Efficiency not detected either

A team of more than 3,000 “behaviour detection” officers hired to spot terrorists at US airports have failed to catch a single person despite costing the taxpayer $200 million (£140 million) last year. -  telegraph.co.uk

Comments

[Monte]

Big surprise!

[qhartman]

This is such a backwards way of looking at things. You can't use lack of detection as proof of failure unless you know what you are looking for is there. People who are linked to terrorism aren't going to always be acting shifty at an airport. If one of these people got by and then immediately blew something up, then you could fairly call this into question. This is exactly the kind of security we need, not more gadgets, not more theatre. Look at all the other arrests that were made! Terrorism is a rare threat. The benefit of this kind of security is that it catches all sorts of illegal behavior. The very thing the article tries to paint as a negative aspect is one of it's greatest strengths. I'd argue that this has less potential for violating privacy than a millimeter wave scanner does...

[KLW]

Metal detectors and taking off shoes have also never stopped a known, planned terrorist attack.

Actually, scanning for shifty behavior, picking up anyone suspicious, and having a trained interrogator grill them is the best method available. It's the mainstay of Israeli security, and relied upon in much of Europe. It actually has stopped many known, planned attacks.

It hasn't been tried here until now because hiring people smart and competent enough to do it right is expensive, and the country is so huge that it becomes insanely expensive. Also, most security and anti-terrorism is theater, designed more for PR purposes than catching terrorists.

[Till]

These guys get paid $66k per year? Holy cow!!! That's more than an entry level Ph.D. in the humanities.

Detecting other illegal activities by broad screening under the pretext of anti-terrorism is dangerously close to a police state of Orwellian proportions. You can't say you are only doing this for "security" reasons if all you catch are some drug smugglers. With $200m you can do A LOT against drugs but not against terrorism.

NOTHING will stop a person willing to sacrifice his/her life from doing harm. The harm done to civil rights is not worth it. Flying is still safer than driving to work in the morning and back home in the evening. It would even be safer if there were 6000 dead from terrorist induced plane crashes per year. But people would be scared sh*tless. They are already now. Wimps!

Just accept the casualties and deal with the terrorists on another level. Hm, I forgot. They are already trying. That one costs what? 1-2 BILLION a day? Any results? Sure. More terrorists and more threats and hatred. You either engage in really large scale genocide which is not the way to go or you find a way to reduce hatred on both sites. Probably cheaper, longer lasting and more efficient than either genocide or security theater at home plus war abroad.

Ah, but there is no money to be made with that solution so we can't do that. It's a real dilemma. You got peace and understanding and less money or you get long-lasting war, hatred and civil rights violations but more money. What to do? What to do?

Till

[KLW]

Of course, the neocon architects of this 'war on terror' knew all along that it would be a great way to antagonize people abroad and create more terrorism. They also knew it would be a great way to panic Americans and get them to agree to all kinds of things making them poorer and less free, and a few people correspondingly even more rich and powerful. The "war" has been a great success from their point of view. Anyone sensible has known all along that the opposite of what we are doing is the real way to handle terrorism: stop pissing people off and start cooperating more with the world community.

On the other hand, I don't think scanning airports for suspicious people and questioning them is all that bad. As I said, this method has foiled terrorist plots in the past and landed the bad guys in jail. On the other hand, I think the screening, with the shoes and liquids and nailclippers and so forth, is wasteful and excessive. One of the best things they could do to cut down on terrorism would be to train all cockpit crews in sidearms and hijack response and require them to carry pistols with special ammo that won't poke holes in the side of the planes. It would have foiled 9/11 almost guaranteed.

[Till]

I can agree with that.

The behavior detection is not stupid IF it is done by qualified people. For 66p per year they should get qualified people. But past TSA experience has shown that hiring intelligent individuals is not their strong suit.

I very much agree in training cockpit and FA in these things. I am also in favor of having a sky marshal or two on EVERY flight. That should swart most things but bombs. Bombs can't be avoided unless you do full body x-rays on each passenger.

[Charles]

+1000 to Till

KLW - Remind me again which "neocon" policies Chairman Maobama has repealed?

Bush = Obama = Cheney = McCain = Biden.