Saturday, June 15, 2013

TSA's behavior detection program not cost effective: DHS IG

 

TSA's behavior detection program not cost effective: DHS IG Published 12 June 2013

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130612-tsa-s-behavior-detection-program-not-cost-effective-dhs-ig

 

 

DHS Inspector General (IG) has released a 41-page report last week stating that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cannot ensure that its behavior detection program, known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) is objective or cost-effective.

 

TSA agents watching for suspicious passenger behavior // Source:

gothamist.com

 

DHS Inspector General (IG) has released a 41-page report last week stating that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cannot ensure that its behavior detection program, known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) is objective or cost-effective.

 

USA Todayreports that the SPOT program began in 2007. It aims to spot potential terrorists through behavioral clues. The program has so far cost

$878 million.  The program works by having behavior detection officers observe and talk with passengers while they wait in security lines. Those who exhibit suspicious behavior are selected for a second screening or an interview with law enforcement officers.

 

The TSA has not said what kinds of behaviors or actions their officers look for, but according to security experts, shifty eyes and sweating are a couple of the traits that officers take note of.

 

The IG report says that the TSA does not effectively assess the program, and that until recently, did not include a rigorous training program for the

2,800 SPOT employees.

 

"As a result, TSA cannot ensure that passengers at United States airports are screened objectively, show that the program is cost-effective or reasonably justify the program's expansion," the report from Anne Richards, assistant inspector general for audits says.

 

The audit was requested by Representative Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi), who says the report provides one more proof of TSA's failure to detect suspicious behavior. Thompson said he is now drafting an amendment to the TSA spending bill which will prevent more funding for the "failed and misguided effort."

 

"After five years, approximately $1 billion spent, a history of racial profiling allegations and a lack of measurable results -  this report makes it clear that the SPOT program has not improved aviation security and has wasted taxpayer dollars that could have been spent on proven safety measures," Thompson told USA Today.

 

Although the program started in 2007, the TSA did not set a mission statement, goals, and objectives for the program until December 2012, after auditors took a look at the program. It took TSA until November 2012 to finalize performance measures, according to TSA administrator John Pistole.

 

The program did have some success recently.

 

From October 2011 through September 2012, the program resulted in199 arrests, most of which were outstanding warrants of suspects of drugs and immigration violations.

 

The IG report reviewed 110,000 referral records from 2009 to 2012, and discovered that 7,019 did not identify the officer involved. Another 1,194 did not meet the qualifications for a referral, and 143 did not contain an airport code for where the referral was made.

 

"As a result, TSA cannot ensure that training contributes to the uniform screening of passengers," the IG report stated.

 

The TSA issued a statement saying studies by outside researchers determined that officers, which were part of a refresher training course for all officers, were nine times more likely to identify a high-risk traveler than random selections for more screening.

 

"TSA's behavior detection program is a critical part of our approach to securing travel," the agency said in a statement Wednesday. "SPOT allows officers to identify specific behavior clues that have been proven through research, science and decades of law enforcement experience to be reliable indicators and predictors of anomalous or suspicious behavior."

 

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment