Terrorist 'pre-crime' detector field tested in United States

[Eugen Leitl]

(from-the-i'll-tell-you-about-my-mother-dept)

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110527/full/news.2011.323.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Published online 27 May 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.323

News

Terrorist 'pre-crime' detector field tested in United States

Screening system aims to pinpoint passengers with malicious intentions.

Sharon Weinberger

CruiseIn Minority Report, Chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise) prevented crimes
by seeing into the future - with a little help from precog Agatha (Samantha
Morton).20TH CENTURY FOX / DREAMWORKS / THE KOBAL COLLECTION

Planning a sojourn in the northeastern United States? You could soon be
taking part in a novel security programme that can supposedly 'sense' whether
you are planning to commit a crime.

Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit
a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of
field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast, Nature has learned.

Like a lie detector, FAST measures a variety of physiological indicators,
ranging from heart rate to the steadiness of a person's gaze, to judge a
subject's state of mind. But there are major differences from the polygraph.
FAST relies on non-contact sensors, so it can measure indicators as someone
walks through a corridor at an airport, and it does not depend on active
questioning of the subject.

The tactic has drawn comparisons with the science-fiction concept of
'pre-crime', popularized by the film Minority Report, in which security
services can detect someone's intention to commit a crime. Unlike the system
in the film, FAST does not rely on a trio of human mutants who can see the
future. But the programme has attracted copious criticism from researchers
who question the science behind it (see Airport security: Intent to
deceive?).

>From fiction to fact

So far, FAST has only been tested in the lab, so successful field tests could
lend some much-needed data to support the technology. "It is encouraging to
see an effort to develop a real empirical base for new technologies before
any policy commitments are made," says Tom Ormerod, a psychologist in the
Investigative Expertise Unit at Lancaster University, UK. Such testing, he
adds, could lay the groundwork for a more rigorous randomized, controlled,
double-blind study.

According to a privacy-impact statement previously released by the DHS, tests
of FAST involve instructing some people passing through the system to carry
out a "disruptive act". Ormerod questions whether such role-playing is
representative of real terrorists, and also worries that both passengers and
screeners will react differently when they know they're being tested. "Fill
the place with machines that go ping, and both screeners and passengers start
doing things differently."

In lab tests, the DHS has claimed accuracy rates of around 70%, but it
remains unclear whether the system will perform better or worse in field
trials. "The results are still being analysed, so we cannot yet comment on
performance," says John Verrico, a spokesman for the DHS. "Since this is an
ongoing scientific study, tests will continue throughout coming months."

Some scientists question whether there really are unique signatures for
'malintent' b the agency's term for the intention to cause harm b that can be
differentiated from the normal anxieties of travel. "Even having an iris scan
or fingerprint read at immigration is enough to raise the heart rate of most
legitimate travellers," says Ormerod.

Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American
Scientists, a think-tank based in Washington DC that promotes the use of
science in policy-making, is pessimistic about the FAST tests. He thinks that
they will produce a large proportion of false positives, frequently tagging
innocent people as potential terrorists and making the system unworkable in a
busy airport. "I believe that the premise of this approach b that there is an
identifiable physiological signature uniquely associated with malicious
intent b is mistaken. To my knowledge, it has not been demonstrated," he
says. "Without it, the whole thing seems like a charade."

As for where precisely FAST is being tested, that for now remains a closely
guarded secret. The DHS says that although the first round was completed at
the end of March, more testing is in the works, and the agency is concerned
that letting people know where the tests are taking place could affect the
outcome. "I can tell you that it is not an airport, but it is a large venue
that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting," says Verrico.
Comments

If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise
comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant
'Report this comment' link.

Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.