I saw a demonstration of this technology a few years back, at a European military-industrial contractor for which I worked.
It was being pitched as the ideal way to assassinate people in a crowd - identify them by heartbeat signature, fly a drone in to drop a small explosive package on their heads.
When I later saw that biometric information was being harvested by the same company at airports around the world, I figured - time to get a different job. So I quit.
And now, the tech of individually-targeted assassinations is coming to market.
> It was being pitched as the ideal way to assassinate people in a crowd - identify them by heartbeat signature, fly a drone in to drop a small explosive package on their heads.
Wouldn't be surprised if this isn't already happening in the Middle East, the unregulated and far away land we like to test all of the West's/Israel's new toys in.
And there I was keeping quiet about the nasty horrible weapons, just like that, which my brain cooks up at 3 am when I can’t sleep, in the hope that no real company would develop them.
> It was being pitched as the ideal way to assassinate people in a crowd - identify them by heartbeat signature, fly a drone in to drop a small explosive package on their heads.
> It was being pitched as the ideal way to assassinate people in a crowd - identify them by heartbeat signature, fly a drone in to drop a small explosive package on their heads.
Hmm, if you're already shining a laser on your target it seems to me there are simpler ways to achieve your goal...
Even putting aside from the inevitable "misuse", I even wonder about it's intended use. For example:
>Jetson can achieve over 95% accuracy under good conditions
What does this even mean? I can see enormous incentive to avoid false negatives. But I don't see as much incentive to avoid false positives.
For example, the incentives are even less than for drug testing for which there is some semblance of legal proceeding. And yet which are still flawed.
I'm sure it's better than bombing indiscriminately. But it'd be nice to be confident that it isn't going to increase wrongful assassinations due to over confidence.
Did the test you saw attempt to show a low false positive rate too?
> He claims that Jetson can achieve over 95% accuracy under good conditions
Isn't it critical to state how many signatures are in the database when quoting an accuracy? 95% accuracy among 4 different heartbeats is much easier than 95% accuracy among 2^32 heartbeats, many of which will resemble one another.
> There are a lot of people who walk kind of like you. What's more, it's easy not to walk kind of like you -- just take one shoe off. Of course, you'll always walk like you-with-one-shoe-off in that case, so the cameras will eventually figure out that it's still you. Which is why I prefer to inject a little randomness into my attacks on gait-recognition: I put a handful of gravel into each shoe. Cheap and effective, and no two steps are the same. Plus you get a great reflexology foot massage in the process (I kid. Reflexology is about as scientifically useful as gait-recognition).
Daisy chain enough non-unique ID's together and you get something that's close enough to unique for the purposes of the people who will be implementing this.
While the guy who's getting droned or the dude getting the shit kicked out of him by a bunch of cops may care about identification, the people doing those things don't really care as long as they get the right guy often enough compared to the wrong guy.
These tools are often created to augment current and future technologies. It can serve to confirm an actor when other technologies are inconclusive (e.g. Face mask), it can serve to increase the likelihood of identification via multiple confirmations (e.g. visual, audio, heart) among other things.
If the scanning system has a database of your regular pulmonary patterns, can't this be used, albeit crudely, to detect the emotional state of a subject?
With automation I can't help but think that this is unfortunately going to bring George Orwell's dystopian vision closer to reality.
You don't even need a database of pulmonary patterns. The human baseline and deviations from it is plenty strong enough for crude emotion state detection.
The paranoid in me wonders if this isn't released because it's irrelevant now, since even in the civilian world with civilian technology the "laser" would seem to be nearly superfluous.
I took a class in college on lie detection technology from someone who worked doing research. Lie detectors don't detect lies or emotions, they measure heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin response, which only tell you when the individual is experiencing something; could be pain, anxiety, fear, anger, happiness, a lot of things. Maybe they are lying, maybe not, not really good enough evidence with those things.
Heart rate isn't going to give you as much information, and you aren't in a controlled environment, so I imagine things like exercise could effect it. It can be detected with a camera recording your face and a simple algorithm though, so biometric data from an airport could definitely give you someone's pattern.
This laser presumably detects vibrations, so I'd be interested to see if something as simple as listening to music with a bit of base as you walk could effect it.
While the article and the other comments are about military uses this could also be used for physical access security instead of finger or iris (or badge.) The next question would be if there is a way to spoof someone else's heartbeat signature. Maybe a flat panel speaker playing a recording of the other person's heartbeat. Good morning Mr. Phelps.....
I wonder what methods exist to alter your heart's distinctive rhythm. Presumably if you had a pacemaker installed, you could tinker with it (albeit at great risk.) But could I alter my heart's signature by taking medication?
I see people are pointing out the 95% accuracy. I think it’s worth reminding everyone that the current American criteria for killing people with drone strikes requires that they 1) be male and 2) appear from orbit to be above a certain height. There’s no requirement to have someone on the ground to pick out targets or make sure afterwards that the right person was killed.
"The algorithm can find subtle changes in motion and amplify those, too. By pointing a camera at an artery, we see the imperceptible beat of a wrist become a pounding great pulsation that's straining to burst out of an arm. The rise and fall of a breathing chest can also be turned up.
MIT computer scientist Fredo Durand predicts that his algorithm will be used primarily for remote medical diagnostics. He also imagines that structural engineers could borrow the tech to measure the way wind makes a building sway or deform slightly."
Sure this is cool and could certainly reduce the demand for "signature strikes" (not that we should be droning people as often as we are in the first place) but it sounds like yet another thing we'll be seeing big city police departments using to enhance their dragnet 10yr from now.
Pentagon has a laser that can identify people at a distance by their heartbeat
Ha! Joke's on them. My ex says I don't have a heart!
Seriously, though. Imagine the medical diagnostic possibilities of something like this. Not this thing exactly, obviously. But something that won't kill people.
I looked through all the comments but still haven't seen an answer to an obvious limitation(that is posed near the end of the article): Where are they getting their library of heartbeats from? I'm sure the CIA is collecting, but being able to positively ID someone with their heartbeat is useless unless you already have a verified record of their heartbeat.
Imagine the case of finding an elusive person (such as Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden), somebody has to go collect a verified sample BEFORE an assassination takes place. But if you are in a position to collect a sample of someone's heartbeat and you KNOW that it's the right person through some other verifiable means (you need to know if you actually got OBL instead of a body double), then what does this really get you? You already had some trustworthy source, and you can probably use this previous source to verify that you assassinated the right person.
So this heartbeat ID tech may be more accurate and robust compared to facial recognition, but it's less useful in actuality. We already have verified pictures of most adults in the world via passports and driver's licenses and such, which makes facial recognition a ton more useful in real life.
The problem that this heartbeat tech "solves," the ability to ID someone with great accuracy, is hamstrung by the fact that the elusive people we have the greatest need for an ID like this won't have their data available. For non-elusive people we can already find them by getting their picture and address out of a database.
But you can bet the CIA realizes this limitation and will work diligently over the next few years to get heartprints of Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and other notorious figures at every public appearance so that they can slowly build a library that will be useful down the road.
[+] [-] fit2rule|6 years ago|reply
It was being pitched as the ideal way to assassinate people in a crowd - identify them by heartbeat signature, fly a drone in to drop a small explosive package on their heads.
When I later saw that biometric information was being harvested by the same company at airports around the world, I figured - time to get a different job. So I quit.
And now, the tech of individually-targeted assassinations is coming to market.
[+] [-] bhouston|6 years ago|reply
Wouldn't be surprised if this isn't already happening in the Middle East, the unregulated and far away land we like to test all of the West's/Israel's new toys in.
[+] [-] ben_w|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freeflight|6 years ago|reply
Reminds me of this little presentation [0]
[0] https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA
[+] [-] dpedu|6 years ago|reply
Hmm, if you're already shining a laser on your target it seems to me there are simpler ways to achieve your goal...
[+] [-] TomMckenny|6 years ago|reply
>Jetson can achieve over 95% accuracy under good conditions
What does this even mean? I can see enormous incentive to avoid false negatives. But I don't see as much incentive to avoid false positives.
For example, the incentives are even less than for drug testing for which there is some semblance of legal proceeding. And yet which are still flawed.
I'm sure it's better than bombing indiscriminately. But it'd be nice to be confident that it isn't going to increase wrongful assassinations due to over confidence.
Did the test you saw attempt to show a low false positive rate too?
[+] [-] thrwo34234|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] md8|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gingabriska|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rexpop|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfc|6 years ago|reply
Aren't all assassinations individually targeted?
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diydsp|6 years ago|reply
Isn't it critical to state how many signatures are in the database when quoting an accuracy? 95% accuracy among 4 different heartbeats is much easier than 95% accuracy among 2^32 heartbeats, many of which will resemble one another.
[+] [-] decko|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akeck|6 years ago|reply
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/96321
[+] [-] bch|6 years ago|reply
-Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow [0][1][2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Doctorow_novel...
[1] https://craphound.com/category/littlebrother/
[2] https://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
While the guy who's getting droned or the dude getting the shit kicked out of him by a bunch of cops may care about identification, the people doing those things don't really care as long as they get the right guy often enough compared to the wrong guy.
[+] [-] m463|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tharkun|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nvrspyx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnchr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gpetrium|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JimBrimble35|6 years ago|reply
Looks at Apple watch.. looks at fitbit.. looks at Samsung phone with heartbeat monitor..
huh
[+] [-] Timothycquinn|6 years ago|reply
With automation I can't help but think that this is unfortunately going to bring George Orwell's dystopian vision closer to reality.
[+] [-] jerf|6 years ago|reply
See also https://news.mit.edu/2016/detecting-emotions-with-wireless-s... (using wifi to detect heartbeat) , https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs231a/prev_projects_2016/fin... (various video-based methods) , https://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/evm/ (and see the video), and a lot of other things.
The paranoid in me wonders if this isn't released because it's irrelevant now, since even in the civilian world with civilian technology the "laser" would seem to be nearly superfluous.
[+] [-] davemp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Raphmedia|6 years ago|reply
You only need to look across the globe to find a situation where this exists.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-emotional-surveillance...
[+] [-] lsiebert|6 years ago|reply
Heart rate isn't going to give you as much information, and you aren't in a controlled environment, so I imagine things like exercise could effect it. It can be detected with a camera recording your face and a simple algorithm though, so biometric data from an airport could definitely give you someone's pattern.
This laser presumably detects vibrations, so I'd be interested to see if something as simple as listening to music with a bit of base as you walk could effect it.
[+] [-] vmh1928|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d--b|6 years ago|reply
Yeah, well having a drone flying at 200 meters from the target while aiming what must be a heavy laser is not exactly a piece of cake either.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aiyodev|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|6 years ago|reply
Reminded about remote diagnostics using camera https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mit-algorithm
"The algorithm can find subtle changes in motion and amplify those, too. By pointing a camera at an artery, we see the imperceptible beat of a wrist become a pounding great pulsation that's straining to burst out of an arm. The rise and fall of a breathing chest can also be turned up.
MIT computer scientist Fredo Durand predicts that his algorithm will be used primarily for remote medical diagnostics. He also imagines that structural engineers could borrow the tech to measure the way wind makes a building sway or deform slightly."
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawnwren|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reaperducer|6 years ago|reply
Ha! Joke's on them. My ex says I don't have a heart!
Seriously, though. Imagine the medical diagnostic possibilities of something like this. Not this thing exactly, obviously. But something that won't kill people.
[+] [-] debt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gene5ive|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw20102010|6 years ago|reply
Imagine the case of finding an elusive person (such as Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden), somebody has to go collect a verified sample BEFORE an assassination takes place. But if you are in a position to collect a sample of someone's heartbeat and you KNOW that it's the right person through some other verifiable means (you need to know if you actually got OBL instead of a body double), then what does this really get you? You already had some trustworthy source, and you can probably use this previous source to verify that you assassinated the right person.
So this heartbeat ID tech may be more accurate and robust compared to facial recognition, but it's less useful in actuality. We already have verified pictures of most adults in the world via passports and driver's licenses and such, which makes facial recognition a ton more useful in real life.
The problem that this heartbeat tech "solves," the ability to ID someone with great accuracy, is hamstrung by the fact that the elusive people we have the greatest need for an ID like this won't have their data available. For non-elusive people we can already find them by getting their picture and address out of a database.
But you can bet the CIA realizes this limitation and will work diligently over the next few years to get heartprints of Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and other notorious figures at every public appearance so that they can slowly build a library that will be useful down the road.
[+] [-] wumms|6 years ago|reply
Will wearing a winter jacket (e.g. in airports) still be legal in a couple of years?
[+] [-] 1-6|6 years ago|reply