New screening technology might detect terrorists before they act

Computer and behavioral scientists at the University of Buffalo are developing a system that will allow authorities to track faces, voices, bodies and various other biometrical data to create a score for how likely an individual is to commit a terrorist act. Sound like the scariest Big Brother plot since China's ID card scheme? Well, rest assured, Winston Smith, the researchers only have your best interests in mind. "The goal is to identify the perpetrator in a security setting before he or she has the chance to carry out the attack," says Venu Govindaraju, professor of computer science and engineering at the university, who was recently awarded $800,000 by the National Science Foundation to create such a system. "We are developing a prototype that examines a video in a number of different security settings, automatically producing a single, integrated score of malfeasance likelihood," adding that the system will incorporate machine "learning" capabilities, which will allow it to adapt over time. "Human screeners have fatigue and bias, but the machine does not blink," the researcher said, just before remarking that he was late for an appointment at the Ministry of Truth.

[Addy Osmani @ Oct 6th 2007 7:52PM]

Now all I need is an $800,000 system that can tell me what the answers are on a test *before* I take it and I'm all set.

[nikola @ Oct 7th 2007 12:35AM]

This new screening technology isn't for any people plotting actual terrorist attacks (which our government probably entrapped from the start anyway), its for the rest of us. The new style of black ops is to go full screen, to openly reveal their programs so no one (especially politicians) hesitates to question them. Programs like this are for setting profiles on the rest of us - to see and "score" how Americans react in the face of complete and obvious authoritarian control (which is the main theme in current airport security).

IMO, if this system was truly designed to detect those plotting "malfeasance" it would be flagging corporate (oil) execs, republicans, and fox news reporters like crazy.

[jroc @ Oct 7th 2007 12:38AM]

If only the people at the University of Buffalo would realize that it is their government that is attacking the country and using devices like this to keep a big brother tab on everyone.

[korey @ Oct 7th 2007 1:15AM]

Welcome to the New Freedom!!!!!

[SilverBlade @ Oct 6th 2007 7:53PM]

Sounds like Minority Report come to life..

[enzo @ Oct 7th 2007 12:35AM]

All it's missing is psychologically enhanced mutants with the ability to see the future... and tom cruise

[James @ Oct 6th 2007 7:58PM]

Lol, "Ministry of Truth", Lol.. Book humor.. 1984.. awsome book.

[War Machine @ Oct 6th 2007 8:04PM]

This reminds me when a group of people attempted to see who was smart and not smart by measuring them. I don't think this experiment will get off the ground. Much less be implemented into any kind of public security.

[granny down east @ Oct 6th 2007 11:28PM]

Robert Rosenthal's "Pygmalion effect?"
Teachers were asked to look at the photographs of their incoming grade school children and predict who would succeed.
Teachers generally picked clean cut, good looking children.
Sure enough, they succeeded.
Rosenthal chalked this up to the fact that the teachers subsequently paid more attention to their selectees during the school year, giving them more encouragement and positive feedback.

Consequently he held that "teacher expectation drives student success."
Just a very short precis of a very complicated study. Big implications in educational circles for the past 35 years or so.

[randy @ Oct 6th 2007 8:07PM]

A million dollar system and it still wouldn't have the efficacy of an old man in a chair picking all the sweaty Arabs out of the line.

[Adam @ Oct 6th 2007 8:34PM]

Right. Because only Arabs commit terrorism. /Snark

And before some wisecrack says something idiotic like, "most terrorists are Arabs", it might do you some good to look up some statistics on the DOJ's website. Or look up ETA, or the IRA, or Tamil Tigers, or abortion clinic bombers (aka Christiano Fascists)... etc. etc.

That said, perhaps if they had this technology in place back in 1996 the security cameras outside the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in OKC would have picked up on the fact that McVeigh was a terrorist walking away from a truck full of explosives.

That would have saved some lives.

[Adam @ Oct 6th 2007 8:57PM]

Here's an FBI brochure that was recently handed out to field agents:

http://www.stanley2002.org/FBI-MCOSTerrorist.pdf

How many "Arabs" did you see listed there?

[Wwhat @ Oct 7th 2007 12:02AM]

FBI probably weren't even briefed yet that they attacked the WTC.
Also this might be a good time to remind people that recently a big security hole was found in adobe PDF reader 8 (and possibly other versions too), so be wary of pdf's from strange places.

[Fatima @ Oct 6th 2007 8:15PM]

bleh, I already get weird looks when im in an airplane just because I have brown skin...and im not even ARAB! This just makes it worse. Man how I miss pre 9/11 times..

[Mr. Vage @ Oct 6th 2007 8:32PM]

I have a solution. All it requires is a swimming pool, a speedo, and few hundred gallons of white paint.

[Jim @ Oct 6th 2007 9:02PM]

Next time someone looks at you in a way you find offensive walk up to them and with a stern voice say, "Can I help you?"

If they respond with a "Excuse me?"

You say, "What?" in a condescending tone.

Wait for a response, which is usually them folding into their own little corner, and then walk away slowly.

PS: Ignore TEM, he's just an ass.

[TEM @ Oct 6th 2007 9:34PM]

Jim, does tongue-in-cheek mean anything to you?

Nice try, though, as I am sure you feel real big coming to the rescue of those "poor vulnerable minorities" who surely must be entirely too incaple of defending themselves....Man, I bet you are bring this up at the next cocktail party about how you defened one of 'dem non-white,non-male,non-christian on the internet.

Since you love reading books so much, look up something called "white man's burden" in a book on Colonialism discourse, as you apparently seem to be suffering from it. Nice try though.

[nikola @ Oct 7th 2007 12:20AM]

TEM, it must make you feel real proud releasing your inner bigot on the internet. You get to act out all your little racist fantasies which you wouldn't dare say to someone in public. It must feel good banking on the deaths of 3,000 Americans to justify your personal prejudices. loser.

[Wwhat @ Oct 7th 2007 12:15AM]

I hear that even white people with an accent, from western european countries got weird reactions in New-York after 9/11, weird glances and stares and such.

[TEM @ Oct 7th 2007 12:55AM]

Nikola,

WTF are you talking about?

[david @ Oct 7th 2007 3:40PM]

with a name like Fatima, I am skeptical of you having brown skin and not being muslim

[Alex @ Oct 6th 2007 8:16PM]

The US and Israeli governments have slaughtered more than Ghengis Khan. Perhaps we can use statistics to identify the terrorists?

[TEM @ Oct 6th 2007 8:35PM]

Hmmm. Self hatred. But you're still a godless infidel pig, so you die anyway!

[Jim @ Oct 6th 2007 9:02PM]

But you're still a godless,...blah blah blah...get an effing clue already.

First, the Israeli/Palestinian issue has nothing to do with religion. It's a territorial dispute arising from Israel's occupation. The same goes for Southern Lebanon.

Perhaps Engadget posters should stick to non - political posts because it seems most of you are so into technology that you don't even bother picking up a book and reading up on what's going on around you. Fixed News of CNN don't count as reliable sources of information, by the way.

Now go back to playing with yourself or playing Halo 3

[TEM @ Oct 6th 2007 9:24PM]

Jim,

Read a book? Of course not. Around here you seem to have the monopoly on readin' dem fancy books. Plus, none of us critters 'round here did'nt never go to dem fancy universities either like you. In fact, you'd be the sole voice of reason that be keepin' dis here society from all collapsing all over dem funny A-rab folks and no good minorities.

[NG @ Oct 6th 2007 8:32PM]

Thats just messed up..

I would like to beat that professor to a damn pulp.
The check in at the moment is already hardcore enough.. AND THATS ENOUGH!

[hn333 @ Oct 6th 2007 8:35PM]

Sounds like more tax going into a black hole.

[EK at UA @ Oct 6th 2007 8:52PM]

University AT Buffalo. Duh.

[Zhalfim Deyn @ Oct 6th 2007 9:06PM]

wouldn't it just be easier to round up people?

oh wait...

that said, has anyone actually read the article? that's some seriously scary stuff, and plus if you will note, they haven't mentioned how they will find the people who are meant to be interrogated...it's basically still "random" screening but now with higher tech to count how from how many pores are you sweating from...

[derek @ Oct 6th 2007 9:10PM]

Sounds like a good idea to me. If it detects someone doing something suspecious, I think it sounds great.

[James @ Oct 7th 2007 3:04AM]

It is a doubleplusgood idea! It will catch those plusungood people at the airport and the fellows at the Minilove will have a few new unpersons...

[Xzavier @ Oct 6th 2007 9:12PM]

So I wonder how would that device would work on lets say... a woman who just broke up with her boyfriend because she found out that he was cheating on him and also, it just happen to be that time of the month while the device is scanning her.

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned!

[TDG01 @ Oct 6th 2007 9:34PM]

university of buffalo?? is that like MIT??

[crescentdavid @ Oct 6th 2007 9:40PM]

@ derek: It had to be misspelled on purpose, right- "subspecious?" So idiotic, so blue-sky, so "please mama, let me suck on the tit of no-bid homeland paranoia funding and make even more money" that it's beneath being specious?

Perfect.

[derek @ Oct 6th 2007 10:05PM]

What the hell are you talking about?

[joe1347 @ Oct 6th 2007 10:11PM]

Thought crime and Thought Police are the appropriate phrases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

[Wwhat @ Oct 7th 2007 12:05AM]

Have you noticed how enthusiastic students and academics are nowadays to get into inventing things that are completely obviously bad to release in the world? from implanted tracking devices to machines to read minds, they all help, they all act like it won't be misused, they all act like these things when created are a horror on mankind.
Here's my threath list: #1 students & universities
I find it very sad.

[Wwhat @ Oct 7th 2007 12:06AM]

aren't a horror* I meant to say

[nikola @ Oct 7th 2007 12:49AM]

Yes, this is true because our own government has become cannibalistic. It now "eats" the people it is designed to represent and serve. This self-destructive attitude is reflected, by extension, in the people who would normally be represented by their government - the students, academians, etc. They cheer at the very things that should horrify them. Where they should be outraged, they cop out at the first opportunity to scapegoat their anger onto someone else. We apparently live in an era of nationalistic suicide.

[Wwhat @ Oct 7th 2007 11:33AM]

And I have no idea how we came to this, what went wrong I wonder, I can't pinpoint anything that would almost 'invert' people like that but it happened.

[josh @ Oct 7th 2007 12:28AM]

Computes are ridiculously bad at visual recognition relative to humans, by orders of magnitude (that's one of the reasons that visual recognition is such a hot topic in bioinfomatics), and it is not feasible with current algorithms to be able to develop something even remotely accurate and effective without requiring boatloads of processing power and equipment in each local this is run. In actuallity, unless truly revolutionary breakthroughs happen in the very near future, there is no way this system is going to be able to match even a reasonably attentive and skilled human observer. Signs of nervousness are often subtle, as can be movements effected by concealed items, and a computer just isn't going to spot a skilled and confident advassary, whereas a skilled human very well might just on intuition.

What is more likely going to happen is that the system will instead register a much higher number of false positives, which will INCREASE the amount of manpower necessary rather than descrease in. Instead of saving money and being more effective, it will cost more in terms of personel and equipment to carry this out.

Technology is a great tool when being leveraged for something it does well, but when faced with something it isn't good at it becomes a hinderance. I can't help but think that this is just another misguided attempt at creating the illusion of security for people to feel better about things, at an unreasonable price (privacy concerns aside, do you want to be one of the folks it falsely flags, because it is going to falsely flag a lot of people).

[josh @ Oct 7th 2007 12:39AM]

I think you are unfairly creating a stereotype off of the vast minority of that particular population. I think you will find that a vast percentage of students and professors that *could* work on something like this find it morally objectionable. An easy example is the open source crowd, which counts among them a huge number of academics (the tenants of OSS tends to mimic the scientific openness that is a halmark mentality in academia), and is about as rabidly anti-control as you can get.

It isn't that they don't want to find a means to identify a terrorist and prevent him or her from being a issue, but rather that most in academia realize the infeasibility of effectively doing that without also hindering a much larger number of innocent civilians. However you are going to find a very small percentage that are either optimistic enough that they figure out the magic key to doing so, or just can't walk away from the boatloads of easy federal money available for such research. If you look at federal grants, which make up a large amount of the funding for academic research, an increasingly large percentage of said money is being allocated specifically for anit-terrorism projects. For example, the National Institute of Health should be funding research for the advancement of medical knowledge, but now rather than funding practical cures to ailments of the populace that could have huge impact on society, an incredible percentage of their grants are directed at bioweapon and anti-bioweapon research. Some of academia is just a bit too opportunistic to pass up money like that, because none of their other reseach, which could have gotten a good deal of funding in Clinton's day, can get funded at all now.

[josh @ Oct 7th 2007 12:42AM]

that was supposed to be a reply to Wwhat's post just a bit previously rather than a top level comment. Does anyone else notice that the comment logic doesn't always properly mark a post as a reply?

[pigfister @ Oct 7th 2007 5:53AM]

The usa has already made a system for china to track its populous. omg the nation of the free making a tool for china do you see the hypocrisy in american government?

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/12/us-tech-firm-behind-.html

[John @ Oct 7th 2007 2:34PM]

Wouldn't NOT allowing a business to sell technology to china be an example of that 'policing the world' that people get so uppity about?

[andy @ Oct 7th 2007 9:16AM]

2+2=5

[Rog @ Oct 7th 2007 11:05AM]

Welcome to the Brave New World my friends. Where computers/electronic monitoring will observe your every move ... all for the sake of defending against "terrorism".

[Dagnee @ Oct 7th 2007 12:28PM]

Tell me, Nikola, isn't the flagging down of people with any certain political or professional label, such as identifying Republicans for no other reason than they are Republicans, also a type of thought-policing?

In any case, this is absolutely ridiculous. How long does the system have to observe an individual before it develops an "accurate" profile of him, be it a non-threatening or malfeasant individual? You're right initially-- this is "for the rest of us." The system is going to have to watch each individual closely to develop any profile; and each will have A profile. Fourth Amendment rights, anyone?

But beware your emotional reactions to things. Think them through, don't feel them through. Use for elimination of a certain school of thought is not funny. It's just as dangerous as the technology's original intent.

Think of it this way. If we had this kind of technology seventy years ago, there would not be a person of the Jewish faith left on the face of the Earth.

[Loonie @ Oct 7th 2007 1:49PM]

Odd, I always thought 'safety' would feel less disturbing than this.

Can we go back to being 'unsafe' again please?

[Membrane @ Oct 10th 2007 3:41AM]

Yes oddly enough this thing is so scary I now have no fear of Osama none at all.