Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike

by	Steve Kirsch

Brain fingerprinting, a technique proven infallible in FBI tests and US Navy tests and accepted as evidence in US courts, could accurately identify trained terrorists before they strike. Had it been in place on September 11, it would have prevented all of the attackers from boarding the planes, says Infoseek founder Steve Kirsch.

Version 6 Originally Published October 2, 2001. Published on KurzweilAI.net October 4, 2001.

Abstract: Brain fingerprinting, a technique proven infallible in FBI tests and US Navy tests and accepted as evidence in US courts, can be applied to a new problem: the problem of accurately identifying trained terrorists before they strike. Had it been in place on September 11, it would have prevented all of the attackers from boarding the planes. It is the only technology for preventing other terrorist attacks before they are carried out. For example, it is the only system that will allow us to accurately identify all members of al Qaeda so we can keep them off our planes today and prevent them from entering our country.

The "computerized security screen" described in this paper and the calculation of test results are all done totally under computer control; testing requires no human intervention and no human interpretation. In the case of the FBI tests, 100% of the determinations were correct. There were no false positives, no false negatives, and no indeterminates. Eight years later there is still no other technology or manual screening that comes close to these results. Brain fingerprinting has been used to exonerate and well as to convict and it has succeeded in difficult cases where all other methods have failed.

In this document, we describe how, by combining brain fingerprinting technology with iris identification, we can construct a system that combines high security with convenience. It is a system that cannot be fooled, can probe more areas than a typical manual screen, and is dramatically more convenient and more accurate than manual security questioning. The system described here is much more than just a high-tech, more effective version of the security questions that they ask on El Al flights. In addition, it also provides instant positive authentication at very low cost virtually anywhere in the country. So you get the benefits of an in-depth security screen everywhere in the country without cost or inconvenience.

In our system, you are given a 10 minute computerized security screen only once every few years (and when necessary if a new threat is identified), to determine your "security risk profile." This can be done on the day of travel or anytime in advance, at your convenience. Once your data (your iris data, name (optional), and brain fingerprint security screen test results) are entered into a federal databank, it is inexpensive and quick (under 1 second) to authenticate you at airports, sports arenas, public buildings, etc. In fact, only an Internet connection (which could be wireless) is required for authentication. Where iris scans are cost prohibitive, an ID card used in conjunction with a biometric sensor (such as fingerprints, hand geometry, etc) can be used to achieve nearly equivalent speed, convenience, accuracy, and confidence. Depending on your risk profile and the current entry policy of the place you want to enter, you may or may not be allowed access.

The system does not violate anyone's civil liberties. Unlike a human screener, it cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc. It is not a psychological profile. The computer cannot determine how you feel about anything. It is best equated to an automated version of the Yes/No security screening questions we have today. Essentially, it is nothing more than a sequence of "Have you seen this item before?" questions. Each test is randomly selected but you may review the types of questions in advance and you may choose to halt the test at any time. Your answers cannot be used to incriminate you.

The association of iris data and your name is strictly optional and at your discretion (unless you have been arrested). You may choose to be tested totally anonymously without having to produce any ID whatsoever. So this is actually more protective of your privacy than many of the existing security screens that we accept today.

In order to account for possible negative public perception caused by a lack of understanding of how the system works, the system should be phased in over at least a year, and a manual screening option should be available during this public phase-in acceptance period. Since all the terrorists in the 9/11 attack arrived from outside the country, we could first require its use on all people seeking entrance into the US from outside the country (regardless of whether they are US citizens or not). The President and members of Congress should also be screened before it is required of the general public. However, for maximum effectiveness, the system should be adopted at all airports world-wide so that we can restrict the movement of terrorists without restricting the movement of the public at large.

Other benefits accrue from this system as well. Iris scanners are already installed and in use today at select airports and sports arenas. By requiring their use at these places, the FBI can not only keep terrorists from entering, but can capture a suspect for arrest or questioning. An iris scanner can tell the operator to have security hold a suspect that the FBI has tagged in the iris database. Alternatively, the FBI can just use this information to track the movements of suspects without arousing suspicion. All of this is impossible to do today. A national iris databank can also be used for many positive things such as uniting parents with children.

It is critical that the US government provide the funds to commercialize the use of brain fingerprinting to identify terrorists, because it is the most cost effective way to combat terrorism in the US. However, without leadership from the FAA to require the use of this system at US airports, this technology will not be commercially developed on its own for this particular use.

Unlike most other approaches, the approach described here provides a potent weapon on the war against terrorism while actually increasing customer convenience and enhancing security against a wide range of attacks making it at least 1,000 times more difficult for a terrorist to escape detection . At worst it adds only 1 second per authenticated entry and typically only 10 minutes for a re-screening once every few years.

All the underlying technology necessary to implement the system described in this document exists today; it just needs to be packaged for this new application and installed in airports. In less than 90 days from receipt of a request from the FAA, FBI, or Department of Transportation, we can prove the concept is effective at identifying terrorists with over 90% certainty for $100K (99.9% confidence is possible but will take more than 90 days). We can construct a prototype "airport scenario" (construction of security screening booths, creation of all security checkpoint types, and creation of software needed to run a large airport) for less than $50M in less than 24 months. All the technology is off-the-shelf and it's just a packaging, programming, and system integration problem. By capitalizing on new technologies, a system using the approach described here could be put in place at all airports in the US in less than 4 years at a total one-time capital equipment cost of under $1B, the majority of which can be funded by private industry (the federal government would set the standards and certify the manufacturers and periodically test and certify the machines themselves).

Once the system is in place, the cost to install additional authentication security checkpoints can be as low as $300 per station. Since the system does not require labor beyond the personnel who are already manning security checkpoints, check-in desks and boarding gates, and because Internet connectivity is so inexpensive ($1K per month for a high traffic airport), the system described here does not appreciably increase annual operating costs to run an airport.

This system isn't perfect. It might allow 1 terrorist in 100 through. Is there any other system that can determine an exact count of the number of terrorists on a plane? Brain fingerprinting may sound silly, but consider the alternative. Our next attack could be far worse. How many more people will lose their lives before we take action? A million?

Is there a better alternative for protecting innocent lives?

Introduction...

Suppose you are in charge of security at the Super Bowl.

You've just received a call from the FBI that US intelligence has determined that 10 terrorist members of al Qaeda are among the 50,000 people who will be going into the stadium on game day.

Your job is to keep only those 10 people from entering the stadium while letting everyone else in.

You must make a determination on each person in 1 second in order to accommodate and seat the crowd in time.

How do you do it with 100% accuracy?

Surprisingly, this seemingly impossible task can be done! And it can be done even if we don't know the exact number of terrorists and if we don't even know what organization they are from! In fact, it can be done without a call from the FBI at all! This document explains the basic concepts of the approach and in the Appendix is the detailed answer for this particular case. Of course, many other scenarios are possible. This is only a very simple example of how the technology can be applied in all sorts of situations where we have no advance warning of a threat, but just want to make sure that we can exclude terrorists from admission.

The problem is bigger than just airport security

Our war is on terrorism. But we can't guard every vulnerability against terrorists. That's too expensive, too impractical, and too inconvenient. Despite all our high tech gizmos and security personnel, we can't even guard a single airport effectively. For example, there was not a single airport in the country that the special FAA "red team" (featured on 9/16/2001 on 60 Minutes) couldn't easily penetrate.In addition, they were able to sneak a typical terrorist weapon (a modular bomb unit) past security in 60 tests (they were stopped once, but talked their way out of it). So we inconvenience everyone while the terrorist waltzes right on through with a common bomb. Not only that, but we're making it even easier for a terrorist to control a cabin by completely "disarming" the passengers; we're removing any "weapons" that passengers could use to retaliate against terrorists!

Even if our airport security was 100% perfect, it could not defend against a terrorist who could rent a small plane, land at a secret location, load up the plane with explosives, approach a major airport, and then at the last minute on the final approach, swerve into a parked jetliner loaded with fuel, and blow up an entire terminal.

We can incur a major expense guarding against a 9/11 style attack, only to find that while we were diverting resources and attention to one security hole, the terrorists just exploited another. A trained hijacker can slit your throat with a credit card. We can never close even a small fraction of the holes without severely impacting the freedom of all honest people and without severely impacting our economy.

We need a system that, at a minimum, would have thwarted the 9/11 attack

Unlike most systems, the system described in this paper, if it had been in place in September, would have likely thwarted the 9/11 attack. It would also have likely thwarted the more difficult to defend against scenario described above. And it would thwart any attempts to repeat the 9/11 attack. It does so very simply: it identifies anyone with terrorist training and prohibits them from boarding, renting, or buying an aircraft or receiving flight instruction.

Of course, no single technique is perfect. But the cost effectiveness of the technique described here dwarfs all other approaches because it is both low cost, minimally disruptive (it would add a second to the ritual you currently have to go through when you check in and in many ways it will be more convenient), and is applicable to a wide variety of threats, making it at least 1,000 times more difficult for a terrorist to succeed in most cases (a typical brain fingerprint is 99.9% accurate in each area probed).

The approach we take is to use high technology to identify which people are "security risks"

Fighting terrorists by trying to secure each possible threat is a losing battle. It's a lot like trying to get rid of ants in your home by sealing up all the cracks. You'll never succeed. However, the same technique that is the most effective in eradicating ants in your home can be used to eradicate the threat of terrorism in the US.

In general, the most cost effective way to combat terrorism is to do three things:

1. Deny entrance to our country to people with a high security risk profile

2. Determine which foreign nationals currently in the US have an unacceptably high security risk profile (e.g., members of al Qaeda) and expel them

3. Determine which US citizens have a high "security risk profile" and, if they are unable to lower their risk profile using one of the methods described below, restrict their privileges based on their risk profile (e.g., we might only allow air passengers who are trained to fly a commercial jet if there are no other "risky" profiles on the same flight; and we might deny flight training, airplane rental or purchase, to anyone with a "risky" profile or we might require the presence of a sufficient number of air marshals to counter the risk profile of a given flight).

"Security risk profile" is just a fancy term for the results of a security screen that El Al puts all their passengers through and that we should be putting all our passengers through.

Unfortunately, currently deployed methods for determining whether someone is likely to be a terrorist are ineffective and expensive. It would require an army of trained interrogators, would be subject to human error on the part of the examiner, could be fooled by a well trained terrorist, would be very expensive, would not work well on people who do not speak the language of the interrogator, and would be a major passenger inconvenience. So we like the benefit, but we just can't afford the cost.In addition, the Bush administration wants federal agents to be able to detain immigrants indefinitely if they are suspected of "lending support" to terrorist organizations but critics say the standard is disturbingly vague. Our system addresses all of these problems.

The system described here is much more than a highly automated and incredibly more accurate version of the "manual security" screen that El Al does. Unlike the El Al procedure, it can be done in a fraction of the time and expense of the manual procedure. It has all the benefits we need and more: it cannot be fooled, it can test all known terrorist risk items accurately, it does not get fatigued, it does not require human interpretation, intervention or monitoring. All this is available to us at a price far less than the costs we are now paying to provide today's (minimal) security. And because it's objective and quantitative (rather than just qualitative), the federal government can set a specific number in legislation and remove the ambiguity we just described, e.g., we can detain indefinitely any immigrant who scores 90% or better on 2 or more terrorist risk factors. Furthermore, the security profile can be easily shared to enable authentication at other sensitive locations at minimal cost with very high accuracy.

Brain fingerprinting is the only technology available today capableof accurately screening people against known terrorist risk factorsWe can apply a technique known as "brain fingerprinting" that has already proven by the FBI to be 100% accurate in related applications to our new application: determining the "security risk profile" of any person in the country. That doesn't require a large leap of faith since a terrorist is part "agent" and part "murderer" and brain fingerprinting has already proven effective at detecting both areas (distinguishing FBI agents from non-agents and murders from innocent people). The inventor of brain fingerprinting, former Harvard Medical School faculty member Dr. Lawrence Farwell, has verified that we can screen a person against "known terrorist threats" in as little as 10 minutes using this technique. Of course, the 10 minute screen would be a fairly basic level screen to uncover any obvious "risk factors" such as knowledge of certain basic terrorist techniques. Depending on the public tolerance for such screening, the length of the screen can adjusted in either direction, although 10 minutes is probably the minimum.

How it works

The key elements of our terrorist risk identification system are:

Once every few years, each person who wishes to travel puts on a headset and watches video images for 10 minutes. This action allows us to establish a "security risk profile" and tie that profile to his iris data. We also scan other biometric data for use in authentication at gates and ticket counters. Optionally an ID card is produced by the system to aid in identification. There are banks of these machines set up in airports, just like telephone booths. They can be used at any time to enroll people (not just day of flight). A single enrollment is like a driver's license; it is good for several years. However, in the event of a new threat, you must come back to the machine and get an "incremental scan" to update your risk profile to cover the latest threat (it may be required immediately or there may be a grace period, depending on the urgency of the new threat).
On each trip, a person presents his ID number so that the agent (ticket counter, gate, etc.) can do a human "facial recognition" against the data stored in the federal computer. Or, more likely, a person scans his ID card in a magnetic scanner, presents the requested biometric data (e.g., hand geometry), and if they match, he's the person who he claims to be.
The main security gate at the airport (where the metal detectors are now) is augmented with an iris scan device. A traveler glances into the unit and in less than 1 second, the unit scans his iris and looks up his security risk profile in the federal database. If the government determines that his profile is allowed to fly, he is granted access to the terminal and his biometric data is enabled to board a plane (assuming the airline has also enabled him for that flight). The government may also determine that for this risk profile, rather than denying boarding altogether, that a special manual screen or special restrictions is required for this person to fly (e.g., no carry on permitted, etc.).
The airlines may also determine that there are too many risky profiles on a given flight and be allowed to either a) bump the passenger or b) require one or more air marshals to be on board. Hence, we can just adjust our defensive arsenal to match the security risk profile of the passenger base on each flight. So we might have no air marshals if everyone has a clean profile (which is the normal case).
By optionally adding smart cards, public key encryption technology and/or time-varying passwords, we can ensure that individuals control who can access their security risk profile. Or we can be fairly low tech with a system like PIN codes do now on ATM machines in order to release our data for a comparison. Furthermore, we can set up the system so that rather than an airport "reading" your entire security profile from the government, we can just allow them to present their security profile and ask the federal computer whether you "pass" or not. In that way, your specific profile information is never released to the airport. You have only authorized the airport to compare their security standards to your profile. This minimizes privacy concerns since only a "go/no go" information is released by the government to the airport, and only with your consent. For iris scans, your "permission" to release data is implicitly granted since you stared into the camera which is your implicit granting of consent to retrieve your record. For other biometric data, the your insertion of your ID card into a reader could constitute your consent for one release of your data from the national database; to do this right would require a smart chip and public key encryption, a might add a few seconds to the process. Entering a PIN code would make it even more secure but is probably overkill in this case (there would be no value to anyone of this information).
Since your photo and biometric data was entered into the federal computer, you can be authenticated anywhere in the world where there is Internet access (wired or wireless). If the agent doing the verification has an iris scanner, he'd authenticate you in 1 second. If the agent has a biometric scanner, he'd ask you for your ID card (or number if you forgot your card) and ask you to present the biometric data requested by his scanner, e.g., your palm. Or he could simply ask for your ID number and verify that the picture in the computer matches your face. The possibilities are endless. A $300 wireless PalmPilot could be used for this authentication for example. Biometric sensors cost as little as $60. This makes it possible to do authentication virtually everywhere at low cost. Again, if privacy is a concern, presence of the card or your iris data could be required to perform the lookup.
Lastly, for odd cases where the system mistakenly classifies you as a terrorist (e.g., you are an FBI agent specializing in terrorism), there is a way to have your profile reset correctly (see below for details).
The above is one possible configuration. Many other configurations and designs are possible.
Detailed information on this design is covered in the Appendix of this document.

Key benefits

Here are some key benefits relative to the alternatives (manual security questioning like El Al):

It's more secure because 100% of passengers on the plane are screened by a machine and 100% were biometrically screened before boarding. It's also more secure since any currently known intelligence risks can be factored into who gets to board the plane and the number of sky marshals on the plane can be adjusted to the risk level of the plane. Lastly, it's much more secure since the computerized security screening is much more accurate than a human asking the same questions: the computer simply cannot be fooled. We'd never catch a terrorist with manual screening or by trying to detect the objects they are carrying. A terrorist's most dangerous weapon is what's in his head and this system disarms that.
It's more accurate because everything is done by machine. There is no possibility of human error. The machines are self-testing as well as periodically inspected by federal agents. Any tampering would be detected by the machine and would place the machine offline until a federal agent could re-certify it (including check-summing the code, etc.)
It's more convenient because it adds only 1 second to the air travel process and the 10 minute security screen was done only once every few years. Most people will be in the no-risk category, they can enter through the minimum security entrance, while others might have to enter through a high security entrance (e.g., having their items hand searched, being prohibited carry-ons, or being denied boarding altogether if the appropriate number of sky marshals are unavailable). The passenger can be "checked in" at the gate with an inexpensive biometric sensor so long lines should be a thing of the past. And there is no more problem with "I forgot my ID" or "I lost my ticket" because everything is tied to your biometrics. Lastly, those "arrive at the airport 3 hours early to check-in" can be avoided since most passengers will be pre-screened (they can do the 10 minute pre-screen at any time it's convenient).
It's less expensive because if everyone on the plane is a no-risk, there is no need for a sky marshal. Also, we'd save the huge cost of training people to do security screening questions (assuming we were to implement an El Al-style security screening policy in which each passenger is individually interrogated). We'd get the equivalent benefit of a 10 hour FBI grilling with a lie detector on every passenger for a fraction of the inconvenience and expense. The total system cost for everything is less than $1B, much of which can be privately financed. Authentication stations can be set up anywhere at low-cost. Using a wireless PalmPilot, an agent could key in your ID number, bring up your photo and perform an authentication by looking at you. In this case, it's done without any biometric sensor at all. All that is required is an Internet connection. The biometrics are purely optional for additional speed and accuracy (less likely to make a mistake than a person doing a visual match).
It's less intrusive because you don't have to answer any security questions. You just put on a cap and watch TV for 10 minutes. The profiling is just a yes/no profile of certain knowledge you have. It is not a psychological profile and the data gathered cannot be used for psychological profiling (see more information below).
It's more private because you can control who accesses your data and your data is not released to anyone. You just permit your knowledge area to be judged against the profile of the place you wish to enter. You get to choose whether or not you want to associate your security screening with your name, i.e., you can take the test anonymously without providing any identification. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, the police and FBI will be allowed to associate a name with your profile (which is not much different than the fingerprinting they do now when you are arrested). There are certain benefits to voluntarily associating your name with a profile; for example, at airport check-in, you wouldn't need to present ID anymore; you wouldn't need to carry any ID or even remember your ID number. But the tradeoff of convenience vs. privacy is totally under your control. If you don't trust the government, don't provide your name when you take the test.
It's publicly acceptable because the alternative, a 1 hour manual security screening with an FBI agent with a 2 hour wait is a lot less palatable than watching TV for 10 minutes, especially if the public has been educated that it is nothing more than a sequence of "Have you seen this item before?" questions. Over time, it will become second nature. The public should love it because most people are legal and would want to be protected against threats. There is simply no downside to this testing if you are not a terrorist. You know exactly what questions are being asked because they are shown to you on the screen. If you don't want to answer, you can remove the headband. You'd want the government to do this for your own protection.
It could increase your freedom. Today, you cannot carry a pocket knife on a plane. You can't even carry nail clippers. Even the pilot isn't trusted with a nail clipper (funny, we let him fly the plane, but we don't trust him with a nail clipper, isn't is?). Once the FAA is satisfied that the security screen works, if you have a "no risk" profile (as most of us will have), we can let you carry the items you used to be able to carry before 9/11. So your freedoms just got expanded in return for answering a few questions.
It's more fair because unlike a human screener, the computer is completely blind to race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc. The test is completely objective. There is no human intervention or interpretation. It is not a psychological profile. The computer cannot determine how you feel about anything. It is best equated to an automated version of the Yes/No security screening questions we have today. Essentially, it is nothing more than a sequence of "Have you seen this item before?" questions. You may review the questions in advance and you may choose to halt the test at any time. Your answers cannot be used to incriminate you.
It would have prevented 9/11 and future 9/11 style incidents. We knew about bin Laden before the attacks. Had the system been in place, we could have done a security screen for bin Laden and not allowed more than one bin Laden knowledgeable person on any flight. Today, we can prohibit anyone from flying who has any inside knowledge of al Qaeda and specialized terrorist knowledge.
It aids law enforcement by allowing us to easily capture anyone we want to talk with or arrest, i.e., it creates a convenient and precise dragnet for capturing criminals. Suppose the FBI wants to contact someone for questioning. Or has found a suspect and wants to arrest them. Or maybe they want to just monitor their movements. Or maybe they have determined that that person should no longer be allowed to fly or be admitted to sporting events. This system allows the FBI to do all of this at any place where any biometric information is used for authentication. Immigration authorities can use the system to instantly ID whether an individual is a legal immigrant or not. If all citizens are entered into the database at birth, proof of US citizenship is no longer subject to fraud. While civil liberties advocates would argue that this particular application of the system could be abused by the government, the facts are quite the opposite since the effectiveness of the system depends upon the cooperation of the organizations with the scanners, e.g., the ballpark attendant could just ignore the signal to detain a person. So as long as our society feels that the balance should be in favor of protecting millions of lives, this will be an acceptable tradeoff. The system still leaves us in control, not the government.
Expanding the use of iris identification can accomplish good things for good people. The federal iris databank can be used for positive deeds as well as stamping out terrorism. We could iris scan all infants and parents at birth making abandoned babies a thing of the past. We could find out of Chandra Levy really did take a train or a plane from Washington before she vanished (saving a huge amount of police time spent searching Washington DC). We could use it to unite children with parents.
It makes it easier for you to buy tickets to anything. You can buy tickets to an event at the sports arena over the phone or over the Internet using your ID number. There is nothing to mail and no ticket to lose. You then just show up at the "FastPass admission gate," glance into the lens (or present a biometric associated with your ID) and you're in (it might then print a ticket for you to show you your seat). Super convenient and super secure.
It's extraordinarily difficult for a terrorist organization to "train around" the test to avoid it. If the test was static, a terrorist group could avoid detection by ensuring that all of its members had no knowledge of what was on the test, e.g., if composite weapons were on the test, the terrorists would just avoid that and teach automatic weapons or bombs. However, because the content of the video is set by the federal government and because the specific test given to a person is randomly selected from a huge list of authorized images, it's impossible for terrorists to "train around" the test because it keeps changing and is random and different for each person. In addition, the test can be adaptive, drilling down in an area that looks questionable. This is exactly like the El Al security questions (which start general and drill down randomly into an area). So in order to avoid detection, a terrorist group would have to avoid teaching any terrorist techniques. And without any training or knowledge, they won't be very effective.
It will rarely keep even borderline people from flying if they are truly innocent. At first, we may end up giving a high risk profile to people who don't really deserve it, e.g., an FBI agent or SEAL might know many of the same techniques as a terrorist as well as knowledge of specific terrorist groups, e.g., training camps, the al Queda motto, the leadership of al Queda. In these cases, where there might be ambiguity on the standard screen and where the programmed secondary screen still fails, these people can go through special screening terminals at the airport that would provide a different and extensive test so that their profiles would reflect their unique circumstances and backgrounds. The same would be true of former FBI agents, etc. Still there may be a few cases where people are given "unfair" security profiles. In this case, they can be scanned using special programs under selection by specializts. Another available alternative is that the airline just adjusts the number of sky marshals that they place on the plane to over power the security risk profile of the plane. In this way, we minimize the inconvenience of otherwise innocent travelers while only incurring additional expense when absolutely necessary.
It's adaptable to new threats. As new threats are discovered, we can modify our screening thresholds and/or require people to "re-certify" on the incremental material. Depending on the severity of the threat, the re-certification can be required immediately, or within a 2 month grace window. So any threat, of any level of urgency can be accommodated using the existing testing infrastructure.
The timing is good. It will take a couple of years to put all the pieces in place so that this can be installed in airports. The government has a wide window in which to "time" the announcement to the public. In addition, a gradual phase-in period or "test period" at a single airport will help tremendously. Making travel more convenient with the new technology should be a major selling point to the public.
It doesn't have to work perfectly...in fact, may not have to work at all! Deterrence is based on perception, not reality. It has only to work well enough to discourage any terrorist from trying to take the test and be identified. So if the technology doesn't even work at all initially, but there are "changes" being made "daily" to improve the system, then how many trained individuals will a terrorist sacrifice to probe the efficacy of the system? If they get caught a few times, they will decide to go elsewhere.
Important Note: Instead of just fingerprinting and photographing people who are arrested, the FBI and local police should also start iris scan them for rapid identification at airports, etc. Anyone entering the country or traveling by air would also be entered.

Is this a perfect solution?

Of course, no single technique will solve the problem. For example, this technique does not work on blind terrorists who would need to be screened using other techniques (typically verbal interrogation) or exempted entirely from the system. We would want to exempt children from the system (if that creates a loophole that the terrorists try to exploit, we can lower the threshold as indicated by our intelligence gathering). We'd also want to make sure to provide all other countries this technology and training, especially our nearest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Lastly, a typical brain fingerprint is only 99.9% confidence, so 1 out of 1000 terrorists might fool the system. Still, catching 999 out of 1,000 terrorists is way better than catching 1 out of 1,000.

What happens if it makes a mistake?

Is it possible for us to incorrectly identify someone as a terrorist who is not? Yes, it's possible. But the worst that can happen is that he's denied boarding until the problem can be straightened out by a federal agent at the airport. Not much different that how we handle "exception cases" today. And the more likely scenario is just that we increase security on the flight to match the perceived threat. So that even if the system makes a mistake, passengers are not inconvenienced. Is it possible for a terrorist to slip through? Yes, but we've made it several orders of magnitude harder.

The other factor is that if an error is made, it is done during the enrollment process which is normally done at a time convenient for the passenger. So if there is a problem with the scan, there is plenty of time to correct it...there is no flight to miss.

In summary, based on virtually any reasonable mix of criteria for deciding on a solution, this technique wins hands down: price, performance, accuracy, speed of deployment, effectiveness, minimum honest passenger hassle, privacy, etc.

Is this George Orwell's "Big Brother"? A violation of civil liberties? Mind control? Nazi thought police?

Once we get over the weirdness factor and look at this logically and scientifically, this is really not that much different than taking the SAT. We were profiled about our knowledge (or lack thereof!) on verbal and math areas, we willingly submitted our test data only to the colleges we wanted to enter, and the colleges themselves determined what their cutoff profile was each year. We knew what was on the SAT test and we could stop taking the test at any time if we thought any of the SAT questions were getting too personal. We're doing exactly the same thing here for air travel by probing, with yes/no questions, familiarity with techniques used by terrorists. You have all the same options you did when taking the SAT (quit at any time and advance knowledge of the questions). About the only difference is that you used a Number 2 pencil when you took the SAT, whereas in the 21st century, we can now bypass that step by recording your responses directly from your brain which saves your time (and eliminates mistakes). So in reality, it's your mind controlling the equipment instructing it what answers to record on your behalf.

The questions we ask (by computer) are objective questions, probing whether the individual has specific knowledge in the area being tested (in this case, knowledge of terrorism techniques). It is nothing more than a sequence of "Have you seen this before?" questions. That means, for example, that:

If you don't want to answer the question, you can simply press a button or remove the headband at any time you see a question you judge is too personal. So there is no risk that this data can be used for psychological profiling. We don't even know who you are since your name is not required. If you don't like the questions, you can press a button to halt the exam. You can even review all the material before putting on the headset. If you don't like the questions, don't take the exam. There is no possibility of "mind control" because the sensors used are passive EEG sensors that have been in use in the medical community for decades. In fact, your cell phone has far more potential to control your mind than this device does. It's really the opposite here... it's your mind controlling the equipment.

Some people may object that donning a device with brain-wave sensors is a personal privacy violation since they might fear it can be used by the government to probe things other than the "security questions" claimed by the government. It's important to accommodate these objections by explaining how the system works and during the initial year of implementation (until the general public is comfortable with the procedure) by offering an alternative: you can wait in line to be screened by a professional screener. If you opt out of the computerized testing, you will still be iris screened (this is equivalent to taking your picture). The personal security screen will be similar to that done by El Al and take 30 minutes or more but you may have to wait 2 hours before you are seen. Given the choice, most honest people will use the machine, especially as we educate the public that it's basically a fast way to take a Yes/No test of about 30 questions and that their test scores will not be released but only used as a comparison against the airline's profile for the flight.

Can't the government abuse this system?

No. To protect people's privacy, we can let each individual choose whether or not to associate your security profile with your name. If you choose to remain anonymous, the system still works just fine (you'll just lose a few conveniences like airport check-in without having to remember your ID). So unless you were arrested or you actively chose to make the connection with an identity, nobody can lookup your security information without your explicit consent (which you explicitly are giving when you agree to look into the iris scanner lens). The government is interested in protecting the lives of its citizens. Individual profiles don't matter. All that matters is that we don't let anyone with a terrorist profile on the plane. We don't have to know who they are. We just need to disallow them from boarding.

So in fact, using this system protects your privacy more than all current screening methods! The reason is that the security officer looks at your photoID (or ticket) and asks you questions. He's associated a name with your information. In contrast, the system described here can work without the association. It can be 100% effective without your entering a name into the system at all. It will just keep anyone with a terrorist profile from boarding a plane. It need not have any knowledge of a name. The only exception is that if you are arrested, local law enforcement and the government will have the right to associate your name with your iris data, in much the same way they currently have a right to associate your name with your fingerprint data.

Conclusion

The prime directive of any government worthy of the name is the physical protection of its citizens. To this end, government is obligated to develop and implement any and all measures that ensure safety from all internal and external threats. This system accomplishes that while simultaneously protecting privacy and increasing convenience.

Whatever our government decides the tradeoff should be between cost, accuracy, and convenience, we can design a system to meet those parameters using the basic system design outlined above. The advantage of our system is that it both increases security and increases passenger convenience at the same time (only the terrorists are inconvenienced). The system can be programmed as we learn about additional terrorist threats, so it is adaptive to our latest intelligence. If our intelligence indicates a certain operation is imminent, we can deny or restrict access of those with a high risk profile that matches the threat rather than doing complete shutdowns as we do now. While this is the most most cost-effective way to combat a wide range of future terrorist threats, like any other system, it is not 100% foolproof. It is, however, a giant step in the right direction because it makes it at a minimum 1,000 times harder (and more typically over a billion times harder as shown in the Appendix)for a terrorist to operate undetected.

We knew about bin Laden and his threats to do something really big for months before the disaster; we could have used this technique to identify people with an association with bin Laden and prohibited more than two people with the association to be on the same plane. After the fact, we can do screens for al Qaeda network members, people with commercial jet piloting expertise, people with knowledge of composite weapons, etc. so we can do an even more thorough job of preventing a 9/11 attack. There is no other technology alone or in combination that could have prevented the 9/11 attack or prevent its reoccurrence using exactly the same modis operandi.

A pilot demonstration showing how well the system can discriminate between terrorists and normal passengers can be assembled for less than $100K and accomplished in less than 3 months. We can then compare the results the machine can accomplish in 10 minutes to a 10-minute interrogation by a trained FBI agent to see which system performs better. A prototype of a fully automated booth for doing automated passenger screening could be built by a variety of defense contractors for well under $10M. A whole "prototype airport system" (iris scanners, biometric sensors, passenger security screening booth, federal database software, etc.) could be put together for well under $50M or less (many participating companies may even donate their services) in about 12 months time. What specific additional information do we need to allocate the funds?

Brain fingerprinting may sound weird to people at first, especially before the science is explained to them. However, we must consider the ramifications of not pursuing this option. The computerized security screening described here may save thousands or potentially millions of American lives. It may save your own life. Is a little weirdness too high a price to pay for that benefit?

Detractors might argue that this system isn't perfect, but perfection is not the issue. The issue is, if you don't like this system, then what system do you propose that can identify terrorists more accurately than the system described here? Is there a better system for determining an exact count of how many terrorists we are putting on each plane? Why not do an objective test? Implement this system (total cost $100K; ready in 90 days) and the next best alternative and see which system performs better. What's to lose? How many more Americans must die before we take action?

The decision of whether or not to deploy this system in practice does not need to be made now. In fact, in a couple of years from now, there may be so many terrorist incidents that the public may demand such a system. But in order to have that option, we must decide today whether we want to have that choice. Why not give ourselves the option? It will cost us less than $50M over the next 2 years and has the potential to save millions of American lives and millions of American jobs. Is that too high a price to pay?

The most recent version of this document can be found here.

Appendix

See Appendix- Identifying terrorists before they strike, which contains additional information including:

The answer to how to solve the Super Bowl scenario posed at the beginning of this document
System configuration details (many configurations are possible)
Why this isn't a violation of civil liberties
Why this isn't psychological profiling
Cost estimates for prototypes and deployment for each system component
Brain fingerprinting advantages
Why in the typical case, this will make it a billion times harder for a terrorist to escape detection
Iris scan advantages (and why the iris is the ideal biometric identifier)
Details on how brain fingerprinting would work in this situation (beyond the info on Farwell's site)
Why the FBI isn't pursuing this now (and why the leadership of the FBI or FAA must be involved for this to go anywhere)
The potential for additional technological breakthroughs in brain fingerprinting
A much shorter write-up of this concept may also be found here; however, this article contains a number of things I don't agree with such as requiring it of foreigners but not our own citizens; that won't work because a) terrorists can easily fake US passports and b) it's somewhat counter to American values of treating all people equally. Instead, if we phase it in, we'd do so by requiring it of anyone entering the country, US or foreign national, which is especially important due to reason (a).

Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

Subject reveals covert knowledge by brain responses to probe phrases

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/04/2001 7:00 PM by azidek@pacbell.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Steve's idea on implementing "brain fingerprinting" in conjunction with iris scanning at airports is a solution that I find remarkably compelling. I can't find any holes in the proposal. It is definately the best solution to stopping terrorists at any airport (or other major venue) that I've run across. It's less invasive, less time consuming, less costly, more accurate, and even a greater protector of civil liberties than what we have right now. If anyone can find a flaw in his plan please make it known, because this one sure looks like a winner. Tony Zidek


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/05/2001 7:15 AM by info@signal-to-noise.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Well yes i would agree on with this article. It sounds very solid and we should think about implementing such technologies. But as a non US citizen I must say that the way this article was written is very abnoxious. It reflects americas problems once again, the fact that americans beleive that they are indestructable. Why can america not accept that it must rethink its outerpolitical strategies. With antiterror systems, such as the one in this article, are really great, but doesnt america see where its heading. Total issolation from the rest of the world. Why can America not look to europe and see how people i.e.Germany have changed their political standpoints towards other parts of the world i.e. the Islam. Why is it not once and for all possible for america to try and understand the Islam and get together to strive for development, together, hand in hand with these people. These people are so frustrated because wherever America sticks its nose into, its only because american economic interests stand at threat, not because america is interested in the people who live in these regions. So surely these systems that are discussed here are really cutting edge antiterrorist technology, but does that really solve the problem. Lets all be really honest, if these terrorists carry on being frustrated because the US and NATO haven't learnt what the core problem is, then they will find their way around these technologies and strike even harder the next time.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/05/2001 10:14 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>These people are so frustrated because wherever America sticks its nose into, its only because american economic interests stand at threat, not because america is interested in the people who live in these regions. Do you really think this is why the Afghanis are murdering thousands of other Afghanis on a daily basis and trying to kill people in Kashmir? Is this why Algerians periodically go on a killing sprees, gunning down other Algerians, and fanatics in Egypt wipe out whole villages of fellow Egyptians? Does anti-americanism account for the thousands of Chinese and Christians murdered in the streets of Indonesia from time to time or why the Christians of East Timor went to war to throw off the yoke of Muslim Indonesia? America is only one of many targets the muslim fanatics have their sights set on. They want to make the whole world into something like their own image, where they treat women as chattel and men rule the world. It's much bigger than just anger over America's indifference. It"s a group of people who think they can seize the world by killing anyone they think stands in their way. Being nice to these guys and trying to appease them is not going to work. They are filled with hate and that hate extends to all people who do not think as they do -- and even some who do. In Afghanistan, the people in the northern territories have the same basic philosophy as the Taliban but justr don't carry it to such extremes. Women there can still be beaten by their husbands for the slightest excuse. A man without a gun there is walking around naked to his enemies. Tribes have no loyalty to anyone but the tribe and can change sides at the drop of a whip. Their top priority is to drag Afghan civilization back to the 12th century and rid the world of things like science, poetry, music and equality. We know this because in the areas they control, that is what they have done. Afghans who have fled to Pakistan and elsewhere will attest to it. Pakistanis runs schools in their mosques that teach hatred of all nonmuslims. These schools have spread from one end of Islam to the other. You can find them from the Philippines to the Atlantic coast of Africa. They don't just want to murder Americans -- though we are their target of choice at the moment -- they want to destroy all of modern civilization and they preach it in their pulpits. Not all muslims do this, mind you, but the ones who have declared war on us as well as on the Hindus, Chinese, Jews, and moderate muslims who advocate educating women and teaching people to read anything besides the Koran. If you think you can make these guys like us by just being nice to them, you don't understand what is going on. They have no qualms about biting the hand that holds out the olive branch. And they'll smile as they take it off up to the elbow. They have demonstrated this again and again. If you can't see it, you're just not looking. Newspapers the world over are filled with stories about their atrocities. Not just American newspapers, but also those in Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America. It's all there on the internet. All you have to do is browse around to see for yourself.


	A view from the Far East posted on 10/05/2001 10:43 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Clipped from The Far East Economic Review EDITORIALS Sometimes You Must Go to War Anti-war demonstrators are wrong, there is such a thing as a just war AS AMERICA and its allies prepare to strike against terrorists and their sponsors, an anti-war movement has reared its head. Against this, Britain's Tony Blair rightly warned of a creeping "moral ambiguity" about the September 11 attacks. Certainly, no one wants war, and there are real concerns about civilian casualties from such an action. But the anti-war lobby is still wrong. What anti-war groups--past, present and probably in the future--fail to understand is that there is such a thing as a "just war." Democracies are not in the habit of starting wars. They are pulled into conflicts to protect and preserve a way of life that most people consider the preferred custom. Refugees flow from regimes such as Cuba to democracies of whatever shade, not the other way around. When democracies are forced into war, it is in defence of political virtue. And that makes it a just war from the perspective of democrats. No doubt dismal economic conditions can foster resentment toward outsiders. The Treaty of Versailles and the crippling inflation of the Weimar period both underpinned mistaken support for National Socialism's agenda. Yet when Hitler invaded Poland, surely no one would have suggested that Chamberlain should have offered him Scotland. It is curious, also, that those who rail against war often are the same ones who decry the "imperialistic capitalism" of investments into poor nations, when these actually undercut the social inequalities that breed resentment against richer nations. And as far as interceding in the domestic politics of nations is concerned, the world is too big to run as a welfare state. No nation, however large, can be held responsible for every inequality that exists; it may intercede in some countries, but only on the basis of its own or its allies' strategic interests--not on morality alone. The solution to all lies in each nation's responsibility to embrace economic freedom. The New Age disinclination toward retaliation against the wicked leads to suggestions that terrorists should instead be tried in international courts, the implicit argument being that this would deter future terror goons. But people willing to commit suicide-murders are hardly ones to be deterred by law. And as for "law," the problem also is that there is no proper statutory, court-based "international law" that the anti-war lobby imagines exists--because there is, thankfully, not yet a world sovereignty. Yet it is also what comes closest to world government, the United Nations, that often hinders justice in the absolute sense. The UN places "peace" as its greatest goal, never mind that in simply negotiating peace between warring factions (when it succeeds) it often leaves justice unresolved--the wicked are only restrained from wickedness, the faction in the right still not fully served. Indeed, the mistake of the past 50 years is in believing "nonviolence" to be synonymous with "justice," and the failure to appreciate that sometimes an overarching pursuit of peace at any price leaves justice a victim. Sometimes you must go to war for justice. To our friends who rightly abhor unnecessary violence, we'd suggest that when war is declared on all, you can't say, "Pass, thank you. Maybe next time." The point is to prevent "next time."


	Re: A view from the Far Right posted on 11/11/2005 4:21 PM by pilgrim	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
"AS AMERICA and its allies prepare to strike against terrorists and their sponsors" Who? They planned this War of Aggression for Profit since before Bush was installed to the WH. "Against this, Britain's Tony Blair rightly warned" That Saddam could hit the UK with nhis vast stockpiles of nukes within 45 minutes ... Leaked documents show that this was in order to feign justification for a war they knew full well to be illegal. "What anti-war groups--past, present and probably in the future--fail to understand is that there is such a thing as a "just war." And then there is just War, which is what we have in this case. War of Aggression, which is what International Law was expressly created to prevent. "Democracies are not in the habit of starting wars." Indeed, but I don't see a lot of democracies in existence these days. The countries you're referring to are always starting wars - only they're most often referred to as "police actions", or something equally benign, or they're not reported on at all, because they haven't "offically" taken place. Like the Black Ops currently being run into Iran from the neighbouring 'Stans, and into Syria from Iraq. I guess these whack-jobs had to do something with the BILLIONS they plundered from Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. "No nation, however large, can be held responsible for every inequality that exists" No, but when that nation flourishes by exploiting, encouraging, deepening, or causing that "inequality", then it is fully responsible for its actions. "The New Age disinclination toward retaliation against the wicked leads to suggestions that terrorists should instead be tried in international courts" And what of the much more Wicked in the State Terror this authour ignores outright? "But people willing to commit suicide-murders are hardly ones to be deterred by law." Nor are those who ignore and violate the Law, in order to rain death on the innocent by the hundreds of thousands. "because there is, thankfully, not yet a world sovereignty." But there is International Laws, which were created by men with the Terror of World War fresh in mind, who wished to spare us the Madness we now find ourselves in. "Yet it is also what comes closest to world government, the United Nations, that often hinders justice in the absolute sense." But that has more to do with the hypocritical actions of the players involved, than with the Body itself. Check the US Veto record in the Security Council for more on this ... "To our friends who rightly abhor unnecessary violence, we'd suggest that when war is declared on all, you can't say, "Pass, thank you. Maybe next time." The point is to prevent "next time." You speak great words, but your focus leaves them empty. Unfortunately for us all. You cannot compare - as all Hard-Right commentators attempt to do - past actions we regard as "just" (which are questionable at best), with the premeditated Aggression of the LIARS and Fascists running the show right now.


	Re: A view from the Far Right posted on 11/11/2005 4:40 PM by aristotle	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Irony, a thread on identifying terrorists before they strike, and pilgrim shows up. I believe that the brain scan technology is a viable option for identifying terrorists. Any technology that increases accuracy and capability, of course, is a good idea.


	Re: A view from the Far Right posted on 11/13/2005 1:19 PM by pilgrim	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I think that applying the Test for Psychopathy (www.hare.com) before people run for office could help stop the terrorists before they're placed in a position to strike.


	Re: A view from the Far Right posted on 11/13/2005 5:09 PM by codesimian	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
that wont stop terrorists they can study for the test and pass it even if they dont believe the "correct" answers


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/08/2001 4:23 AM by info@signal-to-noise.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
<If you think you can make these guys like us by just being nice to them, you don't understand what is going on.> Very interesting views, but your quote is exactly the problem I and I think we as a western society should ponder on. Why do you want to make these people like us? This attitude seems so forcefull. We should really rethink this policy. Why can we not respect these people. Why can we not try to understand. The islam is so frustrated because the west has high economic interests and nothing more. Yes I agree, war is important sometimes but only if it helps the helpless in those countries and not because economic interests stand at threat. Lets hope we all find a peaceful way out of this mess!


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/08/2001 9:00 AM by jwayt	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
'make these guys like us' means to modify our behavior in a way that can be described as friendly, not a form of coercion as you seem to interpret it. Shall we become second among the nations of the world who contribute humanitarian aid to the Afghan people? What's a few hundred million dollars less? The Taliban are hardly going to make up the difference. Those who would make war with us have chosen an intractable position. We cannot and will not become isolationists. We do not wish to foist our lifestyle upon others, but we will not simply go away. Terrorists will never see us as friends.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution...there is one posted on 10/29/2001 9:01 AM by michaelw@archestral.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Historical discontinuities are only in the historian's mind'the world remembers. Remember the last time you saw on the label, "Made in Afghanistan"? What is Globalism? The Muslim or any part of the world for that matter does not hate us. They simply cannot compete with their belief systems and are incapable of adapting it to one that can co-exist in a modern social structure where competition chooses promotes choice from diversity and allows the consumer economic power and a wide latitude. Sept 11 is a reminder to refresh what is going on. Cultures, languages, toasters, cars, companions and beliefs are all in competition. Some users deliver irrespective of their belief system. However, many critical activities have outcomes that are highly dependent on knowledge of the underlying physical phenomenon and that seriously restricts non-believers from achieving their goals. The competitive Warfare practiced by some groups among us, have belief systems that are "faith" based, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs...they provide is a view into our past. 15th century people are in the car next to you at the stop light. The fact that they can drive cars and airplanes is not a differentiator between centuries. Containment is a part of every form of competition...nuclear reactors have containment, medical labs, offices, classrooms, squabbles between children'we have thresholds for allowing 'fair competition' to be acted out'our rules of law allow takeovers, bank buyouts, markets decimated, economic ecological niches vanish as a by product of consumer choice...free markets. Modern competition vs. Historical methods is not an abstraction. I cut my grass...I keep the insect population at a x10 ratio to people in my house, I tune my car's engine, I have a security system, I cancel stolen credit cards, sometimes I spend less than I make, I express love to my wife and children...I maintain a lifestyle. I actively contain areas that expose my life to real and potentially disruptive people and events. I have already had my life reset. It's bleak and time-consuming to recover it. If you express concern about law enforcement or military actions you demonstrate one of the highest aspirations of our modern culture...to make it possible for its citizens to specialize, be fearless, to take security for granted, unrestricted mobility, expressions of choice. To allow a specialist and cultural laws to take over the bulk responsibility of defending our homes and lives, rather than every man for themselves from their front door. If you understand that freedoms are a matter of constant containment and still object...you are declaring a future intent about transformation. There are countries that are in a state you are professing to find preferable today...but your here feeling disenfranchised...identifying with the attackers rather than the attacked. Old Competition: Iraq - Kuwait Iran - Iraq Remember why we created a Navy and how the marine song..."from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" got the lines included. Colonialisms history was to quell piracy in those countries by establishing a protective fort. Its a little more complicated than that but worth reading about.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 05/24/2002 1:06 AM by Citizen Blue	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Grant, I couldn't have said it better myself.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/08/2001 10:13 AM by jwayt	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The initial screening is based on the subject's differential reactions to familiar versus novel presentations of faces, weapons, etc. The technique is explained: 'For a guilty subject, the probes are noteworthy due to the subject's knowledge of that situation, and therefore probes elicit a MERMER when the subject is guilty (or "knowledgeable").' Its success depends on the person having no knowledge or memory of the 'probe' material. The presentation of the test is itself a source of exposure, as well as TV and any other media. Who, by now, has NOT seen Osama bin Laden's face? This test cannot determine the reasons why such information was relevant to person being tested. In time, the general flying population will come to be exposed to the probes. This will give rise to false positives.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 10/29/2001 4:23 PM by soreff@vnet.ibm.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
THANK YOU! The problem of trying to discriminate terrorists from non-terrorists by probing for specific knowledge is indeed a wide hole in this scheme. As you said, the knowledge being tested for is apt to spread, and will generate false positives. Another problem is that the information specific to the <i>next</i> attack is, of course, not yet known to authorities, and therefore not something that could be used for security screening. If, for instance, al Queda's next attack is to be nuclear, with some specific target, as yet unknown to the authorities, one can't very well use the name of the target in screening for those terrorists. The biometrics/iris scan part of the system sounds sound, as a way of tracking known people's movements. I think something like that will probably be done, and will probably help. There is a domain-specific problem with the goal of terrorist profiling in general, distinct from the specific implementation here using "guilty knowledge" to find them. The category is fuzzy. Are our special ops people terrorists? To their targets they are. If you wish to detect anyone who has ever been willing to use violence for a political purpose, then you will flag all of our soldiers, and anyone else's (including our those of our allies). What is <i>really</i> desirable is to find those people who intend to harm Americans as a group or as a country, regardless of the specific means by which they intend to attack (yet somehow distinguishing mere verbal hostility from a plan of action that they will actually execute). The proposed screening doesn't do this. Doing this, if possible at all, seems intrinsically highly invasive. Best wishes, Jeffrey Paul Soreff


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 03/09/2004 10:32 PM by TwinBeam	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Let's see - so the terrorist joins the crowd of people waiting in line to have their irises scanned. Let's suppose they're using one of those "folded lines" like they use a disney land. When he gets to the middle of the line, he sets off his bomb. Not only does he kill a bunch of people, but now people don't want to wait in line for anything, and especially not for anything that uses iris scanning, since that's obviously now a terrorist target. The iris scan and brain fingerprinting equipment stands idle as people stay away from any venue that uses them.


	Re: Near-Perfect Solution posted on 11/11/2005 2:21 AM by phillip	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I also agree with some of the previous posts on this topic in regards to the scanning of the human brain and the predictability of terrorist attacks. Recent history is proof enough that terrorist attacks cannot be easily predicted. Take for instance the recent bombings in London or the train bombing in Spain. Would either of these attacks have been averted with this proposed technology? I'm not sure that they would have. Both were completely unpredictable. The people who carried them out seemed to be regular contributing members of society. Also it has been shown for the September 11th attacks that the hijackers may not even have known that they were on a suicide mission. How would the scanning device have caught this? How does it catch a person that may not even know what they are about to do? It seems very unlikely that the hijackers would have been caught through a brain scan in this situation. What about the idea of combating high risk people with more marshals on the plane? Wouldn't it make more sense to just not allow these people to fly? That would be assuming this brain scanning technology worked well at identifying these high risk passengers. I wasn't sure that putting more fire marshals on a plane was necessarily a better solution. I do like the idea though of a system that can identify people well based on a retina scan. This could greatly reduce the time needed at an airport for identification. Overall I think the idea proposed in the article is a step in the right direction, and I agree with the statement previously posted that, 'strict control must be placed on the technology to prevent it from being abused'. There are a lot of flaws in this proposal that would need to be worked out (which have been identified in the previous posts).


	Is this an emotional infomercial posted on 10/05/2001 10:50 AM by mhyde@slac.stanford.edu	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I felt like I was reading a late-night diet infomercial. How about using this forum to relay valuable studies and research data, NOT "if we had only funded our $50M project, we could have saved New York". Come on.


	This stuff is intrusive and easy to circumvent posted on 10/06/2001 3:59 PM by rkoch-nospam@kaiwal.nospam.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Seems like everyone is focusing on preventing sucide aircraft attacs these days. Such attacs, as terrible the 9/11 was, are not the only way terrorist attacks are carried out. I fail to see how this could have prevented the Oklahoma attack or any one of the previous attacks on the account of Bin Laden. I have a bad feeling like we're about to enter a new Mc Carthy era or more precise, a Big Brother era. Big Brother was mentioned shortly and pushed asside easily. What makes the author believe that the government is not going to abuse this data for whatever purposes it likes? What makes the author believe that those machines will only do what he proposes? Once these procedures are in place and it's easy to extend their applications almost limitless. I'd like everyone to remember that governments have been the worst terrorists in the last century. This happens always if they gain too much power. This is why we wisely try to limit the power of any government body to the least that is needed for it to do it's work. Remember Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Idi Amin... and remember that at least some of them initially only wanted to do good. Those who choose to sacrifice Freedom in order to gain Security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one" (Ben Franklin) -Rudiger


	Re: Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike posted on 05/23/2002 10:37 PM by rt.connolly@sympatico.ca	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Maybe i'm reading this wrong,but from my end it really don't look good(Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike...especially our nearest neighbors ,Canada and Mexico)If your thinking is that, Terrorists are entering through Canada,well let me remind you there is another boarder to cross (YOURS),we don't let them in, the USA does.I'm profoundly insulted to see my country's name even in that sentence.However if you think we allow terrorists into our country,have a look at our history (WE DEPORT)and as you can clearly see we have enjoyed a great stay of peace here unlike the USA.If i seem a bit upset,it might be due to the fact that a US.AIRMEN bombed a Canadain training area.Who is training you people,i think we all be better off if Canada would lead us all out of this mess, and the USA could sit back and learn.However,i would like to add,the grief you all have endured us Canadains endured with you.Peace to us all.


	Near-Perfect? Not quite' posted on 07/21/2003 4:22 PM by Danesh	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Somehow I choose not to take such an optimistic view to this technology as Steve has. One of Steve's main assumptions is that the person has the knowledge of carrying out terrorist attacks at the time of the screening (which happen every couple of years). I will now present a hypothetical situation in which it is assumed that Brain fingerprinting is used at all US airports but the system would have failed to prevented all of the attackers from boarding the planes on September 11th. A 'normal' person has their CKA (Computerized Knowledge Assessment) Test taken. Their test comes out clean. Al Qaeda then approaches this individual and persuades him (through monetary or by threatening his family) to carry out the terrorist attacks against the US. They train him in a training camp for a few months and then fly him to the US. Till now a maximum of a year might have passed. In the US he learns how to fly in a Flight School and meets up with the other terrorists recruited in a similar fashion. All in all perhaps a maximum of 2 years would have passed putting into consideration all of the background planning and coordination which would be needed. His CKA still valid he boards a plane, hijacks it and flies it into the WTC. Even if the person did have the knowledge of carrying out the terrorist attack at the time of screening, the CKA Test asks questions it's programmed to ask, or questions that the government thinks are viable security threats. Before 9/11 no one would dream of the possibility of someone hijacking a plane and using it as a bomb, what's to say that in the future the CKA Test would fail to recognize some unseen danger (a helicopter or a rocket.). Is the CKA test going to ask all individuals if we plan on hijacking a boat, plane, rocket, or any other vehicle? Is it going to ask any broad ended questions such as do you plan on harming the US in the near future? Which leads me to the question about each person's interpretation, opinion or personal experiences related to the question? What if a person was not a terrorist but simply knew how to make a bomb. Personally I know what a Molotov cocktail is and have a rough idea as to how to make one. Is the Molotov cocktail really a bomb? What if a few days before taking the CKA Test I read an article about how people in Iraq were suffering because of the war against them and then was asked in the CKA Test whether I was supportive of the war in Iraq (to test my patriotism)? My answer would probably be no, although this does not mean I'm not patriotic just that I have a different opinion in that regard. What if someone was in a plane crash due to a hijacking but survived. Would their response to hijackings be the same as that of a person who has not? Which leads me to the question of how would the computer know how to interpret the grey area described above? Undoubtedly it require a human operator to 'draw fine lines' when it cannot. One of the scenarios I definitely liked was Steve's Super Bowl scenario, which definitely shows how convenient the system is, although let me add a little twist to this scenario. The call from the FBI includes details of a new identified threat, which means that all the fans attending the stadium would need to update their 'security risk profile' before being allowed to enter. Now presumably they will be able to simply test you on the new threat which would take perhaps 2-3 minutes rather than the complete test of 10 minutes, but this would still mean that 60,000+ fans would have to wait in line to update their profile before being allowed to enter the stadium. Hmm' not so convenient after all is it? As to So in reality, it's your mind controlling the equipment instructing it what answers to record on your behalf. I really do not think its my mind controlling the equipment otherwise I could give the equipment answers that would be equivalent to me being able to lie to a interrogator. What I believe is in reality, it's a mind 'reading' device ' Reading your brain patterns in response to visual and auditory stimuli. In response to It is a system that cannot be fooled ' I say that's ridiculous. Just as passports were thought to be the answer to controlling who could enter and leave a country in the past (before fake passports came along), so do I see this technology being able to be bypassed. People in the Middle East could get fake CKA Tests done. Perhaps another person taking the test while the terrorists eyes were scanned for association with file. Also think of the easiest way to fool the system, just think about being on a cruise or floating in a pool while taking the test, tuning yourself out of the incoming visual and auditory stimuli, or even wearing high power contacts to blur the images shown to you, then what would the machine do? Assume we had a Buddhist terrorist (as funny as it sounds) who could control his thoughts in a meditative kind of state. It is ironic Steve compares the CKA Tests to the SAT's as the SAT's can be taken multiple times (till you get it just right) and have been had problems in cheating in the past. Lastly I am all for homeland security and am saddened by the September 11th attacks but I do not believe that this is the Holy Grail against terrorism as it is made out to be. I for one would be thrilled to see technology at airports that could accurately identify and catch terrorists while leaving usual people with little or no inconvenience, but sadly I do not see this happening with Brain Fingerprinting. Perhaps this technology does have the ability to catch terrorists, just not the really smart ones. Steve has said that this is the most accurate technology around for identifying terrorists, and maybe I agree with him, although I think he places a little too much faith in the system which might cause people to become complacent again with their security.


	Careful Consideration posted on 11/05/2003 6:11 PM by jimmybob	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Although brain fingerprinting appears to be an ideal way to improve public security and identify terrorist threats, we must be careful to consider its implications before we put such a system in place. This becomes apparent when we consider the likelihood that the system will be successful with regard to is ability to identify threats, respect individual privacy, and uphold basic human rights. The claims that the system will identify terrorist threats and 'would have likely thwarted the 9/11 attack. ' [and] thwarted more difficult to defend against scenario[s]'' is likely flawed. Some of these flaws have already been addressed in the follow up replies. Considerations that terrorist organizations will recruit members after they have already had a normal Computerized Knowledge Assessment (CKA) Test and will find methods to cheat the system, such as developing controlled responses, are excellent points. Additionally, citing that it is not possible to predict what the next attack will be, and therefore not possible to ask specific enough questions to identify an unknown threat, is also valid. Most of the considerations indicating that it is somewhat impractical to identify future terrorist threats with CKA are flawed in the system because there is an underlying assumption that we can predict how terrorists think. Making this assumption essentially invalidates methodology that indicates that we will be able to detect terrorists with CKA tests by asking questions about their knowledge and/or past activities. One of the primary reasons that federal and international organizations have not been able to prevent terrorist attacks that have succeeded in the past is because terrorist organizations act with irrational and sophisticated planning as compared with our enforcement organizations and thought processes. As the document itself claims, 'A terrorist's most dangerous weapon is what's in his head.' If we are not able to comprehend what is in his head because he thinks differently than us, what benefits will we achieve by brain scanning a terrorist? For example, if a question on the scan is 'Do you plan to harm the American people?' and the individual is planning to crash a plane into a building, a rational individual would think 'yes'. However, for all we know, the terrorist may think 'No.'; he may in fact not consider it to be harming America, but rather to be promoting his cause, or freeing his nation, or making the American public aware of injustice, and therefore actually helping Americans. Similarly, an effective terrorist plot, conceived by a bright terrorist, is likely to be unique, original, and well executed. We will not have the foresight to predict the attack because to rational people it is inconceivable. Furthermore, terrorist are currently able to escape profiling because they are selected and behave in a meticulous manner that arouses minimal suspicion. What reason is there for us to assume that they escape this by acting in a certain manner, but that their mind is full of evil thoughts/knowledge and we can determine that they are a terrorist from what they think/know? It is wishful thinking to believe that by asking questions about past events we can identify terrorists using brain scanning. The actual terrorists that perform the attack are carefully selected and trained. There is no reason to believe that these terrorist would exhibit alarming thoughts until they are actually in the process of committing the terrorist act. Another issue that arises with the CKA tests is how they will be administered abroad. While it may be safe to assume that in the U.S. they will be conducted properly, how can it be ensured that they are conducted adequately in foreign nations, especially nations where the U.S. cannot have control of the scanning process? Stating that 'this is actually more protective of your privacy than many of the existing security ' we accept today' is questionable. Claiming that the system is not an invasion of privacy because it does not require your name, only a finger print of your brain, is ridiculous. Clearly, a finger print of your brain is more intrusive than knowing your name. This claim is further invalidated by the fact that as soon as you are 'accused' of a crime, your brain scan will be linked to your name, can essentially be restated as 'we won't ask your name until we need it, but when we do, we will get it, like it or not'. Claiming that the system will not be abused by the government, and that there is no need for concern regarding this, results in a lack of consideration of the (possible) propagation of such a system. Essentially, to maintain security, the system would have to be used in all significant public forums. What is to stop this from extending to virtually every aspect of public life? Or even private life? After all, the system is cheap and easy to implement. Are we really prepared to live in a country where the government is consistently tracking our thoughts to make sure that we are not 'thinking about bad things' and whenever we do, law enforcement agencies have the power to intercept and track our thoughts and what we are doing? One of the aspects of this proposal that concerns me in this regard is that it states: 'In order to account for a possible negative public perception ' the system should be phased in' '. The proposal then goes on to imply that the system would be useful for general law enforcement and should be used in such a manner, in addition to airport security. Privacy is heavily compromised for all users of the proposed system. In order to maintain adequate security, airports abroad would have to implement the system, at least for flights coming into the U.S. However, to state that the internet connection(s) that the system will use are secure and that the government cannot abuse the information in the system, while possibly valid in the U.S., is simply incorrect when foreign nations are considered. Many governments (such in China) maintain exclusive privileges to monitor, record, and track all communications. In such countries, the government maintains these rights, and essentially has the ability to monitor all internet communications traveling through its ISPs. It may not be the place for American's to attempt to circumvent the laws of countries abroad with the new system, but what of the American citizen traveling abroad who is boarding a flight in a country with laws of this nature (such as China) traveling/returning to the U.S.? Another area for the privacy concern is that the proposal states that: 'it cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc. It is not a psychological profile. '. While this may be try of the actual scanning process, the proposal goes on to address the issue of incorrect identification of individuals with 'risky' knowledge from a legitimate means (such as military, police, etc.). The proposal states: 'Is it possible to incorrectly identify someone ' Yes ' the worst that can happen is that he's denied boarding until the problem can be straightened out by a federal agent ' Not much different than how we handle 'exception cases' today.'. This begs the question, how do we handle exception cases today? Is this not done with profiling, containment without charge, and consideration of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.? Additionally, the reliance on the CKA test prior to any profiling or other checks may result in a complacency and reliance on the 'flawless' system. This could result in difficulties for individuals who are designated a problem and must deal with a federal agent. Further, such complacency could even result in terrorists who are evade the CKA checks (as discussed previously and also in several other posts) being allowed on to flights even if they exhibit other indicators that would have normally caused them to be considered a risk, and stopped. This necessary profiling in and of itself may be considered a violation of human rights, but the system has the potential to violate one of the most basic human rights that all humanity enjoys simply by the virtue of being alive. The comparison to SAT testing is invalid in so far as it claims that because individuals were required to write the test to have an acceptable level of public function, they had to expose their knowledge. It may be valid to compare SATs with brain scanning in so far as both may reveal the knowledge of an individual, but it is an oversimplification to state that SATs and brain scanning involve comparable levels of privacy invasion. When the full implications of brain scanning is considered, it is clear that brain scanning may in fact infringe upon an individual's right to think. At no time during an SAT, can the SAT test force an individual to reveal his thoughts, or extract what the individual is thinking, was thinking, or will think. Brain scanning may compromise this by forcing an individual to reveal his/her thoughts ' whether or not the means of reading these thoughts is with Yes/No questions, or video stimuli, (at least initially) is inconsequential. Furthermore, claiming that the system is 'optional' and therefore individuals have the choice to reveal their thoughts could become similar to claiming that it is optional to purchase food from a grocery store; if the system becomes implemented in other areas of public life, it may be necessary for individuals to use it in order to be able to successfully interact with society. While the tragedy of 9/11 has shaken the U.S. and the world, and heightened the awareness and concern of the terrorist threat, we must be careful to fully consider all aspects of proposed systems. The brain scanning system has many (relatively) strong points when compared to other proposed/existing systems, such as the low cost, minimal public inconvenience, and strong FBI test results. It may well be the best system that we can currently implement to deal with the terrorist threat, but we must carefully look into the implications that the system will have both on our lives and on our values. If we have to forgo some of these principles and values in order to address the threat of terrorism, it may be beneficial to the greater good of society for us as individuals to do so; however, we must carefully weigh the implications on our values, quality of life, and society, as a result of a proposition to deal with terrorism, with the realistic and expected benefits that the proposition will achieve with regard to its goal of improving public security. In the case of brain scanning, I think that these implications have not yet been adequately investigated, and I would hesitate to hastily implement such as system before we are fully aware of what it will entail, both good and bad.


	Re: Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike posted on 03/07/2004 12:46 AM by 99wangsa	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The system determines whether an individual is a terrorist upon the individual's certain knowledge. Therefore the test itself is most intrusive to the individual's privacy. The notion of sacrificing the most intimate privacy for additional security would be unacceptable. In the article, it stated that anyone who wishes to travel has to put on the headset and answer a few questions, and if you don't want to answer you can remove the headset at anytime. If the system is in place, then a person cannot travel without the completion of the set of questions, thereby grounding all individuals who does not wish to submit their most intimate privacy, their thoughts. If I have to submit my thoughts to strangers for the privilege of carrying nail clippers onto a plane or buy some tickets faster, I would rather clip my nails at home and wait in line for the tickets. In addition, the system is not cheaper than the existing system in any way. The system's functionality has to be tested and maintained regularly. Occasionally, if not frequently, US marshals are hired for planes boarded with high risk profile pessengers. There are also ways to bypass the system as mentioned in other post. Such as terrorists hiring people that have taken the test or train for controlled responses. All those methodologies are ingenious, simple and easy to execute. Such system only introduced more procedure and trouble for the regular law-abiding citizens to go through.


	Re: Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike posted on 03/08/2004 3:13 PM by adamcohen	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The proposed system sounds like a panacea, and the author does a good job of covering nearly every angle, and defending any objections that opponents may direct at it. But the system is of course not without its flaws. Like many of the other comments already posted, I too question the ability of the system to detect unknown threats. Since the system only includes stimuli for known attacks, it has no way of testing for the presence of information of unanticipated threats. With hindsight, it is easy to look back on the tragedy of September 11th, and conclude that knowledge of explosives or commercial jet piloting expertise should be added to the list of brain fingerprinting target stimuli. But how obvious was the notion of hijacking a plane and using it as a flying bomb, before the 9/11 attacks? Perhaps the system would not have been as successful at thwarting the September 11th catastrophe as the author presupposes, since this type of attack may not have been considered a plausible security threat at the time, and hence would not have been tested for during the brain fingerprinting scan. It is also unlikely that a terrorist would attempt the same attack twice, which leads us to question how effective the system will be at preventing future attacks which have not been programmed into the machine. Could such a system have prevented the anthrax scare that followed after 9/11? The author assumes that the government can be trusted completely not to abuse this system, but what guarantee do we have, and what about other non-government organizations? After the attacks on September 11th, almost all rights to privacy in the United States were sacrificed for the sake of national security . As a means of preventing terrorist activity, the system seems to be a good solution, but what limits will be placed on the use of this technology in other areas of society? Imagine for a moment, that the brain fingerprinting machine were reprogrammed to detect certain knowledge which an employer deems necessary to fulfill a specific job position. During an interview, potential employees could be subjected to a brain scan in order to assess their competence or knowledge of the target area. This would eliminate many seemingly unfit candidates, thereby streamlining the interview process and saving the company time and money. This provides a very compelling argument for the use of this type of system in a business atmosphere, but why stop there? Why not install these machines in schools, country clubs, bars, restaurants, etc. The idea of a 'thought police' may seem far-fetched, but is it really that unrealistic? What worries me is that the author proposes this solution as a government controlled and implemented system, which means that it is the government who ultimately decides what constitutes terrorist activity or knowledge. What if the government decides that anyone who knows how to hack into a computer system is a likely terrorist? Many computer scientists and programmers could thus be prevented from boarding airplanes, or entering the United States. Clearly, limits must be imposed on the use of such technology, otherwise we may find that every facet of our daily lives is governed by what these brain fingerprinting machines reveal about our innermost secrets and desires. While the system may be considered 'infallable', as the author would suggest, the same cannot necessarily be said for the security checks performed along the United States borders. Cocaine and Cubans somehow find their way into the US undetected, so how difficult would it be for terrorists to do the same? If a given system is indeed foolproof, terrorists will simply choose the path of least resistance, and avoid subjecting themselves to the brain fingerprinting altogether. So while this system may prevent terrorists from entering the country through airports, officials must also ensure that every border crossing of the USA is secured by the use of one of these scanning machines, thereby increasing the implementation cost by a large factor. This is not to say that the system itself is insecure, but it becomes easy to place too much reliance or confidence in a system proclaimed as 'foolproof'. One must realize that a system itself does not have to be broken in order for it to be bypassed or compromised. The author also states that 'the effectiveness of the system depends upon the cooperation of the organizations with the scanners, e.g., the ballpark attendant could just ignore the signal to detain a person.' So when it comes down to it, despite the advanced brain fingerprinting technology, our security still rests upon the decision of a human being, which can be prone to mistakes, boredom, threats, bribes, etc. I also question the ability of the machine to produce accurate brain scans when the suspect is under the influence of alcohol, hallucinogens, or other perception altering substances. If the results can be skewed by the usage of such drugs, then does this mean that with every brain scan performed, the user must also be tested for the presence of these substances? If this were the case, then the '10 minute computerized security screen only once every few years' would likely take much longer than 10 minutes. This would also raise numerous privacy concerns, as an individual may be denied a brain fingerprinting assessment based upon the results of their drug test, which may be recorded and stored with their record. While a simple retinal scan and a video with yes/no answers may seem rather innocent, a mandatory drug test would indeed infringe upon our personal rights and present an invasion of privacy. We must also consider that there may exist certain mind-altering substances, which are not detected by the drug test, and are able to fool the brain fingerprinting machine, thereby defeating the system. The author has presented us with a very comprehensive and well thought-out anti-terrorist system, but to believe that such a system is infallible or even perfect, would be na've. As we have learned many times in the past, there is no such thing as a foolproof system. No matter how secure a system is perceived to be, there is always some way of exploiting or circumventing it. As a means of identifying security risks and preventing further terrorists from entering the country, I believe brain fingerprinting presents a step in the right direction, but there are still many problems which must be solved, and strict control must be placed on the technology to prevent it from being abused. In the article, the author asks the question 'Is there a better system for determining an exact count of how many terrorists we are putting on each plane?' perhaps not, but before we run out and implement this system, we must carefully consider the social and political implications of such a system, and how it will affect our standard of living. In our haste to search for the ultimate solution to preventing terrorism, we must be careful not to become victims of our own paranoia, and risk losing the privacy and freedom we so desperately seek to protect. Adam Cohen

Brain Archive