Slashdot Mirror


Replacing Metal Detectors With Brain Scans

Zordak writes "CNN has up a story about several Israeli firms that want to replace metal detectors at airports with biometric readings. For example, with funding from TSA and DHS, 'WeCU ([creepily] pronounced "We See You") Technologies, employs a combination of infra-red technology, remote sensors and imagers, and flashing of subliminal images, such as a photo of Osama bin Laden. Developers say the combination of these technologies can detect a person's reaction to certain stimuli by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration — signals a terrorist unwittingly emits before he plans to commit an attack.' Sensors may be embedded in the carpet, seats, and check-in screens. The stated goal is to read a passenger's 'intention' in a manner that is 'more fair, more effective and less expensive' than traditional profiling. But not to worry! WeCU's CEO says, 'We don't want you to feel that you are being interrogated.' And you may get through security in 20 to 30 seconds."

327 comments

  1. Very nice... by squiggly12 · · Score: 0

    Rectal probe anyone?

    Just spend more money, keep digging that hole!

    1. Re:Very nice... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I think that's how they brain scan the TSA employees.

    2. Re:Very nice... by Qiadron · · Score: 1

      Rectal probe anyone?

      How does I knowed am sick w/o one?

    3. Re:Very nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rectal probe needs to provide a variety of stimulus to get multiple data readings, so that the multivariate analysis can take place.

      I can just see the research journal paper now:

      Discriminate Component Analysis of Infrared Raman Scattered Spectra of the Rectum during Multisensory Stimulation for Early Terrorist Detection.

      "In this study we have used discriminate component anal-ysis of spectroscopic data obtained from a sample of 42 individuals rectums during multisensory stimulation. Naked subjects were placed on a chair with a plastic probe lubricated with an refractive index matching gel. The tip of the plastic probe holds a transparent plastic window, with a fiber optic fed infrared laser, and a secondary light gathering fiber, connected to a Near IR Ocean Optics spectrometer. Reference data for each subject was first obtained by having subjects watch and listen to a standard array of television shows and music. (Oprah, Celine Dion, Napoleon Dynamite, MXC, The Price is Right, Britney Spears, and Big Brother)

      The frequency shifted Raman scattered spectra was then recorded to a computer for post-processing anal-ysis.

      Data was then obtained from the same subjects 28 days later to compose a proper base line data set for non-terrorist Raman spectra. The sample set of individuals however had to be reduced to only 23 people. This was due to subjects emotional response at being subjected to the base lining procedure for a second time. Subjects who appeared overly enthusiastic for testing had to be removed, in addition to the individuals who had not returned."

      alright I give up, I can only write a limited amount of this crap.

      Posted AC for obvious reasons.

  2. cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wonderful piece of technology known as the polygraph before..... don't polygraphs also rely (in part) on body temperature, heart rate and respiration?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. Also, depth of respiration, skin resistance, and blood pressure.

      A good operator can usually tell if someone is deliberately trying to prevent them from establishing a baseline, but people with something to hide used to carry a thumbtack to poke their fingers with during questioning. It was supposed to allow them to concentrate on the pain instead of the questions, and prevent, or mask, the emotional/physical response that the machine could pick up. Then someone got caught and the operators would check for poke marks in the skin.

      I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image. Or, Dick Cheney as a Chippendale dancer.

      Must...poke...out...mind's...eye....

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonderful piece of technology known as the polygraph before..... don't polygraphs also rely (in part) on body temperature, heart rate and respiration?

      Polygraphs are not admissible in a court of law due to the inherit unreliability of polygraph test examiners to accurately determine if the subject is being truthful. And only terrorists sweat or have an elevated heart rate when at an airport security checkpoint. ID10Ts!

    3. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      don't polygraphs also rely (in part) on body temperature, heart rate and respiration?

      Polygraphs measure those things, but don't do much with the data. The main purpose of a polygraph is not to detect lies, but to intimidate the person being questioned. The idea is to trick the person into thinking that the polygraph is infallible and can determine when they are lying. This gives the interrogator another way to pressure the person into talking. (The person may incorrectly believe that the interrogator "already knows" or may reveal secrets because they feel that they no longer have any control--they don't feel culpable since they can't hide secrets from the machine.) Of course admitting that this is the purpose of a polygraph would undermine the tactic.

      I'm guessing this new technology will be much the same: it won't actually work by measuring anything useful; but it may have a psychological effect that makes people easier to interrogate. This might be (marginally) useful for uncovering the occasional teenager smuggling pot, but I doubt it will do anything useful when it comes to terrorism. This quote is hilarious:

      Developers say the combination of these technologies can detect a person's reaction to certain stimuli by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration -- signals a terrorist unwittingly emits before he plans to commit an attack

      For this to be true--for them to actually have calibrated their machine in a rigorous way, so that it can detect "terrorist intentions" with any kind of certainty--they would need to have tested it with a statistically-significant number of terrorists. Somehow I doubt their R&D facility has a few hundred terrorists in lockup (willing to lie and not lie on demand). I'm guessing their actual sample size was closer to zero. In other words they are just guessing that someone with "terrorist intentions" will exhibit similar physiological responses to someone who is nervous for other reasons.

      Yet another worthless security measure being sold to worthless security organizations.

    4. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by johnsonav · · Score: 2, Interesting

      cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that wonderful piece of technology known as the polygraph before.....

      Nobody said it had to be perfect. It just has to be more useful than the methods they currently employ. This only has to be more accurate then the current practice. The current security is slow, stupid and irrational. Honestly, this doesn't sound that much better. But, unless we totally scrap the system and go back to the 1960's security measures (not freaking likely given the level of politician and media inspired fear), I'll settle for a system that results in less hassle when I fly.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    5. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But, unless we totally scrap the system and go back to the 1960's security measures (not freaking likely given the level of politician and media inspired fear), I'll settle for a system that results in less hassle when I fly.

      Why not scrap the system and use the money we are wasting to put an armed air marshal or two on every flight? I don't think box-cutters are going to be particularly effective against firearms....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image. Or, Dick Cheney as a Chippendale dancer.

      While I haven't had to take a polygraph yet, I look forward to answering "What was your question? I'm sorry, my mind is busy erasing certain parts to protect itself. Ahh, there we go. No more Dick Cheney is my brain ever again."

    7. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Why not scrap the system and use the money we are wasting to put an armed air marshal or two on every flight? I don't think box-cutters are going to be particularly effective against firearms....

      I would love that. Still have to have bomb scanners though. Bomb > gun. And you can hide a bomb almost anywhere, so you've got to have metal detectors and shoe removal. Or you could hide the bomb in personal electronics, got to check those...

      And we're right back where we started. Damn.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    8. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      I don't think box-cutters are going to be particularly effective against firearms....

      Or a bunch of passengers beating the person into submission, no firearms needed.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    9. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Manfre · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's an israeli company. They'll probably just calibrate it with everyone who passes through their borders. Everyone would get grouped in to two categories. Israeli or Terrorist.

    10. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or a bunch of passengers beating the person into submission

      Why stop at beating them into submission?

    11. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Excellent point about the 'sample size' of terrorists to work from.
      I guess that's the problem with a lot of the security measures, is that they work on (perhaps informed, but not necessarily tested) assumptions about the scenarios they're trying to prevent.

    12. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      You're correct that security doesn't need to be perfect to be useful--as long as it helps, that's something.

      However, a major problem occurs when people over-estimate the quality of a security measure. Two immediate consequences are (1) security overall may decrease as people mistakenly rely on an ineffective tool; and (2) people are falsely accused. In the extreme case of over-confidence in technology, a person can not only be falsely accused but also falsely detained, charged or even convicted. It is dangerous for security personnel or law enforcement to be over-estimating the tools at their disposal.

      In this case I can easily imagine people being detained because they failed the "terrorist test"--without any other evidence existing to incriminate them. I would argue that using bad security tools, or over-estimating the effectiveness of tools, is worse than useless: it is actively dangerous for the well-being of innocents.

    13. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Why not scrap the system and use the money we are wasting to put an armed air marshal or two on every flight? I don't think box-cutters are going to be particularly effective against firearms....

      until, of course, a non-marshal gets a hold of one of those guns...

    14. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by philspear · · Score: 1

      Polygraphs are not admissible in a court of law due to the inherit unreliability of polygraph test examiners to accurately determine if the subject is being truthful.

      Fortunately for those more concerned with "security" than rights (or real security for that matter) court standards are much much higher than what is used in airports.

    15. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And we're right back where we started

      Well, we could just accept the fact that nothing can make us completely safe from terrorists and personally I'd rather live with the 0.00000001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack than surrender my civil liberties and live in fear. Something tells me that this isn't very likely to happen though.

      Guess I'll be driving for the foreseeable future. It's not all bad though -- you get to control the music selection and don't have to put up with shitty food and horrible customer service ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by philspear · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yet another worthless security measure being sold to worthless security organizations.

      Let's capitalize on that. We could go into the buisness of selling "anti-terrorism rocks" to the government and airports. I'll get the rocks, you sell it to the security orgs.

    17. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by tirerim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, box cutters aren't going to be terribly effective against an entire planeful of people who think they're going to die anyway: see United Flight 93. The days of successful hijackings are simply over, whatever the intent, because the assumption on the passengers' part will always be that the hijackers are going to crash the plane. However, there is still a danger of bombs -- many terrorists would be perfectly happy just to blow up a plane, which pretty much guarantees significantly more deaths than any ground-based suicide bomb. And no amount of security on board the plane is going to prevent someone from blowing themselves up if they have a better plan than lighting their shoes with a match. That said, they would do much better to focus on things that can actually be used to make bombs, as opposed to bottles of shampoo. There is also something to be said for keeping guns off planes in general; a belligerent idiot with a gun in an enclosed space like a plane is pretty bad even if they're not a terrorist.

    18. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Alotau · · Score: 1, Funny

      Guess I'll be driving for the foreseeable future. It's not all bad though -- you get to control the music selection and don't have to put up with shitty food and horrible customer service ;)

      You obviously haven't been on a road trip with my wife.

    19. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      until, of course, a non-marshal gets a hold of one of those guns...

      Let's give every passenger a gun with only one bullet in it. Not enough to take over the plane or go on a killing rampage but it sure would be a deterrent to any would-be terrorist ;)

      What could possibly go wrong?

    20. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There is also something to be said for keeping guns off planes in general; a belligerent idiot with a gun in an enclosed space like a plane is pretty bad even if they're not a terrorist.

      Eh, I didn't say we should arm the passengers. I said we should put an armed air marshal or two on every flight......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a much bigger problem with bombs: They don't require informed consent.

      See the case of Nizar Hindawi, who attempted to sneak a bomb on an El Al flight by tricking his pregnant girlfriend into taking it with her -- having her go through any intention scanner would show her to be completely trustworthy and innocent -- because she was. That's a problem that is exists for bombs, but not (easily) for guns. After all, it's not like you'd look in your carryon half-way through the flight, find a gun you didn't expect there, and go "OMG! Got to hijack the plane!"

    22. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AC or not, the parent poster hits on a key issue. Flying nowadays has become a stressful enough situation. Trying to make a flight on time, trying to get through a security checkpoint that may have no one waiting, or a line out the wazoo (meaning a possible missed flight), hoping you remembered to take all the metal our of your pockets (change, keys, etc), wondering whether you will get that one airport security guy who insists that you cannot take your lighter with you (for your cigarettes) even though the TSA Rules clearly state you can, wondering whether you wasted a lot of money on "travel size" personal grooming stuff that may just happen to be either just a bit too large or in the wrong type container (regardless of what the sign at CVS/Rite-Aid/etc says), wondering whether everything is in the appropriate amount of zip-lock bags, wondering if you exceeded the total liquid quantities, wondering if with all the added security and screening your bags will actually be waiting for you when you get to your destination. And I am sure that only touches on a few factors.

      Yeah... considering how stressful flying anywhere is nowadays, I dont see a lot of false positives... DUH!

      This wonderful new method will probably report everyone who isn't a "flies all the time, every week" type of person as suspect. All while numerous "terrorist classes" who plan on blowing themselves up with whatever they are travelling on really wouldnt care too much about being caught - after all, they are ready, willing and prepared to throw away their lives.

      What happens if I have high blood pressure? Or am a bit overweight (or drank a lot of coffee because I was up packing all night) and normally have an elevated heart rate? Or have an increased respiration rate because I've just been running all over the airport trying to find my gate while dragging a bunch of carry-ons?

      Yeah, I am sure that a lot of this is designed to make people feel more comfortable flying, but (1) this one is so easy to punch holes in that I am sure the general populace will soon figure out how absurd a method this is, and (2) will in and of itself probably cause false positives by numerous people who are worried that their sprint to their gate may be the cause of a false positive, thus making the chances of such a lot more likely.

      Brilliant waste of money.

      Hmmm... maybe I should have posted this as an AC... but, whatever. I always wondered how many people on Slashdot get put on some sort of watch list simply for being just a little more intelligent and/or vocal than the general public...

    23. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to buy your rock.

    24. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      And only terrorists sweat or have an elevated heart rate when at an airport security checkpoint. ID10Ts!

      Tell that to all the people who are forced to fly even though they are terrified of said act. I'm sure that group of people will make wonderful false-positives.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    25. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or, there could be subliminal/sub-aural phrases such as "The Bush", instead of "Bush"...

      It would be funny if someone could hack the systems and generate lots of erections and pre-coital drainage in the waiting area... It would be... bemoaned, as it ... could.. become...the wading area...

      The men's area could be called... "Area 5.1" (shorter for Area 51, for the obvious dimension."

      The VIP lounge could be called "The SHAPE of Things to COME"....

      Could give a whole new meaning to "The Day they Earth Stood... STEEL"...

      Bumb-sniffing dogs could be "hot on the trail"...

      I guess if everyone got besides themselves (and into others), everyone would qualify -- INstantly -- for a.. bum wrap... after hearing:

      FREEZE: Hands in the air! Face the Mound!

      and face even WORSE problems when in the interrogation rooms of airports, being asked questions such as:

      "How many people are you traversing with? You sat in seat 15-A, next to Mr. X.B. We KNOW you are connected. Tell us, what is the size of her penis? What do you like to smoke?

      Flying could become a ... hair-rowing ex-spear-e-ince...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    26. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Skater · · Score: 1

      This is why I vacation by RV. I realize I can't go overseas with it, and trips across the country can take a LOT longer, but it's nice being able to go where I want, when I want, no worries about lost luggage, no "papers please", and no security lines. It's as close to true freedom as we can get these days.

    27. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by pseudochaos · · Score: 0

      Who wants to join me in starting a Terrorist Insurance business? Sounds like we'd make tons of free money.

      --
      "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    28. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why stop at beating them into submission?

      Because some people are a bit more civilized than the those who would attempt kill random strangers?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    29. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      But, blending River Dance, Box Cutters, and Stop-Action-A-la-Matrix would lend to some interesting brand of confusion, defusion, infusion, and other ... Well, the Terrorists will probably figure out how to make Scalosian Water and drink it at the scanner station and then... breeze on by...

      Or, more disgustingly but possibly easily, they'll show up with an "incontinence" bag of binary liquid bombs, or shit that is really C-4-impregnated. Or, with fake denture cream, for a mind-blowing experience comes with chewing hard... Whuups, I guess that means the makers of Preparation H will have to create pill-format Preparation H for frequent fliers not permitted to move freely about the cabin...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    30. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by tedrlord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The specific problems I thought of immediately were:

      1) people who are afraid of flying/crowds/etc or just prone to panic attacks would most likely set this off far more often than terrorists. Not to mention the fear of setting this off causing people to be more nervous.

      2) Actual terrorists would probably be organized enough to take this into account and pop a valium or two before going through the security checkpoints. I mean, c'mon. The circumstances are a lot less controlled than a polygraph, and are therefore a lot easier to alter.

      Hell, the more seriously religious ones might just show up in a calmer state naturally, knowing they will be martyred for their cause. If you're the type of person that dedicated enough to blow yourself up for a religious sect, it's not that difficult to believe that your faith will protect you from capture. I know an otherwise seemingly sane guy that apparently never wore his seatbelt because he thought that God would decide when his time came anyway, so why fight it? He drove like a maniac too, relaxed as can be. I think psychologists call it "magical thinking," and I seriously doubt they're taking it into account.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    31. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high right now?

      Really - Are you?

    32. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by asylum_street_blues · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't you know? GITMO = focus group. You didn't think they were just sitting around in little boxes down there, did you?

      --
      Just because the universe could be a simulation doesn't mean that we're the point of the simulation.
    33. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this to be true--for them to actually have calibrated their machine in a rigorous way, so that it can detect "terrorist intentions" with any kind of certainty--they would need to have tested it with a statistically-significant number of terrorists. Somehow I doubt their R&D facility has a few hundred terrorists in lockup (willing to lie and not lie on demand). I'm guessing their actual sample size was closer to zero.

      These are Israeli companies, so having access to terrorists in lockup is probably the one thing they have plenty of. Also, you seem to think this is a lie detector... but this seems more designed to specifically pick out muslim extremists based on involentary reaction to subliminal stimulus. Ie, they flash islamic jihad written in arabic, and if you make a microsmile they flag you for an "interview".

    34. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Omestes · · Score: 1

      But then I can shoot you with my one bullet, get your one bullet, shoot someone else and get theirs. You just turned terrorism into some twisted MMO now.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    35. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to self: Never post when high.

    36. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      It's just too bad freedom can cost up to $4 a gallon in the summer time...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    37. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good operator can usually tell if someone is deliberately trying to prevent them from establishing a baseline

      No, they can't. The polygraph is a fraud. It has a ridiculously high rate of false positives, and a ridiculously high rate of false negatives. Any scientific double-blind test will show that.

      The only value a polygraph has is as a tool for intimidation. A naive person, when confronted by an authority figure who claims their "scientific" machine says they are lying, will confess.

    38. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, now that's a terrifying prospect. Based on my dealings with other Israeli companies, the letters QA apparently don't exist in their alphabet.

    39. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      go back to the 1960's security measures

      I'd be happy just going back to Sept. 10th, 2001 security. But hey, why not all the way back to the 60's?

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    40. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by fractalspace · · Score: 1

      ...cuz government(s) love any such tool which gives them yet another excuse to harass, intimidate and subdue its citizens.

    41. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, actually, we have. ;)

    42. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      After all, it's not like you'd look in your carryon half-way through the flight, find a gun you didn't expect there, and go "OMG! Got to hijack the plane!"

      Yeah, well maybe you can tell me what I should have done instead, Mr. Smarty Pants!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    43. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by ignavus · · Score: 1

      It's an israeli company. They'll probably just calibrate it with everyone who passes through their borders. Everyone would get grouped in to two categories. Israeli or Terrorist.

      AKA "Wants to blow up them" and "Wants to blow up us".

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    44. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, you get to close to our southern border.

    45. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people that I know of that are forced to fly are prisoners being transferred. Many of us choose to fly, even when afraid, because we want to minimize travel time, keep our jobs, etc. But very few of us are actually forced.

      I'm just sayin'...

    46. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image.

      While she may not be very bright (understatement anyone?) you have to admit that you would hit that.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    47. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      More like "Israeli" or "Anti-Semite!"

    48. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by stei7766 · · Score: 1

      El-Al has had armed agents on flights for years, and they haven't had any issues with such a thing. And LOTS of folks would love to take down an El-Al flight.

    49. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's just too bad freedom can cost up to $4 a gallon in the summer time...

      Well, like the country song says, "Freedom isn't free".

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    50. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know? GITMO = focus group.

      So that's why JD Power & Associates came out and condemned the Great Satan that is America. I always suspected they had a sampling issue with that particular study ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    51. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Who wants to join me in starting a Terrorist Insurance business? Sounds like we'd make tons of free money.

      Either way it's a win win. We sell a lot of policies that we think will never have to pay claims on. Then when we have to pay claims we realize that we have no capital with which to pay them and we get a bailout from Washington.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Because some people are a bit more civilized than the those who would attempt kill random strangers?

      I dunno. You might not be so civilized in the presence of someone who was in the process of trying to kill you. I wouldn't kill someone that was on the ground and under control but I can't say as I would be trying to keep them alive if they were in the process of trying to kill me. I'd be looking to remove them as a threat in the quickest manner possible.

      Do you think the passengers on Flight 93 were trying to wound the hijackers?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    53. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A good operator can usually tell if someone is deliberately trying to prevent them from establishing a baseline, but people with something to hide used to carry a thumbtack to poke their fingers with during questioning. It was supposed to allow them to concentrate on the pain instead of the questions, and prevent, or mask, the emotional/physical response that the machine could pick up. Then someone got caught and the operators would check for poke marks in the skin.

      Yeah, yeah, a "good" psychic can also usually tell if someone is lying to them. That claim is so subjective, it can not possibly be proven wrong. What you've been told is just part of the obligatory mystic and diversionary tactic surrounding lie detectors. It's like when we tell little kids that they better be nice or Santa Claus will cross them off their list, and the little kids are so naive that they'll repeat the same warning with wonder and beaming pride (that they know so much) to everyone they meet.

      The fact is, double-blind studies have proven that lie detectors are less than 2% effective. So how come we still have people (like Dr. Phil) claiming that they're 99.9% effective? Just google it. How come there seems to be no middle ground between those two opinions? That 99.9% claim is just part of the obligatory lie. It's part of the diversion and the intimidation required to make the damn "profession" stay alive and the "specialists" keep their job in the first place.

      The second fact is, that part of the lie detector training is to always lie about where the real truth baseline is supposed to be. So when the operator tells you to lie about the color in the room, or some other nonsense, that's not the baseline, that was just the diversion. The real control question (or questions) will come later. And the real control question is some general question that the interrogator assumes you will lie about. So that's the real absurdity of it all! The entire premise of the lie detector is based on the false idea that the lie detector interrogator can even judge what is truth and what is a lie in the first place. It's a circular reference.

      I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image. Or, Dick Cheney as a Chippendale dancer. Must...poke...out...mind's...eye....

      I know that you were just joking, but double-blind studies made on subliminal messages showed that subliminal messages didn't even get registered in the brain and had no influence whatsoever on the subject. And by subliminal, those studies defined the term as meaning that the images or the sounds were shown/broadcast at frequencies not visible/perceivable to the conscious mind (so if you start flashing images where people can sort of tell what was there, then that's not subliminal anymore -- and that was outside the scope of those studies).

      Also, there is no reason to flash an image of Bin Laden, Al-qaeida and Iraqi insurgents already know that those tests are complete bullshit. The only thing this kind of test at airports is designed to do is fool the American public into funneling funds into a fraudster's pockets.

    54. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polygraphs rely mostly on the person believing that they work, there's a reason they are no admissible in court.

    55. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that you would say that. The unreliable polygraph test is often being used to exclude Jews from getting their security clearance. Usually, it's not the device that does the discrimination, it's the person that's using the device that does. I suspect it will be the same thing with this new gizmo.

    56. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Bumb-sniffing dogs

      I already have to deal with bum sniffing dogs at my brother's house, and now the airport as well? FFS.

      --
      Fnord.
    57. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by ymgve · · Score: 2, Funny

      After all, it's not like you'd look in your carryon half-way through the flight, find a gun you didn't expect there, and go "OMG! Got to hijack the plane!" ...unless someone asked you to, starting the sentence with "Would you kindly..."

    58. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by pseudochaos · · Score: 0

      I like the way you think. You're definitely hired.

      --
      "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    59. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Kooty-Sentinel · · Score: 1

      Dude, hook me up with some of that shit your smoking!

      --
      Your evaluation period for Productivity 1.0 has ended. Please purchase more coffee to continue using this product.
    60. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by raistlinwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      While she may not be very bright (understatement anyone?) you have to admit that you would hit that.

      I'd be thinking about Tina Fey though..

    61. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      something to be said for keeping guns off planes in general; a belligerent idiot with a gun in an enclosed space like a plane is pretty bad even if they're not a terrorist.

      checkout http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html So 1) a single gunshot wouldn't cause much harm even if it did penetrate the hull http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html 2) the bullets used by marshals can't penetrate the hull 3) required training ensures marshals won't miss. 4) why bother with a gun on a plane, when guns have the advantage in larger areas, a knife would be way more affective if victim count is the goal (noiseless, less traces, easier to hide, etc) and when you can get closer to your target (Marshals don't have the element of surprise to get close to the targets, so they may need the reach of a gun)
      Guns are good when you have specific targets, but for mass killing and terrorism they can be used, but with a little imagination many other options are more efficient, cheaper, easier to hide, etc. So I disagree a guy trained with a knife would be much more devastating than a small gun in a plane, I agree neither could take control anymore. (although a lunatic is more likely to get lucky, once, with a gun)

    62. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or practice Scientology. They spend dozens, hundreds, even thousands of hours learning to generate memories for past lives with a polygraph under hypnosis, reliving the destruction of Hawaii and their intergalactic souls by the demon Xenu, etc. Sad, but true. And it makes a normal polygraph almost useless on the more indoctrinated Scientologists.

      Check out www.xenu.net, and take a look at the frankly awful patent that L. Ron Hubbard got for a Wheatstone bridge called the 'E-Meter' that should have been thrown out by the patent office as having prior art. Radio Shack used to sell polygraph kits that were just as accurate.

    63. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Go read my post again. I said NOTHING about the accuracy of the machine. I said that a good operator can tell if you are trying to prevent them from establishing a baseline. That does not imply that the operator can tell when you are lying.

      Actually, I agree with you. Our office was considering polygraph testing at one point, and I told them that I would not take it. My limited exposure to them in college psychology class convinced me they were not reliable. That is where I determined the operator can tell if you try to screw up the baseline, and not by some stupid "Scotty, Lie to me. How old are you?" bullshit. Flex muscles, change breathing, clamp the sensor for skin conductivity, as subtle as possible, and the man picked it up on every attempt. Three of us tried it, and nobody but us knew ahead of time we were going to try.

      Dr. Phil is a dick.

      The real failure of the machine, and what was shown the in psychology class, is that if you are an actor, pathological liar, or equivalent, you don't have the same reaction as someone that is afraid of the machine, and because it does not directly detect lies, it is easily fooled.

      About the images, you are quite right. I was joking. I participated in tests on subliminal messages in college too.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    64. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best way to prevent hijacking is El Al's; use smart, well-trained, well-equipped human beings.

      Typical US 'prevention' is to use as much spurious technology as possible and employ cheap humans.

      You could at least lock the cockpit door and have a steward outside with a security alarm button, but nooo; those pilots need their coffee through an unlocked door.

      http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2002-11-18/article/16171?headline=Security-guards-foil-El-Al-hijacking
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2097352.stm

    65. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by inKubus · · Score: 1

      The way to circumvent this is pretty easy. Just have all your terrorist lackeys taking lots of flights all the time. Then, when it's time for the mission or whatever, you send them the secret activation code AFTER THEY ARE ALREADY ON THE PLANE! DUH!

      Another Israeli security firm marketing rediculously over-complicated junk, man there sure are a lot of those. I wonder where they get their funding? Pft. I've heard of people emigrating there just to get security dollars. It's a gravy train with biscuit wheels, I tell ya.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    66. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Actually with the flashing of subliminal images and all this sounds closer to a Voight-Kampff. What the heck were these people smoking?

    67. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would a double blind test work on a polygraph???

      If the person being tested doesn't know if he is lying then what is the point of taking the polygraph!

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    68. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I dunno. You might not be so civilized in the presence of someone who was in the process of trying to kill you. I wouldn't kill someone that was on the ground and under control but I can't say as I would be trying to keep them alive if they were in the process of trying to kill me. I'd be looking to remove them as a threat in the quickest manner possible.

      I'm not claiming they weren't trying to preserve their lives by whatever means they could. But I'd be willing to bet that if those folks on flight 93 did manage to subdue the terrorists, they wouldn't have slit their throats while their hands and feet were bound.

      Case study - recall the attempted shoe-bombing of a trans-Atlantic flight. The passengers subdued him (it looks like they roughed him up pretty good), but they certainly didn't kill him.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    69. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But I'd be willing to bet that if those folks on flight 93 did manage to subdue the terrorists, they wouldn't have slit their throats while their hands and feet were bound.

      Granted, although I don't think anybody (dumbass AC's don't count) was advocating slitting the throat of someone who had already been subdued. I'm just saying that keeping the SOBs alive wouldn't have been my main objective if I was fighting for my life.

      Same reason that cops generally don't shoot to wound. If you are in a situation where the other guy is trying to take your life your last concern is going to be keeping him alive. If he manages to survive your attack then great -- he'll get his day in court and his due process -- if not, well better him than me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    70. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess one could concentrate on a mental image of Sarah Palin in a nipple bra to counter the Bin Laden image.

      The image of Bin Laden in a nipple bra, you mean? Yeah, I imagine Palin will be the lesser of two evils, there...

    71. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by VShael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone would get grouped in to two categories. Israeli or Terrorist.

      Right. Like when you go through Israeli passport control, and they ask
      "Why are you here, business or pleasure?"

      "Business"

      "Occupation?"

      "No, just a two day meeting."

    72. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      In the case of Israel security forces, they already have far enough rocks given by the local kids, but they may be willing to buy bullets.

    73. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the Iranians will save us.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    74. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Syberz · · Score: 1

      Very good point, although for bombs you still have the chemical sniffer thingy.

      Also, this new method will not prevent someone from carrying on board a hunting knife (for perfectly valid reasons) with absolutely no intentions of using it. But then while piss drunk that person could get mad, "snap" and kill his snoring passenger next to him.

      --
      ~Syberz
    75. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, box cutters aren't going to be terribly effective against an entire planeful of people who think they're going to die anyway: see United Flight 93. The days of successful hijackings are simply over, whatever the intent, because the assumption on the passengers' part will always be that the hijackers are going to crash the plane.

      Don't get ahead of yourself. I know I would probably never have had the guts to do something like those passengers on United Flight 93, and I sincerely doubt many would.

      Faced with these two options, of either certain death, or the slim chance that John McClane might jump in and save the day, which one would you, honestly, choose? If I had enough rationality left in a situation like that to fight back my self-preservation instincts, I would instead be seriously ethically challenged with regards to taking the lives of potentially hundreds of co-passengers.

    76. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by ildon · · Score: 1

      First thing that popped into my head, too. He described the situation almost verbatim!

    77. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      The fundamental flaw is that its looking at your response, physical indicators of stress. Thats great... if you are so worried about getting caught.

      A police office by the door of a car is a great lie detector in many circumstances. People pick out lies and weird behavior all the time. However, a person who isn't worried about lieing, a person who can really put the truth right out of their head.... good luck.

      Its funny, people always call me a bad liar. They don't realize I dislike lieing, I avoid it whenevr possible. Except when playing poker of course :)

      However when i want to do it, I am quite good at it. I tell people the same advice when they ask. If you have to lie....don't. Just put the truth out of your mind and remember... you are doing what you are doing, and did what you did. Suspend disbelief in yourself, and you wont express it to anyone else.

      Hell, my favorite trick at poker, when I put someone on a hard decision. Don't think "does he have anything that can beat me" Don't think "I have a good hand". Think "What does he think I might have". Hold the thought process of of figuring out what he thinks in your head, and you wont tell your own hand.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    78. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Skater · · Score: 1

      Trips in the RV were still far cheaper than flying and staying in a hotel, even when gas was $4+/gallon. I converted some of the savings into longer vacations.

    79. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's mostly the hotels that kill you. $200 a night is enough to gas up and camp somewhere with electric and water hookups. I have taken a few RV vacations myself, but back when freedom cost less than $2 a gallon...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    80. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Dunavant · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy just going back to Sept. 10th, 2001 security. But hey, why not all the way back to the 60's?

      On Sept 10th, 2001, I walked through Dulles airport security metal detectors with my pocket knife clipped to my pants pocket. I just completely forgot it was there. The metal detector didn't go off and security didn't even blink at me. You could sneak whatever you wanted onto planes back then easily.

      On a completely unrelated side note, my flight back home was one of the few not canceled since it was carrying volunteers to help at the Pentagon.

    81. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the good old days where people weren't shitting themselves over terrorists.

    82. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by sjames · · Score: 1

      guessing that someone with "terrorist intentions" will exhibit similar physiological responses to someone who is nervous for other reasons.

      And of course, nobody at an airport but a terrorist would be nervous! Certainly not while being body scanned by people who couldn't get a better job.

    83. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless as a result of a post-hypnotic suggestion.

    84. Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

  3. Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have to wonder how they tested this to draw their conclusions about "how terrorists feel before boarding a plane." Grabbed a couple off the streets and offered them 80 virgins to take a survey or something?

    1. Re:Testing by SpeedyDX · · Score: 3, Funny

      80 virgins to take a survey

      Where do I sign up?

      Follow the guys in fancy black suits and shades to the white unmarked van? Sure!

    2. Re:Testing by kanweg · · Score: 1

      80 virgins? Ah, now I know why you have to fill out the question on whether you're going to visit a prostitute when entering the US (they phrase it a little different on the visa waiver). If you answer "no", you're bound for a tough interrogation.

      Bert

    3. Re:Testing by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

      Dude! That's 10 more virgins than you can get for blowing up a plane full of infidels. Just for taking a survey? Sweet deal!

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    4. Re:Testing by z0idberg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well thats one virgin, 79 to go.

      Any more volunteers?

    5. Re:Testing by Larryish · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If a Muslim terrorist died and went to paradise to meet 72 virgins, there would be 73 people in paradise with no fucking idea what to do.

  4. What if your pissed because of a family call... by y86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure the airport can generate anger,fear, and frustration in most people.

    How good can this really be?

    1. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by Laughing+Dog · · Score: 1

      ... Not to mention that flashing subliminal images of Osama bin Laden *at the airport* is going to generate a fair bit of detectable stress in people. In fact, if the departure screen suddenly flashed "jihad", I'd expect everyone who could read it to fly into an outright panic.

    2. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by Znork · · Score: 1

      How good can this really be?

      That depends on what your goal is. The goal of the creators of said device is, like most 'biometric security' companies, most likely, to extract money from taxpayers pockets. For that purpose I'd suggest the approach is a bit too farfetched sci-fi, and not portrayed in enough Hollywood productions to achieve sufficient pocket penetration to extract significant amounts of money.

      For actual security value rates like most such measures, somewhere between useless to counterproductive; any terrorists today would probably take a completely new approach, exploiting new holes. Like selling radioactive 'security devices' or exploding fingerprint scanners to the TSA.

    3. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1
      FTA:

      Once these technologies are in place, a passenger may pass through a security screening without realizing it. For example, passengers could use an automated check-in system or gaze at a screen with departures information without realizing they've just been exposed to the words "Islamic jihad" written in Arabic.

      It's going to cause anyone who can read Arabic to freak out.

      Last time I checked, that was a fairly good percentage of the world. It would probably make as much sense as putting up an English advertisement in Dulles saying, "ARE YOU READY FOR FEDERAL POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS PRISON?"

      It would make everyone who can read English a little freaked out, terrorist or not.

    4. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the airport can generate anger,fear, and frustration in most people.

            Especially if that airport is Atlanta.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      The awesome thing is that every single study done on subliminal messages has shown that it's bullshit.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by Laughing+Dog · · Score: 1

      Hell, in the US, it's going to cause anyone who can recognize it as Arabic to freak out, reading comprehension or no.

    7. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by richlv · · Score: 1

      only gtk dialogs generate feelings similar to the ones you described, alongside the airports.
      and the airports still win.
      at some point i really start to feel hatred against some particularly non-bright airport employees (in their defence, they probably have been brainwashed).

      --
      Rich
    8. Re:What if your pissed because of a family call... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security measures like scanners, bio-scanners or this should be rated by their error rate and which part of the population can not be tested with it. Security personnel must be informed about that.
      E.g. Biometrical data is not applicable for fire victims. Security personnel must not be pissed that "the machine didn't to their work and the person needs extra treatment".

      I wonder if it would be possible to run a airline with minimal annoying checks and extra friendly security to see if people would choose the airline over others (and thus put pressure on the other airlines). As Bruce Schneier says, terrorism is rare.

  5. Somethings wrong... by tburke261 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge? That won't show up on the scans. I could see the supplement current screening technologies if it ever is deployed, but not replace them.

    Let's not even start about false positives....

    1. Re:Somethings wrong... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing...

      Step A. Someone purposely handles explosives or better saturates their shins/shoes with a chemical that would set off the bomb detector.
      Step B. Go to an airport and purposely brush by/touch people luggage.
      Step C. Watch as airport grinds to a halt with massive numbers of false positives.

      Even better spill some of this chemical in a doorway carpet so that lots of people would walk in every direction with it on their shoes.

      How would an airport rationally handle something like this?

      1. They could simply close the airport and wash every surface (I guess this would considered an physical DDOS)
      2. Turn off the devices and go back to manually searching every article. (Slow but people would still get through)
      3. Leave the devices on and just process all the people who come up positive. (Slow but people would still get through)

      I'm not sure that an airport would have a really good way to combat this. I guess one way would be to put sniffer type devices discretely through the airport that you could use to map out the location of certain chemicals. Then set up the airport with doors that could be closed remotely so that when something like C4 is detected in some area you could seal the area, etc.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:Somethings wrong... by Kernel+Rootkits · · Score: 0

      yes i totally agree! like polygraphs this cannot be totally accurate. Someone could easily have unknowing passengers carrying out their dirty work while they pass through security weaponless, then recover their materials after security checkpoints.

    3. Re:Somethings wrong... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge? That won't show up on the scans.

      No problem. All they have to do is ask each passenger if they packed their own bags and if they have been out of their possession at any time. If they lie, WeCU will detect it!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Somethings wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about you get really drunk?

    5. Re:Somethings wrong... by wcbsd · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or maybe they shuold keep those metal detectors - just in case.

    6. Re:Somethings wrong... by philspear · · Score: 1

      What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge? That won't show up on the scans.

      For guns and knives, that obviously wouldn't be a security risk. Unless you happen to have a terrorist taking a plane ride he didn't intend to hijack because he didn't think he could smuggle a gun on baord.

      A timed bomb would be a bigger issue, but that would probably be detectable with the usual measures. Also, have terrorists even tried this before? It seems to me they have more willing suicide bombers than they have people who know how to make good bombs. Lets not forget that most terrorist attacks so far have been really low-tech and relied on a lot of luck in finding the gaping holes in security systems. They haven't been very sophisticated.

      I think this system will be defeated not by terrorists slipping a bomb into Grandma's bag while she isn't watching, it will be defeated because the guy in charge of watching the monitors was drunk, or the (windows) computer controlling the system crashes. Assuming of course that it ever works in the first place.

    7. Re:Somethings wrong... by aztektum · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's not even start about false positives....

      TSA Agent: Sir, please step aside for more screening.

      Nervous Traveler: What seems to be the problem?

      TSA Agent: You set off our Spazz Detect 1000 by your nervous behavior.

      Nervous Traveler: Oh, that. Well, uh this is a bit embarrassing to admit, but you see I'm flying home to my wife and it seems I misplaced my wedding ring. Really.

      TSA Agent: Uh-huh. Well, sir, we'd be more than glad to help you look for it. *snaps on rubber glove*

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    8. Re:Somethings wrong... by sakonofie · · Score: 1
      *puts tinfoil hat on*

      What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge?

      I don't really think someone accidentally taking a knife/gun onto a plane is ever going to do much except freak people out. People "accidentally" taking a knife/gun are a something to worry about. If by weapon you mean bomb, then yah that might be a problem.

      But back to the main point, LETS START ON FALSE POSITIVES! I would certainly be willing to bet that the number of them are going to be through the roof. This will drive the day in day out screeners to not care or handle positive cases seriously. The highly motivated attackers will almost certainly be able to take advantage of this, and the makers of the system will probably just lower some digital thresholds to reduce false positives. Between this and just a naturally imperfect system, I'd be willing to bet that the false negative rate is at least 50%, which is basically worthless. (Remember that this is speculation.)
      This is just more stopping only the dumb terrorists, more security theater, and a waste of my time at the airport. Yay, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

      *takes tinfoil hat off*

    9. Re:Somethings wrong... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Or how about you get really drunk?"

      WAIT!!! Are yoo trying to imply somehow that everyone doesn't?!?!?!?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Somethings wrong... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Step A. Someone purposely handles explosives or better saturates their shins/shoes with a chemical that would set off the bomb detector.

      You mean, natural fertilizers of the good old fashioned kind? That's already been done. Every time a dog takes a poo, and someone steps into that poo -- that's a false (but valid) positive already. Personally, that's probably the only idiotic security Hollywood measure that I'm not too upset about. I like the side-effect of having no passengers saturated with poo board airplanes.

    11. Re:Somethings wrong... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      doors that could be closed remotely so that when something like C4 is detected in some area you could seal the area

      I'll keep that in mind so when I get sealed into an area of an airport I can calmly remind myself all it means is I'm trapped in a room with a bomb.

    12. Re:Somethings wrong... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Try the door handles to the men's room: those get a lot of traffic, and it only takes a little bit of nitrate to generate false positives. Making the security theater look like incompetent boobs could in fact be a very useful technique for people to interfere with security overall, and get them away from using effective techniques.

    13. Re:Somethings wrong... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Terrorist packs bag complete with gun and bomb. Gets hypnotized. He's told he is going to visit his sick mother. All conscious knowledge of bomb and gun are suppressed. Post hypnotic suggestion to look in his bag at a given time when he will remember his purpose for flying.

      Hypnosis is quite effective when the subject is willing.

  6. You're in a desert walking along in the sand... by JesseL · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can it also detect replicants?

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:You're in a desert walking along in the sand... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I still think the SG-1 response to the Replicant question was the best.

      Because I too am a turoise.

      (a humanoid alien responding while not knowing what a turtoise is).

    2. Re:You're in a desert walking along in the sand... by Lanforod · · Score: 1

      Right, so when Vala decides she doesn't flip over the tortoise because she too is a tortoise, would that have generated a negative result in the polygraph she took if that question was actually asked? She wasn't lying if that's what she thinks the answer would actually be... As for replicators (human form), SG-1 could easily distinguish them from real humans as they acted too much like machines... besides the fact that if you shot them, it didn't have any effect!

    3. Re:You're in a desert walking along in the sand... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't see the episode...

      Vala found out she was going to be questioned and tested to see if she was worthy to join the SGC. They wanted to know if she was trustworthy and if her psych profile was suitable.

      To practice she started reading common human/english psych questions to prepare for the test by visiting various websites, even though the C.O. said practicing for such things doesn't help.

      She was reading allowed while practicing and got to the popular tortoise question. After reading it out loud and thinking for a sec she responded "Because I too am a tortoise."

      The joke being that she had to idea what a tortoise was, being an alien and all.

  7. Thoughtcrimes by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better not thing any doubleplus ungood thoughts, or have a friend that's Muslim.

    1. Re:Thoughtcrimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orwell didn't see the technology coming that actually could read your mind :(

  8. Brain scans? by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA doesn't say anything about brain scans What's up with that headline?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Brain scans? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      My guess is submitter was trying to make the case that reading emotion states is some sort of mind reading which is some sort of 'brain scan'. Yeah, I don't buy it either.

    2. Re:Brain scans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kdawson was the editor. He sucks so bad, he gives bad editors a good name. Why bother having an 'editor' is beyond me though. Maybe they should call them monkeys who click submission accepted.

  9. I'm sure you don't.. by daveatneowindotnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'We don't want you to feel that you are being interrogated.' Yeah that might interfere with your interrogation.

    1. Re:I'm sure you don't.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'We don't want you to feel that you are being interrogated.'

      Those are SUCH reassuring words.

      This system could produce some interesting results; suppose my own angry reaction to Bin Laden is off the charts, but I have no other intentions of violence. Would I get flagged as a terrorist because I'd like to see Osama planted in the sand up to his neck while the tide comes in?

  10. Scan this monkey brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (goatcx image)

    1. Re:Scan this monkey brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we can't scan this one.. the probe just keeps falling out

  11. Heh by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see it now...someone hacks the system and substitutes subliminal porn images for the bin Laden pictures. Talk about provoking a physiological reaction...

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Heh by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see it now...someone hacks the system and substitutes subliminal porn images for the bin Laden pictures. Talk about provoking a physiological reaction...

      Sir, is that an AK-47 in your pocket?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Heh by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the machine would pick up to someone startled and thinking "WTF? Did I just see a dick?"

      --
      We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    3. Re:Heh by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Go go goatse!

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop at subliminal?
      I'm sure when security looked at it, they'd get tagged themselves.

      Hey, now that's an idea...

    5. Re:Heh by zaxus · · Score: 1

      >Go go goatse!

      Wouldn't that be "Go go Gadget Rectum"?

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
    6. Re:Heh by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, but I may have left a banana magazine in there.... (SFW)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  12. Wow, that's creepy by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Right now it is used to find terrorists, but this technology can be used in reverse. Flashing images of the president and the national flag, anyone don't respond positively get singled out... Such uses are very disturbing.

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    1. Re:Wow, that's creepy by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      Not only disturbing but also absolutely useless. There is not one terrorist that this would have caught. As pointed out, they have no idea what results will show on the machine when an actual and real terrorist tries to board the plane.

      This says nothing of how easy it will be now to attack any other mass transportation system other than airplanes, or infrastructure, or water supplies, or food supplies etc. All that this amounts to is a huge waste of money and time. While they put so much effort and money into such a thing, it tells terrorists exactly where to not bother because they aren't watching any other places.

      Just one incident at the security checkpoint large enough to shut down a terminal and you have all the distraction you need to sneak into the cargo area etc. Never mind easily shutting down and airport and diverting emergency services to a false alarm while real terrorist acts are happening elsewhere in the city or country.

      This sort of thing is absolutely stupid. Worse, it will get used for the wrong reasons, on the wrong people, for the wrong goals.

      Please, will someone show me where the terrorists are? Can you show me their unending plots to hijack airplanes? Oh, that's right, they just did that in India. What was I thinking? ALL terrorists ALWAYS want to use airplanes to frighten Americans, and the world will end if a lighter gets on board an airplane. Please, someone show justification for this system.

      Yeah, yeah. There was a glacier in North America once too... are we building anti-glacial protection systems?

    2. Re:Wow, that's creepy by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      are we building anti-glacial protection systems?

      As a Canadian, I'd have to say: yes.

      It's fucking freezing out there!

    3. Re:Wow, that's creepy by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah. There was a glacier in North America once too... are we building anti-glacial protection systems?

      Hey man, the thread about the auto industry bailout is elsewhere. :)

    4. Re:Wow, that's creepy by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      It makes me infuriated. Look, there is evidence to show that if the pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and analysis processes had been what they should have been, the tragedy of 9/11 would never have happened.

      When we invest in such systems as this, what the government is saying is that despite their new information and ability to show improvement on pre-9/11 processes to prevent further incidents, they are not going to do anything about their failures. They'd rather just inconvenience citizens because in doing so it just so happens to help out the fascist neocons in the grand plan for the new world order.

      Meanwhile, since 9/11 have any terrorists been caught in an airport? Homeland security needs to go. This is such a waste of resources and gives a totally false sense of security. It's not only counterproductive, it's in the way of something that would be good for security.

    5. Re:Wow, that's creepy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of tyranny of the majority.

      This is what happens when Libertarian Ideals are set aside because "the people want ______"

      Fill in the ______ with any number of options, and you'll start to see why it is Tyranny. Especially if the ______ has any economic costs.

      We know where the Terrorists are. We are too afraid of what the "world" will think if we try to do anything about them. Because most of them live in places that generally like those kinds of people around.

      And if the latest incident in India could suggest anything, it would be that ten or fifteen people can do a whole lot of damage to "soft" targets. The same lesson is learned from 9/11, Columbine, Oklahoma City and off the coast of Somalia.

      If you look at my short list above, you'll be able to see that it isn't easy to stop these kinds of things. We don't want to believe anyone is capable of such actions so we tend to ignore the REAL warning signs.

      So we build up one area, while ignoring another. The next attack will not be on airports or planes. It will be a stadium filled with 100K drunken soccer fans, or some other place where there isn't enough security to stop a few guys determined enough to kill thousands.

      And we'll be shocked. And shocked that it COULD have been prevented if we only took the signs seriously. And there will be finger pointing, and hand wringing that lasts for years. Maybe even a commission or two to pass blame.

      And so it goes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Wow, that's creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think by that point you'd be easily identifiable by the tinfoil hat on your head.

    7. Re:Wow, that's creepy by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Right now it is used to find terrorists, but this technology can be used in reverse. Flashing images of the president and the national flag, anyone don't respond positively get singled out...

      Which would identify foreigners and people who voted for the other guy.
      If it even works.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    8. Re:Wow, that's creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...are we building anti-glacial protection systems?

      We're working on it. Some call it global climate change...

  13. Let me be the first to say... by noundi · · Score: 1

    ... what the fuck!?

    --
    I am the lawn!
  14. The article states: by Hahnsoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It is possible today to hijack an aircraft using only five or six able-bodied passengers who are well-trained in Kung Fu fighting," he says. "There is no technology in place in airports to detect a threat like that."
    Well, no. Not unless you start putting Ninjas on every plane. Everyone knows that Ninjas > Kung Fu fighting.

    Apparently, Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting...

    tl;dr WTF?

    1. Re:The article states: by IsThisNickTaken · · Score: 1

      "Apparently, Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting.."

      Great, now I have that song in my head...

    2. Re:The article states: by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "It is possible today to hijack an aircraft using only five or six able-bodied passengers who are well-trained in Kung Fu fighting," he says. "There is no technology in place in airports to detect a threat like that."

      Well, no. Not unless you start putting Ninjas on every plane. Everyone knows that Ninjas > Kung Fu fighting.

      Apparently, Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting...

      tl;dr WTF?

      Ah, color-me-stupid, but I thought the shortcomings of detection on the ground were mitigated by our armed Air Marshals?

      I mean Ninjas are good, but last time I checked .357 SIG > Ninjas, if you're any good with a firearm.

    3. Re:The article states: by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I mean Ninjas are good, but last time I checked .357 SIG > Ninjas, if you're any good with a firearm.

      .45s have more stopping power ;) Either way though I hope the ninja doesn't have his own ranged weapon....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Evidence suggests you are wrong.

      As demonstrated in the scientific documentary "Shaolin verses Ninja" (aka Heroes of the East), Kung Fu > Ninjas.

    5. Re:The article states: by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      I mean Ninjas are good, but last time I checked .357 SIG > Ninjas, if you're any good with a firearm.

      Man, those cats are fast as lightning.

      In fact, it is a little bit frightening...

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    6. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, we're going to need pirates. Lots of pirates.

    7. Re:The article states: by hey! · · Score: 1

      Reminds of an old Jimmy Wang-Yu movie. He's trying to teach his students the secrets of jumping, which it turns out have nothing to do with plyometrics and everything to do with mentally altering your body weight. He has this huge wicker basket filled with stones, and he makes the students run around on the edge while he removes stones. They don't believe it's possible, so he dumps all the stones, and runs around the edge of the basket without tipping.

      Later he and his students are attending a huge tournament held in an outside arena, cordoned off with curtains thirty feet tall. One of the competitors is a Japanese ninja who ,instead of walking through the entrance jumps over the curtain.

      Jimmy raises one eyebrow, half turns to his students, laconically remarking, "Nice jumping." You know all the students are thinking that he'll make them hit the old rice baskets like madmen when he gets them home.

      In any case, what you're wanting for airplane work is good old fashioned southern fried gong-fu -- like in the old 1970s Shaw Brothers movies. You know the choreography: arm-bridge, arm-bridge, leg-trap, arm-bridge, jump (for a little variety). It evolved to fight in constrained areas like crowded alleys and small boats.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:The article states: by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Great, now I have that song in my head..."

      You're welcome. You can thank us after you've taken your polygraph.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    9. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next stop: Somalia! (or maybe Yemen!)

    10. Re:The article states: by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      "Apparently, Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting.."

      Great, now I have that song in my head...

      Here ya go... This should help get that song out of your head.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    11. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After studying martial arts for the past 18 years you're not wrong (jokes aside), but the caveat is this:

      The amount of dedication that it would take to achieve the level of technique needed is often more than most people would bother with. Add to that the fact that a lot of schools/teachers are more interested in teaching a "sport" rather than a "martial art", and a lot of the schools that DO teach martial arts WILL NOT advance people, even if they are ready skillwise, if they are not also emotionally mature (which might make it more difficult to find skilled candidates/teachers, although I am sure lots exist in the former Eastern Block and Ex-Military if most spy novels are anything to go by :) ).

      In our system you would probably need people at least at the level of a high purple-belt or brown-belt before they would be competent enough. You're talking at least 5 years of dedicated practice, of your 6 man team, leaving aside instructors and people to get them to that level.

      Then you have to contend with the possibility of an Air Marshal. Guns > Hand-to-Hand. Yeah, there are things you can do to minimize the shot connecting, but as the unarmed person you have to close the distance to be able to do that. An airplane is filled with "clutter". This works for you (tougher to get an unhindered shot off), and against you (tougher to close that distance which you need to do).

      On the other hand:
      1) I've seen demonstrations by true masters who could probably take out the plane with only 2-3 others of their level. They are even rarer and less likely to be drawn to this sort of cause. (my teacher could easily go on a killing spree in a super market where they would only start noticing after the first 6-8 bodies hit the ground and makes me look like an amateur. His teacher makes him look as untrained and could probably mow through the whole supermarket if he wanted to. He's also a rather unassuming 65yr old grandfather. Personally I could probably take only one or two people out if I had to, but since I've never been in that situation I can not truly tell.)

      2) We mentioned unarmed combat vs. the possibility of guns. Bluntly, there are a certainly a number of perfectly ordinary everyday devices, which TSA would allow on a plane which could be used as improvisational weapons (as a long time M.A. student I tend to think about these things to keep my mind occupied). Most of the "traditional" martial arts weapons were in fact improvised from whatever farming implements the peasants happened to have on hand, tonfa for instance were the handles from the millstones.

      (posting anonymously so I don't have extra pushups waiting for me when I get to class :) )

    12. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kung Fu is not a very effective way of training for actual hand to hand combat. For that you need the kind of stuff they do in Mixed Martial Arts, which is completely different. In any case 5 or 6 people taking on a hundred passengers is not going to be good for them if the 100 people actually decide to put up a fight, no matter how well those 5 or 6 people are able to fight. Of course, if they succeed in intimidating everyone before a sizable fraction of the 100 decide to resist, they might still succeed. Kung Fu would not be effective for this.

    13. Re:The article states: by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Legend of the Flying Guillotine. A decent movie, I liked how Kill Bill stole the music from it

    14. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm a .357 blowing apart a window and the terrorists become irrelevant.

    15. Re:The article states: by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Just pump the airplanes with narcotic gas. Plus, the airplane companies will save a fortune on food.

      Do you think that's air you're breathing now?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    16. Re:The article states: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now it may be a case of the fox guarding the hen house but pirates at least for the moment seem to have overtaken ninjas, or else ninjas would be in possession of 100 million dollars /manialce laugh worth of oil.

  15. Control by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how did they devise a control for this?

    AFAIK, there's no biometric scans of the 9/11 terrorists, so it's just like the company is guessing anyway. For all we know, terrorists could be the only completely calm people going through security, as they're the only ones not worried about arriving at their destination late.

    1. Re:Control by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      as they're the only ones not worried about arriving at their destination late

      But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Control by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?

      I'm sure they've got that covered as part of the normal course of things. After all, the afterlife is the one place where everyone arrives late.

      *ba-dum pssssh*

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      as they're the only ones not worried about arriving at their destination late

      But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?

      Sloppy seconds?

    4. Re:Control by ronark · · Score: 1

      Stop asking questions! The technology works perfectly. You should have no reason to hide your biometric readings if you're not a terrorist anyway.

    5. Re:Control by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I would think that a terrorist would be pretty calm while headed to his plane. He's probably been through repeated training as to what to do/say during the airport security phase. He's also convinced that the actions he's about to undertake will get him into heaven and surround him with 72 virgins. If you were going to undertake something that was "guaranteed" to give you 72 virgins to do with as you please, you'd be pretty calm and happy about it too.

      I recently went on a trip and went through airport security twice. I was nervous not so much about security, but about flying in general. (Takeoffs and landings don't make me too calm.) Everything went smoothly, but if they were "brain scanning" for "emotional strain", I'd have been pegged for closer scrutiny while Joe Terrorist would likely sail on through.

      That said, a read through of the article hints that the main point of the new security features will be their unobtrusiveness. People would be "tested" in ways so subtle that they might not even know they were tested. If they could pull this off, it might help eliminate the one glaring weakness of the current security setup: Moving the suicide bomber target from the airplane to the security line.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Control by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      What nobody (especially the terrorists) seems to get is that you get 72 Virgins in Paradise.

      And they STAY virgins!

    7. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?

      If it's truly the will of Allah, how can you be late? By definition, you're right on time.

      Sadly, the people putting this stuff forward seem to have left Islam behind them long ago. :(

    8. Re:Control by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      They stay virgins because its 72 guys playing Magic
      (not trying to flame Magic people, its from a Family Guy episode)

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    9. Re:Control by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      And they STAY virgins!

      Wouldn't it be ironic if they actually were virgins? "Your going to put WHAT in WHERE?", "Ouch! Ow! Ouch! Stop it! That hurts!" Hardly my idea of a good time ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Control by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      And how did they devise a control for this?

      AFAIK, there's no biometric scans of the 9/11 terrorists

      That's okay, we can take scans of the ones that are still alive.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    11. Re:Control by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there's no biometric scans of the 9/11 terrorists

            AFAIK the TSA has not caught a SINGLE terrorist. Even the "shoe bomb" guy made it onto the plane, and was stopped by his fellow passengers.

           

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Control by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?

      Then they will just have to go to the Bahamas!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Control by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I dunno. If I were on my way to a rendezvous with 72 virgins, "happy" might describe it, but "calm" sure would not. Well, it would not have when I was in college. At my age, I have to take half a Viagra just to talk dirty. Maybe they need to develop a machine that detects if someone is going through the line while gettin' chubby.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    14. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      no worries, there are enough slashdotters for everyone!

    15. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be ironic if they actually were virgins?

      What nobody will tell you is that they're the Slashdot variety. 72 basement dwelling WoW players, yours for eternity.

    16. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing they don't realize they are virgins. I don't ever remember anything specifically about the virgins being chicks...

      Wait, what was I thinking, they've all already gotten gay with each other. Something about living in a cave, with no woman for many many years...

    17. Re:Control by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point, too. They STAY VIRGINS. Nobody gets to put anything anywhere.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder this about any of these so called "terrorist-detecting" technologies. How the hell do they test this stuff - just happen to have a bunch of terrorists running around the office? Especially since terrorists make up a very small percentage of the traveling population. How do you create a method of accurately screening for something that occurs 1 in a million times unless you have an experimental group of several millions?

      I think its safe to put this under the "security-theatre" heading. It sure doesn't seem like any sort of "real" technological development...

    19. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point, too. They STAY VIRGINS. Nobody gets to put anything anywhere.

      Would you wanna put anything into one of those Arab nigger sluts?

    20. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, you mean that we do not have the terrorist Bush and Cheney biometrics?

  16. Everyone would fail. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Funny

    At some point, people will get so pissed off at getting poked, prodded, searched, scanned, monitored and tracked to see if they are terrorists, that they will wind up deciding that it is actually easier to become terrorists themselves.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Everyone would fail. by GiMP · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of Voltaire's joke, "In this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others." If the joke needs explaining, it is this: steps to deter treason (or increase loyalty) will often have the exact opposite effect. Of course, that is all fine and just as it is the best of all possible worlds, and for what do admirals exist but to be executed for their failures? Similarly, for what to travelers exist for other than to be poked and prodded, to become terrorists, and ultimately see that other travelers become poked and prodded? Leibnizian thinking at its finest?

      I should've posted anonymously.

    2. Re:Everyone would fail. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."

    3. Re:Everyone would fail. by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Or they will decide not to holiday in the USA anymore.
      That is the very real, very current effect of US airport paranoia. People spending tourist cash in Canada, Europe and even south America rather than go through this shit in the USA...

      I've spoken to tons of people who agree that they will simply not visit the USA on vacation until the paranoia levels drop.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    4. Re:Everyone would fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they will wind up deciding that it is actually easier to become terrorists themselves.

      I suppose that it would matter as to their destination... Cuba? Turkey?

    5. Re:Everyone would fail. by phageman · · Score: 1

      But that's not the point! What everyone seems to be forgetting is that this entire system is designed to be invisible. You won't know that you're being monitored and scanned until they ask you to answer a few questions in a private room.

  17. Wonderful... by band-aid-brand · · Score: 1

    *Packs tinfoil hat*

  18. It's Worthless by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

    Unless they couple this technology with the ability to read people's minds, then it's completely worthless.

    What if random traveler A is thinking about terrorist activities in Mumbai and is afraid for their family right when they happen to walk through the little flashy thing (even if they don't know it)? The system would flag them as TERRORIST PROBABLY and they'll get arrested and cavity searched for no reason. Meanwhile the terrorist who focuses on bunnies and happy flowers and goes about his business will get through security just fine.

    Even if I see it I wouldn't believe it... Just like The Riddler's machine in Batman Beyond - it just raises too many questions.

  19. As always.. by Xelios · · Score: 1

    If I know I'm nothing but an elevated heartbeat away from being branded a suspected terrorist by airport security, well guess what? I'd probably have an elevated heartbeat.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:As always.. by srussia · · Score: 1

      If I know I'm nothing but an elevated heartbeat away from being branded a suspected terrorist by airport security, well guess what? I'd probably have an elevated heartbeat.

      Yes, precisely analogous to the "white coat effect". Time to coin "TSA effect" then.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    2. Re:As always.. by maxume · · Score: 1

      The secure area beverage vendors already called dips on "TSA effect".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:As always.. by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      However, if you're Joe Schmoe, know nothing about how it works, you only know it catches terrorists, then you know you won't get caught, because of course, you're not a terrorist.

      Of course, if a terrorist is certain that he won't get caught, then he won't get caught..

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  20. The big picture is: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    (1) This technology will not be reliable enough within the near future to prevent many false positives (as someone mentioned above). Which is unacceptable. Our legal standards abhor "fishing expeditions" by the authorities.

    (2) We musn't just look at the potential good. There is also enormous potential for abuse. Probably enough to outweigh any good it might do.

    1. Re:The big picture is: by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Our legal standards abhor "fishing expeditions" by the authorities.

      You've gotta be more specific about which country you live in. It's obviously not the same country as I live in. TSA has every right to search you at random, or for any made-up-on-the-spot reason. I once was selected for a full search in Missoula because "an interesting substance" was showing up on my laptop case. Yeah, it's called drywall dust from a construction site. Same thing that's on my shoes and my jacket, along with 6 different kinds of clay from Wyoming.

  21. insane by MartinG · · Score: 1

    My intention may be harmless but those who hid a bomb in my bag may have other ideas. How does scanning my brain help then?

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  22. What about shy people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a very shy person in, well, person. I don't like to be in crowds when traveling. I get nervous easily and sweaty hands (same as if I try and talk to a girl at a bar) around many people. Will a device like that automatic brand me as terrorist? The few times I have traveled overseas since 9/11 I have been picked almost every time to get a bigger search, maybe because I don't look people directly in the eye and looks down a lot. I really do not expect a computer device to know this.

  23. I smell fear here... by syousef · · Score: 1

    Quick, let's beat them up.

    Nervous fliers everywhere will now have something legitimate to fear.

    It's times like this I wish I weren't an atheist so I could revel in the knowledge that the people involved in producing this destructive rubbish will rot in hell for eternity.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:I smell fear here... by solweil · · Score: 1

      No need to believe in a deity to think that the people involved are making their own lives hell. I rest assured that they do not sleep easily.

  24. And whats the false positive rate? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

    Even presuming that one could reliably detect stress or heightened emotional states via this technology, what is rate of correlation between that and committing terrorist acts? I don't know about anybody else but I know alot of people who are terrified of flying and exhibit alot of stress in the airport. Enough false positives and this technology is not only ineffective but also a tremendous burden in price, personnel, and inconvenience.

    1. Re:And whats the false positive rate? by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Here's what would happen if I stepped through one of those.

      Oh God, Oh God, they're going to show me a picture of Osama bin Laden and get my reaction. What if I mess up? What if I secretly admire Osama bin Laden? They'll think I'm a terrorist. I already have a beard! What if I am a terrorist and I just don't know it yet, like Tyler Durden? What if by trying to not get caught by the sensors it causes the sensors to pick up my brainwaves. Oh, God, here it comes! I hate Osama bin Laden! No, I like Osama bin Laden! How do I feel about Osama bin Laden? What if this machine can read that I have an itch in my crotch?

      "Sir, could you please step this way?"

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  25. This might not actually be so bad if it worked. by JesseL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no ill intentions, but I hate going anywhere unarmed. Maybe I could finally fly without having to give up my knife and sidearm.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:This might not actually be so bad if it worked. by JesseL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny? Hell, I'm serious.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:This might not actually be so bad if it worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no ill intentions, but I hate going anywhere unarmed. Maybe I could finally fly without having to give up my knife and sidearm.

      I agree ... why should I have to give up my C4 just to fly?

    3. Re:This might not actually be so bad if it worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you there man. I don't like going anywhere without my pistol under my jacket either but maybe that's because I wear it 12 hours a day and practically bring it with me everywhere. Even at home it's almost always on.

  26. Facepalm ....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon, only the deaf, dumb, and blind will be allowed on airplanes. Anyone else that can react to their environment will put on a list, and subsequently denied travel, and ticket expenses.

    Great way to subsidize the airline industry, since the Federal Government is running out of money.

    Why are we not rebuilding our rail infrastructure again?

  27. Subliminal bin Laden by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    "Damnit, I'm not a terrorist! I just have a bizarre beard-and-turban fetish!"

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  28. Cause that's better... by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

    "We don't want you to feel interrogated." Frankly, I'd rather know when I'm being I interrogated. That way I can be protected from self-incrimination. I heard somewhere that I should be able to do that...

    --
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  29. Jhihad Joe by amclay · · Score: 1

    ..the plumber isn't worried, because he's going to be with his 70 virgins. I think it would be an ok addition, however - it is no replacement for the current security checks.

    --
    It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
  30. Your Federal Tax Dollars At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Nothing.

    Cordially,
    Kilgore Trout

  31. So... by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

    Is there a chance I might actually see an image of Goatse Guy while being tested? I wonder what kind of "stimulation" that would bring up.

  32. Farts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Would these things detect that you're attempting to fart silently? Esp when you know that it will in all likelihood cause the person next to you chock to death? It could be considered a biological attack.

    1. Re:Farts by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Heh, reminds me of that cop that filed assault charges on a prisoner that farted next to him. Biological attack indeed. Taking things out of context and going to the extreme seems to be the fashion nowadays anyway.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Farts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we're all better off if you get pulled from the queue before that happens. I pity the poor sucker who has to administer the cavity search though...

    3. Re:Farts by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Apparently, it can and it did!

      "They told me it is the highest reading they had for explosives and they took it very seriously.
      "They were very jumpy and convinced there was something explosive in the dog."

  33. Medicine is not an exact science. by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    How do you know someone's normal heart and breathing rates? They're not seriously going to take an avg are they? Also, increased heart rate & breathing are common for people with high blood pressure, and/or overweight. So does than mean every American is a terrorist? Good job, people! Also, if people are stressing about generating a false positive, they will generate a false positive. Just a few thoughts.

    1. Re:Medicine is not an exact science. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Besides, you're talking about people in airports. Of course they'll have elevated heart rates, breathing, and blood pressure.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Medicine is not an exact science. by infalliable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm very worried about false positive rates on these.

      Many of the signs seem to be things that can have very normal reasons for occurring. You're worried about your flight, the machine falsely accusing you, you ran, etc. Airports are very stressful places so looking for stressed people seems to be a red herring.

    3. Re:Medicine is not an exact science. by Shados · · Score: 1

      These same things create false positive in the current system too though. I tend to get extremely sweaty when I'm in a hurry (stress or not), and my passport tends to show it when I hand it over to the person at the customs. That, on top of my totally horrible memory for when they ask "When's the last time you came to this country?", and I ended up in the interrogation chamber more times than I'd like.

  34. and any one how shows any smarts does not get the by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    and any one how shows any smarts does not get the job.

  35. Just great. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...and flashing of subliminal images, such as a photo of Osama bin Laden.

    And someone will think, this guy... :-)
    (The subconscious mind works in strange ways.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  36. hehe the invisible theater by pngwen · · Score: 1

    Airport security is a sham as is anyway. It's all just a show to make you feel safe. They'll, of course, have to detain, torture, and execute the odd innocent as a sign that the invisible force of knowing is working. Kind of like playing a "death lottery" every time you fly.

    --
    I am the penguin that codes in the night.
  37. Minority report precrimes by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that they'd be catching people that were carrying only legal items. It wouldn't be a stretch for an evildoer to put their toothpaste and mouthwash in someone else's carryon luggage intending to get it back later if the innocent got through security.

    Of course, I don't know who you'd plant it on. The families with screaming babies and old ladies seem to be the only people who get randomly selected to get the truly invasive screenings.

  38. And? by geekmansworld · · Score: 1

    "...body temperature, heart rate and respiration â€" signals a terrorist unwittingly emits before he plans to commit an attack..."


    <p>Or signals a former sexual abuse victim might unwittingly emit for the mortal fear of possibly undergoing a cavity search?</p>
    <p>Fear is a crime. Guilt is a crime. Your emotions are a crime. Time for your Prozium.</p>
  39. Don't worry, be happy by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, we don't want you to feel interrogated. We just want to know everything about you. Results will be posted in the cafeteria.

    Oh the tyranny of average... Just wait until they start singling out people for not fitting profile American 2.0, because they didn't recognize the last American Idol contestant on the subliminal. Think it's far fetched? Think again. In other, unrelated news, cattle mutilations are up.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  40. As many questions as this raises... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is how much R&D money are they going to be asking for to "perfect" the technology after giving some very promising-looking demos?

  41. how to get data? by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    Here's my question. How do they know about the biological responses of a terrorist about to commit an act? Surely they are just making educated guesses (therefore can lead to false positives). They can't really measure someone who's about to commit an act, right? Or whoever doing the experiment would have been blown off.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  42. Mmm... Snake Oil... by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Frankly, about the only sinister thing about this is that there are people in officialdom who are so fundamentally brain-dead they actually believe the claims of whatever idiot is trying to sell this.

    Even when interrogators have the time and money to hook people up to the most sensitive equipment available there is no technology that can determine to reasonable accuracy whether a person is lying in answer to a given question, nevermind their exact mindset or intentions in the next few hours.
    Now we are supposed to believe that some gadget can automagically determine whether or not somebody wants to blow up a plane when they walk past it and are flashed a "subliminal image" of osama bin-laden?

    I could go on about the sheer idiocy of assuming that somebody's reaction to a popular hate figure defines their politics or intentions. I could start about how peoples wildly varying mental states and physiologies make such simplistic measurements useless. But frankly it's not even worth deconstructing an idea this stupid in detail. Anybody dumb enough to believe in this fairy story clearly either suffers from paranoid psychosis or is so mentally deficient as to be beyond any form of rational argument.

    1. Re:Mmm... Snake Oil... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Even when interrogators have the time and money to hook people up to the most sensitive equipment available there is no technology that can determine to reasonable accuracy whether a person is lying in answer to a given question, nevermind their exact mindset or intentions in the next few hours.

      First, you're wrong. An FMRI will show if someone is lying.
      Unfortunately, it is a large and expensive piece of medical equipment that we won't see in airports anytime soon.

      Second, the point of this technology is not to determine if someone is lying, merely to determine their mindset. It is a screening tool and when they say it is "more effective" that doesn't mean 100%, it just means it does a better job than the current batch of tools that are being used to try and single out stressed individuals.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Mmm... Snake Oil... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Give me enough time and practice, and an fMRI will be beaten

    3. Re:Mmm... Snake Oil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a terrorist. I work for the Popular Liberation Of Bratislava (Provisional Branch).

      We were going to blow up a lot of aircraft to draw attention to our moderate and peace-loving cause, so we asked Osama bin Laden for some money.

      He didn't give us any, and shot our messengers.

      So now we hate the sonofabitch, and if we see a picture of him on our way to an airport with our cheaper explosives (provided by the CIA when we said we were going to bomb Russians), we will spit in his eye.

      So I suppose we'll pass the brain-scan test, then...?

  43. Great idea, just needs the right application... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us begin by installing these devices in both chambers of Congress, in the White House press room, and hell, why not in the Oval Office while we're at it?

    It would be great; we could have C-SPAN broadcast their readings in real time as the politicians speak.

    Why not? If the innocent have nothing to hide, then our rulers should be first in line to be subjected to all of these new technologies.

  44. missing tag: securitytheatre by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Insightful
    what incomparable horseshit.

    EVERYBODY KNOWS that if some asshole tries ANYTHING on a plane, the only thing to do is for the passengers to immediately stomp the life out of the motherfucker, no ifs, no ands, no buts. Just take him apart.

    EVERYBODY KNOWS that, including the terrorists. As a consequence, there is really no point to screening people at airports.

    If people want to blow up a plane, it's a lot easier to book a flight, check your bags full of bombs that are hooked up to timers, and then let it rip. The security at the checkpoint is ludicrous, and the security for checked baggage is even worse. So, if you want to blow up a plane, it's not hard.

    If you want to commadeer the plane a la 9/11, the passengers will take you out before you even get to the cabin. They know they have nothing to lose.

    So, as a consequence, there is NO point in this idiotic security theatre. None whatsoever. And the smiling jackasses who come up with this Orwellian technology are vampiric leeches with their fingers up the butt of the reactionary militarists and an invertebrate Congress.

    And all it means is that flying on an airplane is just that much more insulting and that much more irritating, and that much less worth the trouble.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:missing tag: securitytheatre by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that your average flyer today has the courage and determination to go up against a determined person wanting to damage or bring down the aircraft? Today's mollycoddled, welfare-fed, government supported flyer is likely to sit there and say anything is OK with them as long as they aren't late meeting Aunt Katie.

      Even on flight 93 there were only one or two "leaders" that inspired a few of the passengers to action. Even when everyone on the plane knew that only certain death awaited them.

    2. Re:missing tag: securitytheatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to commadeer the plane a la 9/11, the passengers will take you out before you even get to the cabin.

      They will take you out while you are still in the airport? The cabin is where the passengers sit. You may be thinking of the flight deck (cockpit).

  45. Fundamental mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    correlation does not equal causality

    this is why the polygraph is a device that measures some physiological signs that are associated with being uncomfortable about the question asked and NOT a 'lie detector'...

    exhibiting signs that are in the mean associated with discomfort isn't going to tell you intentions...

    sounds like marketing to me..

  46. Warm, beating, breathing by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 1

    Crap. I seem to be exhibiting all the known signs of a terrorist.

    Where do I turn myself in?

    Seriously though, the security theatre in place does a great job of herding people into crowded areas where the air temp rises, and people get stressed out, resulting in all three of these so called terrorist signs. Without a slightly more relaxed general attitude, people have every reason to be stressed when they might be refused boarding due to some random TSA regulation, or have their property seized for no good reason (including that the screener feels like taking a nice new laptop home)...

    --
    [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
  47. Reminds me of HighSchool guidance councellors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when I was in one of those shitthole corporations in southern california, Huntington Beach Union High School District, if you had a piss-poor GPA or quirky personality stand-off-ish towards the rest of the populous then you get to have daily or weekly sessions with an overpaid "kind" or "polite" lady or tied'n'suited man that was oh'so understanding as to why you are behaving the way that you do. Bad GPA? They'll send you south to a strange adult school to catch-up on graduation credits that you never intended to collect. Bad family life? Hey, we know how deserving Social Services wants to work for you in bringing your famly back together with all those loving "fines" and soothing court sessions that bring the best out of us.

    If you can win the heart of the sociopathic psychologist or the psychopathic dean and principle, then it's more difficult for them to lie when disorder on their school hits them in the face. All over California it's a moral mess. In my growing-up, I learned all I needed just by going with family to their house-visit jobs for the services they performed: construction, maintenance, religious, light manufacturing, garage, etc. Highschool is in the dark ages in this regard. I left the school system around first quarter of the 10th grade as nothing more than a nerdy boy attracted to every subject that the school couldn't offer, mainly because it was a greater mix of the curriculum that they couldn't provide. That day and even up to my 26 years old, they still have law enforcment looking to fine me for non-attendance. Can you believe this shit? They think they find my office, then the legal paperwork comes in to somewhere trying to assert fines for failed attendance to which I obviously didn't pay for because I didn't intend to use it and it's unlawful even in their statutes for someone under such age or class to attend because his being is unstudied or unversed in law.

    Think of society as having become a Pederast. It looks for the young or unsound of mind, forces a voluntary service upon them, and if at any time they fail to render that service because of your absence or their inability then they'll fine you as a government agency. That's exactly what these scanners in the airports, hospitals, cash registers, toll-road checkpoints, truck stops, and street-lights are arrainged for: catching those of us who have caused no damages in our rights and have made use of other means for which we exercise religiously. Outside of the "patriot" bowl-movement, this is known as the 4th Branch of Government, because the 3 true and separate brances of government are vacant while a fake one known as the 4th Branch is the only thing today that is full of un-oathed unbonded individuals that constantly share information with eachother's departments unethically and illegally to ensure that they have the highest conviction rate and the lowest standard of living for whomever it is they are prejudiciously assaulting and harassing.

    RICO-act all of the alleged "government," They're just another mob and Mafia. They are all rioters. If I have to get psychologically profiled again, then I'm going to watch Lebian Giraffe Porn and eat Ice Cream with a stencil of Ossama bin Laden on my left sunglass eye and a stencil of Alan Greenspan french-kissing Bernanke in my right eyeglass.

    Send all these jack-offs to hell. Ossama and Alan have caused nowhere near the shame and loss of right that the President of the United States has caused. To sum up that pederast cradle-robbing President Eisenhower to his quote "Only America can hurt America" is the absolute truth. Imaging that: Clinton and Bush, throughout their administrations, have accepted legislation from terrorists by being inspired by them more than the Continental United States.

  48. Perfectly Safe World by Solitude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are there really people out there who think we can achieve a perfectly safe world? Spending more and more money for ever smaller incremental gains in safety? Is the cost really worth it? Is giving up your rights really worth it?

    At some point you have to stop and say look, there's an inherent danger in life. Your own body can turn against you. Are you willing to give up all your money and all your rights to feel safe? But what's left to be worth living if you've given everything up?

    I cringe every time I hear about somebody dying in some unique way, because I know there are going to be laws that follow to ensure that never happens again. Unfortunately, those laws tend to be far more overreaching and subject to abuse in ways that are far beyond what incident initiated them.

    People die. Dying is a part of life.

    1. Re:Perfectly Safe World by drspliff · · Score: 1

      Statistics show a 100% mortality rate among people who breathe oxygen, terrorism is just a drop in the ocean compared to the devistation nature is doing every day!!!!!

    2. Re:Perfectly Safe World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there really people out there who think we can achieve a perfectly safe world?

      For those of us throwing together a powerpoint slideshow on the security gains our patented "Bound, Blindfolded, and Naked" security package can offer, let's hope so.

      You see, here at BBN Security, we put children first. That's why we first bind, blindfold, THEN strip your clients, preventing any traumatic or embarrassing visuals for your younger, or more conservative, passengers.

    3. Re:Perfectly Safe World by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      In the current East vs. West struggle, the difference is "they" are far more willing to devalue lives than "we" are.

      No Western religion says you can achieve benefits from giving up your live in service to some higher being. Islam clearly and often says you get benefits from giving up your life in service of Allah. This is a key and important difference.

      No, it isn't possible to be perfectly and completely safe. However, it is entirely possible to keep people that believe in a better afterlife from bringing unwilling people with them. The most effective way is simply isolation. They don't seem to want to interact with us for purposes other than subugation and we really don't need them either. After all, 12th Century countries just don't need much in the way of consumer goods or anything else we produce. Our food isn't even farmed according to their dietary laws.

  49. Bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What next, witch ducking? Telekinetic terrorist detectors? The TSA employing mediums and ghosthunters to contact the spirits of anti-terrorist angels? I don't think I've ever read so much bunk in all my life. And this is a new low for Slashdot to even give space to such nonsense. These researchers are lunatics milking the fear driven research grant system. They are a danger to everyone and should be mocked by respectable scientists. Some people in the TSA should be fired for negligence and incompetence for even letting such ideas be entertained, let alone giving the fools money to indulge their harebrained power fantasies.

  50. This Flight sponsored by Travel-eze by Savage650 · · Score: 1

    If showing signs of stress will get you detained, the prudent terrori^Wtraveller shows up doped to the gills.

    I can see the sales of tranquilizer-laced chewing gum skyrocketing!

  51. Eight, sir; seven, sir; six, sir; five, sir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or listen to a particularly annoying song, as Alfred Bester suggested.

    Ten, sir, said the Tensor
    Tension, apprehension
    And dissension have begun.

    http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2004/03/a_word_of_expla.html

    I think Kylie's 'Can't Get You Out Of My Head' would work pretty well today.

  52. 20-30 seconds...Until you get a False Positive by Quantus347 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They say its only 20-30 seconds in security, until you realize that Bin Laden reminds you of you buddy's Moses costume last from Halloween when he kept drunkenly telling all the women to "part their legs like the Red Sea". Suddenly your subliminal responses swing the wrong direction and you end up being held in more traditional interrogation for hours to months in some dark hole halfway to Hell.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  53. Stimulus/response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developers say the combination of these technologies can detect a person's reaction to certain stimuli by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration

    Reaction to which stimuli? Do I have an elevated heart rate, etc. because I'm nervous out the bomb in my suitcase or am I just really turned on by that cute blond in front of me in the security line? Does that cute blonde walking in front of me have that reaction because of a subliminal picture of Osama or does she have that reaction because a male guard just singled her out for some "additional security screening"?

  54. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The general thought behind it is good. But you still run into one of the biggest problems you currently have: you'll have minimum wage guards with cardboard badges running these things. Some have failed tests by missing weapons purposely placed in bags!

    As for false positives, if I understand the article right, you'll just get pulled over for questioning. Heck, a first time, nervous flier could set the thing off.

    I do agree though, I have a feeling this could be beaten too easily.

  55. Uh oh... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    So, what if my reaction to an image of George W. Bush is worse than my reaction to Osama? I mean Bin Laden is indeed a leading terrorist etc, but he is hiding far away in Afghanistan, years after his deplorable act. At the same time George has been right here screwing with our lives every day...
    Would I still pass security in 20-30 seconds?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  56. Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cycle by dtolman · · Score: 2, Funny

    You counter with Ninjas, then they counter with Pirates. You think the Ninja's will stand a chance against Kung-Fu Pirates? I shudder at the thought of what they will be stopped with.

  57. Yeah but what about bomb carriers who don't know? by GarryFre · · Score: 1

    Even if it were foolproof, what about a passenger who has some remotely controlled bomb for example planted on them? They would not even know. I don't think it so wise to eliminate the metal detector yet.

    --
    www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
  58. Very scientificy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this crap is about as scientific as asking a 4 year old to stick out their tongue to see if they are lying.

  59. Let them blow each other up by taucross · · Score: 0

    Because soon the only people that could be bothered getting past airport security will be terrorists.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  60. Somebody introduce these guys to Bayes Theorem by yali · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's not even start about false positives....

    Actually, let's do...

    What many people don't realize is that detection procedures with very impressive-sounding statistical properties generally do horribly at catching rare events.

    Imagine some very impressive numbers. Suppose that this procedure has 99.999% sensitivity -- it catches nearly every wannabe terrorist who tries to board a plane intending to do harm. And suppose it also has 99.999% specificity -- out of 100,000 innocent passengers, 99,999 will be correctly identified as innocent, and only 1 will be a false alarm. Sounds good, right?

    Not really. In a given year, only a very small number of passengers are wannabe terrorists -- say, 10 per year. (That's probably high.) On the other hand, there are 1.6 billion air passengers per year (that may be a low estimate, since it's a 2000 number). So if this were implemented worldwide, then in a given year, we can assume that this profiling procedure will flag 160,010 people as terrorists. Only 6 x 10^-5 of those will be actual terrorists.

    Of course, those hypothetical sensitivity and specificity numbers are unrealistically, ridiculously good. With more realistic numbers, the problem gets much worse. Even if the detection procedure is very sensitive and very specific -- and I doubt that it is -- the low base-rate of terrorism means that an enormous number of people will be falsely accused of being terrorists.

    1. Re:Somebody introduce these guys to Bayes Theorem by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

      Bravo, someone who understands priors in Bayes!

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    2. Re:Somebody introduce these guys to Bayes Theorem by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      This is what is happening to the American "no fly" list. As the over 1.6 billion air passengers are being screened, thousands and thousands of named are added to this list. Since it takes several acts of Congress to remove ONE name, the number simply will increase until it is very likely you will be on that list.

      Also the TSA can falsely flag tens and hundreds of people by the same name. This exponentially increase the odds that you will experience needless harassment.

      And this assumed that names appear on this list in a legal and legitimate fashion. I am convinced that activists that protest neo-con policies of the US administration are being put on this list illegally.

      At this rate it will not be long before 50% of the passengers will be on this list.

      This is why they came up with the CLEAR program, the very program would-be real terrorists would apply for while those of us that wish not to be spied upon by our government will get harassed.

      This should be an alarm for those that cherish our rights and those Bush supporting Evangelical Christians out there since this is right out of "Revelation to John" and the "mark of the beast".

  61. nak by greatfool66 · · Score: 1

    Hes thinking about naked women like all the other men, wonder why theres seventy two of them though...

  62. Obligatory Blade Runner by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

    ...employs a combination of infra-red technology, remote sensors and imagers, and flashing of subliminal images, such as a photo of Osama bin Laden. Developers say the combination of these technologies can detect a person's reaction to certain stimuli by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration.

    Are you testing whether I'm a terrorist or a lesbian, Mr Deckard?

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  63. WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously. metal detectors are far more effective for this sort of thing. if you want to prevent hijackings, then you need to deny entry to the necessary tools and raise the bar for 'necessary tool'.

    i'll gladly sit next to someone on a flight who intends to bomb it if i know for a fact they are completely incapable of doing so.

  64. The Rain in Spain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...stays mainly in the plain.

    My Fair Lady could surely pass these scanners!

  65. Scary.... by stephenhawking · · Score: 1

    I'm already scared of flying, now I have to be scared that my fear of flying will trigger a red flag labeling me a terrorist...... great, I'll never fly again if they implement this craziness.

  66. Scary... by Petsection · · Score: 1

    Oh, I am soooo getting the tin foil hat back out!

  67. This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not show for a fact whether or not you are infiltrating dangerous/hazardous material that could help carry out terrorist activities...

    People react differently under stress. IMHO, this system will trigger a lot of false positives while the real criminals go in because they have been trained to bypass these detection systems.

  68. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    You counter with Ninjas, then they counter with Pirates. You think the Ninja's will stand a chance against Kung-Fu Pirates? I shudder at the thought of what they will be stopped with.

    Snakes?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  69. Technology and CNN by tbrex33 · · Score: 1

    ...I am surprised CNN did not unveil such a device during the election day coverage.. But probably didn't have the time with their hologram reenactment from Empire Strikes Back..

  70. Argh, who gives these people money?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait.. we do.. via the government via grants. And for those who will try to point out that it's an Israeli company, who do you think bankrolls pretty much all of the IDF?

    Regardless, file this one with all the other "we'll smell the terrorists' fear" startups. It's totally insane. How many people go on planes every day with the irrational fear that they're going to die in a crash? Is the plan to drag them into a side room for interrogation? Flash subliminal images of Osama bin Laden?? WTF??!! Is the pleasure center of a terrorist brain suddenly going to light up? "Yes, we caught him when he started smiling broadly.."

    As a former sufferer of panic disorder, I can not begin to describe how fucking stupid these projects are. They might work to some limited extent in a sterile lab environment with a well-established baseline but the idea that this is going to be valuable addition to security is just insane.

    Fast heart rate because you're going to commit a terrorist act?? Take some propranolol and... problem gone. Musicians and politicians take it all the time as it quashes tremors, sweating, fast heart rate, etc.

    Can we please remember that the 9-11 hijackers would have been totally defeated with a $15 padlock and instruction to pilots (which El Al airlines has always had) that they NEVER OPEN the cockpit door?

    I'm not sure who I despise more.. the people who give millions to startups like this or the "reporters" who smell a good story and don't bother asking the will-this-ever-work department.

  71. You insensitive clods! by PPH · · Score: 1

    What about all of us people with metal plates in our heads?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  72. cue the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imprinted sleeper agents.

  73. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by dtolman · · Score: 1

    On a Plane? Seems far-fetched to me.

  74. Ghostbusters by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    I say in honor of ghostbusters we all think of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. That will show them.

  75. Anti-Terrorism Rocks by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    A rock is too simple. No government agency would buy that. You need to sell them a sophisticated multistatic wide-spectrum digital sensor array, connected by high-speed fiberoptic network to a rock, which in turn is connected to a nationwide database.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Anti-Terrorism Rocks by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Would that be roughly equal to "shiny, partially translucent rock" ?

      A polished piece of quartz should do fine... Or should we offer the polishing as an optional feature ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  76. I'm not a terrorist, just a harmless psychopath by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I could trigger a false positive almost every time. I have such a general dislike for humanity that even if I'm getting on a plane, I'd still love to see it plough into a building. Okay... So maybe that's not precisely a "false" positive, but just because I want the plane to turn into a ball of fire doesn't mean I intend to do it myself. I'm far too lazy for anything like that.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  77. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by MoreDruid · · Score: 1

    bombs ;-)

    --
    The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
  78. thinking of false positives: Actually let's do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From the submitted story text... ...detect a person's reaction to certain stimuli by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration â" signals a terrorist unwittingly emits before he plans to commit an attack...

    And nervous ordinary folk who have fear of flying, but must fly to somewhere anyway because of job/family/whatever, don't exhibit these very same kinds of physiological responses???

    Especially when these days we add fear of terrorist hijackings and security gestapos in airports on top of their already being afraid to fly in the first place.

  79. Fort Dix is largest fed prison at 12 sq miles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got to see this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo6AWwbn998&feature=related . All the military installations under federal control are being converted to mass prisons. Fort Dix is just the bottom of the list. Just look for the railroad contractors back in Illinois that abandoned their jobs 75% into completion: rail cars for over 4 million people capacity with bench seating, and all the original contractors stopped because they refused because it was finally disclosed at the end that there was ground-floor leg shackles at each bench seat. There are more prisons in America as though they're trying to keep all the people tied down from being sucked off the surface.

    I just heard on PrisonPlanet's Infowars inernet radio about how the Nazi's staged the Reichstagdt fires by grabbing the first documented mentally-ill dutchman from his psycheward, stuff him full of drugs, and blamed him as being the anti-Germany arson; he was beheaded, Hitler passed The Enabling Act, and the rest was history of the staged Nurrenberg Trials. Then to continue, the earliest Israeli 60-day war and such was uncovered that Israeli's sprayed LSD over all the Arabs. Sounds like that if you don't fit the profile for psychological-assistance conscription then they'll use those *influences* to get you caught and needful of their assistance. Sounds like you and your scooling terminated at the right time and you didn't suffer as much, unlike the others.

  80. Why not a CAT scan? by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    With economies of scale, this will make CAT scan cheaper. So, instead of paying $1000 for a scan you can spend much less for a round trip ticket and get the scan from DHS!

  81. OMFG by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's it... if there was any question about where that "too far" mark may be, we can be sure they have gone well beyond that point.

    Now they can screen for all sorts of things... "gay"? "pedophile"? Who else can we decide to hate and persecute?

    If all this stuff could potentially save my son's life, I still say NO!!

    Pause for a moment to let the gravity of that sink in. Now go back and realize that there is more chance of a drunk driver killing him than a "terrorist." Regardless of which may happen, it will always feel tragic and there is no way to effectively protect ourselves from everything. This crap has got to stop.

  82. Re:and any one how shows any smarts does not get t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not. They want machines. People who think are people who can be unpredictable.

  83. David Brin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must have read Sundiver

  84. They would if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you believe that your average flyer today has the courage and determination to go up against a determined person wanting to damage or bring down the aircraft?

    They would if everyone who boarded an airliner was issued a Louisville Slugger baseball bat as they entered the front door of the airplane and by law had to hold it for the entire duration of the flight. This would work as a wonderful deterrent for anyone who otherwise would be an obnoxious passenger. Everyone would be very polite to one another.

  85. Irael is a special case by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Yup, I'm sure they will have no shortage of test subjects and whenever they need more, they can go and round them up. However, no amount of test subjects can make a bad machine work.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  86. Two options for security tests by felix.rauch · · Score: 1

    "And you may get through security in 20 to 30 seconds."

    Either that, or you get shot in 20 to 30 seconds.

  87. Take some meth before brain scan... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    But I think you will no be going anywhere since you can't function while on meth.
    However, if properly run, is a better method of getting real terrorist or criminals.
    Metal detectors may stop some people but Richard Reid has shown that they will use other methods that device detection will miss. However a criminal mind will be hard to mask so no matter what the criminal uses (ie 3-ring binder).
    You can look at prisons and they banned virtually everything yet they have created interesting weapons from what we call "safe" things. It is not the device that makes the weapon but the mind of the criminal.

  88. How about... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    "NOT A TERRORIST" and "TERRORIST" shirts?

    Sell 'em in front of airports.

    Make sure to print the "NOT" part in bigger, red letters to prevent false positives due to misreading of text.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  89. That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before 9/11, airport security was reasonable, although not using half-wit high-school dropouts for security agents would have made things better.

    After 9/11, some security improvements actually helped. Standardized airport security? Sure. Scan all checked luggage? Sure. No vehicles over a certain height in short-term parking? Strictly enforce curbside parking? Sure. But that's where real security stops and security theater begins.

    Bans on everything imaginable have been a joke. Undercover TSA inspectors are still getting guns, knives, and bombs right through. The standardized security agents are no better than the local idiots they replaced. The liquid ban only benefits drink vendors on the sterile side of the checkpoint.

    If someone sneaks something through security, it's going to be an inside job. Or just order a steak at a restaurant beyond the checkpoint, steal the steak knife, and take that on board with you.

    I fly very little (it's been almost 2 years now), and I don't exactly look forward to it. I've been looking for a breaking point where I say "That does it, I'm not flying". Brain scans would be one. So would X-Ray full-body scans. If either one of those happens, I swear off flying. If I have a wedding in California to go to, I'll take a week off work and use Greyhound. I think I'll have plenty of people with me on this.

    I would say I could use Amtrak, but "infrastructure damage from Hurricane Katrina" shut down the Amtrak route through here in 2005.

  90. No F-ing thanks by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Try this, and you can be sure you lost at least one customer.

    i refuse to participate in this.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  91. "the future of airport security" by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Soon on a street corner near you, and your local burger doodle.

    Remember its 'for your safety'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  92. what if you have never seen the stimuli? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    I really wonder how this or similar systems will respond to people who are living their own nerdy/geeky lives, or people from remote places of this planet, who are not proficient in the mainstream culture.

    How will this system respond to people who have never seen the stimuli thrown at them?

    A nerd/geek occupied with ham radio or assembly programming may have only accidentally seen images of Osama bin Ladin while rarely browsing non-technology sites or maybe while looking at newspapers at a kiosk while trying to find the magazine with the most recent GNU/Linux DVD. And bin Ladin may really mean nothing to a person from Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Siberia, Nunavut, Amazonia, Patagonia, or Antarctica.

  93. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AntiHero www.myspace.com/an_anti_hero says this is bull, the big brother new world order police state needs to collapse or put down by the intelligent american people, for being part of 9/11, undeclared wars based on lies that claimed over 4,000 american servicemen and womens lives, for swindling trillions of dollars from the american taxpayer, these wallstreet criminal thieves and war criminals in washington like rumsfeld and ashcroft all need to be put in Prison! Boo to their police state! Boo to their control grid society! Boo to them! No more corporations! Gold Money Standard Monetary System!

  94. 10mm Beats Both by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    The .45 Auto and .357 SIG are both good, but I'm sticking with the 10mm -- 180 grains at 1300 fps beats anything short or a .41 Magnum ballistics.

    1. Re:10mm Beats Both by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The .45 Auto and .357 SIG are both good, but I'm sticking with the 10mm -- 180 grains at 1300 fps beats anything short or a .41 Magnum ballistics.

      Ballistic arguments aside, I was merely quoting the somewhat "official" caliber of the Air Marshals. Not sure I even agree with that choice of caliber, since the real goal is to perforate the bad guy, and not the innocent bystanders sitting directly behind said bad guy, and certainly not the plane fuselage.

      And I completely agree with your statement regarding 10mm stopping power. I compromise with .40S&W due to availability of ammo.

  95. Quantifying risk? by mi · · Score: 1

    personally I'd rather live with the 0.00000001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack than surrender my civil liberties and live in fear

    How did you come up with that figure of 1 in 1,000,000,000?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Quantifying risk? by Frozentech · · Score: 1

      He pulled it out of his a$$. Actually, since this story refers to Israel, let's use their numbers. With a population of 7.2 million, of which 75.6% are Jewish (i.e. targets of terrorism), and 3123 deaths by terrorism since 1947, there is a roughly .05% chance of death by terrorism. Still only about 1/10th the chance of death by homicide in the U.S.

  96. Jenx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fabulous! Now our airport security can be just as accurate and useful as a lie detector! ...Wait a minute...

  97. So let me see if I have this straight... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The more fanatical Moslems don't believe images of the human form are that great an idea. So how is some bomb-carrying lack-wit from a village so far in the hinterlands that the town prostitute is a goat going to know what Osama looks like? And how is he going to react to a picture of him, except to think that the damned infidels are mocking his religion again?

    Just wondering.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  98. can you say *overfitting*? by glyph42 · · Score: 1

    These things keep coming up, therefore I must keep repeating myself. Every time any sort of "screening" for terrorists comes up, I point out the problem of overfitting. This comes into play in two ways:

    1) It's a simple mathematical fact that if you do not have a suitably large training set (i.e. *actual terrorists*) to study while developing your model, then your model is 100% horse crap, no matter how many anecdotes or pet theories you put behind it.

    2) Even if you do have enough *actual terrorists* to study, there is no guarantee that your model actually predicts terrorists when applied to new subjects. It is more likely that your model is latching on to some coincidental pattern in your training data, then actually predicting anything. The problem gets worse as you add more parameters to your model. To reduce overfitting, you need a very large sample, and you need more samples to test your model after the fact. Even then, overfitting can still occur.

    Fact: We *do not* have a large sample of actual terrorists that we can freely study for developing a model for predicting terrorist behavior.

    Inescapable conclusion: This will result in a *huge number of false positives*.

    Additional problem: The *actual terrorists* can learn your (flawed) model by performing their own tests on your system, and by choosing people who routinely get through your system, they can *increase their success rate*. This was proven in a paper a few years ago.

    Oh well, here's to tons of wasteful spending that will inconvenience (and sometimes physically harm) honest people and increase the likelihood of successful terrorism!

    --
    Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
  99. An idiotic proposal? by golodh · · Score: 1
    I am really skeptical about this "brain-scan" stuff and I'm afraid it is snake-oil at best, and totally idiotic at worst. Here's why:

    The test hinges on potential terrorists showing signs of stress and apprehension, and responding to subliminal visual queues. The test doesn't detect "intent", it detects "apprehension" and "emotional response".

    So for the dedicated terrorist organization the remedy is simple: find people who are calm and collected before they commit an act of violence by nature or by indoctrination. People who are naturally relaxed before lapsing into violence exist and in a civillian environment they are called psychopaths. In a military environment they are often highly respected members of the special forces.

    People can also be trained up to be calm before going into action, and religion is an especially good way of doing this. As is combat experience. When people are totally at peace with what they are going to do and what will happen to them as a result, they don't show up as anxious.

    In addition you can train people to pass the test by first sending them through security without weapons, but with the firm intent to deceive. Those who are successful can be sent through with (allowed) plastic knives (or whatever) to see if they pass again. Then you send them through with a sealed bag and a phone and instructions that they will receive an signal on their mobile phone when they are to act (after passing through security of course so it doesn't necessarily show up). Everything risk-free and above-board, but as a terrorist organization you *do* get to find out the sort of fatalistic dupe who would be suitable for an operation. And when you finally mount your terror attack, it will work fabulously because all airport scanners have been replaced by "apprehension scans", which the people you are sending in can successfully negate.

    Used alongside conventional scanners, the proposed scheme might, just might, be able to increase the detection rate. Which will produce generous amounts of false positives anyway since the number of terrorists amongst the thousands of passengers who fly each day is extremely low (how many hijackings do we get per week, eh?).

    Sorry, but this scheme sounds idiotic to me.

  100. Forget Bombs, just use sapphire knives- really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as we're gonna throw bullshit ideas around on Israeli thoughtcrime machines, let's seem them stop these.

    http://bob-basset.livejournal.com/60879.html

    That is a real, rather large tanto knife, made from industrial sapphire. Forget ceramic kitchen knives- bring this with you. I always knew these were possible to make, and if I had a sizeable chunk of sapphire window from a scanner laying around, I could make one of these too (trained in lapidary)

    He has made others too.

    As long as stuff like this exists, nothing can catch everything. I don't care what you try- there is no way they could build a sapphire detector. X-rays pass through it, unless doped with another metal.

    Security is futile. Work on eliminating reasons for terrorists to recruit, and you'll see results. IE- get our men out of the middle east, and make some sensible foreign policy!

    1. Re:Forget Bombs, just use sapphire knives- really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as for "take one of these with you", it should be obvious I mean DON'T. No one here is a terrorist, but intelligent answers from intelligent people in today's climate are often construed as such by morons. I am saying, as long as things like this and others exist (hell, a GLASS knife), security is moot.

  101. You expect this crap from the Israelis by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Israel has determined that the best way to spy on the world is to be the country that produces all the spy equipment used by the rest of the world.

    They've been involved in developing the CALEA wiretapping equipment used by the FBI - until the FBI shit a brick when they found Israelis selling wiretap info to drug gangs in Los Angeles. Factions of the FBI also have complained that Israeli employees of the companies involved had too much access to the systems. So I believe the Israeli companies were cut out of the loop. However, you also don't know who is involved in what - many US companies deploying this sort of thing, if you look close, have an Israeli on their Board of Directors or executive staff, or are subsidiaries of Israeli companies, or funded by Israeli investment companies.

    Many of these Israeli companies in turn are funded by either the Mossad or the Israeli Defense Force under specific programs designed to finance high-tech startups with intelligence or military value. Do a Google on this subject and see for yourself.

    This sort of tech would be just what Israel needs to basically spy on every human being going through an airport anywhere in the world. Depending on the software - which you can bloody well bet is NOT open source! - they will be able to identify and track specific people everywhere - whether they are "terrorists" or not.

    As for the basic uses for which it is supposed to be designed, this is on a par with lie detection equipment - it's pseudoscience. The number of false positives will head to infinity.

    And you thought metal detectors were bad!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  102. An obvious drawback... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, if this device finds people who are planning to attack a plane, the logical next step for a terror attack is to plant a bomb on some unsuspecting traveler. If they don't know that they are part of a terrorist attack, they'll sail on through this new, improved security device.

  103. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    You counter with Ninjas, then they counter with Pirates. You think the Ninja's will stand a chance against Kung-Fu Pirates? I shudder at the thought of what they will be stopped with.

    Then we counter their pirates with RIAA lawyers. They will be sued into such deep debt that not a single virgin (let alone 72 virgins) will have anything to do with them.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  104. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pirate, the ninja and the Snake on a Plane.

    Is this sequel to The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe?

  105. what about nervous fliers? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    doesn't a person who's nervous about flying emit the same bodily signals?

    couldn't this technology also be misappropriated to force a person to unwittingly give up their sexual orientation?

    Sounds like biometric discrimination to me.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  106. Why isn't this tagged bullshit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    because this is seriously the biggest load of it I've ever seen. A person could exhibit half of the mentioned symptoms after a fucking sneeze.

    Someone needs to arrest the head of the FBI and the DoHS, because they've long since lost their fucking minds and are just hurting us in the long run.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  107. give us more, more by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    Well, one day they should start to check whether travellers have genuine patriotic feelings towards the USA, if not, make them disappear. I'd say the unimaginable drop in travellers could persuade them finally that it isn't a good idea to produce ever increasingly humiliating checks.

    As to the test at hand, I have a somewhat elevated blood pressure - always had -, I always am nervous when in contact with every kind of security people - I can't help it, I was a kid in a strongly communist country, some feelings can't be easily eradicated -, also on 9/10 times when flying I have to really hurry on airports - since I prefer quick connections to waiting many hours at airport lounges. Combine all of these and I'll be an easy target.

    As always, it's not the false positives in themselves that bother me - although I know pretty well how most of the biometric systems work and fail - but the delays and inconveniences such false picks can cause you, from lost flights and luggages to time spent explaining things you shouldn't need to, and so on.

    And, at the same time, most of the terrorists will just as easily pass security as they've always have. From the top of my head, let's just say there could be 1 terrorist out of 1million passangers. Knowing the average true positive recognition rates, around 10000 passangers could easily be falsely picked out, while that one terrorist could easily slip through.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  108. Incompetence by Exanon · · Score: 1

    So wait... you want me to trust the TSA employee (who gets suspicious about the fact that I have two cellphones with me) to accurately read a machine that picks up biometrics? Give me a fucking break.

    "We don't want you to feel like you are being interrogated." Yea and the nazi's didn't want the jews to feel prosecuted either.

    1. Re:Incompetence by Dunavant · · Score: 1

      Godwin's Law. You lose.

  109. Very Nice by Planar · · Score: 1

    [quote]
    by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration
    [/quote]

    So now you can get locked up in Guantanamo for 10 years without a trial because you had the flu when you tried to board a plane?

  110. Psychology more effective than Brain Scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the past I have been convinced that the most effective defense against hijackers lies in psychology and some very convincing evidence emerged here in New Zealand only a few days ago.

    Aboard a domestic flight one very terrifying middle aged woman pulled out a knife and demanded the plane be flown all the way to Australia. When told the plane wouldn't have enough fuel to get there she demanded the plane be flown there even if it would crash into the sea or she would detonate a bomb (she then started fingering buttons on the cellphone in her other hand).

    At this point a female passenger who was a clearly highly trained professional psychologist tried to calm the hijacker and negotiate for a surrender... to then be stabbed in the hand.

    So the shrink sat back down and grabbed of all things her Psychology textbook to fend off more stab wounds... distracting the hijacker just long enough for the copilot to kick the knife and phone out of the woman's hands thus saving the plane and all aboard.

    This shrink was clearly a hero. Just imagine what else she could achieve if she reads the textbook again!

  111. Re:Recruiting Ninjas is starting a never ending cy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Rogers in a blood-stained sweater?

  112. Re:sinking in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all this stuff could potentially save my son's life, I still say NO!!

    Pause for a moment to let the gravity of that sink in.

    You'd kill your child to save a terrorist? *gasp*!

  113. Crimethink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously we are going to get more instances of this as technology advances. As for myself I'm pretty sure I'd be showing some nasty signs if scanned in front of a TSA goon or as I see the 3 year old kid in front of me being carried away for a body search due to being flagged as a terrorist.

    Yet another abuse and powergrab by the government bureaucracy. Once these procedures have been established and "legitimated", they'll bleed all over the place.

  114. No, they don't by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I live in the Northwest US.

    They don't have "every right". In fact, they don't have "rights" at all. What they have is authority, and that authority is questionable.

    TSA was given too much arbitrary authority that is arguably unconstitutional.

  115. Minority report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if my reactions trigger the "intention alarm" do I get arrested? Or politely escorted out of the building?
    After all, I haven't committed any crimes.

  116. Yeah, that'll work well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A blipvert of Osama bin Laden will scare or anger a lot of normal Americans, which will lead this brilliant software to think that they're hiding something.

    Someone disestablish the TSA, please. All its ideas have been bullshit.

  117. Hmm Israeli or Terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same thing really. I like reading history, and those Jews weren't very nice either. Ask the poor occupiers at the British embassy when the place was called the british palestinian mandate. Terrorism is wrong, it's wrong when it is performed by American bombs, wrong when Arabs crash planes or blow themselves up. Just plain wrong.

    There are now 5 million "displaced palestinians" and 5 million Israeli's. The P's are growing at a birthrate of 6 to 7 kids/woman while the I's are growing at 3k/w

    When the P's decide to move back home, I wonder how much they will outnumber the Jews, and how many Americans will have to die fighting the war against those evil Muslim terrorists. I personally won't help either side because terrorism is wrong and all sides are doing it.