Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AI-Powered Body Scanners Could Soon Speed Up Your Airport Check-in (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the no-waiting-lines dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report on the Guardian:A startup bankrolled by Bill Gates is about to conduct the first public trials of high-speed body scanners powered by artificial intelligence (AI), the Guardian can reveal. According to documents filed with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Boston-based Evolv Technology is planning to test its system at Union Station in Washington DC, in Los Angeles's Union Station metro and at Denver international airport. Evolv uses the same millimetre-wave radio frequencies as the controversial, and painfully slow, body scanners now found at many airport security checkpoints. However, the new device can complete its scan in a fraction of second, using computer vision and machine learning to spot guns and bombs. This means passengers can simply walk through a scanning gate without stopping or even slowing down -- like the hi-tech scanners seen in the 1990 sci-fi film Total Recall. A nearby security guard with a tablet is then shown either an "all-clear" sign, or a photo of the person with suspicious areas highlighted. Evolv says the system can scan 800 people an hour, without anyone having to remove their keys, coins or cellphones.

111 comments

  1. You know what that means. by AdamThor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The easier it is to scan you, the more often you will be scanned.

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
    1. Re:You know what that means. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The more layer of machines that get sold to each site. All needing workers, on going repairs, upgrades and support. No bid security contracts just keep the cash flowing.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:You know what that means. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The easier it is to scan you, the more often you will be scanned.

      Also, it means that these machines will cost us even more (wasted) money.
      Previous machines were $250K or so. These are probably at least $500K, because "AI".

    3. Re:You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how long do they last vs the salaries of the people they replace in the same time?

      isn't capitalism great

    4. Re: You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. How is this a good thing? You want intrusive overreach by government, corporations, anyone to be as difficult and time consuming as possible.

      Otherwise they'll do a news story on it, trot out some soccer mommies who'll say "it's ok as long as it makes us feel safer" (they always say "feel") and more freedoms gone like that.

      And BTW, it's not artificial intelligence and stop calling it that. It's pattern matching. Period.

    5. Re:You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easier it is to scan you, the more often you will be scanned.

      I do not care if I am "Scanned", any more than I care if someone looks at me as I walk past. Just don't interrupt my travel. Don't stop me. Don't ask me any questions. Don't make me empty my pockets. Don't make me take off my clothes. Don't make me unpack my bags so you can see my tablet, laptop, phone, etc.

      Unless you have a reason that would hold up in court (as I assume the results of this scanner alerting would) to interfere with my freedom of movement leave me alone.

    6. Re:You know what that means. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      So you are OK with being scanned with radiation that can see through your clothes, as long as you aren't stopped? Nice.

    7. Re:You know what that means. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Worse yet... are they ok with raising their hands above their head in order to prove they are not a threat absent any other information? That doesn't sound like the activity of a free person in response to the government asking nicely.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    8. Re:You know what that means. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      you are OK with being scanned with radiation that can see through your clothes...

      ... but isn't actually effective at detecting any threats (like weapons or whatever it is supposed to detect).

    9. Re: You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I noticed that two of the three initial sites are train stations, not airports. I guess building entrances can't be far behind.

    10. Re:You know what that means. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      It really depends on the radiation (lower UV range ionizing radiation is less dangerous than being in the sun for a long time,) and the fact that you're moving through it quickly reduces the chance that it will be bad. It just depends a lot of things.

      And if an AI is checking you, then you're probably not going to get your dick and ass grabbed by this guy:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

    11. Re: You know what that means. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      I noticed that two of the three initial sites are train stations, not airports. I guess building entrances can't be far behind.

      The TSA has had roving teams checking passengers on metro/city and Greyhound buses. Building entrances will likely be next, yes, post offices etc, then expanded to malls and stores. Soon there will be checkpoints for pedestrians. What, you thought you could risk National Security by walking down the street minding your own business? Terrorist! Gulag...err...Guantanamo for you!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The easier it is to scan you, the more often you will be scanned.

      How often you get scanned is a political decision made through a democratic process. How easy/hard the scan is to implement is only one of many inputs to that decision. Feel free to take part in the decision and present arguments towards few but easy, instead of many easy, scans. Or maybe few complicated scans, if that is what you prefer.

      The decision is not made on Slashdot, though, but mostly in national parliaments. You'll have to participate there, not here.

    13. Re:You know what that means. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      you are OK with being scanned with radiation that can see through your clothes...

      ... but isn't actually effective at detecting any threats (like weapons or whatever it is supposed to detect).

      It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Look big and scary and reassure most folk that there is security, doesn't matter that it's about as secure as a barn door, it's the image that counts.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    14. Re:You know what that means. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Forget tinfoil hats, it's time for tinfoil jumpsuits.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:You know what that means. by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      It's not lower UV range (which isn't ionizing) radiation nor is it ionizing radiation. These aren't the old backscatter X-ray scanners. They got replaced a long time ago. These are high frequency microwave, in the 100GHz+ range.

    16. Re:You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are OK with being scanned with radiation that can see through your clothes, as long as you aren't stopped? Nice.

      Yes. But we're not embarassed to be nude here, even in front of strangers (who may be of a different sex).

    17. Re:You know what that means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my G.O.D!

      That computer system can SEE THRU MY CLOTHES WITH RADI-ASHUNS!!!!!111 Them 'puters are lookin' at MY JUNK!!!!!

      --

      Seriously? Get over yourself.

    18. Re:You know what that means. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      What I mean is roughly the third quartet of UV which ionizes some but not all atoms. Nonetheless, it qualifies as what a hypochondriac typically refers to as "dangerous" radiation, even though it's anything but. (Then again, your typical hypochondriac probably thinks all radiation is bad, neverminding that without radiation they'd be unable to see...hell, they'd be unable to exist. That can also be filed under the same category as health food nuts that shun chemicals.)

  2. AI Spice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The complementary grouping hand is controlled with a state of the art neuromorphic processor from the IBM, with lighting fast Trump-grabs and Cosby-fondles. You'll not see its comings and goings. The passengers must flow.

  3. AI powered is overhyped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subject says it all... stop using AI to describe everything...

    1. Re:AI powered is overhyped... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      subject says it all... stop using AI to describe everything...

      While this may or may not qualify as artificial "intelligence," it almost has to perform better than the TSA does now whenever they run a benchmark test (and generally find something like 90% of bad stuff gets through). You could probably hook up a metal detector to a Commodore 64 powered by a BASIC program created by a 4th grader and get better results than the current TSA.

    2. Re: AI powered is overhyped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when an AI gets something wrong, the human responsible gets fired and put in jail. That's good at least.

  4. Total Recall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if it comes with a three breasted whore. On Mars.

  5. Easy Scan?!? by rtb61 · · Score: 0

    Ain't no easy scan there pal, hack that device and you have a bomb strapped to you and I can assure the scan you receive will not be easy at all. One thing I will never want is a M$ device scanning me and letting other people know whether or not they should open fire on me, real world BSOD, definitely not something to ever trust M$ with or any slimy off shoots of it.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Easy Scan?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      seems logical, i mean whenever the metal detectors go off they just shoot you immediately right?

      you've clearly crossed that line between hyperbole and moved into stupidity

    2. Re:Easy Scan?!? by Tesen · · Score: 1

      seems logical, i mean whenever the metal detectors go off they just shoot you immediately right?

      you've clearly crossed that line between hyperbole and moved into stupidity

      Yes sir they do... the amount of times I am minding my own business guns strapped to my person walking through the MS metal detectors heading in to my local federal building and all hell breaks loose, they pull their guns, they threaten to shoot me... all the while I am shouting, "open carry state! open carry state!"

      Yup... seems perfectly *sic* logical to me...

    3. Re:Easy Scan?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US, so it's essentially a lottery whether they shoot you or not.

    4. Re:Easy Scan?!? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      I just refuse the scan, I politely tell them I want to "opt out" of the scan.

      I don't want any more radiation exposure than I need, no matter how small.

      Its the physical pat down, but it isn't that bad and I feel good about making them work a bit more. Hell, if more people opted out for the physical pat down, it might cause such lines that they'd need to change their tactics and not make the general public feel like a suspicious heard of cattle.

      I just make sure to get there a few minutes early for this....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Easy Scan?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US, so it's essentially a lottery whether they shoot you or not.

      Not really. I'm a white male. It's never even a concern.

    6. Re:Easy Scan?!? by wagnerrp · · Score: 0

      I don't want any more radiation exposure than I need, no matter how small.

      Then you better stop leaving the house, or standing in close proximity to others, or animals, or organic foodstuffs! And good god man, what are you doing using that computer to post on this site?!?!

    7. Re:Easy Scan?!? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Interesting, you really are about as likely to get shot and killed by a cop as you are to win the lottery (meaning all 6 numbers). In Texas the odds are one in 26 million, I assume the odds are similar elsewhere. So if you play once a week, that puts your odds somewhere around 1:500,000 over the course of the year. Police shoot and kill about 600 people each year (although statistics are VERY hard to come by). That means you have about 1:500,000 chance of getting shot and killed by a cop in a year.

  6. Now... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    ....now we can add this scanning technology everywhere. Subways, buses, streets, schools, etc. I am sure the millimetre-wave frequencies won't damage you.

    1. Re:Now... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I am sure the millimetre-wave frequencies won't damage you.

      I am sure you are correct. The frequency is far too low to cause any ionization, more than a thousandfold less energetic than visible light, but with enough intensity it might make you feel warm.

    2. Re:Now... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Cue a new fashionable line of metallic fiber textile clothes... ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Now... by DaHat · · Score: 2

      While there seems to be info suggesting these things won't harm you physically, nor is it easy to crank them up to the point they would... they are still just a major part of security theater, as multiple ways have been found to sneak contraband past them: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/...

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  7. The Republicans will never let us have this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never let us have this. They fly private jets so they want the TSA to be slow. To be slow.

    1. Re:The Republicans will never let us have this. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Sure, blame only half of the Ruling Party. After all, it's not like Obama has signed bills extending the PATRIOT act multiple times, or done fuck-all to end the DHS or the TSA, is it?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re: The Republicans will never let us have this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was on a flight Sunday woth John Edwards to Raleigh, and he was flying coach. You are correct.

    3. Re:The Republicans will never let us have this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because Obama is a closet Republican. A Republican. He hates you.

  8. A free concussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for the next press release I mean news story (is there a difference?) which claims something is Artificially Intelligent when it is not.

    1. Re:A free concussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DIDJYA HEAR BOUT that self driving beer truck?

  9. Buzzword du jour by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am so sick of hearing about "Artificial Intelligence". There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching, because that's all we can do at this point. It's better pattern-matching than we've been able to do before, but it's pure hype to call it "AI".

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:Buzzword du jour by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You will be hearing a lot more "AI" hype now that the advances in microprocessors have been slowing down. AI is now the hype du jour in order to attract VC interest.

    2. Re:Buzzword du jour by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      if (isABrownOne())
        if (isMuslim())
          doFullCavitySearch();
        else
          doStripSearch();
      else
        if (isWhite())
          if (isFemale())
            doFullPatDown();
          else
            if (isRepublican())
              doHaveANiceDay();
            else
              doLawEnforcementScowlyFace();

    3. Re:Buzzword du jour by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching, because that's all we can do at this point.

      Exactly. And on a related note, you are a fancy pattern matcher, too!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Buzzword du jour by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Advances in large scale chips capable of running neural networks have not slowed down, though. Microprocessors haven't gotten faster because the clock speeds haven't been rising, and there's only so much you can do to boost performance per thread by throwing more transistors at it. There may be some hype but there's a lot of things that are suddenly working. It really is true that there has been more progress in the last 5 years for AI than the first 50.

      This may "just" be pattern recognition but it's stupendously better than before.

    5. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching

      The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line. I've seen long online debates about this, and there are no good lines in the sand yet. All attempts failed key tests offered up, or were too subjective to evaluate well.

      For one, we still don't know enough about how the human brain works such that we cannot say what distinguishes things called "AI" from something as powerful as the human brain. For all we know, the human brain is merely "fancy pattern matching" at a level of fanciness we don't understand yet.

      Some call pattern-matching AI "lossy statistical analysis for the sake of speed/cost".

      I suspect human brains also (typically) use abstract modelling of various sorts where symbols or some kind of ID's with attributes/links/factors are stand-in's for actual people and things to simplify certain cognitive processes. Thus, the human brain may merely be "fancy pattern matching" coordinated with "fancy modelling": statistics + modeling.

      Various known AI techniques use pattern matching and others use modelling, BUT nobody has found a way to coordinate them together in a general-purpose way to reinforce each other (triangulate). It's as if we got all the key parts, but don't know how to put them together right. We don't know how to build central governors to coordinate AI "organs" for common goals.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Buzzword du jour by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. AI has been stuck for the last 50 years. More hype. This isn't AI, and neural nets were a dead end in the 1970s and still are.

    7. Re:Buzzword du jour by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching

      Human intelligence is also "fancy pattern-matching".

    8. Re:Buzzword du jour by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. AI nutters.

    9. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and this is how "AI" is gonna kill people. People being stupid enough to believe there is intelligence in AI.

    10. Re: Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out DCGAN image generation, skip thought vectors, seq2seq, and variational LSTM autoencoder sentence generation. There are much better results coming out of modern NN structures and training methodologies. This isnt grandma's feedforward backpropagation network.

    11. Re: Buzzword du jour by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Impressive! It can recognize Justin Beiber now? AI nutters are as bad as Space nutters.

    12. Re:Buzzword du jour by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Any generative model, and most of the modern systems are either generative or trivially easy to modify to be so, includes an internal model. Antagonistic training explicitly exploits this feature with two systems, one that tries to learn to spot real data from faked, and another that tries to learn to fool the first one.

    13. Re:Buzzword du jour by DaHat · · Score: 1

      So DB Cooper gets to get on the plane? Good to know! Though anti escape systems like the 'Cooper vane' may require some work to get around...

      Also... can you describe the implementation of isMuslim()? Given the criticisms of Trumps old Muslim ban, I'd be curious to know if you've a better algorithm... as he or someone else may be interested in your IP.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    14. Re:Buzzword du jour by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Well... I don't like it, but you're not wrong. It's extremely primitive though.

      I don't see "real" AI coming until we develop new processor architectures, specifically organic based.

    15. Re:Buzzword du jour by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, how do you explain :

      1. Working autonomous cars that are almost safe enough for mass use
      2. Computers winning at Go

      Both heavily use advanced neural networks. Isn't the blob of atrophied jello in your skull also a very large neural network...?

    16. Re: Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI nutters are as bad as Space nutters.

      still better than sjws like you

    17. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Antagonistic training explicitly exploits this feature with two systems, one that tries to learn to spot real data from faked, and another that tries to learn to fool the first one.

      That's called "marriage".

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    18. Re:Buzzword du jour by m00sh · · Score: 1

      I am so sick of hearing about "Artificial Intelligence". There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching, because that's all we can do at this point. It's better pattern-matching than we've been able to do before, but it's pure hype to call it "AI".

      IDK if this uses it or not, but in the past few years the advent of deep learning has changed what AI means.

      It's still better pattern matching but it's better than human now with deep learning.

    19. Re:Buzzword du jour by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line

      Yeah, but we're very far on the 'not' side of the line, even if the line is fuzzy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Buzzword du jour by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I am so sick of hearing about "Artificial Intelligence". There's nothing intelligent about it.

      This reminds me of a certain Sherlock Holmes passage. Sherlock Holmes deduces all sorts about an individual by having a quick glance at them (as normal). The man is astonished and asks how he knew- when Sherlock explains the man replies that he thought at first he had done something clever, but now realises it wasn't.

      Sherlock Holmes's quick eye took in my occupation, and he shook his head with a smile as he noticed my questioning glances. "Beyond the obvious facts that he has at some time done manual labor, that he takes snuff, that he is a Freemason, that he has been in China, and that he has done a considerable amount of writing lately, I can deduce nothing else."

                Mr. Jabez Wilson started up in his chair, with his forefinger upon the paper, but his eyes upon my companion.

                How, in the name of good fortune, did you know all that, Mr. Holmes?" he asked. "How did you know, for example, that I did manual labor? It's as true as gospel, for I began as a ship's carpenter."

                "Your hands, my dear sir. Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left. You have worked with it and the muscles are more developed."

                "Well, the snuff, then, and the Freemasonry?"

                "I won't insult your intelligence by telling you how I read that, especially as, rather against the strict rules of your order, you use an arc and compass breastpin."

                "Ah, of course, I forgot that. But the writing?"

                "What else can be indicated by that right cuff so very shiny for five inches, and the left one with the smooth patch near the elbow where you rest it upon the desk."

                "Well, but China?"

                "The fish which you have tattooed immediately above your wrist could only have been done in China. I have made a small study of tattoo marks, and have even contributed to the literature of the subject. That trick of staining the fishes' scales of a delicate pink is quite peculiar to China. When, in addition, I see a Chinese coin hanging from your watch chain, the matter becomes even more simple."

                Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed heavily. "Well, I never!" said he. "I thought at first that you had done something clever, but I see that there was nothing in it after all."

      Your claim that Artificial Intelligence doesn't use "Intelligence" is much like Mr. Wilson claiming what Sherlock did wasn't "clever".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re:Buzzword du jour by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      isMuslim() is easy. Trump will have it programmed like this:

      if (isWhite() == false || isForeign())
            return true;
      else
            return false;

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    22. Re:Buzzword du jour by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I spotted a bug:

      -if(isFemale())
      +if(isFemale() and isAttractive())

    23. Re:Buzzword du jour by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Human intelligence is also "fancy pattern-matching".

      No it isn't. AI nutters.

      ShanghaiBill is right. As humans we're not much more than pattern-matching algorithms with a sensory and mobility package. Most of what our brain does is screen out the deluge of sensory input we're bombarded with as it attempts to make some sense of it.

      Visual, auditory, tactile- pretty much the only way we make sense of the world around us is by pattern-matching in one form or another.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    24. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human intelligence is also "fancy pattern-matching".

      No it isn't. AI nutters.

      ShanghaiBill is right. As humans we're not much more than pattern-matching algorithms with a sensory and mobility package. Most of what our brain does is screen out the deluge of sensory input we're bombarded with as it attempts to make some sense of it.

      Visual, auditory, tactile- pretty much the only way we make sense of the world around us is by pattern-matching in one form or another.

      Speak for yourself. Don't lay your blatantly reductive hogwash on the rest of us.

      There is no AI. You will never see it in your lifetime. You live in the age of tiny portable TeeVees and advertising run amuck. I can understand the desire to believe that you are on the cusp of some golden age of worthwhile technological advancement.

    25. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, how do you explain :

      1. Working autonomous cars that are almost safe enough for mass use
      2. Computers winning at Go

      Both heavily use advanced neural networks. Isn't the blob of atrophied jello in your skull also a very large neural network...?

      We've made tremendous advancements on defining down "AI".

    26. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no clear-cut definition of "intelligence," so there logically can't be a clear-cut definition of "artificial intelligence."

      It turns out (lengthy and boring explanation redacted) that language derives tremendous utility from being vague. There will never be a neat and precise definition of these concepts.

    27. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They don't exist. Google cars aren't capable of operating outside of very constrained conditions, and no one else has anything that's more than fancy cruise control with lane-keeping.
      2. Go is a solvable puzzle with a finite number of game states. No artificial intelligence is needed for a computer with a good algorithm and sufficient horsepower to win at Go.

    28. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's not a Boolean concept then. There is a "level" of AI-ness. AI-ativity? We'd need a new vocabulary to talk about it.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    29. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line. I've seen long online debates about this, and there are no good lines in the sand yet.

      Which means that "AI" can mean almost anything. The only relevant test is whether the technology is clever enough to impress the audience.

      "AI" is a classic tech buzzword akin to "cyber", "virtual", "smart", "digital", etc.

      That is not to say that artificial intelligence is not a genuine area of research and discovery. However, while everyone is saying "Artificial Intelligence(!)", almost none of them are talking about artificial intelligence.

    30. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's not a Boolean concept then. There is a "level" of AI-ness. AI-ativity? We'd need a new vocabulary to talk about it.

      Maybe its a bunch of BS and that is why you can't describe it in a way that makes it seem otherwise.

    31. Re:Buzzword du jour by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think you're ok with the line idea (even if it's vaguely fuzzy), just that we are clearly not across it yet :)
      What is GN7?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The power and sophistication of say pattern matching can span a wide continuous range. For the high-end techniques, most are okay with calling them "AI". The medium and low end will invite more debate.

      That marketers throw around "AI" a bit much, I agree. Whether its a misuse for this particular gizmo depends on how its done and how well its done.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    33. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      GN7? Hint: "recall'

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    34. Re:Buzzword du jour by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Except that as the left often needs to be reminded whenever the scream 'racist' about anything perceived as anti-Muslim... Islam isn't a race.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    35. Re:Buzzword du jour by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Anyone not white gets painted as a muslim by the racists though. That's partially what makes them racist and the whole point.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    36. Re:Buzzword du jour by strikethree · · Score: 1

      It's just fancy pattern-matching, because that's all we can do at this point.

      I agree, this is not AI; however, a lot of what we call intelligence in ourselves is actually just fancy pattern matching. Think about that for a minute. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    37. Re:Buzzword du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it. Prove you aren't just doing "fancy pattern-matching".

      Note that I am not asking you to prove that you are equal to the level of this AI, as that is absurd as you are clearly more intelligent than it. I am simply asking that you prove that you are not some Nth generation waaaaaaaaay down the line AI.

  10. Not Enough M$ Stories on FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we have them by proxy, via "bankrolled by Bill Gates."

    Nice.

  11. Just not the same by Copid · · Score: 4, Funny

    But can it steal your iPad from your checked bag?

    Can it roll its eyes at you because you don't know that the latest rev of the asinine rules about which things go in which bin?

    It's going to be a while before we can truly replace everything humans do for us.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    1. Re:Just not the same by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      It may be a while, but I have faith we'll get there someday.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Just not the same by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Can it roll its eyes at you because you don't know that the latest rev of the asinine rules about which things go in which bin?

      I'll take rolling eyes over "Violator Detected: E-x-t-e-r-m-i-n-a-t-e!"

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  12. Not if the TSA has their say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see them allowing any sort of efficiency that would jeopardize any jobs.

  13. Necessary? by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    While having something remotely intelligent at security checkpoints would be a nice change of pace, I believe it has still yet to be proven that the level of screening currently in place is doing much good. I would prefer that to be determined before adding and spending more.

    1. Re:Necessary? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I believe it has still yet to be proven that the level of screening currently in place is doing much good.

      It depends on how you define "doing much good." If you expect the TSA to detect terrorists or contraband, then no, its performance is terrible.

      But if you define good as its actual goals -- i.e., (1) make it look like the government is doing something ("security theatre"), (2) line the pockets of contractors who provide fancy unnecessary scanners and other equipment, (3) teach people to obey government officials and get them used to accepting invasive tests and requests, and (4) keep the population suitably scared of nearly nonexistent terrorists so that any new government power grab or rights denial can be justified -- well, then the screening is doing a LOT of "good."

    2. Re:Necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Why replace the average TSA officer with expensive software, when we could just shave some chimpanzees and give them little blue caps? I wouldn't mind being stuck in line, if the security staff were chimps. They're at least as intelligent as TSA humans and will pick bugs out of your hair, while you wait.

  14. The scanning bit isn't the problem by MoogMan · · Score: 2

    The scanning part isn't the problem, it's everything else that is: The triplicate passport checks, the questions, the confused passengers, having to take off your belt, coats (and sometimes shoes), laptops, loading onto the belt... and the reverse after scanning - And that's just the inefficiency in the security line process.

    1. Re:The scanning bit isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the Freedom Fondle, in case one of the screeners feels like touching your junk.

    2. Re:The scanning bit isn't the problem by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that most of the slowdown is at the X-ray machine, with the operator running 25% of the bags through back and forth at least twice. Ignoring that, each lane should be able to process about 5 passengers per minute. Better binning/de-binning lanes should double it, and one scanner per X-ray would get you close to 15 people per minute. If a typical narrowbody has 150 passengers and a 40-minute turn, that would put you at 4 gates per security lane... and about 5 minutes per passenger to go through the process.

      In the scheme of things, not too unreasonable.

    3. Re: The scanning bit isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put the security at the plane, not the airport entrance.

      Let the cabin crew do the scanning. They have more training than the tsa goons anyway. And this way we don't have to worry about missing flights or tsa thieves stealing our stuff.

    4. Re:The scanning bit isn't the problem by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      having to take off your belt, coats (and sometimes shoes)

      FTS: "Evolv says the system can scan 800 people an hour, without anyone having to remove their keys, coins or cellphones."

      I'm assuming that also includes belts and shoes.

    5. Re:The scanning bit isn't the problem by frangryphon200 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have seen a demo of this tech. It really is fast and easy to use and go through. You just walk through it, wearing everything. The only caveat that I saw was that people had to be separated by about 6-8 feet as they walked through to let the scanner work properly.

    6. Re:The scanning bit isn't the problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's a nightmare for people who can't use the existing millimetre wave, aka nudie scanners. I can't do the pose they require, so I usually try to avoid the queue that leads to the scanner. If they try to force me it takes an extra 15 minutes because I have to refuse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re: The scanning bit isn't the problem by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Security works in layers. There are two layers before the passenger screening at most airports, and at least a couple after screening. You don't want your last line of defense to be the only one.

  15. Bill Gates Borg Picture Missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bring it baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

  16. Time to do away with MS no fault clauses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Building this for a specific purpose. When they screw this up, they need to be held accountable.

  17. Shoes? Water Bottles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about "explosives"? Does it detect those as well? I will never fly a plane again unless absolutely necessary until I am *both* no longer at risk of a full body cavity search *and* no longer required to take my damn shoes off. Is it too much to want to be treated like a dignified human being?

  18. Not wasted at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These machines harvest useful biometric identifying information, which the government stores for future law enforcement purposes.

    If you don't believe they do this, in a post-Snowden world, then you are consciously choosing to be stupid.

    1. Re: Not wasted at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In know. The lady called my baby penis after I went through. Now all I get is penis enlargement emails.

  19. Some idiot always posts that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the dictionary:

      Full Definition of artificial intelligence

            1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers

            2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior

    So you see, "pattern matching" exactly fits this definition. Pattern matching is something that humans do a lot, so making a computer do it absolutely qualifies as "imitating human behavior."

    This is what "artificial intelligence" actually means, whether you are sick of it or not.

  20. And by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Informative

    And give you real-time updated images of the tumors they create.

    1. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, I work in parallel with Evolv. We use K-band microwaves, almost the same shit that makes Wi-Fi and cellphones possible.

  21. new shape, same great taste! by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Cellphone shaped guns anyone?

  22. Why only airports? by houghi · · Score: 1

    I wonder how soon these will be implemented in metro and train station; public accesible buildings like malls, sports centers and offices. And next there will be mobile ones in the street.

    And all this with the excuse of safety and telling you that these are public places, so you can't expect any privacy.

    I already feel safer.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. Phone or explosives? by GrBear · · Score: 1

    Evolv says the system can scan 800 people an hour, without anyone having to remove their keys, coins or cellphones.

    But does it know the difference between difference between exploding Samsung phones?

  24. Re:Wrong buzzword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit the nail on the head. I know the lead of the threat detection effort at Evolv, and have seen/used their past strategies. I can't imagine their latest iteration is significantly different than their first, which means pattern-matching and nothing more.

    But that isn't what gets TSA and DHS all hot and bothered. There are other aspects of the technology that have them drooling, even if it can't produce images nearly as good (to the human eye) as the L3 ProVision current technology in airports.

  25. Obviously... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    ...the fastest way to provide the same level of security is to just get rid of the checkpoint.

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
  26. AI My Ass by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    They could halve the number of false positives by simply ignoring every other result from the current scanners.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  27. "AI Powered" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is breaking news! TSA creates AI, Uses it to help with the tough jobs.