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."

Comments

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.

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...

[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!