TSA Deploys ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ at U.S. Airports
Travel Blog • Michael Yessis • 08.21.07 | 11:16 AM ET
It’s an Orwellian name for a rather Orwellian program. According to a story by Kaitlin Dirrig of McClatchy Newspapers, Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley revealed last month that Behavior Detection Officers are currently working in airports around the country. They’re “watching body language and facial cues of passengers for signs of bad intentions,” Dirrig writes. “The watcher could be the attendant who hands you the tray for your laptop or the one standing behind the ticket-checker. Or the one next to the curbside baggage attendant.” A TSA spokesperson added that 500 officers will be working in airports nationwide by the end of this year.
Among the signs they’re looking for are “micro-expressions,” including fear and disgust, which are associated with deception.
Dirrig writes:
Behavior detection officers work in pairs. Typically, one officer sizes up passengers openly while the other seems to be performing a routine security duty. A passenger who arouses suspicion, whether by micro-expressions, social interaction or body language gets subtle but more serious scrutiny.
A behavior specialist may decide to move in to help the suspicious passenger recover belongings that have passed through the baggage X-ray. Or he may ask where the traveler’s going. If more alarms go off, officers will “refer” the person to law enforcement officials for further questioning.
Patty Davis, for one, is skeptical. She writes in a commentary for Newsweek: “Let’s be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I’d tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn’t be stomping very far.”
Related on World Hum:
* U.S. Authorizes, E.U. Considers ‘Electronic Travel Authorization System’
* Interview With TSA Chief Kip Hawley
Photo by goldberg via Flickr (Creative Commons).
Email to friend
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo! Buzz
Michael Yessis is the cofounder and coeditor-in-chief of World Hum.
Eva Holland 08.21.07 | 1:22 PM ET
Um… They’re going to find a lot of people displaying signs of disgust at security checkpoints these days. Are “micro-expressions” going to be considered grounds for arrest or even a search warrant?
Michael Yessis 08.21.07 | 2:05 PM ET
Eva, the story says “A passenger who arouses suspicion, whether by micro-expressions, social interaction or body language gets subtle but more serious scrutiny.” An officer may then “refer” a passenger to law enforcement officials. The quotes around refer are the writer’s, so I assume she wasn’t quite sure where this all can lead, either.
Dennis Winter 09.24.07 | 9:39 PM ET
I don’t mind a more secure flight but sometimes I’m not happy and a little anti-social after a couple days with no sleep on a plane. I think a highly trained terrorist will likely have a poker-face. Maybe a “poker-face” detector is a better idea?
tom 01.28.08 | 6:37 PM ET
This is a great idea.Israel is doing something similar and they know a thing or two about terrorism.Remember this is another layer of defense to help keep everyone safe.It is very proactive aproach and passengers should welcome it.
Arnold Hisler 02.04.08 | 5:38 PM ET
I do appreciate the hard work that Mr. Chertoff is doin on our behalf, but this system seems just a bit too lenient on the prespective criminals. SInce we already know the patterns to recognize, why would we not have a shoot on sight policy? We could also have remote controlled rail guns installed throughout the airport so that senior DHS officials could be able to carry out the appropriate security measures remotely. I have heard that many officers may not obey commands against their countrymen and remote DHS accountability would allow someone like Mr. Chertoff to execute terrorists on sight. This would be the only way people could really feel safe again and should be funded ASAP or the enemy wins.
We need to protect our liberties and the government is just too slow implementing appropriate technology to guarantee our safety. It is shameful.
David Murphey 02.13.08 | 7:50 PM ET
I could see this as a huge benefit, much like the zero-tolerance policy enfored in New York. People will always complain and whinge, but at the end of the day the policy worked. Can’t see no difference here.