Slashdot Mirror


Dogs Trained to Sniff Out Piracy

RockDoctor writes "Northern Ireland has for decades been using sniffer dogs to detect bombs and bomb-making materials. According to the BBC, a dog trainer in the Province has trained two dogs to sniff out some of the chemicals used in the manufacture of optical discs. While this has an obvious risk of false positives (polycarbonate plastics and their associated plasticizer additives are used in many other industries, for example), it does seem to be effective at locating discs which are not declared in customs manifests, and doing so much faster than human inspection of the cargo can do."

31 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Workaround by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fly with your external hdd to transport your piracy overseas.

    1. Re:Workaround by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So how long until they start forcing you to (re)format the "empty" drive?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Workaround by Jozer99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My dog can already sniff out Body Odor, Ramen noodles and Hotpockets, the three indicators of major piracy (and WoW) and I haven't even trained her! How is this a big deal!?!

  2. Dog substance addiction by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, at least the dogs should not get addicted to plastics, like the drug sniffing dogs...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Dog substance addiction by LibertarianWackJob · · Score: 3, Funny

      You knew the job (reading /.) was dangerous when you took it.

      --
      What? ®
    2. Re:Dog substance addiction by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Drug sniffing dogs are addicted to plastic?

      The credit card industry is really making irresponsible loans these days. There's no way these dogs make enough money to cover all the treats they'll buy if they're given half a chance preapproved with a 0% teaser rate.

    3. Re:Dog substance addiction by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, at least the dogs should not get addicted to plastics, like the drug sniffing dogs...

      I know you're joking, but this comment is also in response to the "Won't dogs get cancer sniffing chemicals?" question. The dogs take in the same amount of particles no matter what they trained to detect. Imagine them like a vacuum cleaner that picks up every scent that every bag gives off. They are trained to notice certain smells, but they inhale everything equally. Bomb sniffing dogs were inhaling drugs long before they were trained to detect them, and both drug and bomb dogs have been inhaling these chemicals since they were put in action.

      So are veterinarians on Slashdot able to answer this? In general, do airport dogs, or any other group of law enforcement trained scent finding dogs, tend to get different sicknesses than the general population of dogs of the same breed? I would think that state and municipal dogs tend to get more variety in their environment. Howerver, dogs assigned to railroad and airport security details tend to breath air from the same mostly closed system day in and day out. If they tend to get lung cancer or other diseases, it might indicate airports and train stations are not healthy places to work either.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    4. Re:Dog substance addiction by rts008 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAV (I Am Not A Veterinarian), but AM a certified, licensed Veterinary Technician (think RN for critters).

      I have never seen any research or data on this question you bring up. Usually, something this far from "Mainstream Public Awareness" never gets studied unless someone with vested interest in the specific topic is interested in pursuing the subject, and has enough influence to make it happen.

      (Disclaimer: my awareness of research is NOT all encompassing!!!)

      The answers you are looking for have probably not been addressed, if they have been- not public knowledge. It may have been addressed by the Humane Society, or the SPCA, but if so, has remained fairly quiet.

      Hate to say it, but even tho' "man's best friend" is man's best friend, the dog is still considered a domesticated beast to serve us; Thus only to be considered on a "how useful to us" basis.

      My experience with K-9's (Police Dogs and US Military MP's) suggest several things:

      1. The handlers/partners usually have the dogs as family pets in addition to being their work partner. This may limit overall what the dogs get exposed to compared to all human teams doing the same job.

      2. The dogs have REALLY sensitive olofactory organs- if it's too "strong", they will keep their distance and "point" to indicate a detection or hit.

      3.Uhmm... they're not immune to "specialized training":(http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid =185460&cid=15305486)

      4. A lot of this has been covered here:(http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05 /10/2331237&from=rss)

      5. Mostly, if it's not considered hazardous for the human handlers, then it's not considered hazardous for the "k-9"'s on the same duty.

      I doubt that the issues you are adressing have been fully thought about...I commend you, and feel slightly ashamed that I have not thought about this.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:Dog substance addiction by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The dogs take in the same amount of particles no matter what they trained to detect. Imagine them like a vacuum cleaner that picks up every scent that every bag gives off.

      That only makes sense if the atmosphere has a uniform distribution of every kind of particle. Clearly this is not true. If the distribution is uniform then the dogs would have no differential to determine direction with.

      Drug dogs are trained to seek out areas with higher concentrations of drugs. How else do you think they are able to determine direction and location?

      Try walking around your neighborhood around dinner time. You eventually start to smell a good steak being grilled (or maybe a stir-fry, bread, or whatever). Walk around, turning your head from side to side and just using your nose, you'll be able to figure out what house that smell is coming from. You'll only be able to do this because there is not a uniform distribution of steak-grilling-smell in your neighborhood.

      Now imagine your house has a couple dead fish in it. Your entire house reeks of the smell. Because your house is closed and the fish have been there a while, you might have a fairly uniform distribution. Likewise, you would have a difficult time finding the dead fish with just your sense of smell. Nearly every place in your house smells equally bad.

      Is there a chance that dogs could get addicted or cancer from their activities? Maybe. As they zero in on their targets (in real life and in training), they're going to be inhaling air with higher concentrations of the particles than the atmosphere in general. So they're getting more particles than they normally would.

      The question is - do such substances emit ENOUGH particles to pose a health risk? Or do the substances need to be consumed?

  3. But.. but... by mangu · · Score: 2, Funny

    What if the dog gets interested in the content of the disk?

    1. Re:But.. but... by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 5, Funny

      But as long as its a male dog (if you're female) or a female dog (if you're male) then it's not as sick as man on man sex.
      Rick Santorum! I didn't know you posted on slashdot! Welcome! How is life as an ex-Senator?
      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
  4. Slippery slope by deft · · Score: 2, Funny

    First they do this... and then they train the dogs to sniff out the actual pirates.

    Once these dogs have the secent of basement dwelling teenager with poor hygiene... it's all over.

    RIAA is probably training them now. What exactly is the scent of p2p?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:Slippery slope by MadUndergrad · · Score: 5, Funny

      What exactly is the scent of p2p?

      Rum.

  5. animals are much more intelligent that we credit by straponego · · Score: 5, Funny
    We're constantly learning that animals can accomplish feats we've been too arrogant to suspect them of: reasoning, memory, abstract concepts, tool use, eleven dimensional bee dances... and now, these dogs can determine, through scent alone, whether bits are pirated or legitimately owned.

    Incredible.

  6. Of course it does! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Funny

    The sniffer dog is trained by a trainer who eats fast food which is served by a waitress who has a boyfriend with a computer connected to the internet.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  7. Argh, ye matey, and yer poochie too! by Zarf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arr, thar be no pirates aboard me ship. She be yar and she be true as spit shine as all me laddies. Ye nay be needin' th' poochie here cap'n. Wha? Why tha' be chemicals fer me special scurvy cream. I swar I ne'er heard o' no Day-vee-day piratein' They be like gold bar? Arr! L'emme go ye scalliwags! Ye, canna keel haul a-man fer youst ha'in chemicals fer the scurvy! I swar ser it's medicinal! Don' let 'em lock me in thar brig! I did'na heard no Day-vee-day pirates! Dis is per-poster-mos!

    Poor Long Burn Silver Disc we never saw him again.

    --
    [signature]
  8. Re:animals are much more intelligent that we credi by tehSpork · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least it's better than the magic 8 ball method the RIAA seems to have been using. :)

  9. Who needs dogs to sniff out pirates? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    The filthy beggars ne'er get a wash. A man can sniff 'em out himself at thirty fathoms!

  10. Wouldn't it be easier ...... by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Funny

    to train them to sniff out films and music that smell bad? A single copy of The Wickerman remake can be smelled by a human with a head cold at a hundred yards. A good bloodhound should be able to sniff out a box of them from the next county.

  11. Priorities? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More money and effort is going toward finding copied disks than in finding Bin Laden? I thought sniff-dogs were in short supply after 9/11? What gives? Big corps have way too much power of late.

    1. Re:Priorities? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, where do you suppose they get it from? Government? And where do they get theirs from?

      Corp. campaign donations. Voters don't have the granularity to pick and choose individual issues, so politicians favor corps to get money and accept the risk of looking like a corporate kisser and even hide it by emphasizing issues such as abortion and gays. This is what has happened.

  12. Re:Who would have though? by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is probably to catch 'round tripping' tax avoidance. This technique was accidentally discovered by Sir Richard Branson when he started Virgin Media. Basically what he did, was to export discs to France with faulty paperwork or something, have it refused entry, then he turned around and drove back to Britain. Since the stuff was officially exported, he somehow scored on the VAT when he subsequently sold them in his UK shops. Eventually he got caught though, once he got too brazen about it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  13. "obvious risk of false positives" = Mrs. Lincoln by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As in, "aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

    When are people going to figure out that a "false positive" is not a nuisance, it's a death blow to any proposed technology--unless the risk of false positives is orders of magnitude lower than the actual frequency of the rare event being detected?

    Doesn't anyone ever read Æsop's fable about the boy who cried wolf?

    Polycarbonate plastic is just the generic name for Lexan®, and if you follow that link you'll notice that GE mentions many uses besides DVD's: automotive lenses, "blow molding," eyewear, water bottles, structural foam, etc. The example they show in the picture is a cell phone. I believe the original iMacs (the CRT-based ones) had Lexan housings. The company I work for uses Lexan strips to protect a surface where thin metal plates slide over and would otherwise scrap a painted shelf. The stuff is used everywhere.

    After customs inspectors have wasted two or three days opening crates of various products with tough molded Lexan housings, they'll forget the whole silly business.

  14. This isn't new news by Frenchman113 · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/10/23 31237 shows that the MPAA has tried this before. Altogether, I can't say this is a very smart idea. Additionally, it would be remarkably easy to DDOS by adding fragments of DVDs to every package you ship. Lastly, how many of us have our warez shipped to us? As people wisely noticed before, this is a ridiculous invasion of privacy and all the more reason to hate the MPAA and to download movies instead of buying them.

  15. Re:Obligatory post by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    YRO is overused as a class, but there is something to rights arguements about trained dogs, etc. that whole pesky "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" clause in the U. S. Constitution implies that some searches are more reasonable than others. Dogs provide an extension of search capabilities. So do X-Ray scans, cavity searches, DNA tests, retasking military grade spy sats to look for pot plantations, or compulsory urine testing. Dogs at customs are generally considered a reasonable search tool for the kinds of things customs has to detect.
                BUT, customs is generally charged with detecting some very odd things, such as livestock or pets that are not normally illegal to own, but are illegal to import, and with detecting drugs. Checking for bootleg CDs has certain implications that can't be avoided in this context. First, the society is assuming that catching this particular form of copyright violation is roughly on a par with catching heroin smuggling. That's pretty damned strongly implied if we put similar amounts of money into training dogs for both (and if anything, it's cheaper to train a dog to detect several related opiates and other drugs than it is one plasticiser*). Second, discovering CDs proves nothing, unless the humans associated with the dogs can make a proper determination that the CDs aren't legal ones. That implies we (as a society) are devoting resources to training the human customs agents in telling bootleg CDs from legitimate ones, AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THEIR TRAINING IN DETECTING INCOMING TERRORISTS WITH WMDS!

    * I've actually helped local law enforcement train drug and explosive sniffing dogs. It's difficult fun to try and outwit a well trained sniffer dog, and I have no doubts at all they can be trained to accurately find polycarbonate plasticizers, but I really, seriously doubt it's as easy as training them for much more aromatic explosive nitrate compounds, and that is weeks or months of work. Typical training involves taking the dogs to an unfamiliar location, which means setting aside a national guard armory, old courthouse or other state owned building, often for several days, and having about 20 people previously unknown to the dogs available to plant the 'evidence'. You can't use just one or two people over and over or the dog starts using their scent markers to shortcut training. Instead you have to have several people take turns, hand off packages to each other, and otherwise mix things up so the dog trains properly on the chemical desired. That can be 20 people on a payroll all day even if they are going to actually do only 15 minutes work each, and this is far from cheap.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  16. Re:"obvious risk of false positives" = Mrs. Lincol by zmollusc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wrong. We are talking about government. If this turns out to be a huge waste of resources, more taxes will be levied in order to expand the operation into a gigantic waste of resources.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  17. Fedex Used the Dogs by gradster79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember a year or so ago FedEx allowed the MPAA to use these dogs on some of the packages they were shipping. Ever since then I started using UPS. I don't buy or send pirated disks, but if FedEx is going to sell out to those folks I figure I'll just go brown.

  18. Security Theater by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These trained dogs, unless deployed for a limited time in a specific area, are there for little more than show. Although they can be trained to sniff out almost anything, they aren't robots. The dogs treat it as a game, but they need frequent breaks or they'll quickly tire of it. You can't just march a dog for 8 hours around the airport and expect him to magically find any contraband that finds its way into the building. They may be the best choice in a situation such as a building collapse, where they need to find bodies in an area of a few thousand square feet, but to expect that even hundreds of these dogs will be able to sniff the millions of cargo containers that come into this country every year is laughable. Besides, since it's perfectly legal to ship blank media, anyone in the bootlegging business will just declare the cargo and it will get lost among the false positives of all the other blank DVDs that come in from overseas. But I guess that trained pooches do make for good press releases, letting everyone know that something is being done about this horrible scourge of bit copying.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  19. There goes our tax money by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....and the Govt, keeps worrying about raising taxes to built a public transport system, etc.
    We should have a way to selectively pay taxes to support initiatives we like, and MPAA initiatives like these should come out of Warner, and not me.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  20. Re:IANASD by nomadic · · Score: 2

    ANASD (I am not a sniffer dog)

    Isn't it kind of pointless to explain extremely common acronyms like that?

  21. You don't understand Customs by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that whole pesky "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" clause in the U. S. Constitution implies that some searches are more reasonable than others.
    Yes, Customs needs to have reasonable suspicion to search you, but not to search your stuff.

    Customs has the right to inspect everything that comes through the borders, with limits (reasonable suspicion) only on people.

    There is no such thing as "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" when it comes to cargo, packages, mail, or 'things that are not people'.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!