Software to Randomize Police Operations at LAX 221
owlgorithm writes "A USC research group has created software, named ARMOR (Assistant for Randomized Monitoring over Routes), that will be used at LAX Airport to make security and police operations there truly unpredictable. The software records the locations of routine, random vehicle checkpoints and canine searches at the airport, and police provide data on possible terrorist targets, based in part on recent security breaches or suspicious activity. The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when. The most notable detail is that terrorists who had access to ARMOR still wouldn't be able to predict the searches."
It's working so well (Score:4, Insightful)
Randomness eh? Well then... (Score:5, Funny)
Rubbish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a frickin' shotgun [rockpapershotgun.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait. Damn that rock!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That statement perfectly sums up the "anti-terror" bullshit. Well played.
If I had mod points... Well I couldn't use them because I just posted in the thread.
Re:It's working so well (Score:5, Insightful)
To get good statistics I think you need a statistically significant sample size. And at LAX I believe the entire data set of terrorist activity is some fellow who went berzerk one fourth of July. Perhaps they are using all airport-related terrorist attacks across the USA, which would include I believe the above berzerker, four related incidents on 9/11, and an MIT student with a homemade name badge full of blinkenlights.
Re:It's working so well (Score:5, Funny)
"The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when."
Does that mean that, given that the US's rate of deaths from acts of terrorism is so low as to be negligible, it will tell police to dispatch to the Whitehouse?
I can see it now, the presidential motorcade gets pulled over by airport security "Sorry sir, please step out of the vehicle, the computer has flagged you as being a person of interest in the global war on terror."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means that the bathroom is less safe than other areas of the airport, but if it's a lower-value target, then it all works out.
As far as predictablility, I'm sure that they'll use obscurity (i.e. they won't publish the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how ran
Fark the police (Score:2)
To expand on that thought and to differentiate the situation in LA from departments in other large cities, the LAPD is not what it is by chance or accident. And by 'what it is' I mean a racist organization that puts amateurs like that KKK and Aryan Nation folks to shame.
After WWII the growing African-American middle class started moving into the nicer neighborhoods around LA such as South Central, Watts, Culver City, that had previously been exclusively white. Around that time the LAPD started a progra
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there is actually a pretty large data set of terrorist attacks when you remember that there are parts of the world that are not America, plus everything DHS has generated simulating attacks (what they used to call "red teaming").
Re:It's working so well (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait! (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not really random... A pattern must come out after a while.
Re:Wait! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all. A "pattern" that's useful to a criminal would be knowing that there's always a checkpoint on Lane 1 on Mondays, or that they always check Lane 4, then Lane 2, then Lane 1, then Lane 3.
Using the probabilities means that at any given moment there's a 20% chance they'll be checking Lane 1 and a 30% chance they'll be checking Lane 2, but it doesn't tell you whether you should try to smuggle contraband through 1 or 2.
It's basically ideal game theory -- even if the other side knows what your algorithm is, they can't beat it since you're still playing randomly. The usual Computer Science example is a tennis player; you know there's a 60% chance that your opponent will hit it to your backhand and a 40% chance that they'll hit it to your forehand, but there's a limit to how far you can compensate either direction. Knowing the probability in that case doesn't tell you which side the ball is going to go to. (The real example is somewhat more convoluted, but you get the 10-second version)
Re:Wait! (Score:5, Insightful)
People like routines and dont like random changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats assuming that the humans obey the program. People like routines and dont like random changes.
Exactly. A long time ago, I wrote software for a handheld device that would randomize the order that jailers would check-in at their rounds checkpoints. The sheriffs and jail administrators thought it was a good idea, so the inmates weren't able to predict when a guard would come by, but in practice there was no way in hell some jailer was going to go from point A to C to B, when it was shorter to go A, B, C.
Then, as now, it was a management problem: if you can't get the guys to randomize their patro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It tells me your 50% more likely to get caught in Lane 2 than Lane 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Lanes -- Ideally, you calibrate the percentages to relate to the damage that can be done. For example, do 50% of parking lot sweeps in the parking lot right next to the terminal (lots of damage potential), but only 30% in the next lot and 20% in the economy lot. Sure, the easiest path for a criminal would be to attack the economy lot, but they're going to do a lot less damage. Ideally, even knowing
Re: (Score:2)
Um. Fits well to "random decision" (instead of "random choice").
CC.
Re:Wait! (Score:4, Interesting)
The smuggler knows that Lane 1 gives the best payoff, so he will try that one, but the customs people also know that, so they will check that one. Hm... but the smuggler knows that they know, so he'll try Lane 2 (the second best), but the customs people also know that, and the smuggler knows that too, so he will try the 1st one... Well, to make long story short, the best strategy for both sides is to use randomization, with probabilities calculated so that the expected payoff for the opponent is minimized.
Re: (Score:2)
Just send one though each lane. Some always get thought and the cost goes up for the "overhead".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait! (Score:4, Informative)
Brilliant, Randomness!! (Score:5, Funny)
Thursday, Red panties are prohibited from carry on Luggage.
Friday, the X-ray conveyor machine will distribute Salisbury steak.
Periodically travelers will be pulled from the security line,
some will be sent directly to their planes, some will be beaten with sticks.
Saturday, the first 100 customers get a hand grenade!
Sunday, 100 random travelers will be conscripted to run security for the rest of the day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, "terrorists" - meaning radically extremist muslims - are overwhelmingly ignorant and stupid. 9/11 apparently used up all of the top talent, because we haven't gotten hit by anything since then and it certainly isn't thanks to the crack commandos of the TSA. If terrorists had any real brains, we'd have been hit a hundred times b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the pattern, it's the response. Since they've revealed that they will (re)direct resources to apparent sources of potential trouble, it's quite trivial for a group to have one or more members create trouble, leaving resources reduced in other areas. I believe this technique has been commodified by Hollywood through the phrase "look over there!".
Weighted? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. But it makes planning an exploit much harder. Before they might have been able to say they had 12 minutes (say) between sweeps, giving them that amount of time to get through a door, set a bomb, whatever. Now they might have an AVERAGE of 12 minutes, and possibly just 2 minutes Much more risky, and if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some things work in movies. Some things work in real life.
Why spend the money? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why spend the money? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure you're not thinking of flight times?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why spend the money? (Score:5, Funny)
"Guys, why are all of you in the smoking area?" - "Computer told us."
"Guys, shouldn't you be patroling places other than the women's changing rooms?" - "Sorry, computer told us."
"Guys, don't tell me the computer told you to play poker" - "No, but he sure is a tough player."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that help (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you spell "Hacker"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hack into the ARMOR system, alter the code, have it generate the routes for you and you won't have to "guess" it's random predictions.
The COPS won't know the difference when they are dispatched to places at the airport. If fact it could dispatch them so that they are FAR away from the real action taking place. If fact you could dispatch them with instructions that a terrorist action was taking place on the other side of the airport with descriptions of innocents as the terrorists causing the police to be terrorists upon those innocents. Well, that's not that unusual since the police are usually domestic terrorists anyhow for most people that they interact with.
Re:Can you spell "Hacker"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's a random probability, if you try enough times, you'll get through eventually. This is far more likel
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you read Slashdot [slashdot.org]?
Apparenly, the ability to think methodically and rationally, paying careful attention to detail and real-world tolerances, means engineers make good terrorists.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that many of us grew up getting teased (or much worse) for precisely what makes us the single most valuable members of a society, and as a result harbor general feelings of misanthropy...
That, and some
Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Saving throw? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I just hope the ARMOR system is (excuse the pun) well ARMORed against attacks, both local and remote.
Re: (Score:2)
(It's unlikely that they have ARMOR hooked up to the internet. And if you're capable of physically accessing airport security internal hardware you're a much bigger problem than a random smuggler anyway.)
Prime Cop Destinations (Score:2)
I leaked the algorithm: (Score:5, Funny)
goAfterTheBeardedGuy();
}while(beardedguy == brown);
Re:I leaked the algorithm: (Score:5, Insightful)
while( civilian = FindCivilian() )
{
if( civilian.color == brown && civilian.features == bearded )
goAfterTheBeardedGuy();
}
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
goAfterTheBeardedGuy();
}while(beardedguy == brown);
Why do you hate America? Are you a terrorist?
Is it THAT hard... (Score:2)
Re:Is it THAT hard... (Score:5, Funny)
Finally. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
better idea (Score:2)
Not a good idea at all (Score:5, Insightful)
It might work as a gag but wouldn't do anything actually harmful.
They way they do things already with behavior observation is probably the best possible approach because that way they do not target any particular nationality or race, and even false positives mean you get a chance to calm someone down upset about something that might be abusive to the airline crew.
Behavior does discriminate religions (Score:2)
Which behavior is more suspicious:
1) A 25 yr old Muslim dressed in traditional clothing praying to Allah as they board the plane.
2) A 25 yr old Catholic praying the Rosary praying as they board the plane.
In term
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a gag! (Score:2)
That's amazingly secure! People are going to love
Airlines! (Score:2)
The airlines would love this. I'm sure you can squeeze a few more naked, hogtied people into a plane than you can currently carry by making passengers "comfortable". And no need for food or anything.
First class passengers would get foam pads and blankets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Although random, they are unlikely to overlook correlation. In other words, once one suspect is detected, everything gets locked down and the algorithms change to the "increased alert" mode or some such.
See this [yahoo.com] for example — once a campus policeman had to shoot an attacker, there was a "campus lockdown" and students were only released directly to their pare
Dupe damn you! (Score:5, Informative)
My first Slashdot dupe report. I'm so excited! What do I win?
Re:Dupe damn you! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dupe (Score:2, Informative)
ARMOR will be renamed to ARMORDS (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heinlein thought about this... (Score:2)
In the story, the President of Earth is elected by a lottery (hence the title). Any citizen has a chance of becoming president.
When a president is elected, he can legally be assassinated by legally-nominated assassins.
The president is protected by telepathic police; in one case, in order to be harder to track, an assassin acts at random by picking pages randomly and/or by shooting dice.
Suck my Philip K. Dick (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
all well and good (Score:2)
Another Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I know this article deals specifically with airport police where you want their actions to be truly unpredictable. What about regular beat cops though? Do we want them to be in random places daily?
I often see cops hiding in random places trying to catch speeders, and I wonder if that is the best use of their time. On one street near me there is a speed trap weekly. I suspect this is because the speed limit is 30 mph going down a moderately steep hill so it is easy to catch speeders. As a citizen I would
Unpredictable even if they had access? (Score:2)
Wheres the beef^H^H^H source?!
Random, eh? (Score:2)
oh dear... (Score:2)
a pseudo-random patrol route is the dumbest fucking idea ever. they should be hiring enough people to patrol everywhere at all times.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of ways to get true randomness using hardware. Keyboard click timings, hard drive seek time, radioactive decay monitoring (probably the best, since its based on quantum nondeterminism), capacitor level checking, CCD camera in a dark coffee can, and a bunch of others. No pure software solution exists, though.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of ways to get true randomness using hardware. Keyboard click timings, hard drive seek time, radioactive decay monitoring (probably the best, since its based on quantum nondeterminism), capacitor level checking, CCD camera in a dark coffee can, and a bunch of others. No pure software solution exists, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is better to mix in some true (hardware) enthropy into that scheme.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someday they'll fix Amtrak....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe someday they'll fix Amtrak....
As someone who commutes regularly on Amtrak (in fact I'm on the train as I write this, thanks to EVDO), you just made me laugh. Bush has nearly killed Amtrak. Maybe the next President will be nicer to it, but currently, Amtrak is fighting to get even a few hundred million dollars of support, while other countries are putting billions into their systems. *sigh*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Even though I'm not a Hillary supporter, her transportation plan is damn impressive, and a massive step in the right direction.
McCain made some vague promises [cnn.com] in 2000, but has been carrying the party line of denying funding to public transport ever since.
Although public transport is starting to take off around city centers with great success, thanks to state funding (virtually
Re: (Score:2)
This service only exists between Boston and DC, and is extremely expensive to travel on. Most other routes are considerably worse.
As has been recently reported [politickernj.com], outside of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, their national on-time rate in 2007 was 42%. FORTY TWO FRICKIN PERCENT. However, Acela's on-time rate is around 86%. The main difference seems to be prioritization of traffic on the rails: on Acela, Amtrak owns the tracks and can make the traffic move smoothly, while throughout most of the rest of the cou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they can, provided you have the right hardware. I agree that YOUR personal computer only generates pseudo-random numbers, however there are cards available that can generate completely random numbers.