Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday August 17 2018, @12:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the yeah,-but-can-it-detect-why-kids-love-the-taste-of-Cinnamon-Toast-Crunch? dept.

Ordinary wi-fi could be used to detect weapons and explosives in public places, according to a study led by the Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Wireless signals can penetrate bags to measure the dimensions of metal objects or estimate the volume of liquids, researchers claim. Initial tests appeared to show that the system was at least 95% accurate.

[...] The team behind the research tested 15 types of objects and six types of bags. The wi-fi system had success rates of 99% for recognising dangerous objects, 98% for metal and 95% for liquids. When objects were wrapped inside bags, the accuracy rate dropped to about 90%.

The low-cost system requires a wi-fi device with two or three antennas and can be integrated into existing wi-fi networks. The system works by analysing what happens when wireless signals penetrate and bounce off objects and materials.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday August 17 2018, @01:39PM (2 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday August 17 2018, @01:39PM (#722790)

    10 % false positive rate. Pulls on gloves. "Can you step this way Sir?"

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Bot on Friday August 17 2018, @02:23PM

    by Bot (3902) on Friday August 17 2018, @02:23PM (#722803) Journal

    Hey cut those scientists some slack. The TSA wanted at least 20% of false positives, better if among pretty females, but 10% is the most they could manage.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Friday August 17 2018, @08:27PM

    by Non Sequor (1005) on Friday August 17 2018, @08:27PM (#722925) Journal

    As quoted, I think that’s a false negative rate, although I’m curious about false positives. We’re all familiar with the old Bayes’ law exercise about the implications of a 0.1% false positive rate on a test for a very rare condition.

    Even without false positives (defined as identifying something outside of the RF absorption and dimensions specification for “weapons” being identified as being inside that specification) how common are objects that resemble weapons? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any dead ringers, but I haven’t put that much thought into it.

    --
    Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.