[greenG4]

I have heard many comments about this lately. Most terrorists are fall within a certain age group and ethnicity. Should we focus more attention on that group of people at airports instead of spreading it out over everyone? I'm NOT saying focus only on that group, simply shift attention more to them. While it may be tagged as racial profiling, it does make some sense. Or would this simply allow the Tim Mcveighs a better chace at success?

[vmarks]

I think that racial profiling falls short.

Behavior profiling is more useful.

Racial profiling filters out threats who aren't of the race you're targeting.

Age profiling filters out a group that allows threats to exploit that age range.

Behavior profiling means you're more attentive to cues that betray a person who is a threat than simply backgrounds or appearance characteristics that may not mean anything.

Can you consider age and appearance as you look for behaviors that betray or raise suspicion? Possibly, but you need to consider behavior above all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Behavior profiling is more useful.

They were on about this the other day. Something about some new gear which will allow them to detect nervous people through body temperature scanning.

Best of luck to them trying to detect nervous or anxious people at airports.


With regard to the racial profiling... I don't think that's what they're on about, at least not here in the UK. For example, two of the suspects from last week were white boys. So racial profiling wouldn't work. The powers that be know this. Sort of convenient, then, that the UK government has been trying to push through an ID card bill which will include a centralised database on every citizen containing all sorts of information, religion included.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Behavior profiling means you're more attentive to cues that betray a person who is a threat than simply backgrounds or appearance characteristics that may not mean anything.

Can you consider age and appearance as you look for behaviors that betray or raise suspicion? Possibly, but you need to consider behavior above all.

That's what makes it so the national airlines most likely to be targetted by Islamic terrorists one of the safest in the sky. El Al has profiled people in this manner for a long time, and they haven't had a successful terrorist attack since 1968.

After all, it's not race that marks someone as a terrorist. It's their behavior.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Best of luck to them trying to detect nervous or anxious people at airports.

Yeah, that would be me being pulled aside because the machine pinged me. I'm and EXTREMELY nervous flyer (if I am forced upon an aircraft.) I had a bad experience.

[greenG4]

Doofy: Do we need religion profiling then? People can lie about their religion for their IDs couldn't they?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Yeah, that would be me being pulled aside because the machine pinged me. I'm and EXTREMELY nervous flyer (if I am forced upon an aircraft.) I had a bad experience.

You're not alone. I'll be perfectly happy if I never get on one again.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Doofy: Do we need religion profiling then? People can lie about their religion for their IDs couldn't they?

Yeah, I have no idea how they'd work that. But it feels like it's a prelude to trying to push the ID card bill through again. Quite transparent, our current government.

(BTW, the reason I'm banging on about this is the fact that it's not a normal ID card they're trying for. It's essentially an "iris scan to do anything" kind of deal, with all our details on an easily-hackable central database)

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You're not alone. I'll be perfectly happy if I never get on one again.

I do my best to avoid it. I'll drive pretty much anywhere.

However, next spring, my wife is probably going to force me to fly to Hawaii. And she's a total Anglophile who lived in the UK for a while, so she'll get me to Ireland, Scotland, England and probably over the channel to France/Germany sometime.

It's REALLY hard to drive from Montana to Hawaii or the UK.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I think that racial profiling falls short.

Behavior profiling is more useful.

Racial profiling filters out threats who aren't of the race you're targeting.

Age profiling filters out a group that allows threats to exploit that age range.

Behavior profiling means you're more attentive to cues that betray a person who is a threat than simply backgrounds or appearance characteristics that may not mean anything.

Can you consider age and appearance as you look for behaviors that betray or raise suspicion? Possibly, but you need to consider behavior above all.

Can ou give an example of how behavior profiling would work in airports? Is there even time to study each persons behavior and determine if it falls in line with a certain profile?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Can ou give an example of how behavior profiling would work in airports? Is there even time to study each persons behavior and determine if it falls in line with a certain profile?

Every El Al passenger is told to arrive three hours early. Their bags and person are completely searched, and each and every one of them is taken aside for an interview.

Trained interviewers ask them all sorts of probing questions and note their reactions. Suspicious individuals are not allowed on board.

That's how it works.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Trained interviewers ask them all sorts of probing questions and note their reactions.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Every El Al passenger is told to arrive three hours early. Their bags and person are completely searched, and each and every one of them is taken aside for an interview.

Trained interviewers ask them all sorts of probing questions and note their reactions. Suspicious individuals are not allowed on board.

That's how it works.

Wow. Every person? Individual interviews? That would cost the airline industry billions they don't have. It might be faster to just drive from NY to LA.

[spindler]

If it's mostly Arabic and Pakistani people, especially those wearing turbans, then those are the people that should be checked, and the rest shouldn't. I'm not saying I know factually that those are the only people who will commit terrorism, but why check 70 year old white grandmothers when their chances of being a terrorist are zero?

Let's pretend that Americans had a mature outlook on race relations. Let's say that people like Jesse Jackson hadn't turned everything into a race issue. Let's say Americans hadn't let everything be turned into a race issue simply because they find it entertaining.

If I was an Arab-American, I would have no problem being the one who was screened. It is a small sacrifice for being part of the U.S. With a mature outlook, we could just look at it as a certain group gets screened NOT BECAUSE THERE'S ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT GROUP, but just because the very small number of psychopaths attempting to blow up planes happen to be part of that group.

But you can't have a mature discussion or outlook about race in America because it's all one big show, like everything else on the news.

[smacintush]

Well, I don't really have any clue if racial profiling in this case is actually effective. It seems as if it should be, but I really don't know.

I do think that IF it is effective at all people should shut up and let them do it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by spindler

If it's mostly Arabic and Pakistani people, especially those wearing turbans, then those are the people that should be checked, and the rest shouldn't. I'm not saying I know factually that those are the only people who will commit terrorism, but why check 70 year old white grandmothers when their chances of being a terrorist are zero?

NONE of the 9/11 hijackers wore turbans. None of them dressed in any way that highlighted them, so why would a person's dress make them a target? I agree that checking grannies and not checking someone who looks Pakistani is dumb, but you must be smart about whom you investigate.

Originally Posted by spindler

If I was an Arab-American, I would have no problem being the one who was screened. It is a small sacrifice for being part of the U.S. With a mature outlook, we could just look at it as a certain group gets screened NOT BECAUSE THERE'S ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT GROUP, but just because the very small number of psychopaths attempting to blow up planes happen to be part of that group.

Actually you need EVERYONE to have a mature attitude before this could work. The passengers (all of 'em, especially the jerk businessman who thinks all this security stuff is just there to get in his way), the screeners, everyone. That won't happen until EVERYONE starts growing up and acting rationally instead of emotionally. There seems to be a huge lack of this sort of behavior worldwide...

Originally Posted by spindler

But you can't have a mature discussion or outlook about race in America because it's all one big show, like everything else on the news.

It's a show for people who don't think about their actions or how those actions impact others. Some of us happen to be a bit more advanced than that. If you draw your conclusions from the typical "least common denominator" local TV news, you'd think that it's all sliding down an vertical slope. My experience is significantly different from that.

[mydog8mymac]

Two words: Tim McVeigh

[vmarks]

Doofy,

Body temperature scans and iris scans are ineffective, or not the whole story. Iris scans may be interfered with by contact lenses. Body temperature is not the whole story.

GreenG4,

Yes, three hours. Yes, you watch your whole bag re-packed on a table as you answer questions.

The other option is that you can pre-check your luggage the night before, then you have less time to wait. By pre-checking luggage the night before, they x-ray, repack, and do it on their own time, and that's that. They have a service that I always like to pay for when I pre-check, where they will shrinkwrap the suitcase in thick clear plastic wrap once it's passed the inspection. It's as good as a suitcase lock, but they've cleared it and I don't have to worry about some baggage handler being rough and it popping open.


davesimondotcom,

I'm sorry you've had a bad experience flying and are a nervous flyer now. That's okay. Interviewers, properly trained, can tell the difference between a person who is scared of flight and someone who is suspicious.

And that's the crux of this: The current TSA folks are in large part the employees of the private screeners they replaced. They were trained in about two days with no refresher unless they screw up and let something through. And you know all the reports about journos getting through with banned items? The training has them looking for a banned item of a specific shape and size and if the banned item they find is not that specific item, they let it through because they only get reprimanded for letting that specific item through.

Proper training is essential.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Doofy,

davesimondotcom,

I'm sorry you've had a bad experience flying and are a nervous flyer now. That's okay. Interviewers, properly trained, can tell the difference between a person who is scared of flight and someone who is suspicious.

I'm not worried about being singled out by security because of my nervousness. I'm worried about losing my lunch at 30,000 feet. (Which stems from being nervous about an unplanned collision between craft and ground - my experience was on a small craft that got in a DC-10's jetwash and dropped down violently, eventually turning sideways, all while trying to land in San Francisco - and I could see the faces of the people on boats near the landing strip. That's how close to the ground we were.)

Yes, rationally, I know that we aren't going to crash. But what phobia is rational?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The current TSA folks are in large part the employees of the private screeners they replaced. They were trained in about two days with no refresher unless they screw up and let something through. And you know all the reports about journos getting through with banned items? The training has them looking for a banned item of a specific shape and size and if the banned item they find is not that specific item, they let it through because they only get reprimanded for letting that specific item through.

Proper training is essential.

Absolutely. And screeners need to be trained to be objective and impassive, rather than surly and confrontational. Every time I've seen anyone called out of line for something seen on x-ray, the screening team has been uniformly unpleasant, as if the person has been CAUGHT at something instead of just having something unidentified in their bag. My wife forgot a tiny Swiss Army knife in her purse on our last air trip-and it went through x-ray in San Antonio without being found. In D.C, on our way out, the screener found it and acted as if my wife was all by herself a new 9/11 hijacking plot instead of oops, we missed something at the bottom of her purse. At the same time they pulled aside a couple who were apparently Sikhs. They got the full-body exam treatment, and were the only people pulled from the line. That sure made it look like they were singled out because they wore head garb...

Screeners need MORE training than your common law officer in dealing with issues calmly and professionally. That lack of professional demeanor is something that hinders their mission and makes them part of the problem.

[besson3c]

Are we possibly over-compensating here? How many successful attempts have there been to hijack a plane since 9/11?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Absolutely. And screeners need to be trained to be objective and impassive, rather than surly and confrontational. Every time I've seen anyone called out of line for something seen on x-ray, the screening team has been uniformly unpleasant, as if the person has been CAUGHT at something instead of just having something unidentified in their bag. My wife forgot a tiny Swiss Army knife in her purse on our last air trip-and it went through x-ray in San Antonio without being found. In D.C, on our way out, the screener found it and acted as if my wife was all by herself a new 9/11 hijacking plot instead of oops, we missed something at the bottom of her purse. At the same time they pulled aside a couple who were apparently Sikhs. They got the full-body exam treatment, and were the only people pulled from the line. That sure made it look like they were singled out because they wore head garb...

Screeners need MORE training than your common law officer in dealing with issues calmly and professionally. That lack of professional demeanor is something that hinders their mission and makes them part of the problem.

Screeners can only search a few people on each flight, otherwise it would take ages to board a plane. Also, the alertness of the personell would surely decrease …

Practically (badly-trained) screeners already do racial profiling and it's quite probable they search the wrong people (see your example). I suspect the money spent on profiling can be used in more useful ways (e. g. more Sky Marshals, better training for the personal you already have). A few specialists won't do any good if the bulk of the security staff remains in the same shape as they are now.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are we possibly over-compensating here? How many successful attempts have there been to hijack a plane since 9/11?

Exactly.
The difference?
Passangers are no longer passive.
Someone os now willing to stand up and stop the situation.
There was a kid killed by passangers no too long ago for trying something stupid.
And many pilots are armed.(I have a Sig Sauer 226 in a lockbox)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Exactly.
The difference?
Passangers are no longer passive.
Someone os now willing to stand up and stop the situation.
There was a kid killed by passangers no too long ago for trying something stupid.
And many pilots are armed.(I have a Sig Sauer 226 in a lockbox)

Yes, vigilante justice, that's what we need!

[Sky Captain]

Or let one deranged passanger kill 130+.
Yes that's what we need.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And many pilots are armed.(I have a Sig Sauer 226 in a lockbox)

Aren't you required to keep the cockpit door locked in case of a hostage situation? What good would a gun do?
(The boyfriend of a good friend of mine is a pilot for a big Swiss airline and that's what he told me he is trained to do. He's also against regulations that requires pilots to be armed.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Or let one deranged passanger kill 130+.
Yes that's what we need.

Because we all know how well mobs of people, especially mobs of people that are already under the normal stress of air travel, are able to make good decisions about who is or isn't acting suspiciously and what an appropriate response would be.

[Sky Captain]

Not all have the heavy door.
Especialy the regional aircraft.
And the door only as strong as the bulkhead it's attached to.
There is a red bar that swings down across the door.
It's hindge and latch are held in place by rivits.
It can eventually be comprimised.
There are 2 solutions to this scenerio.
Either the crew subdues the problem or the problem eventually enters the flightdeck.

I fully support armed trained captains.
And there are more than you think.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because we all know how well mobs of people, especially mobs of people that are already under the normal stress of air travel, are able to make good decisions about who is or isn't acting suspiciously and what an appropriate response would be.

When the man in seat 27C gets up and starts beating the flightdeck door in, rest assured that appropriate response is to sit still.
And await the crash.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Not all have the heavy door.
Especialy the regional aircraft.
And the door only as strong as the bulkhead it's attached to.
There is a red bar that swings down across the door.
It's hindge and latch are held in place by rivits.
It can eventually be comprimised.
There are 2 solutions to this scenerio.
Either the crew subdues the problem or the problem eventually enters the flightdeck.

He's mostly flying medium-sized aircrafts which connect hubs in Europe, nothing too small. He didn't go into detail, telling me how strong the door is, but he used the word `armored' (which in German unambiguously means that the door is bullet proof).

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I fully support armed trained captains.
And there are more than you think.

Well, AFAIK most American pilots have a military background (as pilots) whereas in Europe, they don't. I'm not categorically against armed pilots, but I'm against requiring pilot and co-pilot to be armed. I think trained air marshalls and armored doors are much more useful than handing out guns to pilots.

You should optimize existing solutions first.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are we possibly over-compensating here? How many successful attempts have there been to hijack a plane since 9/11?

How many were there before 9/11? How many Wars on Terror were there then? How about unrest in the middle east?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

He's mostly flying medium-sized aircrafts which connect hubs in Europe, nothing too small. He didn't go into detail, telling me how strong the door is, but he used the word `armored' (which in German unambiguously means that the door is bullet proof).

Well, AFAIK most American pilots have a military background (as pilots) whereas in Europe, they don't. I'm not categorically against armed pilots, but I'm against requiring pilot and co-pilot to be armed. I think trained air marshalls and armored doors are much more useful than handing out guns to pilots.

You should optimize existing solutions first.

You're right, many of us recieved military training.
I think it should be the captain's choice to arm the aircraft vs mandantory also.
Some people just shouldn't handle firearms.

The Airbus may have a stronger door installed on newer models.
The US fleet are currently retrofit with bars that drop across the door.




Oh, this is shocking:

There were 349 cases of unruly passengers reported to federal aviation agencies last year, the second-highest total in the past decade. The highest yearly total during that period was a large spike of 482 cases in 2004; it's unclear why such an increase occurred that year.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mydog8mymac

Two words: Tim McVeigh

Indeed. Prior to 911 he pulled off the worst terrorist attack on American soil in US history. And interestingly enough, there were no calls for racial profiling of blonde, blue-eyed white males. And no statements of "If I were a white guy I wouldn't mind the extra scrutiny blah blah blah." I wonder why that is?

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

You're right, many of us recieved military training.
I think it should be the captain's choice to arm the aircraft vs mandantory also.
Some people just shouldn't handle firearms.

I agree. It's the captain's aircraft after all.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The Airbus may have a stronger door installed on newer models.
The US fleet are currently retrofit with bars that drop across the door.

Well a bar across the door doesn't make it bullet-proof. On the other hand, I don't think it's very feasible to get a gun onboard these days (well, there are easier ways).

AFAIK Swiss retrofitted these armored (bulletproof) doors on its aircraft (at least the larger ones) after 9/11. I think this to be one of the most effective investments against terrorists taking over an aircraft, much more so than a handful of behavioral specialists among hundreds of regular staff which hasn't received too much additional training.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

When the man in seat 27C gets up and starts beating the flightdeck door in, rest assured that appropriate response is to sit still.
And await the crash.

And when the man in seat 27C is a nervous flyer with a stomach condition who gets up and runs at full tilt towards the bathroom door (which is in the same direction as the flight-deck) it's an acceptable loss for the crew and passengers to beat him to death, right?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

And when the man in seat 27C is a nervous flyer with a stomach condition who gets up and runs at full tilt towards the bathroom door (which is in the same direction as the flight-deck) it's an acceptable loss for the crew and passengers to beat him to death, right?

That's what barf bags are for. (Unless it's coming out the other way )

[ghporter]

When the man in 27C heads FORWARD instead of aft, where the NEAREST lavatory is, then I worry. When anyone starts beating ANYONE on a flight, I worry. When the flight crew loses control of the passengers to the point that anyone gets noticably hurt, I worry a lot.

[OreoCookie]

These are hardly terrorist threats, though. There have always been unruly passengers …�so profiling isn't gonna do much good here either.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by mydog8mymac

Two words: Tim McVeigh

Do you mean Tim McVeigh and his merry band of Middle Eastern, fuel barrel-moving guys?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Do you mean Tim McVeigh and his merry band of Middle Eastern, fuel barrel-moving guys?

There's a fine reason for doing away with the death penalty. It's kinda hard to question McVeigh about that now.

[Sky Captain]

How about this mutiny?

There's another pilot here somewhere.
I won't post the other incidents on our boards.
Maybe he will.



I was stuck in Miami one New Years Eve.
There was a flight with no crew awaiting to depart.
On large half drunk unruly man started berating the gate agent.
Loudly. I can't believe she didn't call security.
No one did anything. Just stood like sheep.
I walked down and got a security guard, who inturn called for police backup.
When they grabbed(tackled) him he exploded on her for calling the cops.
I corrected him, "I called the you jackass."

I believe these people would have let him beat her.

Don't worry, no one on your flight will do anything about the man from 27C.
And you can watch as he beats the crew to a pulp.(which has happened more than you know)

[OreoCookie]

Eeeh, what does this have to do with terrorist profiling (other than that unruly passengers were doing some `profiling' of his own)?

Your example also shows that you don't have to be a rocket scientist, eeeh, behavioral profiler, to weed out people like this.