Slashdot Mirror


Lie Detectors to be Used for Airline Security

swimgeek writes "A new walk-through airport lie detector being made in Israel may prove to be the toughest challenge yet for potential hijackers or drugs smugglers. The product has been tested in Russia and should be commercialized soon. The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search."

20 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. toughest challenge by augustz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for innocent passengers as well, who, when faced with M-16 toting guys can't avoid an "uncontrollable tremor" in their voice.

    No mention of the false positive rate on this. If just 1 in a million passenger is a terrorist, and given the number of passenger flights per year without bombings on US planes it has got to be way up there, the false positive rate it going to need to be way WAY down there.

    1. Re:toughest challenge by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hardly care how high the false positive rate is, as long as the false negative rate is sufficiently low.

      Let them falsely pull out 10 people on a hundred person flight for an extensive search. Great. Just as long as they don't miss the one guy on one flight in ten thousand with the bomb in his backpack.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:toughest challenge by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The system should be tuned on the side of caution.

      TFA: "...12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide."

      This means that, if one in every 1 million passengers is a real terrorist, then there will be 120,000 false positives for every single terrorist. This makes for a useless system. If you're an airport worker and you've just seen your 100,000th false positive, what's the likelihood that you're going to trust the system anymore? Answer: You're not. Long before that point, you will have started waving everyone through. Even if only 0.1 percent of people fail the test, that's still 1000 false positives per terrorist, and it's too much.

      This system is a waste of money and passenger time.

      --
      ...just my 2 gil.
  2. There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A "Lie Detector" is a fantasy. Machines can detect physiological clues to nervousness, and that's it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames> Aldrich Ames passed his polygraph exams for years, while he was getting every US agent in Russia killed.

    Depending on fantasies like "lie detectors" distracts law enforcement from practicing solid investigation.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. Spasmodic Dysphonia by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful


    The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search.

    Sounds like sufferers of spasmodic dysphonia, such as NPR's Diane Rehm are going to have a hell of a time at airports in the near future...

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  4. It's a fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Voice analyzers and polygraphs (the so-called "lie detector") are frauds. They have both been scientifically proven again and again to be unreliable, with lots of false positives and false negatives, which is why they aren't admissible in court.

    The only value to either technology is to scare and threaten. If the person being questioned believes that they work, they are less likely to lie or more likely to admit a lie.

    Aldrich Ames, a mole in the CIA, passed a polygraph many, many times, as did lots of others.

    Since voice analyzers and polygraph examiners make a shitload of money, and they compete with each other, they are great for pointing out the flaws in each other's devices since the other technology threatens their gravy train.

    It's fraud, plain and simple. Flip a coin instead. It's more likely to be accurate than a voice analyzer or polygraph.

  5. Re:Oh goodie by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced"

    You do know that it's basically impossible for that to every happen again, right?

    No-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane. And, no-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane armed with tools no more dangerous than a ballpoint pen.

  6. Re:Oh goodie by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, they could simply secure the cockpit. You can't bring down buildings with boxcutters unless your enemy is willing to cooperate by giving you easy access to a guided missile.

  7. Re:Oh goodie by RandomJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you *really* think all the crap going on in airports is doing any good?!

    Little if any of it is really making a plane flight any safer than it was before. There are still people getting on planes with things they aren't supposed to. And so what if someone gets on with a box cutter? Now that the pilots are required to stay locked in the cockpit, all that person could do is injure/kill some passengers. And I doubt he'd get far at that, once other passengers figured out what was up.

    And then we have some really bullshit rules. Grandma can't take her knitting needles along, but I can carry all the pens and pencils I want. Yeah, this really makes sense...

    I wouldn't complain if I was just "inconvenienced". But when I have to show up HOURS ahead of my scheduled flight just to get to the terminal, when - after I've made it to the terminal early to insure an early seat selection (yeah, I usually fly Southwest) - I stand a chance of being dragged out of line for some TSA goon to paw through my carryons, when it's actually just about as fast for me to drive 500 miles as it is to fly to the same destination?!?

    That is FAR from "inconvenienced". I don't know how you manage to get through in only 10-15 minutes more. I've never had that sort of experience.

    I'm tired of the way we - the citizens and paying customers - are both treated as helpless waifs that can't fend for ourselves and simultaneously presumed guilty of some heinous act. That's why last summer when I headed off to visit relatives halfway across the country and on into Canada I drove the whole way. I didn't have to speak to a single "person of authority" the whole way, except for 30 seconds at the border crossing. (Not to mention, I would have paid MORE - about double! - for the priviledge of being abused by the TSA goons!)

  8. "Something to hide" by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So how many people will get searched as terrorists because their voice is shaky because they're cheating on their wife, didn't tell their parents they were going to costa rica with their friends, or told their employer they were going to a family reunion? Not everyone with "something to hide" is a lawbreaker.

    1. Re:"Something to hide" by afaik_ianal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not everyone with something to hide is a law breaker, however they're not talking about using this to convict people of crimes (nor to question people about their extramarital affairs) - they only want to use it to help determine who they should check more closely.

      I am sure I would set such a machine off every time I walk through a security gate - I'm just a generally nervous person. Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security, reduces the cost effectiveness of security, and makes it quicker for the average person to get where they're going.

      I'd also expect that this would be introduced as one of many methods for deciding who to check. I'd be more worried if they were planning on putting all their faith in this system, and waving "confident-looking" people with complicated one-way itineraries paid with cash straight through.

    2. Re:"Something to hide" by Sarisar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK so about 18 months ago I lost my job outsourced to India and I went travelling. Had a ticked UK -> Oz stopping off in the US. I had a flight in to the east coast of US, flight out from west coast and I was making my own way across by planes trains and automobiles. I got stopped EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT for extra security checks, and I got talking to various TSA guys and one of them said basically because I was a single guy flying one way it was causing the extra checks. It seems stupid, if you want to cause problems just buy a return ticket and travel together and you will probably be OK through security.

      I was also talking to an American on one of these flights, and he was saying that, for a bit of a laugh he decided to start muttering in Arabic loudly, to no-one in particular. No-one said anything at all. He asked one of the TSA guys if he could get a job here as he spoke fluent Arabic (was stationed there during the war or something) and the TSA guy replied that he thought this guy would be profiling which is illegal.

      Of course picking on single guys travelling one way could be construed as profiling?

      And yes I always get nervous going through security - am I going to the right gate - is my plane going to be on time (connections suck), will people be there when I get there. In fact I have a couple of flights next week so that could be fun (yes going to the US again). Rules have changed again apparently, I must provide the address of where I will be on the first night in the UK so the US security have time to check it out before I land so they can reject me instantly if they don't like it (the GF will be pissed if they do - she's the one I'm going to see!)

    3. Re:"Something to hide" by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security

      I've heard way too much of this attitude. The USA founders defended personal liberty, but the average USA sheeple just assumes that if someone tells them "it's for a good cause: security," they feel all warm inside and let everyone get herded. Stand up for your rights, tell your congressfolk that the government doesn't need more powers, or just fuck off, please.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    4. Re:"Something to hide" by arodland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether it's justifiable to curtail freedom for the purpose of safety isn't even the right argument, though, because that's not what they're doing. They're curtailing freedom for the appearance of safety, dedicating their time and money (or rather, your money if you live or work here) towards measures that are highly visible, highly intrusive -- and fundamentally useless.

    5. Re:"Something to hide" by japa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security

      There's always a chance that terrorists smuggle tweapons in their rectums. That's why people should be randomly taken to rectal search. I'm sure you wouldn't care, it's for good cause and you have nothing to hide in your ass.

  9. Re:Oh goodie by bnenning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "yeah that was horrible... but that's the PAST!! It'll never happen again! It can't happen again! We're smarter now!!"

    Um, yeah, pretty much. Sure, you can come up with some Clancy-esque plot where the terrorists sneak nerve gas aboard and kill or incapacitate everyone on board, but knives, boxcutters, and even handguns won't do it now that passengers and crew know they have to fight to the death.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  10. Not happening by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly.

    It's not ever going to happen again in any of our lifetimes. The terrorists burned that plan from ever working again because the pilots and people on the plane know that they're dead either way, so there's no reason not to resist. If they have a bomb, no difference. Dead when the bomb goes off or when the airliner hits whatever they're aiming at. No one on the plane has anything to lose. You can't control people with nothing to lose.

    The 10-15 minutes multiplied by the millions of people who fly each day, the money for all the extra security...it's all meaningless. We're wasting millions of man-hours and millions of dollars to try and stop something that's not ever going to happen until a new generation comes along with "don't resist" drilled into their heads so a hundred of them just sit there like sheep and let five guys drive them into a wall.

    But you can bet the terrorists know the things we're missing. That's where the next one will come from. Somewhere we're not expecting. And Condi Rice will be on TV going, "Who could have guessed they would use..." whatever it was. A little success for them goes a long way. We'll tie ourselves in knots and exhaust our treasury fighting phantoms. We'll over-react, like usual, and end up making more enemies than we started with while expending billions to little or no effect in the process.

    All because of people like you.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  11. I tremble at the thought.... by bziman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Although I would really hate to see what would happen if the US tried to institute a *real* airport security system like the Israelis have, rather than the "security theatre" that we have, I found it very impressive.

    The only worse thing I can imagine than the farse that is American airport security, is the possibility that some day they might actually successfully implement true security. I thought society was taking a step forward since you no longer need papers to travel inside Russia, or passports to go between France and Germany. I dread travelling now, because it offends me to have to take off my shoes and belt at the airport to maintain the illusion of security. But how much worse would it be when they confiscate my laptop because I could make an explosive from the battery in about three seconds? Or when I'm detained indefinitely because I'm a 20-something travelling alone, and I happen to be carrying a Quoran for some leisure reading.

    In my life, terror doesn't come from desperate fundamentalists. Terror is the government trying to control every aspect of the way I live and the way I think. I can only hope that it's not too late to undo the damage. Vote while you still can! And pray, if you're into that sort of thing.

  12. The net tightens... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The net tightens ...

    I hope people keep in mind that terrorism kills fewer people than traffic accidents, lifestyle diseases, or regular crime (one of these alone suffices).

    The way I see it, many of the prevention measures that have been taken only increase the effect that terrorism has on American society.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  13. How stupid by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a stupid concept, for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, this kind of thing is based on the assumption that even a 'bad guy' will somehow feel bad about what their are about to do, and there will feel under emotional stress. Two of the most dangerous kinds of persons, psychopaths and suicide terrorists, are not likely to to fall into this category. Psychopaths don't care, simply, they will lie or contemplate atrocities like normal people would think about buying a bottle of milk. And a person who has decided to die has overcome the fear; it is a wellknown phenomenon that a person who wants to commit suicide often enters a phase of perfect calm and contentment when the decision has been made.

    Secondly, as others point out, a lot of people feel very bad about small transgressions. I remember one lady who felt very nervous because she had bought 1 small bottle of alcohol over the limit and was afraid to get caught. So are we now going to catch all those who are under a bit of strain, but let through the really dangerous ones?

    Thridly, wouldn't it perfectly possible to subvert the equipment - perhaps simply by eating Valium or similar?