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."

53 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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!"

    8. 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...

    9. 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"
    10. 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.
    11. 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]
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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..."

    15. 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..

    16. 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
    17. 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."

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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 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.
    3. Re:Somethings wrong... by wcbsd · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    4. 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!!
  4. 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!"
  5. Thoughtcrimes by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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?

  11. 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 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!"
  14. 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.

  15. 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!

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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...
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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!
  24. 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.

  25. Re:Testing by z0idberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well thats one virgin, 79 to go.

    Any more volunteers?