|
|
| Tech Companies See Market for Detection |
|
Posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 21:35:56 PT By Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer Source: Washington Post 
One machine can detect stress by reading flickering eye movements. Another uses X-rays to conduct virtual strip-searches that can spot a razor blade taped to a person's inner thigh. A third videotapes faces in a crowded room and matches them to known terrorists.For several years, cutting-edge identification and detection technologies have helped specialists in the battle against terrorism, but the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center could transform these once exotic gadgets into everyday tools of airport safety. Yesterday in Chicago, President Bush described a plan to invest $3 billion to enhance aviation security, outlining measures ranging from reinforcing aircraft cockpit doors to stationing National Guard members at airport inspection stations. He also promised to "look at all kinds of technologies," a commitment that could transform today's metal detectors and passport checks into old-world curiosities. "I think this technology was starting to become a mainstream solution, and it now is mainstream," said Bill Willis, chief technological officer of Iridian Technologies Inc., the Moorestown, N.J., maker of a device that verifies identity by imaging the iris of a person's eye. "People now believe strongly that they want to identify and verify who someone is." Airport security seeks to accomplish two tasks: identifying potential hijackers or troublemakers, and finding and confiscating explosives or weapons before they get on a plane. Both objectives have stirred controversy from privacy advocates. Body Search, a device that uses X-rays to penetrate clothing and scan the contours of a person's body, drew outrage a few years ago for its ability to "undress" passengers. Today things have changed: "The public will have less objection if the threat level is justified," said Ralph Sheridan, president and CEO of American Science and Engineering, the Billerica, Mass., company that makes Body Search. "I get lots of questions from airline personnel about 'when can this be used to make me feel more secure?' " It's currently used by the U.S. Customs Service in five airports to search people for drugs. Privacy concerns have also hampered deployment of devices that match an iris, handprint, fingerprint or face to a database of known offenders, techniques known as biometrics because they measure parts of a person's body to create a computer signature unique to that person. Earlier this year, Tampa police were criticized for "surveillance" of the citizenry when they installed facial recognition video cameras from Visionics Corp. of New Jersey to match pedestrians in an entertainment district against mug shots of known offenders. "You match the faces against a list of people for whom there are arrest warrants," said Reston-based security consultant Mark Rasch. "Then you add those 'engaged in criminal activity,' then 'suspected terrorists and their associates.' Once you've created a database, you can use it for anything." It is not yet clear whether fear of terrorism will overcome Americans' natural antipathy to government prying, but the technologies exist and have been proven reliable. At the San Francisco airport, would-be employees have their fingerprints digitized in a device developed by Identix Inc. of Los Gatos, Calif., and checked against FBI databases to see if they are wanted for crimes. Once they are hired, the airport controls employees' access to secure areas with a handprint biometric system developed by Recognition Systems Inc., a Campbell, Calif.-based subsidiary of Ingersoll-Rand. Using biometrics to search for terrorists among incoming passengers could ultimately prove crucial to keeping them out of the country or identifying them, suggested Don Hamilton, deputy director of the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, because they marry an individual to a document in a way that cannot be altered. "The hard part is getting the biometric identifier into the system in the first place," Hamilton said. Iris-scanning and handprints are tremendously reliable, he pointed out, but impossible to use because there is no electronic file of evildoers that contains these biometrics. Fingerprints have a decided advantage for domestic criminals because the FBI has "a ready-made bad guy database," said Iana Schmitzer, Identix director of public sector sales. "They've got the portrait gallery." But facial recognition appears to inspire the most interest because it can scan a person's face in an airline terminal and run the biometric against pictures or videos of a suspect taken anywhere at any time. Its shortcoming is that accuracy deteriorates depending on the quality of the archived image. "In countries where we have visa requirements, we can get a photograph," said Visionics President Joseph Atic. "We can never guarantee we can capture everybody, but this is an effective shield from terrorism." In San Diego, Erik Viirre, a cognitive scientist and president of the computer technology firm Sapien Systems, has developed a different use for biometrics, designing a software program that can measure eye movements against a computerized signature that detects stress. "You look for signs over which people really have no control," Viirre said. He has used the system to gauge fatigue in soldiers and truck drivers, but it could readily accommodate airline passengers. "If the person matches the indicators, a red light would come on," Viirre said. "This could capture all kinds of things -- somebody totally afraid of flying, or drunk or potentially violent." At security checkpoints, airports and airlines have many other technologies from which to choose. Barringer Instruments of Warren, N.J., makes a desktop machine that can tell whether a passenger has handled explosives by swabbing down a piece of luggage and running the sample through on-site chemical analysis. The Federal Aviation Administration has bought dozens of the Ionscan machines from Barringer and distributes them to U.S. airports. Barringer's chief competitor, Thermo Electron of Waltham, Mass., got its start in forensics, monitoring air crash wreckage to determine if an explosion occurred and where the explosive may have originated. Spokeswoman Caroline Grossman said the FAA recently inquired how fast the company can make the machines. The FAA also buys and distributes to airports an X-ray scanning machine that can create a three-dimensional picture of the inside of someone's luggage -- the aircraft security equivalent of a medical CAT scan. "If the system finds a density similar to that of an explosive, it will issue an alarm," said Yotam Margalit, director of product management for InVision, the Newark, Calif., firm that makes the scanner. If the machine recognizes "areas of interest," it will stop and scrutinize them more carefully. Note: Security Techniques Offer New Precision. Related Articles: Controversial Infrared Camera is Praised by Police Civil Liberties and the Hill - Newsweek X-Ray Vision - Time Magazine Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #8 posted by dddd on September 30, 2001 at 01:32:30 PT |
| ....Airport security was already sufficient.....and now,the shrub is inviting everyone to fly again,and pretend everything is normal,,,,,nothing is normal!...I think that alot of people will avoid flying because they dont like the idea of the humiliating experience of being personally,physically,and mentally probed....I'd sooner walk,or ride a bicycle,than to have some soldier lookin' up my ass for a boxcutter,or a sharpened spork.... ...And you are right on about the terrorist/truck thing......Any terrorist could easily carjack a truck full of hazardous hazardly hazards,(I guess that would be a truckjack),,,,and even the most crude terrorist could use a 1973 Pacer as a suicidal attack bomb projectile,,,, ...What's happening now,is utter paranoidal insanity,that is being cultivated,and encouraged by a newly emboldened Evil Empire...............................Prepare for Doom!,,,,no,,just kidding,,actually,,we should make the best out of the good things that we still have,and try to not let what's happening cast a dark cloud over our daily lives.I know that's easier said than done,,,but it would be a drag to die from stress,and worry,and not be around to witness the awesome things to come.....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on September 30, 2001 at 01:01:50 PT |
| I went to DIA, Devner International Airport, the pre-screener always stop me. I will take my glasses off and my watch off. Nothing in my pockets. Their alarm would always go off. Oh, I guess it is my beard and the long hair. Must be a dope head. Opps, it's my boots. Really, we have enuff tech to detect box cutter knifes or whatever.. This is just crazy! IMHO, these victims ought to sue these airports whatever the government is bailing them out, 17 billion$ ? Each of these victims ought to sue 17 billion$ Anyway, do not think I will ever fly these planes again, no matter how much gadgets the fed may install.. Not because I know that terrorists would not dare do that again. It is just a hassle! For example, if plane takes off at 6 am in the morning, do I hafta go to the airport 4 hours before my flight time.. Good riddance! I just rather drive! What are the implication to my statement? Bye-bye the stock market going to act reallly funny. People been talking about recession but can you spell D E P R E SS I O N? All that fancy gadgets sitting in airports where noone and the terrorists would want to fly anymore. Sound pretty corny but very real.. And most importantly, is it diffcult for a rich terrorist to buy another jumbo jet for hisself and load the jet with real bombs(nuclear) and just fly rite to where the white house is? Oh, I forgot, it was just one of Tom Clancy's novel. Anyhow, my prediction for next terrorist attack is pretty simple. Just shoot the drivers who drive big trucks.. For example, everyday in Huston, TX, 7000 truckers drive their trucks to deliver the goods and food. Just one terrorist can start shooting these truckers. How many do you think the truckers will drive to Huston TX or to Denver Co? Remember it is just one dumb terrorist. What if 10 smart terrorists change their names into common Amerikan names. Hi, my name is John Doe. I know I look like an arab but I am a spanish dude who will not fly airplane anymore. Psst, I got this hipowered rifle capable of shootin at 500-700 yards away.. I guess FoM is gonna scream at her hubby, NO MORE TRIPS! I am tellin this becuz it can happen. Not becuz I wish it cud. Maybe what happend was enuff. It will take 10-20 yrs before people start making some money just to live.. ff [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by silentone on September 29, 2001 at 16:50:17 PT:
|
| I totally agree. Do not give up any rights. No more laws and unconstitutional laws. We serve no one. The govt should serve us as we pursue happiness. If you are violent than you can serve the punishment. Being happy and feeling free is much better that fearing being watched every minute by BigBrother. Do not let this happen. The proposed ideas that are other than airport security cannot be passed. It will make no difference within the country. Let them be secure that whoever enters the country is OK--greater airline and border control. This way we would not need to be in a police state. Who serves who? We may have to reevaluate everyone in office and get some people who want to represent freedom instead of insurance companies and BigBrother Inc. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by bruce42 on September 29, 2001 at 13:29:59 PT |
| I think some would say that it would be detrimental because competition would be reduced, but that is a laughable arguement. How many small private airlines were destroyed in just a few days by the shutdown- hundreds. As you pointed out, the federal government already plays a big role in air transportation, from regulation to traffic control. Very interesting thought. I'll have to consider this one, but I'm having trouble with seeing big downsides, too. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by lookinside on September 29, 2001 at 11:31:55 PT:
|
| bruce42... you mention the one thing that REALLY aggravates me...the fact that much of the claims of better security are mere hyperbole... this may go against the grain of some here... what about converting to a national airline? one whose security is controlled from top to bottom by one agency... i'm thinking in terms of the U.S. postal service...although we all joke about it, it is extremely efficient and very cheap to use... this would place all employees under the government security requirements and if you haven't noticed, civil servants make substantially more than minimum wage...baggage might get where it is going more frequently... i know that this is an increase in "big government"...but the feds control alot of what goes on in airports anyway... and in my opinion, airline companies have proven to be pretty inept...overbooking, small seats, general discomfort...rediculous pricing, both high and low... i dunno...i'm having a hard time seeing the downside...comments?? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by bruce42 on September 29, 2001 at 10:08:19 PT |
| I agree that when you purchase an airline ticket that you are essentially entering into a contractual agreement. That you, the ticket holder, understand and follow all the rules and regulations that come along with that piece of paper. I do agree that the airlines have every right to know what and who exactly is on their airplanes. However, I completely disagree with security policies that only instill a "feeling" of better security or technology once proven a viable solution in commercial airports will only find its way into other corners of our life. In the current haze of paranoia and anger enveloping this nation I think people are almost too eager to hand over their rights in exchange for a warm fuzzy feeling. The laxity in personnel training, luggage checks, passenger identification, and simple physical security measures (read stronger cockpit doors) should have been addressed a long, long time ago. Only now are people raising a fuss and on top of that willing to hand over their privacy. I will feel better once these airlines have actual professionally trained security personnel at every entrance, patrolling the grounds, and ON the plane, when every possible point of entry on the aircraft is monitored, when every passenger is identified against photo I.D., frisked, and questioned, every peice of luggage is accounted for and thouroughly inspected, and when every single airline employee has a thorough background check. I swear to God that I have been to raves where the security is tighter than that at a local airport and I now many, many fellow students that have had complete background checks just to co-op at a local company. I wonder how many baggage handlers have had that much. All this silliness about expensive toys making us "feel" better is ludicrous. We have the ability and technology now to make things secure. I don't want to FEEL secure, I want to BE secure. If they insist on running mulit-billion dollar enterprises that rely on transporting millions of people around the world then they need to get serious about safety. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by lookinside on September 29, 2001 at 09:14:52 PT:
|
| i'm torn concerning pre-flight screening... with the certainty that occurences like those on sept 11 CAN happen, we should decide if a safe(r) flight is worth the loss of privacy required to make it so... i'm inclined to say yes... i've never been on a jet in my life...not by choice..just never found the need to use them...my wife and kids have flown... a jumbo jet flight, provides a situation where a terrorist or nut case can easily put hundreds of people at risk...do they allow claw hammers in the carry on luggage? imagine someone whacking a window at 35,000 feet... personally i think public carriers have the right to protect their passengers and property in any way they see fit..passengers are merely renting a seat on the carrier...they must agree to the conditions of use, whatever those might be... if you don't like the idea of the airline knowing with a certainty who you are and what's in your bag, i'd suggest driving or buying your own jet... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by bruce42 on September 28, 2001 at 23:08:20 PT |
| "The public will have less objection if the threat level is justified," "I get lots of questions from airline personnel about 'when can this be used to make me feel more secure?' " It's currently used by the U.S. Customs Service in five airports to search people for drugs." hmmm... let's see. Boy there sure are a lot neat places to put these nifty gadgets! How about the mall, or the bus stop, or schools, or parks, or up yer rear! Sniff, sniff. Hmm, what's that smell?! Why, it could only be the rotten stench of something fishy going on here. Am I the only one feeling big brother breathing down our collective necks?! So we're supposed to fritter away our privacy now 'cause some nimrod at the airport wants to "feel" more secure. Note they never say "be" more secure. If some "evil-doer" (I love how Dubya's all super-hero-like-even now) wants to do something bad on an airplane, he'll find a way. Taking x-ray nudie pictures at the airport ain't gonna stop someone from blowing something up! They'll just blow up something else! Duh! As for catching potetailly violent passengers, stop serving alcohol you morons! Alternative- pot. Dan_B was all over that one. Just pass out pot cookies and coloring books with those big huge blunt (no not blunts, although that would be kinda neat seeing a steward holding a heaping tray of huge blunts when you board the plane) kindergarten style crayons. You talk about a happy plane! These silly gadgets have WoDWoT smeared alllll over them. Why don't they just stop pretending and make everyone walk around naked all the time with armed escorts. It sure would save a lot of work for the spin doctors. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |