Slashdot Mirror
The Eyes Have It
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?
Can liars really be detected by thermal imaging? I think they're lying.
A solution to the problem with music today
I would like to point out that while Aldritch Ames was in the process of getting a whole lot of US agents in the Soviet Union killed by ratting them out, he continued to pass his polygraph tests.
There's no such thing as a lie detector. Polygraphs are voodoo, and so is this.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Look into the lens, now please tell me in single words only the good things that come to mind about your mother...
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Considering the absolutley abysimal record of the polygraph in controlled testing (references are extensive) this is just something else we don't need. Relying on an "automatic" system is just asking for more "false faith" in a security system that doesn't work.
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.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
clear sign of a highly paranoid society.
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?
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.
It's time for a new Continental Congress.
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!
Goat sex free since 2001
Yes, they will... but how?
and...
This comment has been a knee-jerk reaction. We now return you to your normal thread.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
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.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
There has to be serious compensation when the test fails. That is, when I go to the airport and I fail whatever "test" they give me and I'm "detained" for a few days, I want some serious cash as a result. Let's say $100,000 or more. That'll make Big Brother think twice about testing me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Folks, let's calm down here before we get too rational. This method is only a "field test." What makes us think we will be prosecuted based on a blush? There would be further interrogation, testing, and harrassment (if it even goes that far) before charges were brought up on anyone using this method.
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).
void women (int money, time_t time);
1: Line planes with bacon, or, more humanely, put wilber the famous flying pig in the terrorist-class section of the plane. (Which raises an interesting, if tacky, question.. Since they won't be using those frequent flyer miles anywhere else.. do terrorists fly first class?]
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.
Polygraphs are considered about 75% accurate, which sounds good until you consider that flipping a coin is 50% accurate.
...)
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.
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.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
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.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, I don't know exactly how well some of these would work, but I figure if I can come up with more than 5 ideas off the top of my head in a few minutes, then how hard would it be for anyone seriously bent on beating this system to find and perfect a way of doing so?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here are real stats.
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, 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).
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
But combine it with microexpression detection and voice stress analysis (Which your financial institution may already use) and you might just have a winner.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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)
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
From the UPI article, the inventor has a good appreciation of the ethical considerations.
Ask him about his appreciation of the ethical considerations with the machine switched on...
"erm..."
:)
Oh - and a further note:
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.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid