Prototype EU Airplane Spy Cams Watch For Facecrime

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "You can't make stuff like this up. The EU is actually testing a prototype system of cameras in airplanes to monitor passengers' facial expressions in order to detect both terrorism and 'air rage.' The Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment (SAFEE) project used an Airbus A380 fuselage with six wide-angle cameras to watch for people running or loitering near the cockpit door, as well as a camera in the back of every seat to watch for facecrime like sweating too much, or acting nervous. But that's okay, because the system won't alert anyone until it sees a 'combination of signs,' instead of just one stray expression, or they might accidentally catch a lot of people who are afraid of flying or of being watched."

Right,

[abolitiontheory (1138999)]

because perpetrators wouldn't ever be calm or completely resigned to their fate/choice.

Re:Right,

[Shakrai (717556)]

Indeed. I love this theory that someone who is mentally prepared to kill themselves is going to break out in a cold sweat beforehand and give themselves away.

How many people are going to be labeled as terrorists because their facial expressions show annoyance due to the screaming baby with the ear infection sitting directly behind them?

Re:Right,

[abolitiontheory (1138999)]

Exactly. This system is more likely to catch a bunch of nervous kids trying to work up the courage to ask out the cute girl in the next row over, not attack the cockpit for the glory of Allah.

(No offense to Allah, he probably made the cute girl in the next row.)

Re:Right,

[turgid (580780)]

Silly nervous kids! If they blew themselves up for the glory of Allah, he would guarantee them 72 cute virgin girls all to themselves for eternity in paradise.

Talking of which, every time Mustafa blows himself up, 72 innocent virgins die, by definition.

Re:

[spidercoz (947220)]

ever wonder why the muslim afterlife is full of virgins? must be the ug-o's

Re:Right,

[by Anonymous Coward]

ever wonder why the muslim afterlife is full of virgins? must be the ug-o's

See, I have a theory -- they must be actual virgins in every respect. I imagine the sexual encounters resemble something like this:

"Your gonna do WHAT? Your gonna put that thing WHERE?"
"Ouch! Ow! That hurts! Stop that! Ow!"
"Your done already?"

See, they think it's paradise but it's actually hell ;)

Re:Right,

[by Anonymous Coward]

he would guarantee them 72 cute virgin girls all to themselves for eternity in paradise.

Nobody ever said that the virgins would be cute. Imagine the surprise when the virgins all turn out to be slashdotters.

Re:Right,

[hairykrishna (740240)]

I'm with Billy Connolly. I'll take 2 dirty slags over 70 virgins ANY day.

Re:Right,

[Eli Gottlieb (917758)]

Arabic is a mostly-gendered language. The word used for the virgins is feminine.

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

This is not about catching the followers of Emmanuel Goldstein. The ROI is very poor. No one is spending this money to make YOU safer - but rather to make you more CONTROLLED.

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were b

Re:Right,

[Hoplite3 (671379)]

I think it's perfectly reasonable that such a face cam could flag some terrorists, even if it doesn't flag them all. From that limited perspective, it's an effective tool.

But I think it's shit for two other reasons that often don't enter into the analysis of the buerocrats:

1) It dehumanizes the passengers. I'm willing to accept some risks so that I'm not monitored by computers. I think many people feel the same.

2) It will CERTAINLY generate many false positives. Then some functionary will have to check out each false positive. That person's time will be spent tending the bad-face-machine instead of being more intelligent about watching for threats. This sort of thing ultimately makes me less safe.

And for a good example of (2) in action right now: the liquid and gel restrictions. I was flying to meet some friends for a hiking trip. I checked by big pack, but decided to carry on my daypack since it was just a small backpack like I usually carry-on. But I had previously packed my daypack with usual hiking stuff, including a 3" knife and a tube of sunscreen. When they pulled me aside at the xray, I immediately realized I had inadvertently taken my nice knife to the x-ray ... but my fear was for nothing. They were so worried about my 8 oz tube of sunscreen that they completely missed the knife. I threw out the tube and carried my knife on board. Needless to say, I checked everything on the flight back :)

Re:Right,

[Dancindan84 (1056246)]

2) It will CERTAINLY generate many false positives. Then some functionary will have to check out each false positive. That person's time will be spent tending the bad-face-machine instead of being more intelligent about watching for threats. This sort of thing ultimately makes me less safe.

Not only that, but it will become "The boy who cried wolf." I can see the false positive rate on this being quite high. After dozens (hundreds?) of false positives and lawsuits from people wrongly harassed etc. it will end up being ignored. Even if it is right occasionally, it won't matter.

This is crap no matter how you see it

[aepervius (535155)]

"I think it's perfectly reasonable that such a face cam could flag some terrorists, even if it doesn't flag them all. From that limited perspective, it's an effective tool. "

Due to cheer numbers, the false positive rate will generate more people than the positive identification rate, and that is not even counting the possible false negative rate. To give you an example let us say you have 99.99% effectiveness, that is 0.01% false positive. Out of 1 million pax, this is 100 pax. Now let us say you have a 10% false negative (guy trained to not sweat even knowing he will die) which is quite reasonable. If you have 10 terrorist out of 1 million pax, that means you will have 100 false negative, 9 correct, 1 false negative. And that is even really counted in FAVOR of this system. Knowing the number of pax transported by year, and the potential number of terrorist, I would dare say it is more like 100.000 false positive, 9 correct a false negative. In other word a UTTER money waste.

Re:Right,

[JerkBoB (7130)]

In the US we don't have the liquid and gel restrictions any more.

What are you talking about? For a second, I believed you, but I was skeptical because I flew cross-country last month. Some quick googling brought me to the official TSA security theatre site [dhs.gov].

I fly several times a quarter. Damn you for getting my hopes up.

As an aside, I was playing the "who's paying attention game" for about half a year before the security people at DIA finally noticed that I had liquids in my carry-on. Seriously... Half a year of flying (maybe 6 short/long flights) before anyone noticed. At my local airport, I've observed the x-ray monkeys chatting with the conveyor belt on and only making cursory glances at best at the monitors.

Sigh. But gee, I sure do feel safe.

Re:

[Rogerborg (306625)]

because perpetrators wouldn't ever be calm or completely resigned to their fate/choice.

And people with a fear of flying wouldn't ever be nervous or agitated.

Wow, those long wait on the runway are going to get interesting. Will Wesley Snipes' stunt double cut his way in through the roof to take out the guy in 27B/B? I say "on the runway" because presumably that's the only useful time to identify and confront Mr Twitchy, unless the intention is to sound a little chime and ask the passengers to form a ly

white out

[xzvf (924443)]

guess I have a use for all those old 3oz bottles of white out now.

Re:white out

[VeNoM0619 (1058216)]

Whiting out your face won't make a difference, I'd go with the old trusty tinfoil hat.

Re:white out

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

Nobody has said anything about duct tape. Just a wee little bit on the lens and - privacy!

"No maam, I don't know how that tape got there, maybe someone was trying to fix something.

Re:

[Gewalt (1200451)]

Tell her Richard Dean Anderson is aboard, and the landing gear is better than ever.

How these security cams will actually be used

[xmas2003 (739875)]

The A380 is a long haul aircraft and there isn't a lot to do up front with automated cockpits. So in the interests of "security", the pilots will probably "monitor" the cameras ... keeping a particularly close eye on attractive females. And how long until the first footage of the Mile High Club shows up on YouTube?

One of my all-time favorite "caught in the act" via webcam was Duncan Grisby using the opensource motion program to catch a burgler in his flat [grisby.org] - technical details [grisby.org] of his setup.

Speaking of cams, here is a nifty BirdCam of House Finches [watching-grass-grow.com] - look for baby chicks.

Re:

[pthor1231 (885423)]

Especially interesting, because what are the pilots going to do if they spot a "terrorist" in flight? Get the flight attendants to tie him up and throw him in cargo storage?

Re:

[denttford (579202)]

Maybe they'll tell security? [news.com.au]

For fuck sakes...

[Vectronic (1221470)]

thats all I have to say.

Simple to beat..

[Creepy Crawler (680178)]

Find what makes it tick and have as many people do "facecrime" or whatever gobbledygook they call it. 30 people doing something weird (not illegal and not evil) would do some funny things on an airplane.

I'm thinking of something like that Improv group in New York City and their shenanigans.

Re:

[mazarin5 (309432)]

That would be Improv Everywhere [improveverywhere.com]

In other news...

[AltGrendel (175092)]

Sales of Sharpies and other black magic markers that can be used to black out airplane seat cameras increased in the EU today.

Re:In other news...

[gstoddart (321705)]

Sales of Sharpies and other black magic markers that can be used to black out airplane seat cameras increased in the EU today.

Well, unless you carefully black out the camera before you sit, they'll have a picture of your face. Since the airline knows who was sitting in a seat, they know who you are anyway. If cameras start dropping off-line, and if they're monitored in real time, don't you think someone will notice?

Do you really not think that it will be a criminal offense to tamper with the airline safety system? And, clearly, people with good intentions would never do such a thing, so they'll presume you had bad intentions from the start.

I simply can't believe that they'd neither catch your nor fail to charge you with something. I'm not in favor of being on camera while in flight (I think it's an appalling idea), but I don't imagine the powers that be will react nicely to people mucking about with their security toys.

People seriously pondering something like this should accept the fact that their principled stand might find themselves in some trouble.

Cheers

Re:

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

People seriously pondering something like this should accept the fact that their principled stand might find themselves in some trouble.

some 200+ years ago, some yanks threw some tea into the water. I think they caught hell for it, too. but in the long run, everyone was better off.

some indian guy, in our century, also did something disobedient. I seem to remember its outcome was positive even though individuals did catch some hell for it, in the short run.

is our freedom to NOT be watched every damned min

Re:In other news...

[gstoddart (321705)]

Demand to be let off the plane.

If 1/2 of every flight began doing this, you can bet they'd change the rules (or they'd hide the cameras elsewhere, like they do behind the CRT monitor glass at the ATM machines now)

For starters, I can't imagine you could get half of the people on an A380 to stir up that kind of shit. It's a big plane, and most people aren't that politically concerned.

I have no idea if you can easily request to be let off the plane or not. There are very strict rules to ensure that you can't have checked baggage that flies when you don't. They could conceivably have to empty the cargo hold to find your bag. If you kick up too big of a stink, well, disruptive passengers get arrested and can get fined for flight disruptions.

Activism is good. I'm sure someone will do the kinds of things you're suggesting -- I'm just saying, once you start messing about in airports/planes, you enter into a whole new level of ways to get into trouble.

Don't undertake such acts without seriously thinking if that is the best way to achieve your point and not end up in some serious legal troubles. The consequences could be well beyond what you're prepared to deal with.

Cheers

Re:

[easyTree (1042254)]

you enter into a whole new level of ways to get into trouble.

This is the problem. They force all manner of bullshit on us and set up laws to make it illegal to have a low tolerance to their bullshit. Then, the rest of the sheep who don't even notice that there's a problem enforce your punishment. It sucks. I just cannot get across how much it sucks. All of it.

Re:

[cliffski (65094)]

easier solution:

Don't Fly.

Flying is noisy, uncomfortable, irritating, you get overcharged, patronised, lied to and sometimes they lose your luggage. you get delayed, people try to sell you lottery tickets and alcohol (on a plane ffs). The food is inedible. the seating is awkward and has no legroom.
Plus it fucks up the environment.

Sleeper Trains FTW.

Re:

[gstoddart (321705)]

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying pick your venue and what you do.

Getting yourself arrested and kicking up a stink might help them say "See, the system is working, we found a crazy person already who had planned to disrupt the flight".

There's a huge gap between doing nothing, and doing something stupid which won't actually help what you're trying to do.

Cheers

Like flying much?

[BWJones (18351)]

Wow, sounds like a sure fire way to keep people from flying. Already flying is becoming too much of a hassle for many people flying for both business and pleasure and the competition will be trains, automobiles and the Internet. Generally speaking flying outside the US has been more pleasant until recently, but I may try and fly even less from here on out both foreign and domestic.

Re:Like flying much?

[pablomme (1270790)]

the competition will be trains, automobiles and the Internet

Yeah, I too prefer to email myself everywhere these days.

Re:

[ikkonoishi (674762)]

The whole digitization thing is a pain though. What with all the giant laser dividing you up in cubes and all. Also the spandex uniform [tronguy.net] you have to wear is not easy on the ego. Though it is pretty cool how the flight attendants worship you like a god and you get inexplicable superpowers.

Being watched is good for you

[l2718 (514756)]

Well, we all realize it's very important for everyone (especially young children) to learn that being watched at all places and all times is normal and important for the functioning of civilizations. Airplane cabins are a convenient place to start since some people are sufficiently scared of flying to accept surveilance there.

Huh?

[wattrlz (1162603)]

How does it deal with people who are upset at being watched and have to pee? (there's usually a bathroom up by the cockpit)

Two questions

[Thelasko (1196535)]

1. How much does all of this equipment weigh?

2. If it detects a terrorist attack, what can anyone do about it while the plane is in the air?

air rage

[snarfies (115214)]

Would "air rage" be the rage I feel after I've had my laptop and bags rifled through, a full body-cavity search, and after having my toothpaste confiscated and after pouring my water in a big bucket?

Re:

[Stanistani (808333)]

>a full body-cavity search

This happens to you on a regular basis?

What the heck are you saying to the nice TSA folks?

Re:air rage

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

What the heck are you saying to the nice TSA folks?

I just wish the 'nice tsa folks' would go back to their old jobs. they were certainly skilled enough to inquire if I needed any fries with my order and I was happy with their overall service. why did we need to change that?

You're kidding, right?

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

FTFA:

Other behaviours could include a person nervously touching their face, or sweating excessively.

Better hope you're not susceptible to airsickness...or overly concerned about making your connecting flight...or mildly allergic to the airline peanuts...or worried that Big Brother might just single you out for having the wrong hair/skin color, or for "suspect behavior", and make an example of you, with no chance of appeal or redress...

I'm so glad my profession does not require large amounts of air travel...I would have to get another job.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Hoi Polloi (522990)]

From TFA [newscientist.com]...

It looks for running in the cabin

This should catch the kids

standing near the cockpit for long periods of time

This should catch the flight crew and people using the forward bathrooms

...person nervously touching their face

Should catch the nervous fliers and people with dry skin

...or sweating excessively

This should catch the other nervous fliers, the over dressed, the over weight, and the folks without working air vents

God help you if you are a nervous, fat, hyperactive kid who has to use the bathroom.

Nose Pickers

[bxwatso (1059160)]

A camera in every seat back is another example of the government's efforts to identify and then marginalize nose pickers.

Call the A-Team!

[itsdapead (734413)]

...and move all air travel over to the Mr T model: dope the passengers senseless at the airport, pack the unconscious bodies in like sides of meat and wake 'em up at the destination airport.

Oh, wait - you wouldn't be able to sell them duty free & Skymall would go out of business. Darn.

Ok!

[L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)]

... So, some sort of Post-It note with a smiley face on the back may be in order.

I hate commercial flights

[bsDaemon (87307)]

My grandfather was commissioned into the Navy in 1936 as a pilot. My great uncle flew the China Clipper and was a Pan-Am pilot for 30 years. My father is a retired airline pilot with over 20 years. I took flying lessons from when I was 12 to when I was 17 (I was supposed to solo the Saturday following Sept. 11, however that fucked everything up and I never got my lesson).

I even have some time logged behind the stick of a DASH-8 that my dad snuck me in to ferry between Newport News and Norfolk airports one time when I was 13 (only crew members on board, no "passengers").

Its not that I don't like flying. However, I **HATE** to fly commercially. The seats are uncomfortable, the air is stale, babies scream, people cough and sneeze, etc.

I always look pissed off on airlines and in airports, because I usually am. Of course, most of the flights I've taken in the past were as a non-rev and the crew knew my dad, so I was nice to them and they were nice to me, too.

Frankly, I think the people who **DON'T** look like they're about to kill someone are the ones you need to watch out for. There is probably something wrong with them as they clearly enjoy pain and discomfort.

It's why I don't fly anymore

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

For one thing, it's insanely expensive. Then there are the fear mongering chimps of the TSA whose sole job it is is to let the public think "the gubbernment is doing something about terrism", as it has been demonstrated more than once that they let all kinds of weapons pass through their systems. And then the indignities of being treated like cattle by the airline staff... It's just not worth it. I read somewhere that by 2020 the IT industry will use more energy than the airline industry, and that doesn't surprise me, as I think there won't be much of an airline industry by 2020.

Word up: bring a tiny bit of modelling clay in your pocket, and then when you sit down, put it on top of the camera lens.

Or just sit there and pick your nose for THE ENTIRE FLIGHT.

RS

Re:Why the obcession with aircraft?

[Lurker2288 (995635)]

Even before 9/11 planes have traditionally been high value targets. Originally this was probably because jet travel was regarded as sort of symbolic of the wealthy and privileged (the expression 'jet-set' though perhaps a bit dated, is a product of that mentality). So whatever the specific nature of your complaint, targeting a passenger jet was a way of focusing on high value targets, as opposed to, say, hitting a Greyhound bus.

Additionally, factor in some of the tactical benefits of an assault on a plane: you automatically have mobility and hostages, which affords you some protection against police or military who might try to intervene. And if your goal is widespread death, crashing or detonating a plane is pretty surefire, compared to a comparable attack on the ground.

Of course, common sense tells us that if we make planes terrorist-proof, terrorists will just strike elsewhere. There's a diminishing marginal return on airplane security, and products like this facecrime camera are probably WAAAAY out there in terms of cost/benefit.

Re:

[OzPeter (195038)]

There is an answer to that. Whenever you get on a Qantas long haulflight to the US - even though it is an Australian airline flying under the Australian flag - they announce that US regulations prohibit people from congregating in the plane. This includes handing around the toilet waiting to use it. so technically you are already a Bad Person (tm) for doing so. The video surveilance just proves it.