[Infowarrior] - Classic DHS....

[Richard Forno]

DHS wants to use human body odor as biometric identifier, clue to  
deception
Published: March 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM

By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/03/09/DHS_wants_to_use_human_body_odor_as_biometric_identifier_clue_to_deception/UPI-20121236627329/

WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security  
plans to study the possibility that human body odor could be used to  
tell when people are lying or to identify individuals in the same way  
that fingerprints can.

In a federal procurement document posted Friday on the Web, the  
department's Science and Technology Directorate said it would conduct  
an "outsourced, proof-of-principle study to determine if human odor  
signatures can serve as an indicator of deception. … As a secondary  
goal, this study will examine … human odor samples for evidence to  
support the theory that an individual can be identified by that  
individual's odor signature."

Officials said that the work was at a very early stage, but the  
announcement brought criticism from civil liberties advocates who said  
it showed the department's priorities were misplaced.

The procurement notice said the department is already "conducting  
experiments in deceptive behavior and collecting human odor samples"  
and that the research it hopes to fund "will consist primarily of the  
analysis and study of the human odor samples collected to determine if  
a deception indicator can be found."

"This research has the potential for enhancing our ability to detect  
individuals with harmful intent," the notice said. "A positive result  
from this proof-of-principle study would provide evidence that human  
odor is a useful indicator for certain human behaviors and, in  
addition, that it may be used as a biometric identifier."

DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told United Press International that "proof  
of concept" work was the very earliest stage of technological  
development.

The directorate "is trying to determine what factors of human behavior  
and chemistry can provide clues to the intent to deceive," she said,  
adding that the work would be carried out by the Federally Funded  
Research and Development Center run by the non-profit Mitre Corp.,  
which conducts cutting-edge research for U.S. military, homeland  
security and intelligence agencies.

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty  
project, told UPI that the plan showed the department had "misplaced  
priorities."

"The history of DHS' deployment of these technologies has been one  
colossal failure after another," he said. "There is no lie detector.  
This research has been a long, meandering journey, which has taken us  
down one blind alley after another."

Steinhardt added that even well-established biometric-identity  
technologies like fingerprinting have resulted in individuals being  
inaccurately identified, like Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield, who got  
an apology from the FBI after being wrongfully accused of having had a  
hand in the 2004 Madrid rail bombings.

"None of the biometrics for identity have worked very well, with the  
possible exception of DNA," he said, adding that even fingerprint  
evidence was "increasingly being challenged in courts around the  
country."

"This shows the misplaced priorities (of DHS)," he said. "The  
government doesn't need to take us down another blind alley."

Recent scientific research shows that so-called volatile organic  
compounds present in human sweat, saliva and urine can be analyzed  
using a technique known as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Research published by the Royal Society in London in 2006 found "a  
substantial number of marker compounds (in human sweat) that can  
potentially differentiate individuals or groups."

Researchers took five samples each from 179 individuals over a 10-week  
period and analyzed them, finding hundreds of chemical markers that  
remained more or less constant for each individual over time.

An analysis of these compounds "found strong evidence for individual  
(odor) fingerprints," the researchers concluded.

However, they warned that some individuals appear to have less  
distinctive odors than others, adding that "the reason for the  
variation in distinctiveness is unclear." More importantly, some  
individuals' odors changed during the course of the study. "Not all  
subjects had consistent marker compounds over time, which might be due  
to physiological, dietary or other changes," the researchers concluded.

The researchers also cautioned that some of these marker compounds  
might be "exogenous chemical contaminants" from skin-care or perfume  
products or tobacco smoke and other substances present in an  
individual's environment. About a quarter of the 44 apparently  
distinctive marker compounds they were able to analyze appeared to be  
artificial contaminants, the researchers said.

"Determining the origins of individual and sex-specific odors -- and  
controlling exogenous chemical contaminants -- may provide the most  
important challenge for future … studies," the researchers said.

Those challenges are likely to be significant, and they will multiply  
if the techniques are deployed in the field.

"While some of these sensors perform well in the lab, the real world  
may be different," technology consultant and author John Vacca said.  
"The technology is still in its infancy."