The Eyes Have It 320
Feelgood writes: "Yahoo is carrying a Reuters report that thermal imaging may be used in airports to detect liars. Shouldn't be a problem that 1 out of 4 liars will get away and 1 in 10 innocents will be incorrectly nailed." There's a UPI story about the lie detector possibilities and a blurb in Nature. From the UPI article, the inventor has a good appreciation of the ethical considerations. Will anyone else care?
Liars (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Liars (Score:2)
too often we see people complaining about rejected posts after the same subject matter has been brought up by someone else later on.
I'm not grinding my axe here but I've reported a few stories that have been rejected, only to appear much later.
Are we free? (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Once more, for all the slow JBT's. (Score:3, Insightful)
People look at voodo and see a doll. they're familiar with dolls, and know its not possible.
People look at a polygrapgh and see needles and paper and wires all being run by some clown who's "certified".
I find it amazing that people still rely on them, when over and over again, in lab conditions there shown to:
a)be "defeatable" with little training.
b)the results can be interpetted diferently by different "professionals"
c)return false results(I was a victim of this once)
Re:Once more, for all the slow JBT's. (Score:2, Funny)
Like an IIS server farm?
Re:Once more, for all the slow JBT's. (Score:3, Informative)
[1] Jones, E. E., and Sigall, H., "The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude," Psychological Bulletin 76: 349-364, 1971.
Re:Once more, for all the slow JBT's. (Score:2)
Worse, there are enough idiots in high places who prefer to believe in magic than science that they'll redirect the efforts away from hard evidence that points to the real bad guys, and focus instead on the innocents who just had a bad day that first time around. Many people consider this the most damaging side-effect of the belief in lie detectors - few LEAs can afford to waste time chasing down false leads or ignoring real ones.
The best analogy isn't to seatbelts, it's to a flawed airbag that deploys during slow collisions (giving many drivers unnecessary black eyes and broken arms), but which regularly fails to deploy in high-speed collisions where you need it the most.
Forget airports... (Score:2, Insightful)
Cool idea, dude! (Score:2, Funny)
Schneier said it (Score:2, Informative)
What happens next (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess if this was used as part of comprehensive screening process it might be useful....anyone who fails the test has to walk past a bomb sniffing dog or something.
Of course, the terrorists are going to be training to pass the lie detector test, so it probably won't help catch them.
Re:What happens next (Score:3)
Q: "Are you a member of a terrorist organisation?" (as it says on the green US INS Visa Waiver form [*])
A: "No" (thinking: "I'm a freedom fighter", and therefore telling the truth).
Even if it were 100% accurate, it may not help.
[*] also containing 'Moral Torpitude' - my all-time favourite phrase on a government form.
Re:What happens next (Score:2)
Good testing would involve a very large sample, probably on the order of 1000s, of people who were willing to face an odd question, to which the response remains confidential (or even destroyed). After questioning, the subject gives a card to the proctor telling of whether their answer was truth or a lie, to be compared with the imaging.
Odd questions should be things people are generally uncomfortable with, like "Have you ever visited a porn website?" Think about how you would react to such questioning face to face with someone.
In addition, the person(s) reviewing the tape of the subjects in front of the thermal imager should not have audio or any other clue toward the question/answer being asked/given. They would base their judgement solely on the person's facial temperature. The cards would be used to match the correctness of the reviewer's decision.
Other things like nervousness to enter the equation, which is normal. Someone may have temperature increases even if they're telling the truth. In polygraphs dummy questions like "Is your name _____?" come up to establish a baseline of the subject. Thermal imaging may also require that, which would then defeat the purpose of "rapid examination" for airports and border crossings.
Are some people complaining a bit too much? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much? (Score:2)
This applies only to the government. You don't have a right to board a plane. It is a privledge they've granted you. Planes are private property. You also don't have to be subjected to any security measures they have set up for screening. They may deny you access to the plane, but that's your problem. They could say "We'll only fly passengers wearing pink socks". They wouldn't get much business, but they could do that if they wanted to. It's their plane, it's also their right. The airline industry is a private industry. The government mandated security requirements are only the minimum. There is nothing preventing the industry from responding with even more stringent standards than the government is imposing.
To determine how involved the government is, they weigh the rights of the private industry against the rights of the people that cross the path of the airplane with the security risks in mind. With the danger involved in operating an airline in hand, I agree that whatever security measures they choose to implement are fair and reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You preemptively agree that anything they do is ok? To take an extreme example, what about strip-searching all passengers? Rational people can and do disagree about which specific methods are reasonable, but handing a blank check to the authorities is never a good idea.
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much? (Score:2)
Fine with me. If they wanna shoot themselves in the foot; they can. People won't ride the planes if they go too far. I'm only arguing they have the right to do whatever they think is necessary. But, another comment has brought attention to the federalization of security. Being a government run operation, they do have limitations now.
handing a blank check to the authorities is never a good idea
Agreed. It's good we're only handing it to the airline industry.
I only fly a few times a year. However, I'm getting happier with the security. Delays Shmelays. That's what I say. I think they should do whatever it takes to make flying safe.
I'm willing to relinquish my right to privacy to fly on an airplane. I only wish more 'rational' people would do the same.
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much? (Score:2)
Fair enough. Like I said, people can disagree on the proper balance between privacy and security. But I'm concerned when people altogether stop considering the balance and assume that anything done in the name of security is automatically good. That sort of thinking is what allowed the Patriot Act to pass with virtually no debate on its several questionable provisions.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The test (Score:4, Funny)
This is frightening... (Score:5, Interesting)
The article states that it's proven as effective as the existing polygraph - which is to say its reliability sucks.
Just what the world needs. Another knee-jerk deployment of a technology "to make us feel better." I suspect it'll be as effective as the National Guardsmen standing on the end of the big bridges - only far more intrusive if you happen to be one of those 10% false positives.
Re:This is frightening... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is frightening... (Score:2)
Re:This is frightening... (Score:2)
Startle responses (Score:2)
Note the word "our" - I know about this because I have it. If somebody knocks on my door, and I'm expected them, I'm fine. If someone knocks on my door and I'm not expecting anyone, my heart is pounding (elevated pulse and blood pressure) for an hour.
I, and others, can often compensate for this by becoming hyperaware of our environment. If you catch movement out of the corner of your eye, you aren't as startled when they suddenly make a loud noise. But in a busy environment like an airport, we're always stressed out.
The marketing dept. wants one (Score:2, Interesting)
Stephenson's got the right idea about how something like this would be used - marketing droids would flip over getting 80% honest responses in their focus groups - it beats anything they see currently. Somebody's probably making plans for the mall kiosk right now.
25% and 90%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't be a problem that 1 out of 4 liars will get away and 1 in 10 innocents will be incorrectly nailed.
Most metal detectors probably let 1 out of 10 get away and incorrectly nail 1 out of 4. Hasn't stopped them from using it as one of many screening methods.
Re:No they DON'T! (Score:2, Insightful)
Time for a new Continental Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a gathering where citizens decide on a new constitution. Sort of a constitutional convention.
The government is, in this case and many others, taking responsibility for things it has no right to control.
Either we must stop the government from violating the SPIRIT of the 1st and 4th amendments, or we make a new Constitution without these freedoms.
We do have the right to abrogate these freedoms, to voluntarily give up our right to free speech and against search and seizure, but we can't give them up and "swear to uphold and defend the Constitution" in the same breath!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time for a new Continental Congress (Score:2)
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
It says abolish, which means a hugely different thing from overthrow.
Overthrow [dictionary.com] is definately NOT abolish [dictionary.com].
Re:Time for a new Continental Congress (Score:2)
Will anyone else care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they will... but how?
and...
This comment has been a knee-jerk reaction. We now return you to your normal thread.
Most of the tagged people will be innocent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Result: 1,000,000 innocent people incorrectly tagged as "liars". 8 bombers correctly tagged as "liars". Even with an order of magnitude improvement in accuracy, 100,000 innocent (easy blushing) people, 10 bombers. Of course, if they just use it to pick out people to do a detailed x-ray/explosives inspection of the bags, then it might help, supplemented with additional random searches of course. Unfortunately, most airports don't have any bomb-detection equipment installed yet, so only a hand search by incompetent security is available.
Let's face it. To get real aircraft security is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. Current airport security is a joke. Poorly thought out rules being implemented by semi-trained personnel with the cheapest possible equipment. We can't incrementally improve the existing security structures and expect that to work. In the end, we're all going to have to pay for bomb-sniffing machines/dogs properly trained security personnel, and have the whole thing organized and tested (continuously). Then I think it would be possible to make getting a bomb on board a plane at least two orders of magnitude harder than it is now. Of course, I'm among the few that think that flying is still safer than driving to the airport.
Re:Most of the tagged people will be innocent. (Score:2)
Airplanes have 0.7 deaths per 100 million aircraft miles.
Cars have 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles.
Re:Most of the tagged people will be innocent. (Score:2)
Re:Most of the tagged people will be innocent. (Score:2)
You can keep getting more and more detailed in how you break down the question, and get different results. If you're going this far, you should take the next step and break it down by distance.
In fact, the safety swings with distance. The longer the trip, the better aircraft look. On longer trips, taking an airplane is safer than driving. For shorter trips, the reverse is true (imagine flying to and from work every day). I don't know at what distance the switch is made, but I'm fairly sure it falls in the area in which airplanes do make common flights (which ranges from intercity to intercontinental).
-Puk
Re:Most of the tagged people will be innocent. (Score:2)
I didn't say economically and politically oppressed families but countries. Saudi Arabia is one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. And Egypt isn't Singapore by any stretch of anyone's imagination. In fact, Saudi Arabia actually encourages (or maybe that should be encouraged) anti-american fundamentalism to flourish because it took (some) of the heat off of the corrupt government.
I stand by my statment.
Fine, deploy the tech, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
How Dumb (Score:2)
Or gee, the poor man's way of getting around this, buy a soda before you go, right before you go, you unobstrusively rub ice from your drink around your eyes and face, then wipe off the excess moisture.
Re:How Dumb (Score:2)
Consider the math - (Score:2)
But there is another more interesting possibility to consider - if you want to catch a liar in this circumstances, there would be a better chance of catching a liar if you look for those that pass the lie-detector's test.
Just think about that.
Re:Consider the math - (Score:2)
Re:Consider the math - (Score:2)
This is only a test. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't think this is very reliable; polygraphs give MUCH more "feedback" based on factors other than a blush, I don't believe this system is going to be used as a sure sign someone is guilty (especially with it's accuracy ratio).
Suggestions: (Score:5, Funny)
2: Strip search everyone from young, suspicous Abu Bin Confused to old lady Theresa Boobsahangin.
3: Stun guns under every seat.
4: Seperate section for screaming, annoying kids and their apathetic parents. (Okay, I admit.. this is more for my sanity).
5: Bomb-sniffing dogs. Mean ones. With the metal-tipped teeth, inlaid with gold, "F" and "U" on each canine.
6: Corrolary to 2, Naked flights, (seperated by age class for sake of sight)
7: Alien-esque automatic weapon. Pilot puts plane on defensive mode, gun shoots anyone not seated and buckled. Not feasable, but a fun idea.
8: Did i mention naked flights?
9: Flood cabin with nitrous oxide, chloroform, ether, or some other anasthetic gas. Only fresh air comes through pilots mask - Pilot breathes or everyone dies. Not being a scientist, i have no idea how those gases would act at that altitude.
Re:Suggestions: (Score:5, Funny)
"Welcome to United Filght 101. Just to reassure you on our commitment to your security, all flight attendants have been replaced by the starting offensive line of the Green Bay Packers. If a person does get out of line, rest assured that THEY WILL HANDLE IT.
Second off, we in the cockpit are in full communication with our attendants at all times. If a terrorist does stand up, they'll let us know up here, and we'll put this baby into a nose-dive, pinning the him to the back of the cabin, then let our flight attendants "deal" with him.
Third, our snack today is bacon and beer. If the person sitting next to you does not eat all his bacon, and drink all his beer, he is a terrorist. Please let our flight attendants know about him.
Thank you, and enjoy your flight!
(Best as I remember.)
Re:Suggestions: (Score:2)
Phil Dick Lives (Score:2)
Tyrell: Is this to be a capillary dilation test? Involuntary reaction of the iris? The so called Blush Response?
Deckard: We like to call it Voigt-Kampf for short.
The correct way to use this technology (Score:2)
It's sounds better than a polygraph. (Score:5, Informative)
If they can really catch 3 out of 4 liars, and "avoid" 9 out of 10 innocents,
(which is what the article claims inventors claim) then it's much better than 75%.
If 1 in 100 people are "liars" then this would be nearly 90% effective.
Which again sounds good until consider that identifying everybody as innocent would be 99% accurate.
On the plus side, this might make wearing eye shadow a crime under the DMCA.
Polygraphs can be beat simply by putting a thumb tack in your shoe,
and stepping on it during the "little bad" questions and not during the "big bad" question.
(saying that probably makes this post a violation of the DMCA
I'd bet that this device can be beat by a similar method.
Re:It's sounds better than a polygraph. (Score:2, Informative)
Using those numbers it is actually far far less than 90% effective. If 1 in 100 are liars, that means 10 in 1000 are. You have two populations to work with 990 innocent people, and 10 who lie. The test is 90% accurate on the innocent, which means it false reports 99 people as liars (10%). The test is 75% accurate on liars, so (rounding up) it reports 8 of the 10 liars as guilty, and 2 as innocent. This gives us a total of 107 people reported as liars, when only 8 of those actually are a rate of 7.47% accuracy. And that doesn't count the 2 liars it missed!
Cheers!
**Saithier
Old Joke (Score:2)
What is the machine really measuring?
Fun with mathematics (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's assume that one out of a million people is a terrorist and will lie when tested with the device. This means that in a group of a hundered million people, 100 liars exist.
If the device identifies a liar with 75% success rate, 75 out of the 100 liars will be found. On the other hand, if the device misidentifies 10% of the truth-tellers as liar, 9,999,990 out of the 99,999,900 truth-tellers will be misidentified.
Therefore, under these assumptions, if the devices indicates someone as a liar, the probability that he's actually lying is 75/(75+9,999,990), roughly 0.000749995%.
Malingering (Score:2)
One of the coolest things I read about was a study where people would be hooked up so that event-related brain potentials [rice.edu] (ERPs) were detected for malingering. In effect, your brain gives you away. For example, if you saw a video with some information and then you were asked about it, your brain does a little "hop" which can be detected with ERPs. It didn't matter how well you lied or how convincing you were, you would be detected. Supposedly, the methods works extremely well. However, you can't expect people to accept this. Would you like to have an electrode cap put on your head?
(Ah, you have to love science.)
By the way, you might want to check out these resources:
The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology [boisestate.edu]
Forensic Psychology and Forensic Psychiatry [geocities.com]
Polygraph Law Resource Page [boisestate.edu]
And so, in the airport: (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorist: Yes
Security guy: Well, the machine says you're right, but it would say that for 25% of liars, so i'd better double-check. Are you a terrorist
Terrorist: Yes
Security guard: Thanks sir, move along.
Re:And so, in the airport: (Score:2)
Same Theory as Polygraph (Score:2, Interesting)
If the paranoia continues we'll all be flying naked without carry-ons in a few months. (Perhaps the airlines would issue something similar to hospital gowns...) On the plus side, being surrounded by naked people might help me with my phobia of flying. I've flown since 9/11 and I'm still more worried about a wing falling off than I am about terrorists...
What does ANNOYANCE look like (Score:2)
Why do I think it's nonsense? Have they tested this on any Al-Qaeda members? Remember - these people have gone through extensive training, and there's no reason tha such training in the future can't include something that addresses this kind of interrogation. Another possibility- what if there was a drug whose effect could render this test completely useless?
Some theories on how to beat systems like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here goes:
1. Buy a thermal imaging camera of sufficient sensitivity so that you can see your own reactions, and learn how to modify them (feedback, negative or positive, does allow one to learn).
2. Know the questions being asked in advance. Practice giving rote answers to them so you're no longer thinking about the meaning of the question when it's actually asked, much like we no longer think about how exactly we tie our shoes.
3. Practice lying and learn not to give a damn about the fact that you're lying. In essence, practice becoming somewhat sociopathic. (Gee, shouldn't be too much of a stretch for a terrorist!)
4. If the expected answer is "no" (are you a known or suspected terrorist?), before answering, think of a question in your own mind to which the correct answer is no, and ask it of yourself before audibly answering "no".
5. Throw the baseline off before you even get close to the camera - get drunk enough to bring a flush to your entire skin but not so drunk that you are obviously impaired.
6. Like 5, get drunk, but don't stop at 'non-obvious'. Make it very obvious that flying scares the b'jeez out of you, and the only way you (especially after 9/11/2001!) and the only way you're getting on one now is if you're suitably numbed/happy.
7. Inhale a little powdered black pepper up the nose just before walking up to answer questions. The sneezing fit should throw off your reactions nicely. Blame it on allergies or a cold.
8. Take an emotion levelling drug before you get anywhere near the airport - the type that leave you not really caring about much. Surely you know a friend or two who has some psych-based drugs in their regimen of prescriptions...
9. Make like you have a toothache. Dig something sharp into your side through a pocket (a sliver of sharpened wood? A pencil?) to cause pain while being asked the questions such that your body's reactions are different.
10. Make like a person with a mild (or severe) disability, either mental or physical. Our social training has engrained that these people are "invisible", and that they CERTAINLY should not be unduly hassled, as that's cruel. An interesting physical choice might be "deaf mute", where you hand over a card asking the person to write what they want to say or ask on the small pad of paper you conveniently have with you. You write your answer as a response. So much for the instantaneous flush of heat from the eyes... You'll be looking down at a piece of paper, and will have time to "cool down".
Okay, not only five points, but ten. Much like physical locks only keep non-determined innocent people out of where you don't want them, this method will only catch nervous, embarassed, unprepared people, and thus is nothing more than the illusion of security. *sigh* It doesn't stop the really determined people, and those are the ones you wanted to catch, darn the luck.
Re:Some theories on how to beat systems like this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your comment brings up a side point: what about all the people who have disabilities who are on medication? The number of medications total that could cause problems for this machine is huge.
Re:Some theories on how to beat systems like this. (Score:2)
This would work now! I was waiting for 45 minuets in the Tampa airport security line this holiday, and over 5 obese people we weal chaired to the front of the line and allowed though after a helper stuck their crary-ons though the detectors. The fatties themselves weren't even hand checked with a wand because their wheel chairs were metal. These people we so fat that they could have stuck a bomb in one of their fat-rolls and nobody would notice.
Re:Some theories on how to beat systems like this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I already do this one.
Did your bag leave your possesion after you packed it?
No
Did anyone ask you to carry on their bags?
No
They're going to start having to ask questions like "Are you not not a terrorist?", "Uhhhh, no?"
Real Stats (Score:5, Insightful)
In summary, accidents -- fatal and non-fatal -- are on the decline in the airline industry. There were six accidents for every 100,000 hours of flight time... and that includes all those piddling little one- and two-seater private craft.
Take a look at real aircraft [ntsb.gov], those that operate on schedule and carry more than a handful of people, and the rates are very impressive: 0.4 accidents for every 100,000 departures. (It is a little unnerving that the rates are on the increase, though!)
Finally, at the bottom of the last table, we see that there were only five suicide/bomb crashes during the eighteen years between 1982 and 2000. There were 147,577,440 departures. That's an attack rate of sweet fuck-all (0.00000339% for those that really need the number).
In short, there appears to be no real good excuse for spending a pile of money on increased security measures. The risk-cost factor just doesn't justify it. Yes, there should be better security measures; but, no, they shouldn't be costly.
IMO, YMMV, IDFM (I don't fly much).
Re:Real Stats (Score:2)
Given the number of people in and sympathetic to terrorist organizations, I would bet they could get enough volunteers to bring down several planes a year, assuming security couldn't stop them. The direct cost of such a situation would be horrible for us, and secondary costs on morale would be worse. That is the risk one has to counter, not the historical legacy that it doesn't happen. After all, prior to 9-11, history would tell you that jumbo jets are never used as missles.
In my mind the potential risk does justify considerable expense. Now that expense should make sense, no argument there. After all at some point it would be cheaper simpler to tell people that they can have no carry-ons and must strip and put on airline issue clothing. A step even further, you could have two planes fly every route, one for luggage, one for people. Then even if there is a bomb in someone's luggage, only the pilots die. (Of course, who wants to live in that world?)
We can make flying safer, and there is IMO some justification for spending a significant sum to do so, but I agree that it has to be real security and not the illusion of security that we pay for.
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:2)
A lunatic with a C4 shoe-heel got on a plane just last week.
I drop my wife off for a business flight (same day as the jet in NY went down in the harbour, ugh) and as she's standing in a mile-long line-up... "Attention: all passengers for Flight 123, please proceed through the entrance gate immediately." The damn flight was getting held up, so they just waved (waived?) everyone through! Apparently, terrorists just have to wait for the final, ultra-final boarding call. WTF?!!
We have people being detained for reading Alex Haley's "Airport," FBI agents being detained for having dark skin, and no real security against Cessna's loaded with ammonia and diesel.
It's all a crock of shit.
The next terrorist attack against the USA isn't going to be done with a big ol' jet airplane. Too risky.
I'm sure that, were it not outright dangerous to speculate on terrorist tactics vis-a-vis getting one's ass nailed to the wall by the FBI under the new, draconian laws passed by a panicked Congress, you and I could come up with a dozen surprisingly effective attacks, none of which involve airliners, nor could they be prevented by any amount of security.
AOPA member eh? (Score:2)
Leave your plane alone? I'm staying the hell away from all of you...idiot kamakazes and clueless techno-spook wannabees and taking the train!
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:2)
The new security doors, for starters, are going to see to that.
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:5, Insightful)
There were 63 airline accidents resulting in fatalities in the years 1982 through 2000.
Compare that against the five bombings/suicides, and one thing is immediately obvious: reducing accidents by a mere 10% will have greater effect than eliminating terrorism.
Achieving the former is both possible and relatively cheap. Achieving the latter is impossible, and to even partially achieve the latter is terribly expensive.
Even more so, reducing automobile accidents by 1% would save more people than any amount of anti-terrorist measures.
Let's deal with reality: terrorism isn't much of a threat against American life and property when compared to things that we accept every damn day -- driving, smoking, eating Cheetos, and walking downstairs.
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:2)
When death and destruction is concentrated in one big horrific event (like 9/11), it registers as a huge blip on a lot of radar screens; it becomes threat #1 because it's so visible. But when death and destruction is spread out over space and time (like auto accidents, liver disease, or falling down stairs), its easy to miss because it's so diluted and hence your risk SEEMS so much less.
So, the cost justification for useless "anti-terror" tools is in order to calm the irrational human beast down enough for business to continue as usual. NOT providing the illusion of security is the real risk here.
--
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:2)
Also, what's the average number of people killed in a plane crash? 100? Here we have 4 planes with 3000 dead. 750 apiece. And if we only consider the WTCs, 1400 apiece. That's 14 of the accidental crashes rolled into one.
We can decrease deaths in a whole bunch of ways: outlaw tobacco; all cars older than 5 years go to the scrap heap (so you always have the latest and greatest safety devices); outlaw all guns (90% chance that if you die by gun, it's someone you know, not some random criminal); mandatory healthy diets and exercise for everyone. :)
It's possible for us to live more safely, but there's a limit to how safe I want to be. Airlines have an interest in making their planes safe. If that 10% improvement comes at the cost of doubling ticket prices, are you willing to pay that? The odds already seem pretty good to me. What about a further 10%? Double it again? Pretty soon only millionaires would be flying in super-safe planes. Although, if it was possible to make super-safe planes, why wouldn't the millionaires have them now? Maybe planes are already about as safe as we can make them.
Re:There is plenty of cost justification. (Score:2)
> Compare that against the five bombings/suicides, and one thing is immediately obvious: reducing accidents by a mere 10% will have greater effect than eliminating terrorism.
No. Eliminating 10% of the accidents would give you a bit over 6 fewer fatal accidents, which is more than the 5 suicide attacks. But how many of the fatal accidents destroyed large buildings full of people? How many of them killed hundreds of police officers and firefighters?
Auto accidents are another matter. Just think, if thousands of Americans got their fat butts out of their SUVs and on a bike occasionally, they'd be less likely to kill anyone, less likely to die of a heart attack, use less gas, and be fitter if they ever did have to help tackle a terrorist on an airplane.
Alone it might not be worth much... (Score:5, Interesting)
Been There - remember the "voice" lie detector? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, stress is a matter of the body, but a lie is a matter of the mind. They're correlated in many people, but by no means identical. Just think, do you know any smooth-talking liars (i.e. ones displaying minimal stress)?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Best Behavior (Score:2)
Apprecation of Ethical Considerations (Score:5, Funny)
Ask him about his appreciation of the ethical considerations with the machine switched on...
"erm..."
:)
What numbers would you prefer ? (Score:2)
So you don't like the S/N ratio implied. What numbers would make you happy ? 1 out 100 liars get away; 1 in 1000 innocents incorrectly accused ? Higher ? Because if you're looking for something with no Type I and II errors, you will be looking forever - ANY system you can imagine will ALWAYS falsely accuse innocents and miss the guilty.
Once a false positive, always a false positive? (Score:2)
crappy effacy never stopped urine testing (Score:2)
1 in 20 wee wee tests are either false positives or false negatives. So, if it's a false positive, they retest the sample with the more expensive gas chromotagraphy mass spectrometry to validate it. At least, they are supposed to.
Whoa there, calm down a second... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, with all the post-9/11 hysteria I guess I wouldn't be too surprised to see them try to implement something this ridiculous, but lets just keep in mind that they haven't decided to do that yet (of course, I do not advocate that we stop arguing).
too sublte (Score:2, Insightful)
Irony too suble for non-techies, so just imagine:
In Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, a medium sized european airport, there are 450.000 annual flights in and out. Say each plain carries about 250 passengers. An even 1m passengers in/out a year.
In Amsterdam alone we are going to point to 300 misidentified Lyars per DAY.
What do we do with them? Slap em on the wrist? Make em write "I shall not lie" 1000 times?
Gr
False positives (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless that person is you! Just think about it: With a plane with a 100 people on board, 10 will be incorrectly flagged as "liars", and what's worse, the person behind the desk who is going to decide whether or not to let you on board or have you put in front of a military tribunal and shot, will have no clue as to where to start. The only thing they have is that you blushed when asked a specific question. I bet you were just looking down her ..., you bastard! :-)
There is no way you can deal intelligently with all those false positives (contrary to a metall detector, where you can find out very fast exactly what caused the alarm).
Besides, take the scary option that they will actually record who were detected as liars, you'll get an incredible amount of data then to be cross-checked with a lot of other databases, and make a lot of people subject to criminal investigation wrongly.
Besides, I really doubt they will catch any terrorists this way. They only way you can achieve security against terrorists is to eliminate the desire to commit terror, and you can only do that by emphasizing human rights for everyone.
Re:False positives (Score:2)
If the spot checks are done on every tenth person, you have a 10% chance of checking a terrorist walking up. If you have a screening method that is 80% to pick out the terrorists, and will result in checking every tenth person then you have no increase in false positives, but a factor of eight increase in efficacy.
Public safety is not going to be founded on some amorphous public policy change. There is no conceivable change that would have appeased bin Laden. I don't see that the Unabomber or McVeigh would have been easily dissuaded by such things either. A free society is always going to piss someone off with the choices it makes. Rational, respectful, effective policing is essential to maintaining a free society, and as events of the past year demonstrated, essential to keeping a free society safe.
Re:False positives (Score:2)
Of course there are ways. Most basic way is to do a background check, which can be done quickly provided the infrastructure is in place and a quick baggage check.
I think you are overreacting about recorded liars etc etc... If they are lying about say, murder, then there's prolly good reason it is on their record in the first place as well as the fact that they are lying.
Besides, its not expectant of eliminating terrorist acts, just reducing them as technology for terrorism surpass the technology of airport security.
Seems fair, actually (Score:2)
So, compared to that, a 1 in 10 chance of false positive doesn't seem so bad...
Blushing (Score:2)
Maybe they were embarrassed.
Did you stab a mannequin?
Um . . . .
And did you then rob that mannequin?
Re:a sad state (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just a product of a paranoid society... in fact, I would go so far as to assert that your assessment is rather incorrect when speaking in generalities. Reality seems to suggest that the public's paranoia is directly linked to the intensity of the situation as portrayed by the news media. (The people are mostly "Amber Grain" and the media is the wind... and together, we get Amber waves of grain...)
The reality is that we live in an extremely LITIGIOUS society and if it can be shown that "they didn't do enough" to prevent this or that from happening, it makes one or several rich and happy widows/ers... not to mention rich and happy lawyers.
I believe that is where the ridiculous measures are coming from -- legal CYA activities, not paranoia or an interest in protecting public interest. Since WHEN has any corporate entity ever been interested in public good?
Re:how does this do anything? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. The causes for which a lie is detected are things like respiration and heart rate. These things wouldn't be affected by someone who isn't nervous about what they're saying.
Re:how does this do anything? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Small numbers ~= B.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunate baggage search (Score:2)