|
|
socrateez
Stoned Philosopher
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1226
Location: I'm the person to your right.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Profiling Information from the APA |
 |
|
|
From: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/svignetteterror2.html#aggression
I seem to find the scary shit on Government websites
Most of this is framed from a counter terrorism standpoint. Since now that means anybody, lets see what sort of research has been done to pick out the criminal element. Ive paraphrased areas that I felt were pertinent to everyone, not just terrorists.
| Quote: | Statement of the problem: How can we predict level of aggression in violent interpersonal assaults?
Relevant research: Empirical research has shown that individuals who believe that their identity is unknown are more likely to behave aggressively. [1] Cross-cultural surveys have shown that this applies also to instances of serious violence: warriors who use body or face paint are more likely to kill, mutilate and torture captured prisoners than warriors who do not use such masking. [2] Analysis of violent interpersonal assaults in Northern Ireland from 1994 to 1996 found that the use of disguises by attackers was significantly more associated with aggression at the scene of the crime and with more punitive treatment of the victims. Disguised attackers also showed a wider range of aggressive behavior. [3] |
So Law Enfearment Officers looking very much like "Master Chief" from Halo are more likely to be empowered by their cool gear and kick my ass or kill? Same as a Robber in a mask with a gun? Big surprise.
| Quote: | Relevant research: Psychologists have found that people’s observing behavior is controlled by the extent to which they find the object that they are looking for. [7] If we want baggage inspectors to look carefully, then they must at least occasionally detect the kinds of objects they are looking for. If they never find such objects, then they will stop looking very carefully; if they do find those objects, they will look more carefully. [8]
Implications for counter-terrorism: A computer software system for the projection onto the inspector’s scanning screen of fictitious objects in baggage or an entirely fictitious bag, called “Threat Image Projection” (TIP), has been installed in some airport security systems. [9] Besides maintaining vigilance, the rate of detection of planted objects can be used to provide an estimate of how well inspectors are doing. The Federal Aviation Administration plans to rely on TIP to measure the performance of individual screeners and to certify screening companies. An important question that has not been resolved – and which must take into account what is known about human behavior – is what performance standards the screeners must meet for a screening company to be certified or maintain its certification. |
So now it is possible to electronically generate a "bomb" image in someones luggage? The screener has no way of knowing whether the image is real!?! They even use the term planted objects for crying out loud! Whats to say a innocent won't be detained and searched while testing a screener? I find this a very disturbing method for abuse of rights.
| Quote: | | Relevant research: Offender profiling is used extensively in the U.S. Available since 1974, the FBI and other agencies currently produce over 2,000 profiles each year. [41] Although studies on the effectiveness of profiling have shown that profiling leads directly to the identification of subjects in less than 10% of the cases, [42] profiles are generally viewed as useful by law enforcement agents. [43] |
 Great emphasis on profiling recently I might add.
| Quote: | Relevant research: Current lie detection methods, based on the polygraph technique, rely upon detecting changes in the physiological characteristics of a subject while they are asked a series of questions. Among the physiological characteristics measured are respiration rate, skin resistivity, blood pressure, and heart rate.
The question methods vary. Each involves comparisons between physiological responses to presumably innocuous questions and those that elicit emotional reactions. [36] For example, the Guilty Knowledge Test consists of asking a person a series of multiple choice questions, all dealing with facts with which only those knowledgeable about a crime would be familiar. The test assumes that the guilty individual’s recognition of the correct multiple choice alternative that contains actual details of the crime will lead to stronger physiological responses than to incorrect alternatives.
There are two main problems with the current method. The first is that it relies on monitoring natural physiological responses which may fluctuate for reasons other than deception. The second problem is that it is vulnerable to the deployment of countermeasures by the subject. People who are aware of how strong physiological responses to questions are taken as indicative of truthfulness or deceit can manipulate their bodies to produce exaggerated results, for example, by holding their breath (decrease respiration) or by constricting the anal sphincter muscle, tongue-biting, or thinking of exciting thoughts (increase heart rate). As a result, these methods produce false negatives (a deception is missed) and false alarms (the person is not lying, but inquisitor believes the person is).
Because of the effectiveness of such countermeasures, there is a need for a detectable response to lying that cannot be manipulated by the subject during testing. |
Good info to know! Thanks! The article continues to refer to newer behavioral profiling techniques as solutions. I would like to know more on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |
|
|
|
