Spy Satellites Chasing Shadows: NASA's Contribution to the War on Terror

Are you having trouble with funding?  Is your research unable to attract major media attention?  Just add Terror (TM)!  That's what Dr Stoica of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory did, and it could work for you too.

Dr Stoica's research is based on gait analysis - the idea that everyone has a distinctive walking pattern, and no matter how many fake beards or dark glasses you put on you can't disguise your stride unless you're wearing so many your knees break.

So far so good.  Things only go off the rails with his proposal to use this software to scan shadows to find terrorist suspects.  From space. Seriously.  Satellites have a hard time recognising individuals from the tops of their heads (the lack of Superman in our world means people rarely have reason to look straight up), which is why Stoica has developed software which can reconstruct their profile from their shadow and the time of day.

That sort of thing might work in CSI: Hawaii Beach (or whatever they're up to now), but here in the real world there are a few problems with the pitch:

1.  Satellites simply do not have the required resolution.  The highest commercial satellite resolution currently available is half a meter, meaning you can only make out details about that big.  If your terror suspect can still be recognized at that scale you could have saved time by checking the International Sumo Federation database.  The military often has better gear, of course, but in this case it's not a question of money - it's a question of what's physically possible.

2.  Computer reconstruction of images might seem standard for the average movie-goer, but in the real world you can't just say "enhance" and capture a fingerprint from a week old pizza box.  This idea calls for processor intensive, time sensitive reconstruction of hundreds of frames of footage for millions of people, all on the off chance of getting something clear enough to identify someone.  There are a huge range of amazing data-mining applications of modern surveillance, but this isn't one of them.  This is more a "with these new steam-engines, we could build a machine to care for infants" idea, i.e. a really bad one.

3.  Walking patterns are distinctive, but they aren't "six billion different types" distinctive - especially not with reduced satellite resolution and when they've all been reprocessed by the same reconstruction algorithms (which will have their own bias).

4.  Little thing, tiny point, but Dr Stoica does point out that this system will only catch those terrorists whose walking pattern is already on file.  Unfortunately, the world's intelligence agencies don't actually have a catch-and-release policy for major terrorists - getting them, measuring them, then setting them loose to see which clever scientist can find them again - so we can expect this to be what we call a "major issue."

5.  As well as the "it's good for Terror!" warning sign, there's also the "at the earliest stages of development" alarm bell in the announcements.  Translation "You will see nothing useful out of this for ten years, if ever, and the only reason we're even mentioning it is we need the money/attention".

You'd be better off finding which soft drink terrorists like best, then tasking satellites to track the delivery trucks.  At least you can SEE those from space.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Shadow stalking satellite

Comments

[Jobs]

wow.. amazing satelites! i wonder what more they can do?

[Ron]

You forgot to mention whether Stoica got his bucks. Given the present crop of idiots he likely did. Hell if that doesn't work wait for McCain. He can't even turn on a computer; you could tell him anything. . .funny though.

[rtl]

Orwellian nasa satellites in orbit watching waiting.....
http://iteetoo.com/4i.html

well my version ;) rtl

[CK]

What are you talking about commercial satellites for? I personally have seen a postage stamp laid out on a large federal runway, and then a picture take from space, It's framed in my living room. It just looks like a macro lense from 2 inches away took it.

Just because the pictures you've seen from space suck, don't assume they do for everyone.

[Pete Laurina]

I have to agree with RTL, you're so focused on commercially available satellites. How many times in your lifetime has the governments developed technologies beyond what you even thought was possible at the time (Stealth technology for one). Now, we have commercially available stuff that can see my car in the driveway, another satellite that can take a look at pluto, but there's no way they have one that's good enough for see the details of your shadow? You're on crack if you believe that.

As for the recognition ability of computers... Do a little research in just how far facial recognition has come in the commercial sector. Ask a card counter if the eye in the sky in Vegas knows who they are when they walk in the door.

As for the "we need funding" it's sad they have to resort to that in order to develop the technologies that you use everyday and don't even realize. Do a quick search for "NASA Spinoffs" and enlighten yourself on everything you see daily that's because of them.

[Adrian Stoica]

I found this article insulting in its implications that I added 'terror' to an article to get funding, that i would have trouble with funding, and that i would be otherwise unable (assuming i have an interest) to attract major media attention.
" Are you having trouble with funding? Is your research unable to attract major media attention? Just add Terror (TM)! That's what Dr Stoica of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory did, "

The truth is that it is the media authors/journalists who used inflammatory words to attract attention to *their* articles - as it was done by the author of this 'article'

I posted my original technical paper and comments on media reaction at
www.shadowbiometrics.info

Although we all know (should know) that US R&D funding is in a difficult state, in this specific case the author of the article makes a false (and malicious) statement. The reality is that JPL line managers (and I manage the Advanced Robotics Control group at JPL) are paid from a management account and I do not have trouble related to my funding. (Also, i have been successful in attracting funding when I needed, and my CV, available on-line, and projects i led prove it). Also, when I do pursue funding avenues I do not use cheap shots - as i believe the author of the 'dailygalaxy' article did in this case.

Furthermore, as I clarify on my website - a lot of untrue claims were made in my name by media article authors - I only gave explanations to one (1) New Scientist journalist and sent him my technical paper - so I 'contributed' to only one (1) article (which i did not see in its final form before it appeared, with modifications from what I saw before and some tricky suggestions) and from there it propagated and got distorted a lot, by the imagination of various 'authors' in the media (If i were so keen on media attention I would have for sure exploited the 'momentum': I got very many requests for interviews/ contributions since, yet declined them all)...

In fact, as for media attention (which apparently i am unable to attract), i could not care less...my opinion of many in the media is quite low...

I tend to believe that most readers would agree: it is the journalists (media) - who seeks to attract attention (*they* * do* get their salary/rating from the attention/readers they attract), by any means, including lies, insults, etc, etc.
And, yes, they well know that is the way to do it, since they do it most, abusing all of us...

A.S.,
Pasadena, CA
hours after the day of 9/11 2008