{"id":60,"date":"2006-08-15T10:58:34","date_gmt":"2006-08-15T14:58:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=60"},"modified":"2021-02-11T07:38:17","modified_gmt":"2021-02-11T12:38:17","slug":"suspect-detection-systems-cogito-passenger-screening-trial-at-knoxville-airport","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2006\/08\/15\/suspect-detection-systems-cogito-passenger-screening-trial-at-knoxville-airport\/","title":{"rendered":"Suspect Detection Systems’ Cogito Passenger Screening Trial at Knoxville Airport"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Transportation Safety Administration conducted a trial run of Suspect Detection Systems’ polygraph-derived passenger screening system, dubbed “Cogito,” at the Knoxville airport (presumably McGhee Tyson Airport<\/a>), the Wall Street Journal<\/em> reported Monday, 14 August in an article by Jonathan Karp and Laura Meckler titled, “Which Travelers Have ‘Hostile Intent’? Biometric Device May Have the Answer.”<\/a> Excerpt:<\/p>\n

At airport security checkpoints in Knoxville, Tenn. this summer, scores of departing passengers were chosen to step behind a curtain, sit in a metallic oval booth and don headphones.<\/p>\n

With one hand inserted into a sensor that monitors physical responses, the travelers used the other hand to answer questions on a touch screen about their plans. A machine measured biometric responses — blood pressure, pulse and sweat levels — that then were analyzed by software. The idea was to ferret out U.S. officials who were carrying out carefully constructed but make-believe terrorist missions.<\/p>\n

The trial of the Israeli-developed system represents an effort by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to determine whether technology can spot passengers who have “hostile intent.” In effect, the screening system attempts to mechanize Israel’s vaunted airport-security process by using algorithms, artificial-intelligence software and polygraph principles.<\/p>\n

Neither the TSA nor Suspect Detection Systems Ltd., the Israeli company, will discuss the Knoxville trial, whose primary goal was to uncover the designated bad guys, not to identify threats among real travelers. They won’t even say what questions were asked of travelers, though the system is generally designed to measure physical responses to hot-button questions like “Are you planning to immigrate illegally?” or “Are you smuggling drugs.”<\/p>\n

The test alone signals a push for new ways to combat terrorists using technology. Authorities are convinced that beyond hunting for weapons and dangerous liquids brought on board airliners, the battle for security lies in identifying dangerous passengers.<\/p>\n

The method isn’t intended to catch specific lies, says Shabtai Shoval, chief executive of Suspect Detection Systems, the start-up business behind the technology dubbed Cogito. “What we are looking for are patterns of behavior that indicate something all terrorists have: the fear of being caught,” he says.<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

Mr. Shoval, the Israeli entrepreneur, believes technology-based screening is the key to rolling out behavior-recognition techniques in the U.S. With experience in counter-terrorism service and the high-technology industry, Mr. Shoval developed his Cogito device with leading former Israeli intelligence officials, polygraph experts and computer-science academics.<\/p>\n

Here is the Cogito concept: A passenger enters the booth, swipes his passport and responds in his choice of language to 15 to 20 questions generated by factors such as the location, and personal attributes like nationality, gender and age. The process takes as much as five minutes, after which the passenger is either cleared or interviewed further by a security officer.<\/p>\n

At the heart of the system is proprietary software that draws on Israel’s extensive field experience with suicide bombers and security-related interrogations. The system aims to test the responses to words, in many languages, that trigger psycho-physiological responses among people with terrorist intent.<\/p>\n

The technology isn’t geared toward detecting general nervousness: Mr. Shoval says terrorists often are trained to be cool and to conceal stress. Unlike a standard lie detector, the technology analyzes a person’s answers not only in relation to his other responses but also those of a broader peer group determined by a range of security considerations. “We can recognize patterns for people with hostile agendas based on research with Palestinians, Israelis, Americans and other nationalities in Israel,” Mr. Shoval says. “We haven’t tried it with Chinese or Iraqis yet.” In theory, the Cogito machine could be customized for specific cultures, and questions could be tailored to intelligence about a specific threat.<\/p>\n

The biggest challenge in commercializing Cogito is reducing false results that either implicate innocent travelers or let bad guys slip through. Mr. Shoval’s company has conducted about 10 trials in Israel, including tests in which control groups were given terrorist missions and tried to beat the system. In the latest Israeli trial, the system caught 85% of the role-acting terrorists, meaning that 15% got through, and incorrectly identified 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats, according to corporate marketing materials.<\/p>\n

The company’s goal is to prove it can catch at least 90% of potential saboteurs — a 10% false-negative rate — while inconveniencing just 4% of innocent travelers.<\/p>\n

Mr. Shoval won a contract for the Knoxville trial in a competitive process. Next year, Israeli authorities plan to test Cogito at the country’s main international airport and at checkpoints between Israel and the West Bank, where the goal will be to catch genuine security threats while testing the logistics of using the system more broadly. The latest prototype costs about $200,000 a machine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As discussed earlier on the AntiPolygraph.org message board (see TSA to Screen for Terrorists by Reading Palms<\/a>), a similar trial of Suspect Detection Systems’ touted terrorist detection technology was to be tested at Atlantic City, New Jersey. The result of that trial — or whether it in fact took place — is unknown.<\/p>\n

This passenger screening technology is based on the same flawed assumptions as polygraphy. Anxiety is no clear indication of deception, much less terrorist intent. Because of the extremely low percentage of air travelers who intend to commit an act of terrorism, very nearly all who “fail” will be completely innocent. On the other hand, nothing prevents terrorists from taking a diazepam<\/a> tablet and breezing through.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Transportation Safety Administration conducted a trial run of Suspect Detection Systems’ polygraph-derived passenger screening system, dubbed “Cogito,” at the Knoxville airport (presumably McGhee Tyson Airport), the Wall Street Journal reported Monday, 14 August in an article by Jonathan Karp and Laura Meckler titled, “Which Travelers Have ‘Hostile Intent’? Biometric Device May Have the Answer.” …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-60","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2643,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60\/revisions\/2643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}