More idiocy by the TSA

[rotorwrench]

That makes me wonder, have you personally seen any of these data or analyses which purport to show either that Israeli behavioral profiling or their system as a whole detects and stops terrorists?

I've seen white papers and reports used in legal cases that detailed the Israeli system along with supporting references. As I recall, the aviation security consultants that shared these items gave several realtime examples of how the system works and why it succeeds where others fail. But I don't remember if those papers had any hard data/analysis included. However, it could have been there as it wasn't something that piqued my interest.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I don't remember if those papers had any hard data/analysis included. However, it could have been there as it wasn't something that piqued my interest.

Did any of the examples mentioned emphasize behavioral profiling as why this worked?

 

[rotorwrench]

Did any of the examples mentioned emphasize behavioral profiling as why this worked?

In general, people have physical and mental “tells” when performing everyday activities. Most of those tells can be tracked. And just as agencies like the FBI have behavioral profiling departments, the Israeli system takes those methods along with physical searches and apply it pax screening.

As I recall, the subconscious causes the underlying “tells” and trained individuals are able look for and assimilate those tells over a tiered screening system. Each tier is keyed to how the previous tier interaction went. And its mostly done through verbal challenges/conversation and physical observation. The US CBP and Immigration use a similar approach when interrogating people and look for similar tells.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As I recall, the subconscious causes the underlying “tells” and trained individuals are able look for and assimilate those tells over a tiered screening system. Each tier is keyed to how the previous tier interaction went. And it’s mostly done through verbal challenges/conversation and physical observation. The US CBP and Immigration use a similar approach when interrogating people and look for similar tells.

I am aware of those theories, yes. The article I referenced above discussed the evidence regarding the reliability of it.

So, how strong would you rate the evidence which you have adduced here or seen personally in supporting the assertion that the behavioral profiling used by the Israelis successfully prevents terrorists attacks?

Do you consider it to be conclusive, strongly supportive, suggestive, weakly suggestive, or just a hint?

 

[rotorwrench]

Do you consider it to be conclusive, strongly supportive, suggestive, weakly suggestive, or just a hint?

Strongly supportive. I don't believe anyone method is conclusive. Its only one part of the overall system. And to ensure that system is functioning, there are regular tests by top-shelf operatives who try to defeat the system. Regardless, from what I’ve seen and read on the subject, its more than just a theory.

I also asked if this screening system would have prevented 9/11. Both said yes. However, they also stated had the existing US intel system been more cohesive than fighting a turf war, they probably would have prevented it themselves. The pax screening at the airport is the final barrier to the process and not the 1st.

What I’ve always found interesting is that we could have a higher level of protection with drastically fewer people if we adopt a intel/profiling type system than what we have now with TSA. And no kids or grandmas would be to be molested in the process.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Strongly supportive.

so just to be clear here, you consider the following evidence which has been adduced here to be strongly supportive:

A few times you have seen a presentation where someone claimed, without showing supporting data, that the Israeli security procedures, which include behavioral profiling, stopped terrorists or their attacks.

 

[rotorwrench]

so just to be clear here, you consider the following evidence which has been adduced here to be strongly supportive:

To be clear… yes, based on my 40+ year experience in the aviation industry, my in-depth discussions with people who work in or have experience with aviation security AND my personal review of several specific legal presentations by known industry security experts with intimate knowledge of international aviation security procedures… “that the Israeli security procedures, which include behavioral profiling, stopped terrorists or their attacks.”

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

To be clear… yes, based on my 40+ year experience in the aviation industry, my in-depth discussions with people who work in or have experience with aviation security AND my personal review of several specific legal presentations by known industry security experts with intimate knowledge of international aviation security procedures… “that the Israeli security procedures, which include behavioral profiling, stopped terrorists or their attacks.”

So in the best case scenario, for the rest of us, this amounts to some anonymous person says that someone showed him a presentation prepared by someone who knows somehow that these procedures work and the presentation claimed generally that they work.

Does that about sum up the data and analysis which have been presented? (Leaving aside the argument from authority which appears to stated here.)

Perhaps you can see why the rest of us might not consider this as very strong evidence?

And more particularly regarding the subject of this thread, assuming this evidence is as you state, does it necessarily imply anything about whether behavioral profiling works? It does not appear to do so.

 

[Winthrop]

To be clear… yes, based on my 40+ year experience in the aviation industry, my in-depth discussions with people who work in or have experience with aviation security AND my personal review of several specific legal presentations by known industry security experts with intimate knowledge of international aviation security procedures… “that the Israeli security procedures, which include behavioral profiling, stopped terrorists or their attacks.”

So if you find something with drug residue you concoct a theory that the person was trafficking narcotics to fund jihad. Of course that is not even necessary now, the United States is now calling drug cartels terrorist organizations. So this begs the question, what is a terrorist now anyways?

"sentence first, verdict afterwards" -Queen of Hearts

 

[Bob Noel]

I suspect that some would continue to wallow in denial even if they personally reviewed mountains of evidence, even evidence that would satisfy the strictest scrutiny.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I suspect that some would continue to wallow in denial even if they personally reviewed mountains of evidence, even evidence that would satisfy the strictest scrutiny.

That is essentially what it means to have a non-falsifiable belief. A very good test for that is to ask the person to name some evidence, which could exist in principle, which would falsify their belief. If they can’t do that, they have a non-falsifiable belief.

Most people hold at least some such NFBs. Religion is a common such belief in our society.

OTOH, if people can name some such evidence, that at least makes it possible to begin evaluating the strength of the evidence on different sides of a question.

 

[Winthrop]

Most people hold at least some such NFBs.

Would my inclination to believe governments generally manipulate data represent a NFB?

 

[rotorwrench]

Does that about sum up the data and analysis which have been presented?

Not at all. As I’ve stated in the past, I'm simply sharing my personal experiences and knowledge on the subject at hand just as I would commenting on your aircraft, writing a mx article, or providing subject matter advices in a professional setting. If you don't accept my experience/knowledge as useful thats fine too. However, I do respect your need for more info to understand or accept a concept.

So when I can easily provide that “data and analytics,” if it exists and is applicable to the discussion topic, I'm more than happy to oblige. For example, in this case, it would require me to track down someone I haven’t seen in about 20 years and if the data were available, it would probably cost more than a couple nickels as the presentations I saw cost the recipient over $25,000 at the time. As I've noted, you'll find a lot of the data/analytics you request are not easily accessible (eg, require FOIAs), are not cost free, or are simply held as proprietary information and not available.

 

[Winthrop]

For example, in this case, it would require me to track down someone I haven’t seen in about 20 years and if the data were available, it would probably cost more than a couple nickels as the presentations I saw cost the recipient over $25,000 at the time. As I've noted, you'll find a lot of the data/analytics you request are not easily accessible (eg, require FOIAs), are not cost free, or are simply held as proprietary information and not available.

Let me preface by noting that I was subjected to a behavioral analysis in a foreign country last year and I would aver that it is likely more efficient than present alternatives. It was not burdensome on me and I have no hard feelings toward the airport security that questioned me.

That having been said, most presentations done by some retired government gnome cost tens of thousands of dollars and are nothing more than welfare payments to favored retirees. In my career I have been subjected to at least dozens of such presentations and most are completely worthless. If you want to refer to data, you have to produce it, otherwise that could simply be your recollection of something decades ago.

I think the issue I am taking, and perhaps Peter as well, is that when these data sets are created in a subject manner by the people trying to justify their own budges and sinecures, it is hardly unsurprising that the data is supportive. Israel seems to have a very broad definition of "terrorist" which is basically anyone who does not support Israel along with anyone Israel does not like. The US definition, which started out as "irregular forces not under state using using violence against civilians to bring about political change" has grown to include just about anyone not popular with the current regime which has ranged from anti-abortion groups to drug dealers along with partisans attacking the US military.

 

[rotorwrench]

That having been said, most presentations done by some retired government gnome cost tens of thousands of dollars and are nothing more than welfare payments to favored retirees. In my career I have been subjected to at least dozens of such presentations and most are completely worthless.

Interesting. So, without knowing of any specifics, you make a general assumption that the presentations I spoke of were performed by “retired government gnomes” and are most likely “worthless?” Did I get that right?

Were any of the dozens of worthless presentations you were subjected to cover international aviation security by chance?

You seem to be reaching for something that is not there. But what I can state is the presentations I reviewed were not performed by “retired gnomes” but rather by people whom I would consider to be quite the opposite. And as I recall, the three individuals who won their case, I seriously doubt they thought those presentations were worthless either.

 

[Winthrop]

Interesting. So, without knowing of any specifics, you make a general assumption that the presentations I spoke of were performed by “retired government gnomes” and are most likely “worthless?” Did I get that right?

Were any of the dozens of worthless presentations you were subjected to cover international aviation security by chance?

You seem to be reaching for something that is not there. But what I can state is the presentations I reviewed were not performed by “retired gnomes” but rather by people whom I would consider to be quite the opposite. And as I recall, the three individuals who won their case, I seriously doubt they thought those presentations were worthless either.

Yes, I made a general assumption. My thinking process was that if they were being paid to do these presentations they were not currently employed by a government. Generally to become a putative expert in these fields you would have needed to have worked for a government.

I must concede, the grandiose title of "international aviation security" is one I do not believe I have ever seen in a title. Generally most presentations seemed to have much narrower topics. For instance I do recall one on the risks of xenon trioxide as a risk to commerce given the inability to detect the compound. Though the flip side of that was that the difficulty of synthesis made the risk de minimis. Another recent one I saw was on the use of narcotics pods attached to modes of shipping, though that appeared to mostly be container ships, but tiny ones have been found on ULDs. One particularly worthless one was on the inherent bias of security and how it could be corrected. However, it is notable that I am not claiming any expertise in security, only questioning the validity of data.

Of course you are still not saying what these presentations were or who gave them, only that they were the antithesis of "retired gnomes." Indeed, it seems salient that you are anonymous. (Unlike me in and Peter who post under our names with our credentials, or lack thereof, being ascertainable) Moreover when you anonymously claim to have witnessed a presentation decades ago done by a person whom you can neither name nor define their qualification, it does draw into question the value of what you are saying. That is not to say you are wrong, but if you want to convince me you are going to have to point to some actual records.

***Now, you referenced a "case" and if there was a court case and these were experts qualified by a court, then their reports would be public and you could disclose them. Indeed, I could likely dig them off of a legal database if you gave me some details.

 

[rotorwrench]

I must concede, the grandiose title of "international aviation security" is one I do not believe I have ever seen in a title.

Perhaps you need to get out a bit more and immerse yourself in the aviation industry? You’ll find most aviation consultants associate themselves in a general area of interest and then specialize in a specific part of that interest. In my example, aviation security is the general area and the international side is the specialized side. Hardly a “grandiose” title.

Of course you are still not saying what these presentations were or who gave them, only that they were the antithesis of "retired gnomes."

Since you specifically asked… they were given by two security consultants, one a dual citizen American and the other a German national. And yes they were from gov’t service but were former military and from a civilian intelligence background where no gnomes are allowed. The presentations were in support of a legal action in federal court concerning the new-at-the-time No Fly List and how other top tier aviation security systems would not have listed the plaintiffs as threats as the US system did. As to a case number, no clue. I couldn’t even tell you the numbers of any cases I’ve ever worked on either.

Indeed, it seems salient that you are anonymous. (Unlike me in and Peter who post under our names with our credentials, or lack thereof, being ascertainable)

Except I don’t find that someone posting under their name with their credentials can always add more validity to the discussion. Dan Gryder and Trevor Jacobs are prime examples of this. Regardless, Peter has known and understands why I post anonymously.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

(Unlike me in and Peter who post under our names with our credentials, or lack thereof, being ascertainable)

Regardless, Peter has known and understands why I post anonymously.

Since I am mentioned here I will comment.

First officially as one of the administrators. As stated in our policies and rationale for this forum, we encourage people to use their real names, at least in that field on their profile, but do not require it. This is mostly to encourage civility in discussion.

Now my personal view, which will not be enforced in any way as an administrator here. As I have noted before on other forums, I tend to think anonymous posting is often used to provide an excuse for people’s bad online manners and lack of consideration for others. I do NOT think that has been an issue here in this thread.

Normally I try and adhere to looking at data and analysis and argument and try to avoid making an argument from authority or questioning the personal characteristics of the speaker. But of course when a speaker makes an argument from authority, then naturally the personal characteristics of the speaker become quite relevant.

 

[Winthrop]

Perhaps you need to get out a bit more and immerse yourself in the aviation industry? You’ll find most aviation consultants associate themselves in a general area of interest and then specialize in a specific part of that interest. In my example, aviation security is the general area and the international side is the specialized side. Hardly a “grandiose” title.


Since you specifically asked… they were given by two security consultants, one a dual citizen American and the other a German national. And yes they were from gov’t service but were former military and from a civilian intelligence background where no gnomes are allowed. The presentations were in support of a legal action in federal court concerning the new-at-the-time No Fly List and how other top tier aviation security systems would not have listed the plaintiffs as threats as the US system did. As to a case number, no clue. I couldn’t even tell you the numbers of any cases I’ve ever worked on either.


Except I don’t find that someone posting under their name with their credentials can always add more validity to the discussion. Dan Gryder and Trevor Jacobs are prime examples of this. Regardless, Peter has known and understands why I post anonymously.

Well, I am not in the aviation industry and gave up flying over twenty years ago. (Hence why I stay away from topics that relate to aircraft operations etc)

Guess my definition of gnome is broader, much like my definition of politicians. I am not even sure analysts on the intelligence side would object to being referred to as gnomes. I think it is far less pejorative than say POG.

I completely support you posting anonymously and enjoy your perspective, but it does mean what you say is taken with a grain of salt.