These guys

submitter: Who watches the watchmen?

Behavior Detection Officer Detection Officers, of course.

He's off his dose!

Pocket Ninja:

Double Secret Behavior Detection Officer Detection Officers

FTFA: exhibit signs of stress

They're going to have to arrest everyone who shows up.

My God, someone needs to grow balls and a brain, and STOP THIS STUPID shiat.

I read that as "Beaver Detection."

Doubly apt.

TFA: If we observe behaviors that might elevate and exhibit signs of stress...

at an airport?? Get out!

I had my behavior detected for years. You wouldn't believe how many check marks I got, too.

Heh, the irony here is that behavior detection has a lot better track record than keeping big lists of names. I'd much rather have this than impersonal dragnets based on databases.

They're going to have to arrest everyone who shows up.

It's a little more specific than "signs of stress." There are indicators -- subtle to you and I, but obvious if we knew what to look for -- that reliably differentiate between someone who is garden variety nervous about the airplane, security, whatever, and someone who's got something a lot more serious on their mind.

I, for one, welcome our behavior detecting overlords.

'cause the prospect of having some smooth-brained cumwad give me a thorough cavity search would never make me stress out.

/you caught me
//you caught the tater

Godscrack: Pocket Ninja:

Double Secret Behavior Detection Officer Detection Officers

Who answer to the Committee for Behavior Detection Behavior Detection Officer Double Secret Detection Sub-Committee.

Rootus: It's a little more specific than "signs of stress." There are indicators -- subtle to you and I, but obvious if we knew what to look for -- that reliably differentiate between someone who is garden variety nervous about the airplane, security, whatever, and someone who's got something a lot more serious on their mind.

There are, but I'm going to venture a guess and say that the majority of people they question for "suspicious behavior" are acting more stressed than usual because they either hate to fly, are having some sort of crisis in their personal life, or some other thing.

Hell. If I were sending people on missions I'd train them for this so they act as normally and relaxed as possible. And bam! a 24 year old just single handedly outsmarted yet another ineffective government "safety measure."

Rootus: and someone who's got something a lot more serious on their mind.

They can read minds?

"If we were looking strictly at Middle Eastern types, for example, we'd miss a Timothy McVeigh walking through," Rooney said.


I call Shenanigans.

First they say that one factor will not single a person out for secondary screening and then the say that people named Timothy McVeigh are singled out. So sick of people in authority who can't tell a simple lie.

ultraholland: Rootus: and someone who's got something a lot more serious on their mind.

They can read minds?

Tinfoil hats never make it past the metal detectors.

I came in here to post "Hurm."

The very thought of this concept becoming the basis for the next Tom Cruise movie is giving me some stress right now....

Bravo! This is exactly what El-Al does, and they are widely considered the most secure airline in the world, despite the dangerous environment they operate in.

Far better than relying on a list of 1 million names.

kntgsp: As long as their track record remains good I don't really have a problem with it

I have a rock that keeps bears away.

/for $50 and some of your civil liberties it can be yours

Danrik: Bravo! This is exactly what El-Al does, and they are widely considered the most secure airline in the world, despite the dangerous environment they operate in.

Far better than relying on a list of 1 million names.

They also subject all luggage to depressurization before loading it and a ton of other things.

kntgsp: Easier said than done. Doing mock runs with a fischer price "bomb" in your garage "airport" doesn't necessarily prepare someone. People act completely different when in a real situation and presented with the reality that if they "fail" that exercise they end up in jail getting assraped for the rest of their life.

Ever hear of anti-anxiety drugs?

Great. I live in this city and go through the airport at least a couple times a month. Now "being stressed" can be cause for detention and missing my flight! Well, that sure lowered my stress level!

Anyone got a list of the "suspicious behaviors" we're supposed to avoid displaying?

That's a whole lot of explanation for what comes down to a bunch of guys walking around in an airport detaining people they don't like the looks of. It's just plausible deniability for profiling.

kntgsp: If the program has a good track record and doesn't end up just snag 90% innocent people and make them miss their flights I'd be okay with it.

If the goal of this program is to stop terrorism, then 100% of the people they've snagged are innocent. Unless there was some terrorist plot foiled in the Milwaukee airport I didn't hear about.

kntgsp:
That and their planes are equipped with flare and/or chaff devices aren't they? Due to the prevalence of rocket attacks as the preferred method of attack on an airliner? Or maybe that was a different middle eastern airline.

Yup, thats them. The only airline in the world with such a system, if I recall correctly.

In Orlando's airport last month, a plain clothes behavior detection officer spotted a suspicious acting man in a ticket line. Federal officers discovered a 6-volt battery, wires, two end cap pipes with holes in them, lighter fluid, two bottles filled with TNT and literature detailing how to build explosives in the man's checked bag.

I wonder how many INNOCENT travelers were terrorized by these "specially trained agents" in their quest to protect us from terrorists.

/The War On Terror
//Guess who's winning

kntgsp: Unless you have some reference for that, that's all it is. A guess. If the program has a good track record and doesn't end up just snag 90% innocent people and make them miss their flights I'd be okay with it. But when it becomes ineffective and obtrusive to many many people, then I'd say it's about as pointless as the random names on the list crap.

That's going to be the problem though. I'm not familiar with the methodology they are going to use to determine what suspicious activity is worth watching vs normal stressed activity (particularly for the reasons I outlined above) I should hope that it's more effective than what they use now.

I've been pulled out of line numerous times for no apparent reason other than I have a beard, my last name is kind of odd, and my skin tone is really dark in the summer time. Unless there is someway for them to be able to determine whether that nose scratch was an itch or a hidden signal of nefarious activity, this is is going to be another government program that only inconveniences everybody, costs way too much money, and shows no appreciable gains.

Easier said than done. Doing mock runs with a fischer price "bomb" in your garage "airport" doesn't necessarily prepare someone. People act completely different when in a real situation and presented with the reality that if they "fail" that exercise they end up in jail getting assraped for the rest of their life.

Well no, but I would also choose people who have done other missions, or some other activity where they would have to deal with large amounts of stress and succeeded. Besides, if a guy believes that at the end of this mission he's going to be greeted by the almighty as a reward that might help him remain calm.

Really, this reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons with the cat burglar and Homer nearly buys a home security system that would keep the burglar out, but suffocate the family in the process. All while the salesman is stealing their stuff.

Uncle Karl: Danrik: Bravo! This is exactly what El-Al does, and they are widely considered the most secure airline in the world, despite the dangerous environment they operate in.

Far better than relying on a list of 1 million names.

They also subject all luggage to depressurization before loading it and a ton of other things.

That, too - but the fact remains that behavioral observation is one of the key components of their security strategy - threats to airline safety almost always come from within the passenger cabin. If someone is planning a truly novel attack, one which has not been anticipated and can't be detected by all that fancy technology, an involuntary, fleeting expression spotted by a trained individual can stop them in their tracks.

FTA: "I guess I don't feel like my privacy is compromised if I'm doing the right thing. If I'm doing the right thing, and they're paying attention, I'm all for that," airline passenger Joseph Boucher said.


Ah, yes. The old "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument.

kntgsp:
But that's the thing, how many people have they snagged vs. the "name on the list" and "random searches" now being used.

If it stops fewer people then I fail to see the problem. Replace the current ineffective system with something less ineffective. There is no end all, super observational program that will yield terrorists 100% of the time. But one that intrudes in less people's lives seems like a better solution.

I agree, but I think no system at all would be better still. Maybe I'm just underestimating the value of a terrorist target like the Milwaukee airport.

In Orlando's airport last month, a plain clothes behavior detection officer spotted a suspicious acting man in a ticket line. Federal officers discovered a 6-volt battery, wires, two end cap pipes with holes in them, lighter fluid, two bottles filled with TNT and literature detailing how to build explosives in the man's checked bag.



Im calling BULLshiat on this.

Aarontology: Hell. If I were sending people on missions I'd train them for this so they act as normally and relaxed as possible. And bam! a 24 year old just single handedly outsmarted yet another ineffective government "safety measure."

I'm going to side with Big Brother on this one -- I think it's pretty much a given that no system's going to be 100% effective, catching every perp in the act while making no false positive identifications. It's just not gonna happen.

I'm thinking back 25 years when I had a crummy job clerking in a convenience store. Did I notice every shoplifter?? No. But when a kid walked in on a hot summer day wearing a heavy coat, exhibiting certain very obvious behaviors, I knew what he was up to.

This airport thing is very much like this. Sure, an extremely well-trained, motivated turrrurris' might be able to sneak through, but that's no argument for not doing something relatively simple and effective that will probably foil a significant percentage of attempts.

...and to my mind, "OMG somebody might WATCH me" is NOT an invasion of civil liberties.

One thing I'm kind of wondering about: although watching people like this seems like a simple thing for a trained person to do, I bet it's tremendously mentally fatiguing. I can't see this working well unless the officers got very frequent breaks, like ten minutes every hour...

kntgsp: If it ends up being more effective than the current screening methods, replace it with the "behavior detection".

shiat, how could it not? I doubt the pre-crime officers would put a 6 month old baby on the no-fly list.

paygun: Maybe I'm just underestimating the value of a terrorist target like the Milwaukee airport.

Seriously, the city has some HUGE targets! Like, um, the headquarters of Koss earphones! And um, um, Manpower Staffing!

THX 1138:
Seriously, the city has some HUGE targets! Like, um, the headquarters of Koss earphones! And um, um, Manpower Staffing!

It's too bad the terrorists aren't all Manpower employees. Watching them trying to bomb an airplane would be the best reality show ever.

phaseolus: I'm going to side with Big Brother on this one -- I think it's pretty much a given that no system's going to be 100% effective, catching every perp in the act while making no false positive identifications. It's just not gonna happen.

I'm thinking back 25 years when I had a crummy job clerking in a convenience store. Did I notice every shoplifter?? No. But when a kid walked in on a hot summer day wearing a heavy coat, exhibiting certain very obvious behaviors, I knew what he was up to.

Well yeah, not everything is going to be 100% effective. I just see this as yet another measure that really isn't going to increase security while at the same time making flying a much bigger pain in the ass than it already is. All on our dime.

You'd be able to catch the kid with the overcoat, but what about his buddy that comes in a minute after him and takes some stuff while you are dealing with the first kid?

This airport thing is very much like this. Sure, an extremely well-trained, motivated turrrurris' might be able to sneak through, but that's no argument for not doing something relatively simple and effective that will probably foil a significant percentage of attempts.

...and to my mind, "OMG somebody might WATCH me" is NOT an invasion of civil liberties.

One thing I'm kind of wondering about: although watching people like this seems like a simple thing for a trained person to do, I bet it's tremendously mentally fatiguing. I can't see this working well unless the officers got very frequent breaks, like ten minutes every hour...

I'm not saying it will not foil any incidents, but the ones who are caught by this I don't see as being successful in getting by the other layers of security.

It's really not a civil rights issue with me on this one, more of a "My tax dollars are going to something idiotic and most likely ineffectual that's only going to make my travels more annoying."

And your last point shows where the real flaw in this. I imagine that it's going to be a bunch of TSA agents who get an afternoon of training in "suspicious behavior" and suddenly think they are experts. Like a few years ago when they were all deputized or whatever happened, and they started to act and think like they were cops instead of glorified baggage checkers and ticket takers.

kntgsp: You most dangerous foiled plots are the ones you never read about.

Sorry, I just don't believe it. There's too much political hay to be made by letting the public know that a terrorist has been beaten. If we were foiling terrorist plots directed at domestic targets the government would want us to know. It's not like our domestic anti-terrorist methods are secret anyway.

kntgsp: It's not like the people who are mistakenly picked from the crowd are silenced and never heard from again. These people are vocal, we'll have a good idea of whether or not the program is being misused or ineffective.

I doubt they're going to do a cavity search just because you scratched your nose or itched your beard.

Well yeah, that was a silly example. I don't think people are going to end up disappearing unless they actually are up to no good. Nor do I think that the government is out to get us with this one, just that they really don't have much of an idea what they are doing.

Give it a few test runs in airports all over the country and see what happens. But I would like to see it at places other than large hubs so the sample could be better. If they only test it at JFK and Denver, the results will be skewed.

kntgsp: You mumble the word "bomb" to yourself in the bathroom even if no one else is around, and you can expect the gate agent at your check in to suddenly be replace with a security officer once your turn is up.

Saying the word bomb doesn't make the plane blow up.

paygun: Sorry, I just don't believe it. There's too much political hay to be made by letting the public know that a terrorist has been beaten. If we were foiling terrorist plots directed at domestic targets the government would want us to know. It's not like our domestic anti-terrorist methods are secret anyway.

It would depend on how far along the planning was. If they busted a cell just before they were about to strike, they might not publicize it as much because people might start wondering "Why didn't you catch them earlier with all these security measures you have in place?"

America is the biggest joke of the planet. Every enemy we supposedly have beaten actually has won. Leave the nation while you can.

kntgsp: You most dangerous foiled plots are the ones you never read about.


Because they don't exist.

Come on, people. Take off your tinfoil hats.

Aarontology: It would depend on how far along the planning was. If they busted a cell just before they were about to strike, they might not publicize it as much because people might start wondering "Why didn't you catch them earlier with all these security measures you have in place?"

They'd just lie, in the interest of national security. I can't believe that they'll stomp all over our rights but draw the line at lying to us. They'd lie and say this cell did what they did to circumvent the procedures we have in place now, and so we need tighter security. It's really pretty simple, if we have another terrorist incident it's a win, and if we don't it's a win.

kntgsp: Uncle Karl: I have a rock that keeps bears away.

/for $50 and some of your civil liberties it can be yours

Botched analogy FTL.

This isn't "we put a group of people in the airport that do nothing and there haven't been any terrorist attacks therefore it works".

The success rate has to do with how many of the people they pick up with that program that end up being legitimate threats. That's what I was saying determines the success or failure of the program. If they pick up a dozen people every day and they just end up being harmless, then yea, scrap the program.

But if 1 in 5 people they pick out of the crowd are some legitimate threat, then I'd say it's pretty effective.

Far more so than compiling lists of millions of people and random bag searches at the security point.

Then you agree it should be scrapped?
These programs so far have done nothing but detain innocent people.

If it causes fewer people to miss flights while maintaining the same security level,
Doing nothing at all would have the same effect.