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."

Comments

cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that

[Shakrai]

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

Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that

[snspdaarf]

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....

Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that

[JustinOpinion]

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.

Re:cuz nobody has EVER been able to fool that

[CrankyFool]

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!"

Somethings wrong...

[tburke261]

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....

Re:Somethings wrong...

[Mysticalfruit]

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.

I'm sure you don't..

[daveatneowindotnet]

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

Control

[ShakaUVM]

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.

This might not actually be so bad if it worked.

[JesseL]

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.

OMFG

[erroneus]

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.