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.

67 of 111 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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).

    6. 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.

    7. 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...

    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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. 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
  3. 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."
  4. 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 ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

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

      Human intelligence is also "fancy pattern-matching".

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

      No it isn't. AI nutters.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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...?

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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."
    15. 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
    16. 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
    17. Re:Buzzword du jour by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I spotted a bug:

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

    18. 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...
    19. 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.
    20. 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."
    21. 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.
    22. Re:Buzzword du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      GN7? Hint: "recall'

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    23. 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
    24. 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
    25. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

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

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

  11. 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...

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

    Cellphone shaped guns anyone?

  13. 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.
  14. 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?

  15. 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.........
  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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