6 ms·
This was good, and I mostly agree that using verbal strategies that amount to digging into/reviewing the details of what a person is claiming is the best way to
by themgt 6y ago
This was good, and I mostly agree that using verbal strategies that amount to digging into/reviewing the details of what a person is claiming is the best way to detect liars.
The TSA thing at the end seems like a bit of a derail though:
But, Mann says, without knowing how many would-be terrorists slipped through security undetected, the success of such a program cannot be measured. And, in fact, in 2015 the acting head of the TSA was reassigned after Homeland Security undercover agents in an internal investigation successfully smuggled fake explosive devices and real weapons through airport security 95 percent of the time.
I don't doubt the TSA "behavioral detection" is extremely ineffective, but presumably TSA is mostly leaning on other means to detect dangers and failure to detect weapons is more on the xray/backscatter scanners. It doesn't strike me as realistic for TSA to use verbal techniques like asking each passenger to sketch out his travel story to detect if he's lying about having a gun.
One interesting difference it raises is lying about the past/experienced events vs. lying about future intentions. Their techniques seem mostly geared towards differentiating between a person accurately recalling an event from memory vs reciting a fabricated version of their memory/actions. It makes sense this would be helpful for police interrogating a suspect, but it's not intuitively obvious the underlying idea maps to detecting someone lying about their intended future actions.
- airstrike 6y agoIIRC their 95% failure includes failing to spot explosives and the like in their scanners
- colejohnson66 6y agoHere’s a nice article about their internal tests that failed 95% of the time: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tsa-fails-95-percent-tests-homeland-security_n_7485558 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tsa-fails-95-percent-tests-ho... > In one test an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA screeners failed to detect a fake explosive device that was taped to his back during a follow-on pat down. That doesn’t inspire much confidence.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago> That doesn’t inspire much confidence. It does example how superfluous the TSA is. The 9/11 commission's recommendations never included anything like the TSA - just better comm between the 3-letters and reinforced cockpit doors.
- LocalPCGuy 6y agoI went through a screening with a "robot" - in quotes because it was literally a breadboard with a bunch of wires sticking out of it, a battery and a squarish box. Didn't even have to open the bag to show the agents what it was, went right through the scanner with no comment. And I was nervous as hell cause I was sure I was going to have to explain it, maybe even show that it worked. But nope, not a peep.
- mod 6y agoPretty sure they weren't going to let you uhhh..."demo" it.
- wl 6y agoI've taken a lot of messy electronic prototypes through security when traveling for work. The TSA has never cared. My camera bag, on the other hand, seems to get some baggage screeners very excited. Something about the glass being opaque to x-rays? But most screeners don't care.
- Applejinx 6y agoHow white are you, out of curiosity? What's your demographic look like, and how closely did it match the screeners? Seems like if you were nervous that would be additional weighting in the direction of you being questioned, so the additional weighting doesn't seem to have motivated anything.
- sokoloff 6y agoBefore we jump to “how white are you?”, it may make sense to ask “was there anything that could possibly have been the explosive?” Random wires, breadboards, etc aren’t going to explode without a source of fuel.
- LocalPCGuy 6y agoIt was tucked into a backpack along with quite a few other things (including 2 soldering irons, actually). I don't remember exactly what else was in the bag as to whether there was anything that could have looked like fuel in the scanner though, so fair point potentially. However, while it wasn't the point of my anecdote, I'm also fairly confident being white was one of the factors that played into zero questions being asked.
- asdff 6y agoI’ve seen TSA open a bag because they see something on the scanner, see the bag is too much of a mess, and close the back up seconds later and hand it back off to the passenger without investigating at all.
- saberdancer 6y agoIt's likely they want to use "behavioral detection" to be able to arbitrarily choose and pick who to examine. Who can say that the person they are examining did not fidget or look to the side. This allows them to easily deflect potential racial screening complaints.
- pessimizer 6y agoIt's like the "smell of marijuana" for cops. I'm convinced that the reason (right-wing) law enforcement is against pot legalization is because it removes this excuse, along with "the dog alerted" for arbitrary searches.
- MertsA 6y agoMeth and crack also have an odor after smoking them and dogs already can alert on them even when they aren't smoked. It's already a commonplace lie and there's no repercussions when a search turns up empty so why wouldn't they just keep lying? Or even easier, just claim they smelled alcohol. Police will continue with warrantless search and seizure until they actually face repercussions for misconduct.