Future Attribute Screening Technology: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:08, 9 October 2017

Revision as of 14:51, 4 February 2019

Line 35:

==Controversy==

Other researchers, such as Tom Ormerod, fromof the Investigative Expertise Unit at the UK's [[Lancaster University]], argue that ordinary travel anxieties could cause false positives. - Ormerod told "'Even'[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' "even having an iris scan or fingerprint read at immigration is enough to raise the heart rate of most legitimate travellers,' says Ormerod"."<ref name=nature1/> Others noted that the basic premise may be flawed. Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, stated "I believe that the premise of this approach — that there is an identifiable physiological signature uniquely associated with malicious intent — is mistaken. To my knowledge, it has not been demonstrated." The ''Nature'' article in which he was quoted went on to note that Altergood is concerned that the technology "will produce a large proportion of false positives, frequently tagging innocent people as potential terrorists and making the system unworkable in a busy airport."<ref name=nature1/>

Due to the ability of the system to 'read people's thoughts', it is potentially in violation of privacy laws such as the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth]] and [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. A summary of the scientific and legal issues with the program was presented at [[DEF CON]] in 2011 by independent security researchers.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[DEF CON]] |title=DEF CON 19 Speakers |url=https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-19/dc-19-speakers.html#Rezchikov |accessdate=2011-11-12}}</ref>