Unacceptable Emotions Soon to be Analyzed in Airports

[Katmandu]

Unacceptable Emotions Soon to be Analyzed in Airports
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

A recent article published by the BBC entitled “New Emotion Detector Can See When We’re Lying,” introduces a new concept to the prison camp known as Western airports — the addition of “emotion detectors.” The “new” technology is essentially a system of video cameras connected to “a high-resolution thermal imaging sensor and a suite of algorithms.”

The idea behind the most recent Big Brother system being implemented at British airports, or at least the one that is being touted by the security state, is that since humans give away their emotions through a variety of unconscious means, the ability to read these facial cues would greatly enable security agents to interpret the intentions and the honesty of potential terrorists and thereby thwart coming attacks. In order to do this, the surveillance system uses eye movements, dilated pupils, biting, nose wrinkling, heavy breathing, pressing lips together, blinking, swallowing, and other facial movements. The system also detects swelling blood vessels around the eyes.

As Professor Hassan Ugail from Bradford University, a leading researcher on the project, states, “We bring together all this well-established work on expressions, these recent developments in thermal imaging, techniques for image tracking of subjects and our new algorithms into one operational system.” Ugail has also stated that he believes he will eventually be able to detect those who are lying with an accuracy rate of around 90%, even though it is currently far less effective than that, and admittedly will never be 100%. Regardless, the system is ready to be deployed even during a time of heightened fear and paranoia that is leading to millions being added to terror databases or no-fly lists for the slightest suspicions.

Both the article and the researchers (as they are quoted in the article), are also quite deceptive in their presentation. Although the system is presented as a new and much-improved version of the lie detector, the fact is that these systems are not lie detectors at all. They are emotion detectors.

By reading the facial cues listed above, the technology can detect emotions such as fear, nervousness, anger, anxiety etc. These emotions can often be symptoms of one who is lying, but they are not guarantees by any means. Indeed, even the BBC article states that this system only detect emotions “such as distress, fear or distrust, and not the act of lying itself.” In short, experiencing one or more of these emotions does not equal lying — these days it equals flying.

Anyone who does not experience at least one of the “trigger” emotions as they get groped, blasted with radiation, yelled at, or intimidated by bomb-sniffing dogs, heavily armed police, and moronic goons is simply not capable of much feeling.

Even without the obnoxious security measures implemented in airports, the normal stresses of travel provide plenty of opportunities to experience negative emotions. Long lines, screaming children, jet lag, inconsiderate fellow travelers, etc can all be taxing enough.

However, with the rape downs occurring at every airport in the Western world, the cancer-causing body scanners, and the constant harassment of travelers for every possible “out of the ordinary” act (even going to the bathroom), it is quite hard to believe that traveling through an airport could evoke any emotion other than fear, distress, distrust, or anger. I, myself, have been through the notorious airport screeners and, I have to say, I was not happy when I got to the other side of security. There is little doubt that, had an emotion scanner been in place in any of the airports I went through, I would have been pulled aside for extra questioning.

Yet, ironically, it is not only the behavior of the TSA and all the other “go along to get along” enforcers that provokes traveler anxiety. The constant fear mongering of the media and the government about the possibility of being blown to bits by foreign or domestic extremists every time one enters a public building might also be cause for some genuine feelings of fear and distress. Now the traveler will be harassed and questioned for the crime of feeling the fear that the system told him he must feel to begin with!

But the issue is not the effectiveness of the technology; the issue is whether law-abiding, innocent travelers should be subjected to screening and pre-crime surveillance. Considering the blatant abuse of power and uncontrollable behavior of the security agents in airports the world over, if anyone should be subjected to emotional behavioral screening based on their actions it should be those doing the bidding of this tyrannical system.

Indeed, if innocent people are forced to virtually strip naked, have their genitals groped and prodded, be subjected to cancer-causing radiation, and the verbal, sometimes physical, abuse of security agents, then be told to endure all of this without feeling the natural emotions of anger, distrust, or distress, then it seems the issue of Freedom vs. Security has been settled. Unfortunately, both have been severely compromised.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions.

[Serpo]

The weird thing is though is that the people lying to us on a daily basis are going to check to see if we are lying...............

[mamboni]

He claims 90% accuracy at best for this "anger screen." I should point out that when screening a broad population, for a test to have utility it's accuracy generally must exceed 99%. Of course it depends on the prevalence of the terrorists in the general air traveler population. Roughly speaking, a terrorist might be one in a thousand (or less). So, even if the screening test had a 99% accuracy (i.e. 99% sensitive + 99% specific), ten innocent "angry" people will be selected for every one "angry" terrorist. At 90% accuracy, the screening tool will be selecting virtually all innocent passengers for search and interrogation. This is utter madness.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

Yep... now big brother is going to be arresting every poor sap who's just pissed off because they were cut off by the fight attendant after that noisy kid puked on their shoe and now they have to spend the night in the airport... ::)

Talk about a bad day man....

[Twisted Titan]

wBrought to you by the loveable people that run Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv

[wrs]

Just another reason I quit flying years ago.

[willie pete]

I read one time that tsa has 1000-1500 agents in airports that do nothing but roam the crowds looking at passengers faces and demeanor to try and catch all those domestic terrorists out there ......::)

[Awoke]

Stop flying, people.

[Son-of-Liberty]

He claims 90% accuracy at best for this "anger screen." I should point out that when screening a broad population, for a test to have utility it's accuracy generally must exceed 99%. Of course it depends on the prevalence of the terrorists in the general air traveler population. Roughly speaking, a terrorist might be one in a thousand (or less). So, even if the screening test had a 99% accuracy (i.e. 99% sensitive + 99% specific), ten innocent "angry" people will be selected for every one "angry" terrorist. At 90% accuracy, the screening tool will be selecting virtually all innocent passengers for search and interrogation. This is utter madness.

Absolutely. Assuming that the "terrorists" are real the scanner might not even work on them anyway. Would not a highly trained terrorist have the ability to hide the majority of the attributes that would flag them to begin with? They could take anti-anxiety medication to fool the test. This means pretty much every person picked out by the screening tool will be innocent.

More modern day quackery.

[mick silver]

lock down cannot be to far off ............... welcome to one of the largest prison in the world

[PatColo]

Stop flying, people.

Flying is semi-discretionary, depends on where you're going, across the state or the world?

But NFL football games are absolutely discretionary, and discerning patriots need to boycott them at once!

Boycott The NFL for Partnership With Homeland Security and Enhanced Patdowns at Stadiums. The NFL will mean soon"Not For Long" If We Send a Strong Message Saying "NO" (http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/09/boycott-nfl-for-partnership-with.html)

[Joe King]

Roughly speaking, a terrorist might be one in a thousand (or less).If you're talking about real terrorists bent on bringing down the plane, then I'd say waaay less.
Or were you perhaps talking about the "Ron Paul supporter", type of terrorist? lol



So, even if the screening test had a 99% accuracy (i.e. 99% sensitive + 99% specific), ten innocent "angry" people will be selected for every one "angry" terrorist. At 90% accuracy, the screening tool will be selecting virtually all innocent passengers for search and interrogation. This is utter madness.But they're ok with those odds. It gives 'em more people to look at and they like that.

[VX1]

Roughly speaking, a terrorist might be one in a thousand (or less).

I know you're just using round numbers, but 1 in 1000 isn't even close (although that's what the TSA, DHS, etc. would love for you to believe). That would mean about 1 "terrorist" per five flights. Given the number of people fly each day, I'd say the "terrorist" count would be closer to 1 in 10,000,000 to 100,000,000, and even that terrorist is being helped along by one of the FBI, CIA alphabet agencies.

[Ponce]

So if you are flying and just had a fight with your girl fried, or going to a the funeral of your dad, or just lost 2 millions dollars, or you have to take a shit...........you better smile or you will be arrested?.........only in America "They hate us for our freedom".

First post of the day.....and going not to the Dr........good morning to one and all

[Dogman]

Read the book in the 60's and its theme is becoming reality more so everyday.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CknC1NRRENQ



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-752338841611301116&hl=en



I wonder if anyone would dare or be allowed to re-make this movie comparing the book to todays society?

[midnight rambler]

Stop flying, people.

You're advocating voluntarily and unilaterally cutting off one's right to locomotion (the right to travel, the right to change one's circumstances aka 'voting with your feet') therefore the terra-ists have won.

[Libertytree]

This is being utilized now, albeit not technologically. The messages played in the airports repeatedly say no jokes or off color remarks and for everyone to be alert about this and anything else they find suspicious. Home of the drones and the land of the slaves.

[mamboni]

I know you're just using round numbers, but 1 in 1000 isn't even close (although that's what the TSA, DHS, etc. would love for you to believe). That would mean about 1 "terrorist" per five flights. Given the number of people fly each day, I'd say the "terrorist" count would be closer to 1 in 10,000,000 to 100,000,000, and even that terrorist is being helped along by one of the FBI, CIA alphabet agencies.

Yes, I agree. My example was intended as a wildly best case scenario - and it is still a horrific result for the innocent. I wonder when it will become apparent to most people that all of these so-called security measures are not intended to capture the guilty, but to intimidate, entrap and cower the innocents, virtually all of us as it were. We are truly royally screwed as a society. We live as virtual prisoners, under constant surveillance, without privacy, uncertain as to the secure possession of what property we have, and living in fear of being found guilty of whatever crime the state may choose to invent on any given day. Orwell was prophetic to be sure - but even he could not imagine the subtle montrosity that the state has become what with modern technology unimagined in Orwell's day.

[Awoke]

Then the terra-ists have won.



The Terrists are working as security in the airports, Rambler.

It's either stop flying or start fighting
(Meaning loud, vocal resistance, to bring other peoples attention to the fact that none of this is acceptable in a supposedly "free" country.)

[Joe King]

You're advocating voluntarily and unilaterally cutting off one's right to locomotion (the right to travel, the right to change one's circumstances aka 'voting with your feet') therefore the terra-ists have won.
I'd say he was merely advocating voting with ones phunny "money" and finding alternative transportation.

[midnight rambler]

I'd say he was merely advocating voting with ones phunny "money" and finding alternative transportation.

Say Joe King, do you travel in your car with the benefits of licensing and registration, or do you not concern yourself with such matters?

[Joe King]

Say Joe King, do you travel in your car with the benefits of licensing and registration, or do you not concern yourself with such matters?I'm not sure, but the last cop I dealt with informed me that I had been exercising my sovereign Right to travel.

Is that one of the benefits? ???

[midnight rambler]

I'm not sure, but the last cop I dealt with informed me that I had been exercising my sovereign Right to travel.

Is that one of the benefits? ???

Your answer was unresponsive.

Do you or do you not have state registration on your automobile and do you or do you not have a DRIVER LICENSE?

[mrnhtbr2232]

First lead scientist on this project: Professor Hassan Ugail
http://maths.brad.ac.uk/people/?u=hugail&p=f

Here is the grant for the Facial Recognition development project:

"Facial Analysis for Real-Time Profiling" EPSRC grant (EP/G004137/1 (http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/G004137/1)), in collaboration with Dr R Zwiggelaar of University of Wales, Aberystwyth, QinetiQ, The Home Office and HM Revenue & Customs. (October 2008 March 2011), value £552,679.

Here is the project sheet from Aberystwyth University from his colleague Dr. R Wwiggelaar:
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewPerson.aspx?PersonId=61643

Project summary:
This project will develop an operationally and technically viable approach to cargo threat investigation. The main aim of the project is to provide a real-time dynamic passive profiling technique to assist Border Control Agencies and has the potential to improve hit rates; i.e. to improve targeting the people that carry contraband and hence ensure less is entering the UK.

To be specific, the real-time dynamic passive profiling technique will be based on the modelling of facial expressions, eye movement and pupil changes in both the visual and thermal domains and link these to malicious intent and physiological processes (such as blood flow, eye movement patterns, and pupil dilation). To facilitate this process, one of the initial aspects of the project will be the collection, analysis and development of the dataset used to model the baseline of facial imagery behaviour of the general population against which physiological behaviours in people with malicious intent would need to be detected. Both the baseline and the dynamic profiling will be based on the response to a series of questions. The developed techniques will be evaluated in operational trails at border control points. The multi-modal facial analysis will provide additional information to the current profiling and the developed techniques will have a wider remit into other domains. It is envisioned that this will be easily integrated into the current process.

There are three main challenges:

a) to determine the facial/eye features, in combination with psychological profiling, to provide robust baselines that can be linked to malicious intent,

b) to develop and combine the various dynamic real-time facial models (visual expression, thermal, eye movement) related to intent, and

c) to evaluate the developed system within different environments, ranging from airport to port based border control points.


--------
Notice that the "main challenges" do not stop at airports. With a technology like this, application will creep into every corner of public life. Our "right" to travel is meaningless - you can plan as carefully as you want, be as pure as the driven snow, and totally minding your own business - and *still* be denied boarding just because you match a threshold profile. Today airplanes. Tomorrow trains. Eventually buses and private automobiles. Any form of movement, mandatory profiling coming to a theater near you. Don't believe it? You will soon. Technology has turned out to be the death of freedom.

[Serpo]

Just another reason I quit flying years ago.

Isnt that the aim

[Horn]

Once the entire U.S. population is on psyche meds.

Mission Accomplished.

[General of Darkness]

So I guess doing this in an airport is probably out of the question.

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/646186_o.gif

[freespirit]

give it some time guys...they are making it as awkward and uncomfortable as possible to actually get to your flight for a reason. i'm guessing that within the next year or two they will introduce some fast track pass that "will get you there with the least possible delay" or some such horseshit.

"sick of being harassed by TSA? why not get an Express Boarding Pass! just provide us with a DNA sample, your long form BC (notarized, of course, $$) an FBI background check, copies of your tax returns from the last 10 years, a note from your mom (written in orange crayon, NOT green), and a blood sample, and in 10-12 weeks you too can be skipping down the fast lane to your flight!"

...sounds pretty tempting, no?
{sarcasm}

this follows a pattern that i have seen repeatedly in TPTB's plans to "own us"...

[Joe King]

Your answer was unresponsive.

Do you or do you not have state registration on your automobile and do you or do you not have a DRIVER LICENSE?

What's an "automobile"? What's a "DRIVER"?

When I travel, I exercise a Sovereign Right. Do you?



Seriously though, what we're talking about is whether to spend ones "money" on an air flight when one is adamantly opposed to what one must go through in order to go visit their gramma or something.
I don't spend my "money" with stuff I'm opposed to and I suggested that perhaps the answer was to boycott the airlines.

So what does that have to do with "driving"? ???

[freespirit]

i thought i had heard somewhere that airports are not legally bound to have the TSA on premises...airports are capable of providing their own security and screening agents, are they not? and if so, perhaps a boycott on air travel (i mean on a large scale) might be just the thing to motivate airports to toss the TSA and adopt their own more humane and non-invasive methods of screening.

just thinkin' out loud here...

[General of Darkness]

i thought i had heard somewhere that airports are not legally bound to have the TSA on premises...airports are capable of providing their own security and screening agents, are they not? and if so, perhaps a boycott on air travel (i mean on a large scale) might be just the thing to motivate airports to toss the TSA and adopt their own more humane and non-invasive methods of screening.

just thinkin' out loud here...

You're absolutely correct. I wonder what benefit, tax break or charges they might face by not using the TSA is the question. This world we live in is a complete Mafia setup. You use our guys, or pay us. At the end of the day, it's all a jew construct, but the truth is not pc these days.

[Joe King]

i thought i had heard somewhere that airports are not legally bound to have the TSA on premises...airports are capable of providing their own security and screening agents, are they not? and if so, perhaps a boycott on air travel (i mean on a large scale) might be just the thing to motivate airports to toss the TSA and adopt their own more humane and non-invasive methods of screening.

just thinkin' out loud here...Good idea, and I support it, but how do you actually mount an effective boycott in a World where people are mostly just out for themselves?
"Effective" meaning it puts a noticable hurt on the airlines revenue stream due to lack of passangers.

Maybe over time as people individually make that choice it will ultimately do the same thing, but it wouldn't be as noticable as a "right here" "right now" kinda mass boycott would be.

[freespirit]

i dunno...maybe some grass roots annual "no-fly"day...if enough people chose not to fly on that particular day, it would have an impact on their revenue to some extent. kinda like the gas station boycotts that we've all gotten emails about.

(and probably just as difficult to organize, lol)

[Joe King]

I don't think a "one day" kinda thing would work.

If they can plan for it, they'll just deal with it. It needs to be that enough people simply decide they're just not going to do it anymore. Or perhaps decide to only fly in limited circumstances and find other transportation for everything else..

[po boy]

I don't think a "one day" kinda thing would work.

If they can plan for it, they'll just deal with it. It needs to be that enough people simply decide they're just not going to do it anymore. Or perhaps decide to only fly in limited circumstances and find other transportation for everything else..

Kind of like lets audit the fed instead of using pm and private contracts.

[Joe King]

Yea, kinda like that.

Gotta hurt that bottom line of theirs.

[po boy]

Yea, kinda like that.

Gotta hurt that bottom line of theirs.

Money is the root.