Thoughtcrime and Borders.

Kama

Kama wonders if his subdermal aluminium foil implants will be effective against the next-gen of scanners.

I've been interested in airport security as testbed for wider social control mechanisms for a while, and esp since the GWOT there's a lot of innovation going on. If you'd told me we'd be all cyberpunk iris scans and black-box psychological scanning 10 years ago, I would have thought it a litle paranoid even for me. Reminds you of ALan Moores comment on V for Vendetta; 'I was looking for something to communicate that it was a totalitarian society, and I thought cameras on every street would do. Evidently someone in office was reading my comics'.


New Homeland Security Magic 8 Ball Removes Terrorists Fast! Now with 100% More WTF?

Via: Fox News:

Baggage searches are SOOOOOO early-21st century. Homeland Security is now testing the next generation of security screening — a body scanner that can read your mind.

Most preventive screening looks for explosives or metals that pose a threat. But a new system called MALINTENT turns the old school approach on its head. This Orwellian-sounding machine detects the person — not the device — set to wreak havoc and terror.

MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security’s directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers.

It has a series of sensors and imagers that read your body temperature, heart rate and respiration for unconscious tells invisible to the naked eye — signals terrorists and criminals may display in advance of an attack.

Homeland Security also selected a group of 23 attendees to be civilian “accomplices” in their test. They were each given a “disruptive device” to carry through the portal — and, unlike the other attendees, were conscious that they were on a mission.

So here’s how it works. When the sensors identify that something is off, they transmit warning data to analysts, who decide whether to flag passengers for further questioning. The next step involves micro-facial scanning, which involves measuring minute muscle movements in the face for clues to mood and intention.

While FAST’s batting average is classified, Undersecretary for Science and Technology Adm. Jay Cohen declared the experiment a “home run.”

But the testing — and the device itself — are not without their problems. This invasive scanner, which catalogues your vital signs for non-medical reasons, seems like an uninvited doctor’s exam and raises many privacy issues.

And because FAST is a mobile screening laboratory, it could be set up at entrances to stadiums, malls and in airports, making it ever more difficult for terrorists to live and work among us.

nyarlothothep

I don't approve of it, I think its going too far in terms of preventing terrorism. The ends rarely if ever justify the means, this is a pretty slippery slope I see here. I read an article in the times about US foreign policy plans for the future. Sounded very Orwellian and basically inhumane, fighting viciously for scarce resources through continual warfare with China and Russia.

I think as a species we have a lot of potential but then again small minded petty stupidity, greed, intolerance and so forth, these things are very much related and I see the surveillance society as another element in these relations. Justifications for the way things are can basically be translated into sophisticated excuses. Assuming the systems we are living under are somehow valid with our best interests in mind seems to me to be an effort to divert fear/unease.

Basically I think most human societies operate on a primitive level which is in conflict with our technological ability. We still function on the basis of power and heirarchy. This surveillance tech is a sad reflection of this.

Diogenes

The problem with this kinds of hype and scaremongering is that it just hype and scaremongering. For example I think there are only three hundred people trained as polgraphyers (spelling?) in the entire UK. Leaving aside the training leap that would be needed to create a team of people able to use this software at any airport, and the volume of people coming through somewhere like heathrow, there is also a simple fact, polygraphs aren't admissable in a court of a law because they are completely reliable.

Essentially this software seems to notice excessive stress levels, be it a husband on his way to his honeymoon, a drug smuggler, a terrorist or someone afraid of flying.

Seems like such a piece of software will need teams of psychologists really time observing all the data.

Do you see that happening at every airport departure desk?

Tsk Kama please don't believe the hype.

Kama

Hmm I'm interested in surveillance tech, dunno about the hype part.

Personally I'm quite Adam Curtis on hype and scaremongering; all the constant state of fear and paranoia re terrorism seems to me a lot more 'terroristic' than what terrorists do. To me, thats the real 'hype'.

And no I don't see these at every airport desk; they're new. But lots of other freindly neighbourhood security stuffs are just a litle past every airline desk now, in case haven't noticed, and it's an rapidly expanding industry, so I think its worthwhile to look at what's being introduced. Lots of current developments used be paranoid 'hype and scaremongering', as was trying to illustrate with the Alan Moore quote...

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Hmm I'm interested in surveillance tech, dunno about the hype part.

Personally I'm quite Adam Curtis on hype and scaremongering; all the constant state of fear and paranoia re terrorism seems to me a lot more 'terroristic' than what terrorists do. To me, thats the real 'hype'.

And no I don't see these at every airport desk; they're new. But lots of other freindly neighbourhood security stuffs are just a litle past every airline desk now, in case haven't noticed, and it's an rapidly expanding industry, so I think its worthwhile to look at what's being introduced. Lots of current developments used be paranoid 'hype and scaremongering', as was trying to illustrate with the Alan Moore quote...

If it's the same Alan Moore post script from V for Vendetta he also admits that he got plenty of stuff wrong with his vision of the future.

Look Airport security has increased to a degree over our lifetime, but unless you're entering an inner city school in the states, or a seriously tough nightclub, or a major government building you're unlikely pass through a metal detector arch anywhere else than an airport. Similarly you're not asked "did you pack this bag yourself" before getting on a bus. Finally as I recall of the Belfast of my youth, security guards would be posted at the door of shops, and businesses and would search your bag before you walked in the door. Border crossing were fortresses, and soldiers drove through the streets of our cities with guns sticking out and pointing at pedestrians.

In short we've endured worst and more justifiable "terroristic"(sic) behaviour on this Island in our lifetimes. I'm just surprised our collective memory is so short.

Don't get me wrong I really like Curtis work, but I think you are extrapolating wildly based on a single piece of technology.

Kama

It's not a single piece of technology, its an example from within an industry...Wildly extrapolating I wasn't, was just pointing out a piece of the weird tech thats in use is all...

d0gb0y

This is the 3rd article i've read on this and they seem to get more diluted down from the original which I can't find a link for atm.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-18-bioscanner_N.htm
Heres another link that shows the UI a bit.

The main problems I see with implementing systems such as these is the very high false positives values that will be part of it.
The test run was held with volunteers been asked to act suspicious/"terrorist like". IIRC the scans where 78% accurate which leaves a very high false positive percentage.
The test was carried out on people that where trying to act suspicious so its not really a dry run.
No doubt that real suspicious people/terrorists will find ways to circumvent the scans using either a bit of preparedness, psychology & and or drugs.
The scanners are also going to be implemented in high stress areas airports/borders which will also add to the false positive value.
There are also a number of privacy issues that these scanners bring forth as they will be able to spot various bodily functions that could diagnose certain illness's and with this the relevant privacy issues that this would raise.
Terrorists(if this is what its meant to spot) are rare very rare compared to millions of ordinary traveller's who just want to travel without getting hassled. If they are looking for terrorists only(which they won't) this makes the false positive percentage huge even after the project has been refined.

I think this is just an attempt to move away from racial profiling(with all legal rangling this entails) to "the machine said you are suspicious" so bend over for a quick exam. So no doubt that billions of cash will be spent on this tech which will lead us much closer to the workers utopia that we all deserve.

d0gb0y

As with most things of this nature if you spend some time dwelling on the issue the conclusions that you can arrive at are disturbing.

Lets say they pour loads of cash into this they will eventually get a much more portable device that could be on the wrist of your local TCO(thought crime officer) or maybe even just in a van which they can drive around the neighbourhood and scan for disgruntled citizens/terrorists.
With enough investment in the tech they could probably be able to refine the scans to been able to detect different forms of stress/anxiety which will lead to a whole new kind of profiling.

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

It's not a single piece of technology, its an example from within an industry...Wildly extrapolating I wasn't, was just pointing out a piece of the weird tech thats in use is all...

Ah so you were kinda extrapolating. You were pointing out a piece of technology that isn't viable in any real sense. As a way supporting your inane theories.

Kama

I hadn't even outlined my inane theories! Perhaps you mean the reportage of Fox, from which the article comes? I didn't say 'amahgahd they ar bringin teh cattle truks to gas us nows' or anything...

Perhaps you mean the title? Well, its Thoughtcrime because it claims to test intention and the mind; there's a reference to Orwell but the term is widely used, and borders because these are the points of maximum surveillance. Perhaps ypou could point out exactly how I was scaremongering?

But cheers for the suggestion, I'll try and put a (paranoid scaremongering) post together, hopefully without too much postmodernism haha...

Seriously, Diogenes, do you ever want to discuss anything, rather than call people names? Do you have any issues with the spread of surveillance tech, the widening of the net, data retention etc? Do you think there are any contradictions between a security state and liberty? Between privacy and anti-terrorism? Imo there are real and valid issues in this area, without being Alex Jones about it...

Do you think developing technologies in surveillance are worth looking at, out of general interest, or should just be ignored? My impression is you think the second, and think other people should ignore em too. I don't think this one works very well; anti-terrorist boondoggles are in vogue, and don't generally work that well against their object. However, the point is that a large surveillance apparatus is brought into place, and there's a fair bit of evidence that large organizations act to perpetuate themselves. That's not conspiracy theory hehe...

So without being 'paranoid' on any grounds other than good humor; security in response to terrorism creates a self-reinforcing system of surveillance and control, which is ineffective in its object and contradicts basic principles of free socieities. Discuss!


PS/btw:

Ever hear of the Rule of 2 Feet?
It's a principle in practical group relations, and goes like this:

'If you aren't either contributing, or learning, go somewhere else'

Smudgeyboy

Good points Kama.

Conspiracy theories about the origins of this terrorism fad aside, I dont want this technology being used on people.

Kama

Yup, on a serious level, regardless fo whether Eye-rak-ees, Bush, or Lizards started this terrorist stuffs and for what reasons, the effects on society and the direction it drives us in is what concerns me.

Mind you, time was having sounds beamed into your head was tinfoil territory, then Acoustic Weapons advanced. Gotta love new toys...
.

Kama

Apropos of airports (and roffles), humorous product:




Source

d0gb0y

Here is another example of the crap that they want to be able to do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3110533/EU-to-introduce-virtual-strip-searches-at-airports-by-2010.html

So they are scanning your brain for thoughtcrimes while checkin ye out naked.
The thing that annoys me about all these techs is that there is little or no debate on them & the way that all gov's push for them even with party changes. There is never any real coverage in main stream media about the techs & when they do cover it its been used or is fully operational.

Kama

"It would appear that this is yet another case of 'if it is technologically possible it should be used' without any consideration of proportionality, privacy and civil liberties."

+1 and amen...


Yeh this whole trend I find scarier than lizards tbh. Opaque and unaswerable security systems do not protect us, and they put our so-called open and free societies on a self-destructive course.