In the wake of the attempted Christmas air-bomb attack (being referred to tongue-in-cheek as the “Fruit of Ka-Boom” bomber by some members of more conservative media outlets), President Obama has asked that new technologies be developed for defense purposes that will assist in determining threats prior boarding commercial airliners.

At present, debate continues to rage over the ethics behind using full-body scanners that, essentially, render a person “visually nude” using digital imaging equipment (of this technology, Left-wing pundit James Carville has angrily expressed to the press that he doesn’t endorse technology that allows people in airports “to measure his penis”). Other more extreme technologies have been suggested and shot down, and many Libertarian activists and scholars are warning that even full-body scanners that allow full body visualization of the external extremities of a would-be terrorist don’t prevent suspects from carrying dangerous equipment in less-convenient (or maybe just less comfortable) bodily cavities. So how do defense contractors hope to deal with this problem? Simple; they’ll just start reading people’s minds.

Last year, an article featured on this site dealt with various computer programs that were billed by the Libertarian Cato Institute as “Orwellian” due to the way they intended to probe people’s intentions for the sake of Homeland Security, as seen in the excerpt below:

According to the report, as well as sources with Fox News, the new system the DHS plans to implement is called MALINTENT, which the Cato institute referred to as being “Orwellian-sounding.” “(The) machine detects the person, not the device, set to wreak havoc and terror. It’s like an X-ray for bad intentions.” Of course, Libertarians and other political groups who act as watchdogs for invasion of personal privacy and civil liberties will no doubt contest the use of such equipment… as well as scoff at its “metaphysical” ability to “read people’s minds”. However, we must also ask: even if such a device worked properly, how effective would it be in combating terrorist acts against the American homeland?

Today, in a more recent excerpt from a story that appeared on MyWay News, new details were given regarding the implementation of “mind-reading” software and equipment intended to scan the minds of individuals who might be suspected terrorists:

The aim of one company that blends high technology and behavioral psychology is hinted at in its name, WeCU – as in “We See You.”

The system that Israeli-based WeCU Technologies has devised and is testing in Israel projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize, said company CEO Ehud Givon.

The logic is that people can’t help reacting, even if only subtly, to familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places. If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your mother, Givon explained, you couldn’t help but respond.

The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said.

The WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate. Far more sensitive devices under development that can take such measurements from a distance would be incorporated later.

If the sensors picked up a suspicious reaction, the traveler could be pulled out of line for further screening.

“One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with specific malicious intent,” Givon said.

Some critics have expressed horror at the approach, calling it Orwellian and akin to “brain fingerprinting.”

For civil libertarians, attempting to read a person’s thoughts comes uncomfortably close to the future world depicted in the movie “Minority Report,” where a policeman played by Tom Cruise targets people for “pre-crimes,” or merely thinking about breaking the law.

The question remains: how feasible is it that this sort of technology can be used effectively? Furthermore, how likely is it that such measures, while technology is yet in its infancy, will be able to accurately derail suspects accused of bad intentions?