Mal-intent detection: what it’s for & what it can do
A quick recap of previous posts
Systems are now being developed by private companies in Israel, by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States, and elsewhere, to detect if people are hiding something.
These systems use advanced sensors to measure the human body’s reactions to stimulus designed to remind someone of something with which they might be familiar.
For instance, a picture of a bomb or a crashing airplane will trigger a minute reaction in anyone planning to blow up a plane, a response they cannot control or hide.
Thermal cameras and other devices measure the body’s responses to familiar stimulus and match them against a database to determine the likelihood that the subject is hiding something. Often, the subject need not even be aware that they are being tested.
This technology is known as mal-intent detection.
Applications of the technology
Many applications for mal-intent detection technology come to mind. Here are a few.
…These systems most obviously apply to detecting terrorists. Terrorists must operate covertly and they usually target crowded high profile venues. A system that can quickly sort out those more likely to have violent aims, without producing too many false positives, would be extremely useful to authorities.
…Useful not just in airports, but anywhere crowds gather in a political context. Airports of course, but mosques, churches, and synagogues in unstable regions. Even dance halls and discos frequented by foreign tourists or military personnel in places where extremist groups protest against them.
…These systems can help catch drug smugglers. Customs can’t search everyone and seldom try, nor can sniffer dogs catch all drugs, e.g. amphetamine capsules smell the same as do perfectly legal prescription medecines. A mal-intent detection system at the custom desk running unbeknownst to the arriving traveler could give a customs agent a signal that bags ought to be searched, or the traveler let through without further bother.
Corporate security officers can make use of the technology too.
…More subtle systems can be used to screen employees filling particularly sensitive positions. Any government post needing a security clearance for example, or screening new body guards, or screening candidates for any position where trust is absolutely necessary but investigations need to be carried out discretely.
…These systems can also help security guards grant access to buildings outside normal hours. Imagine a manager leaving on a vital business strip on Monday morning, realizing he’s left an important file on his desk. He arrives at his office late Sunday night and (Murphy’s Law kicking in) discovers he’s also forgotten his access key. The security guard on duty does not recognize him. Should he let the manager in? Is the manager truly in need, or has he resigned and is looking to remove hundreds files from the office, as did Ignacio Lopez when he moved from General Motors to Volkswagen? Provided the tenant agrees, the guard can use a green signal from a mal-intent detection system to allow the manager in without a difficult corroborating phone call.
There are many advantages to these systems…
…The systems look for responses that have nothing to do with racial characteristics and everything to do with biological reactions shared by all people. This means the systems make impartial judgments. There is no profiling, no prejudice.
…The systems produce results quickly, speedily and efficiently letting streams of people through gates and wickets. No bottlenecks.
- Comparing polygraphs and mal-intent detection
…People hate being searched. We feel assaulted when guards pat us down from head to toe. Mal-intent detection works without body contact, often without our knowing we are being tested. They are unintrusive.
…The systems are designed as part of a process. The aim is to help security officers make a quick decision so as to minimize needless time-consuming searches and concentrate on more likely targets. They are not designed to be labeling machines forever branding people as guilty. Results are not stored.
On the other hand the systems are not perfect…
…The whole approach is being met with distrust by the public. People see this as being another authoritarian tool.
…Mal-intent detection systems won’t find bombs or drugs in the luggage of people who do not know they are carrying them. Duped innocent accomplices get through undetected.
…While the systems are designed not to store results, there’s nothing inherent to the technology that prevents such functions from being implemented. Storage is not impossible.
Will these systems be used? Should they be used?
Should mal-intent detection systems be used? Authorities find them useful and because the hardware is readily available, their appearance is a foregone conclusion. They will be used by someone someday soon.
Our need for economical and effective security seems to make mal-intent detection systems both desirable and unavoidable despite our misgivings.
If we must live with them, we ought to mandate rules about how these systems are used. Microphones, TV cameras, recording devices have become dirt cheap in the past 60 years. Nowadays, any 10 year old child can become an amateur spy.
However, we have restricted how our governments and their agencies can use these readily available tools. We can do the same with malintent detection technology.
The final post in this series examines what is at stake when using the technology, the quality of the security benefits it provides, and the need for governance to mitigate abuse by those using the technology.
Copyright 2011, Vincent Poirier
Disclaimer: I am helping promote a malintent technology system developer in Japan, so please be aware of the possible conflict of interest.
