[Infowarrior] - Mind-reading systems could change air security

[Richard Forno]

Mind-reading systems could change air security

Jan 8, 6:22 AM (ET)

By MICHAEL TARM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100108/D9D3HB101.html

CHICAGO (AP) - A would-be terrorist tries to board a plane, bent on  
mass murder. As he walks through a security checkpoint, fidgeting and  
glancing around, a network of high-tech machines analyzes his body  
language and reads his mind.

Screeners pull him aside.

Tragedy is averted.

As far-fetched as that sounds, systems that aim to get inside an  
evildoer's head are among the proposals floated by security experts  
thinking beyond the X-ray machines and metal detectors used on  
millions of passengers and bags each year.

On Thursday, in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt over  
Detroit, President Barack Obama called on Homeland Security and the  
Energy Department to develop better screening technology, warning: "In  
the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step  
ahead of a nimble adversary."

The ideas that have been offered by security experts for staying one  
step ahead include highly sophisticated sensors, more intensive  
interrogations of travelers by screeners trained in human behavior,  
and a lifting of the U.S. prohibitions against profiling.

Some of the more unusual ideas are already being tested. Some aren't  
being given any serious consideration. Many raise troubling questions  
about civil liberties. All are costly.

"Regulators need to accept that the current approach is outdated,"  
said Philip Baum, editor of the London-based magazine Aviation  
Security International. "It may have responded to the threats of the  
1960s, but it doesn't respond to the threats of the 21st century."

Here's a look at some of the ideas that could shape the future of  
airline security:

---

MIND READERS

The aim of one company that blends high technology and behavioral  
psychology is hinted at in its name, WeCU - as in "We See You."

The system that Israeli-based WeCU Technologies has devised and is  
testing in Israel projects images onto airport screens, such as  
symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image  
only a would-be terrorist would recognize, said company CEO Ehud Givon.

The logic is that people can't help reacting, even if only subtly, to  
familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places. If you  
strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your mother, Givon  
explained, you couldn't help but respond.

The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a  
nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said.

The WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing but would  
rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise  
in body temperature and heart rate. Far more sensitive devices under  
development that can take such measurements from a distance would be  
incorporated later.

If the sensors picked up a suspicious reaction, the traveler could be  
pulled out of line for further screening.

"One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with  
specific malicious intent," Givon said.

Some critics have expressed horror at the approach, calling it  
Orwellian and akin to "brain fingerprinting."

For civil libertarians, attempting to read a person's thoughts comes  
uncomfortably close to the future world depicted in the movie  
"Minority Report," where a policeman played by Tom Cruise targets  
people for "pre-crimes," or merely thinking about breaking the law.

---

LIE DETECTORS

One system being studied by Homeland Security is called the Future  
Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, and works like a souped-up  
polygraph.

It would subject people pulled aside for additional screening to a  
battery of tests, including scans of facial movements and pupil  
dilation, for signs of deception. Small platforms similar to the  
balancing boards used in the Nintendo Wii would help detect fidgeting.

At a public demonstration of the system in Boston last year, project  
manager Robert Burns explained that people who harbor ill will display  
involuntary physiological reactions that others - such as those who  
are stressed out for ordinary reasons, such as being late for a plane  
- don't.

The system could be made to work passively, scanning people as they  
walk through a security line, according to Burns.

Field testing of the system, which will cost around $20 million to  
develop, could begin in 2011, The Boston Globe said in a story about  
the demonstration. Addressing one concern of civil libertarians, Burns  
said the technology would delete data after each screening.

---

THE ISRAELI MODEL

Some say the U.S. should take a page from Israel's book on security.

At Israeli airports, widely considered the most secure in the world,  
travelers are subjected to probing personal questions as screeners  
look them straight in the eye for signs of deception. Searches are  
meticulous, with screeners often scrutinizing every item in a bag,  
unfolding socks, squeezing toothpaste and flipping through books.

"All must look to Israel and learn from them. This is not a post-911  
thing for them. They've been doing this since 1956," said Michael  
Goldberg, president of New York-based IDO Security Inc., which  
developed a device that can scan shoes while they are still on  
people's feet.

Israel also employs profiling: At Ben-Gurion Airport, Jewish Israelis  
typically pass through smoothly, while others may be taken aside for  
closer interrogation or even strip searches. Another distinquishing  
feature of Israeli airports is that they rely on concentric security  
rings that start miles from terminal buildings.

Rafi Ron, the former security director at Israel's famously tight Ben  
Gurion International Airport who now is a consultant for Boston's  
Logan International Airport, says U.S. airports also need to be  
careful not to overcommit to securing passenger entry points at  
airports, forgetting about the rest of the field.

"Don't invest all your efforts on the front door and leave the back  
door open," said Ron.

While many experts agree the United States could adopt some Israeli  
methods, few believe the overall model would work here, in part  
because of the sheer number of U.S. airports - more than 400, versus  
half a dozen in Israel.

Also, the painstaking searches and interrogations would create delays  
that could bring U.S. air traffic to a standstill. And many Americans  
would find the often intrusive and intimidating Israeli approach  
repugnant.

---

PROFILING

Some argue that policies against profiling undermine security.

Baum, who is also managing director of Green Light Limited, a London- 
based aviation security company, agrees profiling based on race and  
religion is counterproductive and should be avoided. But he argues  
that a reluctance to distinguish travelers on other grounds - such as  
their general appearance or their mannerisms - is not only foolhardy  
but dangerous.

"When you see a typical family - dressed like a family, acts like a  
family, interacts with each other like a family ... when their  
passport details match - then let's get them through," he said. "Stop  
wasting time that would be much better spent screening the people that  
we've get more concerns about."

U.S. authorities prohibit profiling of passengers based on ethnicity,  
religion or national origin. Current procedures call for travelers to  
be randomly pulled out of line for further screening.

Scrutinizing 80-year-old grandmothers or students because they might  
be carrying school scissors can defy common sense, Baum said.

"We need to use the human brain - which is the best technology of them  
all," he said.

But any move to relax prohibitions against profiling in the U.S. would  
surely trigger fierce resistance, including legal challenges by  
privacy advocates.

---

PRIVATIZATION

What if security were left to somebody other than the federal  
government?

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Washington- 
based Cato Institute, a free-market-oriented think tank, says airlines  
should be allowed take charge of security at airports.

Especially since 9/11, the trend has been toward standardizing  
security procedures to ensure all airports follow the best practices.  
But Harper argues that decentralizing the responsibility would result  
in a mix of approaches - thereby making it harder for terrorists to  
use a single template in planning attacks.

"Passengers, too, prefer a uniform experience," he said. "But that's  
not necessarily the best security. It's better if sometimes we take  
your laptop out, sometimes we'll pat you down. Those are things that  
will really drive a terrorist batty - as if they're not batty already."

Harper concedes that privatizing airport security is probably wishful  
thinking, and the idea has not gotten any traction. He acknowledges it  
would be difficult to allay fears of gaping security holes if it were  
left to each airline or airport owner to decide its own approach.

---

AP writers Glen Johnson in Boston and Josef Federman in Jerusalem also  
contributed to this report.