[justzisguyuknow]

This seems to me like the technique that is already employed by Israeli airport security agents. They have a normally-flowing inquisitive conversation with every passenger boarding flights to or from the country, and they are very good at detecting when the details don't add up or when the person is acting too uncomfortable.

[patcheudor]

I do wonder, and this is a serious question. Why would someone trying to be deceitful because they have something very serious to hide even take the chance on speaking with a security agent? I'm not suggesting they "plead the fifth," but rather carry a card explaining that they are mute. Doctors papers are easy to forge.

If the incident leading to the condition happened recently, then that would be an excuse for not knowing sign language. Yes, they may still need to write their answers, but it is universally accepted that most people don't like to write so they could keep their answers brief without raising suspicion. By writing slowly, they may even drive the interviewer to the point they cut the questioning short. Very serious bad guys could even get a botox injection beforehand, paralyzing their lips or get their mouth wired shut.

My point is that at the end of the day, the goal here is to catch very serious bad guys. Any truly dangerous person with the intent and actual capability to do something very bad should have tools of deceit on par with their capabilities for harm up to and including getting one's mouth wired shut. Note that for this discussion I'm discounting "shoe bomber" types as not really having a capability for harm. I suppose that at the end of the day, that's who techniques like these are aimed at in the first place. Alas, there is no such thing as perfect security.

[andreyf]

I think questions at a border don't really fall under the fifth, as you're submitting to them voluntarily because you want to get in the country. You can refuse to answer any question, of course, but then the border agents can refuse to let you into the country.

I'm not sure if the goal is solely to stop "truly bad guys" who want to bring down a plane from getting on it, but rather make a note of anyone who might be traveling under false pretenses for any number of reasons.

[patcheudor]

>I'm not sure if the goal is solely to stop "truly bad guys" who want to bring down a plane from getting on it, but rather make a note of anyone who might be traveling under false pretenses for any number of reasons.

This is what I'm afraid of. Is travel on a plane now squarely reserved for the honest or those with nothing to hide? There are plenty of very legitimate reasons to travel under false pretenses, including it would seem, hiding from one's own government because of some irrational administrator who decides to use air travel restrictions to carry out a grudge. The restriction on travel, especially within the US as applied to US citizens is very disturbing as it represents a fundamental erosion of our freedoms. Take a look at this case as just one example:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/united-airlines-stops-...

[derefr]

> Is travel on a plane now squarely reserved for the honest or those with nothing to hide?

Not at all. They'll still let you on the plane after grilling you. They just want to know that you're hiding something. For future reference.

[andreyf]

It's hard to tell sarcasm over this medium, but are you suggesting that being asking someone questions about their travel plans and retaining notes derived from to the answers is not an appropriate power to give the TSA? Is there any country in the world where airport security doesn't have this power, and is it practically feasible?

[tempestn]

I expect that that sort of situation is rare enough that the officers would simply play it safe and treat the person as suspicious. So it would probably be counter-productive if you were actually trying to hide something.

[jshap70]

Except I am bad with names, so when they ask somebody's name and you can't remember it then you get pulled aside for more questioning.

[veb]

Or if you didn't hear the persons name properly or have a speech impediment ...

[coldtea]

>and they are very good at detecting when the details don't add up or when the person is acting too uncomfortable.

Considering several horror stories and uneeded questioning (of students etc) entering the country, not that "good" really.

[ScottBurson]

They reduced a woman I know to tears once. I've known her and her husband for decades; they're a perfectly ordinary, fairly devout Jewish couple who would never hurt anyone. I can't imagine why they felt the need to be so cruel.

[superuser2]

No plane out of Ben Gurion has been hijacked in decades. For a high-traffic airport of a major city in one of the most hated countries in the world, that's pretty damn amazing.

[danharaj]

It really isn't that impressive when you count the number of commercial flights that happen every year and how many planes are hijacked every year. The odds are already mind-bogglingly low per airport. Of course no one knows what the rate of hijackings out of Ben Gurion would be without their security.

[derefr]

Presumably they only care about false negatives, not false positives.

...which doesn't imply that a "just question 100% of the people" strategy would work—they need to question few enough people that the planes still leave on time and the airlines stay in business. But within that limit, it's in their best interest to be as trigger-happy with the detainments as possible.

[hackuser]

> they are very good at detecting ...

How do you know how good they are? That seems like the point of the article.