DARPA Has $3.2M to Sniff You Out

quackking writes "The Army wants to sniff you out. This fedbizopps.gov link to a DARPA pre-RFRQ tells more. 'The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Advanced Technology Office (ATO), as part of the Odortype Detection Program, invites proposals to (1) determine whether genetically-determined odortypes can be used to identify specific individuals, and if so (2) to develop the science and enabling technology for detecting and identifying specific individuals by such odortypes. Total program funding for this effort will not exceed $3.2 million in FY 2003. Multiple awards are anticipated. Proposals are due by January 29, 2003.'"

Sounds silly?

[Siguy]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me to where this will be very useful. I just can't even imagine how knowing what a terrorist smells like or whatever it is they're doing is going to be useful -Siguy [blogspot.com]

STASI

[micaiah]

This kind of reminds me of the East German's intelligence program of keeping people's scents on file. Maybe that will be next?

Re:Sounds like a waste of 3.2m

[zephc]

"and how would you store the signature of a scent in a database?"

Since scents are just chemicals, one could filter out the background scents, and then store a list of the remaining chemicals in a db.

Re:Sounds like a waste of 3.2m

[Frymaster]

As it is, fingerprints, eye scans, and DNA are much better than smell

not really. all the abovementioned methods require the participation of the identified person (well, you can lift someone's fingerprints from that wine glass... but to compare them you need to have good ink sheet ones).

odour can be detected surreptitiously... say when passing through an airplane security gate, and the person can be identified without being aware of it. if someone scans your retina, you'll notice. if they pick up your smell with a hidden sniffer you won't.

very insidious idea.

Smells like an assassination device

[Subcarrier]

A targeted anti-personnel mine comes to mind. Could be useful for taking out enemy commanders. A retreating force could leave these scattered in the bushes. Of course, they'd have to acquire some samples beforehand. Who does Saddam's laundry, by the way?

Why

[Z0mb1eman]

My guess would be that this would be useful because scent, unlike appearance, is harder to alter. A wanted criminal can just put on some different clothes, maybe grow a beard, etc, and he won't be easily recognized - wear shades, a hat, and he won't be very easy to recognize with any sort of automated system. Other methods of identification - fingerprints or retinal scan - are difficult to apply without the target noticing (and cooperating). I could see machines at airports or bus terminals that "sniff out" anyone who passes by, and if the smell matches with any in its database, bingo... IF the technology works, it could be far more reliable than current methods.

Of course, all this hinges on the idea that slapping on some cheap cologne won't confuse the machine. And I won't go into the privacy/1984/control etc. arguments...

Re:Sounds like a waste of 3.2m

[pi_rules]

Developing the equipment to identify unique scents would be costly, bulky, and probably easily confused by purfumes and other forms of distraction.

Given that it doesn't currently exist I don't really see wher eyou get that from.


I say that nature does the best job, use some sort of animal to sniff a trail, or use a better means to identify a person.


I think that's the idea here.. re-implement the dog. Dog's can't have RJ-45 jacked into their head to make a peer-to-peer database of smells that they've learned over the years. Computers can.

Plus, this might be the first OO system in the world that actually uses crap from those silly college course examples.

class Animal {};

class Dog inherits Animal {};

class GermanShephard inherits Dog {};


As it is, fingerprints, eye scans, and DNA are much better than smell, and how would you store the signature of a scent in a database?


If that was easily answered DARPA wouldn't be tossing $3.2 million at the problem.

Actuall IN SOVIET RUSSIA...

[ackthpt]

The government spies on YOU!

More like, in Soviet Russia the government might have spied on you.

In the USA, post 9/11, the government will spy on you.

So... what was the objective of this Cold War thing again?

Re:Smells like an assassination device

[Cruciform]

You could base it off the local food supply...
If soldiers were under orders to consume only MRE packs while in a Middle Easter location, then mines could be programmed to detect strong odors like curry, or other oft-used spices from the region.

It could be used in reverse as well...
You feed all your soldiers rations with heavy amounts of garlic. Everyone stinks but they can safely run though a minefield of combined motion/odor detectors. The pursuing enemy attempts to follow them in and is blown apart because their lack of key odor doesn't disable the mines.

Only me

[karmawarrior]

If you're concerned about the potential consequences to privacy and freedom this type of technology might entail, there's really only one thing you can do: Make your government aware of your misgivings. It's YOUR government damn it. You may have decided to let it run itself these last few years, but ultimately the founding fathers made sure that the government would be, in some way, answerable to you - be that, arguably as originally intended, on a State by State level, or, as it is now, on a more pluralist democratic level (yes, as long as the legislature is answerable to the populace, it's a democracy. You don't need more than that, all this BS about rule by plebicite is just that: BS)

Your government throws money at all types of security "solutions" right now because it believes that is what you want it to do. It believes that, given the events of the last 14 months, you are frightened enough to break Franklin's famous principle about trading freedoms for security. It will do anything to make you feel safer, not only by making you safer, but by throwing tax payer dollars at pointless and socially dangerous projects such as "odor identification systems", as well as more infamous projects such as the face scanning technologies used in Tampa that were found to misidentify a large percentage of the population.

This quagmire of government spending to make you feel safer regardless of the consequences will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman [house.gov] or senator [senate.gov]. Tell them not to do anything. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to protect your safety, but if money keeps being thrown at more and more invasive and ultimately pointless security measures you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how them doing stuff all the time just for the sake of being popular harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on whether or not they can summon up the political courage to spend an entire term getting nothing done.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Only terrorists...

[gmhowell]

Only terrorists use deodorant.
Only terrorists use perfume/cologne.
Only terrorists keep their mouth minty fresh.

See? ESR was a patriot all along.

Re:Sounds like a waste of 3.2m

[Monkelectric]

Dogs do this all the time -- but HOW they do it is beyond me.

There is a reason for this actually ... if I remember my freshman bio class, in the human brain the nose is "connected" to a center that controls emotion. This is why we are unable to apply any cognitive function to what we smell. Think about the other senses, we have developed complex language to describe them (blue, shiny, transluscent, iridescent... sharp, soft, prickly, sticky, coarse etc, there are also formalized words to describe sounds but I wont go into detail), but with smell there are really only a few words people used to describe a smell, "good" and "bad" most of the time.

Dogs have alot more of their brain dedicated to their olfactory sensors (and I believe more sensors as well?). I wouldn't be surprised if dogs have abilities we don't like being able to recall a smell like we could recall sounds or images. I always thought it was weird that I could remember every note of "The great gig in the sky" and recall it at will as if I was listening to it, but ... I cant even remember what my last g/fs perfume smelled like unless I smell it.

Maybe someone who knows more can give us more information