Homeland Security Department Testing "Pre-Crime" Detector

holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports that the Department of Homeland Security recently tested something called Future Attribute Screening Technologies (FAST) — a battery of sensors that determine whether someone is a security threat from a distance. Sensors look at facial expressions, body heat and can measure pulse and breathing rate from a distance. In trials using 140 volunteers those told to act suspicious were detected with 'about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception,' says a DHS spokesman."

Designing the ad

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm a terrorist, and I've been made into a stereotype.

Facial experessions?

[AioKits]

In other news today, Homeland Security has detained the entire Chili Cook-off Carnival event after their new FAST software registered positive hits on EVERYTHING there, including some domesticated animals and a squirrel with three legs.

Minority Report

[Swampcritter]

I think someone has been watching the Minority Report just a bit too closely. I can just see it now... the 'Pre-Crime' Division of the DHS.

Government screws private sector again.

[bigtallmofo]

I was just about to finish up my patent application for a device that could accurately detect a human pretending to be a monkey 80% of the time when a human test subject is asked in advance to pretend to be a monkey.

Why do I even bother?

Re:Additional Locations

[antifoidulus]

Can the sensors even handle that much mal-intent and deception?

That's brilliant!

[Minwee]

All you need to do now is post signs reminding any potential evil-doers to "act suspicious" and the system will work perfectly.

I'm all for it!

[JamesP]

If it helps nailing Tom Cruise

Re:sensors...

[nedlohs]

It can't be sued for being racist...

Re:Designing the ad

[Ethanol-fueled]

...and people who look like this [photobucket.com], too.

Re:Not even close

[pizzach]

In other words, 22% of the time it is wrong. Saying it's right 78% of the time is pure and simple market speak.

The interesting thing about this is if people started to intrinsically act suspicious, the numbers become fudged and mostly meaningless. One way this could be accomplished is by standing around handing out complimentary eye patches, telling people it is act like a pirate day.

Re:sensors...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It can randomly spurt out false positives, subjecting people to random stops and questioning. It can still miss the real terrorists who are doing their damnedest to look normal and unthreatening.

Sheesh! I've never seen a bunch of geeks so opposed to developing an immature technology before! Perhaps a toning down of the pessimism would be in order, and perhaps we may see some improvements in our understanding of human behaviour, and the programs built to understand it.

Re:sensors...

[Anonymous Coward]

When shown a picture of Dick Cheney, the detector started spinning in circles, waving its cables haplessly while emitting blasts of "WARNING! WARNING! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!!!" and reduced itself to a molten clump of plastic and fused metal.

Re:Err

[gsslay]

Does this sound idiotic to anyone else?

Yes indeed it does.

Testing on my new device starts tomorrow. It has a remarkable 98% accuracy in identifying people told to dress completely in purple and sing "I Love You, You Love Me". Even at a distance. As long as the terrorists play along (and who wouldn't?) we'll win this war on terror any time soon. And even if they don't, think of all the Barney impersonators we'll get off the streets. It's an everybody-wins scenario.

Re:My first thought, too...

[HTH NE1]

All we've got is a device which can spot normal people trying to be visibly "suspicious".

Doc Brown: Get yourself some fifties clothes.
Marty McFly: Check, Doc.
Doc Brown: Something inconspicuous!

Re:Suspcious People?

[camperdave]

Baclava is a pastry. I'd be suspicios if somone were wearing it. I would suspect that they are a really messy eater.

Re:"Told to act suspicious"?

[HTH NE1]

Wouldn't "suspicious" also be highly subjective? Many times that's more reflective on the prejudices of the observer. So let's take a programmer who's been up all night trying to solve a problem. He's disheveled, unshaven, and probably unkempt. He's deep in thought and in his own world. He starts talking to himself about the problem. Is he suspicious?

Is he sitting on a park bench? Snot running down his nose, greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes?

Re:Suspcious People?

[oldspewey]

What about people wearing Baclava or some other sort of head covering?

Well let's be completely honest here, anybody wearing a delicious Greek pastry [wikipedia.org] on their head while trying to fly under the radar has already blown it in a big way.

As far as other head coverings [hatsofmeat.com] go, I still think you want to stick with the ones that aren't food-related ... you know, the idea is to blend in.

Re:sensors...

[Lord Apathy]

because they're usually bug-eyed, sweating, twitching, and frequently high

Based on that alone they would be catching a lot of nerds out on the first date too.

Re:sensors...

[Bandman]

Fair warning, you should go trademark the phrase "magical terrorist detector" before I do.

Re:sensors...

[interstellar_donkey]

Unfortunately, sarcastic bitching is not the solution.

No, but it does make it a little easier to handle as the problem gets worse.

Re:sensors...

[interstellar_donkey]

Great. So now every time I return from a business trip to Thailand where I had relations with young men of questionable age, and I call my wife from the customs line the machine will catch my guilty face and my increased heart rate from trying to pass a lie off to her. And I'll be stuck in the airport for a good six hours under arrest.

Welp, those "Business Trips" to Thailand are over.

Re:sensors...

[clone53421]

I'll give that a shot...

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) security-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting terrorism. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Terrorists can easily play the system to go unnoticed
( ) Too many legitimate travellers would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will terrorism for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Travellers will not put up with it
( ) Airlines will not put up with it
( ) The FBI will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from terrorists
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many airlines cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential customers
( ) Terrorists don't care about collateral damage
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for travel
( ) Airlines in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching body cavities
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing investment in hardware
( ) Susceptibility of means other than air travel to attack
( ) Willingness of travellers to comply with terrorist demands when faced with hostage situations
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of terrorism
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with terrorists
( ) Dishonesty on the part of terrorists themselves
( ) Operating costs that are unaffected by airplane loading
( ) Osama bin Laden

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Toothpaste should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about bombs without being detained
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Your first bag should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your henchmen?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time visas are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:sensors...

[amRadioHed]

Many in New England are permanently in a state of anger.

Seriously? Have you ever been to New England, or do you just read too much Steven King?

Re:As a Marine

[sveard]

Uhm, he could have been serving coffee for senior officers his entire tour of duty, what do you know...

Or does assisting "murderers" make one a murderer as well? By that definition I think all of us are murderers.

Re:Err

[Dahamma]

Especially since their suggestion for acting suspicious was to wear a top hat, fake moustache, and black cape.

Re:sensors... All they need now is a timeship

[Idiomatick]

Wth kinda of teenagers STEAL a dead elk from a bunch of guys with guns no less. I mean an elk weighs what 800lbs? These are some well prepared kids if they can run off with fresh kills like that, were they waiting in the woods in camo or something?
 
(aside from that i totally agree)

Re:sensors... All they need now is a timeship

[russotto]

Wth kinda of teenagers STEAL a dead elk from a bunch of guys with guns no less. I mean an elk weighs what 800lbs?

Teenaged GRIZZLY BEARS.