| |
  |
| Countering Terrorism With Brain Scans |
|
 |
|
posted by Editor on Monday October 08, @07:44PM
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc. has developed a technique called brain fingerprinting that can be used to detect information stored in the human brain by measuring electrical brain responses to information presented on a computer screen. The procedure takes advantage of the fact that the brain's response to known information is clearly distinguishable from its response to unknown information. The company positions its technique as a law-enforcement tool, and results of the procedure have already been admitted as evidence in a court case. To determine whether a suspect was involved in a crime or not, words or pictures relevant to the crime are flashed on a computer screen, along with other, irrelevant words or pictures, and the electrical brain responses are measured through a patented headband equipped with sensors and stored on the computer. When details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, the system detects specific signals that are emitted by the brain of a perpetrator, but not by the brain of an innocent suspect. Because the immediate mental response of the suspect is involuntary, the suspect cannot consciously prevent their initial reaction. Now, they are saying that brain fingerprinting can be used to counter terrorism by determining if a person has critical information regarding terrorist organizations, training, and plans that an innocent person would not have. So next time you check in for a flight at the airport, don't be surprised if you are shown a short film clip about loading an AK-47.
|
|
|
|
< Taxonomy Of Visualization Techniques | 3D User Interface Concepts From Microsoft > | |
|
|
|
Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will let you customize the site's content according to your preferences. It will also allow you to moderate the comments of other users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So next time you check in for a flight at the airport, don't be surprised if you are shown a short film clip about loading an AK-47.
OK, So you take a flight, and they show you this clip. What happens on your return flight, when you see this clip again? Your brain will of course recognize it, and the software will show a false positive.
It certainly looks to have some potential for one-time incidents, though. Have you seen this victim at this location? What about using this to help your computer filter internet or database searches? If it were able to check your brain and see if you already know the information from a specific page, and thus don't need to see it. Or perhaps if you are trying to find that page which you forgot to bookmark...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, @03:53PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
That was exactly my reaction too. Many of these ideas sound good for about one second, before you realize they have huge flaws in them. Why don't people think a little before publishing dumb ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There'd also seem to be some significant legal concerns with an interrogation that is "only-valid-the-first-time." If a defendent can show there were legal or civil rights problems with his first "brain fingerprint" and the process is not reliable when repeated, he has effectively nullified the impact of the technology.
Non-repeatability makes for bad science, and I suspect, for bad legal evidence.
--Greg, not a lawyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how do you prime this thing? how many images before you've determined how one reacts to known and not-known? it's just like a "standardized" test of any kind (anyone remember the episode of different strokes when they talk about the STAs?). They show a pcture of a car to get the impression of what is known, but what if that person is more subtle and processes it as a car they've never seen? How do you know what any individual uses to determine known and unknown? basically you end up chasing normal, which can never really be pinned down.
we speak the way we breath -- Fugazi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that you could train yourself to fool these things. After all, if people can train themselves to think certain ways to control computers, it shouldn't be too hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aw, you all are so negative. (OK, I admit to having the same criticisms mentioned elsewhere here.) But think of the possibilities for enhancing our democracy and the transparency of government! Wouldn't you just love to try this out on an interrogation of those politicians who claim to "forget"? Or world-class businessment like Bill Gates who "couldn't remember" things during the anti-trust trial?
--Greg, half-joking
P.S. OK, so the 5th ammendment would still protect you from self-incrimination. But you couldn't hide behind this BS "I forget" shield so popular among our elites...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that these kinds of responses were made when they were first talking about lie detectors. And if they weren't, they should have been. I think some of you are taking the "short film clip about loading an AK-47" a little too literally. The thing about "what happens on your return flight" is of course what I thought when I first read that myself. But just as they're not going to give every passenger a lie detector test when they ask you if anyone unknown to you has handled your baggage, they're not going to give everyone one of these "brain scan" tests. Also, especially because it's a new technology, it is not like someone will be convicted or not based entirely upon this device's results. Actually, my guess is that it won't last long in the court system just as lie detector results are not counted as evidence. But that's just my opinion. On the other hand, I think that this technology is a pretty impressive push forward and is just another step in cybernetic technology that will ultimately lead to something really cool!
|
|
|
|
|
|
