Slashdot Mirror
DHS Goes Ahead With 'Pre-Crime' Detection Project
suraj.sun tips news that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun testing its project to predict future crimes on members of the public. The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) project is "designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns." A field test was performed at a large venue earlier this year, and documents recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that testing is proceeding on other members of the public as well. "It's not clear whether these people were informed that they're participating in a FAST study."
would make nazi weep.
Read radical news here
We're probably 20 years away from that if you consider how much testing will need to be done prior to extensive legal challenges and official tests in various cities and states. It will be the greatest legal tool for oppression mankind has ever known.
So what they're doing is taking variables that are innocent and legal (changing the pitch of one's voice is not an inherently criminal act), and using it to justify increased surveillance of that individual. And naturally, everyone will be okay with this because "only criminals have anything to hide".
Everyone forgets, of course, that you don't need to be watched for very long before you break a law. It's so hopelessly complex that even lawyers, who spend several years learning about it, are unable to avoid being ensnared against a determined law enforcement effort. If they want you, they will get you. So basically, this system is selecting people to turn into criminals. There is no preventative value here... increased surveillance on anyone will eventually yield evidence that can be used for criminal prosecution.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It can't happen as long as we presume innocence until proven guilty.
The DHS is reaching for new ways to achieve visible results without doing the hard work of battling for the budget needed to hire and train really smart, perceptive people for sensitive posts like TSA agents at airports.
When machines get smart enough to predict someone's future crimes, we're all going to be unemployed, anyway.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I REALLY hope somebody in the higher echelons of the DHS sits down to read a copy of The Minority Report by Phillip Dick. Like the movie based upon it, the story explores the implications of enacting just what the DHS is suggesting. Granted, they're using cameras and screening tech instead of pre-cogs, but IMO they are still are promoting a powerful military force to reach a similar end game. What's happening to this country?
Anyone with outlier body problems is a suspect now.
DHS is now waging war against the disabled
Since the thread was already Godwinned in the first post, I'm going to say that the Nazis also did similar things to the mentally and physically disabled. It's just a jump from detecting and classifying people like this to eugenics.
Thanks, DHS.
Go fuck yourselves.
--
BMO
The terrorists have won.
There's zero chance this will work how they think it will. From a great presentation at this year's DefCon:
Why Airport Security Can’t Be Done FAST
Ok, I didn't RTFA because I want to whip this off before I go out the door but...
Instead of the "security theater" that passes for inspections at American airports, shouldn't we be emulating the much less intrusive Israeli model? From what I understand (I admit I'm an amateur), instead of passing people through body scanners and whatnot, the Israelis use well trained people to basically talk to people entering the "sterile" zone and WATCH THEIR REACTION. I guess it almost impossible to teach someone not to show outward signs of nervousness especially if they're going to end their life by blowing themselves up (or carrying illegal drugs I suppose). The results speak for themselves, when was the last time you've heard of an Israeli airport or airplane being blown up? Don't tell me it's from lack of fanatical enemies!
Of course, DHS' attempt to use technology instead of well trained PEOPLE could be a fatal flaw but the essential idea, of pre-screening people based on their autonomous reflexes, is not to be dismissed outright.
This metric exists to try to prevent future crime, not point out ongoing ones.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I have a crime predictor that boasts better than 99.9% accuracy. It always returns "not a criminal."
Seriously, in order for utterly dystopian concept to have any benefits, you'd need a false alarm rate much lower than 0.1%. Even at .01%, for anti-terrorism applications the ratio of false alarms to actual terrorists would be something like 10,000 to 1 -- assuming it had a 100% detection accuracy, which is of course preposterous.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
we have Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Now we have no jobs, no hope and no cash.
New Economic Perspectives
"...it should be possible to pinpoint potential "troublemakers" and neutralize them."
So long as we agree on the definition of 'troublemakers'. I, for one, don't have a problem labeling you as a troublemaker.
Next?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, "we" did just assassinate an American citizen without due process of law... Just saying.
Law? They didn't charge him with anything, law never even entered into it. They just murdered him. One of their own citizens. And we all know how the US looks after their own, or at least the top 1%. The other 99% are expendable.
Same thing they did to Bin Laden, they had him in custody even, and just murdered him. Probably didn't want anyone to hear anything he might have to say.
Who knows? You could be next.
But I went and ordered 24709000000 litres of concrete to fill North America. We're going to try again from scratch and see if we can do better the 2nd time.
If you've pissed off the military enough for them to launch a rocket at you, being a citizen isn't a concern.
So say you're Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Cindy Sheehan, all of whom have definitely pissed off the military quite a bit by advocating significantly reducing their funding or ordering them to stop engaging the enemy. Some of those military guys might think it's OK to launch a rocket at them to eliminate the problem of anti-military activity in the US. Does them all being US citizens make it a concern? Do you still see no problem?
The whole point of having a court system is that we can't trust the executive branch to decide who's a Good Guy and who's a Bad Guy.
I am officially gone from
You see no problem with the military becoming involved in what is essentially a police action (by definition, war is declared on nations, so what nation is "al Qaeda"?), and committing a summary execution upon U.S. citizens without providing the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to charge -- much less convict -- him of the crimes of which he has been accused?!?!
I think you might be in need of a remedial civics class.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I challenged a ticket in court back in 1997. Long story short, the police office on an overpass clocked the guy next to me going 70 in 55. I was innocent. I had what I considered plenty of evidence--weather reports showing that visibility that day was less than 1/4 mile (normal visibility is around 20 miles), and I even caught the cop in an outright lie. He said that he identified my car by the license plate number, even though I had photographs that clearly showed that from his vantage point, this was impossible.
The end result was unsurprising. The judge wouldn't allow any of my evidence, and after finding me guilt, as I was walking in front of the bench, the judge leaned over, covered the microphone so that the court reporter wouldn't hear, and said, "You know, you never had a chance."
Unfortunately, I was a dirt poor college student with barely enough money to buy gas, let alone hire a lawyer to help me appeal the case, or else I would have. Of course, the judge knew this. This is also the same judge who, when I had asked for a jury trial before, told me, "You can't have a jury trial, this is a traffic violation. It has to be resolved in traffic court," which I still think is bogus, but then, IANAL.
So yeah, that "right to challenge it in court?" Not so much useful. It is also why I have pretty much zero respect for our judicial system or its ability to actually serve justice. It's not just a matter of being "more efficient" to waive your rights. You HAVE no rights, and it's just a question of how much your existence tax is going to be.
As a short P.S., before that trial, I was always careful about obeying the speed limit, or at worst, driving within 5 MPH or so of it. Nowadays, I don't care. I drive as fast as I want to and that I feel is safe given whatever conditions I'm driving in. I figure that since the truth doesn't matter and I don't have a chance anyway, I might as well at least get places faster.
I will not be adjudged on a scale of "normality" against a scale drawn from the mean of a profoundly sick society.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.