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]

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

How these security cams will actually be used

[xmas2003]

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.

For fuck sakes...

[Vectronic]

thats all I have to say.

Being watched is good for you

[l2718]

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.

Two questions

[Thelasko]

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?

Re:Right,

[Shakrai]

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?

air rage

[snarfies]

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?

You're kidding, right?

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:Why the obcession with aircraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's easier to sell a security system that helps protect against a threat people have heard of, than to get people to listen to you about a threat that has not shown up.

Re:Why the obcession with aircraft?

[Lurker2288]

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.

Ok!

[L4t3r4lu5]

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

Re:In other news...

[gstoddart]

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:Right,

[turgid]

Think about it. What's the definition of "virgin?"

Just send the women?...

[Taibhsear]

Um, not to sound racist or anything, but wouldn't the terrorist just send their women to blow up the planes then? You know, the ones that cover their faces with veils? Epic fail.

Re:In other news...

[gstoddart]

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

It's why I don't fly anymore

[Ralph Spoilsport]

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:In other news...

[gstoddart]

"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

Re:air rage

[TheGratefulNet]

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?

Re:Toilets?

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Hoi Polloi]

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.

Re:In other news...

[TheGratefulNet]

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 minute of our lives not worth fighting for? I'm starting to wonder, what IS worth fighting for, then?

Re:Right,

[Dancindan84]

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.

Re:Right,

[JerkBoB]

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:Right,

[gregbot9000]

3)It will cost a shit-ton of money and probably not work, requiring huge wads of cash for staff, R&D, Install, replacement and repair. Adding yet another cost to already high air fares, all while making flying less enjoyable, which could also hurt ridership.

Seriously, just give pilots guns. Save BILLIONS of dollars.

Re:In other news...

[cliffski]

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:Simple to beat..

[rgriff59]

Let me reframe this line of thought in a way which isn't quite so funny.

One member of a dedicated and well trained team is tasked with being 'nervous.' He fidgets, he twitches, pulls out a holy book and begins chanting prayers for courage and wisdom. The plane's security complement arrives at his seat, while the other team members, having now identified, quantified, distracted and virtually cornered the opposition calmly make their move.

Brilliant!

Re:How these security cams will actually be used

[pthor1231]

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:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

f cameras start dropping off-line, and if they're monitored in real time, don't you think someone will notice?

I hope they do notice in real-time, because that will be a second good result. Not only will the post-it note prevent the intrusive "facecrime" monitoring in the first place, but my displeasure with the affront will be noticed immediately and not after-the-fact, *maybe*, and more than simply as some statistic.

Do you really not think that it will be a criminal offense to tamper with the airline safety system?

I share your cynicism, but the legality of an act does not affect the morality of the act. It is illegal in many places to denounce the local government, for example.

...I don't imagine the powers that be will react nicely to people mucking about with their security toys.

The powers that be are in the wrong. We can muck with impunity.

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

Feel free to submit to any authority you like, no matter how unreasonable you find it; that is your prerogative. Others will cover the camera with a post-it note, and defend this reasonable action in court if some fear-mongering lawmakers are unreasonable about it.

For everyone, there is some threshold of governmental stupidity beyond which they will tolerate no more. For some that might require repeated physical violation, but for others the very quality of stupidity is intolerable. Most are probably closer to the former than the latter, and that explains both why the concept of "sheeple" exists and why it is mocked.

False positives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rate of false positives would be so ridiculously high its a completly useless project and waist of money.

Re:In other news...

[easyTree]

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.

Anti-Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh, today I'm actualy more anxious of anti-terrorism than of terrorism.

Useful?

[Enigmafan]

OK, we're in mid-air, I take the gun, that I slipped through customs, from wherever I hid it and start walking towards the cockpit.

What, at this point, is the idea behind the camera?