In response to the most recent series  of TSA screening missteps, New York Senators Schumer and Gianaris are suggesting the addition of a TSA Advocate at each airport who would intervene between TSA officers and passengers who feel violated.  Also on the table is an 800 number for passengers  to call for clarification of TSA procedures regarding medical devices, and to learn what they could expect to face at the airport.

With skyrocketing budgets and sketchy efficiency, I hardly think that another layer of employee is needed.  If a given screener is adhering to TSA policy, then an Advocate would simply be repeating to the passenger what is already known.  If the screener is not adhering to TSA policy then screening management needs to figure out why, maybe boost training and communication, and fix the problem.  An Advocate would not be able to do that.  An Advocate would be unable, as we all are, to answer the question: why do TSA policies lack common sense?

Instead of Advocates what is sorely needed are Threat Assessors.

(more…)

A client of ours, a Security Training Supervisor at a federal financial institution in the Midwest, called to chat.  They have been using Chameleon’s Predictive Profiling Online course as part of their curriculum for about a year now, and he called to tell me how pleased he is with the program.

Tell me more, I begged.

This is what he liked:

• The course information is taught using actual events and real situations via videos or in abundant reference materials.  The students aren’t given purely hypothetical scenarios but (more…)

A story I heard from a client the other day confirms the simple power of security questioning as a really effective tool.  I’d like to share it with you.

A security officer who works for a large U.S. company had taken our Predictive Profiling and Security Questioning course.  Let’s call him Mike.  Mike was working the access control checkpoint at their main headquarters where both a metal detector and screening machine are in place.  These are located in a large lobby with a good deal of people traffic and activity.

A visitor to the facility approached to be screened and was flagged by the operator as having a questionable object in their bag.  (more…)

Over the past month, about 40,000 domestic U.S. travelers have been allowed to breeze through security checkpoints with their shoes and jackets on, toiletries and laptops intact.  They are part of the test phase of a voluntary TSA program called PreCheck meant to expedite travel for passengers who have been – as the program name implies – vetted in advance.  This identity verification pilot program is underway at four airports: Atlanta, Detroit, Dallas and Miami.

Travelers provide in advance application personal information in exchange for the possibility of expedited travel.  The lucky participants are gathered from an elite group of very frequent fliers on American and Delta, along with members of the existing trusted traveler programs Global Entry, Sentri and Nexus.  Over a million people are enrolled in the (more…)

Chat Downs is the term used to describe the TSA’s latest behavioral detection procedures currently being tested at Boston Logan and Detroit Metro airports. ‘Chat Down’ has a nice ring to it.  When done correctly, this kind of purposeful questioning should indeed be as casual and friendly as a chat.

Up until recently at the TSA, behavioral assessment was conducted by a Behavioral Detection Officer (BDO) looking for observable physical signs whether it be a facial twitch or an unusually sweaty body.  The chat takes assessment to a new and I think more effective level.

(more…)

Israeli security at Ben Gurion International Airport is considered preeminent in the world.  I personally have passed through El Al security lines several times over the last few decades.  Pop quiz:  how many times did I have to take off my shoes?  Answer: . . . (more…)

More often than not, security systems miss the mark when they skip a vital step in developing their security standards and procedures.  They do not first clearly define the threat.  But only once you understand the threat, can you understand what is suspicious and then have a road map for procedures.

Take random checks as an example.  Think about how ambiguous it is when an officer is asked to “randomly” check a given number of people or objects.  Given the open-ended nature of that directive, the officer chooses what to check motivated by what amounts to whim: perhaps the officer has a non-confrontational personality and will avoid anything or anyone that appears troublesome.  What and whom he chooses to check could likewise be motivated by subconscious sexism, racism or some other psychological mindset.  With humans, there is no such thing as random.  A random check procedure can translate to a real vulnerability for a security system because it allows an officer to make screening decisions based on his own inclinations.

What’s more, a random check procedure is passive.  It requires no (more…)

The TSA is conducting a pilot program at Boston Logan airport where Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) will interact with passengers during the Travel Document Checking process to assess if further screening is required of the passenger.  The new security tool in this case is the conducting of a brief conversation and passenger threat assessment.

This approach is methodologically different from anything the TSA has done previously.  Although the TSA refers to it as risk-based assessment, actually this is a threat-based approach.  How so?  At this point, for example, pilots undergo less screening than do passengers; pilots are not required to remove their shoes.  Pilots represent a lower risk.  Certain nationalities are screened more intensely than others, as they are understood to pose a higher risk.  The policies as to how to deal with different categories of people comes down to the front line from the upper echelons TSA management.  All the screener has to do is identify someone as a pilot or as a ‘risky’ nationality and then follow the dictated procedure.

(more…)

I heard a nice analogy about engineers and basketball players recently that well describes the role of security: what it is at its best and at its less-than-best.

Some folks approach security as though it were an engineering project.  Security managers map out regulations and protocols to be adhered to by the letter.  Like an engineer designing a car or a building they consider budget and costing, throughput and appearance.  In this approach, there may be a security team but there is no clear opposing team.

In basketball, as this analogy goes, there is a clearly defined opposing team.  Indeed, the adversary is at the top of the coach and players’ mind at all times.  They spend hours upon hours studying the adversary’s every move and trait in order to understand and therefore best anticipate how they will play and how to win against them.

(more…)

There is debate across the globe as to whether aviation security is best provided by private sector contractors or by government agency employees.  Here in the U.S., although it may seem that the TSA is ubiquitous, private screeners operate in 16 airports that range in size and geography from San Francisco International to Rochester, NY and Jackson Hole, WY.

U.S. Congressman Mica who heads the House Transportation Committee believes big money can be saved by employing the private sector in place of the TSA.  A 2007 federal study showed that private versus federal cost 17% more.  A subsequent GAO report released this year revised that number to 3%.  But whether screeners are employed by the TSA or a private company, by law, everyone gets the same training, uses the same techniques and equipment.

(more…)