Homeland Security Gets Closer To Minority Report-Style Crime Predictor
from the arrest-first,-ask-questions-later dept
Ever since the film Minority Report came out, we've seen a series of stories about efforts to predict future crimes before they happen. Most of these are more about data mining to predict high crime areas and times -- but some are going much further. Slashdot points us to a story about Homeland Security apparently making progress on a "pre-crime detector." It was originally called "Project Hostile Intent," but after some folks figured that the name was a bit... ominous, it seems to have been renamed as "Future Attribute Screening Technologies" (FAST). Basically the system is designed to spot "shifty" people who may be getting ready to commit a crime of some sort. The researchers behind it say that the early tests are incredibly effective: "We are running at about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception." Of course, there are tons of questions about privacy violations and how long it will take criminals to figure out ways to "beat the system."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, crime predictor, homeland security, minority report
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/WTF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Starts rereading Nineteen Eighty Four*
Not only are their questions about privacy violations, but if no crime has been committed, you can't indict anyone with said crime. No body, no murder, no case. How will you prove that someone had the intention of committing a crime? Talk about mission creep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you see USA caring about this detail where exactly?
Ship them to Cuba. Then forget about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If 4,000 people pass through an airport daily, then the system would have incorrectly busted 800 of them?
I wonder how they decided that a prediction was accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False positives
Let's assume this system is amazingly good and has only a 1% false positives rate. On an airport where 10.000 passengers pass through and 10 of them are terrorists, security now has to seperate the eight (remember, 78% success rate!) terrorists from the 100 angry innocents.
O, and two terrorists just got onboard, no problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False positives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Long?
78% accuracy on mal-intent detection? How the hell do they come up with those figures? There's no way anybody can predict that. It'll just be an excuse (if it goes much further) for officials to catch asian / middle-eastern people and say they predicted they would committ terrorist acts.
You can't spot 'shifty'. It's a matter of opinion. What about crimes of passion? Spontaneity? How to spot that? All this would do is attack foreign nationals and anybody with a history.
Fuckin' DHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's no wonder people have hostile thoughts with all this invasion of privacy going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are We Barking Up The Wrong Tree?
But I wonder how the success rate of this fancy new piece of technology will compare with the professional judgement of an experienced CBP or regular police officer? The trial referenced in that New Scientist article was so contrived as to be meaningless; something like this needs a real double-blind test on a big scale before anyone places any orders. Perhaps a field test in Times Square on New Year's Eve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's more likely
Depending on the quantities of the purchase his threat could be as lot as making homemade firecrackers to as much as a potential bomber...
Same would go with things like increasing life insurance, withdrawing large sums of money from the bank, gifting away large assets would flag a potential suicide...
What would be interesting is if it could link multiple people doing smaller subsets such as one guy buying the salt peter, another the Sulfur and a third the charcoal and alcohol...
I highly doubt that it could predict crimes such as burglary or most murders, at least not until they can track out location 100% of the time.
Truth is a system like this would be much more reliable than any human observations could ever be. It's a shame that every level of privacy we have is going to have to be sacrificed for this to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's more likely
And BTW, even a 99% accuracy is horrible. Its called the Paradox of False Positives (link: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/). Funnily enough the person who wrote that (Cory Doctorow) started out describing the paradox like this:
"If you ever decide to do something as stupid as build an automatic terrorism detector, here's a math lesson you need to learn first. It's called "the paradox of the false positive," and it's a doozy."
This is just another sign that the Executive branch needs a thorough cleaning. The next President has a lot of house keeping to do. The best way to start is by disbanding the TSA and DHS and getting some real experts rather than people who just share your political ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Detection? Of what?
"We are running at about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception."
What struck me was that the system achieved these scores from *people who were explicitly told to act suspiciously*, not a random sampling.
The tech certainly can't be that good if itonly gets an 80% hit rate of people who are *deliberately* acting suspiciously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law-enforcement
See Terry v. Ohio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo
Because that is what this is to our freedoms.
The DHS should be disbanded or seriously curbed before they completely erode our constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bin Laden Won
I guess he did...............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pre-crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No doubt it's intended to be used as, "This person has a high chance of doing some bad shit, we'll keep an eye on them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did they get their figures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUSH DOCTRINE
VOTE McCain 2008 - CLOSED UNTIL CRISIS SOLVED AND WORLD SAVED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUSH DOCTRINE
Imagine if we could have killed George W. Bush before he could start a war that's killed many times more human beings than 9/11 did. Or how about Kissinger before he carpet-bombed an entire country (yes, he was responsible)?
Let me make it clear I don't advocate either because if you live long enough and pay attention(!) you'll realize that bad things are going to happen to people of all stripes; good, bad, or otherwise.
As an aside, I'm always mildly amused/dismayed when defenders of Bush, the born-again Christian, conveniently drop the "hate the sin, love the sinner" dogma and wrap themselves in the flag. Makes me wonder how unshakeable that faith really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUSH DOCTRINE
Imagine if we could of killed you and everyone else who supports the Bush doctrine as a kid. Then the terrorist would have no one to hate.
Hey, I think your on to something here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUSH DOCTRINE
Your actually in Al-Quida arent you? Why do you hate my freedoms?
VOTE McCain 2008 - He'll win the war or die trying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUSH DOCTRINE
Twat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People in the 80's use to scream of Big Brother and were looked at as conspiracy theorists/nuts. You almost have to ask yourself, were they so wrong? Are they really not looking at the big picture? Maybe they are and you're the one who is narrow minded.
My Rant of The Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
78%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed a part...
Gee, I hope the terrorists can't figure out how to pretend not to have hostile intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed a part...
Now we can pretend that it will somehow make us safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
profiling
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
myth of the false positive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
myth of the false positive
if such a system is 80% effective, that means it's 20% ineffective and that 20% of the people scanned will be harassed for no reason. that's why there are search and seizure laws and why warrants are supposed to be difficult to get, so you only go after 100% positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: myth of the false positive
Do you see that stopping the DHS with these border searchs? Their seizing of laptops, copying of documents?
Even if you are a US citizen they are ignoring your rights at the border.
The false positive is in no way a myth. If it is, please tell that to all the people who have been a false positive for systems used to track bad people. I am sure they would beg to differ.
Yes, the warrants should be hard to get. False positives Should be a myth, but they are far from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 Things
2) Government: FIX THE FUCKING ECOMONY YOU ASSHOLES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once upon a time
A sad, interesting footnote: psychopaths will get a free pass inasmuch as they "normally" do not register emotions, intents, or much of anything else ("he was such a nice looking boy... so thoughtful and considerate"... ala Ted Bundy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some points
I guess you're new to America and haven't learned about things like the Patriot Act or the "we're calling you a terrorist, so you're automatically guilty" policies.
As for this "predictive crime" system, what ever happened to the idea of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Even if you're arrested and charged with a crime, you still get your day in court where the government has to PROVE beyond a doubt that you committed the crime.
Now to government is going to pick people and say "He was going to commit a crime. See, he just looks guilty."
And who are these "shifty" people that the new policy will catch? I would be willing to bet that it's mostly minority races and religions. In other words, if you're an American citizen, but look like you're from the Middle East and you're Islamic, you might as well turn yourself in now.
And will this "system" really be able to predict or catch real terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, who were WHITE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overreacting
It should not be used to convict anyone but used to help security identify people who maybe up to no good.
If you go through the metal detector at the airport and the red light goes off you are not arrested...but pulled aside for additional screening. Same concept...
I also think airlines should consider "Nationality" Profiling. Seperate US Citizens from non US citizens in the screening process on domestic flights. Anyone can get a hold of a Drivers Licence..but getting a US Passport stating citiniship is a little more difficult. (also use biometric technology on identification papers...eye scans/fingerprints to help tie the document to the physical person).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]