4 ms·

FAST seems to be some kind of polygraph-type scanner using cameras. It's very likely that it doesn't work but some military contractor will make millions off of

by guelo 12y ago

FAST seems to be some kind of polygraph-type scanner using cameras. It's very likely that it doesn't work but some military contractor will make millions off of it anyway. Any efficacy data will probably be unavailable or classified. Efficacy doesn't matter to the authorities anyway because having people believe that their minds are being read is almost as good as actually reading their minds.

EazyC 12y ago
Are you sure things like this can't work? I work in a computational neuroscience lab and we do a lot of modelling and also machine learning. Things like Eulerian Video magnification (EVM) already prove you can do the rudimentary proof of concepts of such "FAST scans" like being able to extract heart rate and blood flow from a simple video. Techniques like EVM can even be used to detect sound from video files simply based off vibration of the objects captured in video. It seems it wouldn't be too outlandish to assume that EVM techniques + some other more classified technologies + unlimited funding of the NSA/Homeland Security/CIA/TSA could be combined to create something like the tech purported in the link. For the record, I don't work in the actual lab that developed EVM, just in a similar field. EVM info: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/VisualMic/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/VisualMic/
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  OK, so lets assume the cameras work. For the same reasons polygraphs have no basis in science, nor would these. I fucking hate the TSA and am fucking furious every time I have to wait to be sexually molested. I'm also worried that they'll fuck up and I'll miss my flight. I'm nervous because I'm worried. I'm constantly looking around to find out how many TSA agents are just fucking around doing nothing. Yet, I'm not a terrorist. And you know what? most people aren't terrorists. The false positive rate so high it essentially makes the test meaningless and unable to discern an actual threat.
  - hurin 12y ago
    The rather strong verbal comments aside - I think this is almost certainly correct. Polygraph tests are notoriously inaccurate - where as for something like terrorist threats the number of real positives you are interested is probably in the x > 1/10^6. That's totally fantastic - consider that pregnancy tests have a false positive rate in the single digits.
    - gknoy 12y ago
      The language is strong, but pretty much encapsulates the impotent anger I feel even __thinking__ about interacting with the TSA. On the rare occasions when I must, my anxiety and fears match very closely to the GP's post's language.
      - tajen 12y ago
        And this is why... I don't go to US. There has been two highly interesting conferences in NY and one in SF (for which another founder offered to give me his tickets for free). But I use a false name on Facebook, which is against my contract with an american company, which is an impersonation, and I don't want to risk it with a TSA agent.
        hueving 12y ago
        Your reasoning is nonsensical. The TSA has nothing to do with enforcing company contracts.
      - zaroth 12y ago
        The newer scanners are much less invasive. You can turn your head and see the display, it's very basic. And I've found TSA agents are much more interested in getting you through security, than holding you up in security. I saw many things that were extremely upsetting a few years ago, but barely much of anything even noteworthy lately. Now this FAST thing anyhow, sounds insane. I will assume it just doesn't work and isn't going to be a Problem. But really, you would want to be able to stop it or put better bounds on it. But from what I can tell, you can only sue to stop something after it has already harmed you, not just because it could cause future harm. You have to show damages to even be heard. So, how can you show damages until after it's already built and deployed?
- Balgair 12y ago
  Other posters point out that polygraphs have large error rates and that even the thought that they can 'read you mind' acts as a deterrent. In general, reading one's own mind is somewhat difficult given a stressful situation, let alone reading another's. Yes, you can do heart rate stuff, but many medications affect that tremendously, you can do temperature stuff via IR video, but that is also super error prone. Just running to grab your flight, a perfectly reasonable thing to do at an airport, would trip every alarm in the building. Your gait would be off, your temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, eye dilation. The issue is that humans come in an incredible array and variety of conditions. Even if you could take a baseline for every person that would ever want to fly before they got to the airport in a sterile room, the data would be useless by flight #10. This is leaving aside the tremendous human rights issues, engineering, and cost factors. That said, computers are getting better and better at this every day, so the feasibility is there, it is just that you have to do tracking on an unheard of scale and on a day to day running basis across every single person on the planet. The disease and medical applications are the way to get it 'passed' (whatever governing body that may be), not the TSA.
- sitkack 12y ago
  Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself...who knows. So you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you... You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
- batbomb 12y ago
  ...and it would be readily defeated with some Xanax, and a bunch of false positives from people afraid of flying, authority figures, or missing their flight. Or any of 1000 other human reasons why people get stressed.
dguaraglia 12y ago
Kind of like that report about how efficient the airport "backscatter" scanners were. All we know about the report is a congressman said that "if released we'd face public outrage". But hey, someone's making a ton of money out of it, so who cares...
- jrockway 12y ago
  The rapiscans? Those are gone now.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    We still bought them, and we're still using body scanners in general, which are fairly useless technologies. I felt less hassled and assaulted going from Jordan to Israel and at Ben Gurion this December. That says something.
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  Rapiscan - John Kerry, Chertoff, Even Soros http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/24/politicians-stakes-airport-scanner-companies/ http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/24/politicians-st...

by guelo 12y ago

EazyC 12y ago

Are you sure things like this can't work? I work in a computational neuroscience lab and we do a lot of modelling and also machine learning. Things like Eulerian Video magnification (EVM) already prove you can do the rudimentary proof of concepts of such "FAST scans" like being able to extract heart rate and blood flow from a simple video. Techniques like EVM can even be used to detect sound from video files simply based off vibration of the objects captured in video. It seems it wouldn't be too outlandish to assume that EVM techniques + some other more classified technologies + unlimited funding of the NSA/Homeland Security/CIA/TSA could be combined to create something like the tech purported in the link. For the record, I don't work in the actual lab that developed EVM, just in a similar field. EVM info: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/VisualMic/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/VisualMic/

jimktrains2 12y ago
OK, so lets assume the cameras work. For the same reasons polygraphs have no basis in science, nor would these. I fucking hate the TSA and am fucking furious every time I have to wait to be sexually molested. I'm also worried that they'll fuck up and I'll miss my flight. I'm nervous because I'm worried. I'm constantly looking around to find out how many TSA agents are just fucking around doing nothing. Yet, I'm not a terrorist. And you know what? most people aren't terrorists. The false positive rate so high it essentially makes the test meaningless and unable to discern an actual threat.
- hurin 12y ago
  The rather strong verbal comments aside - I think this is almost certainly correct. Polygraph tests are notoriously inaccurate - where as for something like terrorist threats the number of real positives you are interested is probably in the x > 1/10^6. That's totally fantastic - consider that pregnancy tests have a false positive rate in the single digits.
  - gknoy 12y ago
    The language is strong, but pretty much encapsulates the impotent anger I feel even __thinking__ about interacting with the TSA. On the rare occasions when I must, my anxiety and fears match very closely to the GP's post's language.
    - tajen 12y ago
      And this is why... I don't go to US. There has been two highly interesting conferences in NY and one in SF (for which another founder offered to give me his tickets for free). But I use a false name on Facebook, which is against my contract with an american company, which is an impersonation, and I don't want to risk it with a TSA agent.
      - hueving 12y ago
        Your reasoning is nonsensical. The TSA has nothing to do with enforcing company contracts.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      The newer scanners are much less invasive. You can turn your head and see the display, it's very basic. And I've found TSA agents are much more interested in getting you through security, than holding you up in security. I saw many things that were extremely upsetting a few years ago, but barely much of anything even noteworthy lately. Now this FAST thing anyhow, sounds insane. I will assume it just doesn't work and isn't going to be a Problem. But really, you would want to be able to stop it or put better bounds on it. But from what I can tell, you can only sue to stop something after it has already harmed you, not just because it could cause future harm. You have to show damages to even be heard. So, how can you show damages until after it's already built and deployed?
Balgair 12y ago
Other posters point out that polygraphs have large error rates and that even the thought that they can 'read you mind' acts as a deterrent. In general, reading one's own mind is somewhat difficult given a stressful situation, let alone reading another's. Yes, you can do heart rate stuff, but many medications affect that tremendously, you can do temperature stuff via IR video, but that is also super error prone. Just running to grab your flight, a perfectly reasonable thing to do at an airport, would trip every alarm in the building. Your gait would be off, your temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, eye dilation. The issue is that humans come in an incredible array and variety of conditions. Even if you could take a baseline for every person that would ever want to fly before they got to the airport in a sterile room, the data would be useless by flight #10. This is leaving aside the tremendous human rights issues, engineering, and cost factors. That said, computers are getting better and better at this every day, so the feasibility is there, it is just that you have to do tracking on an unheard of scale and on a day to day running basis across every single person on the planet. The disease and medical applications are the way to get it 'passed' (whatever governing body that may be), not the TSA.
sitkack 12y ago
Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself...who knows. So you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you... You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
batbomb 12y ago
...and it would be readily defeated with some Xanax, and a bunch of false positives from people afraid of flying, authority figures, or missing their flight. Or any of 1000 other human reasons why people get stressed.

dguaraglia 12y ago

Kind of like that report about how efficient the airport "backscatter" scanners were. All we know about the report is a congressman said that "if released we'd face public outrage". But hey, someone's making a ton of money out of it, so who cares...

jrockway 12y ago
The rapiscans? Those are gone now.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  We still bought them, and we're still using body scanners in general, which are fairly useless technologies. I felt less hassled and assaulted going from Jordan to Israel and at Ben Gurion this December. That says something.
rasz_pl 12y ago
Rapiscan - John Kerry, Chertoff, Even Soros http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/24/politicians-stakes-airport-scanner-companies/ http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/24/politicians-st...