Slashdot Mirror
Security Checkpoints Predict What You Will Do
An anonymous reader writes "New security check points in 2020 will look just like something out of the futuristic movie, The Minority Report. The idea of the new checkpoints will allow high traffic to pass through just as you were walking at a normal pace. No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints — the new checkpoint can detect if you have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building."
Trials will be deemed unnecessary in 2025.
finally! we'll know what women want!
> No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints -- the new checkpoint can detect if you
> have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building.
In other words, anyone who looks Islamic will be stopped and searched as will a few others chosen at random.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This is retarded. Suppose I have to go to the bathroom and look nervous like I won't make it time? I'll probably set off the scanner as a suspected terrorist.
Oday ouyay antway otay ayplay away amegay?
FTA: "We are running at about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection..."
And that's supposed to be good? What fraction of the remaining 22% can we expect to be false positives?
[begin sarcasm]
I look forward to a future in which the police stop me more than they already do.
[end sarcasm]
78% accurate in a controlled setting is nothing to be proud of. I'll grant the fact that they're still in the early research stages, as they say, but I'd need to see an accuracy rate of over 99% in a real world application for me to consider it a valid option. Otherwise there will be far too many false positives for it to be useful in a high-traffic situation.
I'll leave it to other people to point out everything else wrong with this kind of system.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
So, when I walk into the airport, in December, at minus twenty, in shorts, nad my skin temperature is about ten degrees colder than the average, and my heart rate is about 20 points higher than the average, and I'm not sweating, and there's snow in my boot, I'm going to be intercepted every time -- for being different. Great.
But really, this time I read the article, and welcome to the same stupid problems for the same stupid solutions. The system is basically a remote polygraph. So you can walk at full speed while it assesses you. So we'll have longer corridors, but the exercise will be nice.
Of course the tests get to measure people's personal intents. Great. So anwser two questions. . .
- do you think trained criminals can learn to pass polygraphs? C.E.O.'s don't seem to have much trouble. Frame of mind and all that.
- so crime will once again shift back to the days of slipping something into someone else's bags. that someone else has no idea that they're carrying a bomb. The criminal may set off the system, but he's got no evidence on him anymore. So what exactly are you going to find? And which plane are you going to check? Even the criminal may not know which random passenger was marked.
This is why security never learns. Criminals have an arsenal of techniques from thousands of years of history. And those criminals get to pick what they want to use today. And those criminals have a darn good reward for picking the correct one. On the other hand, security personnel, and I include this system's designers, try to solve the current problem, and ofter forget the old problems. The criminals know exactly which systems are presently in place, as well as any routines being used by personnel.
So once again, we've managed to stop the dumb criminal with nothing to gain, and amused, or worse challenged, the intelligent criminal with lots to gain.
You do have to actually check for the bomb or other weapon at some point.
All a terrorist group would have to do would be get the suicide bomber to not know whether or not the backpack contained a bomb *this* time, while knowing that it eventually would. The details of the attack are left to the reader...
Its 2009, so the future will be futuristic compared to now? Go figure.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sounds pretty hokey to me... As a frequent air traveler, give me the old fashioned pat down search with full baggage inspection - in fact I felt safest after 9/11 when they did random searches at the gate too - I have seen more than one person lead away from a gate in handcuffs after a random gate search turned up illegal drugs or other such nonsense. So the fact that they made it through the gate in the first place points out the fallibility of the current process. IMHO we need MORE hands on security not less, more sniffers and x-ray machines - I can easily factor in a longer wait at the airport, the peace of mind is worth it to me...
The FAST system detects physiological signs of stress. In testing it detected "hostile intent" in volunteers. The obvious question is how can volunteers have valid hostile intent? You can't test deception with fake deception. The generalizability of physiological response to stressors is a basic tenet of physiological psychology (the folks who brought you FAST's grand dad, the polygraph).
The volunteers knew they were volunteers in a study and in no danger. In practice, this device will trigger on every person who is nervous about flying, because the physiological markers for stress are the same regardless of the reason. There will be many, many more of those than with 'hostile intent'. The test study was unable to have adequate control (real, naive persons) to prove its claim.
Most people can learn simple biofeedback techniques to control physiological reactions to some degree. Those with hostile intent don't need to get very good at it, they just need to be able to control it better than an untrained person with a fear of flying.
FAST isn't supposed to work. Its owners know it can't. It's just supposed to be believable enough to convince the public that it could catch bad guys to increase public confidence, and to convince the government that further funding is warranted.
Stick the designers in it and ask them if it can tell hostile intent from fear of flying (and base GAO investigation of the program upon the result, to make it more salient). They'll say yes. Either it'll trigger and show them to be lying, or it won't and so it doesn't work.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
There is already a mechanism to get rid of such people. It was called the Constitution. Pity you guys broke it by electing Bush twice.
I hate printers.
Firstly, they don't say the false positive rate , they only say the true positive rate. By now many poster here will have picked that up. Even at 1% false positive , pass 10000 person thru the check point, 100 false positive, yada yada law of great number etc...
Secondly It only does detect external signs of nervousness at best and nothing else. Such sign of nervousness MIGHT be displayed by people with malevolent intent, but certainly not only by them. Consider where such detector might be implanted : courtroom, IRS, FBI buildings, airports before boarding. A lot of place where people WILL be more often than not nervous. And what will happens ? Terrorist or any other mal intended smart persons will get an additional training : 1) meditate to lower all sign of nervousness 2) take a nyquil or whatever calm you down.
Thirdly, as the various western governments seem to go toward more and more security of that type, TV camera, drone and whatnot, I have long stopped fearing terrorist (and I barely missed getting in a bomb blast in Paris metro by a few dozen minutes...). Nowadays I fear the police and the governement and their big-brotherisation more than not. I fear that the time for the third box (the munition one) will come way sooner than I ever expected in my dystopian nightmare.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So they'll be able to set up covert checkpoints that people walk past without knowing they're being assessed, and they're looking for 'malcontents'? In other words, this is a system for picking out people who are not thrilled with whatever the current government (or junta) is doing, so they can be charged and locked up in those shiny new detention centers that Cheney's company Halliburton have built in the US. That's an easy way to cut down on the possibility of protests in general, and of 'undesirables' at any sort of public or private gathering. Private companies will want to install them in their facilities to monitor employees. This sort of thing has no redeeming social value.
---
I write pointed political short stories at klurgsheld.wordpress.com
This will just cause the evolution of undetectable people who will then topple the Empire.
... Arnie in 'Total Recall'?
100's of freedom fighters bum rushing the airpor,t all acting like undesirables.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
And here I was thinking we finally had a reason to properly fund the Ministry of Silly Walks.
"Security Checkpoints Predict What You Will Do on Thursday January 01, @01:27PM"
Damn it's already passed. Oh well, "eating lunch" wouldn't have been a revelation.
... security checkpoints wil look like the compound gate in Mad Max.
Have gnu, will travel.
So basically what this article is really saying is, that by 2020 the West's gradual transition to total fascism will be near completion.
There will be robots around all over doing chores... and they are impervious to all checkpoints!
On the other hand, for mere humans, there will be makeup that makes the sensors moth...
Gadget security, no matter how good the gadget, is ever going to provide security. The false positives will be worse than Vista UAC and pretty soon people will start ignoring them or turning the sensitivity down to the point it's nearly useless.
Anything that's uses behavior can be fooled. Even lie detectors can be spoofed with training.
Once again Homeland Insecurity spending billions to provide the most sophisticated false sense of security money can buy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
How about working towards the reason someone would try to bomb a plane?
Or, make non-bombable planes.. Hammering at only one side of the problem doesn't lead to the best solutions.
Is it me or do all the 'in 5-10 years' tech stories lately say that everything is going to look like Minority Report? Did this suddenly become the only sci-fi movie that might represent what things are going to look like a decade from now? Nevermind that it's probably going to look almost the same as it does these days unless Obama decides to tear down and rebuild every city in the nation.
No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints -- the new checkpoint can detect if you have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building."
Let me (apparently) be the first to treat this claim with skepticism. Oh, anonymous submitters and their mysterious technologies that come out of the blue on a New Year's Day. I think there should at least be some disclosure that the author has a vested interest in people thinking that this is possible, but the practical effect is just going to be a technologizing of the "Idiot Security Guard" model they have going at the moment. What difference does it make if you are hassled for no reason because a computer randomly selected your boarding pass or if some slug of an official thinks your laptop bag is just a little too lame. You're still being hassled randomly.
The truth is that all of the DHS procedures produce only false positives. Why not economize and pay only union wages for this service rather than jillions for an overblown /dev/random?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
We all seem to have figured out that this system is a joke, so I won't address that.
The bigger problem is that the DHS really thinks something like this kind of system will work. We've seen several different screening systems, fingerprinting systems, etc, and they all share the same "whiz-bang technology" attribute. That is that somewhere, there's some great piece of hardware, software, or black box that's going to save us from "the terrorists" Real Soon Now. I guess I'm more than a little skeptical of this approach to the problem.
I don't know enough about the problem to know what the solution is (maybe just human operatives). But I do know enough about "whiz-bang" technology to know that it's snake oil.
AccountKiller
(a) You can't put a bomb into anyones bag that can drive a plane into a building.
(b) I dare you to even try approaching another persons bag in an airport. People are paranoid about their luggage, and if anything it would be far harder to do this than to get something through security today!
Who says a terrorist has to want to fly a plane into a building? I imagine you could spread terror pretty effectively if you started salting baggages with bombs...
Then you'll be questioned and/or searched, deemed to not be a threat and sent on your way. And I suppose you'll learn to go wee before the flight.
>>Suppose I have to go to the bathroom and look nervous like I won't make it time?
New game: Which driver having a BJ can get through the checkpoint without detection. That person will have the ultimate poker face.
If there is anything I don't like about flying, its taking off your shoes when flying from the US. Seriously, airports have watched people in a number of different ways long before '9-11'. What I fear is two-fold: Security will rely too much on non-proven technology and anybody who'd blow themselves up or hijack a plane is a psychopath and probably won't show outside signs of intent. As one reader correctly said: "This is a remote polygraph." How many courts of law accept that as evidence?
Its not the 1% false-positive rate, but rather the apparent 12% false negative rate. There will always be a need for some sort of human security. Surely it can be better than the TSA's song and dance. Security is better at many airports of the West. Flying has been and always will be the safest way to travel -- even if there was no security at all. Its those very few psychopaths that make the headlines that make people actually believe terrorism is a problem.
BillSF
http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/gc_1218480185439.shtm#9 Project Overview: The Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency (HSARPA) and S&T Directorate Human Factors Behavior Sciences (HFBS) Division Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) Project is an initiative to develop innovative, non-invasive technologies to screen people at security checkpoints. FAST is grounded in research on human behavior and psychophysiology, focusing on new advances in behavioral/human-centered screening techniques. The aim is a prototypical mobile suite (FAST M2) that would be used to increase the accuracy and validity of identifying persons with malintent (the intent or desire to cause harm). Identified individuals would then be directed to secondary screening, which would be conducted by authorized personnel. This project is part of the HFBS innovations portfolio (Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency Program).
"Get over yourself. You aren't that different"
Uh but that's the big problem. If he was the only false positive then it works.
Lastly, it's pretty easy to put a bomb on a plane. I can think of plenty of ways.
For example: the plane doesn't have to a be a conventional airliner to cause big problems.
As for the other ways, go figure them out yourself if you're a terrorist.
I wasn't logged in when I read it, so it looked like this:
"Security Checkpoints Predict What You Will Do on Thursday January 01..."
I expect that this won't work - typical of any government research project 11 years out.
It's an idea they have - won't work
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I'll take yours one at a time, to show that you're the idiot. And then I won't respond to your next post.
I am that different. I don't dress down, I'm always dressed down -- not going ot a warmer climate you clod, going to any climate. I wear shorts in the snow. (that's a period back there). I know I'm that different because within a ten minute period, I'm currently stopped at least three times by random strangers wondering from where I've escaped. I stop traffic when shovelling the driveway, and people say the most inane things. When it comes to these remote polygraphs, my skin temperature -- excuse me, galvanic skin response -- will be wildly different.
Polygraphs measure subliminal actions that you cannot block. It's not about blocking them. It's about their not being there. You have to be thinking about your lie in order to appear to be lying. Having told a lie to your wife yesterday doesn't make everything you say forever get caught as a lie. Similarly, believing something is true doesn't trigger the sensor. I can say that 13 * 13 = 168. It's not a lie if I can't do basic math. Sesame Street stops at 12. Sales personnel are very well trained at selling a product on its features, whether or not those features are true. Welcome to method acting, organized debates, politicians, and con artists.
Slip something into someone's bag you say? No problem. Remember the old question "has anyone handled your bags for you?" Yes. The taxi driver loaded them into and out of his trunk. With his two hands. Think it would be difficult for him to slip something from his hands into the bag that he's holding while you are already in the taxi, not watching him, because that's his job, and it's cold outside? Oh, and you're an 82 year old woman in a wheel chair and your bag is 50 pounds.
You're simply the ignorant one here. You think you're secure. I've been on flights all around north america in the last few years -- new york three times. Onto every one of them I've brought a two-inch blade. And get this, this'll really bother you. Not only did the blade go right through the metal detector, and being steel must have shown up, the persons watching never noticed; better than that, I did it by accident each and every time, because I wasn't thinking that I've got a utility blade on my key-ring when I was too busy taking off my shoes!
No one's saying that zero security is better than some security for preventing security threats. You're an idiot if you think that anyone proposes no defense as a solution to someone else's offense. We're talking about something so much bigger.
We're talking about defending against something dangerous that simply doesn't happen. We're talking about security that compromises freedoms. We're talking about security to prevent reasonable and acceptable risks.
The shoes thing is a great example of the first. They check shoes because you may have a bomb in your shoes. They do that because once someone was caught with a bomb in their shoes. So basically, no one has ever set off a bomb in their shoes. The old system seemed to work just fine. But now, now there is a whole pain in the ass to avoid something that never happens. It's not that bombs in shoes aren't dangerous, it's that eagles having heart-attacks mid-flight and falling through your sunroof killing you on your way to work is also very dangerous, it simply doesn't happen with any degree of frequently that it's worth the expense of caring.
Freedoms are also something that you people used to value. Apparently you've forgotten the difference between "papers please" and "photo id please" -- nothing. Your own car can now tattle on you in terms of speeds you were travelling, gps locations, and everything else. Good luck justifying why you were speeding seven months ago. Hard evidence says you were speeding. You don't remember why. Oh yeah, your daughter is seven months old, by the way. So, in your opinion, what's the difference between being strip-searched, interrogated, and
> For those who slept through Modern History class, I'll tell: religion. Specifically Muslims.
> They are the most likely group to set off a bomb on an airplane or hijack it. We can pretend that's not the case (and continue with the current "security theatre" at airports) in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of the PC crowd, but that doesn't change facts.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are more than correct and ONLY muslims will ever hijack or blow up an airplane. How do you propose we do this security checkpoint thing? "Hello good sir, what is your religion? If you are a muslim you have to go to that checkpoint there but the good god-fearing christians can skip it." I doubt having to lie to airport personel is going to stop someone who plans to kill dozens of people. Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims can be recognized on sight and that it is impossible for, let's say, a white woman to be a muslim?
By 2020 everyone will be chipped with something similar to the Verichip. Walking through the entrance of one of these scanning stations your chip is scanned, the terminal does a query of your ID and factors the background information in with FAST. This if VERY plausible. We are soon to tagged like cattle. First we will be asked in the form of incentives such as easier commerce transactions. Then it will be mandated in the name of domestic security. There are too many technical reasons for this to be a bad idea. I don't see that as being a barrier to politicians pushing forward with this complete invasion of personal liberty. We are already in the first stages of living in a police state and most people do not even realize it. I have to admit that 2020 is a VERY conservative estimate, as computing power is getting cheaper and faster. In 11 years we will look back at 2009 be thankful for the amount of unmonitored freedom still we had.
I will continue to wear my tinfoil hat even when it's not in fashion.
Just like lie detector tests are useless against most sociopaths, this type of crap is useless against true fanatics, people who are calmly resolved to their fate. Instead of dumping billions of dollars into creating a better curtain, how about fixing the shit behind it? P.S. Apologies in advance to those who didnt get the Wizard of Oz reference.
What about people who have Autism or other disorders that cause them to express emotion differently? Are you going to lock me up just because I don't seem like a regular Joe Sixpack?
It looks like we need to update Pastor Niemoeller's famous poem. First they came from the Muslims...
Here are a few other conclusions from a non-PC but apparently somewhat more objective observer.
Probably the most violent recent religion looking over its history is Christianity. Should we detain all Christians? I bet that'll go down well in the US.
Actually, speaking of the US, they are the only nation ever to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction at a cost of numerous civilian lives, and they have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to go to war other than to protect themselves from an immediate physical threat. Maybe the rest of the world should just nuke the whole US and be done with them?
Then again, the administration of any country that had WMDs could lose the plot and use them based on such dubious arguments, and any administration that has been in power for more than a short time and retains the option apparently has a willingness to consider using WMDs. Maybe it would be better for all of us if they just turned on each other to remove the threat against everyone else?
I'll stop there, because I've pretty much killed the entire world in only three steps by applying the kind of tragic, fear-driven thinking exhibited by the parent post. But I truly hope that 2009 offers us more than a binary choice between PC security theatre and the kind of indiscriminate fear-mongering we see here.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Damn, missed a rather important typo. s/from/for/, obviously.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I find this sort of thing to be kind of scary.
Measruing pupil diameter, heart rate, facial expression, etc - these things are not soley indicators of mal intent - we can say that sterotypically people who DO end up blowing things up may have had a faster heart rate or disalted pupils, etc....But we cannot say that if someone seems stressed out or angry or nervous (which a lot of people are, especially when going through a government checkpoint) that they are planning on blowing something up....
I can see it now...You're having an extremely bad day, maybe you suffer from a serious anxiety disorder, or just got in a fight with your significant other...you go through the checkpoint and they are ON YOUR ASS....(your day just got a whole lot worse because now you're being detained and questioned).
Just another stop on the surveillance society express.....If this continues at the rate it hsa been going, then eventually life in public may be like a giant jail with no bars....With cameras and 'wardens' everywhere, new technology to detect anyone who is out of the norm in apperarance, behavior, word, deed, maybe even your very thoughts......so that anyone who isn't a good productive little citizen who toes the party line is singled out for harrassment and eventually assimilated or constantly watched.
My name is Schroedinger. My cat's in the bag. :)
So... nobody could ever be unaware they're carrying a "disruptive device" (is that like a crackberry?) through a checkpoint?
The one time I've flown in Europe recently, I was approached by security staff flying home from Italy. They asked me whether I had left any prohibited containers in my backpack, as something had apparently triggered their scanner. I thought for a second, and then realised that I had left a small bottle of sunscreen tucked in one of the back pockets, along with various other things you'd want to have with you while out for the day.
I apologised, and in the next few moments I went from embarassment to fear of what they were going to do because I'd inadvertently tried to take something banned onto the plane. But then they said they'd have to remove it because of the liquids ban, and just through it into a huge container (full of mostly unopened bottles: many more suntan containers, drinks, and other harmless things) and let me go through without another look.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Your post is full of it.
Indeed it was, in the parts you criticised. That was the point! By replying to debunk my obviously unreasonable claims, you reinforce my point rather well: of course we shouldn't use selective evidence and sweeping generalisations to make sound-bite judgements about large sections of the human race and then take draconian steps as a result. Unfortunately, the post to which I originally replied seemed to think that sort of plan was a good idea.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You cannot possibly be any weirder than the guy we used to see around in Billings, Montana... in winter, wearing only a kilt and boots, even in -30F weather. And whistling the most beautiful tunes as he roller-skated through the downtown alleys during the lunch hour.
Word around was he was some big muckity businessman, and this was how he relaxed.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I wasn't trying to be funny. The whole 'us versus them' mentality is ridiculous.
Have you seen the speed that hospital staff walk?
I think my walking speed has increased >25% since I started to work in one. Unfortunately, it has not made me loose any weight yet...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
...light foot fetish. To us it's like if all girls would run around (nearly) topless on every occasion they could get, and be perfectly normal about it. :D
Transparent diamond shoes... perfect! Only completely barefoot beats that.
Did you know that diamonds come in many different colors?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm running late for a job interview, I'm also nervous as hell about it. I'm walking briskly through the foyer ... oh, hello offic... *TASER*
Or a boss, who has mal-intent bubbling in his mind as he strides into the office to yell at incompetent staffers.
A Mother is angry with her child from hell, wishing she never had it. She steps through the security checkpoint as a sniper recieves targetting information... *HEADSHOT*
DHS seems confident about the potential efficacy of the system even this. I'm sure this system would be plagued by false positives even with 2020 technology.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Today is April one, or January one?
I'm not saying the current security theatre is effective, or a good idea, but actually there's a rather big difference between being strip searched and having a remote polygraph or a infrared camera, and it has everything to do with your awareness of the incident.
Being strip searched is demeaning, embarassing, and generally fairly traumatic for most of the people who have to undergo it. Cavity searches are worse. They single an individual out and make them feel a certain way.
The awareness of what is going on is what makes it a terrible experience, as well as the way it is carried out, not the actual result.
There's also a very big difference between "papers please" and "photo id please" at least at the moment. Despite all the general libertarian quoting, the systems are very different. The USSR required papers to travel anywhere, by any means, they were more than identification they were also permits to travel. They issued said papers to almost no one(because they didn't want people travelling).
The US on the other hand, despite all its failings, does not require permits to travel within the country(only identification and even then only for certain forms of travel such as driving a car or flying on a plane), and does not use the issuance(or lack thereof) of this identification to control population movement.
The US government is taking away the people's freedoms, some of this loss of freedom is indeed extremely worrying, but having to identify yourself and submit to some reasonable inspection to board an aircraft is far from the most worrying example.
Free speech zones, illegal wiretapping, or as a more applicable example no-fly lists are all much more worrying and much more unreasonable.
The world is a big place, and the vast majority of modern prosperity is a direct result of cooperation between individuals on a large scale. Cooperation between individuals sometimes requires compromise, sometimes compromise you don't like. It's important to recognize the difference between necessary compromise and true loss of freedoms. The days where you could ride off into the sunset and create a brand new identity are long over, but their passing has come along with a large number of very important benefits.
another excuse to pull brown people aside for additional screening.
to detect Terminators instead of using dogs...
Call John Connor.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I agree with everything that you've said, and none of what it means. I ask you to do one favour. Look at the present world, and write down what limit to those freedoms, or what enforcement would indeed be too much. Figure out what you think is the end of what you call reasonable. Write it down. Keep it somewhere safe.
My point is that the concept of what acceptable and reasonable to compromise or sacrifice is a poor game because it allows gradual change with no limit. There's always a reason to spend one dollar on something that's worth two dollars. But if I asked you to spend one million dollars on something worth two million, you'd say that you don't have the one million to spend.
That's how companies like mobile telephone, cable television, and satelite radio work. You could have radio fo free. But if you spend only $30 per month, you can get so much more radio. And $30 is definitely reasonable, so you do it. And you can have ten television channels, or you can have 30 for $30, or you can have 100 channels for $50, or you can have 500 channels for $100 per month. You can also upsize your popcorn, have unlimited text messages, and voice mail.
Each one is perfectly legitimate value, and worth every penny. But with the items above, each perfectly nice, you're already spending in excess of $150 per month on entertainment.
So where does it end?
You've made your list, you've checked it twice. Now consider what kind of things would be on the list for someone living in 1908. Or in 1983. I'll bet that "take off your shoes, your belt, and put everything you have in this tray, we'll look at all of your stuff" is probably on that list. I'll bet "if this machine beeps, because it's set for false positives over false negatives, we'll rub this wand all over your body" is likely another. Oh, and we may take your laptop and look at your business data too. Oh yeah, we'll have you stand in line for two hours. Then we'll interrogate you at customs. Oh, and you'll be standing for the whole of those two hours. And your plane will be delayed intentionally.
Again, each one of those is perfectly justified. But when you add them all up, and take them all together, you're approached by a system that is simply over-burdening.
So what's on your list? Let's get it documented here. And then we'll check on it in ten years.
J. Edgar Hoover was in charge when the polygraph was sold to the FBI by no less an expert than the artist that drew Wonder Woman. So who would be getting the kickbacks this time?
If I were religious, which I am not, and was embarked on a suicide mission on behalf of [insert deity here], convinced it would please aforementioned deity and I'll be richly rewarded for it somehow, wouldn't I be rather calm, unafraid, maybe even happy to be about to reap my reward?
Does it seem like this sort of "mal-intent detection" apparatus would be easily defeated by simple faith or belief?
They're wrongly assuming terrorists think and behave like criminals.
If she wanted a fat cock in her pussy, would she tell you? Yeah. Your anecdote excludes families that aren't into inbreeding.
Actually, she did tell him that, but in a typical fashion she said it in a round-about way, and he plain old didn't get it.
From his own post:
My sister says her favorite objects are [...] anatomy labs
Exactly what do you think is IN an "anatomy lab"? I'll give you a clue- the term "lab" doesn't necessarily mean a building & most likely is not an abbreviation of "Laboratory". If you conduct an "Anatomy Lab" it could mean doing anything related to examining, or performing experiments involving, anatomy.
"Lab" could also be an abbrevation for "Labia".
Dude, your sister is a Lesbian Slut.
Parent post is the best use of deductive reasoning in the history of mankind. Also the logic is unassailable.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
...so what do we do about the state-sponsored ones? I'm so sick and tired of being asked to fear the negligible threat, when its the State that i should be worrying about.
Stop ripping off movie plots and start getting realistc. Current scientific state-of-te-art is that it is entirely unknown whether this can be done, ever. 12 years from a fundamental question being unsolved to its answer being used in a working product is completely unrealistic. Typical times in the past are in the 20-50 years range, and only after the fundamental question being answerd.
Will this type of stupidity in the press ever end? I doubt it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't disagree with your post. But it should be noted that Saddam did deploy chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds.
that while you where waiting in front of the gate for your unknown terrorist friend, which we cant locate, you notified him that you suspect you have been discovered by not calling him, and then consequently you acted completely like a normal traveler. Our checkpoint software says that your intentions are very clear, and now we have figure out how you managed to hide things from us besides the DHS searching your house for five times. The absence of any hints for explosives or communications proves that you are not only a terrorist, but also extremely dangerous."
Hello? I am on my behalf am always getting a little bit suspicious if people invite me to visit wonderland.
According to the article all the much vaunted device does is measure heart-rate, blink rate, direction of gaze, perspiration level. All somatic quantities linked to anxiety levels. Nothing else.
And there's the rub. You can't catch someone who's calm and at peace with what he's about to do. Now that is a state of mind. Does "religious fanatic on a righteous mission" ring a bell? They have high levels of anxiety do they?
Or someone with naturally low anxiety levels who has been trained to commit violence and is at ease with that? Or someone who is able to take his mind off something? Or even someone who has been sedated?
This sort of monitoring might get an 80% success rate on ordinary Americans who are asked to carry an incriminating device through a checkpoint, but it was never tested with professional criminals. Like pick-pockets. Or fraudsters. Or even politicians for that matter.
That's why this scanner seems to be a bit useless against pre-meditated acts of terrorism committed by dedicated terrorists. It may have some success against people who are planning to spray grafitti on the wall of the office loo though. Nice going to counter a high-impact threat.
Now people can move through as if they weren't being screened at all, as opposed to just being delayed and harassed and having their bags checked as if they weren't being screened at all.
2021: With no change in effectiveness of security measures since introduction of the "just walk through and don't bother being screened" system, the whole thing is declared a success. Thousands of unionized screeners at airports across the country continue to receive paychecks until 2221.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
didnt hear something that is as idiotic as this.
we couldnt even implement a good man-machine interface using brain waves, or even eye motions, but some people are predicting motive predicting checkpoings in 2020.
ok. ill take that. and add a $5 trip to andromeda galaxy for me in addition to that.
human motives and emotions and behaviour is complex. bodily responses are COMMON. the same physiological reaction of body to two different conditions can be the same. one may be blowing up a bomb, one is anxiety over some serious situation.
yet, a checkpoint will tell them apart. despite the entire science of psychology is in infant stages of analyzing human emotions and physical responses.
Read radical news here
Well, except for Anwar "No Nose" Al Hakam. But the face recognition scan should snag him.
Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims can be recognized on sight and that it is impossible for, let's say, a white woman to be a muslim?
Just have pictures posted of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad and see who complains about Mohammad and starts killing the people adjacent to them.
Reminds me of when the did the prophet cartoons, and Islamic-fundie crowds had riots and scores killed -- I thought "Gee -- the anti-islam folks found a cheap way to wage war against islamic extremists -- just publish a cartoon and let the masses kill each other in mass protests.
Eventually the world will see that Darwin was right...
You know, it was the Nazis who marked people as enemies of the state for having the wrong religion, not the German Jews.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
As opposed to extremist christians, who are equally numerous, and like to set off bombs in clinics, synagogues, and other fun places.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm sorry, but the people who commit these crimes are generally NOT nervous, they're resolved and committed, thus perfectly calm and focused on the task at hand.
They've had their time of angst before they got close to the building. To them it makes no difference whether they're caught, tried, and killed by execution, because in their minds they're dead already 1 minute AFTER going through the checkpoint.
Heck, given the checkpoint is also a chokepoint they will be equally effective detonating their devices near the scanner as anywhere else. What do you do then mr security officer?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about everyone comes through quickly - person by person - enters a bomb-proof enclosure, and is subjected to measures that would set off about 99% of bombs for premature detonation.
Maybe every 1 in 1,000,000 times you might get a *whoomph* followed by the need for a clean-up crew and a dust-bin, while renders the room unavailable for a time and everyone else has to go through the other enclosures, but it'd still be faster and more effective than the current methods :-)
I don't disagree with your post.
Actually, I kinda wish you did. I was trying to demonstrate how far you can take arguments based only on unreasonable generalisations and selective evidence (such as glossing over the smaller scale WMDs that you mentioned). Everything I wrote does have elements of truth to it, but the post as a whole and the conclusions it drew didn't consider the complete picture — exactly the problem with the Islamophobic post I was replying to.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What would be your recommendation for preventing terrorist attacks?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
So, From what I can gather from this article is:
It detects Thermal differences and mannerisms as you approach the portal.
So if you have to take a raging dump because you have a FLU and your nervous about this new "don't worry, act normally" sign you see ahead of you, and your worried you'll get stopped and cause even worse embarrassment to you and your travel partners, your likely to get picked up.
This make me wanna fly just that much more.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
In 1908 they didn't have planes, they didn't have the television, they didn't have the internet. In 1908 well over half the population didn't have the right to vote(women, and most southern African Americans). In 1908 the Model T had just been invented. A few decades later they interned the majority of the Japanese American population in camps.
Things change, some for the better, some for the worse. I think you'd be surprised to find that historically Americans have been even less concered with civil liberties than they are now, the 1908 list might be a lot less stringent than mine. Certainly the folks in the 50's were willing to charge people for thought crime, and John Adams(one of the founding fathers) signed the Alien and Sedition acts(which make the Patriot act pretty tame) in 1798.
Every time you put someone elses rights over your own you are compromising, but that compromise is the root of civilization.
This technology can be used badly, it could be used to harass innocent people, it could be totally ineffective, but it's not anything new. If you look particularly dodgy now, any reasonably competent airport security(which I'll admit there isn't very much of) will tag you for further questioning, which is all the machine is doing. The big difference is that the machine, if it works at all, should at least be filtering you on reasonable criteria as opposed to the random prejudices of the security guards.