Detecting a crime before it happens

[Are_grits_groceries]

Could the blink of an eye or the curl of a lip give away a terrorist? Government scientists are trying to find out.

Reporting from Washington —If Bob Burns is correct, terrorists may betray themselves someday by jiggling on a Nintendo Wii balance board, blinking too fast, curling a lip like Elvis — or doing nothing at all.

Burns and his team of scientists are researching whether video game boards, biometric sensors and other high-tech devices can be used to detect distinct nonverbal cues from people who harbor "mal-intent," or malicious intent.

"We're looking pre-event," said Burns, the No. 2 at the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency, a counterpart of the fabled Pentagon agency that developed Stealth aircraft and the Internet.
miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

"We're trying to detect a crime before it has occurred."
<snip>
Paul Ekman, the nation's foremost researcher into nonverbal cues that indicate deceit, disputes that claim and argues that more human observers with better training are needed. He doubts that high-tech tools can do the job any better.

"I'm ambivalent because it's a very high-risk endeavor," said Ekman, a professor emeritus at UC San Francisco. "The odds are against it actually working in the field. But if you're going to try it, they're doing the best job that can be done."

Ekman dismissed Willis' work, however. "The research already shows that not every person intending harm shows micro-expression," he said. "So it's a waste of time."

Other senior researchers and academics say both research teams appear to be on the right track.
<snip>
The network is supposed to disregard travelers stressed out from flight delays, screaming infants, indigestion or other hassles.

"Whether or not your grandmother is afraid of flying doesn't matter," Martin said. "The question is how your grandmother responds to specific stimuli, and that indicates whether she should be pulled out for secondary screening."
<snip>
Privacy advocates, civil libertarians and some social scientists are incredulous.

"This is like eugenics 100 years ago when scientists said you could tell criminals by the shape of their eyes or the slope of their head," said Lillie Coney, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. "It was bogus science then and it's bogus science now."
<snip>
Bella DePaulo, visiting professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara, said she doubted researchers could ever simulate what a terrorist thinks or feels.

"Lots of people, myself included, have studied how you tell when people are lying or telling the truth," she said. "But they're telling little lies. They're not trying to blow up a bomb or fly a plane into a building. How do you test for that?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-pre-terror-20100528,0,312667,full.story

Gah! Can you imagine trying to get out of this nightmare if you were 'caught' with a terrorist micro-expression?

[enlightenment]

1. Aside from the sheer ridiculousness of this project -

I was fascinated by this line:

At least in theory, the sensors would record key data as each traveler moved down a security line. A computer algorithm then would analyze any shifts triggered by a guard's questions and raise an alert if necessary.

Outside of immigration and customs lines, I can't recall be 'questioned' by a security person. Occasionally, one will ask me where I am going - I suppose to see if my answer matches my boarding pass.

This 'technology' apparently depends on questioning each and every passenger as they pass through security, an extra layer of absurdity to go along with shoe checks and body scans.



:banghead: