Complaining About Airport Security Could Tag You As A Possible Threat

[JohnyCanuck]

Almost anyone who has been stuck in the airport security screening line has at least mumbled to themselves about the process, but a new report from CNN says that such behavior could lead to travelers being singled out for further screening.

The news channel says that complaining is one of around 70 behavioral indicators used by TSA detection officers to identify "high risk" passengers.

One indicator reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."

Even though the TSA says it requires several indicators to tag someone as a threat, a former FBI agent who now works for the ACLU tells CNN that we should be able to complain without worrying about possibly be subjected to more scrutiny:

http://consumerist.com/2011/04/complaining-about-airport-security-could-tag-you-as-a-possible-threat.html

[KamaAina]

1. The very idea of "behavioral indicators" tends to single out people with mental illness

particularly those who may be stressed out about catching a flight. Trust me. It's been happening to me since way before Nineleven(TM).

[CBGLuthier]

2. Meanwhile actual terrorists would be calm and obey like a good drone

until through security.

Fuck the TSA

[SDuderstadt]

5. Terrorists are never nervous?

Bullshit.

[notesdev]

6. Nah, they'd go for the easy, juicy target

which would be the people queuing up at the security line, packed nice and tight together.

[ixion]

3. which proves that it's not about security, but indoctrination

and it's exactly why the DHS/TSA needs to be defunded with extreme prejudice.

[villager]

4. + 1,000

n/t

[Glassunion]

7. +1,001

[Kolesar]

8. Remember when they held Senator Kennedy from boarding an airplane?

I think he still made his flight, but they "detained" him because "his name was on a list".

IIRC, they held up peace activists who were flying to big events.

[Rex]

9. Well, goodspeak is always better than badspeak.

Double plus good speak gets you onboard faster!

[indepat]

10. Seems to convey if we are good little Germans, er, Americans,

every thing will be o.k. :patriot:

[truedelphi]

11. Meanwhile Vermont officials tell us there is cesium 137 in milk

and rainwater -- And the same Homeland Security types who should be helping us deal with this real problem are more concerned about hassling us at the airport.

We have gone beyond Orwell and beyond Heller's Catch 22.

[ThomCat]

12. Any authoritarian system is always going to define complaints

against the system as a sign of being a security risk.

That has always been so, and it will always be so.

This is one of red flags that should always be looked for to identify that a system has become authoritarian instead of focusing truly on security.

Every organization, no matter what it's original purpose was, no matter what it's original intent will change as it grows. It will begin to focus more on its own existence. It will begin to focus more on justifying its own existence, and perpetuating the means of its own existence.

Any organization that exists only to meet a limited goal will Always exhibit "scope creep" so that it can justify existing beyond its mandate. It will also Always redefine itself in ways that make itself indispensable indefinitely so that it can never be eliminated, and in fact must be expanded and given more resources and authority.

In the case of security operations, they will begin to see more people as threats. They will begin to see more types of threats. They will begin to see themselves as the only possible and legitimate way to deal with those threats. And they will see any effort to question them, or investigate them, or review their actions as a threat in and of itself. They will always require more funding and more resources than they currently have in order to deal with threats. Somehow, whatever they have simply isn't sufficient, no matter how many options and resources they have available, no matter how much they have available.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. Well said n/t