supposed to be catching are much less frequent than the near 1 in a million arrest rate for crimes like "unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants." You really need your mission to creep into an all-inclusive dragnet to try to justify your program to your own employees and the world. If you were not going after warrant offenders and the like, you people would die of boredom.
The problem you'll always have with low-rate detection systems is that you will have to train your people with actors, and you run a horrible risk of 'teaching to the test'. Even in this post, you tout as "proof the behavior detection program works" the fact that you caught an actor. Was the 'Undercover "passenger"' acting like they thought a terrorist should act? Was the undercover passenger trained to act just like the BDOs are trained to detect? Security Theatre indeed.
March 2, 2008 9:30 PM
"$3,000 in and of itself will NOT trigger suspicion. Now, if you have 3k and you're acting strangely, you may be fingered for secondary screening and asked about the money. Truth be told, the amount of cash needed to raise suspicion is a bit higher than 3k."
So there IS an internal 'limit' on what we are allowed to carry in cash? $4k? $5k? Which law does this limit of what we can carry without being harassed come from?
March 2, 2008 10:15 PM
I'm typing from my wireless laptop in bed right now. I'm afraid my daughter has given me the flu!
I keep seeing a few things pop up in the comments and I wanted to address them before I surrender to this virus.
The test at CVG was not meant to test BDOs. This was a test intended for TSOs. In fact, the test had to be invalidated because the BDOs caught the individual first. I just want to make it clear that nobody was acting out behaviors. What the BDOs picked up on were the natural behaviors displayed by someone (they did not know) who was concealing something. That’s why I found this worthy of a mention and such a big deal.
I would like to comment on how infrequent secondary screening is due to a BDO referral. I work at the 25th busiest airport in the country and we can sometimes go a few days without a referral. It is apparent that some of you got the impression that we’re referring people left and right. That’s just not the case.
Also, at no time did I say I didn’t care if a passenger missed their flight due to screening. Scroll back up and read my statement again. I do care. I do my best to make passengers comfortable during the screening process and I hate when somebody has to miss a flight.
Goodnight…
Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team
March 2, 2008 10:57 PM
Bob said - I would like to comment on how infrequent secondary screening is due to a BDO referral. I work at the 25th busiest airport in the country and we can sometimes go a few days without a referral. It is apparent that some of you got the impression that we’re referring people left and right. That’s just not the case.
So then there isn't much of threat out there for BDOs to find.
Of the few referrals BDOs make, what percentage turn up nothing?
March 3, 2008 1:45 AM
Nice back peddling, Bob.
And thanks for proving that taxpayer money is being thrown away by the TSA, i.e., BDO's can sometimes go for a few days without a "referral." Total waste of money.
March 3, 2008 7:08 AM
Bob, while you may be upset when