Print 72 comment(s) - last by Xavitar.. on Sep 28 at 5:55 PM

Could eventually be deployed at airports, border crossings, and other public gatherings

Security personnel working for the Department of Homeland Security may soon be able to remotely monitor crowds for the behavioral signals of a terrorist, using a computer system that scans their pulses, body language, breathing rates, and facial temperatures.

The program, called “Future Attribute Screening Technology,” or FAST, works as a combination of custom software and crowd-monitoring body sensors, strategically placed at airports, U.S. border crossings, and other public, high-security areas.

In simulated scenarios, the DHS says FAST is accurate in detecting suspicious behavior in almost four out of five cases. One such trial, run recently at an equestrian ranch in Maryland, paid more than 140 participants $150 to walk through FAST’s sensor array; a handful of the participants were given instructions to act shifty, evasive, deceptive, or even hostile. FAST had an effective accuracy rate of “about [78 percent] on mal-intent detection, and [80 percent] on deception,” according to spokesman John Verrico.

“We're still very early on in this research, but it is looking very promising,” he said.

Individuals detected as suspicious by FAST will be pulled aside for light questioning by security staff. Information processed by the system will never be matched with names, said Verrico, and it will only be used to help security screeners decide whom to question. After that, data from FAST is discarded.

Beyond simply discarding data, Verrico points out that the system is subject to intense privacy controls (PDF).

DHS researchers are designing FAST with mobility in mind, and over the long term would like to roll out portable vehicles for use in concerts, sporting events, and other public gatherings: once the technology is perfected, writes New Scientist’s Short Sharp Science blog, FAST trucks could be as common a sighting at public gatherings as “mobile toilets and catering trucks.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center’s John Verdi said FAST is “substantially more invasive than screening in airports,” calling it a “medical exam” that the government has no right to conduct. Critics are concerned that the program could reveal physical conditions like heart murmurs, breathing problems, and high stress levels – a blatant privacy invasion – as well as set off false alarms.

“What determines your heart rate is a whole bunch ofreasons besides hostile intent,” said Michigan State University’s Timothy Levine, an expert on deceptive behavior.

FAST appears to be yet another aspect of the U.S. – as well as the rest of the world’s – governments’ growing fascination with biometric data on citizens: the FBI’s “Next Generation Identification” system, currently still in development, seeks to catalogue almost every major identifying characteristic about the U.S. criminal population, including fingerprints, retinal prints, and tattoo/scar markings.

Like the NGI, FAST is still under development and has several years left before it is ready for widespread, public usage – if it even makes it that far. The program is in its second year in development, and has three left to go. USA Today notes that the Transportation Security Administration already has more than 2,000 human screeners doing the same thing – essentially paving the way for their replacement and more widespread deployment by FAST.

Comments     Threshold

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

By clovell on 9/24/2008 11:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
'Hostile Intent' here seems a bit suspect itself. Instructing people to act shifty for $150 is a bit different than seeing if this thing will actually catch bad guys before they can do bad things. And the entire system is premised on the fact that bad guys are shifty.

I'm sure there's more meat to this, but I'm certainly not buying what's being sold. I'm tired of having to be on alert everytime I fly. I'm tired of having to take my shoes off and fit all my liquids into a 1 quart plastic bag - especially when checking a bag (in case you have more than will fit in said bag), costs you an extra $30 round-trip. I think we're going about this the wrong way.

RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
I think we're going about this the wrong way.

So what is your proposal?


RE: Proxies
By theplaidfad on 9/24/2008 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
1. An armed and trained guard in each cock-pit. OR...
2. An armed and trained undercover guard on each flight.
3. A combination of both.

Just a couple of suggestions that I think have been alread tried in a few instances.

RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
they already have that in a lot of cases.

Further, what's yer man going to do after it is known that there are 4 terrorists on board, each with a dedotnator to a bomb that is also onboard? Once again, there aren't enough Chuck Norrises to go around...


RE: Proxies
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
There are no planes with an armed guard in the cockpit. And only around 10% of pilots are armed. Nor are there armed air marshals on every flight (or even unarmed ones). Only a small percentage of them.

Any terrorist with a bomb on a plane plans to detonate it. And if you're that air marshal you come out of the cockpit and try to shoot them all. Personally I think there should be armed air marshals on every flight. And they should be trained in marksmanship to a near special forces level. It'd be tons of jobs. And for something like that, I wouldn't mind my taxes going to it or even paying a little more taxes to cover it.

RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Any terrorist with a bomb on a plane plans to detonate it.

Yeah, that's my point. The current thought process is to try and keep them from getting it on. I have yet to hear a proposal that would work better.


RE: Proxies
By Diesel Donkey on 9/25/2008 1:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
The current thought process is to try and keep them from getting it on.

How will preventing them from procreating help the situation on the plane? ;)

RE: Proxies
By clovell on 9/26/2008 11:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be a punk here - but how many bombs have been detonated on a US flight? Why do we need more security (such as stated in the article) again?

RE: Proxies
By DASQ on 9/24/2008 3:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
All of those instances increase costs of flying.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki