Slashdot Mirror
Engineers Say They've Created Way To Detect Weapons Using Wi-Fi (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The researchers, which include engineers from Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), and Binghamton University, published a study this month detailing a method in which common wifi can be used to easily and efficiently identify weapons, bombs, and explosive chemicals in public spaces that don't typically have affordable screening options. The researchers' system uses channel state information (CSI) from run-of-the-mill wifi. It can first identify whether there are dangerous objects in baggage without having to physically rifle through it. It then determines what the material is and what the risk level is. The researchers tested the detection system using 15 different objects across three categories -- metal, liquid, and non-dangerous -- as well as with six bags and boxes across three categories -- backpack or handbag, cardboard box, and a thick plastic bag.
The findings were pretty impressive. According to the researchers, their system is 99 percent accurate when it comes to identifying dangerous and non-dangerous objects. It is 97 percent accurate when determining whether the dangerous object is metal or liquid, the study says. When it comes to detecting suspicious objects in various bags, the system was over 95 percent accurate. The researchers state in the paper that their detection system only needs a wifi device with two to three antennas, and can run on existing networks.
The findings were pretty impressive. According to the researchers, their system is 99 percent accurate when it comes to identifying dangerous and non-dangerous objects. It is 97 percent accurate when determining whether the dangerous object is metal or liquid, the study says. When it comes to detecting suspicious objects in various bags, the system was over 95 percent accurate. The researchers state in the paper that their detection system only needs a wifi device with two to three antennas, and can run on existing networks.
Unfortunately, from reading the paper, it seems like they've failed to measure the real effectiveness of their system -- they only measured the false negative rate and used just that for their "effectiveness". They never even bothered to check for or measure false positives. With such useless measures its easy to get a 100% effective system -- simply categorize everything as dangerous. Then your false negattive rate is 0% and your "effectiveness" is 100%.