Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lie Detectors to be Used for Airline Security

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the obviously-a-machine-knows dept.

Privacy 504

swimgeek writes "A new walk-through airport lie detector being made in Israel may prove to be the toughest challenge yet for potential hijackers or drugs smugglers. The product has been tested in Russia and should be commercialized soon. The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So.... (5, Funny)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058500)

My voice is my passport?

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058536)

Wish I had mod points, you'd go way up.

Your Rights Online (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058683)

I'm so glad that this new airline security will protect my rights as I surf the 'Net.

Re:So.... (2)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058809)

Hello my name is Werner Brandes. My voice is my passport. Verify me
Best "hacking" movie ever!

"Something to hide" (5, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058918)

So how many people will get searched as terrorists because their voice is shaky because they're cheating on their wife, didn't tell their parents they were going to costa rica with their friends, or told their employer they were going to a family reunion? Not everyone with "something to hide" is a lawbreaker.

What if they... (2, Interesting)

TarrySingh (916400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058505)

Tell the truth and then blow up themselves near the lie detector?

Re:What if they... (5, Funny)

Canadian_Daemon (642176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058583)

Easy solution. just add $sys$ to your voice box and walk righ through.

Hmm. FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058508)

w00t?!

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058512)

they just shoot your ass.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

JuzzFunky (796384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058761)

The lies detect you!

Product tested in Russia (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058514)

Here come the "In Soviet Russia, detectors lie to you" type jokes.

Ooops I guess I'm guilty.

Oh goodie (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058519)

I can't wait until I have to take a lie detector test before boarding a plane. I'm really getting sick of all these invasive security measures. I'm damn glad I won't have to hop on planes for my job.

If only taking a ship was a valid alternative for travelling overseas.

Re:Oh goodie (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058565)

I wish it was legal for an airline to offer a tyranny free departure lounge. "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism and I'm willing to pay hirer insurance premiums not to be harrassed."

Re:Oh goodie (1, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058672)

Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?

Because that's what you're saying, even if you don't realize it.

I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly.

Re:Oh goodie (4, Insightful)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058705)

"I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced"

You do know that it's basically impossible for that to every happen again, right?

No-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane. And, no-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane armed with tools no more dangerous than a ballpoint pen.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Funny)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058736)

What if they're ninjas? Everybody knows that ANYTHING in a master's hands is a deadly weapon.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Funny)

rco3 (198978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058851)

Nuh-UH! What about... a Nerf(TM) football? Or an iBrator [goatee.org] ? Even an evil Master Ninja couldn't focus on being deadly while holding an iBrator, could he?

Re:Oh goodie (5, Insightful)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058743)

Or, they could simply secure the cockpit. You can't bring down buildings with boxcutters unless your enemy is willing to cooperate by giving you easy access to a guided missile.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058765)

If the passengers of those flights had not been prevented from having weapons they could have easily overwhelmed dudes with boxcutters. It's a double edged sword. On the other hand, explosives are definitely something you can detect without being so fuckin' invasive and have no legitimate use.

Re:Oh goodie (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058770)

Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?
I guess you could put it that way. I just don't think terrorism is that big a risk compared to other things, nor do I think "lie detectors" are terribly likely to help.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058808)

Well, there's absolutely nothing about "lie detectors" that will prevent this. This is truly idiotic, and will:
1) serve to falsely finger innocent people
2) instill a false sense of confidence that those flagged as "telling the truth" are not a problem.

This is a really, really dumb idea. Lie detectors don't work, period.

Re:Oh goodie (5, Insightful)

RandomJoe (814420) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058873)

Do you *really* think all the crap going on in airports is doing any good?!

Little if any of it is really making a plane flight any safer than it was before. There are still people getting on planes with things they aren't supposed to. And so what if someone gets on with a box cutter? Now that the pilots are required to stay locked in the cockpit, all that person could do is injure/kill some passengers. And I doubt he'd get far at that, once other passengers figured out what was up.

And then we have some really bullshit rules. Grandma can't take her knitting needles along, but I can carry all the pens and pencils I want. Yeah, this really makes sense...

I wouldn't complain if I was just "inconvenienced". But when I have to show up HOURS ahead of my scheduled flight just to get to the terminal, when - after I've made it to the terminal early to insure an early seat selection (yeah, I usually fly Southwest) - I stand a chance of being dragged out of line for some TSA goon to paw through my carryons, when it's actually just about as fast for me to drive 500 miles as it is to fly to the same destination?!?

That is FAR from "inconvenienced". I don't know how you manage to get through in only 10-15 minutes more. I've never had that sort of experience.

I'm tired of the way we - the citizens and paying customers - are both treated as helpless waifs that can't fend for ourselves and simultaneously presumed guilty of some heinous act. That's why last summer when I headed off to visit relatives halfway across the country and on into Canada I drove the whole way. I didn't have to speak to a single "person of authority" the whole way, except for 30 seconds at the border crossing. (Not to mention, I would have paid MORE - about double! - for the priviledge of being abused by the TSA goons!)

Re:Oh goodie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058914)

I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?

LOL [stupidsecurity.com] @ you dumbass.

Re:Oh goodie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058569)

How is "Are you a terrorist" invasive?

Re:Oh goodie (1)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058778)

How is "Are you a terrorist" invasive?

How about being asked that after you showed your USMC miltary ID, typical jarhead haircut, with blonde hair and blue eyes and them wanting to strip seach you because you had network crimpers in your bag. The worst part was the crimpers I needed for the job I was going to, yet they where taken since I was told they can be used as a "blunt" weapon.

Re:Oh goodie (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058894)

Under that logic they should ban extremely strong people trained in unarmed combat (probably many members of the Marines!) from airplanes, because their fists can be used as a weapon.

Re:Oh goodie (1)

E8086 (698978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058650)

yes, I'm starting to like my 30min train ride to 2blocks from the office even more.

"the first stage of the test takes between 30-75 seconds"
30-75sec per person for just the first part, that's only going to add another few hours before boarding. If the terrorists can train their operatives to resist torture, you'd think they might be able to condition themselves to pass an audio lie detector. Say you ask if they're planning anything illegal and they don't believe hijacking a plane isn't illlegal, I think Seinfeld said it's only a lie if you don't believe it to be true.

"The one person found to be planning something illegal was the one who failed our test." Or they only caught one person planning something illegal and the rest got away.

Re:Oh goodie (1)

cytoman (792326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058826)

"the first stage of the test takes between 30-75 seconds" 30-75sec per person for just the first part,

Install like 50 of these so that you can process 50 people at a time. Easy, ain't it?

Re:Oh goodie (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058661)

And people wonder why I've refused to fly in this country since 9/11.

The insane level of airport security here makes me sick. And, yes, I'm perfectly willing to take a ship in order to travel overseas, regardless of how much time it will take.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Interesting)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058810)

I've also abandoned flying, though I can't even estimate the number of times I'd flown before that.

As far as security goes, even if the system really works, I can already see lots of problems. For example, false positives from people who have OTHER things to hide that have nothing to do with airplanes. Or even more seriously, false negatives from people who are using drugs or some trick to reduce their voice stress under the detection threshold. Even more serious than that, we have true negatives that are really false negatives, because the passenger is an innocent patsy that doesn't know about the bomb that was stuffed into the luggage.

True positives? Gosh, if only the terrorists were so conveniently stupid.

Right now I regard it as yet another example of BushCo projection--accusing others of your own flaws. Taking the most extreme example available, Dubya is a sincere moron, so he expects the terrorists to be the same way. Another flavor of stuff like accusing other people of trying to rewrite history while you try to rewrite history.

Next, let's start considering the problems if the system doesn't really work. That's probably more likely, actually.

Re:Oh goodie (2, Informative)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058860)

I do a fair amount of flying and, to be honest, I'm not seeing insanely tight airport security on a routine basis in the United States. So maybe now instead of being delayed in the customs line while I'm trying to get to my connecting flight I get a quick interview with a national guard officer or a short random search (a look through my laptop bag and a wave of the metal detector) before boarding. The added security is not being applied consistently, at least at the airports I've been to, and it hasn't been invasive. Airport security flying out of San Jose International (Costa Rica) has seemed considerably tighter.

If you're really worried, I've found that I'm pulled aside for added security checks much less frequently if my beard is well trimmed and I'm wearing a suit. Applying this test to every passenger before boarding would be a bit much, but if it's applied randomly to cut down on the number of people pulled aside for other checks, it could speed things up and would be, in my opinion, much better than spending a week trapped on a breeding ground for infectious bacteria as you seem to prefer.

Re:Oh goodie (4, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058787)

If only taking a ship was a valid alternative for travelling overseas.

I've actually looked in to this, and the only sort of sea transportation available is aboard freighters, which often take on a dozen or so passengers at a time. It's a bit pricey--higher than air travel but lower than cruise ships (which take too damn long to get where they're going anyway, and cost tons of money; they're not transportion, really). Also, their schedules can be hard to work with.

They're probably the cheapest way to do a round-the-world tour, though, and some shipping companies offer just that. Surprisingly little info online, but apparently there is an underground of "low-luxury" travellers who like take a less tourist-y route, and there are newsletters and magazines for this sort of thing.

I fully intend to take at least one voyage like this at some point in my life.

toughest challenge (4, Insightful)

augustz (18082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058521)

for innocent passengers as well, who, when faced with M-16 toting guys can't avoid an "uncontrollable tremor" in their voice.

No mention of the false positive rate on this. If just 1 in a million passenger is a terrorist, and given the number of passenger flights per year without bombings on US planes it has got to be way up there, the false positive rate it going to need to be way WAY down there.

Re:toughest challenge (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058544)

Indeed. I would think that a lot of people are nervous (if not scared downright shitless) about taking a plane in the first place, and then scared even more by the armed forces and uniformed security staff, and now they have to be scared of failing the lie detector test too?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:toughest challenge (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058647)

The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide,

Something to hide, like J Edgar Hoover. Could be a lot of false positives.

Re:toughest challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058733)

for Republicans up for reselection? Bush Administration members could be a useful failUnless(liedetected) unit test suite for the product line.

Re:toughest challenge (1)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058769)

1 in a million people flying being a terrorist is a hell of an overestimate.

Re:toughest challenge (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058813)

when faced with M-16 toting guys

Why are faceless lackeys always "toting?" I don't expect most people to know what "port arms" is, but toting makes it sound like they're carrying it like a purse.

No mention of the false positive rate on this.

Not surprising since it's a fucking scam.

Re:toughest challenge (1)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058830)

With this kind of application, a false negative (a miss) is more costly than a false positive. The system should be tuned on the side of caution.

12% False Positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058850)

With a false positive rate of 12% is hardly seems like an effective screening mechanism especially when you consider the number of people on an airplane and that each test takes ~1 minute.

Nice idea. Next!

afraid of the hunters, not the truth (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058897)

I wish I could find the original slashdot comment I saved this from. I googled for it briefly and found the slashdot story [slashdot.org] but couldn't find the comment. If you do, please reply with it.

  --The following was written by someone else--.

"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"

"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

  I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

Actual it does mention false positives: (1)

Kelmenson (592104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058901)

Those that fail are taken aside for more intensive questioning and, if necessary, searches. Liberman said around 12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide.
12% does seem pretty darn high to be an effective tool.

Tell the truth! (5, Funny)

csbrooks (126129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058534)

If you're honest, you get cleared, right?

"Are you a terrorist?"
"Yes."
"Go on through."

Re:Tell the truth! (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058662)

"Are you trying to hide something sir?"
"No."
"The machine says you're lying!"
"I- I used to be a woman named Freida." *sob*

Re: using double negation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058806)

-If you're honest, you get cleared, right?

-"Are you a geek?"
"It would be false to say that I AM NOT."
-"Go on through."

Good lawyers/politicians use this trick to confuse people

Feynman (5, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058831)

Richard Feynman, when he was in college, once helped steal and hide the door of two guys in the fraternity who were being obnoxious twits about keeping the door to their room closed.

They searched the place high and low, never finding the door. Someone suggested the fraternity President ask each member, on their honor as a member of the fraternity, if they had stolen the door. So he worked his way down the line, and came to Feynman.

"Richard Feynman, on your honor as a member of the fraternity, did you steal the door?"

"Yes."

He replied, "Quit screwing around, Feynman!", and moved on to the next guy. Everyone else denied having taken the door.

Eventually Feynman took pity on the guys and returned the door and (I believe) confessed. When he did, there was an uproar, as people claimed he had lied.

Can this seriously work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058870)

I recently was in the US on a vacation.
I had nothing to hide, have a good job at home, no criminal record, nor was I ever in trouble. Just wanted to see a bit of the US! Despite all this, I was shitting it becuase of the bombardment of questions I got about why I was entering the US. ..So this thing measures voice tremors? Well my body was shaking and my palms sweatty, and I'm sure my voice was nervous, so I guess that means next time I'm in for a strip-search. wooo-fecking-hoo. :(
  I'm sure this techonology will have wayyyy to many false positives, and end up causing more confusion as a result. It May even mask "bad people" who may have been trained to be cool under pressure.

Re:Tell the truth! (1)

ecumenical_40oz (914889) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058922)

Or Monty Python at the airport:

"Are you a terrorist?"
"Yes. Wait, no! I mean no!"
(Sound of a dozen M-16 safeties being released)
"Oh, crap"

Learn acting at home with your computer. (2, Interesting)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058545)

Maybe they could sell a home version of this that would help rate aspiring actor on their ability to convincingly speak a part from a screenplay.

Re:Learn acting at home with your computer. (1)

wfmcwalter (124904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058899)

Actors have a similar solution already. They just need to go to the Anakin Skywalker School of Acting, where actors are trained to drain their voices of even the tiniest trace of nuance, inflection, tremor, or emotion. Soon they're able to speak even the most emotionally charged lines (e.g. "I don't like sand") with the steely monotone of a T-800 terminator with a flat battery.

In future news... (4, Funny)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058550)

...no U.S. politician has been able to fly out of Israel.

I found out how the lie detector works. Bend suspect over, shove device in rectum. I only hope that everyone (including officials) has to go through it, equally.

There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058551)

A "Lie Detector" is a fantasy. Machines can detect physiological clues to nervousness, and that's it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames [wikipedia.org] > Aldrich Ames passed his polygraph exams for years, while he was getting every US agent in Russia killed.

Depending on fantasies like "lie detectors" distracts law enforcement from practicing solid investigation.

-jcr

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (3, Interesting)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058619)

If by "lie detector" you mean polygraph tests, then you're right -- they are bunk. A machine that detects lies by some other means is not impossible though -- you can detect lies with an MRI machine [wired.com] , for example. How you would integrate that into an airport, I don't know.

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058651)

No, you still can't detect lies with an MRI. You can observe brain activity which may or may not correlate to deception, which will differ greatly for each individual you examine.

To actually detect lies, you have to know everything the person making a statement knows, and then you still don't know if he's lying or just misinformed.

-jcr

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058804)

At least with an MRI, you wouldn't need a metal detector.

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (1)

cytoman (792326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058881)

At least with an MRI, you wouldn't need a metal detector.

I get it...an MRI is a mental detector!

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058638)

I may be way off base with this, but that link states that he failed every lie detector test he took. He just convinced the tester to ignore the results. Not exactly the best example, there.

On a completely unrelated note, this is my third attempt to prove myself human to the AC Captcha test. WTF is up with these? They're unreadable.

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058723)

I may be way off base with this, but that link states that he failed every lie detector test he took.

No, he passed. There's usually something in any poly test that the examiner will point to so he can sweat you a bit. The machine is just a prop, really. The point of the exam is just to subject you to an intense interrogation.

-jcr

Re:There is no such thing as a Lie Detector. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058744)

No kidding, I work in the premier audio processing lab in the federal government and we cringe everytime we see garbage like this. I know the company that makes this and they are utterly unscrupulous. All they do is say a bunch of the right words and present dumb governemnt bureaucrats with easy solutions to difficult security issues -for a price. It has absolutely so science or proof behind it, whe these guys came to our lab I dared to ask them about empirical test results and they glared at me and one said "Do you realize that children and abducted and raped every day?" I, of course, asked what that had to do with their product working, and they didn't quite know what to say but they acted like they have countered by skepticism. I imagine that the whole "do you really want the criminals to win?" approach really has an effect on some people but it just made them look like shysters in front of our group. Don't worry, WE tested it and it doesn't work. What you do have to worry about are the idiots who are putting millions in US taxpayers' money into crap like this.

Spasmodic Dysphonia (3, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058553)


The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search.

Sounds like sufferers of spasmodic dysphonia [wikipedia.org] , such as NPR's Diane Rehm [washingtonpost.com] are going to have a hell of a time at airports in the near future...

Re:Spasmodic Dysphonia (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058689)

I knew a guy who had that. Very nice guy, but imagine going through life sounding like bobcat goldwig ...

Re:Spasmodic Dysphonia (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058740)

Very nice guy, but imagine going through life sounding like bobcat goldwig ...

I assume you mean Bobcat Goldthwait. I'd rather sound like him than look like him! http://music.msn.com/album/?album=10608927 [msn.com]

Been tried before. (-1, Redundant)

Eevee (535658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058554)

So this will catch terrorists in much the same way that polygraphs caught Aldrich Ames, right?

Whew (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058556)

Thank god there's no other way to hurt people besides with airplanes!

Aw, crap... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058566)

I won't have any problem with this, because I'm not a pathological liar. Really.

Could be good... (4, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058577)

If there's a hot female security guard on duty, I'm gonna SO lie so I'll get searched by her.

Re:Could be good... (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058624)

Until she does the cavity search.

Of course, in San Francisco, you pay extra for that.

Re:Could be good... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058782)

I think that a lot or guys would get kind of nervous when being questioned by a hot chick. This will cause a lot of false positives.

Re:Could be good... (2, Insightful)

dakirw (831754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058888)

If there's a hot female security guard on duty, I'm gonna SO lie so I'll get searched by her.

Of course, while she might be asking the questions, you might get lucky and run into her huge Neanderthal compatriot that is manning the strip search station.

Discrimination? (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058578)

This is really unfair to psychics, who have just as much scientific basis for their powers as lie detectors. Why replace a paying job with a machine? Obviously it's greed.

Having been to Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058579)

Having been to Israel many times, I know their airport inquisitions quite well. They ask tough questions and usually single out anyone that looks like the stereotypical Muslim or Arab. Once in a while, they'll grab any old "white" person to keep the race hounds away. The unfortunate truth is that their system closes one potential door but leaves many others open. These days most "terrorists" (depending on who's side you take) are not going through the airports to enter the country. So what is this device really for? It seems like another gimmick to me. Are they telling me that they are going to be able to get a positive baseline on an individual in an environment like an airport and then screen them? I call bullocks on this one. In reality it takes years of skill for operators of lie detectors to get exact results. Furthermore, post-9/11 how many people do we see getting on airports here in the U.S. freaking out in some way? I've seen at least a few every flight that gasp on take offs and landings but its normal. Also what happens if a person takes an anxiolytic (i.e. a benzo drug), does the machine still work? Does the machine still work on someone who is a pathological liar? I just have a lot of doubts.

Re:Having been to Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058785)

Having been to Israel many times, I know their airport inquisitions quite well. They ask tough questions and usually single out anyone that looks like the stereotypical Muslim or Arab. Once in a while, they'll grab any old "white" person to keep the race hounds away. The unfortunate truth is that their system closes one potential door but leaves many others open.

There was a famous case years ago in London where a white Irish pregnant woman had a bomb in her luggage. This person doesn't fit most people's terrorist profile, but El Al still found it. It had been planted by her Arab fiancee.

Good security means being suspicious of everybody.

Then they can't be offended when I say.. (1)

mr. methane (593577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058586)

... Your airport is a fucking disaster area and I think your airline is unsafe. *beep* truth.

Merka is teh freeist cunntree! Suck it eurofags! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058587)

etc

W ... T ... F ... F? (2, Insightful)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058603)

From TFA this gizmo detects those with something to hide.

What about the poor schmuck just excited about going off to visit his mistress? Or his girlfriend, knowing he's about to get his first action in 9 months? Or any member of Congress?

I am pretty sick and tired of these jerkwads coming out with all of this technology that is supposed to protect us from somebody who has nothing better to do all day long than figure out ways to hurt us. And stick me with billions of dollars in expenses for a technology that may or may not catch somebody other than the occasional innocent git or two-bit martyr wanna be. Does it work? "Sorry, for national security reasons we can't tell you how many bad guys we caught or how many innocent guys to whom we gave a cavity probe".

Money isn't the root of all evil anybody who votes for any incumbent is.

Re:W ... T ... F ... F? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058805)

From TFA this gizmo detects those with something to hide.

"Liberman said around 12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide." And that's from the guy selling the damn thing. So there is a huge false positive rate, and no guarantee of no false negatives.

I've seen gadgets advertised that are supposed to do this over the phone. Your terrorist cell gets one of these and test their guys till they find one or several that can pass.

Riiiiight.... (1, Interesting)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058606)

Here's the problem: many Islamists - particularly the type they're trying to detect - do not consider lying to an infidel to actually be lying.*

Lie detectors generally depend on the person being scanned to be more or less honest with themself. If they aren't, then no dice.

This won't work.

* - Info from a poli sci professor I have this semester who worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 10 years... sorry, too lazy to find a link

Way to stereotype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058750)

Here's the problem: many Islamists - particularly the type they're trying to detect - do not consider lying to an infidel to actually be lying.

I don't think the Irish thought they were lying either when they denied bombing targets in London so drop the stereotype. Furthermore, before you post meaningless garbage on /. I would suggest citing sources out of the Qur'an. By the way, you do know that Pope Urban II called Muslims "infidels" when he declared that God had ordained the crusades? I didn't think so.

Re:Way to stereotype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058800)

muslim women are fugly and loose and the men are horsefucking faggots who don't bathe.

Oh, shut up. (0, Offtopic)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058856)

Infidel (noun) - a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.

It's a frequently used word which comes from French. The usage is correct.

As far as the Irish, why on earth would I mention them in a post about ISRAEL. Perhaps you're not up to date on world events, but the IRA has not been attacking Israeli settlements, Islamists have.

Before you post meaningless, off-topic nonsense on slashdot, you may want to give it some thought.

I prefer this instead... (1)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058628)

There is a variant on this which uses polygraph-like testing with a hand sensor [worldtribune.com] , also an Israeli company, but different from the one featured in the article here. This could be done at check-in time where the operator would normally be checking for ID and can ask the passenger to verbally verify their identification. This seems a bit less of an obnoxious approach to flagging follow-up for people who fail than challenging them with questions like, "do you intend to carry out a terrorist action!?"

Further, this could go a long way to identify false identities where certain known entities on a no-fly list wouldn't be able to board, yadda yadda.

Either way, I too am all for this if it means that we can move the lines through a little quicker at the airport.

Re:I prefer this instead... (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058917)

If you think this will get you through the checkpoint faster then you must be smoking some really good stuff.

Look at how it is now, they only let people who are flying past the check point and it still takes longer than when they let everyone through.

This will just slow it down even more, FTFA "Tested in Russia, the two-stage GK-1 voice analyser requires that passengers don headphones at a console and answer "yes" or "no" into a microphone to questions about whether they are planning something illicit. This is going to speed things up how?

This is not going to help one F'ing bit. It just brings the US one step closer to being a police state.

Great... (1)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058634)

Now they will catch everyone who flies less than once a year, or is otherwise just a bit nervous with the idea of flying as false positives.

Off course if one does fly on a weekly basis nothing happens. But that is not the case for one getting on board to a city one had never been before, possibly to be met by people unknown to the moment.

Speaking for myself: I would fail this tests everytime - I am never too calm on a flight.

It's a fraud! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058637)

Voice analyzers and polygraphs (the so-called "lie detector") are frauds. They have both been scientifically proven again and again to be unreliable, with lots of false positives and false negatives, which is why they aren't admissible in court.

The only value to either technology is to scare and threaten. If the person being questioned believes that they work, they are less likely to lie or more likely to admit a lie.

Aldrich Ames, a mole in the CIA, passed a polygraph many, many times, as did lots of others.

Since voice analyzers and polygraph examiners make a shitload of money, and they compete with each other, they are great for pointing out the flaws in each other's devices since the other technology threatens their gravy train.

It's fraud, plain and simple. Flip a coin instead. It's more likely to be accurate than a voice analyzer or polygraph.

Holes big enough to fly an airliner through it (2, Insightful)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058641)

Of course I'm sure that this device will never fall into the hands of the "bad guys." Thinking from the bad guy perspective, if I were sending people to hijack planes, and they were failing at this device, I'd get my hands on one of them, somehow, through a sympathetic government, bribery, outright theft, whatever.

Then whomever gets the "glory" of murdering innocent civilians has one additional step in the training camp: learning how to calmly lie into the microphone. We don't pack the explosives in his bag until he can pass 10 times out of 10.

I'd much prefer returning to pre-1972 rules where the airlines could decide if you could bring a loaded firearm onto the plane. Those airlines that allowed it would get my business, and the free market would take care of the problem.

-paul

Over my... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058648)

...dead body.

Popular Electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058656)

You know I saw this device in a 1970's issue of Popular Electronics.

It didn't work then either...

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058666)

Being an introverted techie, I can't wait for my social and flying nerves being evident in my voice and interpreted as 'this idiot is going to bomb the plane'.

Good idea! (1)

SisyphusShrugged (728028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058675)

This is actually a really good idea in one specific context.

If they use it to determine who gets the greater scrutiny in searches (thereby avoiding dangerous profiling) and make it unobtrusive (a microphone in the attendants uniform when he asks if you have packed your bags..etc.) this could be a boon to airport security.

Re:Good idea! (1)

lbrandy (923907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058790)

This is called Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) [umr.edu] . It has been largely discredited as being less effective then polygraphy (I think).

I wish I could provide a more authoratative link, but it's difficult. The entire field of lie detection is so buried in political bullshit that it's almost impossible to tell what is and is not effetive. Every study is from someone on the take, and every cited study is funded by the citer. For example, take this from the American Association of Polygraphers [polygraph.org] with, surprisingly, a comprehensive listing of why CVSA doesn't work.

As I understand it, from people I talked with involved in security at my previous government job, pretty much all lie-detectors and methods is 90% psychological and 10% actual. In other words, having the subject believe it works is where 90% of the effectiveness comes from. For specific situations (ie, did you kill Jim-bob), polygraphy seems to be far more effetive then CVSA. For general-purpose ("Have you ever done anything bad?"), all forms of lie-detector are suspect, at best, and very much a voodoo-science. CVSA's lure comes from the fact that it's cheap and easy to train people to use, and less intrusive (requires less calm enviornment). However, it's far less effective then polygraphy, and it's primary function is to give the interregator a psychological advantage, and no more.

But my wife, MORGAN FAIRCHILD, *is* a terrorist. (0, Flamebait)

Unclaimed Mysteries (38972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058688)

Lie detectors are naturally attractive to a culture that casually accepts a redefinition of the word "science," that promotes creationism as science, that sprinkles holy water on orange groves in an attempt to retard freezing.

Corry
Currently playing: Drs. 4 "Bob," You Cain't Hide From God

Re:But my wife, MORGAN FAIRCHILD, *is* a terrorist (1)

Unclaimed Mysteries (38972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058827)

All the crap that gets posted here and this gets tagged as flamebait. Cute.

delayed flights (1)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058701)

I think we can expect an increase in delayed flights because a bunch of innocent people with quiverring voices have been hauled off for extra questioning while the rest of the passengers wait patiently on the plane. What a crock!

Why dont they test the TSA agents? (3, Funny)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058719)

And ask them if they're really doing their job instead of just standing around looking helpless.

TSA = Thousands Standing Around

"In our trial" (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058760)

"In our trial, 500 passengers went through the test, and then each was subjected to full traditional searches," said chief executive officer Amir Liberman. "The one person found to be planning something illegal was the one who failed our test."

I can see that they settle for nothing than the most stringent double-blind testing.

As George Costanza used to say... (1)

Crouching Turbo (550843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058763)

It's not a lie if you believe it.

Obligatory simpsons quote... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058849)

Eddie: Checks out. OK, sir, you're free to go.

Moe: Good, 'cause I got a hot date tonight.
*BZZT!*
A date.
*BZZT!*
Dinner with friends.
*BZZT!*
Dinner alone.
*BZZT!*
Watching TV alone.
*BZZT!*
All right! I'm going to sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalog.
*BZZT!*
Sears catalog.
*DING!*
Now would you unhook this already, please? I don't deserve this kind of shabby treatment!
*BZZT!*

Heh heh... he does deserve that kind of shabby treatment.

Lie Detector Security (1)

Randall311 (866824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14058854)

That's great. Now some nervous person is gonna have to go into a room for further questioning, while the real terrorist that's trained to pass a lie detector is all-aboard. Nice.

didnt we go thru this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058895)

and wasnt it mathematically proven such measures make it easier for terrorists to get thru?

crazy people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14058916)

Anyone crazy enough to be a threat would also be crazy enough to have their larynx removed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?