IP: "Brain fingerprinting" (fwd)

From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 13:13:10 MDT

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:59:04 -0400
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
Subject: IP: "Brain fingerprinting"

>Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:02:30 -0400
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, bobf@frankston.com, Dan Bricklin <DanB@trellix.com>
>From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>
>Subject: "Brain fingerprinting"
>Cc: "David Coursey" <david@coursey.com>
>Technology millionaire Steve Kirsch is getting a lot of publicity for a
>variety of antiterrorism ideas packaged in technical form. In ZDNet
>today, David Coursey seems to have become a believer in his latest idea,
>"brain fingerprinting" at airports. Coursey buys the idea based on such
>testimony as the FBI deeming "brain fingerprinting" _100% accurate_, with
>_no false positives_ and _no false negatives_ - claims that have never
>before been swallowed so credulously by a journalist.
>This sounds like the worst form of technological flim-flammery, and
>deserves to be exposed as such. There simply are no tests that can
>reliably do what is claimed. One might as well believe in Astrologically
>based security.
>And Kirsch's analysis of the civil liberties questions involved are
>absurdly simplistic. Essentially he seems to be claiming that if you are
>pure of heart you will pass, but that anyone whose feelings are provoked
>by certain images in certain ways should be defined as a "terrorist"
>(except those who happen to be trained killers, who we know to be
>especially good because they are "Navy SEALs"). We don't know if people
>who "lust in their heart" will commit adultery, and we don't know that
>people who dislike America will commit terrorism. We certainly can't
>experimentally validate such ideas scientifically.
>It's absurd to convict people based on some primitive attempt to measure
>their thoughts and feelings, rather than their actions. That is a new
>standard never before heard of in US history.
>- David
>WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html

For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT