Forget Your “Junk”—The TSA Wants to Feel Up Your Mind

The feds’ new airport security plan: porno-scanning your face to read your mind.

Illustration by Gordon Studder

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


UPDATE: Stranded travelers could face a new homeland security toy this week. On Tuesday, the Transportation Security Administration announced that it’s begun “testing new software” on select airport body-scanning machines in Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Washington DC. The new imaging technology “auto-detects” suspicious material, boosting privacy by presenting potential threats on a generic human outline rather than a passenger-specific image. “If no potential threat items are detected, an ‘OK’ will appear on the monitor,” notes the TSA press release.

IF YOU’RE UNHAPPY with the choice between having the Transportation Security Administration “porno-scanning” you or touching your junk, this might also freak you out: The TSA is trying to read your mind. Since June 2003, it’s been monitoring travelers’ facial expressions and body language for signs that they might be hiding something. As of March 2010, the TSA’s Screening Passengers by Observational Techniques (SPOT) program had 3,000 “behavior detection officers” in more than 150 airports. Their job is to strike up conversations with passengers at security checkpoints, checking for what one TSA official describes as “behaviors that show you’re trying to get away with something you shouldn’t be doing.” People who don’t display “normal airport behavior” may be stopped for questioning.

SPOT is based largely on the work of Paul Ekman, a behavioral scientist who has spent his career identifying “microexpressions”—twitches lasting between one-fifteenth and one-twenty-fifth of a second that reveal intentionally concealed emotions. Ekman’s methods have been used by the animators of Toy Story and Shrek and celebrated by Malcolm Gladwell, and they inspired the Fox TV series Lie To Me, whose main character is a human lie detector who thrives on confrontations with psychopaths and murderers. That’s a far cry from Ekman himself, an unassuming 77-year-old who makes no claims of infallibility. “I’m never absolutely certain,” he says, sitting in his San Francisco loft. “I can’t tell you what triggers an emotion. I can only tell you to recognize an emotion even when someone doesn’t want you to recognize it.” Nonetheless, he says that had he been stationed at an airport security checkpoint on the morning of September 11, 2001, he probably could have plucked Mohamed Atta out of a crowd.

In the real world, the TSA’s behavior detection officers have yet to make such a dramatic catch. Of the 2 billion passengers who traveled through airports where the behavior-scanning program was deployed between 2004 and 2008, 152,000 were flagged for further examination. Of those, fewer than 1,110 were arrested. Most were undocumented aliens, had outstanding warrants, or were carrying fake documents or drugs. In April 2008, SPOT officers stopped an Army vet carrying bomb-making supplies at the Orlando airport. Beyond that, SPOT has not reported its agents picking out any other people identified as would-be terrorists. In reviewing the program, the Government Accountability Office concluded that “a scientific consensus does not exist on whether behavior detection principles can be reliably used for counterterrorism purposes.”

But the TSA already has plans for taking its face-scanning program high-tech. It’s sunk $20 million into developing Future Attribute Screening Technology, a computerized version of the behavior-observation system that will use cameras to scan travelers’ expressions and match them with a digital database of microexpressions.

That, Ekman says, is where the government might be taking things too far: “Don’t try to get the human out of the system,” he warns. He recalls how, while training officers at Boston’s Logan International Airport, he helped question a man who’d been acting erratically. It turned out the passenger’s brother had just died and he was flying home for the funeral. A machine might have labeled the grieving man as a security threat, but Ekman got to the truth more efficiently and personably.

The ACLU has also criticized the TSA’s face-scanning efforts as pseudoscientific and possibly unconstitutional. Security expert Bruce Schneier, a longtime critic of airport security, thinks terrorists will try to outsmart the system: “We do this Ekman stuff, and the bad guys recruit people who don’t show emotions.”

Just how hard is it to fool a face scanner? Consider this: Before I met Ekman, he asked me to look up someone who used to be connected to Mother Jones. The request slipped my mind, and when he reminded me about it in person, I stuttered before fibbing that I hadn’t heard back from his acquaintance. If Ekman sensed my lie, he let it slide.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate