I don't like you hand movements, you must be a terrorist.

rigormortis

Look at this:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=56d8f0f0-3902-4fa0-8b78-91bec9c4b928

"I dont like the way you look, boy. You must be a terrorist."

Maybe some of you could explain how someones hand movements would in any way indicate terrorist activity, never mind the look on their faces. What is one to do, keep hands to ones side, stare blankly into the distance at all times?

Orwells nightmare is coming into place.

bonkey

rigormortis wrote: »

Look at this:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=56d8f0f0-3902-4fa0-8b78-91bec9c4b928

Interesting article.

"I dont like the way you look, boy. You must be a terrorist."

I should point out for anyone who doesn't RTFA, that this isn't actually a quote from it.

Maybe some of you could explain how someones hand movements would in any way indicate terrorist activity, never mind the look on their faces.

The word terrorism never occurs in that article, nor does the suggestion that hand-movements or facial expression would indicate terrorist activity.

What is there is the suggestion that hand-movements, facial expressions etc. can be indicators of susipcious activity...which they can.

The idea (as far as I can understand) of the system is that it would be able to offer the same type of "behavioural analysis" as a human observer, without any ingrained bias (unless it was decided to add such, or not remove it once detected...something which cannot be as readily done with human observers).

What is one to do, keep hands to ones side, stare blankly into the distance at all times?

I walked through an airport customs checkpoint some years ago...scruffily dressed, unshaven, long hair. Just as I was halfway through the green zone, I had an itchy nose, and rubbed it - a gesture which could easily be mistaken for something a drug-abuser would do, or someone who was nervous. about 2 seconds later, a customs official called me over to ask to go through my bags.

In hindsight, my appearance and behaviour was certainly enough to make me stand out from the crowd. A human observer made a decision rightly or wrongly based in part on these factors. If you replace that human with a computer...how am I worse off?

Orwells nightmare is coming into place.

Maybe. I would agree with David Lyon's comment in the article about it being a highly sensitive issue, but I'm not entirely sure why there appears to be a distinction between technology determining that something looks suspicious and humans doing exactly the same. There seems to be an implicit suggestion that only the former is a civil liberties issue.

Black Swan

Will the computer be able to account for cultural differences when it comes to hand gestures? Or will it be ethnocentric? The frequently used OK finger sign in the USA is an insult for the worst kind in another...

rigormortis

bonkey wrote: »

The word terrorism never occurs in that article, nor does the suggestion that hand-movements or facial expression would indicate terrorist activity.

Of course this is about terrorism. All these types of measures are justified by the threat of terrorism.

bonkey wrote: »

What is there is the suggestion that hand-movements, facial expressions etc. can be indicators of susipcious activity...which they can.

Not the case. I'm not a fan of pre crime.

bonkey wrote: »

I walked through an airport customs checkpoint some years ago...scruffily dressed, unshaven, long hair. Just as I was halfway through the green zone, I had an itchy nose, and rubbed it - a gesture which could easily be mistaken for something a drug-abuser would do, or someone who was nervous. about 2 seconds later, a customs official called me over to ask to go through my bags.

And I'm guessing that he found nothing, therefore because of his prejudice your rights were interfered with.

bonkey wrote: »

If you replace that human with a computer...how am I worse off?

There should be neither human nor computer screening.

The whole thing is turning into a nightmare. Talk about a surveillance society, give it ten years and see the effects of this type of technology.
What about Winston, he could not flinch before his screen for fear of "anti party thoughts". What a joke.

Mahatma coat

fromarticle wrote:

Unfortunately, too much unchecked liberty is abused by other persons," he says.

dunno bout the rest a ye, but this rang alarm bells for me

humanji

rigormortis wrote: »

There should be neither human nor computer screening.

So everyone should be allowed come and go through airports unchecked? Do you not realise the chaos that would happen?

meglome

rigormortis wrote: »

There should be neither human nor computer screening.

The whole thing is turning into a nightmare. Talk about a surveillance society, give it ten years and see the effects of this type of technology.
What about Winston, he could not flinch before his screen for fear of "anti party thoughts". What a joke.

Hmmm... I know there are a lot of dodgy people out there, there are a lot of crazy people out there, there are even 'terrorists' out there. So if you feel comfortable getting on a plane without being checked then good luck to you, but I don't. I'm personally very happy that everyone is checked. All those times back in the day I was stopped going into the UK, sure it pissed me off. I also didn't have a better way that they should do it.

I agree with you that surveillance is growing all the time and this ultimately may be a bad thing. But I would ask you how many people have been wrongly convicted of anything from surveillance?

I'm not sure that quoting 1984 is relevant as you haven't shown that we are living in a totalitarian or police state.

bonkey

rigormortis wrote: »

Of course this is about terrorism. All these types of measures are justified by the threat of terrorism.

Then why was terrorism not mentioned as a justification, but rather other threats?

Not the case. I'm not a fan of pre crime.
...
And I'm guessing that he found nothing, therefore because of his prejudice your rights were interfered with.

These two points are related, so I've left them together...

I don't feel my rights were interfered with. Customs officials have the right to stop and search people coming through customs. I have to accept that as a condition of crossing borders.

If - as you say - they don't or shouldn't have that right, what you're effectively saying is that I have the right to smuggle whatever I like through customs, and as long as I'm dishonest enough to say "no, I'm not taking anything through that I shouldn't have", there's nothing they can do about it.

In such a case, I would argue that there will be a net disimprovement in the system.

There is a line which has to be drawn. Its not an easy one to draw, and I'm in full agreement with the argument that many of the things implemented are not really adding to security at all....but there are cases where I feel suspicion is a justification for checking.

There should be neither human nor computer screening.

You would seem to be of the opinion that I should be allowed to carry guns or explosives onto a plane, and only after I use them can something be done about it?

The whole thing is turning into a nightmare. Talk about a surveillance society, give it ten years and see the effects of this type of technology.

In a manner similar to what is often said about fusion power, the effects of a surveillance society seem to have been ten years away for the last 20 or 30 years.