Nikolas Rose: on security and technology…

Today we sat down with Professor Nikolas Rose to chat about his Views on security and technology in society. Nik came to LSE in 2002. He is the James Martin White Professor of Sociology, and the Director of the LSE’s BIOS Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society (BIOS Centre), founded in 2003. His current research concerns biological and genetic psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience, and its social, ethical, cultural and legal implications. Link to Nikolas’ profile.

We talked with Prof Rose about some related questions in the use of brain imaging and scanners in public places, such as for security in airports. Here are some highlights from the conversation:

BB: What is your initial reaction to the MALINTENT scanner or this type of technology?

NR: The belief that you can read intentions is certainly bogus. The technology cannot attempt to read an intention, nor should we believe that there is somehow a measurable objective state when you intend to do something, albeit, a very specific something. So, when it comes to reading intentions, I am very skeptical that it would work with any degree of accuracy.

BB: Is it the problem with the limits of technology?

NR: Well, brain imaging can be problematic in general as it is based on oxygen levels (or other metabolic measurements) in 3D space, based on a standard grid brain. There are so many assumptions regarding the brain’s anatomy that are built into this technology. For instance, whose brains compromise the “standard brain” that is used as a reference? Is it a group of 25-35 year old white males? Will this work across cultures? Is the American brain the same as the European brain? I mean recently, the Japanese have argued that they should have their own standard reference brain. So, the problem might be what the technology seeks to measure.

BB: Ok, so what we’re saying is that the technology can work, in the sense that it can scan brains to recognize a response, however, maybe just not a response that indicates an “intention”?

NR: Clinically speaking, patients already have signs and symptoms of pathology that a brain scan can confirm. However, to use brain imaging on people walking through a scanner, without any pathology, is completely different. Plus, you have to remember that those most interested in evading the scanner will be the most skilled at it as well. You cannot assume that the people you want to catch will not understand the system. That is just wrong.

BB: We wonder what kind of security technology, that remains non-invasive, could exist to provide further security measures with some degree of certainty. Have you any thoughts on this?

NR: It does exist, just look at the Iris Scan being used at Heathrow airport. This is well established, you enroll your iris and this is linked to your passport. The iris remains the same in a fetus and does not change as an adult. With this technology, either you are who you are, or not who you say you are.

BB: This seems odd to us, in a way, how can the US Government, or any agency, be investing in a technology that has a low practical output? We wonder if the strength lays in the public looking for answers, and allowing the discussion of studies (such as with the MALINTENT scanner) to hold an element of hope to combat uncertainties. In this case, uncertainties with knowing who is a terrorist or is trying to cause harm.

NR: Yes, a lot of money is being available for this type of research, to hope for a technical fix for a social and political problem.  What you should really ask is: What is the problem to which this is a solution and is this ‘solution’ not wholly out of proportion with the level of threat? We have very dangerous bugs, like Anthrax, that are extremely difficult to form into weapons. There has been much more death and injury caused by conventional weapons; much more than the destruction caused by chemical and biological weapons. So why does the threat of chemical and biological weapons generate so much more fear?

BB: And people believe in this fear and think the technology has the answer?

NR: The big problem is between public impression of this kind of scanner and the actual abilities of the scanner. There is a large difference between popular claims of brain scanning and scientific understanding of its limitations. In general, people want technology to give them the ‘right’ answer. If this technology is implemented, it removes the assumptions or uncertainties, as it gets built into the machines…

BB: Do people have trust in the machines?

NR: …You would be surprised by how much people depend on machines.

BB: But machines require people to interpret the results and this goes back to the human intervention in the accuracy of technology.

NR: Yes, and this is where discriminatory judgments are likely to come in. Machines and scanners give risk profiles based on statistical cross referencing with other databases. This sort of scanning regime is likely to give you multiple ambiguous results requiring a degree of interpretation from personnel that is still subject to bias and discrimination. People believe if we “technologize” something we remove the discrimination, but they forget to question whether discriminatory assumptions are built into the machine.

BB: Wait, because the machines are built by humans?

NR: Well, it is important to question what biometric data is being used and what other databases it is linked with. Biometric data based on stable physical attributes of the body are reasonably well established. Recognition software, for example, can ascertain whether you are who you say you are. But the biometric data taken in the MALINTENT scanner is not trying to recognize you but is trying to measure intent. That is a whole other problem all together, as I said before. Really, I’d like to know what other databases they are accessing and what sort of information they are assessing as ‘risky’ – ie. Whether or not you paid in cash? Whether you recently travelled to the Middle East?  This is what I mean by discriminatory assumptions being built into the technology.

BB: Machines and humans, this sounds like a science fiction novel.

NR: But that is it, to some extent, this article has such a gripping mixture of science and science fiction that it will get much publicity. The public will read these headlines and believe that the MALINTENT scanner can read intentions and this will fuse with popular imagery from movies like “The Minority Report”. Brain imaging can tell you a lot of interesting things, despite its poor acuity, about lesions and other clinical pathology. However, if you’re trying to measure an intention, you must assume that there is an objective state linked to a specific intention, in this case a specific hostile act that is detectable. Again, as I said initially, at this point in time, that is technologically infeasible and entirely bogus.