Software to Randomize Police Operations at LAX

owlgorithm writes "A USC research group has created software, named ARMOR (Assistant for Randomized Monitoring over Routes), that will be used at LAX Airport to make security and police operations there truly unpredictable. The software records the locations of routine, random vehicle checkpoints and canine searches at the airport, and police provide data on possible terrorist targets, based in part on recent security breaches or suspicious activity. The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when. The most notable detail is that terrorists who had access to ARMOR still wouldn't be able to predict the searches."

Comments

It's working so well

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

Re:It's working so well

[flaming error]

> calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks

To get good statistics I think you need a statistically significant sample size. And at LAX I believe the entire data set of terrorist activity is some fellow who went berzerk one fourth of July. Perhaps they are using all airport-related terrorist attacks across the USA, which would include I believe the above berzerker, four related incidents on 9/11, and an MIT student with a homemade name badge full of blinkenlights.

Re:It's working so well

[MrNaz]

More to the point:

"The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when."

Does that mean that, given that the US's rate of deaths from acts of terrorism is so low as to be negligible, it will tell police to dispatch to the Whitehouse?

I can see it now, the presidential motorcade gets pulled over by airport security "Sorry sir, please step out of the vehicle, the computer has flagged you as being a person of interest in the global war on terror."

Re:It's working so well

[Antique Geekmeister]

LAPD is notorious for violent and abusive behavior. For those of us old enough to remember, officer Frank Serpico (of movie fame) exposed their corruption in the 70's and was gunned down by officers for it. They actually had officers convicted of being hitman, such as Richord Ford and Robert von Villas, although that was in the 80's. In the 1990's, we have this variety of killings by and and convictions of LAPD members: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/scandal/cron.html.

I don't see how randomizing their patrols will help such a historically corrupt department much, unless it helps prevent them from taking bribes from smugglers with regular routes. *THAT* might actually be a benefit of such a scheme, although it's not difficult to beat if you learn to understand the 'randomization' system.

Re:It's working so well

[MadMidnightBomber]

No, it's true. LAX is so crap than 9 out of 10 terrorists prefer to transit SFO instead.

Wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks)"

So it's not really random... A pattern must come out after a while.

Re:Wait!

[davetd02]

So it's not really random... A pattern must come out after a while.

Not at all. A "pattern" that's useful to a criminal would be knowing that there's always a checkpoint on Lane 1 on Mondays, or that they always check Lane 4, then Lane 2, then Lane 1, then Lane 3.

Using the probabilities means that at any given moment there's a 20% chance they'll be checking Lane 1 and a 30% chance they'll be checking Lane 2, but it doesn't tell you whether you should try to smuggle contraband through 1 or 2.

It's basically ideal game theory -- even if the other side knows what your algorithm is, they can't beat it since you're still playing randomly. The usual Computer Science example is a tennis player; you know there's a 60% chance that your opponent will hit it to your backhand and a 40% chance that they'll hit it to your forehand, but there's a limit to how far you can compensate either direction. Knowing the probability in that case doesn't tell you which side the ball is going to go to. (The real example is somewhat more convoluted, but you get the 10-second version)

Re:Wait!

[cheater512]

Thats assuming that the humans obey the program.

People like routines and dont like random changes.

Re:Wait!

[ralewi1]

This article is about game theory. The professor behind the program is an AI expert, who should be up on game theory and risk analysis. In any case, there are instances where, in games, generating actions using random distributions can result in a better expected outcome than what may appear common sensical. If you do a risk analysis of a public place, such as an airport, you get events that are rare and extremely damaging (eg 9/11 attacks) and things that are more common but less lethal (eg. pipe bombs). You have fixed resources to protect against any of a number of high level threats... pick those with the most risk and make it hard for the bad guy to find a clear opening to cause harm. From the article, it sounds like the software helps ensure security forces truly act in a random manner and avoid routine.

Re:Wait!

[archeopterix]

But it does tell you that your most optimal move is to expect them to hit it to your backhand. It'll tell the terrorists that Lane 1 is the best one to attempt to get through, statistically.

The 'best choice' paradox is the exact reason for intruduction of randomization. It goes like this: suppose that lanes have different payoffs for the successful smuggler - maybe because they go to (or from) countries that have different street prices of 'goods'.

The smuggler knows that Lane 1 gives the best payoff, so he will try that one, but the customs people also know that, so they will check that one. Hm... but the smuggler knows that they know, so he'll try Lane 2 (the second best), but the customs people also know that, and the smuggler knows that too, so he will try the 1st one... Well, to make long story short, the best strategy for both sides is to use randomization, with probabilities calculated so that the expected payoff for the opponent is minimized.

Re:Wait!

[Bombula]

While this software is interesting and would probably be useful as a general police tool, I think we're giving terrorists FAR too much credit in the brains department.

The truth is, "terrorists" - meaning radically extremist muslims - are overwhelmingly ignorant and stupid. 9/11 apparently used up all of the top talent, because we haven't gotten hit by anything since then and it certainly isn't thanks to the crack commandos of the TSA. If terrorists had any real brains, we'd have been hit a hundred times by now. Any random group of grad students from a top-tier university could perpetrate a more deadly attack than 9/11 with an afternoon's planning. We're safe largely because our enemy is so woefully stupid - which of course you more or less have to be if you're a religious fanatic.

I lived in the Gulf for several years in a quiet little country you seldom read about, and while it isn't a hotbed for terrorists it does have a small extremist sect. These geniuses decided they would blow up a local shopping festival, targeting not Americans or other foreigners in the country but rather their own countrymen who were being corrupted by sinful materialism, etc. We're talking families out shopping here, not military targets of course. So these guys pile a truck full of explosives and grenades and ammunition, all set to drive it right into the middle of the festival and set it off. But what happens? They crashed the truck on the way there - they drove too fast through roundabout and rolled the thing over because it was so heavy, so all their stuff just poured out on the road.

Again, we are safe only because it's brain surgeons like this who are "the terrorists". If there were actually criminal masterminds out there willing to conduct suicide missions, then we'd be in serious trouble.

Re:Wait!

[Bombula]

Like many who have happily drunk the Kool-Aid, you seem to think that the conflict in Iraq is a war. It is not. The congressional resolution authorized military action, but made no formal declaration of war. Since 'securing' Iraq - i.e. toppling the Hussein government - US forces have been engaged overwhelmingly in peace-keeping and policing activities. Despite the tripe broadcast by the Bush administration, there is a neglible 'enemy' presence in Iraq; there is only internal strife, insurgency and rebellion to foreign occuption. That 2% of these people who resist the (illegal) US occupation happen to be categorized as 'Al Qaeda' by the US government itself is transparent evidence of what a sham the 'war on terror' there is.

There is no 'winning' a policing mission. There is no 'winning' an occupation. There IS NO FUCKING WAR TO WIN in Iraq. The people we're fighting ARE pathetic - they are desperately poor, half-starving and scarcely even literate.

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are little different than Vietnam: it is impossible to fully secure any sufficiently rugged terrain from geurilla adversaries. We killed three million Vietnamese - THREE MILLION - and still didn't manage to get anywhere fucking near 'Mission Accomplished' there - no, the last Americans fled from the roof of the US Embassy by helicopter.

You don't have to be smart to hide in the woods or the mountains of your own country and shoot a gun at any foreigner you see. But you DO have to be smart and educated to blow up airplanes and buildings in someone else's country. THAT is why we haven't been hit again. It also helps that the 'terror' part of terrorism has already been achieved by terrorists. They wouldn't have succeeded but for all the money that it helps the Bush administration and the media make to fan the flames of paranoia and fear in America.

When my ludicrously cowardly countrymen stop being afraid that terrorists are going to blow up their strip mall in Nowheresville North Dakota, THEN we'll have won the 'war on terror'.

Why spend the money?

[Fnord666]

...that will be used at LAX Airport to make security and police operations there truly unpredictable

Have you ever been to LAX? Security and police operations are already truly unpredictable and seemingly random.

Re:Why spend the money?

[evil agent]

unpredictable and seemingly random

Are you sure you're not thinking of flight times?

Re:Why spend the money?

[Heembo]

Except for that sniper who sits in the upper right hand corner of the international terminal. He let me see his gun once and explained to me what a top notch shot he was. DANG that boy is NOT joking around!

Re:Why spend the money?

[Bananenrepublik]

What a great excuse that makes.

"Guys, why are all of you in the smoking area?" - "Computer told us."

"Guys, shouldn't you be patroling places other than the women's changing rooms?" - "Sorry, computer told us."

"Guys, don't tell me the computer told you to play poker" - "No, but he sure is a tough player."

Randomness eh? Well then...

[CrazyJim1]

I have a paper that covers rock.

Re:Randomness eh? Well then...

[i_liek_turtles]

Nonsense! It has these awesome... uhh... you know... Amendments! That's it!

Yeah that help

[aepervius]

Because we all know that terrorist try to actively avoid canine search and airport security roaming all over the airport, as opposed to, say, passing successfully through the choke point where you have to go through x-ray and removing your belt, pants, shoe and underwear (soon to come). And naturally such said terrorist will go into the database and search for route of police to actively avoid them. /Security Theater. It looks to me it is more designed for drug and other smuggling criminal activity than terrorist. But hey, the commie are there to get you ! Sorry , I meant witches. Hrm. terrorist.

Can you spell "Hacker"?

[itsybitsy]

H. A. C. K. E. R.

Hack into the ARMOR system, alter the code, have it generate the routes for you and you won't have to "guess" it's random predictions.

The COPS won't know the difference when they are dispatched to places at the airport. If fact it could dispatch them so that they are FAR away from the real action taking place. If fact you could dispatch them with instructions that a terrorist action was taking place on the other side of the airport with descriptions of innocents as the terrorists causing the police to be terrorists upon those innocents. Well, that's not that unusual since the police are usually domestic terrorists anyhow for most people that they interact with.

Re:Can you spell "Hacker"?

[Renraku]

I posted a similar idea to a proposed improvement in a homeland security project last week and people modded me up for it. Sure glad we are free to say such things and that we'd never be suddenly interr

Re:Can you spell "Hacker"?

[Thomas M Hughes]

Yes, because it's easy for terrorists to train a highly skilled computer programmer and infiltrate them into a system where they get access to the source code for security checkpoints, recompile it, and do all that without having a single background check performed on them. Hacking of this caliber is far easier than say...just getting a large enough pool of suicide bombers and just brute forcing it.

If it's a random probability, if you try enough times, you'll get through eventually. This is far more likely (and realistic) than some Hollywood terrorist hacker plot.

Re:Can you spell "Hacker"?

[mlts]

That is an interesting modification. All it would take is substituting their existing (hopefully cryptographically secure RNG) with a random seeming PRNG that is very predictable, such as AES-ing output from /dev/zero with an all zero 128-bit cypher key. The output looks random to the people being assigned to the sweep teams, but for the attacker, he or she will know exactly where they are... and are not.

I just hope the ARMOR system is (excuse the pun) well ARMORed against attacks, both local and remote.

Re:Random?

[hardburn]

There are plenty of ways to get true randomness using hardware. Keyboard click timings, hard drive seek time, radioactive decay monitoring (probably the best, since its based on quantum nondeterminism), capacitor level checking, CCD camera in a dark coffee can, and a bunch of others. No pure software solution exists, though.

I leaked the algorithm:

[Ethanol-fueled]

do {
goAfterTheBeardedGuy();
}while(beardedguy == brown);

Re:I leaked the algorithm:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a flaw in your algorithm. The first iteration will goAfterTheBeardedGuy even if beardedguy != brown. Also, what happens when beardedguy stops being == to brown, the loop ends. Something like the following would probably work better.

while( civilian = FindCivilian() )
{
  if( civilian.color == brown && civilian.features == bearded )
    goAfterTheBeardedGuy();
}

Re:US airport security theory:

[Cryacin]

"Security Through Ineptitude" I don't fly anywhere anymore. Yes, walking and swimming are so much smarter and safer.

Finally.

[ChePibe]

It's about time airports started using their luggage routing software for security purposes.

Solution

[Plazmid]

There is a simple solution to this problem, don't use software to do the randomizing. A D20 and a book of rules are fairly resistant to hackers. In others words, if you roll a 4 or a 5 search person otherwise don't.

Dupe damn you!

[FoolsGold]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/30/138233

My first Slashdot dupe report. I'm so excited! What do I win?

Re:Dupe damn you!

[gbobeck]

If you were 16 days earlier, you would have won OMG Ponies

Not a good idea at all

[SuperKendall]

Terrorists though don't actually have that many people to waste on an operation - and if a bunch of suspicious guys get caught all over the airport at once, they would simply lock everything down and really give people there the once-over.

It might work as a gag but wouldn't do anything actually harmful.

They way they do things already with behavior observation is probably the best possible approach because that way they do not target any particular nationality or race, and even false positives mean you get a chance to calm someone down upset about something that might be abusive to the airline crew.

Dupe

[ginoledesma]

This topic was discussed several months back: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/30/138233.

Brilliant, Randomness!!

[protolith]

Are they going to have truly random responses?

Thursday, Red panties are prohibited from carry on Luggage.
Friday, the X-ray conveyor machine will distribute Salisbury steak.

Periodically travelers will be pulled from the security line,
some will be sent directly to their planes, some will be beaten with sticks.

Saturday, the first 100 customers get a hand grenade!
Sunday, 100 random travelers will be conscripted to run security for the rest of the day.

ARMOR will be renamed to ARMORDS

[layer3switch]

Assistant for Randomized Monitoring over Routes to Donut Shop

Saving throw?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I get a saving throw? And more importantly, will they recognise my +5 tin foil hat?

Re:better idea

[gbobeck]

all terrorists have to do is send enough people at the same time and the chances are, one will get through./blockquote
Ah, the Mongolian Terrorist Horde technique.

Of course, if terrorists were actually serious about an attack they could simply skip trying to get a bomb onto an aircraft and instead do one of the following:

1. Shoot an aircraft down from outside the airport.
2. Detonate an explosive device in front of a security checkpoint or ticket counter in the unsecure zone of the terminal during a busy time when the lines are long.

Suck my Philip K. Dick

[pachura]

It was Philip, not Robert A. Great book, anyways.

Re:Is it THAT hard...

[PinkyDead]

They tried that at Heathrow, but they found that the baggage area became quickly infested with level 4 trolls, a small army of Orcs had set up camp in the ladies toilets and a level 12 necromancer took over the computer system.

Re:Here's a good acronym

[inasity_rules]

ARMOR (Assistant for Randomized Monitoring over Routes) is approximately AMOR (Amusing Misuse of Resources...) There is an extra "R". But essentially it amounts to the same thing.

Re:US airport security theory:

[Dekortage]

Maybe someday they'll fix Amtrak....

As someone who commutes regularly on Amtrak (in fact I'm on the train as I write this, thanks to EVDO), you just made me laugh. Bush has nearly killed Amtrak. Maybe the next President will be nicer to it, but currently, Amtrak is fighting to get even a few hundred million dollars of support, while other countries are putting billions into their systems. *sigh*

Another Idea

[lbgator]

I know this article deals specifically with airport police where you want their actions to be truly unpredictable. What about regular beat cops though? Do we want them to be in random places daily?

I often see cops hiding in random places trying to catch speeders, and I wonder if that is the best use of their time. On one street near me there is a speed trap weekly. I suspect this is because the speed limit is 30 mph going down a moderately steep hill so it is easy to catch speeders. As a citizen I would rather these cops be doing nearly ANYTHING else (to include volunteering at a school or working out). I am not at all concerned about someone going 36 in a 30 - I am concerned that my tax dollars are paying to enforce a rule that helps nothing (in my opinion).

Now, the standard answer is "well if they stop speed trapping then everyone will speed". I totally agree: the rules are good in general. How about a nation wide database that records all accidents, crimes, and public complaints. That way the police could focus all of their attention in the spots where there is trouble or complaints. If the local teen punk is speeding through your neighborhood post a complaint - then cops can respond in the best way they can. As it is there is very little police interaction with the public - they have no resort but to randomly hide in bushes and try to surprise us. A database that tells them trouble spots to focus on would make their jobs more justified. And in a town/area that goes without crime, accident, or complaint for a certain period could allow the cops to volunteer at a high school or coach youth soccer or pick up trash or something that the citizens actually appreciate.

Unpredictable cops are fine in the airport - but if I am acting reasonably responsible in a trouble free area I'd like to keep my interactions with the police to a minimum.

Re:US airport security theory:

[Lemmy Caution]

I take Amtrak twice a week, in theory. In practice, I always bring my car just in case.