USA TODAY International Edition
ACLU report casts doubt on airport behavior screening
TSA’s own files raise reliability questions
The Transportation Security Administration program to spot suspected terrorists based on deceptive behavior among travelers is unreliable and raises questions about racial and religious bias, according to a report from the American Civil Liberties Union based on documents in TSA files.
The program, which has grown to about 3,000 behavior detection officers, has long been contentious in Congress. Government watchdogs have urged reduced spending on the program because of the difficulty proving scientifically that criminals or terrorists could be spotted by suspicious behavior.
But TSA administrators have defended and expanded the program as a crucial layer of aviation security.
The ACLU report resulted from a June 2015 lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act that forced the release of more than 12,000 pages of documents about the program.
The 28- page report obtained by USA TODAY reviewed TSA investigations of allegations of racial and religious discrimination and uncovered details that haven’t been previously revealed. The report also found TSA’s files were filled with academic research that questioned the validity of behavior detection while the agency maintains the program is grounded in science.
“It should go without saying that our government shouldn’t be implementing programs that are either scientifically bogus or that raise the risk of unlawful racial and religious profiling,” said Hugh Handeyside, staff attorney in ACLU’s National Security Project. “There is no indication — at least according to what the TSA has in its own files — that this kind of program can be done in a reliable and scientifically valid way in an airport context.”
The behavior detection program began in 2007 and was called SPOT, for Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. The goal was for officers roaming through airports, either in uniform or plainclothes, to detect behavioral clues for deception that might signal a traveler’s intent to commit violence.
Watchdogs have long been skeptical.
A review of 400 studies over 60 years found the chance of spotting deceptive behavior only slightly better than flipping a coin, according to a Government Accountability Office report in November 2013.
During 2011 and 2012, behavior detection officers referred 8,700 travelers at 49 airports to law enforcement officers, GAO found. The referrals led to 365 arrests, mostly for suspected drugs or immigration status, but not terrorism.
Among the 110,000 referral records from 2009 through 2012, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security found 7,019 didn’t identify the officer involved, 1,194 didn’t meet the criteria for referral, and 143 didn’t contain an airport code where the incident took place.
The watchdogs have repeatedly urged a reduction in spending on the program that totaled $ 1.5 billion through 2015. Lawmakers including Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, have repeated- ly called for program to be abolished and the officers shifted to checkpoint screening.
“We think the program should simply be discontinued,” Handeyside said.
Still, TSA administrators have defended and expanded the program.
John Pistole, who was TSA administrator from 2010 to 2014, finalized the program’s mission statement, goals and objectives in December 2012. The program “is effective and has been validated and determined to identify substantially more high- risk travelers than a random screening protocol,” Pistole told a House hearing in June 2013.
Peter Neffenger, who was TSA administrator for a year and a half until departing for the new administration Jan. 20, told a Senate panel in June that security agencies around the world use behavior detection, which shows there is some value to what will never be a perfect system.
The ACLU lawsuit uncovered cases and details about episodes of alleged racial profiling at specific airports that haven’t been previously reported:
A Newark investigation that became public in 2011 led to the demotion of a behavior detection manager. The ACLU report said TSA rightly investigated the case and took some corrective action, but also uncovered additional details about the case.
The deputy assistant federal security director who investigated the case found “overwhelming evidence” that the manager ordered officers to require greater scrutiny for Dominicans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans based on “non- existent” behaviors and to make improper referrals to Customs and Border Protection.
Two security managers based in Boston also found “it is reasonable to conclude that a procedure for profiling or identifying illegal aliens was implemented by several” officers at Newark.
In Miami, a 2014 investigation found at least 10 officers reported that their manager “provided false or misleading information” to other officers to scrutinize travelers more.
At Chicago’s O’Hare airport, a 2013 investigation began after an officer submitted an anonymous letter that claimed officers were encouraged to focus on travelers of Middle Eastern descent boarding Royal Jordanian and Etihad Airways flights.
TSA found no evidence of racial profiling in the case because only nine passengers were turned over to law enforcement during the period in question.
In Honolulu, a TSA investigation that became public in 2011 found insufficient evidence that two officers engaged in profiling.
“Our government shouldn’t be implementing programs that are either scientifically bogus or that raise the risk of unlawful racial and religious profiling.” Hugh Handeyside, ACLU’s National Security Project