Skeletal Identification 76
Bruce Schneier noted a story today over at his blog about a new Skeletal Identification System being developed at Wright State. Of course this is just another biometric detection system, but one that would be pretty tough to disguise.
Hot. (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine there may be some issues with irradiating people to identify them. This isn't something on the surface you can just get with backscatter terahertz. Imaging bones means X-ray, and a fair bit of it for a full-body image. They might be able to get it down to the equivilent exposure of one plane flight - but add up all the airports, ports, theme parks and places adults may encouter children each year. That's a potential legal risk, if nothing else.
On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.
This definitely won't lead to less freedom... (Score:2, Insightful)
How long before there's a false-positive (I don't believe that the skeletal structure is so unique that a body scan from a distance will NEVER make a mistake)? And following the false-positive, a plea for all good citizens to submit to a scan for the database, or to sign a release stating the government can have access to your medical records for the purposes of security and to prevent "unfortunate" mix-ups.
Once you're in the system, you're in it; making the notion that you have "paid your debt to society" when you are release from incarceration nothing more than an illusion. You can make whatever arguments you like about the usefulness of databases for certain types of offenders but systems like these mean that if you ever offend and serve time, for anything you will forever be watched; you won't have to be a terrorist or a pedophile.
I'm just glad this is being done in the name of safety, that's gotta be worth a whole bunch of anyone's liberty...
Easy to fool... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. This is easier to avoid than using glitter to fool mass face recognition.
That is, to have much value, working "at 50 meters," this is a mass detection system. You have to analyze hundreds if not thousands of targets, to known profiles. How do you fool it? Calcium is cheap, real cheap.
Is there a future for privacy? Or just Wikileaks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hot. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something I have to be concerned about because if the radiation is that significant, I won't be able to go through them without risking damage (I received the maximum dosage of medical x-rays (e.g. to treat cancer) that I'll ever be able to receive for the rest of my life).
Re:Hot. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.
Hell yeah. I'd rather die in horrible agony because of severe overdose of bodyscans than having one peado walking around freely! I'll give up anything (you hear me? ANYTHING!) to catch them dirty bastards. ...
I'm just waiting until the paedophiles and othre dirty bastards figure that it's probably easiest to simply work for a security company. Pictures and bodyscans all day.
A bone to pick with the premise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy to fool... not to mention (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't a problem because the real purpose of this isn't to catch terrorists. It will have "STOPS TERRORISTS AND PEDOPHILES" stamped in glowing letters across the front to obtain funding. Then it will be sold to every idiot with a budget and too much power. Police departments, airports, hell as the article says:
"It could go anywhere," he said. "It could be in every airport. You could put it in a hotel if it gets down to the right scale and cost."
It will be used to "catch" people who owe library books and participated in an anti-war demonstration. Poor schmucks who had the misfortune of being caught pissing in an alley behind a bar and labeled sex-offenders will be tackled by mall security guards.
Also does anyone think there is a problem between this statement:
"a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight."
and this one:
"It could be in every airport. You could put it in a hotel if it gets down to the right scale and cost."
If this guy gets his wish we'll be scanned each time we enter and leave a store, a mall, a library, a park.
Lots of other technologies will (Score:3, Insightful)