91av

THEY鈥橰E calling it the day the world changed. But the changes have only just
begun. 鈥淭here will be a complete reassessment of all levels of security, in all
areas of life,鈥� says Simon Davies of the London-based civil rights group Privacy
International. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 everything from anonymity on the open road to high-level
蝉别肠耻谤颈迟测.鈥�

US Attorney General John Ashcroft is already demanding extensive new powers
to use electronic surveillance. And authorities in many countries are expressing
heightened interest in the latest methods for identifying people and keeping
tabs on their activities
(see graphic).
The trickle of Big Brother technologies looks set to become a flood.

But can such technologies really help prevent attacks such as those on the
World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon? And will the price we have to pay be
too high in terms of loss of freedom?

The most immediate changes will be in airport security. Biometric systems for
identifying people from body features such as fingerprints look certain to be
introduced. Trials of iris recognition, which is perhaps the most promising
technology, are already under way in the US and will soon start at London鈥檚
Heathrow Airport.

Such technologies can鈥檛 ensure people are who they claim to be when their
features are first scanned. But if airports set up an international database of
iris patterns, they would make it extremely difficult for terrorists to adopt
multiple identities.

Face recognition could also be used to pick out known terrorists among air
passengers. 鈥淚f government agencies had databases of people they suspected, then
you could imagine a scenario where you step up onto a platform and have people
look into a camera,鈥� says Eric Grimson of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Boston.

Automated face screening could be routine in airports within 3 to 4 years. 鈥淚
have people doubling their efforts,鈥� says Joseph Atick of Visionics of New
Jersey. The company already has a system up and running in Newham in east
London, and has been getting inquiries from airports and other agencies around
the world, he says.

These systems would be of no use if those planning an attack were unknown to
security forces. But it seems some of last week鈥檚 hijackers were known to the
authorities, but disappeared after entering the US. That could strengthen the
argument for the widespread introduction of face recognition and biometric
systems.

There鈥檚 no reason biometric systems couldn鈥檛 become routine 鈥渁nywhere you
want to give access or deny access to someone鈥�, says Arcot Desai Narasimhalu of
Kent Ridge Digital Labs in Singapore, such as on buses, trains or in public
buildings. And face recognition systems can be introduced wherever there are
CCTV cameras.

A system that monitors people in public places for abnormal patterns of
behaviour could be even more effective than simply identifying them. Grimson is
working on a smart system that can use CCTV footage to monitor patterns of
activity, looking for anything out of the ordinary.

But using such a system to spot potential terrorist activity is fraught with
difficulties. 鈥淲hat if somebody is just overly boisterous, or particularly
nervous?鈥� says Grimson.

Tighter security measures will not be confined to public places. Countries
are also likely to step up the monitoring of telecommunications. But the problem
here is how to make sense of it all. Even if you have a lot of intelligence
information, that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that someone will have the time to
pick through it all and string the clues together.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of work to be done in data mining and how to set the triggers
up,鈥� says Marc Enger of California-based Internet security company Digital
Defense. 鈥淵ou have tremendous amounts of data. How do you search through it for
肠辞谤谤别濒补迟颈辞苍蝉?鈥�

And if data is encrypted, it can take years to crack. That has led to fears
of tougher regulations governing the use of encryption. After the attack, one of
the first messages to the sci.crypt newsgroup on encryption was: 鈥淲ell, I guess
this is the end now . . .鈥�

But some experts think that the terrorists would have been foolish to use
data encryption. 鈥淚t鈥檚 so rare that it would have been a red flag for suspicious
activity,鈥� says Ian Brown, professor of computer science based at University
College London and a member of Privacy International. 鈥淚 think that they will
have stuck entirely to face-to-face communication and couriers.鈥�

Even so, the FBI may use recent events to push for more power to intrude, spy
and hold encryption keys. Davies believes this will have unwelcome consequences.
鈥淎 society watched is more cautious, more unadventurous and more neurotic,鈥� he
says. 鈥淚ndividuals become changed beings.鈥�

But the events of last week may make people more likely to accept such
intrusions in their everyday lives. And, as Desai points out, such a future may
not feel so different to the world we live in now. 鈥淚f you walk into any office
building now, there are cameras,鈥� he says. 鈥淒o people object? If they are
unobtrusive, people don鈥檛 care.鈥�

However, a knee-jerk reaction won鈥檛 necessarily make us any safer. 鈥淲e tend
to put too much faith in technology,鈥� says Lee Clarke, associate professor of
sociology at Rutgers University in New Jersey. 鈥淩ight now, Americans would be
willing to sacrifice some rights and privacy for the sense of 蝉别肠耻谤颈迟测.鈥� But
that sense is an illusion, he says.

In fact, many experts think the attacks were made possible by a failure to
use existing technologies at the airports involved. Harvey Kushner of Long
Island University, author of numerous books on terrorism, says security-staff
training often consists of just a training video or a few hours of
instructions.

Referring to the scans used to spot weapons, Kushner says: 鈥淚t鈥檚 the same as
sending your loved ones for a mammogram and having someone with eight hours of
training reading the scan.鈥�

The people employed to run airport checkpoints in the US are often on the
minimum wage, adds John Daugman of Cambridge University, who works on iris
recognition. 鈥淭hey are completely unmotivated,鈥� he says.

It鈥檚 frightening how little can be done to stop terrorists who are willing to
sacrifice their lives. Still, introducing Big Brother technology could make it
harder for terrorists to operate, and easier for security forces to keep tabs on
suspects.

The problem may lie with humans rather than the technology. 鈥淚n the long run,
we鈥檒l end up being lax in security again,鈥� says Clarke. 鈥淧eople don鈥檛 like to be
颈苍肠辞苍惫别苍颈别苍肠别诲.鈥�

JUST how far will things go in the wake of the attacks? The ultimate Big
Brother device must be a tiny chip implanted under your skin that can broadcast
your identity and location.

A Florida company that was developing such chips, but had put the project on
hold, is now considering resuming it. 鈥淲e鈥檝e changed our thinking since
September 11,鈥� says Keith Bolton, chief technology officer at Applied Digital
Solutions. 鈥淣ow there鈥檚 more of a need to monitor evil activities.鈥�

Terrorist suspects could be forced to have such chips implanted鈥攐r it
could be done surreptitiously. And Bolton says if we all had such chips inside
us, it would be easier to find and identify kidnap victims or bodies buried in
rubble. Firefighters entering the twin towers resorted to scribbling their
social security numbers on their arms, he says.

We will have to consider the potential for abuse, of course. Governments
could track innocent people, while criminals hacking into the system could use
the signals to home in on targets. But Bolton says people may now be more likely
to accept the idea.

ADS has already developed a watch-like device called Guardian Angel, which
transmits information about the wearer鈥檚 identity, medical status and location,
using the Global Positioning System. It was intended for keeping track of
elderly relatives or wandering children. But several US states were interested
in using the technology to monitor parolees. So ADS is developing a lockable
device, and may now resume work on a version that can be embedded under the skin
(91av, 8 January 2000, p 7). 鈥淚f the world is ready, we have the
capability,鈥� says Bolton.