New Technology Could Detect Terrorists By Screening For Anxiety

by Peter Mychalcewycz on September 20, 2008 at 03:12 PM

How do you feel when you walk through an airport these days? Angry, confused, and poorer than when you arrived? Us too!

We usually wouldn't mention such a touchy issue, but there is a new technology in development that could possibly affect millions of ornery travelers in a profound way. The Department of Homeland Security recently showcased an early version of what is basically an anxiety-detection machine designed to detect unusually high biological fluctuations in humans at airport checkpoints (changes in breathing patterns, increased heart rate, etc.)

They're looking for anxiety at airport checkpoints...Really? That's like going to Princeton University during final exams and screening a fourth generation legacy.

Sigh....

We don't really have much to say about this. They say the technology is in its infancy and years away from the marketplace. We hope so, because if they screened us for anxiety after we had just waited in line for an hour to pay 100 dollars for checking an extra piece of gum, we would probably have the same vital signs as a suicide bomber. [From: USA Today]

Tags: airport, anxiety, flying, homelandsecurity, stress, top, travel

Comments

scottmcpartlandSep 20th 2008 5:23PM

Neutral

So I guess Woody Allen and lot of other people who panic when they fly in jets will be grounded from here on. Good idea.

Dislike

Report

Make more Bond filmsSep 20th 2008 8:26PM

Neutral

so every new tool to HELP (not be the only factor) find terrorists means Bush created a police state, NOT Janet Reno and Bill Clinton who sent
in police to a private home to kidnap Elien Gonzalez and force him to go to Communist Cuba.

Dislike

Report

FredSep 21st 2008 12:15PM

Neutral

Like 99.999% of Americans, I have absolutely no notion of having less privacy under Bush than any other President. My life is the same. Maybe that's because I'm not at a public library searching for dirty bombs and the blueprints for government buildings. For those who are, gosh I'm so sorry that their privacy has been invaded by Bush. We live in a technological world where privacy is becoming nonexistant, if you don't like it, throw away your computers, credit cards, and cell phones. Its the march of technology, not Bush thats destroying our privacy. And by the way, thank you Bush for the years under your watch with no terrorists attacks in America. I'd rather have living Americans, than an inconvenienced terrorist. We also need to separate "rights" from "privacy." We have more rights than ever in the history of the country what with the Supreme Court finding rights all the time, but again, privacy is a technology issue more than a government issue.

Dislike

Report

Gregory DittmerSep 21st 2008 3:26PM

Neutral

"Like 99.999% of Americans, I have absolutely no notion of having less privacy under Bush than any other President."

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\

Well Fred, I'm certain your figures need revising! While it may be a minority that feel issues like the Patriot Act have cut into personal privacy and Constitutional protections, it is certainly a LOT more than you claim.
Further, while you may "have absolutely no notion of having less privacy," the fact is you have far less privacy in everyday matters. Just because you can't sense it surely doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Personally, even though I am doing nothing illegal, I don't think the Government should be allowed to check my financial records or know what library books I read. If I want to rant on about Bush and Cheney or talk to someone in Iran or China, it is my right under the Constitution of the United States of America and NO ONE has the right to intercept or otherwise monitor what I say!
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of this great country had much wisdom that was expressed in few words.........

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."

"He that's secure is not safe."

Dislike

Report

PAmedSep 21st 2008 12:44PM

Neutral

So like our current Govt. to be elementary in it's attempts at security, all while spending trillions in Iraq to make a point and a grab for big oil. Housewives, those on their way to a wedding or surgery in another state, CEOs whos companies are failing, someone on their way to a relative's funeral, etc. ... all of these folks will risk being pulled aside and labeled as possible terrorists? What a ridiculous attempt at proactivity?! Aside from that, even if it were a useful tool, the attacks were in 2001. Why is it taking so long to find a reasonable, technological method that will safeguard airtravel?

Dislike

Report

betsySep 21st 2008 1:22PM

Neutral

The terrorists will train themselves to keep that under control through meditation or something. I will be the one getting picked on because I am afraid to fly. This sounds too easy to beat.

Dislike

Report

Gregory DittmerSep 21st 2008 3:39PM

Neutral

Now the Government has come up with yet another method of snagging MANY innocent people with a huge net meant to catch but one or two! So many people seem to think anything the Government does is fine... at least until it affects THEM personally... then you will hear them cry from sea to sea.
The Government of this country was designed to work FOR The People, not to CONTROL The People! The Constitution was written to limit what the Government can and cannot do, it was NEVER meant to give or take away your personal, God given rights as a human. All citizens of this country have many rights that are not specifically named or spelled out in the Constitution, to do so is not necessary nor possible without having a fairly straight forward document turned into a voluminous library.

Dislike