"Yet a growing number of researchers are dubious — not just about the projects themselves, but about the science on which they are based. "Simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin," noted a 2007 report1 from a committee of credibility-assessment experts who reviewed research on portal screening.
"No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent," declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation's airports "without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment", stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress."
One rule of thumb is that you Never joke with the airport security (1). So wouldn't that go both ways?
1) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-b...
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/if-im-not-on-a-watchl...
Needless to say the US immigration officials took some offense and asked him a bunch of questions. I'm not sure they realised it didn't say what they thought it did, even after we explained about French Connection.
These were obviously simpler times as I also as a teenager once went through US immigration wearing a Threadless Community Party t-shirt: https://www.threadless.com/product/383/the_communist_party
I think the person who is actually reading people is the person who checks your ID and boarding pass. Though honestly I think that process would be pretty easy to fool either way.
From stories I heard airport security is more serious than CBP though