backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by tatoruso.. on Oct 18 at 3:20 PM


Terrorists watch out -- the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may soon be using Wii balance boards as part of a screening system to catch terrorists. The Department spent $20M USD on the project, which looks at shuffling, among a variety of other factors. Officials describe the results as "significantly better than chance".  (Source: CNN)

Don't blink! The system also looks for suspicious faces or eye-movements.  (Source: CNN)
You might want to avoid nervous shuffling next time you're at the airport

What does a U.S. Department of Homeland Security checkpoint and an a retirement home have in common?  A Wii might be playing a prominent role in both.

What sounds like a joke may soon be a reality thanks to an unusual idea dreamed up by our national security's top minds on how to catch potential terrorists before they act.  Funded by $20M USD in taxpayer money, the project delves deeply into telltale signs of suspicious behavior.

It looks to monitor temperature, breathing, and eye movements of passengers to screen for potentially dangerous individuals.  And it uses a special fourth test to also detect such individuals -- a Nintendo Wii balance board.

It's no secret that law enforcement officials love the Wii, so perhaps it's unsurprising that one ended up in Homeland Security's high-tech terrorist screener.  In theory, a nervous terrorist, according to officials and body language experts, would be more likely to shuffle their feet.  The Wii balance board helps them identify feet shufflers and earmark them for further screening.  Other screens dreamed up by the researchers include measuring the interval between heartbeats, and how deeply someone inhales.

According to a discussion with CNN.com, Homeland Security officials describe the results as "significantly better than chance".  Project manager Robert Burns insists that the concept does not violate privacy or personal rights, and that it is supported by "a vast plethora of research over the past 40 years."

In all, the project is called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) and it's drawing lots of attention.  And not all of that attention is positive.  States Joe Stanley of the ACLU, "Nobody has the right to look at my intimate bodily functions, my breathing, my perspiration rate, my heart rate, from afar.  They need to use old-fashioned, shoe-leather law enforcement investigative techniques, chase down known evidence, known suspects and get out there and do a good, competent basic job in investigating terrorist groups."

Mr. Stanley might have to get used to the idea, though.  Homeland Security's Burns says that the organization is targeting 2011 for a trial deployment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Significantly better than chance
By randomposter on 10/12/2009 3:06:57 PM , Rating: 5
Homeland Security officials describe the results as "significantly better than chance".

What exactly are they measuring here? They talk as if they had a pool of 1000 actual terrorists trying to infiltrate airport security from which they are able to draw statistically meaningful results.

My guess is they used volunteers, one group of which were "control" and were told to "act normally" and the other group of which "pretended" to be "terrorists." So what the DHS is really saying here is that the wii balance board has a significantly better than chance ability to detect bad acting. Sounds like good value in a $20M study.




RE: Significantly better than chance
By Lord 666 on 10/12/2009 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 5
Also doesn't take in account terrorists who pop some Xanax before walking through security.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By Lakku on 10/13/2009 1:46:32 AM , Rating: 4
You may be onto something here. If we can get the terroists to pop Xanax, they may stop being so zealous and feel like they are having a good time without having to blow stuff up or kill anyone. :)


RE: Significantly better than chance
By chunkymonster on 10/13/2009 9:16:13 AM , Rating: 4
Xanax, marijuanna, alcohol, and prostitution would all help terrorists stop being so zealous and relax a bit.

I am a firm believer that EVERYONE should get drunk/stoned and laid at least once a week. Let's face it, if everyone in the world did that, things would be a bit more easy-peasy...


By Lerianis on 10/16/2009 5:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hit the nail on the head there with those statements.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By SiliconAddict on 10/15/2009 1:03:37 AM , Rating: 3
Not going to happen. Consider that where most of these terrorists are from is the world's largest exporter of heroin. Now that is a generalization to a certain extent because most of the 911 terrorists, were from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan , but its in the same region. I say we hire aging hippies from the 60's to roll a ton of blunts and carpet bomb them in the mountains of Afghanistan with leaflets: Make smoke not war.


By William Gaatjes on 10/18/2009 8:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
The interesting part is : Do they use heroin or just manufacture it and sell it ? I mean in their eyes we are the enemy and by flooding our societies with heroin we are getting weaker, because we have more domestic problems. Thus having more things to worry about then how to cope with angry mislead people with psychological problems and a programmed hate towards the western world.

Although there are a lot of heroin addicts in Afghanistan, the majority of heroin is being sold in the western world. Although i am not surprised if a part of that heroin is being used for the child soldiers in for example Uganda or Sierra Leone.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=B_43v3j3vlMC&pg=PA...

I am sure that the chemicals from the papaver plant one day will find some use as a treatment. But not as heroin they ever will.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By kattanna on 10/12/2009 3:16:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So what the DHS is really saying here is that the wii balance board has a significantly better than chance ability to detect bad acting . Sounds like good value in a $20M study.


that would be an awesomely spent amount of money if it was used to screen new TV shows and movies before they released them!

;>)


RE: Significantly better than chance
By randomposter on 10/12/2009 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
News flash: the entertainment industry doesn't care about bad acting, plot holes, terrible direction, or anything to do with the quality of film or television. They care about money. If they can release a total piece of shit movie that somehow grosses $100M they will, and they have, over and over again. After all, Americans can hardly be accused of being discerning in their taste for entertainment.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By OAKside24 on 10/12/2009 11:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, Americans can hardly be accused of being discerning in their taste for entertainment.
Americans?! Get ready for hurt feelings because here at DT, Anti-American, unpatriotic (socialist?) terrorists like you get voted down, even if they're spot-on.


By omnicronx on 10/13/2009 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
What about anti-American, socialist terrorists that are patriotic?

Or does being anti-American and unpatriotic go hand and hand these days?


RE: Significantly better than chance
By Lakku on 10/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Significantly better than chance
By MrBlastman on 10/14/2009 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 1
Whether others like it or not, I think you have a good point randomposter. Hollywood has gone down the tubes. I find myself watching less new movies and more older movies than ever before. Thanks to services like Netflix and imdb this is a heck of a lot easier than it used to be.

Hollywood has become far too campy and reliant on things such as computer graphics, rediculous amounts of special effects and senseless action in their films. If they spent more time trying to write good dialogue and plot, perhaps then my image of them would improve.

Instead, they are too focused on catering to this "ADD" society that can't sit still for more than three seconds if they don't see something blowing up or a fancy special effect thrown in. I have a friend who's like this. My wife and I invited him and his wife out to see a movie--which happened to be a plot and dialogue intensive flick. It turned out to be a pretty darned good film, though had near zero action and no special effects. Our friends were perceivably quite restless halfway into it and ended up walking out and not finishing it.

They exhibit this trait on many movies I mention to them. They are incapable of watching a true "film."

I have found an outlet though via independent films. There are many that offer quite a lot with very small a budget. Thankfully the distribution channels for these little gems have improved over the years so people like I can partake in their medium.

But, as you point out, Hollywood doesn't care about my type or what I think. They're out to make a quick buck and the best way to do it is to have stupid special effects and un-necesary action in order to bait the flies to flying into the theater, flies like my friends. It works and they make money.

Fortunately, I could care less as I don't have to watch Hollywood movies if I choose. Independent film, thank you for your contribution.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2009 12:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
A side-effect of getting older, is that everything seems like it used to be "better". You are obviously suffering from this adage.

Hollywood makes crap, and they also make great films. I doubt EVERY indie film is a home run either. But you apply a double standard. Maybe you assume more budget should equal a better film ?

I'm curious to what the "darned good film" is that your friend and his wife walked out on. Personally I think you need better friends. Not because of the movie, but because it's pretty damned rude going on a double date and just walking out on the other couple when things aren't going your way.


By MrBlastman on 10/14/2009 1:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
The movie was Shopgirl and I'd probably give it a 7 out of 10 simply because the plot held our attention and was quite delightful to watch. He can't stand other wonderful pieces of work such as Rushmore, Burn After Reading, Darjeeling Limited, Adventureland etc., nor can he stand anything done by Quentin Tarrantino due to the lenghty dialogue in his films. Quentin, while part of Hollywood, is hardly mainstream.

I do watch a lot of modern film, most of it though is not mainstream. I think I was the only one in the theater to applaud at the end of Inglourious Basterds after they did their deed (and if you saw it you know what I'm talking about), though my friend would have never made it to that point. I think the bar scene would have caused him to walk.

You're right though, every independent film is not a home run, there are definitely some stinkers. Netflix has helped me quite a bit to weed them out. It has also helped me find little gems like Little Miss Sunshine, Fido (not quite independent) and Careless. Then there are others that were not so good such as Six String Samurai.

These are all "modern" films, I just find my taste has refined over time and I am less concerned about action and moreso interested in plot and dialogue. I supposed this is why I hold a great fondness for 70's era film and directing. Harold and Maude, while made in 1971 is as fresh as yesterday even though it was made 38 years ago.

If someone is going to spend money on a film, they should spend it to make it better. As far as Hollywood is concerned, they spend it if it will potentially sell more seats. In reality, as the financer, that is all they _should_ care about. As a film connoisseur, I look for quality over quantity. That's okay. It isn't my film I want to make money off of. I can choose how I spend my time just as much as they choose how to spend their money.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By Pythias on 10/12/2009 4:32:50 PM , Rating: 5
Are they gonna call it the Shatner Test?


RE: Significantly better than chance
By MrPoletski on 10/13/2009 5:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
Shatner would cheat.


By bkslopper on 10/13/2009 9:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
Kobiyashi Maru. (Can't spell it.)


RE: Significantly better than chance
By PrinceGaz on 10/12/2009 3:39:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What exactly are they measuring here? They talk as if they had a pool of 1000 actual terrorists trying to infiltrate airport security from which they are able to draw statistically meaningful results.

My guess is they used volunteers, one group of which were "control" and were told to "act normally" and the other group of which "pretended" to be "terrorists."


They could have assumed which people are likely to be terrorists based on their religion, race, etc, and then compared the proportion of terrorists it detects as being "probably terrorist" compared with the proportion of non-terrorists it also incorrectly detects.

Whilst I know you can't guarantee 100% that someone is a terrorist because they are of a certain religion etc, I'm sure there must be a statistically significant proportion of them that are, compared with non-terrorist groups.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By randomposter on 10/12/2009 3:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
You might be on to something ... if we tally up all the Timothy McVeighs, Unabombers, Columbine shooters, and all the rest, we might be able to build a statistically significant profile for probable terrorists.


By Nobleman00 on 10/15/2009 5:43:54 PM , Rating: 3
No one counts home grown terrorists as terrorists. They're American and it's their god given right to blow up other people.

If the terrorist is "different" from what some consider to be "American", then that terrorist better not tread on us.

We hate the others. Just like on Lost.


RE: Significantly better than chance
By tjr508 on 10/12/2009 6:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
I thought the exact same thing. How the hell can you pretend to be a terrorist?

I would think that someone who spent months on planning and training wouldn't exactly have a lot of moral objections as to what he was about to do; especially when he has decided that his cause is of greater value than his life.

This can't be the same as some upper-middle class high school kid getting pulled over with pot in his car.


By MozeeToby on 10/12/2009 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 5
This kind of screening is worthless and saying that it is significantly better than chance is a joke. If 1 in 10000 travelers is a terrorist, and the device flags 1000 people as probable suspects (including the terrorist) that is significantly better than chance, but what does that do for you? Like every other statistical system to identify terrorists the false positive and false negative rates are going to be much to high to be useful.

Look at it this way, let's say the false positive rate is .01% and the false negative rate is 5% (which would be an amazing accomplishment for AI in this kind of problem, Netflix can't tell you what movie you would like with that kind of accuracy). First, you will just plain miss 50 terrorists out of the 1000. Second, the 950 successfully pinged by the technology will be absolutely overwhelmed by the 10,000 false positives.


By RivuxGamma on 10/12/2009 9:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
It also depends on how you spin the numbers. Let's say that by pure, random chance you nab 2% of all suspected terrorists. Let's say that this system increases that by 50%. That's only 3% of all terrorists, but they can say it's significantly better because it's 50% better now.

That said, I think this is crap and racial profiling is probably going to offer better results, however meager they be.

We could just simply ask if they are a terrorist. If they say yes, then we shoot them.


By juserbogus on 10/13/2009 1:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
-1 for "My guess is...". why don't you find out how the study was done before making such a jump?


RE: Significantly better than chance
By Einy0 on 10/14/2009 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same exact thing... Ok everyone if you're a terrorist step to the right everyone proceed. Don't worry we're only testing new terrorist detection technology today, no one will be arrested... LOL...


By mikefarinha on 10/14/2009 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My guess is they used volunteers, one group of which were "control" and were told to "act normally" and the other group of which "pretended" to be "terrorists."


Wow, I'm glad I read your informative post. Thanks for conclusively debunking this great waste of tax payer money. Even though I read the article I guess I just don't have the skills you do to be able to so accurately guess how bad acting plays into this whole conspiracy.

Thanks for clearing that up numb-nuts.


I hope it's like Terminator 3
By tayb on 10/12/2009 2:47:02 PM , Rating: 5
Judging by your pupil dilation, your rate of breathing, and your general lack of balance I predict an 83% probability that you will try to blow up this plane.

I hope we get a % terrorist we are. "Oh sir, you have great balance, normal rate of breathing, but you were looking around quite a bit, more than normal. You are a 14% chance of being a terrorist. Go ahead on through."

Jeez, I get nervous passing through the metal detector now I not only have to worry about random metal on my jeans or gum wrappers in my pocket I have to make sure I don't act "fishy."




RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By guacamojo on 10/12/2009 2:51:52 PM , Rating: 4
More like Blade Runner.

Voight-Kampff tests for all passengers?

You'd think it would be easier to check for explosives or weapons.


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By Motoman on 10/12/2009 2:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
You want to know about my mother? I'll tell you about my mother...


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By mrtakeyoursoul on 10/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By Motoman on 10/12/2009 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 5
Nit-picky troll is nit-picky.

Was doing it from memory. Next time I'll run it past you first for editorial approval. Would that meet your needs?


By HoundRogerson on 10/12/2009 6:46:40 PM , Rating: 5
Make that offer to Jason Mick. Maybe his articles will make more sense.


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By Lord 666 on 10/12/2009 3:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
It was also used in Lawnmower man when the chimp determined the little boy wasn't a threat.


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By tastyratz on 10/12/2009 3:14:02 PM , Rating: 5
no fair.
The reward for setting the high score involves a large rubber glove and "budget cuts" on lube use.

I wonder how many people are going to be marked as terrorists because they are not only tired, but nervous about flying since the airport is relying on Wii peripherals for their security.


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By jonup on 10/12/2009 5:29:43 PM , Rating: 4
How about if you need to take leak real bad. The Wii balance would be through the roof. :)


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By TSS on 10/12/2009 7:45:57 PM , Rating: 4
I tend to not be able to stand still and shift my weight around even when i'm not nervous.

I also tend to get nervous if i have to look up close into a camera lens.

Heh... guess flying's out of the question for me. Sure, the plane might not blow up, but i'll get shot before i even get on it :P


RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By ggordonliddy on 10/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: I hope it's like Terminator 3
By murphyslabrat on 10/13/2009 1:14:33 AM , Rating: 1
It made perfect sense, and because of you, it loses my uprate.

Obviously, from the context, he means that it would be cool if they told you the probability of you being a terrorist. So, they could tell you, "Based on your behavior, there is a xx.x% chance of you being a terrorist."

This is unlikely, as it would allow potential terrorists to train to look "normal" against the measurements that will be made. The best way to keep these measures useful is to not offer feedback on how counter-detection methods are working.

Why not exercise your thinker a little more, before trashing someone's post.


By ggordonliddy on 10/15/2009 12:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sir, you are wrong. His sentence was not proper. Now please eat some poo.


What if?
By noxipoo on 10/12/2009 2:42:48 PM , Rating: 3
What if I'm middle eastern and am afraid of flying? Screwed?




RE: What if?
By JS on 10/12/2009 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 5
It might be an idea to check in early to make time for the pre-flight waterboarding.


RE: What if?
By 90014 on 10/12/2009 4:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! You hit the nail on the head!


RE: What if?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2009 6:36:20 PM , Rating: 3
Being middle eastern has nothing to do with it. A white grandmother with a weak bladder will set this system off just the same as a stereotypical terrorist is. Which is assinine, but of course, we have to be politically correct. We can't actually "profile" those who, you know, 99% of the time are the ones who actually FIT the profile of a terrorist.


RE: What if?
By Hyperion1400 on 10/12/2009 11:10:32 PM , Rating: 1
Are you actually stating that 99 percent of terrorists are Middle Eastern?

Have you forgotten about the IRA, William Wallace, The Communist Reds (Oktober Revolution), The PLA and Mao(for the love of God dont ask me to spell the rest) The Tamil Tigers, the giant cluster fuck the is Central and West Africa, etc. You are actually implying that all("99 percent") terrorists are Arabic?


RE: What if?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2009 11:17:12 PM , Rating: 4
When is the last time the IRA hijacked a plane in the US and flew it into New York ??

I don't think we're concerned with "all terrorism". We're concerned with terrorism that directly threatens our citizens, and for now, that is radical Muslim "extremists", which yes, are 99% Middle Eastern. And I dare you to call me a racist on this. You'll just be showing your ignorance.

Are you high on drugs !?? Yeah look out airports !!! William Wallace is coming !!!


RE: What if?
By HostileEffect on 10/13/2009 1:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
I hear he shoots fire from his eyes, and lightening from his ass!

Or am I thinking of the wrong William?


RE: What if?
By Nobleman00 on 10/15/2009 5:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Braveheart. +1


RE: What if?
By dark matter on 10/13/2009 7:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, but they planted a bomb in centre of my City, Manchester. They also planted a bomb in Birmingham that killed children.

All the time they were doing this, McDonald's was funding them and so was half of New York.

So maybe they didn't hijack a plane, but blowing up city centres...


RE: What if?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/13/2009 7:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Taken by measuring the body count produced, the prize might go to the Arabs. Measuring the number of incidents of terrorism on American civilians, though, I think white people have got it locked down. Even if we leave out communist and anarchist groups from the pre-Vietnam days, we've still got the Unabomber, the Anthrax mailer (assuming it was the guy they've said it was), Timothy McVeigh, the abortion clinic bombers of the 80's, the Weather Underground, and on and on.... White people have committed way more acts of terrorism against Americans than Arabs have. Although maybe the Anthrax guy wasn't really a terrorist, since he didn't seem to be trying to advance any specific agenda.

But to be clear, I agree with you're statement that we're not concerned with 'all terrorism', but rather pretty exclusively with Muslim extremism. But that's not necessarily a good thing. And I don't think it's the same degree of a threat you do. More lives could be saved in America by banning cigarettes than by allowing a single 9-11 to occur every year.


RE: What if?
By Fritzr on 10/13/2009 10:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the "Middle Eastern Muslim" terrorists are already implementing countermeasures. That was the reason for the arrests of Australian, British, Indian, Spanish & American terrorists (among others) planning or executing attacks against US & EU targets.

This new test will be an additional data point to make the current profiling system a little more accurate. It will not be used as a Yes/No test, it will be used as a 1% more likely/1% less likely type of adjustment to the prediction. Note those percentages are out of thin air...the actual value of this test will, for obvious reasons, not be readily available.

This will also catch non-terrorist hijackers who just want to get to country X or collect a ransom. The low number of such hijackings is due more to security & military response than a lack of willing hijackers.


Big Brother
By Ammohunt on 10/12/2009 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 4
this wreaks of big brother more reasons to arrest or detain. Ever see the movie Minority Report? getting closer to that everyday arresting people for crimes they have yet to commit. Whats next imprisoning people becasue they have a genetic predisposition to commit a crime? I like many others have been labeled a potential domestic terrorist by the DHS being a conservative veteran.




RE: Big Brother
By Proxes on 10/12/2009 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 4
Why not? They are handing out Nobel Peace Prizes for things someone hasn't done yet.


RE: Big Brother
By jonup on 10/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Big Brother
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2009 6:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
OH he's done plenty. He's caused civil unrest in his own country. Nothing says peace like protests...


RE: Big Brother
By kattanna on 10/13/2009 10:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's caused civil unrest in his own country.


what has he done to the people of kenya?


RE: Big Brother
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2009 6:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
LOL !!! Touche'


RE: Big Brother
By thekdub on 10/12/2009 8:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
If this is becoming a common trend, I'd like a few million dollars for a lottery I haven't won yet.


RE: Big Brother
By drando on 10/12/2009 5:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just give every person who flies a polygraph test as they're going through security too? Might as well start taking fingerprints and DNA samples while they're at it. Big brother is just trying to protect us all. Who would turn down a little extra protection?


RE: Big Brother
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2009 6:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism isn't a "crime". And if you wait for a terrorist to commit his "crime", you have hundreds or thousands of dead people, and a big bloody stain on that wall that WAS the terrorist. Typical law enforcement methods and policies aren't effective against terrorists because they don't care about being arrested or detained ; they are willing and are planning on DYING anyway.

This isn't like shoplifting or something.


RE: Big Brother
By dark matter on 10/13/2009 7:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to have no idea the amount of effort a person who isn't bothered about being arrested, detained and is prepared to die to achieve their aims.

Given all the above I honestly doubt a WII balance board is going to scare them into not committing their "crimes", do you?


RE: Big Brother
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2009 6:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be under the impression I am for this security measure. I am not. Besides the fact that it's absurd, I personally feel that once the person has made it to the airport, we have failed. Airport security should never be the last line of defense against terrorism.


By honestIT on 10/12/2009 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
By not being able to balance myself.




By Smartless on 10/12/2009 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
Or....

No more getting drunk before your flight at a home where its cheaper.


By Nobleman00 on 10/15/2009 5:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
maybe it will flash your BMI to everyone and call you fat and old too.

FAT OLD TERRORIST! TAKE HIS NITROGLYCERIN pills AWAY.


No...
By amanojaku on 10/12/2009 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In theory, a nervous terrorist, according to officials and body language experts, would be more likely to shuffle their feet.
I wouldn't expect terrorists to be nervous since they're generally rabid and ready to die.

Passengers being delayed by inept security, long lines and slow flights will DEFINITELY shuffle their feet, grumble and be nasty to everyone.




RE: No...
By kattanna on 10/12/2009 3:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
aye, those who are certain they are doing gods will arent the nervous types of people.

your grandmother worrying about whether she will get to see her new grandson soon, are.


Who's met a Terrorist?
By jRaskell on 10/13/2009 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
For those of you that have commented on how they would expect a Terrorist to behave, could you please tell us ignorant folk how many Terrorists you've actually met?




RE: Who's met a Terrorist?
By mindless1 on 10/13/2009 11:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well there's that part about not catching them all right away as we'd be able to do if they were fiddling around and shuffling their feet. You don't need computer recognition or a Wii board to see when someone is nervous.

However, I'm against it for different reasons. If I'm being interrogated for hours on suspicion of being a terrorist, and presumably after this period of time I need to pee too, I'll be shuffling around a bit too.

Then there's regular garden variety fugitives not terrorists, people scared of flying, people scared of law enforcement officers, people scared of being locked away in a dark hole for a few years w/o legal representation, scared of being detained long enough they can't pay bills, etc., even nervous simply because they are mentally ill and uncomfortable around people.

If 10% of society is mentally ill I wonder what % gets nervous when being interrogated under suspicion of terrorism given the knee-jerk reactions our government is making.


RE: Who's met a Terrorist?
By HotFoot on 10/14/2009 10:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
Truthfully, given the statistics, I'm more afraid of wrongful arrest and 'detainment' than I am of being taken out by a terrorist (of any variety).

You're still more likely to be killed by a drunk driver on the roads than ANY kind of accident/attack while flying. But people are afraid to fly? Why? Because we have such a disproportionate response to the various threats and risks that are present in our lives. That's just an observation - not much anyone can do to change it. Of course we have to have more vigilance with aircraft, as we've seen enough demonstrations of how much damage a small group of people/monsters can do with these things. I suppose you could argue the drunk driver can only kill so many people...


great...
By robertisaar on 10/12/2009 4:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
now the next time i fly, and i limp my ass up to one of those things.... i'm going to get lots of special treatment...




RE: great...
By acase on 10/14/2009 12:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
well...if you weren't limping before, you will be after!


you can't be fooled again, or can you?
By magneticfield on 10/13/2009 5:23:41 AM , Rating: 1
This is not against the terrorists, it is against YOU!
Terrorists will get trained to get past these, easily. It would be the safest way for them to go through.

GWB:
quote:
"... fool me once, shame on — [pauses] - shame on you. Fool me — You can't get fooled again. "


BO:
quote:
"Yes we can!"




By tatoruso on 10/18/2009 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
All this "war on terror" is quite nonsense. Just an excuse to watch and spy more and more without any significant complains... Anytime now, they´ll be requiring people to get an RFID chip implanted, "for your safety" (read: "our control"), that electronic unique ID that tried to get pushed a little time ago was a small trial of the idea...
People don´t realize that, in those countries, the vast majority of people is just trying to get food for the day...
quote:
"...in their minds, we are the enemy, and by flooding our societies with heroin we are getting weaker..."

HAHHAHA so much prejudice and ignorance...
Fear, hate, mass controlling Northamerican people...


So how many TSA officials...
By Motoman on 10/12/2009 2:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
...are going to be studying the Wii Fit girl video for educational purposes now - you know, so they can learn how to properly use their new equipment?




False positives
By tilandal on 10/12/2009 3:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if this device identifies 100% of terrorists. If it has just a 1% false positive reading it is completely worthless. 600 million people pass though airport security in the US each year. When you have 6 million people a year identified as possible terrorists there's still only a 1 in a million chance you stopped a terrorist.




Rx
By 90014 on 10/12/2009 3:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the wobbly drunks that need to be caught, it's the mentally unbalanced that need to be caught. Any 'happy-go-lucky' shoe bomber with a hand full of Xanax will sail through this privacy eroding techno BS.




By alacard on 10/12/2009 4:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
All they're really doing by implementing these types of security checks, is catalyzing every person who goes through them to learn how to fool the system by controlling their body language and facial expression.

Just like Winston.

It is going to hurt their efforts in the long term.




By Schmide on 10/12/2009 5:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
If they zoom across it with ease, they need looking into. If they can barely do it, you know what class/group they belong to.




Tourorism
By croc on 10/13/2009 12:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
This whole article reminds me that tourorism season is almost upon us down here in OZ... There's nothing quite so annoying as a fat, overbearing, loud-mouthed yank-wanker trying to tell me just what a piss-pot of a country we have. Gee! We don't even have any Starbucks! 'Where can ah get me some real 'Marican food around here?' 'What? You ain't got no Bud? That's un-'Marican!'




By puckalicious on 10/14/2009 10:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone actually sat down and tried to understand the psychology of a terrorist? I would assume a real terrorist is so sure of his plan and has already accepted that he will die for his cause that he will not be nervous or show any physical signs such as shifting feet or elevated heart rate until the moment of truth much later.

All this will do is flag regular people that are just scared of getting on a plane, and make security lines even longer and more unbearable.




Why bother?
By Jalek on 10/15/2009 10:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
I just refuse to fly, rather than deal with these government anal probes. I know a few TSA employees. I'd rather take a bus.




This stuff is worse than useless
By Lerianis on 10/16/2009 5:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
Because it doesn't take into account people like myself, who are naturally twitchy and have social anxiety disorder, where we are ALWAYS on edge in public places.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki