Arun Jiwa @ 12-06-2008
Get this, the next time you’re at the airport, security cameras could be watching your every step and feeding it into a computer, from where security officials could crosscheck your gait-type with CCTV footage to spot suspected terrorists:
A database of different gaits thus created may enable security officials to recognise the gait of individuals checking in at an airport, even before they entered the concourse. The researchers say that a comparison of such data with CCTV footage may also be used to track suspect terrorists or criminals who may otherwise be disguising their features or be carrying forged documents.
What about privacy issues?
They insist that gait recognition has a significant advantage over more well-known biometrics, including fingerprinting and iris scanning, in that it is entirely unobtrusive.
It seems like a workable idea, but when you consider how many people pass through airports everyday, and how long it would take to capture the gaits of enough people to have an unbiased sample size to work with, and the accuracy of the gait recognition, you start to override the practicalities that are initially presented. [image by chilling soul]
Related posts
James Boone Dryden @ 11-06-2008
Since 9/11, the government’s use of video surveillance on the public has increased dramatically (this opens a new window with a .pdf). While the vast majority of this surveillance has been implemented to “protect the country from another 9/11-style attack”, it has been used in other arenas as well, namely in attempts to catch wanted criminals. It’s effectiveness in such a capacity is questionable at times, and the effects of such surveillance on society is noteworthy [photo courtesy of kafka4prez].
However, companies like 3VR - one of the largest surveillance software and video-analysis producers in the world - have begun development of increased-privacy software that would seek to protect innocent people from being falsely targeted by authorities. Their software is hoping to visible blur every face in video surveillance unless an investigation requires that the people in the video be identified. It seems like a small step in the right direction to counter the immense violations by the NSA not too long ago, but at least it’s something.
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 24-04-2008
They may be off the news radar at the moment, but botnets are still a serious bugbear for computer security professionals - it’s hard work trying to defeat something that fights back, after all. [image by Rodrigo Senna]
So here’s a new idea from the University of Washington - why not fight fire with fire, and build a white hat botnet to defend against the DDoS attacks af the black hat botnets?
“Their system, called Phalanx, uses its own large network of computers to shield the protected server. Instead of the server being accessed directly, all information must pass through the swarm of “mailbox” computers.
The many mailboxes do not simply relay information to the server like a funnel – they only pass on information when the server requests it. That allows the server to work at its own pace, without being swamped.”
Sounds like a good plan. It’s beyond my knowledge levels, but the guys at Techdirt seem to think it’s a creative approach.
As a recent convert to Linux, this is the part where I smugly remind everyone that if certain commercially ubiquitous operating systems weren’t so riddled with security flaws, botnets wouldn’t be a problem anyway …
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 12-03-2008
Wired has given David Brin some rebuttal space to defend his Transparent Society concept in response to Bruce Schneier’s recent criticisms (as covered earlier here on Futurismic):
“How did we get the freedom we already have, becoming the first civilization in history to (somewhat) defy ancient patterns? Yes, it’s imperfect, always under threat. We swim against hard currents of human nature. But reciprocal accountability is the innovation that lets us even try.
Schneier claims that The Transparent Society doesn’t address “the inherent value of privacy.” But several chapters do, and I conclude that privacy is an inherent human need, too important to leave in the hands of state elites, who are themselves following ornate information-control rules written by other elites — rules, by the way, that never work. (Robert Heinlein said “‘privacy laws’ only make the bugs smaller.”)”
Going back and reading Schneier’s piece again, it does seem like he’s arguing a similar point from a different direction - they’re both opposed to top-heavy hierarchies of control. It would be great if Wired could arrange some sort of formal public debate between Schneier and Brin - the topic has never been more relevant, after all, and as Cory Doctorow points out, talking about these issues is the best way to ensure things don’t get any worse. [image by David de Groot]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 10-03-2008
Edward Willett @ 31-10-2007
Bullets don’t just bounce off Superman, they don’t even slow him down. Real-life police and soldiers can’t say the same, even when they’re wearing a bulletproof jacket of Kevlar or something similar. Although bullets don’t penetrate–the bulletproof material spreads their force–the force is still tranmsitted to the tissue underneath the bulletproof shell, causing severe bruising or even organ damage.
Now engineers from the Centre for Advanced Materials Technology at the University of Sydney have found a way to use carbon nanotubes to not only stop bullets penetrating material but actually rebound their force, so bullets can be repelled with "minimum or no damage to the wearer of a bullet proof vest.” (Via Science Blog.)
If they can just nail the X-ray vision, super-strength and flying stuff, they can break out the red-and-blue tights. (Image from Wikimedia Commons.)
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 25-10-2007
OK, I might be stretching the point with "semi-sentient", but it still has all the hallmarks of a bad AI thriller movie plot. The infamous and still-growing botnet created by the Storm worm virus is able to detect when its command and control structure is being probed by computer security types, and launch denial-of-service attacks at them in retaliation. While some experts believe that Storm has pretty much run its course, others estimate that it may be sitting on a power-base of more than 15 million infected machines, waiting to be hired out to the highest bidder. It’s a long step from the golden era of the Christmas Tree and Friday The Thirteenth viruses. [Via BoingBoing] [Image by RileyRoxx]
Related posts
Edward Willett @ 06-10-2007
Ever look at the guy next to you in the lineup at airport security and wonder, "Is he a terrorist?" Well, scientists at the University at Buffalo are working on automated systems to help answer that question before those questionable individuals ever get on the plane–although, unlike you, their suspicions hopefully won’t be fueled by a mistrust of bald men with earrings or the fact your ex-wife’s mother looked just like that before she started smashing your prize collection of Star Wars figurines.
Instead, the system will track faces, voices, bodies and other biometrics against "scientifically tested behavioral indicators" to provide a numerical score of the likelihood that an individual may be about to commit a terrorist act. (Via Science Daily.)
Smile for the camera! But not as if you have something to hide… (Photo from Wikimedia Commons.)
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 03-09-2007
The mammalian nose is a powerful and sensitive organ - just ask your dog. That’s why an Israeli company have decided to mimic the olfactory organ in an ‘electronic nose’ that can be used to detect trace amounts of explosive materials, among other things. Yet another device for the street to find a use for …[Engadget]
Related posts
Jeremy Lyon @ 02-08-2007
Bruce Schneier, that pragmatic and insightful observer of the so-called security state, is interviewing Kip Hawley, the head of the Transportation Safety Administration. The interview is going up on Schneier’s blog in 5 installments. Read part 1 to start.
Kip Hawley comes out sounding almost reasonable, though Schneier demolishes most of Hawley’s points (or at least those points that don’t reduce to, “it’s secret, so just trust me”).
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 02-08-2007
Remember all those RFID security hacker types trying to tell our governments that the technology would be easy to compromise? They weren’t making it up - the first proof-of-concept exploits for passport RFID are already in the bag.
Related posts
