## Can 'brain fingerprints' protect us from terrorists?

### David Coursey,
Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
Tuesday, October 2, 2001

> Steve Kirsch is not a nut. I mention this because your first reaction to what I am about to discuss may be that Steve is off the deep end. I don't think so, but will admit I haven't researched what I am about to repeat to you. However, I do trust Steve.

> Regular AnchorDesk readers will recognize Steve from my column of Sept. 14, when he proposed a new autopilot system that could have prevented the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. This column drew near-record comments from readers, so when Steve came back to me with what he says is an even better idea--one that would potentially uncover 99.9 percent of all terrorists--I had to take notice.

> For those who don't know Steve, here's a very short bio. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in EE and computer science from MIT, has started several successful companies (InfoSeek is the best known), has given away millions of dollars, and is trying very hard to use technology to prevent a repeat of the events of Sept. 11. I have had a passing relationship with him for five or six years.

> NOW FOR the idea. Brain fingerprinting--a simple computerized test that takes 10 minutes to give and requires no human intervention--has, according to Steve, proven infallible in FBI and U.S. Navy testing. It has been touted as being able to accurately identify trained terrorists before they can board planes or even enter the country. This technique was developed by Dr. Lawrence Farwell, a former faculty member of the Harvard Medical School, and has been profiled on CBS's "60 Minutes."

> Here's how it works.

> - Every few years, each person to be tested puts on a headset and watches video images for 10 minutes. The person is attached to sensors that record brainwaves.

> - The images are yes/no questions, which the subject may be given in advance. They may be published in advance.

> - A known, but large, question pool allows exclusion of "objectionable" questions that don't relate to the issue at hand: have you cheated on your spouse or your taxes, that sort of thing.

> - Although people lie--which is why "lie detector tests" remain so controversial--brainwaves don't. Your brain reacts to the question regardless of the answer you verbalize.

> - At the same time, biometric data (iris scans, fingerprints, face recognition, etc.) is gathered to positively link the person with the profile.

> - At this point, it is not even necessary to know who the person is; the risk profile would not have to be linked to a person's actual identity. You could take the test without presenting any sort of personal identification. Perhaps a court order would be required to associate a real person with a specific profile.

> - Properly done--and this can be a very public process--there would be no false positives and no false negatives. Some people, even good guys like Navy Seals or FBI agents, might test positive, but adding additional questions would clear them.

> Steve has created a Web site that discusses this, and it includes much more detail than is possible here. In it he addresses most of the privacy and "Big Brother" issues that immediately come to mind.

> There are also some interesting other uses for this technology--and it has been accepted as evidence by U.S. courts. One of the best might be offering the test to O.J. Simpson. If he passes, he gets his normal life back and doesn't have to pay the huge civil judgment against him.

> That, of course, would be outside the purview of this column, but I hope it gets you thinking about the uses of brain fingerprinting, both good and bad.

> IF WE WANT to test this, I have an idea, which I have already shared with Steve. Let's not test it on U.S. citizens, but on people who want to travel to the U.S. Make brain fingerprinting (yes, it is a really bad name) a part of the visa application process. Require resident aliens to come in for testing, if you like. Since these people are asking to be our guests, this doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it?

> Based on that experience, we could then see what, if any, uses the technology has, as well as how potential abuse is best dealt with. There are ways around most of the obstacles, yet the idea is so science fiction-y that it may not get a fair hearing.

> For the sake of our nation's security, I hope it does.

> David will be discussing brain fingerprinting on his radio show this Friday at noon Pacific Time on CNET radio.

> Is brain fingerprinting a bad sci-fi idea, or would it help with national security? TalkBack to me.

> > All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use this material for purposes other than provided by law. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html,