[Swerve22]

Here's what I'm referring to:

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...eyre-committed

A research project under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security called FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology) tries to identify potential terrorists by monitoring individuals’ vital signs, body language, and other physiological patterns. The idea is that surveilling people’s behavior may detect their intent to do harm. in tests, the system was 70 percent accurate, according to the DHS. (What this means is unclear; were research subjects instructed to pretend to be terrorists to see if their “malintent” was spotted?) Though these systems seem embryonic, the point is that law enforcement takes them very seriously.

Stopping a crime from happening sounds like an enticing prospect. Isn’t preventing infractions before they take place far better than penalizing the perpetrators afterwards? Wouldn’t forestalling crimes benefit not just those who might have been victimized by them, but society as a whole?

So basically what pulls this out of the real of philosophical musings for me is the fact that there is in fact currently a program which is apparently already up to 70% effective. That seems like a high enough number to justify a public debate in the minds of many.

Let's look at it this way:

1) It's basically a more comprehensive version of profiling.

2) Profiling already happens every day in almost every social interaction.

3) Profiling happens both voluntarily and involuntarily in law enforcement as well.

4) This form of profiling has a much higher chance of being correct than a cop walking a beat and "seeing that look in his eye".

5) Has the potential to lead to people being incarcerated or unfairly treated/singled out/watched/denied rights based on math, which can never predict human action with a 100% certainty.


I can see why law enforcement would want to use it and how it can prevent crimes which would be groundbreaking in police work since that has never historically been an effective function of theirs, but as a citizen I am afraid of the power and trust it puts in authority and feel it's full embrace would ammount to further oiling an already slippery slope.

[Iamamartianchurch]

No Pre-Cogs, no deal.

[Umami]

Frankly, this terrifies me.

As a tool to enhance profiling in an effective way that isn't based on often inaccurate stereotypes, sure.

As a grounds for prosecution, **** NO.

[barrel roll]

People have already been prosecuted without actually committing crimes. I'm not talking about hiring an undercover police officer to murder your wife either.

This would not be right if the person is tried based solely on this program. If this program is used to justify a warrant from a judge... I am ok with that.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

If this program is used to justify a warrant from a judge... I am ok with that.

To me, even a warrant based on this stuff seems like too much power.

[barrel roll]

They've issued warrants for facebook postings...

I think a very important part of the equation is the warrant. I'm sure there is a logical was to come up with guidelines for a DA to pursue a warrant from a judge that takes into consideration that 30% error.

Tell you what, I'll be quite upset if I wake up dead one day because I was drone'd based of some erroneous computer program pretending to be triplets.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Tell you what, I'll be quite upset if I wake up dead one day because I was drone'd based of some erroneous computer program pretending to be triplets.

Hahaha, you and me both. Honestly, based on my internet usage someone on the outside could probably be convinced I was trouble.

[ElJefe13]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

No Pre-Cogs, no deal.

Haha, that was my first thought too.

I honestly think this would be a good tool to predict crimes, maybe put more cops on beats where their needed. But I wouldn't want anyone convicted because some computer thought that they were a bad guy. I also thinks it needs some more testing before it should be used in the real world.

[sucka T.]

70% accuracy. Not even a "B".

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by sucka T.

70% accuracy. Not even a "B".

Especially since 50% is a coin toss.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Especially since 50% is a coin toss.

[Seahawk6060]

If you travel internationally, you notice that some airports have heat scanners that measure the amount of infrared radiation emitted by your face. These units were established to prevent the spread of SARS and Swine Flu. I don't know if they are successful, but they never really bothered me. One time, I was getting over a cold and they stopped me and asked if I was having issues with my sinuses. I explained and they let me pass through without delay. It sounds like this FAST technology could be used similarly. If you put them in areas that could be targets for terrorists, like airports, it would definitely make the bad guys think twice about perpetrating an act of terrorism, even if it is only 70% accurate. It could be leveraged like a heat scanner, used to simply identify people that are symptomatic. If they don't pass the screening, they're merely pulled to the side and asked a few questions and either detained, based on a professional evaluation, or let go.

I don't see a problem in terms of a threat to civil liberties. As long as it's merely an assessment of your physiological state, it doesn't seem to be any more intrusive than an X-ray scanner.

[rT159]

Originally Posted by Umami

Hahaha, you and me both. Honestly, based on my internet usage someone on the outside could probably be convinced I was trouble.

I'm sure that's true for all of us here at one point. The problem is you can't predict human behavior. What I mean by that is, you can't predict choice and free will in everyone. It's minority report come to fruition.

[barrel roll]

Just watched Person of Interest. Awesome show, just saying.

[rT159]

One of my faves.