> That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.
Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.
Are you somehow unaware of the fact that security personnel, for example TSA at airports, are already empowered to use their own discretion in deciding that particular people seem to merit extra scrutiny?
Any TSA officer can flag any person as suspicious for almost any reason. They don't abuse this power generally because they have very little incentive to and there are checks on it.
> I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works.
Do you think TSA officers are incentivized to do more or fewer body cavity searches? Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight and have to reference Trump in the context of a discussion about secure environment screening technology.
> And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).
I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.
Which, I'd argue, is why I'm less concerned about this technology than you. I know what kinds of things actually infringe on people's liberties.
Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.
Some of the responses to me were rude and I calibrated my responses to them appropriately. You stated I was "missing the point" which is more rude than me sincerely asking you to explain your rationale.
Your claims made very little sense. In my view, this potential new technology in no way increases the power of security personnel beyond what they already posses.
> Oh good lord. Now it's no longer even "have you read a history book on the 20th century?" anymore, it's "have you been paying attention to the world for the past 15 years?".
Spare me the hysterics and the insults. What exactly is your claim?
That body cavity searches have increased rapidly over the last 15 years? That it's a common occurrence? That security personnel actually has an incentive to do them more rather than less?
Give me the books you read and sources you read that support your claim. I doubt they exist. I suspect you're going off "vibes" here, but I'll gladly read them if you can cite them.
Doesn't seem like a reasonable objection to me. It takes a lot of time and man power to search people's body cavities. The incentive is to avoid searching as many people as possible.
What's the objection? I don't see how having my heart rate scanned at an airport or military checkpoint in any way impinges on my freedom or happiness.
It could be used to scan people's heart rates when they're in a high security line (military check points, airports, embassies) to detect people who are nervous.
I assume some places already use thermal cameras to detect people who are sweating profusely.
Using both together might be a decent way of flagging people who might otherwise slip through security.
Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own.