Slashdot Mirror


Skeletal Identification

Bruce Schneier noted a story today over at his blog about a new Skeletal Identification System being developed at Wright State. Of course this is just another biometric detection system, but one that would be pretty tough to disguise.

14 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Hot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I imagine there may be some issues with irradiating people to identify them. This isn't something on the surface you can just get with backscatter terahertz. Imaging bones means X-ray, and a fair bit of it for a full-body image. They might be able to get it down to the equivilent exposure of one plane flight - but add up all the airports, ports, theme parks and places adults may encouter children each year. That's a potential legal risk, if nothing else.

    On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.

    1. Re:Hot. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is something I have to be concerned about because if the radiation is that significant, I won't be able to go through them without risking damage (I received the maximum dosage of medical x-rays (e.g. to treat cancer) that I'll ever be able to receive for the rest of my life).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Hot. by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.

      Hell yeah. I'd rather die in horrible agony because of severe overdose of bodyscans than having one peado walking around freely! I'll give up anything (you hear me? ANYTHING!) to catch them dirty bastards. ...

      I'm just waiting until the paedophiles and othre dirty bastards figure that it's probably easiest to simply work for a security company. Pictures and bodyscans all day.

  2. This definitely won't lead to less freedom... by TheLuggage2008 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long before there's a false-positive (I don't believe that the skeletal structure is so unique that a body scan from a distance will NEVER make a mistake)? And following the false-positive, a plea for all good citizens to submit to a scan for the database, or to sign a release stating the government can have access to your medical records for the purposes of security and to prevent "unfortunate" mix-ups.

    Once you're in the system, you're in it; making the notion that you have "paid your debt to society" when you are release from incarceration nothing more than an illusion. You can make whatever arguments you like about the usefulness of databases for certain types of offenders but systems like these mean that if you ever offend and serve time, for anything you will forever be watched; you won't have to be a terrorist or a pedophile.

    I'm just glad this is being done in the name of safety, that's gotta be worth a whole bunch of anyone's liberty...

  3. Easy to fool... by theNAM666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh come on. This is easier to avoid than using glitter to fool mass face recognition.

    That is, to have much value, working "at 50 meters," this is a mass detection system. You have to analyze hundreds if not thousands of targets, to known profiles. How do you fool it? Calcium is cheap, real cheap.

    1. Re:Easy to fool... by chichilalescu · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see your point.
      This system where we combine fingerprinting with retinal scans and full body X-rays is not enough.

      I think we have a simple solution: brain measurements. I understand that brains have these wiggly lines on them (circumtelligently designed), and these are unique. So I propose we just put a neurosurgeon at each airport, to quickly check if your brain matches your passport.

      --
      new sig
  4. Is there a future for privacy? Or just Wikileaks? by h00manist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Myriads of automated, interconnected tracking and identification systems available to all, implemented in any storefront and doorway for security and insurance purposes. Full identification on visual contact. Privacy will become a right on paper only, requiring a vast security team to implement in practice, perhaps even breaking some laws. What should hackers do? Help dying privacy rights, with arcane tools nobody can use? Expose the tracking systems is pointless, everyone knows about them and has one. Leak their data? Leak the identities and actions of those hidden entities, who are abusing the law with it? Eliminating the last of all privacy-capable individuals? Looks to me like Wikileaks is the future for privacy activism. Come to think of it, in any small town in the world, privacy basically doesn`t exist, everyone knows who everyone is by sight, and it's not the end of the world. Expanding information and knowledge is, in a way, eliminating privacy.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  5. Penetrating X Rays - NFW by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article reads like a parody. Some guy is (supposedly) worried about sex offenders in the neighborhood - I know, let's X Ray everyone everyday ! That will surely keep people safe, until they all die of cancer.

    Seriously, are these guys stuck in the 1950's ? Penetrating radiation for bone scans ? On a daily basis ? I can remember when children's shoe stores had X ray machines, so Mom could view how the shoe fit, but such common uses of X Rays were stopped for a reason, and as a screening device this has no chance.

    From the article : Depending on the selected technology, a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight

    From the World Health Organization, INFORMATION SHEET Nov. 2005, on Cosmic Radiation and Air Travel :

    Aircrew are now recognized in many countries as occupationally exposed to radiation, and radiation protection limits for aircrew are similar to those established for nuclear workers.

    If you work through the numbers (and I read the above to mean that, at best, radiation exposure would be similar to air travel, so this is a lower bound), a daily scan would thus amount to 2 to 5 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation each year, substantially exceeding the ICRP guideline of no more than 1 mSv exposure to any fetus during pregnancy, and coming close to or exceeding the guideline of 4 mSv exposure for ordinary workers.

    This would, at a minimum, mean that anyone at risk of pregnancy should not be scanned, and radiation workers should not be scanned (as they are typically close to their limits). There is thus just no chance that this would be adopted for regular screening of the general population.

  6. A bone to pick with the premise by phorwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting, but... The scheme fails to account for the fact that human bones remodel and change shape over time. In fact, the premise appears to count on the fact that people's bones will remain unchanged. It's just not so. The skeleton is a changing organ. More info can be found in this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_remodeling One could imagine a database of "bone information" that is cross-referenced to identity. While it's possible the data would initially be useful, over time the database would become increasingly inaccurate as peoples' bones changed. How often would the authors suggest that people be rescanned to maintain accuracy?

    --
    Wait. Stop scrolling for a sec. O.K. Thanks. - P
  7. Re:Easy to fool... not to mention by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That isn't a problem because the real purpose of this isn't to catch terrorists. It will have "STOPS TERRORISTS AND PEDOPHILES" stamped in glowing letters across the front to obtain funding. Then it will be sold to every idiot with a budget and too much power. Police departments, airports, hell as the article says:

    "It could go anywhere," he said. "It could be in every airport. You could put it in a hotel if it gets down to the right scale and cost."

    It will be used to "catch" people who owe library books and participated in an anti-war demonstration. Poor schmucks who had the misfortune of being caught pissing in an alley behind a bar and labeled sex-offenders will be tackled by mall security guards.

    Also does anyone think there is a problem between this statement:
    "a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight."
    and this one:
    "It could be in every airport. You could put it in a hotel if it gets down to the right scale and cost."

    If this guy gets his wish we'll be scanned each time we enter and leave a store, a mall, a library, a park.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  8. Lots of other technologies will by h00manist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's not be naive, dirty business is mainstream, even if not widely practiced. There are already mass-tracking systems. Of various levels of legality and accessibility, depending on how much law, power, money, access, or friends you have. License plate tracking, credit cards, bank records, cookies, building passes, cameras, on and on. Extra easy to tell where everyone is going or not going combining a few of these. Governments and corporations don`t break the law, they outsource. Somebody gathers lots of stuff and sells it, there is demand and profit, and it just takes place, like it not, legal or not. Just open the phone book and start shopping for detectives or security, say what you want, full confidentiality, pay up, and you're done. It's up to us, the public, to realize and deal with the society we are building. Perhaps another look is needed at why crime dropped so much in the early 90's, to see how much of it was due to the wide availabilty of data on everyone.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  9. Re:x-rays not involved by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Informative
    FTFA:

    X-rays, gamma rays or other forms of body scanning would be used to create a bone signature for each person. ... Depending on the selected technology, a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight.

    Although their language is somewhat vague ("other forms of body scanning" is open to interpretation), they clearly are not ruling out x-rays, and are obviously leaning towards a form or radiation that would penetrate the body, rather than reflect off the surface, and the exposure would be measurable and significant. GP has a good point.

    Basically for this to work, you would essentially need to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists before you scanned them. (emphasis mine)

    Sort of moots the point, doesn't it? FTFA:

    What if there was a way to positively identify sex offenders as they arrived at theme parks and other venues populated by young children?

    You position this technology as a way to confirm suspicion about a particular individual. We have other methods for doing that (fingerprint, DNA, etc.). They are positioning this scan as a way to sift through the general population. In other words, this intended "to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists" as you say.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  10. False positive / Negative by DrYak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to mention the rate of,

    - false negative.
    They specifically mention that broken bone and screws are things that make bone shape individual.
    As soon as one ot those "godless pedo-terrorist pirate" breaks a bone, he is a completely different person for this system. Unless you make it mandatory to periodically update the database to know each latest modification the bones have gone through.

    - false positive.
    There's some variability among population, but is it enough to distinguish reliabily all the population ? Sure that no two persons out of the couple of billion currently on earth won't share similar bones ?
    Specially since the articles considers same skeleton / different face as someone who is trying to hide something using plastic surgery (and not as a defficiency in the system ?)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  11. Can't believe this hasn't been said by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Funny

    Xrays and backscatters? Bruce Schneier needs none of these things to identify you by your skeleton. Bruce Schneier simply removes your skeleton from your body and gives it a once-over.

    (apologies to schneierfacts.com)