"DHS Wants to Turn Cell Phones Into Chemical Sensors"

bigred177

bigred177

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,014
Location
Round Rock, TX
Display Name
Display name:
bigred
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/dhs-wants-turn-cell-phones-chemical-sensors-007003

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) research and development arm wants to turn the smartphone in your pocket into the high-tech equivalent of a canary in a coalmine—all for about a dollar a phone.
Click to expand...

So, a $1 piece of equipment is supposed to reliably and accurately monitor "dangerous" chemicals? I imagine they will be getting an outstanding number of alerts from people fertilizing their lawn...
 
bigred177 said:
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/dhs-wants-turn-cell-phones-chemical-sensors-007003



So, a $1 piece of equipment is supposed to reliably and accurately monitor "dangerous" chemicals? I imagine they will be getting an outstanding number of alerts from people fertilizing their lawn...
Click to expand...
It probably depends on the chemical(s) tested, the concentration, and the sensitivity of the sensor. Also depends, as you imply, on what interferes with the sensor.

There's not enough information there to say...but it's probably some junk press release. There's a lot of interesting work in sensors but nothing I'd call 'ready for market' based on what I've seen in the published literature.

EDIT- Also nothing "ready for market" at a buck a sensor that are at all reliable outside of a lab.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I just thought it was funny the DHS wants it. They talk about it being the "canary in the coalmine" to warn people, but that doens't have anything to do with homeland security.
 
bigred177 said:
Yea, I just thought it was funny the DHS wants it. They talk about it being the "canary in the coalmine" to warn people, but that doens't have anything to do with homeland security.
Click to expand...


Don't underestimate DHS. They won't warn us of any hazards... They will simply shut down the coal mine.:yesnod::yesnod::mad2::eek:
 
If this happens, and its not mandatory, I will have to intentionally set off the sensor as much as possible to wreck havok.
 
No surprise, but I'd bet that this would cause the same ruckus as Clipper Chips, Total Information Awareness, and the TIPS program.

Just think, with this kind of system your could get a visit from your "I'm here to help you" government agent for working with lawn fertilizer or bleach.

Methinks it's a huge invasion, but the bleeting "anything for security" sheeple will surely love it (same way they love the new strip-search machines at airports).
 
I wonder how hard it would be to make an enriched uranium "smell", that would get them going. :devil:
 
OK, this is my area of expertise.
What they are looking at is a distributed system of sensors, where you have a redundant network of tens of thousands or millions of sensors. One failure or alarm means nothing and doesn't trigger an alarm.
The idea is that if you have dozens of alerts from dozens of phones in the same location, then you start having a high level of confidence. A single device that starts triggering alerts and which are not confirmed by other devices, then the net can 'blacklist' ignore the alerts from that device.

It would have to optional, and it would have to be anonymous. No visits from the Men in Black.
 
PilotAlan said:
OK, this is my area of expertise.
What they are looking at is a distributed system of sensors, where you have a redundant network of tens of thousands or millions of sensors. One failure or alarm means nothing and doesn't trigger an alarm.
The idea is that if you have dozens of alerts from dozens of phones in the same location, then you start having a high level of confidence. A single device that starts triggering alerts and which are not confirmed by other devices, then the net can 'blacklist' ignore the alerts from that device.

It would have to optional, and it would have to be anonymous. No visits from the Men in Black.
Click to expand...
You're still going to come up with chemical sensors that work despite the environment cell phones find themselves (pockets, purses) as well as out in the open. There are a lot of problematic chemicals- which ones will you sense? If you mix them up (one or two per phone), do you dilute the number of sensors to the point that redundancy is lost?

Edit:
This is a bit more realistic- the sensors exist already, and would work in the way you described for earthquakes. They aren't terribly sensitive though:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-quake-catcher-software-developed-041910.aspx?xmlmenuid=51
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
It probably depends on the chemical(s) tested, the concentration, and the sensitivity of the sensor. Also depends, as you imply, on what interferes with the sensor.

There's not enough information there to say...but it's probably some junk press release. There's a lot of interesting work in sensors but nothing I'd call 'ready for market' based on what I've seen in the published literature.

EDIT- Also nothing "ready for market" at a buck a sensor that are at all reliable outside of a lab.
Click to expand...

DHS = TSA = Big Brother = 1984 George Orwell...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top