3 ms·

The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. The DHS document in the sidebar says FAST will "identify individuals with malintent ... *Malintent: the s

by jambo 15y ago

The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. The DHS document in the sidebar says FAST will "identify individuals with malintent ... *Malintent: the state of mind of individuals intending to cause harm ..." Whether it's really scientific, I doubt we'll ever find out. But people will be more likely to believe it's scientific because it comes out of a box that uses 'algorithms'. Another problem is one that Schneier writes about: profiling leaves vulnerabilities that can be probed, discovered, and exploited. In the case of trying to sense malicious intent, it could be sending someone who doesn't know they're an attacker. Or someone who doesn't exhibit the outward signs that are being profiled.

innes 15y ago
The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. The problem with that is that it's hysterical bullshit, and implies that people will be prosecuted for thoughts. This is a tool for helping to target effort in the screening process. To be fair, the article itself was guilty of being nonsense first. Mentioning 'ethnicity' as an input to the system was the give-away. Even if true, this would never be admitted by whoever was developing the system in question. When I read that, the red flag went up, and I assumed the entire article was untrustworthy. But then, I wasn't on the lookout for sensational stuff to get worked up about.
jchrisa 15y ago
Or just give the attacker Xanax and they'll be cool as as cucumber.
dkokelley 15y ago
I agree that a system like this could be probed and exploited. The real issue comes up after someone is flagged as suspicious. Is this person arrested right away? Is this person subject to additional screening? It would violate basic human decency to arrest someone for appearing suspicious, regardless of whether or not he or she was 'scientifically suspicious'. Taking a closer look at suspiciously behaving individuals doesn't seem to cross that line for me. We've been doing that for years. The only difference now is that we have a machine to help scale that effort.
- karamazov 15y ago
  This is definitely the key point of the issue. As long as people aren't arrested for 'intent' to commit a crime - which is really impossible to prove without action - this tech might help out a lot. If it works as advertised and is used responsibly, it might help bring certain areas closer to security, instead of security theater. The privacy implications need to be managed carefully; it's probably too much to ask for them to not be botched.
- IgorPartola 15y ago
  The other problem is that there is a whole grey area between "let the guy go, he isn't doing anything" and "tackle and arrest him now". The person can be detain, held up, put in a different queue, screened, probed, strip searched, etc. Given TSA's record so far, it will result in various situations which violate people's rights without ever arresting them. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this tech, just like the metal detector and the porno scanner, are just ways of giving less-than-expert staff the ability to perform expert-like security screenings. In other words, someone with a two week training course in how to fire up this magic box is now charged with making the determination of whether each person passing through their station needs to get a secondary screening (of various invasiveness). What is this employee to do when the machine tells him, "we've got to strip-search this person now" and the person is a 95 year old woman in a wheel chair? How about if it's a 5 year old? Maybe we need to give the TSA security more training/hire more professional security staff that would use years of experience rather than magic tools to determine who could be dangerous. Or do what the is done in Mexican airports: you push a button and if it comes out red you get your bags searched; if green, you can proceed. Random number generator FTW!
VladRussian 15y ago
it isn't about exploiting the system by some individual(s). It is about society making a new step enabled by the technology: >The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. exactly. The modern theory of organized violence allows for the society to apply violence through its government as executive organ to exterminate (usually by making a law and enforcing it or by just acting directly like using Reaper/Hellfire) whatever the society deems a danger to itself. The only recognized limits on this violence is in the Constitution and there is nothing in, for example, the US Constitution about freedom of thought. Thus as soon as thoughts can be distinguished/categorized, some of them can be outlawed and the law enforced. Btw, would it be a fair use to mentally replay the scenes from a movie? Only if it is limited to 30 sec? Or only if memorized/replayed resolution is below some threshold? ... We're in for an interesting ride.

by jambo 15y ago

innes 15y ago

The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. The problem with that is that it's hysterical bullshit, and implies that people will be prosecuted for thoughts. This is a tool for helping to target effort in the screening process. To be fair, the article itself was guilty of being nonsense first. Mentioning 'ethnicity' as an input to the system was the give-away. Even if true, this would never be admitted by whoever was developing the system in question. When I read that, the red flag went up, and I assumed the entire article was untrustworthy. But then, I wasn't on the lookout for sensational stuff to get worked up about.

jchrisa 15y ago

Or just give the attacker Xanax and they'll be cool as as cucumber.

dkokelley 15y ago

I agree that a system like this could be probed and exploited. The real issue comes up after someone is flagged as suspicious. Is this person arrested right away? Is this person subject to additional screening? It would violate basic human decency to arrest someone for appearing suspicious, regardless of whether or not he or she was 'scientifically suspicious'. Taking a closer look at suspiciously behaving individuals doesn't seem to cross that line for me. We've been doing that for years. The only difference now is that we have a machine to help scale that effort.

karamazov 15y ago
This is definitely the key point of the issue. As long as people aren't arrested for 'intent' to commit a crime - which is really impossible to prove without action - this tech might help out a lot. If it works as advertised and is used responsibly, it might help bring certain areas closer to security, instead of security theater. The privacy implications need to be managed carefully; it's probably too much to ask for them to not be botched.
IgorPartola 15y ago
The other problem is that there is a whole grey area between "let the guy go, he isn't doing anything" and "tackle and arrest him now". The person can be detain, held up, put in a different queue, screened, probed, strip searched, etc. Given TSA's record so far, it will result in various situations which violate people's rights without ever arresting them. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this tech, just like the metal detector and the porno scanner, are just ways of giving less-than-expert staff the ability to perform expert-like security screenings. In other words, someone with a two week training course in how to fire up this magic box is now charged with making the determination of whether each person passing through their station needs to get a secondary screening (of various invasiveness). What is this employee to do when the machine tells him, "we've got to strip-search this person now" and the person is a 95 year old woman in a wheel chair? How about if it's a 5 year old? Maybe we need to give the TSA security more training/hire more professional security staff that would use years of experience rather than magic tools to determine who could be dangerous. Or do what the is done in Mexican airports: you push a button and if it comes out red you get your bags searched; if green, you can proceed. Random number generator FTW!

VladRussian 15y ago

it isn't about exploiting the system by some individual(s). It is about society making a new step enabled by the technology: >The real problem is that it presupposes thought-crime. exactly. The modern theory of organized violence allows for the society to apply violence through its government as executive organ to exterminate (usually by making a law and enforcing it or by just acting directly like using Reaper/Hellfire) whatever the society deems a danger to itself. The only recognized limits on this violence is in the Constitution and there is nothing in, for example, the US Constitution about freedom of thought. Thus as soon as thoughts can be distinguished/categorized, some of them can be outlawed and the law enforced. Btw, would it be a fair use to mentally replay the scenes from a movie? Only if it is limited to 30 sec? Or only if memorized/replayed resolution is below some threshold? ... We're in for an interesting ride.