US crime predicting technology tests draw Minority Report comparisons

US crime predicting technology tests draw Minority Report comparisons

www .telegraph.co.uk

The FAST system is instead based on equipment including infrared cameras and pressure pads to detect fidgeting.

Details of the system were obtained through freedom of information laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (Epic) based in Washington DC.

A document they obtained said that "sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements".

Ginger McCall, a lawyer for the non-profit group, told CBS News: "If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic.

"They should do a privacy impact assessm

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:

Seems there will be a Big Brother her in the US as it is in Europe and Asia.

Not like there is not already an eye in the sky.

These sensors however are in the seats detecting movement, bugged areas for audio, and vibration sensors as well in the floors.

Seems like a lot of $$$ to get this tech that MAY work.

And I'm sure people will be destroying these sensors/microphones/cameras if they're within reach and earshot.



www .telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This already exists, this is just the updated version. The old version is called Predator and it works from audio / video data collected by Echelon Upload Centers combined with user submitted (yeah, you're the user) data from the internet.

All they're doing now is adding bells and whistles to the beast.

Check out "The Biometric Matrix : You can't HIIDE from the BAT" in the RATS forum.

This is hardware that is specific to collect peoples mannerisms, fidgeting, coughing, blinking eyes, etc in order to detect changes in basic emotion and characteristics.

Pressure pads under the cushion in an airport seat, Thermal imaging that detects increased facial and hand heat diring screening at terminals, high resolution cameras that detect shifty eyes, all linked into a computer that "predicts" unusual behavior and warns of threat.

I'm probably unusal and should be examined cause I've and itch on my butt and dry eyes...

reply to post by paratus


Minority report used three children who were clairvoyant to predict the future leading to the arrest and conviction of people for crimes they havent even committed without any further evidence whatsoever.

This system uses scientifically based data to monitor someone in a public setting. This scientifically based data is based on how someone's body reacts when they are attempting to do something suspicious. The system is merely a hint to watch someone more closely and does not give probable cause to arrest or charge anyone with a crime.

Although I disagree with the use of this system as well, scientifically based data gathered on someone draws no parrallel with clairvoyant children.

Google and CIA Invest in Predicting the Future : Wired

Sorry, you were saying about clarivoyant children?

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

“The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science.

Which naturally makes the 16-person Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm attractive to Google Ventures, the search giant’s investment division, and to In-Q-Tel, which handles similar duties for the CIA and the wider intelligence community.

Here's their website, and a video description.
www.recordedfuture.com...


Analytics, the type of data collected explained by SAS, a firm that sifts / collects and bases decisions off of it. Instead of thinking like a business, try to look at it as if you were a government wanting this software and you see how powerful it is.







Think Social Media isn't an important aspect? The government would spend thousands, if not tens of thousands or more on creating a dossier on someone. Now, you do it yourself for free.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


What you are not taking into account is the fact that none of this is recognized by the courts or police to be evidence or even probable cause for arrest.

What is happening is that people are trying to use technology to do some pretty amazing stuff. It could work, or not. If it does work, then investigators would have to corroborate the information with some sort of PROOF. It is not judicially recognized as evidence or probable cause. We will not see any of this on official court documents saying that the information gathered from this is the only evidence needed.

That is the difference between the MOVIE and real life.

If the courts do begin to recognize clairvoyance as evidence, we are in trouble. I can tell you right now though, in desperation, homicide detectives have used mediums as a way to try to get a lead in cold cases. The thing is, the medium's testimony is not admissable and the prosecutor would be laughed out of court if they tried it. What has to happen is the medium is used as a hint and the investigator, probably through coincidence, has located some sort of evidence that was key to the case that solved it.

I am giving no appraisal on the accuracy of mediums or clairvoyants. I am merely stating that they have been used but are not admissable in court.

Last Words : Data Mining is Legal

Some of the lower courts have held opposing views on the legality of the practice. New Hampshire and Maine statutes banning data mining were found constitutional,3,4 while a Vermont law was ruled unconstitutional.5,6 The Vermont case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in a 6-3 split vote, with the majority deciding data mining is constitutional.7

This case is particularly important because it effectively reversed two earlier circuit court opinions that had upheld similar state laws.8 The Supreme Court is the last court of refuge, and its decisions set precedents that all lower courts, in both the federal and state systems of government, must follow. Thus, data mining is legal, and state attempts to curb the practice under confidentiality notions are unconstitutional.

Another way of looking at the case recognizes the fact that the aim of the states that tried to ban data mining was to save the costs of more expensive brand-name prescription drugs favored by the pharmaceutical companies when less expensive generics in the same therapeutic class were available. The crux of this logic is that when manufacturers have access to PI data, they can send “detail representatives” to the prescriber’s office for the purpose of encouraging the prescribing of a favored brand-name drug. Viewing the case this way suggests that the Supreme Court is more interested in protecting the wealth of the big pharmaceutical companies than the well-being of the many cash-strapped states stuck with the bill for higher-cost drugs (primarily in Medicaid or Medicare drug benefit costs borne by the states) or of the generic manufacturers of the lower-cost medications.

It is probably difficult for many professional pharmacists to follow the logic of the decision and even harder to understand how or why selling data constitutes a form of free speech. Not to worry though, there are just as many attorneys who also do not understand the concepts articulated in the majority opinion.

Homeland Security Moves Forward with Pre-Crime Detection

An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public voluntarily, CNET has learned.

If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called "Minority Report," or the CBS drama "Person of Interest," it is. But where "Minority Report" author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent."

Excerpt from internal DHS document obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center

(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security) The latest developments, which reveal efforts to "collect, process, or retain information on" members of "the public," came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its "pre-crime" system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.

"If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic," says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.

Combine the two and you have minority report, minus the physical carivoyants of course (substituted for computer algoriths and both are flawed as the movie and common sense show).

You were saying?

Just in case it wasn't clear enough, here it is in practice one year ago:

Software Predicts Criminal Behavior

In his latest version, the one being implemented in D.C., Berk goes even further, identifying the individuals most likely to commit crimes other than murder.

If the software proves successful, it could influence sentencing recommendations and bail amounts.

"When a person goes on probation or parole they are supervised by an officer. The question that officer has to answer is 'what level of supervision do you provide?'" said Berk.

It used to be that parole officers used the person's criminal record, and their good judgment, to determine that level.

"This research replaces those seat-of-the-pants calculations," he said.

Now when you commit a crime, an algorith decides if you will commit the crime again and assigns a number that denotes risk to you. You become that number to the criminal justice system. Once they roll this out on inmates and take their privacy, rights and freedoms away (as they always have like right to vote and bear arms), there's no going back.

So, this is already determining or helping to determine the future of human beings, so where do we draw the line?

Is it ok to do it to an inmate, or a civillian, or a whole country? The entire human race?

If you can't get it done to free people, why not just imprison everyone, accuse everyone, everyone is a criminal.

reply to post by sbctinfantry

You were saying?

You are missing my point.

The data collected is merely a guide, not evidence of wrongdoing like in the book or movie. In the book or movie, people were arrrested solely on the evidence gained through a clairvoyant and locked away without any futher evidence.

For example, take department stores all over America. They all have numerous video cameras recording everything shoppers do. This is to safeguard against theft. Security can watch shoplifters or employees steal and stop them. These security guys spend hours upon hours watching people who do nothing until they locate someone shoplifting.

If this system were introduced, the biometric reads would give hints to the security guys watching the cameras so they could focus on those with those clues better.

For example, a shoplifter or employee who is about to steal goes through some very subtle, uncontrollable, changes in their body. Their heart rate increases, their temperature may increase slightly, their pupils dialate and their eyes may shift back and forth looking for an employee who may spot them. If a system could pick up on these subtle changes, it could alert the security guy to watch that person more closely. Then, one of two outcomes could result.

First, the person is then SEEN stealing merchandise, stopped and prosecuted. The guide, through detecting subtle changes in biometrics, is corroborated by evidence of crime.

Second, the person is watched and if no theft or evidence of any crime is seen then nothing happens.

Again, I offer no appraisal to whether this should be used I simply explain that it is not like Minority Report.