The aviation security is very important because it is a target for terrorist group to commit atrocities. If people with bad intentions can get to the airport and successfully board a flight, they can cause a lot of damage. Remarkably, even in the World Wars and other international battles, the countries that managed to control the air automatically became the winners. The air provides a perfect aerial view for targeting critical regions, as was the case during the 9/11 bombing. Aviation security is becoming more sophisticated as passengers are searched using metal detectors, body scanners, pat-downs, and sniffer dogs. The robust increase in the number of people travelling by airplanes has also led to the use of behavior profiling to identify the human threat.
Background, Relevance, Main Points and Thesis
Many states have adopted behavior profiling in airports as a strategy to boost security. However, concerns have been raised about violation of civil liberty, consent, data breaches, poor passenger experience, and the possibility of racial profiling, which creates an even bigger crisis. This study is relevant to aviation policymakers, future researchers, and the TSA as it will provide information on both the strengths and weaknesses of character profiling. Noteworthy, the strategy supporters argue that it is necessary as a safety measure, human behavior can be measured, and it is effective. In light of the points above, the stance of this paper is: although aviation security is crucial, the behavioral body search infringes on civil rights, makes the travel experience stressful, and has low credibility. Hence, the TSA should remove behavioral profiling from the safety protocols.
Theoretical Underpinning
The routine activity theory proposes that three conditions must be suitable for a crime to take place. Particularly, there must be the absence of a guardian, a motivated offender, and a suitable target (Krohn et al.,2019). In essence, a perpetrator can attack when all the trigger factors are in place. However, if the person judges that there is no opportunity to do what they want, they avoid the situation. Relatedly, the officers may act as the guardians such that the criminal keeps away their intentions because they are being observed. The challenge is that the terrorist can also mark the faces of officers doing behavioral profiling and then create a way of distracting them. The result is that there will be no guardian, and the remaining conditions remain constant, creating a perfect environment for the crime to occur.
Rational choice theory is also suitable for understanding criminal activities at the airport. The framework holds that before executing a crime, the criminals have personal drives such as exposure to the target, security lapses, money, and expected level of retaliation against the enemy (Abeyratne, 2019). The theory is relevant to the terrorist attack and hijacking incidences at the airport because the people take a significant risk due to their motivations. The individual is not worried about being negatively profiled but reaching their target and executing the crime as planned. Thus, the presence of the security officer does not make them withhold as long as they have a plan on how to avoid being caught.
Aviation Security Threat
Terrorists and other criminals are a major threat to the aviation industry. As such, there have been efforts to ensure the neutralization of crises before they even transpire (Falamarzi et al., 2021). The implication is that aviation security officers must be proactive in identifying the risks. During the assessment, there should be a strategy to evaluate vulnerable regions, the criticality of the situation, the probability of a risk occurring and the cost of protection (Klenka, 2019). Some of these tasks are automated to save time and avoid crowds. In sum, there are various security protocols that TSA follow to ensure the safety of travelers and workers.
Remarkably, the airport must always be secure as it is a high-risk area that terrorists target to execute their plan. However, in 2013 despite significant investment, the TSA was unable to demonstrate that behavior detection activities had the potential of identifying high-risk passengers (Government Accountability Office, 2019). Similarly, according to Kyriazanos et al. (2019), the automated decision-making process may help improve security, but the process is unreliable. Moreover, Gechkova & Kaleeva (2020) notes that the strategy is not cost-effective due to inaccuracy. Hence, maintaining a high level of security at the airport is integral, but analyzing the passengers’ conduct is not the best option.
In addition, the security personnel working for the TSA must understand the high possibility of insider threats at the airport. Specifically, most successful crimes occur when one or more people can access an organization’s knowledge allowing them to exploit the vulnerabilities of the air transport with the intention to cause harm (Bean, 2017). There are various insider threats, including spying, corruption, sabotage, smuggling, and impersonation. The criminals can easily liaise with the employees to identify the behavioral profiling officer and avoid them. Hence, the employees may become perpetrators when only the passengers are profiled.
Selection of Behavior Profiling Officers
The aviation security team have detective officers whose core function is to perform passive observation of travelers around the airport vicinity and determine if they are a potential threat. In doing so, they should adhere to the Transport Security Administration (TSA) policies, which demands that the managers conduct the profiling without regard to ethnicity, race, and other background factors of their targets (Government Accountability Office, 2019). However, maintaining objectivity in light of many terrorists being of a specific religion, it is common for behavioral profiling to focus on a personal characteristic. Hence, the level of accuracy is low because some of the officers who work at the airport lack the necessary training and resources to standardize the profiling process
There is always a risk of stigmatization as a specific race, ethnic group and religion get more of the negative behavioral profiles. Consequently, profiling continues to raise concerns over possible bias toward some ethnic or religious groups, which can escalate in to a crisis (Falamarzi et al., 2021). Noteworthy, profiling of some races, especially those from the third world countries, can create a crisis at the airport. As such, the frontline security officers’ risk being targets of assault if other people perceive them as unfairly targeting some individuals. Thus, behavior profiling can easily lead to some people being unfairly targeted.
The professionals in this capacity have an education background in human behavior, psychology, and criminology. The rationale is that criminals are humans whose behavior can be explained and predicted within a specified framework (Krohn et al., 2019). The officers have also been trained on cultural conflict to help them identify what they can classify as deviant or usual based on a person’s background. For instance, it may not be awkward for an American to raise a complaint while shouting. On the contrary, if someone from the eastern culture acted in the same way, it would be a concern because their traditions have trained them to talk in slight tones. Therefore, people with detective experience working in a multicultural setting may be more suitable.
Detecting Lies
Part of the job function for profiling personnel at the airport is that they should try and start conversations once they identify a person with suspicious mannerisms. Some of the cues that aid in detecting if a person is lying include avoiding eye contact while responding, excessive sweating, protruding neck veins, and dry mouth (Michalski et al., 2020). Some of these physiological reactions occur when a person feels intense. For instance, when people feel that their crime plan will be unveiled, they may feel pressure. Therefore, the officer can tell when a passenger is uncomfortable talking or is panicking in fear and continue probing further before clearing the individual.
Similarly, the officer should apply the correct probing strategy to help identify incongruencies. Detection of malintent represents only a small part of studies conducted about non-verbal communication. (Denault et al., 2020). Therefore, the airport police should endeavor to utilize some of the remaining strategies in behavioral profiling (Bogaard et al. (2019) state that the airport police can detect lies by asking unexpected questions. For example, the manager can ask about the weather, reasons for travel, and destination and then ask about thoughts on terrorism. The aim is to avoid leading the suspect and give them ample time to plan their responses.
Profiling
Several aspects can help categorize a person in terms of their perceptions, orientations, attitude, and intention. In turn, profiling methods rely on analyzing features such as appearance, behavior, and survey technologies to identify people appearing to have deviant behaviors (Antonov et al., 2021). Officers who are well trained in psychology and human behavior can help in predictive identification for proactive actions. It is crucial for the officer not to make any accusatory remarks at this point as they risk breaking the passenger’s trust.
Unfortunately, there is significant misinformation that the general public often gives regarding no-verbal communication. The internet, books, and some conferences provide basic body language opinions that are neither scientific nor peer-reviewed (Denault et al., 2020). When the workers are not competent in identifying such cues, they easily profile others based on their biases. Moreover, McFarlene (2020)) notes that academics, policymakers, and security professionals have given little consideration to the complexities of the linkage between human errors and hidden modes of failures that terrorists can explore. For instance, individuals should understand that behavioral profiling can create a gap to be exploited because the security checks may focus more on the people they perceive as criminals instead of treating each person equally. Thus, cases of suspected crime due to behavioral profiling can lead to false accusations.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Behavioral profiling can strengthen the security at the airport by ensuring that prospective criminals are identified before they execute their missions. According to Leather (2019), it is impossible for a person about to commit a crime to hide all the signs of adrenaline, nerves, and physio-psychological responses to anxiety. People who are trained and have the experience to identify such indications can always tell when a passenger is not acting normally. They can then approach the person for a further question to understand the reasons they are unsettled. In sum, human behavior has a motivation which the officer endeavor to know. In sum, behavioral profiling can enhance security in the airport in the wake of increasing passengers and threats.
The other advantage is that the criminals cannot predict behavioral analysis as they would other security measures such as metal detectors. The strategy followed in such a program is risk-based security (RBS), in which the officers intelligently focus on examining a few suspects instead of harassing the majority of travelers and passengers that are harmless (Kyriazanos et al., 2019). Notably, the criminals are likely to know what breach the security personnel is looking for at each point. As stated by Leather (2019), the predictable nature of the airport safety procedures is a weakness that terrorists can potentially exploit. However, with human behavior analysts, it is impossible for criminals to manipulate because they do not expect it to be a standard procedure.
The developments in intelligent analytics and surveillance technologies enable the RBS model to be used as an end-to-end technological and operational framework. The application of machine learning makes it possible to assess data on profile patterns and behaviors of attackers in regard to the volume and availability of data (Kyriazanos et al., 2019). With more information, the level of accuracy in identifying individuals increases. Thus, since a big percentage of people in the airport do not pose any threat, it is wise to profile those that are dangerous by observing and deterring them from completing their evil mission.
It is also crucial for the TSA to adopt a behavior profiling model because it changes the security mindset of the of the employees. There are no specific checkpoints for profiling which implies that all the staff, including those at the restaurants, retails, and security doors, can all assist in identifying any suspicious activity (Leather 2019). When workers are more conscious of safety, it becomes easy to identify potential threats. Moreover, when the thieves know that they are being observed, they are more likely not to attempt crime. The result is enhancement of safety and risk mitigation among the aviation stakeholders.
Weaknesses
The security officers have less competencies in analyzing behavior leading to high levels of false positives and true negatives. As Denault et al. (2020) state, “there are no nonverbal behaviors present in all liars and are absent in all people who tell the truth” (p.3). The implication is that there are no standard behavioral procedures that can help correctly categorize behavior as defiant. Moreover, some airport personnel may have unrealistic expectations of forensic science, making them believe they can always tell when a person is lying Denault et al. (2020). The result is that they infringe on passengers’ comfort. Thus, the TSA workers will worsen their traveler experience without standard behavioral markers for detecting deviance.
There is a high margin of error, yet behavioral profiling may lead to stigma or racial profiling. According to Leather (2019), no data proves the effectiveness of the strategy, and there are many records of unfair treatment. Notably, the airport is inherently stressful because some people have travelled long distances and are exhausted. Stereotypical targeting of a community is also a possible consequence of bias when in behavior profiling (Leather, 2019). The officers can easily mistake normal reactions to stress as suspicious behavior. Moreover, the officers with no multicultural competencies cannot tell which mannerisms are typical for different tribes.
Ethical Consideration
Civil Rights Violation (CVR) is a significant complaint for many streetworkers and people who appear odd because of their traditions. It is crucial that all forms of screening indicate respect for fundamental human rights (Kyriazanos et al., 2019). However, screening is usually done only on the persons identified as possibly being a threat to others. As Maliwat (2019) notes, people mistakenly identified by the airport authorities feel humiliated as the officers infringe on their dignity. The level of stigmatization that the passenger experiences when they are selected for further questioning can also be traumatizing. Yet, most of the time, the results are inaccurate, and the passenger that was thought to be a threat ends up feeling bad for the rest of their journey.
In addition, there are concerns about equal treatment because only a small percentage of people travelers are approached for more investigations. According to Nguyen et al. (2017), improving safety through behavioral profiling requires travelers to trade off their equity concerns. Noteworthy, the profiling of people does not follow randomization but subjectively targets only a few people. In most cases, such profiling easily follows biases regarding sex, race, age, or religion.
There is a high potential for data breaches and a lack of consent when performing behavioral profiling. For instance, Al-Saad et al. (2019) note that some ways of collecting information include passport control, bodily pat-downs, bag searches, sniffing dogs and inspection of content in laptops and cameras. All these security protocols are tedious to passengers in addition to the long interrogations. Such experiences are unethical as they violate privacy rights without seeking consent from travelers.
Moreover, observing people with the objective of gathering information and making a tentative or conclusive profile is a form of research on humans. Yet, no consent is taken from the subjects when taking data such as country of origin, the reason for travel, and time of travel. The information is added to build a profile and categorize people as either low risk or high risk without considering the impact it would cause if there were a breach in such information.
Position
It is apparent that much as behavior profiling has some possible benefits, it should not be adopted because it pauses threats to constitutional rights and has many weaknesses. The United States has moved significant strides in building multiculturalism and allowing all citizens to have a sense of belonging regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds. However, the introduction of behavior profiling by TSA is already raising concerns among the people. For instance, 2059 complaints were filled by passengers at the TSA multicultural branch from late 2015 to early 2018 (Government Accountability Office, 2019). Noteworthy, a considerable number of individuals felt the security officers target them because of their complexion and other physical features. The implication is that behavior profiling may cause civil arrests, demonstrations, and accusations, which is not good. Therefore, the officers should not use behavior profiling as it can stir up people to feel wrongly identified.
Furthermore, the people who do the behavior profiling at the airport are either inadequately trained for the work or lack enough resources for their task. For example, in 2017, out of the 178 sources that TSA used for determining the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), only 20 were relevant (Denault et al.2020). A lack of competencies precipitates high errors in identifying potential offenders. Thus, aviation security personnel must stop behavioral profiling until they realize high levels of accuracy. Otherwise, they will continue to collect incorrect data while delaying passengers and making their experience unbearable. Behavioral profiling is expensive, and the government have to invest resources in employing professionals and seeking data (Gechkova & Kaleeva, 2020). Yet, the returns on investments are low because most of the suspected cases are not true. It is better when the resources are used in improving other systems that have high sensitivity to error.
The other reason for having a stance against behavioral profiling is because it causes distress to the passengers and may kill the tourism industry. The security aspects that passengers experience the least level of satisfaction include slow speed of screening, staff attitude, queuing, and the general organization (Maliwat, 2018). Notably, when profiling is also added as part of the screening, it becomes more tedious for those that have been identified as depicting unexpected behavior. Worse still, behavioral profiling is a form of pseudoscience, implying that it lacks supportive evidence (Denault et al., 2020). It creates more problems for both the passengers and the workers. Reliant on gut feeling is subject to issues of transference or past experiences of the officer and should never be used in classifying some people as threats.
Noteworthy, the proponents of behavior profiling can claim that it has helped to improve security because there are fewer cases of airport terrorism. However, that is a logical fallacy because the fact that behavioral profiling can deter some thieves does not mean that it is effective (Denault et al., 2020). Moreover, it is not right for security and justice organizations to use tragedies in justifying dubious methods and programs. Hence, there is no scientific proof that behavioral profiling works even if there are fewer terrorism.
Instead of behavioral profiling it is better for the TSA to continue using technologies such as the metal detectors and closed-circuit television (CCTV). According to McFarlane (2020), the aviation industry can liaise with research institutes and non-commercial experts to build machine learning models that will be more accurate in monitoring passengers. The alternative for this strategy is that it will be objective and not subject to racial profiling.
Conclusion
The airport remains one of the target areas for terrorism and other crimes, hence, the need for tight security. The TSA has now adopted behavior profiling as one of the measures for security enhancement. However, behavioral profiling has several negative consequences, including infringement of civil liberty, lack of consent and data breaches. Moreover, the margin of error is high, and there is no evidence-based documentation of the effectiveness of the program. The officers who give the profile have little training on multiculturalism and are subject to losing objectivity in their observations. Therefore, the TSA must remove behavior profiling until there is sufficient evidence that it aids in deterring crime. Proper and continuous training on this topic is relevant to improving credible and valid security protocols.
Implications for Future Researchers
Future researchers should investigate if behavior profiling improves safety measures at the airport. In conducting the study, caution must be made to control possible extraneous variables such as other automated security checks. The other suggestion is for students to investigate the feelings and experiences of passengers who have been given a bad profile and identified as threats. It is also recommended that a survey be done based on the race and religion of the individuals called for interrogation to verify if allegations of subjective treatment of specific ethnic groups are true. Last but not least, a systematic literature review or metanalysis paper on behavior profiling will fill a significant gap because there are several articles with conflicting results on effectiveness.
References
Abeyratne, R. (2019). Legal priorities in air transport. Springer.
Al-Saad, S., Ababneh, A., & Alazaizeh, M. (2019). The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel. European Journal of Tourism Research, 23, 127-141.
Antonov, V. V., Kharisova, Z. I., Rodionova, L., & Kulikov, G. G. (2021). Model of a domain-specific profiling system based on explainable AI technologies. IOP Conference Series.Materials Science and Engineering, 1069(1). Web.
Bean, B. (2017). Mitigating insider threats in the domestic aviation system: Policy options for TSA. Homeland Security Affairs.
Bogaard, G., van der Mark, J., & Meijer, E. H. (2019). Detecting false intentions using unanticipated questions. PLoS One, 14(12).
Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., Sporer, S. L., Rioux-Turcotte, J., Jarry, J., Walsh, D., Otgaar, H., Viziteu, A., Talwar, V., Keatley, D. A., BlandĂłn-Gitlin, I., Townson, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patterson, M. L.,… van Koppen, P.,J. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario De PsicologĂa Juridica, 30(1), 1-12.
Falamarzi, I. A. A. M., Udin, M. b. M., & Siam, M. R. A. (2021). Critical factors of crisis escalation between customers and front-line security besides moderation of organizational culture at dubai international airport. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25, 1-13.
Gechkova, T., & Kaleeva, T. (2020). Economic aspects of airport security systems (Behavioral analysis). Godishnik na UNSS, (2), 217â-230.
Government Accountability office, (2019) TSA has policies that prohibit unlawful profiling but should improve its oversight of behavior detection activities. Report to Congressional Requesters, 2-46
Klenka, M. (2019). Major incidents that shaped aviation security. Journal of Transportation Security, 12(1-2), 39-56.
Krohn, M. D., Hendrix, N., Hall, G. P., & Lizotte, A. J. (2019). Handbook on crime and deviance. Springer Nature.
Kyriazanos, D. M., Thanos, K. G., & Thomopoulos, S. C. (2019). Automated decision making in airport checkpoints: Bias detection toward smarter security and fairness. IEEE Security & Privacy, 17(2), 8-16.
Leather, A. L. (2019). Passenger profiling: Cases for and against. Transport Security International Magazine.
Maliwat, J. D., (2018). Five typical emotional reactions to airport security screening: A case study. Journal of Psychology Research, 8(12).
McFarlane, P. (2020). Linking aviation security failures to human-mediated error. A review of the related literatures with directions for policy and research. Journal of Transportation Security, 13(1-2), 33-51.
Michalski, K., Jurgilewicz, M., Kubiak, M., & Grądzka, A. (2020). The implementation of selective passenger screening systems based on data analysis and behavioral profiling in the smart aviation security management–conditions, consequences and controversies. Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues, 9(4).
Nguyen K., Rosoff, H., & John, R. S., (2017). Assessing U.S. travelers’ trade-offs for aviation safety objectives: A natural experiment. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1502-1511.