[declan.mccullagh at gmail.com: [Politech] Feds begin "behavior monitoring" of air travelers this year [econ]]

[cyphrpunk]

On 1/4/06, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> forwarded:
> This year the U.S. Transportation Security Agency will begin behavior
> monitoring of airplane passengers at 40 major American airport, reports
> Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace &
> Liberty. "The screeners," writes Eland in his latest op-ed, "will look
> for 'suspicious' signs that might indicate a passenger could be a
> terrorist: having dry lips or a throbbing carotid artery (I'm not
> kidding), failure to make eye contact with or say hello to the screener,
> or evasive or slow answers to casual questions asked by the screener."

I am so friggin' sick of the response of the so-called security
community to these kinds of measures. Everything is greeted with
derision and ridicule. I'm coming to believe that the real goal of the
critics is to make it as easy and safe as possible for terrorists to
fly.

Years ago when the new security precautions were put in place,
security experts had nothing but criticism. The model they said should
be followed (obviously in the expectation that it was completely
impractical for America), that they pointed to as successful, was the
Israeli airline El Al. Despite Israel's place as the principle target
for terrorist action, El Al has had an astonishingly good record at
flying safely. What was their secret? Exactly the kind of intensive,
personalized attention which is now being criticized. El Al
investigators are trained to observe passengers closely, to ask them
questions and watch for just the signs of nervousness and evasion
which this Ivan Eland treats with such mockery.

Security people can't win. Non-invasive surveillance is called
"security theater". Intensive surveillance is now described as a way
to force people to smile at TSA agents. Doing nothing will produce
even worse results.

And BTW while I'm on the topic of airline security, a comment on John
Gilmore's doomed attempt to sue to be allowed to travel without
identity or security screening of any kind. Gilmore was offered the
chance to fly if he was searched! And he turned it down! He claims
that this violates his rights, that a physical search to make sure he
isn't carrying any dangerous materials is forbidden by the
Constitution. It's unfortunate that this conflates two very different
issues. On the one hand it makes sense to be able to travel without
showing ID. But on the other it makes no sense to claim immunity from
being searched! By trying to treat these two issues equally Gilmore
ends up weakening his own case.

CP