Security Checkpoints Predict What You Will Do 369
An anonymous reader writes "New security check points in 2020 will look just like something out of the futuristic movie, The Minority Report. The idea of the new checkpoints will allow high traffic to pass through just as you were walking at a normal pace. No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints — the new checkpoint can detect if you have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building."
And with a 100% conviction rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Trials will be deemed unnecessary in 2025.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
> No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints -- the new checkpoint can detect if you
> have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building.
In other words, anyone who looks Islamic will be stopped and searched as will a few others chosen at random.
Love the accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll leave it to other people to point out everything else wrong with this kind of system.
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
False positives aren't too bad. You just fall back on the old method.
False negatives would be a bigger problem.
As if I weren't different enough (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when I walk into the airport, in December, at minus twenty, in shorts, nad my skin temperature is about ten degrees colder than the average, and my heart rate is about 20 points higher than the average, and I'm not sweating, and there's snow in my boot, I'm going to be intercepted every time -- for being different. Great.
But really, this time I read the article, and welcome to the same stupid problems for the same stupid solutions. The system is basically a remote polygraph. So you can walk at full speed while it assesses you. So we'll have longer corridors, but the exercise will be nice.
Of course the tests get to measure people's personal intents. Great. So anwser two questions. . .
- do you think trained criminals can learn to pass polygraphs? C.E.O.'s don't seem to have much trouble. Frame of mind and all that.
- so crime will once again shift back to the days of slipping something into someone else's bags. that someone else has no idea that they're carrying a bomb. The criminal may set off the system, but he's got no evidence on him anymore. So what exactly are you going to find? And which plane are you going to check? Even the criminal may not know which random passenger was marked.
This is why security never learns. Criminals have an arsenal of techniques from thousands of years of history. And those criminals get to pick what they want to use today. And those criminals have a darn good reward for picking the correct one. On the other hand, security personnel, and I include this system's designers, try to solve the current problem, and ofter forget the old problems. The criminals know exactly which systems are presently in place, as well as any routines being used by personnel.
So once again, we've managed to stop the dumb criminal with nothing to gain, and amused, or worse challenged, the intelligent criminal with lots to gain.
stupid idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds pretty hokey to me... As a frequent air traveler, give me the old fashioned pat down search with full baggage inspection - in fact I felt safest after 9/11 when they did random searches at the gate too - I have seen more than one person lead away from a gate in handcuffs after a random gate search turned up illegal drugs or other such nonsense. So the fact that they made it through the gate in the first place points out the fallibility of the current process. IMHO we need MORE hands on security not less, more sniffers and x-ray machines - I can easily factor in a longer wait at the airport, the peace of mind is worth it to me...
Re:And with a 100% conviction rate (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the last group in the White House, trials became unnecessary on Sept 11, 2001.
Horse Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The FAST system detects physiological signs of stress. In testing it detected "hostile intent" in volunteers. The obvious question is how can volunteers have valid hostile intent? You can't test deception with fake deception. The generalizability of physiological response to stressors is a basic tenet of physiological psychology (the folks who brought you FAST's grand dad, the polygraph).
The volunteers knew they were volunteers in a study and in no danger. In practice, this device will trigger on every person who is nervous about flying, because the physiological markers for stress are the same regardless of the reason. There will be many, many more of those than with 'hostile intent'. The test study was unable to have adequate control (real, naive persons) to prove its claim.
Most people can learn simple biofeedback techniques to control physiological reactions to some degree. Those with hostile intent don't need to get very good at it, they just need to be able to control it better than an untrained person with a fear of flying.
FAST isn't supposed to work. Its owners know it can't. It's just supposed to be believable enough to convince the public that it could catch bad guys to increase public confidence, and to convince the government that further funding is warranted.
Stick the designers in it and ask them if it can tell hostile intent from fear of flying (and base GAO investigation of the program upon the result, to make it more salient). They'll say yes. Either it'll trigger and show them to be lying, or it won't and so it doesn't work.
it does not detect intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly It only does detect external signs of nervousness at best and nothing else. Such sign of nervousness MIGHT be displayed by people with malevolent intent, but certainly not only by them. Consider where such detector might be implanted : courtroom, IRS, FBI buildings, airports before boarding. A lot of place where people WILL be more often than not nervous. And what will happens ? Terrorist or any other mal intended smart persons will get an additional training : 1) meditate to lower all sign of nervousness 2) take a nyquil or whatever calm you down.
Thirdly, as the various western governments seem to go toward more and more security of that type, TV camera, drone and whatnot, I have long stopped fearing terrorist (and I barely missed getting in a bomb blast in Paris metro by a few dozen minutes...). Nowadays I fear the police and the governement and their big-brotherisation more than not. I fear that the time for the third box (the munition one) will come way sooner than I ever expected in my dystopian nightmare.
Re:finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all, depending on your false positive rate and the predictability of the false negatives. If false negatives are random and you don't let people who are marked as "dangerous" leave and try again, you don't need your false negative rate to be that low -- it still presents a very significant problem to a potential attacker.
False positives, on the other hand, are a big problem. The enormous majority of people are negatives, so with any appreciably large false positive rate, nearly all positives will be false. You then need a secondary system to separate real positives from false -- otherwise all you're doing is marking lots of random people as dangerous.
Granted, all they cite is their "accuracy", which is ambiguous -- it's neither a false positive nor false negative rate.
Re:False-Positive Rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:1, Insightful)
That's not necessarily true.
False positives will breed false negatives if the second layer screening can't keep up. Plus, the more false positives you get, the less vigilant your second layer screeners will become. And the rarer the 'hits', the worse the situation becomes.
Given the high-volume nature of airports, no automated system will ever realistically reach the level of accuracy you would want. You either have a torrent of false positives so thick you might as well have the current system or the threshold is set low enough that a hypothetical hit has a better than even chance of going undetected. In a statistical context, the only solution to this kind of problem is meta-analysis, which is kind of difficult to perform in an airport context.
Re:Retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose I have to go to the bathroom and look nervous like I won't make it time? I'll probably set off the scanner as a suspected terrorist.
I'm afraid so. Wanting to get to a smoking area for a long overdue cigarette would be another good example (from my last encounter with DHS on entry to the US).
Re:stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
As we saw in India terrorists can just as easily walk into a train station or a hotel and open fire on everyone in sight, so would you like every public place to install metal detectors and strip searches for even more peace of mind? Whatever you do there is some risk involved. I suggest you learn to live with it instead of supporting making everybody life gradually more and more miserable until perfect safety is achieved, which of course will never happen.
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
False positives also affect secondary screening - if you have too many of them, it's hard to get people to take them seriously, and they are likely to miss true positives.
Re:stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
in fact I felt safest[...]after a random gate search turned up illegal drugs
What does that have to do with your safety?
The Big Picture Problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all seem to have figured out that this system is a joke, so I won't address that.
The bigger problem is that the DHS really thinks something like this kind of system will work. We've seen several different screening systems, fingerprinting systems, etc, and they all share the same "whiz-bang technology" attribute. That is that somewhere, there's some great piece of hardware, software, or black box that's going to save us from "the terrorists" Real Soon Now. I guess I'm more than a little skeptical of this approach to the problem.
I don't know enough about the problem to know what the solution is (maybe just human operatives). But I do know enough about "whiz-bang" technology to know that it's snake oil.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
So it's business as usual I guess?
Re:stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I have seen more than one person lead away from a gate in handcuffs after a random gate search turned up illegal drugs or other such nonsense.
So, what, illegal search and seizure makes you feel safer ?
Re:right... (Score:3, Insightful)
And anyone who objects will be called unpatriotic.
Re:As if you were actually different (Score:3, Insightful)
(a) You can't put a bomb into anyones bag that can drive a plane into a building.
(b) I dare you to even try approaching another persons bag in an airport. People are paranoid about their luggage, and if anything it would be far harder to do this than to get something through security today!
Who says a terrorist has to want to fly a plane into a building? I imagine you could spread terror pretty effectively if you started salting baggages with bombs...
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you have a system that has a 99.9% accuracy rate. What that means is, 99.9% of the time, it catches the terrorist if s/he goes across your magic line. And let's say you have 1 terrorist per million. What this means is that for every million people that cross the line, 1,000 people will be pulled aside for interrogation. Your 99.9% accurate profiling system is 99.9% inaccurate when it comes to discriminating the terrorist from the 9,999 look-alikes.
Oops.
Re:finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the shortsightedness of youth. Sit down at grandpa's knee and let me tell you of my youth, when airplanes were hijacked to Cuba by almost everybody, and Japanese people shot up airports, and German and Italian terrorists were almost as feared as the Irish, never mind crew-cut Americans driving rented trucks.
Sure, you can grab all the Muslims, and that might bag you two-thirds of the world's fanatics, but that last third will still kill you dead.
Re:False-Positive Rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
What fraction of the remaining 22% can we expect to be false positives?
Those can be justified away. It's the false negatives that folks will (ahem) have a hard time living with.
Seriously now, isn't todays smart terrorist working on "projects" that don't involve airports, airlines, airplanes, and going through an airport security checkpoint?
Re:Love the accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of system exacerbates the problems that currently exist. Currently 100% of all searches are performed on non-terrorists and almost 100% are performed on innocent people. Wrap your head around that for a bit. The quality of the searching is based on facts from incidents where terrorists were not caught, not based on terrorists who were. That is to say, oh, if people *can* put explosives in their shoes, we'll search all peoples shoes. All a terrorist has to do is try something that has not been tried before and they will be successful - more or less. I can't wait till someone sneaks a liquid explosive on board a plane inside a bladder that encases their crotch. Yes, the TSA's reaction to that will be awesome!
This machine will search 100% of all travellers (for a given set of travellers) and any who are pulled aside for further searching is supposedly equal to a smaller number than are searched now. They will still be innocent, but this justifies the inconvenience to them because a machine detected something. What is the accuracy of lie detectors [usatoday.com] BTW?
Since there appear to be no stories of Gitmo prisoners being loaned out to security equipment manufacturers the probability that any 'real terrorists' were used to test the machine is zero. Does anyone have the statistics handy? How many terrorists that have been caught since 9/11 have been caught anywhere near an airport, never mind trying to board the plane?
This seems to amount to a lie detector test that you are forced to take because you choose the criminal activity of traveling from one place to another by air. Apparently, if you wanted to bomb a bus there is no one to stop you. If you want to poison a water supply there is no one to stop you. If you wanted to sabotage an underwater cable there is no one to stop you. If you wanted to car bomb a public building there is no one to stop you. Think about that for a second or two. Airport security as it is currently implemented is 99% waste of time and resources. It inconveniences all, catches no guilty persons, and robs resources away from efforts to protect other infrastructure etcetera.
What would I suggest we do for security? The same thing we do for security for any other public transportation. The goal of terrorism is to make you waste resources, to make a violent statement that circumvents any implemented security. It's a whack-a-mole game. Catching terrorists should be done long before they strap on the explosives. That's the only effective way to catch them. I don't have links, but I can't remember any story about a terrorist being caught by airport security measures. The only ones that were caught were caught with normal pre-9/11 police measures. Right now, the terrorists are winning.
Re:Stopping muslims is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
> For those who slept through Modern History class, I'll tell: religion. Specifically Muslims.
> They are the most likely group to set off a bomb on an airplane or hijack it. We can pretend that's not the case (and continue with the current "security theatre" at airports) in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of the PC crowd, but that doesn't change facts.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are more than correct and ONLY muslims will ever hijack or blow up an airplane. How do you propose we do this security checkpoint thing? "Hello good sir, what is your religion? If you are a muslim you have to go to that checkpoint there but the good god-fearing christians can skip it." I doubt having to lie to airport personel is going to stop someone who plans to kill dozens of people. Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims can be recognized on sight and that it is impossible for, let's say, a white woman to be a muslim?
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
XP is bloody operating system for personal computer, not operating system for AI that operates terminator drones. Microsoft probably didn't even build the system they are using and doesn't know their OS is being used for said system. Like most things done for government, a contractor build the system, they developed in Windows because A. Government is more then happy to spend your tax dollars on Windows licenses. B. Windows programmers are dime a dozen.
Try not seeing evil conspiracy where there is none. You can probably walk through check point wearing a Linux TShirt and system isn't going to deploy ceiling mounted turrets and blow you away. You might want to try removing the tinfoil, I think it's cutting off circulation.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
99 percent of any and all past and present attacks against airline travel perpetrated - through passengers or baggage! - were committed by people who a) claimed they were doing it for Islam and b) who have declared as being of Muslim faith.
All "airline terrorists" - against which airport security can provide any protection - are a proper subset of "People is Muslim faith".
Therefore, it is not only logical to exclude non-Muslims from security checks but beneficial, as it wastes less resources and security staff to search improbable suspects.
Yeah, it's not like there were ever any non-Muslim hijacker [wikipedia.org]s that endangered countless lives for non-religious reasons, like, say, money or anything. That wouldn't make any sense. (I know you know are aware of some, but it is hardly 1%)
Even if this were the case, the lack of any non-Muslim terrorists does not mean that there never will be any. Your logic is intensely flawed. "It's [almost] never happened before so let's just assume it never will."
As a third objection, I don't believe in justified racism (or religious discrimination, I don't see any moral difference). You're saying "a few Muslims hijacked planes before, and I don't remember anyone else doing it, so let's just check any and all Muslims and nobody else." People shouldn't be persecuted and harassed (and that's exactly what it would be) because of what they believe, or because of how they were born (Arab, for example). Even if it did make sense (it doesn't) to let everyone else through, the thing is, it's just not fair. Maybe my ideals of equality, be it racial, religious, or whatever, are a little old fashioned for you, but I stand by them.
Autism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stopping muslims is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like we need to update Pastor Niemoeller's famous poem. First they came from the Muslims...
Here are a few other conclusions from a non-PC but apparently somewhat more objective observer.
Probably the most violent recent religion looking over its history is Christianity. Should we detain all Christians? I bet that'll go down well in the US.
Actually, speaking of the US, they are the only nation ever to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction at a cost of numerous civilian lives, and they have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to go to war other than to protect themselves from an immediate physical threat. Maybe the rest of the world should just nuke the whole US and be done with them?
Then again, the administration of any country that had WMDs could lose the plot and use them based on such dubious arguments, and any administration that has been in power for more than a short time and retains the option apparently has a willingness to consider using WMDs. Maybe it would be better for all of us if they just turned on each other to remove the threat against everyone else?
I'll stop there, because I've pretty much killed the entire world in only three steps by applying the kind of tragic, fear-driven thinking exhibited by the parent post. But I truly hope that 2009 offers us more than a binary choice between PC security theatre and the kind of indiscriminate fear-mongering we see here.
Re:Spare me the hyperbole (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you've never been the guy they stopped by mistake. Being questioned and searched under such circumstances is not a trivial experience. It can be deeply unpleasant, and for some people it can leave mental scars that take a very long time to heal.
Re:finally! (Score:1, Insightful)
If she wanted a fat cock in her pussy, would she tell you? Yeah. Your anecdote excludes families that aren't into inbreeding.
Actually, she did tell him that, but in a typical fashion she said it in a round-about way, and he plain old didn't get it.
From his own post:
My sister says her favorite objects are [...] anatomy labs
Exactly what do you think is IN an "anatomy lab"? I'll give you a clue- the term "lab" doesn't necessarily mean a building & most likely is not an abbreviation of "Laboratory". If you conduct an "Anatomy Lab" it could mean doing anything related to examining, or performing experiments involving, anatomy.
"Lab" could also be an abbrevation for "Labia".
Dude, your sister is a Lesbian Slut.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
It can, perhaps, be established that being a terrorist means you are likely a Muslim. However, that does not mean that being a Muslim is a good indicator of being a terrorist. This is a logical inverse error (p implies q, therefore q implies p). When faced with millions of Muslims and maybe hundreds of Muslim terrorists, it makes little sense to generalize.
Again, maybe I'm just discriminating against discrimination. I don't think we should emphasize certain minority groups without very good reason. I think it's worth going a little out of our way to treat people equally (without compromising security).
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And with a 100% conviction rate (Score:2, Insightful)
Same old story: 100% snake oil (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the article all the much vaunted device does is measure heart-rate, blink rate, direction of gaze, perspiration level. All somatic quantities linked to anxiety levels. Nothing else.
And there's the rub. You can't catch someone who's calm and at peace with what he's about to do. Now that is a state of mind. Does "religious fanatic on a righteous mission" ring a bell? They have high levels of anxiety do they?
Or someone with naturally low anxiety levels who has been trained to commit violence and is at ease with that? Or someone who is able to take his mind off something? Or even someone who has been sedated?
This sort of monitoring might get an 80% success rate on ordinary Americans who are asked to carry an incriminating device through a checkpoint, but it was never tested with professional criminals. Like pick-pockets. Or fraudsters. Or even politicians for that matter.
That's why this scanner seems to be a bit useless against pre-meditated acts of terrorism committed by dedicated terrorists. It may have some success against people who are planning to spray grafitti on the wall of the office loo though. Nice going to counter a high-impact threat.
Fun idea (Score:2, Insightful)
How about everyone comes through quickly - person by person - enters a bomb-proof enclosure, and is subjected to measures that would set off about 99% of bombs for premature detonation.
Maybe every 1 in 1,000,000 times you might get a *whoomph* followed by the need for a clean-up crew and a dust-bin, while renders the room unavailable for a time and everyone else has to go through the other enclosures, but it'd still be faster and more effective than the current methods :-)