- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Well, Orwell was only a few years off...
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
Peeze
Smash Master
Is this in America? I couldnt reaad the article. You messed up the link.
M@v
Subarashii!
Well. If this thing does work as well as they say, imagine the potential. It could make security so much better for America. As mentioned though, they have to make sure it works flawlessly, so an average joe late for a meeting doesn't get mistaken for a terrorist. Looks good though.
Doxa
Smash Rookie
hold your horses, and the hype.
Reading someone's body language to predict their thoughts and feelings have long been used by the FBI, teachers, and your mom. So in the first place any semi trained eye is already able to read a person to the same extent these sensors can possibly read someone.
These sensors use just a more in depth analysis that probably doesn't work as there are a variety of external factors that can also affect what it reads. After any real solid testing this will prove to be a joke and scrapped in favor of continuing to use human thinking.
Reading someone's body language to predict their thoughts and feelings have long been used by the FBI, teachers, and your mom. So in the first place any semi trained eye is already able to read a person to the same extent these sensors can possibly read someone.
These sensors use just a more in depth analysis that probably doesn't work as there are a variety of external factors that can also affect what it reads. After any real solid testing this will prove to be a joke and scrapped in favor of continuing to use human thinking.
Bowser King
Have It Your Way
Of course, moms are the best at reading heart beats and body temperatures.
-
Bowser KingDoxa
Smash Rookie
at what point in my post did i say they could? I said body language, stupid.Of course, moms are the best at reading heart beats and body temperatures.
-
Pluvia's other account
Smash Master
It mentions it can tell the difference between someone who sweats alot and a terrorist, but it doesn't actually state how.
And look at all those vital signs it looks for, what happens if you're just sexually aroused or something?
Next time you think an air hostess is hot, watch out, Guantanamo Bay is waiting.
And look at all those vital signs it looks for, what happens if you're just sexually aroused or something?
Next time you think an air hostess is hot, watch out, Guantanamo Bay is waiting.
Or what if you've been delayed for three hours and are pissed about it? This is the most ********* thing I've ever heard.
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
THIS IS *********
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
THIS IS *********
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am never referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Next we'll be getting the Thought Police. And then come the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Love...
I'm reading 1984.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
The biggest problem I have, other than it pretty much goes on your intentions, not if you've committed a crime, is that it gets both "terrorists," and "criminals."
If someone is going to cheat on their spouse, wouldn't their nervousness with infidelity be registered? Then, it comes back to the dumb argument: "if you didn't do anything wrong, why worry?" Because with **** like this, it's only a matter of time before what you do is wrong.
If someone is going to cheat on their spouse, wouldn't their nervousness with infidelity be registered? Then, it comes back to the dumb argument: "if you didn't do anything wrong, why worry?" Because with **** like this, it's only a matter of time before what you do is wrong.
I'm pretty sure the suicide bombers who are, you know, proud of what they do are going to be sitting on the bus, sweating, looking around at anyone. If they've committed themselves to it, they aren't going to worry.
At the same time, I'm sure a good number of them do worry. Even if you've committed yourself to something and wholly believe in it, killing yourself must be a sweat-inducing act.
At the very least, this kind of technology could cut down on some (certainly not all) crimes. After all, police can't be everywhere, and they can't analyze everybody's facial expression and physiological cues.
OmegaXXII
Fire Emblem Lord/ Trophy Hunter
well you do present a good point, but why should they even have worry about anything at all? sure there sacrificing their own life, but they are bringing it amongs themselfs, unless they were forced to do it.
hmm... this kind of technology would sure prove quite effective here in the states, though I don't think we'll ever see this in the future. (at least for the time being anyway.)
I guess. Pain in the *** we'll never know :/
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
You are aware they already began implementation of this, right? They did a test on an audience in Maryland over the weekend, and though they can't release specifics, they said it was a "homerun."
This is bordering on Thoughtcrime and arresting for the intention of committing a crime already. It's really scary when the government starts to use fear tactics like "this will cut down on stuff like 9/11" to make people want to give up their civil liberties.
Plus, if terrorists plan to commit anything, they will learn about this soon and find ways around it.
manhunter098
Smash Lord
I already know how to get around it...it really doesnt take any thought at all. Some botox injections to those muscles that it looks at for movement, a drug to reduce your heart rate and body temperature, and probably something else to cut down on sweating. Viola. You have no managed to pass an intent to commit a crime screening.
This is something I can see working for more petty criminals, but not people like terrorists, willing to give up their life for their cause.
The most faith that I have in the system though is in its detection of facial expressions (well its better than just that). Which I would assume to be the primary indicator, since sweating, increased heart rate, and breathing patterns are all things that react in virtually the same way to many different states of arousal.
This is something I can see working for more petty criminals, but not people like terrorists, willing to give up their life for their cause.
The most faith that I have in the system though is in its detection of facial expressions (well its better than just that). Which I would assume to be the primary indicator, since sweating, increased heart rate, and breathing patterns are all things that react in virtually the same way to many different states of arousal.
Autydragoon
Smash Journeyman
I bet this machine ends up causing cancer. What about those that are trained to hide facial expression?
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Well I am thinking that this goes beyond simple facial expression. More than likely it is looking at factors that are involuntary. Hence it should be relatively effective, but its far from unbeatable.
The Executive
Smash Lord
Thoughtcrime? Hello, dystopia.
Yeah, lets give away all of our civil liberties out of fear. Great idea.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I really can't believe that ANYONE would be ok with this. Just goes to show how braindead the American public is now. We're so screwed.
Doxa
Smash Rookie
stop. no...not this.
It is just hype. It achieves nothing more than what semi-trained personell can already read through body language.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
No, actually it doesn't. It measures INVISIBLE cues that your body goes through, such as increase in temperature and brain patterns. Yeah, there aren't many people who can do this. And it's just the first step. Keep in mind, this is HIDDEN in places such as stadiums, malls, schools, and airports. You have no idea when you'll be scanned, once it's finally implemented.
The Patriot Act was Step 1 in removing our civil liberties, this is step 2 in assuming we are completely guilty all the time, and step 3 will be god only knows.
The Patriot Act was Step 1 in removing our civil liberties, this is step 2 in assuming we are completely guilty all the time, and step 3 will be god only knows.
Doxa
Smash Rookie
I recognize it measures invisible cues but let me explicitly make my point, first a quote from the article:
"Homeland Security has developed a system to recognize, define and measure seven primary emotions and emotional cues that are reflected in contractions of facial muscles. MALINTENT identifies these emotions and relays the information back to a security screener almost in real-time."
This sensor does not reveal anymore about you than a trained eye can read. It does not read your thoughts, it reads primary emotions. An untrained human being can tell a little about emotions through body language. I know that FBI agents are trained to read body language to define and measure primary emotions. Let me reiterate: this sensor does not reveal any more information than a trained eye can read. THIS SENSOR DOES NOT REVEAL ANY MORE INFORMATION THAN A TRAINED EYE CAN READ. By information I am referring to the emotions sought out.
As for the stealth factor, it is easy for a person to study you without notice. You have no idea why a random stranger is staring at you for a few minutes, least notice them.
Step1: Patriot Act
Step 2: Emotion detecting sensors
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Though police! PROFIT!!!!!!!!
To assume science's progression is infinite you can make that jump from step 2 to step 4. But I see science as limited, and see that jump improbable.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
First of all, no, the human eye cannot detect heart rate, body temperature, or intent. Even the techniques those FBI agents use on a daily basis are inexact. Ultimately, what one agent may interpret as intent may be interpreted differently by another agent.
No, the REAL problem with this is the subject of circumstanial evidence. When accusing someone of intent to murder, for instance, circumstantial evidence is ok, but it has to be reasonable. The reason, for instance, a letter stating how much I'd like to kill someone is enough proof to prove motive/intent (even without ANY OTHER evidence) is because anyone (meaning a jury of my peers) can look at that letter and go, 'Yeah, I can see that he wanted to kill that guy.'
We already have a problem with lie detector tests. Not only can they be beaten (within a pretty reasonable margin, btw), but the results have to be interpreted by a 'trained' person, meaning I can't just show the results to Joe Juryman and have him comment on it. That means that we have to rely on the experience (and either lack or presence of bias) of an interpreter, which means we get a lot less of an accurate depiction of intent. That's why lie detector tests aren't used a whole lot in court; because as far as circumstantial evidence goes, it's pretty shaky.
Now, we come to these machines. Not only are they trying to standardize human emotion with these machines (the same stress response that triggers the machine might stand for terrorist intent OR a really bad day at the office), but no doubt the data given by the machines will be confusing enough to require interpretation (most likely by a government official specially 'trained' to do so). As of this point, all bets are off the table. We don't know if this 'interpreter' is getting paid off by the government to say, 'Oh yeah, this guy was totally a terrorist' or not. We can't really trust the interpretation BECAUSE of things like the Patriot Act and the government's track record of making stuff up. No jury of your peers would be able to look at this data on their own and make a conviction; they would be at the mercy of an interpreter (because from the sounds of it, the government would try to take someone to court with ONLY this data as evidence). The whole concept of a fair and balanced trial is TOTALLY out the window.
We'd be at the mercy of whoever is in charge of these machines, thus, the administration at the time. THIS IS BAD. VERY BAD.
No, the REAL problem with this is the subject of circumstanial evidence. When accusing someone of intent to murder, for instance, circumstantial evidence is ok, but it has to be reasonable. The reason, for instance, a letter stating how much I'd like to kill someone is enough proof to prove motive/intent (even without ANY OTHER evidence) is because anyone (meaning a jury of my peers) can look at that letter and go, 'Yeah, I can see that he wanted to kill that guy.'
We already have a problem with lie detector tests. Not only can they be beaten (within a pretty reasonable margin, btw), but the results have to be interpreted by a 'trained' person, meaning I can't just show the results to Joe Juryman and have him comment on it. That means that we have to rely on the experience (and either lack or presence of bias) of an interpreter, which means we get a lot less of an accurate depiction of intent. That's why lie detector tests aren't used a whole lot in court; because as far as circumstantial evidence goes, it's pretty shaky.
Now, we come to these machines. Not only are they trying to standardize human emotion with these machines (the same stress response that triggers the machine might stand for terrorist intent OR a really bad day at the office), but no doubt the data given by the machines will be confusing enough to require interpretation (most likely by a government official specially 'trained' to do so). As of this point, all bets are off the table. We don't know if this 'interpreter' is getting paid off by the government to say, 'Oh yeah, this guy was totally a terrorist' or not. We can't really trust the interpretation BECAUSE of things like the Patriot Act and the government's track record of making stuff up. No jury of your peers would be able to look at this data on their own and make a conviction; they would be at the mercy of an interpreter (because from the sounds of it, the government would try to take someone to court with ONLY this data as evidence). The whole concept of a fair and balanced trial is TOTALLY out the window.
We'd be at the mercy of whoever is in charge of these machines, thus, the administration at the time. THIS IS BAD. VERY BAD.
Peeze
Smash Master
Oh yeah good call. now we're screwed. Not the $700 billion dollars they're trying to make us(eventually us) pay. Or the fact that the government can intercept any form of communication you make by bullying phone companies into giving up records. Or the fact that the government uses satellites to eavesdrop on phone calls, faxes and emails, looking for "keywords". This is what does it. Monitoring heart rate.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Did I say 'Now we're screwed'? No, I did not. We've been screwed for a while now. This is only compounding the problem. Don't put words in my mouth.
Besides, this is NOT just 'monitoring heart rate'. This is accusing people of terrorist intent. This is trying to get courts (assuming those still exist) to admit mind reading as substantial evidence. There is, as of now, NO WAY to accurately predict intention from anything other than physical evidence. Heart rate and temperature should NOT be enough. But these people want it to be the basis for criminal intent. That. Is. Asanine.
Besides, this is NOT just 'monitoring heart rate'. This is accusing people of terrorist intent. This is trying to get courts (assuming those still exist) to admit mind reading as substantial evidence. There is, as of now, NO WAY to accurately predict intention from anything other than physical evidence. Heart rate and temperature should NOT be enough. But these people want it to be the basis for criminal intent. That. Is. Asanine.
Peeze
Smash Master
Huh, dont uh dont recall me saying you said "now we're screwed". But uh you can interpret that however you want. Just merely making a point Jackass
Adi
Smash Lord
Hmm this is a complicated issue. On one hand I can understand the incredible good this could do. I don't really buy the whole boogie-man Islam terrorist **** the government tries to propogate, but never-the-less there always could be some pyscho hell-bent on killing innocent people which this device could potentially stop. On the other hand the methods behind this device is rather sketchy. Once we start essentially making thought a crime, we really make the punishment of individuals subjective to the authority. Hard-evidence is a constant and is not a subjective material (for the most part) in deciding the fate of someone charged. I don't know how this is going to work out in the end, but I feel that in no way this will be positive.
I think we should wait until the results of the experiment are out before passing judgment on this device.
The Boss of God
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 149
THIS IS *********
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am obviously referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I don't mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
*DISCLAIMER* When I use the word "********," I am obviously referring to a person with an actual mental handicap. When I say "********," I don't mean a person possessing no mental handicaps whatsoever who otherwise are acting with less intelligence than a four-year-old. Just in case anyone wants to be offended by my use of the word ********.
OmegaXXII
Fire Emblem Lord/ Trophy Hunter
indeed, but the question is on who?
They're just testing it out on volunteers at the moment, not random people.
Imagine if religion were still as influential today as it was in the Middle Ages, or during the Inquisition, and we had access to this type of technology.
Who's to say what will begin to pass as "wrong thoughts" if this actually becomes implemented? The sky's the limit for whatever government decides to use this. Charging someone with crime for being nervous at an airport? WTF.
Who's to say what will begin to pass as "wrong thoughts" if this actually becomes implemented? The sky's the limit for whatever government decides to use this. Charging someone with crime for being nervous at an airport? WTF.
The article and video already say that it can discriminate between someone who sweats a lot, or someone who is in a rush, you know, things like that. I don't know all the details, but it sounds like this thing is more accurate than a lot of you are giving it credit for.
Pluvia's other account
Smash Master
Yeah, but they never elaborated on that point.