1
   

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

 
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 11:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:
Not sure why a poll like that has anything to do with politics...


Well, it is government who determines what airport security will be put into place. And it is the perception of the people that makes it politics. And this is a thread on airport security. I thought it appropriate to post.


I think most people would view the issue as they view police work in their city. We don't necessarily think, "Wow, the mayor's doing a great job!" when the police arrest a murder suspect...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 11:34 am
Dartagnan wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:
Not sure why a poll like that has anything to do with politics...


Well, it is government who determines what airport security will be put into place. And it is the perception of the people that makes it politics. And this is a thread on airport security. I thought it appropriate to post.


I think most people would view the issue as they view police work in their city. We don't necessarily think, "Wow, the mayor's doing a great job!" when the police arrest a murder suspect...


We might if it was the mayor telling the police to go get him, where to look, and how to catch him.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 11:51 am
I suppose. Do you see Bush in that role?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 12:12 pm
Dartagnan wrote:
I suppose. Do you see Bush in that role?


Bush personally? No, I don't think he's running the National Security Council. Do I see it as under the authority of his administration and a matter of national security? Absolutely.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 12:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:
I suppose. Do you see Bush in that role?


Bush personally? No, I don't think he's running the National Security Council. Do I see it as under the authority of his administration and a matter of national security? Absolutely.


Fine. I still think my analogy works, however...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 12:47 pm
Well okay. Let's go with your analogy. The profile put together of that murderer is a short, fat, redheaded Irishman. Do you think the police should also be checking out Hispanic nuns, tall black men, or long legged slinky svelte sexy gals along with short, fat redheads just to be 'fair' and 'politically correct' as they go after the murderer? Or even moreso, should they only check SOME short, fat, redheaded Irishmen to avoid any accusation of ethnic profiling?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing as much security check on everybody as can realistically be done. And not being able to carry a small tube of handcream onto a plane is a quite insignificant inconvenience.

But this notion that we can't do any profiling when the huge majority of terrorists are those swarthy Middle Eastern looking guys is just nuts. Not only for everybody else but also for the swarthy Middle Eastern looking guys who AREN'T terrorists. I don't think they want to be blown up on the way to Boston any more than anybody else does.

I know, I know, one of the 'terrorists' arrested in London was a pregnant woman. But the statistical odds are still on the side of it being Middle Eastern guys who are most likely to use airplanes to commit mass murder.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 11:56 pm
From what I can gather the suspect in the terror plot were British citizens, two of them were white who converted to Islam.

Quote:
LONDON -- The spectacular airline suicide-bombing plot that British police say they thwarted yesterday appears to have been the work of a cell of English-born youths who were considered a remote threat until they suddenly began preparing to blow up a dozen jetliners within 48 hours.

As U.S. terror levels were raised to their highest "red" level for the first time since they were created after Sept. 11, 2001, and holiday flights were severely disrupted with Draconian carry-on baggage bans, British police officials said yesterday they had spent nine months closely watching a group of well-heeled young men whose origins and activities bear a striking resemblance to the alleged Toronto-area bombing cell disrupted by the RCMP in June.

Officials from London Metropolitan Police said yesterday that they had monitored the movements and activities of the group of 24 men, aged 17 to 35. Most of the suspects came from Pakistani families, although two of them were reportedly white British men who had recently converted to Islam. They were mainly well-regarded young men from a poor but respectable neighbourhood in east London, who betrayed no hint of their radical plans.


source
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 05:06 am
I guess I don't really get it what this discussion is all about. The main points here have been "airport security" and "racial profiling". Anyways, I don't see how these two things go together.

If you're arguing for racial profiling, are you suggesting that Arab looking men should get thoroughly controlled at airports? Well, they do. Along with everybody else. Then again, if you're arguing for racial profiling, are you suggesting that the rest of the passengers shouldn't be controlled, or that security on the rest of the passengers should be lax? That would be outright stupid, as we've seen over and over again (like in, uh, yesterday, for example).

So, what's the point here?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 09:36 am
old europe wrote:
I guess I don't really get it what this discussion is all about. The main points here have been "airport security" and "racial profiling". Anyways, I don't see how these two things go together.

If you're arguing for racial profiling, are you suggesting that Arab looking men should get thoroughly controlled at airports? Well, they do. Along with everybody else. Then again, if you're arguing for racial profiling, are you suggesting that the rest of the passengers shouldn't be controlled, or that security on the rest of the passengers should be lax? That would be outright stupid, as we've seen over and over again (like in, uh, yesterday, for example).

So, what's the point here?


My point is that most terrorists--I didn't say ALL, I said Most, the lion's share, the large majority, 99 out of a 100?, terrorists or those exporting terrorism these days are Middle Easterners or of Middle Eastern descent. Given that fact, to not do some profiling and giving some extra scrutiny to Middle Easterners is as silly as not doing profiling and giving extra scrutiny to short fat redheads if you're looking for a murderer described as a short fat redhead.

How is that difficult to see here? And how is that not the point of the thread from the beginning?

I am not adverse to discussions of other issues of security, airport or otherwise on this thread however.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 09:41 am
The following was in my e-mail this morning. It has been around the internet for awhile so no idea how old it is originally though it has obviously been updated. But it addresses the issue. (Again I in no way suggest that all or even more than a tiny minority of Middle Eastern looking people are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The idea of stopping those who are protects the good people of the Middle East right along with everybody else, however.)

"To ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly fanatics intent on killing us -- law enforcement and security screeners are not allowed to "profile" people in public places or security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40 constitutes "ethnic profiling."

Let's pause a moment and review....

In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of
80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

During the 1980's numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a) A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a
70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by: (a) A girls' choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of
17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked -- two flown into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c) Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students
(b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from "The Butcher of Baghdad," but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b) Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led by: (a) "Youth" (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500 Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men, women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the 'Jackson Five' (c) the cast of 'Friends' (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese tourists (c) groupies of the band 'Cream' (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

President George Bush said this week, "America is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation." The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the President's reference to "Islamic fascists". Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR protested, "We have to isolate these individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure." In light of this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their silence is deafening...

Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the point. Singling out "Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40" is not "ethnic profiling," it's "terrorist profiling" -- acting on prolific evidence.

Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot "
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 09:54 am
Still, I don't know what your point is. I guess you're just trying to emphasize that the majority of terrorist are young Arab looking males. Well, have it your way.

Now, what's your point re airport security?

I don't know if you are flying a lot, Foxy. I am. I wouldn't feel safer if security checks would, all of a sudden, be twice as thorough when checking "Arab looking men", and I could just pass through without being bothered - along with all the rest of the non-"Arab looking men". Quite the opposite.

I guess what annoys you is some perceived injustice: everybody gets checked the same way, but the terrorists are almost all "Arab looking men".

Tell you what: I don't care. I, personally, don't want to end up sitting next to a young white British guy who's trying to blow up the plane. In the meantime, you can rant on about how unjust Political Correctness is.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 10:02 am
old europe wrote:
Still, I don't know what your point is. I guess you're just trying to emphasize that the majority of terrorist are young Arab looking males. Well, have it your way.

Now, what's your point re airport security?

I don't know if you are flying a lot, Foxy. I am. I wouldn't feel safer if security checks would, all of a sudden, be twice as thorough when checking "Arab looking men", and I could just pass through without being bothered - along with all the rest of the non-"Arab looking men". Quite the opposite.

I guess what annoys you is some perceived injustice: everybody gets checked the same way, but the terrorists are almost all "Arab looking men".

Tell you what: I don't care. I, personally, don't want to end up sitting next to a young white British guy who's trying to blow up the plane. In the meantime, you can rant on about how unjust Political Correctness is.


If you had actually read what I wrote OE, I didn't suggest they relax security on everybody else. I suggested extra scrutiny re the Middle Eastern looking guys and yes, that would allow racial profiling. But you are so quick to criticize me or anybody with a conservative point of view on these things, I think you don't want to be intellectually honest about it. I think you just want me/us to be wrong.

It is stupid to do RANDOM thorough security checks on EVERYBODY. The sensible thing is to do as much security checks on everybody as is feasible to do, do the same thorough random security checks on what are probably less likely suspects, and do thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys. And poltiical correctness re that be hanged.

And in all due respect, while I have no compulsion or wish to hurt your feelings, your feelings should not be the authority on what sensible airport security should be.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 11:10 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It is stupid to do RANDOM thorough security checks on EVERYBODY. The sensible thing is to do as much security checks on everybody as is feasible to do, do the same thorough random security checks on what are probably less likely suspects, and do thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys. And poltiical correctness re that be hanged.


Well, I got that. You're making a case for three things:

1) do as much security checks on everybody as is feasible to do

That's already being done. Basically, you want things to stay as they are here.

2) do the same thorough random security checks on what are probably less likely suspects

That, too, is already being done. Nothing new here, either.

3) do thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys

Now, that's obviously the point where we disagree. Now, you argue that ALL Middle Eastern looking guys should be thoroughly checked. Resources would be redistributed from thorough checks on everybody to thorough checks on one specific group of people. Obviously, that would mean two things:

- Middle Eastern looking guys would be checked more thoroughly
- non-Middle Eastern looking guys would be checked less thoroughly

For example, a Middle Eastern looking businessman without any hand luggage would get thoroughly checked (additionally to the usual security checks for everyone), whereas a white guy who doesn't look like a potential terrorist routinely wouldn't risk getting checked anymore.

I'd say that this compromises security more than it does any good. The only result would be routinely NOT checking a certain group of people, and doing that pretty bluntly and evident. Sounds like a stupid concept to me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 02:42 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It is stupid to do RANDOM thorough security checks on EVERYBODY. The sensible thing is to do as much security checks on everybody as is feasible to do, do the same thorough random security checks on what are probably less likely suspects, and do thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys. And poltiical correctness re that be hanged.


Well, I got that. You're making a case for three things:

1) do as much security checks on everybody as is feasible to do

That's already being done. Basically, you want things to stay as they are here.

2) do the same thorough random security checks on what are probably less likely suspects

That, too, is already being done. Nothing new here, either.

3) do thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys

Now, that's obviously the point where we disagree. Now, you argue that ALL Middle Eastern looking guys should be thoroughly checked. Resources would be redistributed from thorough checks on everybody to thorough checks on one specific group of people. Obviously, that would mean two things:

- Middle Eastern looking guys would be checked more thoroughly
- non-Middle Eastern looking guys would be checked less thoroughly

For example, a Middle Eastern looking businessman without any hand luggage would get thoroughly checked (additionally to the usual security checks for everyone), whereas a white guy who doesn't look like a potential terrorist routinely wouldn't risk getting checked anymore.

I'd say that this compromises security more than it does any good. The only result would be routinely NOT checking a certain group of people, and doing that pretty bluntly and evident. Sounds like a stupid concept to me.


I would guess there are plenty of resources to allow the ADDITION of thorough security checks on ALL Middle Eastern looking guys if the bleeding heart poltiical correctness police would just allow it.

We can agree to disagree. But for the life of me, ALL things considered, I can't see how that wouldn't make good sense.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 02:51 pm
Bader-Meinhof, anyone?

Forget about random anything.

I'd rather that security go back to the way it was in Europe in the mid-1970's. Thorough and complete checks of everyone.

Ok, so they tore apart my kleenex box, but I for dangsure felt safe.

No one needs all that freakin' carry-on luggage. I'll be glad if they get tough, and stay tough on that - permanently.

No carry-ons. Thorough security checks on EVERYONE - all the time. Going through Israeli, and many European airports, you feel safe. American airports, not so much (unless you were going to fly to Israel, and they were doing their own security).
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 04:01 pm
I agree with your feelings re the carry-on luggage. Unfortunately, it's still allowed here with new restrictions (liquids, gels, etc.). I wish they'd ban it completely - it's ridiculous what people are allowed to wrestle down the aisles of airplanes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 04:56 pm
SierraSong wrote:
I agree with your feelings re the carry-on luggage. Unfortunately, it's still allowed here with new restrictions (liquids, gels, etc.). I wish they'd ban it completely - it's ridiculous what people are allowed to wrestle down the aisles of airplanes.


Amen to that. But at least if they can't take their shampoo, deodorant, etc. in carry on luggage, they'll have to check their luggage. And if they check any of it, maybe a lot will check all of it. That would be one clear blessing in all this.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 05:08 pm
Article on this subject in the WSJ today:

Aircraft-Security Focus Swings to People
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 08:47 am
And from today's WSJ. Looks like if this idea catches on, getting through security is going to take quite a bit longer. Smile

Which Travelers Have 'Hostile Intent'?
Biometric Device May Have the Answer


By JONATHAN KARP and LAURA MECKLER
August 14, 2006; Page B1

At airport security checkpoints in Knoxville, Tenn. this summer, scores of departing passengers were chosen to step behind a curtain, sit in a metallic oval booth and don headphones.

With one hand inserted into a sensor that monitors physical responses, the travelers used the other hand to answer questions on a touch screen about their plans. A machine measured biometric responses -- blood pressure, pulse and sweat levels -- that then were analyzed by software. The idea was to ferret out U.S. officials who were carrying out carefully constructed but make-believe terrorist missions.

The trial of the Israeli-developed system represents an effort by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to determine whether technology can spot passengers who have "hostile intent." In effect, the screening system attempts to mechanize Israel's vaunted airport-security process by using algorithms, artificial-intelligence software and polygraph principles.

Neither the TSA nor Suspect Detection Systems Ltd., the Israeli company, will discuss the Knoxville trial, whose primary goal was to uncover the designated bad guys, not to identify threats among real travelers. They won't even say what questions were asked of travelers, though the system is generally designed to measure physical responses to hot-button questions like "Are you planning to immigrate illegally?" or "Are you smuggling drugs."

The test alone signals a push for new ways to combat terrorists using technology. Authorities are convinced that beyond hunting for weapons and dangerous liquids brought on board airliners, the battle for security lies in identifying dangerous passengers.

The method isn't intended to catch specific lies, says Shabtai Shoval, chief executive of Suspect Detection Systems, the start-up business behind the technology dubbed Cogito. "What we are looking for are patterns of behavior that indicate something all terrorists have: the fear of being caught," he says.

The Israeli-developed system combines questions and biometric measurements to determine if a passenger should undergo screening by security officials.

Security specialists say such technology can enhance, but not replace, existing detection machines and procedures. Some independent experts who are familiar with Mr. Shoval's product say that while his technology isn't yet mature, it has potential. "You can't replicate the Israeli system exactly, but if you can incorporate its philosophy, this technology can be one element of a better solution," says Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, chief executive of Asero Worldwide consulting firm and a former senior official in Israel's security service.

To date, the TSA has more confidence in people than machines to detect suspicious behavior. A small program now is using screening officers to watch travelers for suspicious behavior. "It may be the only thing I know of that favors the human solution instead of technology," says TSA chief Kip Hawley.

The people-based program -- called Screening Passengers by Observation Technique, or SPOT -- began undergoing tests at Boston's Logan Airport after 9/11 and has expanded to about a dozen airports. Trained teams watch travelers in security lines and elsewhere. They look for obvious things like someone wearing a heavy coat on a hot day, but also for subtle signs like vocal timbre, gestures and tiny facial movements that indicate someone is trying to disguise an emotion.

TSA officers observe passengers while consulting a list of more than 30 questionable behaviors, each of which has a numerical score. If someone scores high enough, an officer approaches the person and asks a few questions.

"All you know is there's an emotion being concealed. You have to find out why the emotion is occurring," says Paul Ekman, a San Francisco psychologist who pioneered work on facial expressions and is informally advising the TSA. "You can find out very quickly."

More than 80% of those approached are quickly dismissed, he says. The explanations for hiding emotions often are innocent: A traveler might be stressed out from work, worried about missing a flight or sad because a relative just died. If suspicions remain, the traveler is interviewed at greater length by a screener with more specialized training. SPOT teams have identified about 100 people who were trying to smuggle drugs, use fake IDs and commit other crimes, but not terrorist acts.

The TSA says that, because the program is based on human behavior, not attributes, it isn't vulnerable to racial profiling. Critics worry it still could run afoul of civil rights. "Our concern is that giving TSA screeners this kind of responsibility and discretion can result in their making decisions not based on solid criteria but on impermissible characteristics such as race," says Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

Mr. Shoval, the Israeli entrepreneur, believes technology-based screening is the key to rolling out behavior-recognition techniques in the U.S. With experience in counter-terrorism service and the high-technology industry, Mr. Shoval developed his Cogito device with leading former Israeli intelligence officials, polygraph experts and computer-science academics.

Here is the Cogito concept: A passenger enters the booth, swipes his passport and responds in his choice of language to 15 to 20 questions generated by factors such as the location, and personal attributes like nationality, gender and age. The process takes as much as five minutes, after which the passenger is either cleared or interviewed further by a security officer.

At the heart of the system is proprietary software that draws on Israel's extensive field experience with suicide bombers and security-related interrogations. The system aims to test the responses to words, in many languages, that trigger psycho-physiological responses among people with terrorist intent.

The technology isn't geared toward detecting general nervousness: Mr. Shoval says terrorists often are trained to be cool and to conceal stress. Unlike a standard lie detector, the technology analyzes a person's answers not only in relation to his other responses but also those of a broader peer group determined by a range of security considerations. "We can recognize patterns for people with hostile agendas based on research with Palestinians, Israelis, Americans and other nationalities in Israel," Mr. Shoval says. "We haven't tried it with Chinese or Iraqis yet." In theory, the Cogito machine could be customized for specific cultures, and questions could be tailored to intelligence about a specific threat.

The biggest challenge in commercializing Cogito is reducing false results that either implicate innocent travelers or let bad guys slip through. Mr. Shoval's company has conducted about 10 trials in Israel, including tests in which control groups were given terrorist missions and tried to beat the system. In the latest Israeli trial, the system caught 85% of the role-acting terrorists, meaning that 15% got through, and incorrectly identified 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats, according to corporate marketing materials.

The company's goal is to prove it can catch at least 90% of potential saboteurs -- a 10% false-negative rate -- while inconveniencing just 4% of innocent travelers.

Mr. Shoval won a contract for the Knoxville trial in a competitive process. Next year, Israeli authorities plan to test Cogito at the country's main international airport and at checkpoints between Israel and the West Bank, where the goal will be to catch genuine security threats while testing the logistics of using the system more broadly. The latest prototype costs about $200,000 a machine.

Even though his expertise is in human observation, U.S. behavior-recognition expert Dr. Ekman says projects like Cogito deserve a shot. He expects technology to advance even further, to devices like lasers that measure people's vital signs from a distance. Within a year, he predicts, such technology will be able to tell whether someone's "blood pressure or heart rate is significantly higher than the last 10 people" who entered an airport.

Write to Jonathan Karp at [email protected] and Laura Meckler at [email protected]
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 12:35 pm
some security experts have pointed out that the first security barrier needs to be "before the airport is entered" . they said that at present anyone can enter an airport unchallenged and that is a greater risk than someone getting on to a plane .
also there is very little or no checkeing done on aircraft cleaners ; they pretty well have free access at any time .
any individual or any group of people determined to cause loss of life will have very little trouble under the current safety/security procedures to do so .
as independent audits have shown , people have been able to bring pretty much any stuff onboard if they knew how to exploit the loopholes .
hbg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 06:30:54