Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) Program

humanji

This sort of thing has been mentioned on here before, but I'm not sure if this exact system has been talke about.

http://www.sify.com/news/us-conducts-test-trial-of-minority-report-styled-pre-crime-detection-programme-news-international-lkirOthehia.html

A US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document has indicated that a program predicting whether a person will commit crime depicted in the hit Hollywood film "Minority Report", has already been tested on some people after seeking their permission.

"The department's Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm," DHS' Deputy Press Secretary Peter Boogaard said.

The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) program comprises "prototype screening facility" which would consider factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent," CBS News reports

The US Government's efforts to "collect, process, or retain information on "members of the public," came to light through a DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

The document also suggested that the mobile version of FAST "could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions."

It also pointed out that the next field trial of FAST will be conducted on people who "have food service experience", and are paid "to work at a one day VIP event."

"If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic. Relying on ambiguous biological factors to predict mal-intent is worrisome. Especially if they're going to be rolling this out at the airport," a nonprofit group, EPIC's counsel Ginger McCall said.

The DHS statement said the FAST program is voluntary, and there are currently no plans of deploying this technology. (ANI)

TL;DR version: The Department of Homeland Security has software which analyses peoples vital signs and decides if they're a terrorist or not. For some reason it's being compared to Minority Report, but sadly it has nothing to do with mutant psychics.

So picture the scene: you're meeting your new girlfriend at the train station, but you're running late. You rush there as fast as you can. Your heart is pounding. Your sweating. You're looking around nervously, hoping you're not too late. You're shot in the back of the head by the police.

Granted, this is an extreme "slippery slope" type argument against it, but surely someone must have thought about how unreliable this sort of technology is? I saw mention of it on the news where they were also talking about how they could also analyse your phone calls and internet activity to profile pretty much everyone in the US.

So what do you all think? Is it yet another step in the wrong direction for the right reason? Is it just another act of needless privacy invasion to oust possible dissenters? Or do you agree with the technology's use?

If anyone wants to google it, I found "minority report technology trial" gets a fair amount of results on the topic.

ed2hands

For my money it's (how you put in exactly) another step in the wrong direction and another act of needless privacy invasion to oust possible dissenters.
Incremental steps on the road to a completely monitored population for reasons of "national security" or the global "war on terror" or whatever catchphrase is used to mean protection of the status quo; ie the filthy rich stay filthy rich and the rest of humanity live in a gilded cage (or not so gilded depending where you live on the planet).

hooradiation

humanji wrote: »

So picture the scene: you're meeting your new girlfriend at the train station, but you're running late. You rush there as fast as you can. Your heart is pounding. Your sweating. You're looking around nervously, hoping you're not too late. You're shot in the back of the head by the police.

I'm not even sure that's a slippery slope argument, it's more an appeal to fear.

Also, give that the set of criteria that you described above could apply to a person running to catch at train after a delay, a lovestruck moon eyed person, anyone lost in an unfamiliar train station and a 'terrorist' what makes you think that it'd be used as the sole method of deciding who's suspicious, or just who to shoot in the back of the head today.

Inb4 Jean Charles de Menezes.