Newsstand - Passengers' chat will be recorded to foil hijackers

Passengers' chat will be recorded to foil hijackers

By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 11/09/2006)

Air passengers could have their conversations and movements monitored as work intensifies to design the terrorist-proof aeroplane.

Researchers in Britain and Europe are looking at technology that would see a comprehensive network of microphones and cameras installed throughout the aircraft, including the lavatory, which would be linked to a computer.

This computer would be "trained" to pick up suspicious behaviour, said Catherine Neary, of Bae Systems, one of the British participants in a £24 million European Union project Safety of Aircraft in Future European Environment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/11/nplanes11.xml

Will it record sign language?

Including the lavatory? Are they out of their mind? How is it supposed to work? The camera will be on at all times while to computer it is attached to crunches through algorithms that will determine if the occupant is indulging in suspicious behaviour? Or will there be some super secret sensors with nano-processors built into the nano-chips with SBAs (Suspicious Behaviour Algorithms) in their firmware, so that the camera will be turned on only when a suspicious behaviour is detected?

To escape being recorded by the camera hidden in the lavatory, both terrorists and the passengers will be rushing to schools where they can learn to relieve themselves in an unsuspicious manner. :D.

Instead of watching pilot training schools, we will be watching UBSs--Unsuspicious Behaviour Schools. I wonder if Federal grants can be used to attend these UBA's---Unsuspicious Behaviour Academy.

Every aiport will have USB ports installed to screen passegners before they get on aircarft. Universal Suspicious Behaviour ports. :D

Bloody Hell! :td:

Realistically this is a predictable outcome of the European love of CCTV. The British police have several well known screening systems in use to try to find criminals through face recognition using CCTV feeds. Heck, it's been on several TV shows here in the US and is a regular feature on the English papers.

As a side note, my Lufthansa flight last month had cameras all around the cockpit and the front loo.

This technology has been around for a while. It's deployed in most of the major London railway stations. It uses lots of CCTV cameras that do the facial recognition stuff. The clever bit is that it then works out what sort of traveller you are (rushing commuter, lost tourist, bored passenger waiting for a delyed train) and flags up "suspicious behaviour", whatever that is.

There was an article about it on the BBC News website about a year or so ago that went into quite a lot of detail. I can't find the link but the system is made by Qinetiq. Here's a link to some of the stuff they're doing at the moment:
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/security/national_security/law_enforcement/face_recognition_people_profiling_and_behavioural_ analysis.html

Oh, and to answer DeafFlyer, they're probably working on it.
(If they do get it to work, I'd imagine they'd be able to sell the techology for non-security applications. Send them and e-mail and suggest it - remember to patent it first though!)

Jason

I think some of us could have some fun with this technology...I would be letting the expletives and gaseous discharges fly in the lav for sure ;) Maybe I will join the mile-high club too.

However, as a security measure - this violates the basic tenents of privacy and liberty, and please don't tell me I have no right or expectation of privacy onboard an aircraft. Deliberately bugging my conversation, one I am attempting to keep private, with a hidden microphone is just plain wrong - and it will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

This type of foolishness is really mind numbing...who is thinking up this crap?

Try screening cargo for bombs first, and let me know when you get that most basic and elementary part done first - then I might start giving this drivel a small amount of realistic analysis.

The Brits may have CCTV cameras all over but even they aren't recording our conversations.

I think some of us could have some fun with this technology...I would be letting the expletives and gaseous discharges fly in the lav for sure ;) Maybe I will join the mile-high club too.

However, as a security measure - this violates the basic tenents of privacy and liberty, and please don't tell me I have no right or expectation of privacy onboard an aircraft. Deliberately bugging my conversation, one I am attempting to keep private, with a hidden microphone is just plain wrong - and it will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

This type of foolishness is really mind numbing...who is thinking up this crap?

Try screening cargo for bombs first, and let me know when you get that most basic and elementary part done first - then I might start giving this drivel a small amount of realistic analysis.

^^

I will be happy to help DHS with:

Stock Tips
How to Swear in 10 Different Languages
Opinions about Comrade Hawley and Comrade Chertoff's personal hygiene.
Penthouse Forum Letters
Heavy Metal/Hardcore Punk via my iPod's external speakers placed against the microphone

etc etc etc

Cram it with walnuts, DHS. :td:

Terrorist proof airplane? Show me the blueprints for that one.

Now would be the time for some uncontrollable flatulence. Be sure to load up on the beans, hard boiled eggs and beer the day before.

I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...

If this came to fruition, another of the thousands of ways the terrorist are winning the battle against freedom and democracy. :(

Well if there's a lot of government money sloshing around there's always someone to spend it for them.

If I could make a plausible case to punt for a £2 billion grant to spend 10 years developing my Obvious Terrorist Detection Beam, hey, I'd go for it. But there would be a lot of others trying for that money first. Ground Nuts, anybody ?

Will the computer have a "if I don't understand the conversation, it must be BAD" assumption built in?

How will this computer handle trade chat? Even if a "Trained Security Person" is listening live, many conversations will sound like greek to them. Take two college organic chemistry professors, or two stock arbitrage lawyers, or two computer chip engineers chatting. The buzz words and abbreviations will make the conversation almost totally unintelligible to someone not trained in these specialty fields. How will a computer know that trade jargon is not code words for Bad Things?

Or will the dumb computer model assume the entire world's population will talk about nothing except yesterday's American Idol episode? In English?

How will it know what is being discussed when listening to two Mogolian monks discussing philosophy? In Mongolian?
This computer will only work if all hijackers always shout across the aisle, "OK Fred, It is now time to assemble the bombs and hijack the plane" in loud plain English. :td:

Time to learn a few prayer phrases in Navaho. :D

If this came to fruition, another of the thousands of ways the terrorist are winning the battle against freedom and democracy. :(

Terrorists are losing less than they have been winning, but the ones winning the battle against our freedom and democracy are those governments that claim to be advocates and defenders of freedom and democracy yet give lie to that claim by cracking down on freedom and democracy.

delete

The Brits may have CCTV cameras all over but even they aren't recording our conversations.

Without revealing specifics, I can assure you that they may not be RECORDING your conversations at British airports but they certainly are MONITORING them using technology similar to what TierFlyer and apx068 have described.

Will not prevent but only make investigation easy(maybe) after fact.

This computer would be "trained" to pick up suspicious behaviour, said Catherine Neary, of Bae Systems, one of the British participants in a £24 million European Union project Safety of Aircraft in Future European Environment.



They want to do this for what??? 24 million GBP???
It costs atleast £50 million to install a new toilet seat.. :rolleyes:

Without revealing specifics, I can assure you that they may not be RECORDING your conversations at British airports but they certainly are MONITORING them using technology similar to what TierFlyer and apx068 have described.

Why not reveal specifics? The public has a right to know. Alleged terrorists already know, so what's the big deal?

I have no problem revealing specifics here.

Time to learn a few prayer phrases in Navaho. :D

I am sure some of your Annie Jacobsen-wannabee fellow passengers will assume you're speaking Arabic and panic accordingly. :(

uh oh, if they inplement this, we've lost the "war" on terror.

uh oh, if they inplement this, we've lost the "war" on terror.

Yeah, like you were going to win that one with you know who in charge... :D ^

Passengers' chat will be recorded to foil hijackers

Air passengers could have their conversations and movements monitored as work intensifies to design the terrorist-proof aeroplane.

Will this airplane carry unscreened air cargo?

Why not reveal specifics? The public has a right to know.

No, they do not. Disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited under the UK National Aviation Security Programme (NASP). You can address any questions on the issue to the DfT TRANSEC Directorate.

No, they do not. Disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited under the UK National Aviation Security Programme (NASP). You can address any questions on the issue to the DfT TRANSEC Directorate.

Since I don't reside in the UK, I'll be happy to wideband it. ;)

This technology has been around for a while. It's deployed in most of the major London railway stations. It uses lots of CCTV cameras that do the facial recognition stuff.

If I moon the camera in the lav, will it recognize me as Michael Chertoff or Kip Hawley?

so what happens when the f/a and i are talking in the f/c galley about 9/11, airport screening etc and using all of the "buzzwords" as we were on one of my flights this past w/e. will big brother overhear and cause us to divert?????? sheesh :rolleyes:

Why not reveal specifics? Uh, because he promised he wouldn't - it's probably classified. No matter what BDS sufferers say, it's not right to go outside of proper channels and release classified (or even industrial confidential) information to unauthorized parties.
The public has a right to know. No they don't.
Alleged terrorists already know, so what's the big deal?Really? So the terrorists know more than thee or me since clearly we don't know the details.
I have no problem revealing specifics here.We can only pray you don't know anything confidential then.

If I moon the camera in the lav, will it recognize me as Michael Chertoff or Kip Hawley?No, but they might stop the vending machine from giving you another Cadbury bar!

No, they do not. Disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited under the UK National Aviation Security Programme (NASP). You can address any questions on the issue to the DfT TRANSEC Directorate.Since I don't reside in the UK, I'll be happy to wideband it. ;)
Spiff, you're kidding, right?

If this comes to be standard practice, I'll learn Esperanto (a language that was invented in the late 19th century to replace all other languages (it was a complete failure)) and talk to a friend about the weather. If they want to waste the time and resources to translate a basic converstion in a very obscure language, let them.

Wonder if it will reduce the number of new Mile High club members. :D

Uh, because he promised he wouldn't - it's probably classified. I was not aware the OP was an employee of the UK government or a contractor who signed a non disclosure agreement. If so, he can state such and I will accept that. I don't release my employer's information either. However, if I come across information that is in the public interest and I did not sign any document attesting to my agreeing with its status, then I will release it. On these forums, we regularly discuss FAMs, their appearance, their conduct and their seat assignments - regardless of the hemorrhoids it seems to give the law/order/anything4security types here.
No they don't. Yes, they do. Hiding this type of information under the veil of secrecy, or as the TSA likes to call it, SSI, is only protecting wrongdoing or sloppiness on the part of those who authored the directives. There is nothing top secret about aviation security, let's get real. Anyone with a basic education in airport management could find all the holes in an airport outside of an hour on their own. Why do you think terrorists can't?
Really? So the terrorists know more than thee or me since clearly we don't know the details. The terrorists know what they need to know to carry out their grim missions. Why they do one thing or don't do another thing is not due to any classified "special airport security ops". I could teach a child to find the vulnerabilities at any airport...why do you think some secret information is protecting you? Because the government says so?
We can only pray you don't know anything confidential then. No need to pray...I have access to alot of confidential information in my line of work - I signed a statement stating that I would not release or discuss it with anyone, and I won't.

My question to the OP is trying to determine if this is information he knows of casually and is self-protecting or is he an employee or contractor of an authority and signed a non disclosure document? If it's the latter, I don't expect im to violate the agreement...but...

calling this information classified, secret, top secret, special, etc etc is way over the top. At best, it's simply proprietary information covered by a non-disclosure agreement. Let's not get crazy and assume this information or even these silly plans is going to do anything to foil or prevent a terrorist attack.

If this comes to be standard practice, I'll learn Esperanto (a language that was invented in the late 19th century to replace all other languages (it was a complete failure)) and talk to a friend about the weather.Guess you'll have to find the only other person to know the language. :-)
I remember being forced to learn to count in Esperanto in school.... I like to blame Carter.

Glad to hear that you intend to protect the classified and trade secret information you have access to.
[ed:snip]calling this information classified, secret, top secret, special, etc etc is way over the top. At best, it's simply proprietary information covered by a non-disclosure agreement. So YOU say based on ASSUMPTIONS where you simply don't have the relevant information.
Let's not get crazy and assume this information or even these silly plans is going to do anything to foil or prevent a terrorist attack.Once again, why do you think you know the answer and can make the decisions? Like the NYT (or other papers, depending) disclosing the NSA wiretaps - it is just amazing presumption to decide that sort of thing.

As to your other point about dissemating information that you found that was not covered by your vow of confidentiality, well that is a bad idea too, IMHO. If I found something on a blog that said "here's a security hold at MIA" I would send an email to the writer and ask them to take it back out of the public domain if possible. Why give a terrorist (or criminal) even a millionth of a percentage advantage just to make yourself feel smart or important?

So YOU say based on ASSUMPTIONS where you simply don't have the relevant information. I am not going by assumptions or hunches, I am going by what I learned and studied through my college years in aviation management, the papers I wrote on aviation security and the discussions I had (many of them recent) with my airport management professor whose experience is many multiples more extensive than my own, and whose opinion is not far from mine in these matters.
Once again, why do you think you know the answer and can make the decisions? Like the NYT (or other papers, depending) disclosing the NSA wiretaps - it is just amazing presumption to decide that sort of thing. The public has a right to know if and when they are being listened to, and by whom and for what purpose. The NYT had every right and obligation to disclose this information to the public and we had every right to know what the government is doing to us. How was the alleged UK plot foiled? Some super secret classified method? No...a plain old fashioned informant.

As to your other point about dissemating information that you found that was not covered by your vow of confidentiality, well that is a bad idea too, IMHO. If I found something on a blog that said "here's a security hold at MIA" I would send an email to the writer and ask them to take it back out of the public domain if possible. Why give a terrorist (or criminal) even a millionth of a percentage advantage just to make yourself feel smart or important? Because I am not willing to restrict or risk our freedom of speech in order to make us even a millionth of a percentage safer. Life in a free society has risks. I accept those risks. I also classify my risks appropriately - my chance of dying in a terrorist attack? Almost non-existent. My chance of dying in a car crash? Significantly higher. My chance of dying from disease? Even higher still.

I don't see anyone trying to outlaw driving or poor hygiene, yet these two actions are responsible for far many more multiples of death and injury than global terrorism.

Because I am not willing to restrict or risk our freedom of speech in order to make us even a millionth of a percentage safer.I think that statement really stands alone.

I think that statement really stands alone.

I think it should stand alone. Our Rights and Freedoms are the paramount foundation of our Nation. Without them, we are nothing. There is no America.

We must be willing to accept the risks that come with living in a free and open society if we want a free and open society. If people here are all for government management of our lives and suspension of liberty, what was all that Red Scare and Cold War nonsense? Why didn't we just join their system back then instead of doing it now?

But my question about balancing risk remains unanswered...we permit driving, drinking, smoking, and all sorts of other activities that kill far more people than terrorists...so why the imbalance in perception?

We must be willing to accept the risks that come with living in a free and open society if we want a free and open society. If people here are all for government management of our lives and suspension of liberty, what was all that Red Scare and Cold War nonsense? Why didn't we just join their system back then instead of doing it now?


^ ^ ^

We were all taught back in the Cold War days (at least I was) that "they" in the USSR (for one) lived in fear of the knock on the door, that "they" were encouraged to turn their neighbors in, that "they" had their mail opened and domestic spies on every corner listening to see if "they" said anything that could be construed as detrimental to the state and state security...I'd really like to know, what precisely is the difference between "them" then, and "us" now, or in a few years? Is this what we fought and sacrificed and (perhaps most of all) spent untold billions for over the last century, to end up in exactly the same situation?

Spiff, you're kidding, right?

Nope, I am not.

When I come across stupid "security" procedures that are supposedly secret, I have no problem widebanding such idiocy.

"Security" should be held up to the light of day for all to examine when it impacts people's lives but doesn't make them any safer. Those responsible for foolish security should be held accountable.

I want a DECLARATION OF WAR by both Houses of Congress and reinstitution of the DRAFT before the public's "right to know" and other normal, peace-time civil liberties are rescinded and eroded by executive order. Is that asking too much?

I want a DECLARATION OF WAR by both Houses of Congress and reinstitution of the DRAFT before the public's "right to know" and other normal, peace-time civil liberties are rescinded and eroded by executive order. Is that asking too much?No, it isn't asking too much! At least Charles Rangel had enough guts to say as much and get a vote on the draft (
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-012158-2811r.htm) in Congress.

A little over five years ago, it all started with the simple idea that the United States has enemies and we must seek them out.

That is how is always starts. We then start down the path between legitimate suspicion and rampant paranoia. Unfortunately we don't realize that this path is much shorter then we think.

The current situation is one where the government is reacting from rampant paranoia rather then legitimate suspicion.

We live in a free society, and as such must accept some risks. The only country in the world that can make their citizens 100% secure is North Korea, but I for one wouldn't want to live in that type of environment were everything is monitored and controlled by the state.

There is a quote that came from an episdoe of Star Trek The Next Generation called The Drumhead. "The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

It is always a slippery slope. We willingly give up a little freedom at a time to feel secure in our own beds that we don't realize that we are being chained.

Nope, I am not.

When I come across stupid "security" procedures that are supposedly secret, I have no problem widebanding such idiocy.

"Security" should be held up to the light of day for all to examine when it impacts people's lives but doesn't make them any safer. Those responsible for foolish security should be held accountable.

Airport security-related secrecy is more joke than anything. Also, I'm no advocate of the British laws that crack down upon freedom of speech and information dissemination, often "justified" -- by the state, state apologists and the emotionally insecure -- using the name of security and other lofty-sounding purposes. Being contractually-tied to non-disclosure is another matter.

Airport security-related secrecy is more joke than anything. Also, I'm no advocate of the British laws that crack down upon freedom of speech and information dissemination, often "justified" -- by the state, state apologists and the emotionally insecure -- using the name of security and other lofty-sounding purposes. Being contractually-tied to non-disclosure is another matter.

I quite agree!

I have infinitely more respect for commercial non-disclosure agreements, somthing that both parties have had full access to and agree upon before signing.

I have little to zero respect for "security" rules that are not published and that I am not permitted to see upon request but am expected to abide by them and could be penalized for not doing so. Such rules should be widebanded and those who employ them in this charade should be terminated.

Oh, and to answer DeafFlyer, they're probably working on it.
(If they do get it to work, I'd imagine they'd be able to sell the techology for non-security applications. Send them and e-mail and suggest it - remember to patent it first though!)

Problem is, American Sign is totally different than British Sign, although closer to French Sign ... but still different than German Sign or any other SL on the planet.

From Harry Potter and the Red Tape Turnabout, Ch. XXII, "Fairplay Feint":

Without revealing specifics, I can assure you that they may not be RECORDING your conversations within Hogwarts grounds, but they certainly are MONITORING them using technology similar to what the Minister of Magic and Dept. of Wizarding Oversight have described.

Why not reveal specifics? We students have a right to know!

No, they do not. Disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited under the Ministry of Magic's Security Act for Underage Wizards (MomSAUW). You can address any questions on the issue to the Disapparation Directorate.


Since we're no longer students at Hogwarts Castle ...... we'll be happy to wideband it.

For everyone harping on the US/TSA/DHS, etc regarding this article...did you NOT read that it's the UK considering it? Oy.