What's the objection? I don't see how having my heart rate scanned at an airport or military checkpoint in any way impinges on my freedom or happiness.
What's the objection? I don't see how having my heart rate scanned at an airport or military checkpoint in any way impinges on my freedom or happiness.
Please supply your dna and biometrics at every entry point of a public roadways. Thank you good citizen.
> Please supply your dna and biometrics at every entry point of a public roadways. Thank you good citizen.
Hysterical slipper slope nonsense.
Using RF to passively detect someone's heart rate at close range is objectively less intrusive than cameras are.
Right up until they take you aside for body crevice analysis because your heart rate was a little high, anyway
Doesn't seem like a reasonable objection to me. It takes a lot of time and man power to search people's body cavities. The incentive is to avoid searching as many people as possible.
> The incentive is to avoid searching as many people as possible
Oh good lord. Now it's no longer even "have you read a history book on the 20th century?" anymore, it's "have you been paying attention to the world for the past 15 years?".
> Oh good lord. Now it's no longer even "have you read a history book on the 20th century?" anymore, it's "have you been paying attention to the world for the past 15 years?".
Spare me the hysterics and the insults. What exactly is your claim?
That body cavity searches have increased rapidly over the last 15 years? That it's a common occurrence? That security personnel actually has an incentive to do them more rather than less?
Give me the books you read and sources you read that support your claim. I doubt they exist. I suspect you're going off "vibes" here, but I'll gladly read them if you can cite them.
> What exactly is your claim?
I think it's plain enough. That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.
> That security personnel actually has an incentive to do them more rather than less?
I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works. Are you from the US? Certain "security personnel" have been working overtime since the start of the current presidency as I'm sure you're aware... And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).
> That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.
Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.
Are you somehow unaware of the fact that security personnel, for example TSA at airports, are already empowered to use their own discretion in deciding that particular people seem to merit extra scrutiny?
Any TSA officer can flag any person as suspicious for almost any reason. They don't abuse this power generally because they have very little incentive to and there are checks on it.
> I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works.
Do you think TSA officers are incentivized to do more or fewer body cavity searches? Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight and have to reference Trump in the context of a discussion about secure environment screening technology.
> And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).
I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.
Which, I'd argue, is why I'm less concerned about this technology than you. I know what kinds of things actually infringe on people's liberties.
Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.
Jesus christ give the body cavity thing a rest. It was an expression somebody said 1 time and you latched on like a pitbull to an infant. Obviously you're not in good faith arguing like this.
> Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.
There is NO correlation between that measurement and criminal activity, that's the point. It's NOT OBJECTIVE like a polygraph test is not objective even though it's recording objective measurements. This would be just a tool for the state apparatus to harass arbitrary citizens with a veil of plausible deniability ("ah but my sensor says you're nervous, what are you hiding citizen??"). I would also do well without the condescending attitude tyvm.
> Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight
Did ICE need bonuses to ramp up their actions over the past 9 months? Did the SS need bonuses, did the Stasi, the NKVD, any of the repressive apparatus of any totalitarian regime of the 20th century? Jesus h christ.
> I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.
> Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.
Ahaha okay this is one step below a navy seals copypasta, so let's leave it at this. Enjoy your weekend!
True. To avoid searching as many of the wrong people as possible, and search all of the right people. Of course, those categories are fluid.
Today you’re among the people to avoid searching; tomorrow, well… maybe you’ll have a reason to be nervous.
> Today you’re among the people to avoid searching; tomorrow, well… maybe you’ll have a reason to be nervous.
What do you even mean here? Seems entirely incoherent.
You're missing the point: if the computer picks you out for some reason (perhaps you are ill, perhaps you are worried about losing your job or a family member's health, whatever), they won't care about the economic inefficiency or the infringement on your rights. Just because you don't intend to commit crimes doesn't mean you're immunized from bad decision-making by security systems.
Explain how it's worse than a camera or thermal camera that detects you sweating? Explain how it increases the incentive to do body cavity searches?
Are you always this rude? No.
Edit: after looking through the rest of the thread, it appears that you are. Happy Saturday I guess.
Some of the responses to me were rude and I calibrated my responses to them appropriately. You stated I was "missing the point" which is more rude than me sincerely asking you to explain your rationale.
Your claims made very little sense. In my view, this potential new technology in no way increases the power of security personnel beyond what they already posses.
Because having a high heart rate doesn't mean you've committed a crime. Are you trolling?
"Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own."
Going through airport security is stressful and unpleasant already with a lot of people whose heart rates are probably somewhat elevated as a result.
"Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own."
Unless something about you is targeted to increase searches to intentionally inconvenience people like you. Then it just becomes parallel construction.