Mind-reading passengers for terrorist potential – (note, potential) i.e. “thought crimes” – is here, folks, and seriously being batted about by Homeland Security:
“The aim of one company that blends high technology and behavioral psychology is hinted at in its name, WeCU — as in “We See You.”
The system that Israeli-based WeCU Technologies has devised and is testing in Israel projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize, said company CEO Ehud Givon.
The logic is that people can’t help reacting, even if only subtly, to familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places. If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your mother, Givon explained, you couldn’t help but respond.
The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said.
The WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate. Far more sensitive devices under development that can take such measurements from a distance would be incorporated later.
If the sensors picked up a suspicious reaction, the traveler could be pulled out of line for further screening.
“One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with specific malicious intent,” Givon said.
Some critics have expressed horror at the approach, calling it Orwellian and akin to “brain fingerprinting.”
For civil libertarians, attempting to read a person’s thoughts comes uncomfortably close to the future world depicted in the movie “Minority Report,” where a policeman played by Tom Cruise targets people for “pre-crimes,” or merely thinking about breaking the law.”
My Comment
This article is so filled with certifiably crazy, nightmarish ideas that I don´t know where to start. Here are the worst:
1. “Privatizing” airport security. You know what privatizing has meant for military interrogation – bid-rigging, crony capitalism, inflated costs, abuses of power, torture…
2. Terrorist profiling, based on “general appearance” and “mannerism”. (Lick your lips nervously at your own peril..)
3. Modeling US security on Israeli security, which means probing every item you carry (we´re talking about squeezing out toothpaste and unfolding socks and undies), profiling, and, yes, strip searches (Bend over, this will only take a minute...).
4. Monitoring behavioral responses (eye movements, twitches etc.) to terrorist-related imagery.
(What if your eyes widen when you see a picture of a building being blown up – is that a “guilty” response?)
Are they kidding? When sensors go off in a library each time someone walks out with a book they haven´t checked, my pulse races, no matter if I haven´t been anywhere near a book. I´m a naturally guilty person. I feel guilty about things that haven´t anything remotely to do with me. I have Kafkaesque dreams of being chased endlessly, answering tests that never end, dashing after papers that perpetually fly away, turning up just when doors are closing – ít´s a Protestant thing. I´d be hauled off in a second, if they put these ideas in place.
No question.
So this is how it works. They don´t drive you out of the state to some limbo in Siberia. That would at least leave you with the freedom of your mind. Instead they insert the state into your mind, where you can´t escape, even if you´re in in Siberia.
The 21st Century Mental Gulag.
All-American, all-invasive and all-pervasive.
It´s here.
Update:
Just saw this blog post by Stephen Kinsella at LRC on the new body-scanning techniques, which “liberals” apparently love. Kinsella is riffing off this stupid thoughtless piece by William Saletan* at Slate, a magazine that usually publishes smarter stuff. Saletan positively gloats over the prospect of people´s crotches being visible in detail (no algorithm-driven blanking out of details) to airport security. Yes, you read that right. Vulvas, penises, scrotums, breasts of everyone…. from your little girl… to your aging grandma… or breast-feeding wife …or menstruating sister… or nipple-pierced teen… or cancer-ravaged buddy will be visible on a screen to random strangers, with every potential to migrate from there to permanent records deliverable, no doubt, with the press of a button to the government, or to the media, or to commercial pornographers, to lob at you as needed.
Of course, this is the same Saletan who wrote this piece of tripe on Polanski. Figures.
Hi Lila,
Don’t know how to get ahold of you besides to hit-and-run your latest post like this since you don’t post any contact link. I responded to your comments at Degrees of Freedom.
I appreciate you taking the time to share with me. Honestly, I only understood how about 30% of what you wrote was related to your initial frustration that I said you were being naive. The rest of it was argument after argument about things you assume I think or believe that I’ve never discussed with you, or things that I do in fact agree with but were not related (as far as I could tell) to the original topic of calling for regulation and prosecution of various financial crimes.
I’d love to discuss in a more constructive format (perhaps privately via e-mail) rather than lobbing broadsides over the internet if you’re interested. If not, that’s fine too. Either way, I’d appreciate it if, when you decide to wave the white flag and deviate from principle without providing an explanation or justification for why you’re correct to do so in a given instance, you don’t simultaneously decide that it’d be a good time to tell me I am out of touch with reality. There is a surprisingly thin line between that logic and the logic of the State and its officials who say things like, “Look, as long as the world is full of evil men, we must…” or “Look, I agree that bailouts suck, but as long as the economy is interconnected the way it is, we must…”
I believe you have my e-mail address in your data when I post here, so if you’d like to carry this on feel free to contact me there. I think right now we’re talking past each other a bit… I’m making criticisms of your thinking based off of that which you’ve shared with me and everyone else on this blog, meanwhile you are making criticisms of my thinking based off your assumption that I am a libertarian robot (and you don’t seem to even understand what libertarian robots would typically say, either, which confuses things further).
I´ll respond to degrees of freedom..
I don´t assume you´re a libertarian robot at all..
I think some of the language is confused, that´s all
Again, you´re making a slippery slope argument and assuming that if I want crimes to be prosecuted, then it follows I believe in an expansion of the state.
Actually, I thought protecting life and liberty is
the only justificable duty of the state
Hi Taylor –
I think I will just answer here, because the post on your blog has so many comments, it won´t be read.
I don´t like to spend time on email….
1. My comment on Deep Capture and on 9-11 research was not out of the blue. Your disagreement with me sprang from my posting on various stories of corruption and on conspiracy theories on Zerohedge. You seemed to think that posting on corruption implied that I supported more regulation.
I answered in the negative.
I therefore felt the need to explain why talking about conspiracies was necessary to a libertarian project, in my view…and how it contributes to liberty
(besides the truth shall set you free angle)
That´s the connection to the comment about 9-11 – the arch conspiracy, which I don´t notice many libertarians talking about.
2. The remark about attacking postal workers and school teachers wasn´t directed at you. however a lot of libertarian blogs do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time mocking school teachers and postal workers. To my mind they seem less immediately dangerous than corrupt financiers. That, I admit, is only my point of view. But since the other point of view (financial crooks are heroes) is defended much more often on libertarian blogs, I thought it would be both chivalrous and just to pelt a few stones at that argument.
3. One of your posters defines theft to exclude financial crime…
He doesn´t seem aware of the subjectivity of his definition. Anyone who is unable to see that will scarcely be able to understand any other point I make. Enough said.
4. I fail to see why you need to resort to name calling about “fetishes” when I addressed you quite civilly. Liberty requires absence of coercion. Power has a temptation to coercion. Therefore ascertaining where power lies and ensuring that it is checked would be a natural libertarian concern, not a fetish. We dislike the government because of its power over us, a power we didn´t grant it voluntarily. The same could be said of many other things besides government…including the media, corporations and universities..
Most libertarians never get beyond linguistic fundamtentalism. It´s thus very unproductive to even have discussions with them at any length. I don´t.
I have no desire to convert or persuade anyone, least of all libertarians. I write this blog out of necessity to clarify some things for myself and to put out information that I think is useful. I write, hopefully, for a few foreign readers bewildered by the maze of arguments and counterarguments that obscure the outlines of the essential story, which is the old story of empire.
I´d like some of those people to be able to defend themselves – intellectually and otherwise – from empire. My concern is exceedingly practical.
I want them to recognize high flying crooks for what they are. I have no interest in knowing whether or not that is libertarian, socialist, pragmatic,idealistic or anything else. I couldn´t care less.
I wrote a blog post about India´s purchase of IMF gold. I put out some information that I hope alerted some people in the Indian government and press about concerns I had.
I have reason to believe it did.
Hopefully, my concerns were misplaced…
I have only the very mildest interest in being a libertarian or any other -arian in a purist sense.
I am not a idealogue and find ideology in the purist sense both limited and pointless.
I have a deep interest in assisting any concrete effort to increase human freedom…efforts which often involve criticism of things besides the government…though, usually, when you look closer those things have come into being because of the government..
Lila,
I respect what you are trying to do but, again, this is where I think you’re being naive, I don’t respect your insistence that you are non-ideological. You contradicted that claim in your own response! You say you have a deep-seated desire to share with people liberty and to expose empire– you sound like a libertarian to me, even if you don’t like to be called that and you don’t seem to clearly understand what libertarianism does and does not represent (hint: pro-freedom, in all things… so any of the “libertarian” bloggers you read who aren’t consistent on that are not libertarians).
If you want to think of yourself as unique and unorthodox (which you are in many ways and for many reasons) fine, I won’t push it any longer. But I should think you’d like to be aware that the “I’m non-ideological” card is not as original or honest to other people as you may believe yourself. The truth is, we all have a guiding philosophy, it’s what underlies our “Human Action” each and everyday… call it philosophy, call it ideology, call it spirituality… something calls to us and moves us, and your calling seems to be, like many people who consider themselves libertarians, to be liberty. Just an observation.
I guess my biggest beef with you (and this is what has been causing me to wig out with you and the ZH crew, etc. as you’ve noticed) is language. You use “we” a lot, you use generalized collective categories (“hedge funds are corrupt” etc.) that I, as an individualist apparently unable to get past the simplisticism of linguistic fundamentalism, find quite aggravating.
The way I practice life and criticism, I try my best to point a finger at specific criminals and specific people… I refer to general collective terms such as State or government only when it’s grammatically-logical to do so… For instance, I can say “Government workers are thieves” because they all are paid in stolen goods, taxes. But I would be wrong to say, “Hedge funds are criminal financial organizations” because not all hedge funds are engaged in the corrupt insider trading you deplore.
I think I will just keep my mouth shut and read your blog silently going forward. It’s really not worth having big arguments over what seem to be semantics (in your view)– of course in my view there’s something more to it than that. You might share my concern if you were a bit more “ideological” and made it more of a habit to think in principle… or at least be more honest with yourself about how often you do so.
Good luck, enjoy the blog, keep up the good work!
Response:
I respect what you are trying to do but, again, this is where I think you’re being naive, I don’t respect your insistence that you are non-ideological. You contradicted that claim in your own response! You say you have a deep-seated desire to share with people liberty and to expose empire
YES…ALTHOUGH, NAIVE IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY REALLY DOESN´T APPLY TO ME.
IT´S FAR TRUER OF OTHER LIBERTARIANS, MANY OF WHOM ARE ACADEMICS
– you sound like a libertarian to me, even if you don’t like to be called that and you don’t seem to clearly understand what libertarianism does and does not represent (hint: pro-freedom, in all things… so any of the “libertarian” bloggers you read who aren’t consistent on that are not libertarians).
I HAVE PRINCIPLES…BUT I DON´T BELIEVE I AM A LIBERTARIAN IN THE SENSE OF HAVING AN IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA THAT ALWAYS TENDS TO THIS – EVERY RULE OR REGULATION IS WRONG. PRINCIPLES OR AXIOMS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM IDEOLOGY
If you want to think of yourself as unique and unorthodox (which you are in many ways and for many reasons) fine, I won’t push it any longer.
I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE UNIQUE. YOU SAID I WAS UNORTHODOX, TO WHICH I AGREED.
IF YOU HAD SAID I WAS ORTHODOX, I WOULD ALSO HAVE AGREED.
I HAVE NO IDEA REALLY HOW ORTHODOX OR NOT I AM.
I DON´T BELIEVE I EVER SAID IT OF MYSELF, EXCEPT TO CALL MYSELF AN UNORTHODOX CHRISTIAN, WHICH IS STRICTLY TRUE.
EVERYONE IS UNIQUE.
NOT EVERYONE IS UNORTHODOX.
I DON´T REALLY THINK ABOUT IT TOO MUCH BUT IF YOU PUSH ME, I WILL SAY I AM UNORTHODOX
IT´S NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO BE. IT´S THE WAY I AM. I BRING IT UP ONLY BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME MY VIEWS DON´T SEEM TYPICALLY LIBERTARIAN ON SOME COUNTS. THAT WAS THEIR VIEW, NOT MINE. YOU CAN HARDLY TAKE ME TO TASK FOR THEM
But I should think you’d like to be aware that the “I’m non-ideological” card is not as original or honest to other people as you may believe yourself.
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS ORIGINAL OR UNIQUE OR A CARD…THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.
SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CLAIMED I AM UNIQUE? YOU ARE FIGHTING YOUR IMAGE OF ME.
The truth is, we all have a guiding philosophy, it’s what underlies our “Human Action” each and everyday… call it philosophy, call it ideology, call it spirituality… something calls to us and moves us, and your calling seems to be, like many people who consider themselves libertarians, to be liberty. Just an observation.
A GUIDING PHILOSOPHY IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY. THE TERM IDEOLOGY HAS SPECIFIC CONNOTATIONS OF RIGIDITY TO IT
I guess my biggest beef with you (and this is what has been causing me to wig out with you and the ZH crew, etc. as you’ve noticed) is language.
You use “we” a lot,
THAT´S THE EDITORIAL WE, WHICH IS A BIT ARCHAIC, BUT I FIND IT CUTE..
I AM CERTAINLY NOT REFERRING TO LIBERTARIANS..
I AM OFTEN JUST REFERRING TO WHATEVER GROUP IDENTITY I AM DONNING AT THE TIME – SOMETIMES, DEPENDING ON CONTEXT, WE MEANS ´’WE AMERICANS, OR ´’WE NON AMERICANS’, OR ‘WE FOOLS’, OR ‘WE LIBERTARIANS’, OR ‘WE HUMAN BEINGS’, OR ‘WE THE OPPRESSED’, OR ‘WE THE OPPRESSORS’
YOU SEE, YOU CAN´T TAKE THIS STUFF OUT OF CONTEXT, WHICH IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS TEND TO DO.
you use generalized collective categories (”hedge funds are corrupt” etc.)
SHOW ME WHERE I SAID HEDGE FUNDS ARE CORRUPT, AS A GENERALIZED STATEMENT?
“CORRUPT HEDGE FUNDS” IS NOT THE SAME THING AS “HEDGE FUNDS ARE CORRUPT”…
(AS I SAID, LIBERTARIANS TEND TO USE LANGUAGE LAZILY)
that I, as an individualist apparently unable to get past the simplisticism of linguistic fundamentalism, find quite aggravating.
I THINK YOU´RE THE ONE COMMITTING IT.
I AM QUITE CAREFUL, ALTHOUGH OCCASIONALLY COLORFUL, WITH LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT
The way I practice life and criticism, I try my best to point a finger at specific criminals and specific people… I refer to general collective terms such as State or government only when it’s grammatically-logical to do so… For instance, I can say “Government workers are thieves” because they all are paid in stolen goods, taxes.
YOU HAVE DEFINED THEM TO BE THIEVES. THEFT IS A LEGAL TERM AS WELL AS A MORAL TERM
But I would be wrong to say, “Hedge funds are criminal financial organizations” because not all hedge funds are engaged in the corrupt insider trading you deplore.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT? YOUR WORDS AGAIN
I THINK YOU ARE A BIT RILED THAT I DONT´AGREE WITH YOU ON WHO LIBERTARIAN HEROES ARE.
I think I will just keep my mouth shut and read your blog silently going forward.
NOT AT ALL
I ENJOY YOU INPUT
I JUST TOLD YOU THAT ARGUMENTS AREN´T A GOOD WAY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE.
GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE WHEN YOU WANT TO DO THAT OR TELL ME SPECIFICS.
SHOW ME EXACTLY WHICH HEDGE FUND THAT WAS INSIDER TRADING WAS ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING THAT INCREASED FREEDOM AND IMPROVED THE MARKET..AND BE SPECIFIC..SHOW ME YOU KNOW HOW THIS STUFF WORKS
It’s really not worth having big arguments over what seem to be semantics (in your view)– of course in my view there’s something more to it than that.
IT IS ABOUT SEMANTICS.
LIBERTARIANS TEND TO HAVE GOOD MINDS SO THEY OVERRATE THEIR FACILITY WITH LANGUAGE
I WAS A POET LONG BEFORE I WAS A LIBERTARIAN….
I PAY A LOT OF ATTENTION TO LANGUAGE AND RHETORIC..
You might share my concern if you were a bit more “ideological” and made it more of a habit to think in principle… or at least be more honest with yourself about how often you do so.
YOU ARE CONFUSING IDEOLOGY AND PRINCIPLE
Good luck, enjoy the blog, keep up the good work!
THANKS, TAYLOR.
AND I HAVE READ YOUR BLOG AND ENJOY IT
I LIKE THEORY
IN MY OPINION, THE GREATEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ME IS NOT LANGUAGE
IT´S – AND THIS IS MEANT WITH NO DISRESPECT – AGE AND EXPERIENCE.
YOU´RE A RATHER YOUNG MAN.
WE´LL HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN IN FIFTEEN YEARS…
Lila,
Why is anyone upset about the transition from being treated like humans to mere cattle? Don’t we want to be safe?
Isn’t this any different than what happened in Gaza under the re-occupation of Israel? Except we don’t fight back, we obey.
Isn’t this the strongly-intact trend in America?
All things flow to Israel. We must all be like God’s chosen ones or their slaves.
Sherwood Smith
Lila,
It’s surprising the number of professional engineers that I have met that are otherwise intelligent but can’t express themselves very well in writing. Not that I do that good either.
But I have found out that if I can’t put something in writing perhaps I don’t completely understand it. In my view, writing well is a sign of intelligence and you have that in abundance.
Thank you Gene!
Actually, it’s odd, but my friends often turn out to be engineers..not writers.
My friends are never full time in the arts, though they always have a flair for writing..
And everyone who becomes a close buddy of mine seems to have a streak of the musician in them and is either an engineer, or studied engineering at some point, or is an inventor or very good with building in some way.
Two of my closest female friends were both engineers (which is really unusual, since there aren’t that many women engineers to begin with..BTW, they were both Indians and held doctorates in engineering..)