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."
Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
This is retarded. 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.
False-Positive Rate? (Score:4, Interesting)
FTA: "We are running at about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection..."
And that's supposed to be good? What fraction of the remaining 22% can we expect to be false positives?
[begin sarcasm]
I look forward to a future in which the police stop me more than they already do.
[end sarcasm]
Re:Horse Shit (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
That might end up being the most valid and useful test of all. I like it.
Re:As if I weren't different enough (Score:5, Interesting)
REALLY? I'm not alone?!
I just don't understand. I live here. This is my native habitat. Why should I be any more uncomfortable during in expected weather conditions than any other animal?
So, let me ask you -- because I've never been able to ask anyone before: what's on your list of reasons? I routinely stop traffic within two minutes of shovelling the driveway. I've had couriers pull over and get out just to tell me that I'm crazy. And I've had A&W staff refuse to sell a burger to me because I must be clinically insane.
My more recent responses to "why are you wearing shorts" include:
- I find it more convenient to raise my heart-rate than to carry extraneous clothing.
- I prefer natural methods over artificial ones
- I can't afford pants (while wearing $125 shorts)
- "government project"
- I'm originally from the arctic circle/yukon/canada (this one seems to satisfy just about everybody)
- why is your wife so ugly? just a genetic trait I guess.
- millions of years of evolution
- I have a genetic mutation, my core is thermally regulated (I'm warm-blooded you lizard.)
- I wouldn't stand so close when calling me crazy for fear that I actually am.
- I'm better than you. It's not like I could be worse.
- You can show off your legs, I can show off my legs. My calves are gorgeous. (works for women. substitute legs with clevage as appropriate)
- The same way you enjoy being hot on a summer beach, I enjoy being cold in the winter snow -- with more oxygen, less polution, and no radiation.
Have any of your own that I might borrow?
Re:stupid idea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Indeed. The local municipality recently replaced a really nice and wide slide in our local park. (I'm lucky enough to live in a place where taxes are devoted to working and maintained public playgrounds.) The reason: It was too wide. So now instead of a cool slide I can slide down together with the kids there's a boring standard slide which is one person at a time only. Cause somehow two persons on a 1,5 meter wide slide at the same time is dangerous? WTF...
Unfortunately the safety argument seems to work every time, including those when it makes _no sense_.
Re:it does not detect intent (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:False-Positive Rate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well even if we'd kept everything the same, 9/11 couldn't have happened again. Once the hostages know they're going to die, they tend to fight back. Up until then they'd just been told to cooperate.
And yes, you're right. We all know this is security theatre. The thing is, without it people get scared and the nation suffers economic and social loss. These aren't necessary to protect us from the boogeymen but they are necessary to protect people from (semi) rational fear.
Of course then you have the /real/ problems facing this nation and the world, but there you go.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Your logic is the only one that's flawed. Clearly an indicator of how terrorist someone is is his (/her) faith. Or rather : his/her ideology. Compared to christianity, islam is a political party, after all. That's what "no separation between mosque and state" means.
Let's just do what any intelligent algorithm does : look at the statistics, and derive from there without ANY regard for any political sensibilities, current, past. Imagined or real. If it turns out that being a muslim is a good indicator of trying to attack innocents, then let's use it ! Why, exactly, must people die (that's what happens if security checks have a false negative), just so you can feel good about yourself ?
Let's just look at the statistics, year over year. The year after muslims stop killing innocents "for their faith", the searches of muslims stop.
THAT would be fair. Excluding them from checks would be stupid, dangerous and grossly racist (towards both them and everyone else).
After world-war 2 holocaust victims were imprisoned due to cholera infections. Not all were infected, but the tests were too expensive to separate the infected from the rest, so this added allied imprisonment was for more than a few of them a death sentence. And if they hadn't done that, several millions of innocents would have died in all major cities, because the economy didn't allow for any large-scale treatment of people. And they would have died for no good reason other than politicians feeling good.
Let's not be idiots, just because you're too narrow-minded to admit that, yes the obvious truth is indeed true : ideology matters. Religions and political theories are not equal : some kill to prove they're right. Some love. Some simply work. islam is in the first category.
And let's not kid ourselves, the faith that is eradicating black people for their skin color in darfur is not (at all) tolerant. Tolerating racist killers is not tolerance at all.
Re:stupid idea (Score:3, Interesting)
OK - let me re-word this, at any commercial airport there are signs up that clearly say that your bags and person are subject to search - YOU make the decision if you wish to enter the airport premises, it is NOT an illegal search, you consented to it by entering the area. This is not a gray area in any way. I work in a place that has signs up on the gate that state that I am subject to random search of my car, person, laptop bag etc.. I have NO expectation of privacy there - if I bring something prohibited to work (guns, drugs, etc) and I get searched its MY poor judgment in bringing said illegal items on the premises. An airport is exactly the same situation..
Re:finally! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:False-Positive Rate? (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between Flight 93 and the other three hijacked planes is that the passengers on Flight 93 communicated sufficiently with the outside world to know that other planes had been hijacked and subsequently flown into buildings. They weren't better people, they weren't unusually brave "National Heroes", and the passengers in the other planes weren't sheep.
And you're an idiot, for thinking so strongly enough to apparently never even attempt to find out the real reason.
Next time you want to find information, you should read a book instead of making it up out of thin air. In this case, I might particularly recommend the 9/11 Commission Report, as you apparently think yourself capable of commenting on those events.
Re:And with a 100% conviction rate (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes you think they even care about catching terrorists? The police state *is* the goal.