Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff you should know
Speaker 1: from house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
Speaker 1: the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always is
Speaker 1: Charles W. Bryant. Now you, Chuck, I'm here, Josh. Oh wait,
Speaker 1: this isn't the Halloween episode. No, No, that already, that
Speaker 1: already came out. That was good, though. I appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was really good. Well, truthfully, it's almost Halloween's I'm
Speaker 1: just in a spirit, are you? Yeah? In the spirit? Yes, dude,
Speaker 1: I have been punning lately left and right, and it's
Speaker 1: just it makes me sick. You have the stomach punkin though?
Speaker 1: Have you good one, Chuck? That reminds me that we've
Speaker 1: been We've been talking about this punk and chunking thing
Speaker 1: pretty hard. Let's do it again, Yeah time, let's we'll
Speaker 1: say it again. Okay, So the mothership of Discovery Channel
Speaker 1: has asked us to mention a show that's coming out
Speaker 1: a special, actually the pair of specials. It's coming out
Speaker 1: on Thanksgiving night, um on the Science Channel eight p
Speaker 1: m uh you got there's two shows, Like you said,
Speaker 1: the Road to punk and checking and punkin checking, punkin
Speaker 1: chunking itself and again that's that begins at eight p m.
Speaker 1: Eastern Time, because I believe it takes place in the
Speaker 1: Town in the East, which is appropriated no on Science Channel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so Chuck, yes you want a podcast, Yeah, let's do it. Okay, So, Chuck,
Speaker 1: have you ever seen Minority Report? I have? Uh, sure,
Speaker 1: Steven Spielberg and the Yeah, yeah I knew. I knew
Speaker 1: Tom Cruise is in it. Didn't know Spielberg directed? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I thought it was okay, it kind of lost me
Speaker 1: in the third act, didn't, Yeah, big time. You know
Speaker 1: it's based on Philip K. Dick. Um, I think novel
Speaker 1: short story wasn't. Yeah, it was called the Minority Report.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's Hollywood for you. They're always changing things. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But okay, so you you know, um that it's about
Speaker 1: a uh I guess, a crime section, anti crime section,
Speaker 1: law enforcement some people call it um that arrests people
Speaker 1: based on information given to them by this group of
Speaker 1: people who have precognition, and that would be the Office
Speaker 1: of pre Crime. Appropriately, the Cruise was a pre crime officer, right. Um,
Speaker 1: we have a real dearth of um people with genuine precognition.
Speaker 1: It's kind of tough to find three that you know,
Speaker 1: you can really reliably count on who can serve you
Speaker 1: images from their brain crimes that are about to happen. Yeah.
Speaker 1: They had a bad off in that movie too, they
Speaker 1: really did. They were Yeah, um we are. However, it
Speaker 1: seems like working on a database that will be able
Speaker 1: to predict crime and if so, humanity is screwed personal rights?
Speaker 1: Is that what you're getting in. Yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of problems with this, but yeah, so there's a there's um,
Speaker 1: there's a database that there's several databases already um around right,
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of databases, sir. When I was a kid, um, uh,
Speaker 1: my dad took me to get my fingers printed, uh huh,
Speaker 1: just in case I was abducted. And I wouldn't talk
Speaker 1: to him on the way home. I was all, like,
Speaker 1: you redded me out, dad, just in case you got arrested.
Speaker 1: Your dad would just afford that, and so here you go,
Speaker 1: no no ready for him, you know, like it was
Speaker 1: put into this database. So yeah, ostensibly, so if I
Speaker 1: ever was kidnapped, and you know, was my brain was
Speaker 1: washed and I lost my identity. They'd be able to
Speaker 1: fingerprint me if I ever wandered up onto the to
Speaker 1: the street and they'd be like, oh, it's Josh Clark.
Speaker 1: The chances of that are slim to nune. The chances
Speaker 1: of meet committee a crime, We're talking like near percent. See.
Speaker 1: I was a kid during the Atlantic child murders, the
Speaker 1: famous murders Wayne Williams, remember that. So my mom was like, go,
Speaker 1: you know, go play by done of the Creek. Don't
Speaker 1: worry about fingerprinting. Yeah, go go get the mail down
Speaker 1: by the street, get the neighbor's mail, right, get all
Speaker 1: the name urs mail. Jeez, like you know where your
Speaker 1: children are? My mom never knew where I was. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well I survived. Well, yes, clearly you did. But so
Speaker 1: fingerprinting is just one database, right, Yeah, that's one. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's another one that's a little more advanced, a little
Speaker 1: more sophisticated. Um that is called the National Crime Information Center. Right.
Speaker 1: You ever watched the movie or the show the first
Speaker 1: forty eight? No, dude, it is good. Um. I sleep
Speaker 1: with a hammer next to my bed now because of
Speaker 1: that shows what's the concept there. Within the first two
Speaker 1: days is when all the evidence is like hot and
Speaker 1: yeah if they don't, if they don't close a homicide
Speaker 1: within the first forty eight hours, the chances of them
Speaker 1: ever closing it dropped dramatically. Yeah. So they sometimes they do,
Speaker 1: sometimes they don't. But it's a real life, um, real
Speaker 1: life uh show. Uh. And it follows like real life cops,
Speaker 1: like on the beat, like after a homicide, and like
Speaker 1: the stuff that people will do each other's just chilling.
Speaker 1: My favorite is this ball guy who works in Memphis.
Speaker 1: He's awesome Squidy It's not Squibby, Um, he's he would
Speaker 1: bust Squibby though I can tell you that. But um,
Speaker 1: they're this they they often access on the show, the
Speaker 1: National Crime Information Center. So it's got like all this
Speaker 1: information on people who are who have committed crimes. Um.
Speaker 1: But it's more than just their fingerprints. It could be
Speaker 1: like their street name that they're they're always using it
Speaker 1: to look up like somebody's street name. Um. It also
Speaker 1: has you know, people who are members or suspective members
Speaker 1: of like gangs organization. Yeah what else? You? Umi has
Speaker 1: this iPhone app that's disturbing. It's a locate a sex offender. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've seen the website. They well they have an iPhone
Speaker 1: app for it now and like sure enough. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of sex offenders around our placed. And the weird
Speaker 1: thing is they aggregate like you'll you'll look at uh
Speaker 1: several of them and they'll all have the same address
Speaker 1: except like number six or number thirteen or whatever. So
Speaker 1: it's clearly an apartment building that's been designated like a
Speaker 1: sex offender can live here because it's not by a
Speaker 1: school or anything like that. Remember that article set recently
Speaker 1: about the they told the ones in Georgia to camp
Speaker 1: out that they quickly once it hit the news there
Speaker 1: or you can come back inside. Yeah, we'll find a
Speaker 1: place for you. Yeah. So okay, so we've got those
Speaker 1: two databases. There's another one and here's where we start
Speaker 1: to reach the crux of this podcast finally, after like
Speaker 1: seventy minutes, the one in England and here, Oh, well
Speaker 1: you're talking about the National DNA Database. Yeah. Yes, that
Speaker 1: started in uh England in and initially it was just
Speaker 1: people who had been uh convicted of crimes that they
Speaker 1: would get their DNA and keep that on file. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that changed, didn't it. It did change, and I
Speaker 1: think two thousand three they expanded it UM to include
Speaker 1: anyone who's ever been arrested. So basically, if a cop
Speaker 1: goes I'm gonna take they can rescue and let you
Speaker 1: go on the spot. But if the cop can collect
Speaker 1: a sample right there, if he's got a mobile sample kit,
Speaker 1: they can take your blood even if you didn't do anything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: even if they're like, oh sorry, buddy, I had yeah exactly,
Speaker 1: and you can't say can I get that swab back?
Speaker 1: And they'll you know, they'll break your arms. And before
Speaker 1: two thousand six, I think they that that was still
Speaker 1: most people weren't getting arrested. But that year UM Britain
Speaker 1: expanded the the list of arrestable offenses, including wearing a
Speaker 1: seatbelt or more of the point, not wearing it. You're
Speaker 1: under arrest for wearing a seat bit into this speetree, right,
Speaker 1: so I mean that's uh yeah, and I imagine that's
Speaker 1: how they do it too, right as a swab. I
Speaker 1: don't know about the mobile kits. Probably I can imagine
Speaker 1: somebody going like, you're not breaking me yeah? So um
Speaker 1: but but yes, so now in England, if you jay walker,
Speaker 1: if you are not wearing a seatbelt, they can collect
Speaker 1: a sample of your DNA that they intend to keep
Speaker 1: on file indefinitely and four millions strong. Yeah, which makes
Speaker 1: it the second largest database in the world. DNA database
Speaker 1: in the world, second second to ours, I would imagine,
Speaker 1: of course. Uh. That was in two thousand seven, by
Speaker 1: the way, the four million entries UH that same year.
Speaker 1: In the US, we have a National DNA Index system
Speaker 1: in d I S that's maintained by the FBI. UH,
Speaker 1: and we had four point five million profiles that year.
Speaker 1: I looked and all I could find where estimates like
Speaker 1: FBI funding estimates. So these things are probably these numbers
Speaker 1: are probably high. But for two thousand nine, they estimated
Speaker 1: that this thing would have fourteen million samples. Now ours
Speaker 1: isn't just if you're arrested, right, isn't it if if
Speaker 1: you're a felon? Or does it state? That's how that's
Speaker 1: how it started out. Um. And then in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four, California, always on the leading edge of whatever
Speaker 1: is going on, they passed Prop. Sixty nine controversial it's
Speaker 1: to say the least. Yeah. Um. Basically, what it says
Speaker 1: is that law enforcement can take your DNA if you've
Speaker 1: been arrested for a felony. And some misdemeanors and it's
Speaker 1: just arrested. Yeah, and illegal immigrants, which they kind of
Speaker 1: just tossed in there. I'm sure, I'm sure. And let's see,
Speaker 1: how can we fairly target illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: just take their DNA for no reason. Well there's kids
Speaker 1: in there too, Yeah, that's that's causing a huge stir
Speaker 1: is kids are being when they're arrested, they can have
Speaker 1: their DNA take. I'm sure. So you can imagine that
Speaker 1: just having your DNA taken, just having a swab stuck
Speaker 1: in your mouth by a police officer is enough to
Speaker 1: really raise the ire of some people. Yeah. Obviously a
Speaker 1: lot of human rights advocates have problems with this, which
Speaker 1: we'll get into in a second. Unless we're getting into
Speaker 1: that now. Uh, we can if you want. I mean, yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: the first thing that kind of got besides the implementation
Speaker 1: of the program in England, was last year in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, when it was revealed that half a
Speaker 1: million names in the database are just flat out wrong,
Speaker 1: and that was that caused a big stir Yeah, either
Speaker 1: just incorrect or misspelled, it might have been type of
Speaker 1: but some of them are just wrong. Yeah, that's clearly.
Speaker 1: I mean just having DNA samples of four and a
Speaker 1: half four million people in England and then saying oh,
Speaker 1: and by the way, half a million of them are
Speaker 1: are wrong. We don't know who's they are. We think
Speaker 1: they're yours, but they're not. That's a problem. But I mean,
Speaker 1: is there really a problem with just maintaining a database
Speaker 1: at d NA? What are they doing with it? Well,
Speaker 1: it depends because DNA it's not like a fingerprint. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of information contained in your DNA that's not
Speaker 1: just identified the person, right, your genetic code, your family history.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a program called d N a witness
Speaker 1: made by a company called DNA print Genomics UM, and
Speaker 1: it can locate ancestry markers and basically say, oh, you
Speaker 1: found some DNA, we can narrow it down to this
Speaker 1: person is probably being Hispanic. Well yeah, it's all to
Speaker 1: deal with racial racial breakdown, right, So I mean, there's
Speaker 1: racial profiling is about as hot button an issue as
Speaker 1: anything else, you know, because the problem is, as it
Speaker 1: stands now, racial profiling is based on past statistics. If
Speaker 1: you include DNA into the mix, does it become more
Speaker 1: finely honed or even more egregious, right or does it
Speaker 1: open itself up? Who knows. Here's the problem with DNA profiling, Chuck.
Speaker 1: We have not in this country or the UK, from
Speaker 1: what I can imagine, um, had any real discussion about
Speaker 1: doing it right we So we've never really come together
Speaker 1: and said, Okay, do we want a crime free society
Speaker 1: or as close to a crime free society as we
Speaker 1: can get. If so, then yes, everybody needs to turn
Speaker 1: in a DNA sample. If we all agreed that's what
Speaker 1: we want. If we decide that we would rather live
Speaker 1: with crime in combating crime under the techniques that we
Speaker 1: have now to maintain our privacy, then DNA sampling has
Speaker 1: to stop. DNA profiling has to stop. And the problem
Speaker 1: is we've never had that conversation either way, right, Well,
Speaker 1: the public certainly hasn't had so, but it's been continuing along.
Speaker 1: And then when you talk about the half a million
Speaker 1: names wrong, it's like, well, you're doing this without our consenter,
Speaker 1: even asking us, and you're not even doing it right right.
Speaker 1: The thing is, though they I don't even know, even
Speaker 1: if they hone this down, can you really prevent crime?
Speaker 1: I mean, even cops will tell you there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as preventing crime. Cops go after criminals after they've
Speaker 1: committed a crime. But unless it's just dumb luck, how
Speaker 1: many times has a cop come upon a crime before
Speaker 1: it happens and stopped it? Well that's there. There's there
Speaker 1: are two different um groups, one in the UK and
Speaker 1: one in America, which apparently are the two leading trees
Speaker 1: in DNA profiling for crime prevention. Um that are that
Speaker 1: that say no, we we do need to do that
Speaker 1: and we're trying to is that the homicide prevention unit
Speaker 1: in London think about the name of that homicide prevention
Speaker 1: unit and they're doing it by forecasting crime. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: psychological profiling to which they've done for a while, and
Speaker 1: that's a little less hinky and invasive than obviously DNA profiling. Right,
Speaker 1: But what about when you combine the two. Why would
Speaker 1: you combine DNA with a psychological profile to catch the
Speaker 1: bad guys? I guess to an extent. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, what we're talking about is looking at DNA
Speaker 1: to find out if we can find a genetic defect
Speaker 1: in somebody that we suggest that maybe they have a
Speaker 1: short temper, or that they're sociopathic or whatever. If you
Speaker 1: combine that with a psychological profile. But where does that
Speaker 1: profile come from? Maybe records from mental health workers, or
Speaker 1: maybe your insurance records, or your doctor or dental records.
Speaker 1: I mean, and then doing that now, but who knows
Speaker 1: what could happen that. That's the point. If this database
Speaker 1: gets big enough, or I should say, if it gets
Speaker 1: accurate enough, then yeah, people will probably start getting leaned
Speaker 1: on to provide information to be contributed to this database
Speaker 1: for use by law enforce. Yeah. Once you have enough
Speaker 1: information and you are confident enough that you can prevent
Speaker 1: a crime, or if you can say this person is
Speaker 1: probably going to kill somebody, what do they do though?
Speaker 1: That's what I want to know. Did they just start
Speaker 1: It's obviously not gonna happen like Minority Report in that
Speaker 1: film and the story Tom Cruise knocks on your door
Speaker 1: and says you're under arrest for the future murder of
Speaker 1: your wife. They're clearly not talking about that. That's impossible
Speaker 1: in the stuff of science fiction. But what they just
Speaker 1: monitor someone or tail someone, so basically potentially dangerous people
Speaker 1: just be under surveillance at all times, I guess so.
Speaker 1: But what if you've never committed a crime in your
Speaker 1: entire life and don't intend to. But you've the cops
Speaker 1: breathing down your neck every night. Anywhere you go, there's
Speaker 1: a cop following you. You go on a date, there's
Speaker 1: a cop following you. You take your mother out for dinner,
Speaker 1: there's a cop following you. I mean, if you've never
Speaker 1: committed a crime in your life, how fair is that? Well? Right?
Speaker 1: And plus if someone's tailing you, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: I could I could see a scenario where some renegade
Speaker 1: cop um trumps up a traffic violation and pulls you
Speaker 1: over and shakes you down. And you know, it's not
Speaker 1: like police. I mean, trust me, I'm not dragging on
Speaker 1: the police, who do a great job. But there are
Speaker 1: cases where people are framed and weapons are planted. And
Speaker 1: if some guy they think is a really bad person
Speaker 1: waiting to happen, what's to stop a cop from trailing
Speaker 1: him and doing just that. So, not only that, but
Speaker 1: what happens if um, somebody gets access to this, if
Speaker 1: this information in the database is disseminated, and then you've
Speaker 1: got somebody who's like, well, you know what, I'm going
Speaker 1: to take it upon myself to rid society of these people.
Speaker 1: Who may commit a crime. You know, most I can't
Speaker 1: say most, but there's a lot serial killers out there who,
Speaker 1: once caught say that they were doing a service to society.
Speaker 1: Ever seen that. I haven't yet, but I am aware
Speaker 1: of same scenario. I love six ft under and he
Speaker 1: dies by the way. Um the the the killer John
Speaker 1: Wayne Gacy expected that he was going to get a
Speaker 1: rap on the knuckles because what he'd done is just
Speaker 1: rid society and some bad kids. That's what he said,
Speaker 1: Bernie gets I remember, and I guess was that the
Speaker 1: New York Yeah, he went Charlie Bronson on everyone, and
Speaker 1: he was the subway vigilantia. He definitely was. But he's
Speaker 1: a serial killer, is what he is. I thought he
Speaker 1: I thought he just killed some guys once. Did he
Speaker 1: kill more than one time? Yeah? I think so wow,
Speaker 1: I might be wrong. We'll hear from it. But um okay,
Speaker 1: so yes, there's a possibility of vigilantism. There's a possibility
Speaker 1: of police harassment. There's also another possibility called well self
Speaker 1: fulfilling prophecy. Um. Remember we talked about kids getting their
Speaker 1: DNA taken, Miners getting their DNA taken if they're ever
Speaker 1: arrested for anything UM. And there's also a push I
Speaker 1: guess to make to round this database out as much
Speaker 1: as possible for any kid who has a behavioral problem
Speaker 1: or maybe gets in trouble at school, for the school
Speaker 1: to provide information about that kid so that they can say,
Speaker 1: we're going to keep an eye on you for the
Speaker 1: rest of your life because you're starting to fit this
Speaker 1: profile with somebody who might kill somebody later, or maybe
Speaker 1: he just has a d D or maybe the teacher
Speaker 1: doesn't like him. Who knows. The problem is is if
Speaker 1: you know that if you're six and somebody's like, you
Speaker 1: might kill somebody someday, what is it like to grow
Speaker 1: up for the next thirty years or so thinking that
Speaker 1: people assume that you're gonna kill somebody one day? Well
Speaker 1: they tell you, though I I don't know, there's got
Speaker 1: to be something that it might not be that explicit.
Speaker 1: Both children parents are probably notified at the very least,
Speaker 1: right and if the parents say you're a bad kid,
Speaker 1: that's why they're watching you, well, why wouldn't the kid
Speaker 1: go be a bad kid? There's a lot of concern
Speaker 1: is here right in in the US UM we talked
Speaker 1: about the homicide prevention unit in the UK. By the way,
Speaker 1: the senior criminal psychologist Laura Richards has said that her
Speaker 1: vision is to know who the top one people most
Speaker 1: potentially violent people in London are at any given time.
Speaker 1: You know, Squibby's on that list. Sure, and you know
Speaker 1: when they keep like most wanted lists, gangs especially love
Speaker 1: getting at the top. And I should probably take the
Speaker 1: opportunity right here to save our lives. Uh, it's MS thirteen,
Speaker 1: I understand, not MS twelve. Right. Yeah, we've referred to
Speaker 1: a gang as MS twelve in the Witness Protection show
Speaker 1: and it is MS thirteen and we got that wrong. Agreed. Um.
Speaker 1: Over here in the U S there's a guy named
Speaker 1: Richard Burke who's the University of Pennsylvania sociologists and statistician. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't mind this one as much. No, it's much
Speaker 1: much more innocuous. Yeah, well, it's not an invasive because
Speaker 1: they're not actually taking your DNA or fingerprints. He uh
Speaker 1: was he a University of Pennsylvania. He's a cry I'm
Speaker 1: a criminology professor, and he has actually developed an algorithm
Speaker 1: using thirty different variables from you know, when a kid
Speaker 1: was young and as they grow up, if they have
Speaker 1: offenses or if they were abused, and he determines a
Speaker 1: lethality score, which I don't know, it's it's a little
Speaker 1: more I can I can accept this in a way
Speaker 1: I can't too. But at the same time, I was
Speaker 1: a little well, I'm still put off by the idea
Speaker 1: of forecasting crime and an effort to prevent it from
Speaker 1: ever happening. Um. But I did go on and check
Speaker 1: out some of this guy's stuff and he has another
Speaker 1: thing UM called crime regimes where he's taking into account
Speaker 1: see that that lethality score is all uh centered around
Speaker 1: the individual. And there's a movement of foot where sociology
Speaker 1: is making a huge move to take crime completely away
Speaker 1: from psychology. I talked to a sociologists who's like, psychology
Speaker 1: is completely failed at explaining serial murder. Sociology is time
Speaker 1: to explain it. Right. So this guy's taking into account
Speaker 1: like time of day, day of the weak area, UM,
Speaker 1: like like the location, uh is the drug trade there stable?
Speaker 1: If so, then there's probably gonna be less crime because
Speaker 1: there's not gonna be tur force things like that, UM.
Speaker 1: And even larger stuff needs to be taken into account
Speaker 1: to like the economic situation that always creates more crimes,
Speaker 1: but for a group or an area and not an
Speaker 1: individuals that what you mean. I imagine that this guy
Speaker 1: will probably eventually try to put both together. So if
Speaker 1: you've got a lethality score, guy with the lethality score,
Speaker 1: and he's living in a high risk area, then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the cops might want to go, we
Speaker 1: should really keep an eye on that guy, you know.
Speaker 1: So it makes it a little more honed. The problem
Speaker 1: is is this would probably be eventually compiled with the
Speaker 1: nd I S here in the States. Yeah, if it
Speaker 1: turned out to be a pretty good algorithm and it
Speaker 1: was pretty accurate, I'm sure the government would get their
Speaker 1: mits on it soon enough. So yeah, and it's not like, um,
Speaker 1: it's we were talking about health mental health workers being
Speaker 1: leaned on to to give up information, or doctors disclosing
Speaker 1: their met records. Insurance companies, UH and Census Information did
Speaker 1: not know this. I didn't either, which is funny because
Speaker 1: we're about to talk about population in about five minutes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: apparently the census records, the public doesn't have access to
Speaker 1: those for seventy two years after it's taken. I I guess,
Speaker 1: I guess some aspects of it, because it's I've definitely
Speaker 1: accessed census statistics that are a lot less than seventy
Speaker 1: two years old, right, I think you can access the numbers,
Speaker 1: but I think all of the information. Yeah, yeah, but
Speaker 1: the FBI routinely gets that information if they wanted. The
Speaker 1: Japanese Japanese Americans were identified using census statistics or sensus
Speaker 1: information during World War Two for the internment camp, right, Um,
Speaker 1: And uh, that that was I guess kind of against
Speaker 1: the grain. Maybe usually we don't usually do that, I understand.
Speaker 1: I think we do it done in Texas these days
Speaker 1: with UM Hispanics trying to make it across the border interesting.
Speaker 1: So writes violations all over the place, then, right, yes,
Speaker 1: but apparently it's having an effect on crime, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess so. UM supporters in England will say that more
Speaker 1: than twice as many crimes have been solved using the
Speaker 1: DNA samples in the year two thousand five as we're
Speaker 1: solved six years before that, and so you know, maybe
Speaker 1: it has an effect. It does. So they had the
Speaker 1: cameras over there too. Oh yeah, did you see those uh,
Speaker 1: those thugs and whales that got beat up? It was
Speaker 1: a cross stressing cage fighters. Yeah. Yeah, it's the best
Speaker 1: thing I've ever seen. Yeah, if you haven't seen, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess typing, cross dressing, cage fighters, thugs, whales and
Speaker 1: it should bring up the video. These English thugs were
Speaker 1: just drunk and walking down the street, really just causing
Speaker 1: trouble and they were picking on this cross stresser and
Speaker 1: it turned out that it was a m M a
Speaker 1: cage fighter and the dude just kill them, wasted him.
Speaker 1: It was great. It's it's inspiring and I'll prevent the
Speaker 1: reader mail right now. Chuck meant Welsh and he knows it.
Speaker 1: So um, I guess everybody in the future look for
Speaker 1: a crime database that includes uh, psychological profile, uh hopefully
Speaker 1: your correct name or unless you're a criminal then not
Speaker 1: your real name, retinal scans, facial scans, medical history, pretty
Speaker 1: much anything. I got one more thing, okay, I saw.
Speaker 1: The United States has a project that was originally called
Speaker 1: Project Hostile Intent. They've since renamed it Future Attribute Screening Technologies,
Speaker 1: and it's one of these deals where they're gonna make
Speaker 1: it a mobile unit like a trailer truck that you
Speaker 1: walk through before you go into the football game and
Speaker 1: it reads your your pulse, your breathing rate, your your
Speaker 1: eye people dilation, and supposedly to predict if you're you know,
Speaker 1: like shifty or angry. Think about that. Um, yeah, I
Speaker 1: heard they're using uh we fit boards now to make
Speaker 1: people standard. They're talking about they were going to make
Speaker 1: people stand on because they think that. Um, terrorists are
Speaker 1: literally shiftier than other people, so like they would be
Speaker 1: shifting their weight more because they know something is about
Speaker 1: to go down. Um. Things like that don't take into
Speaker 1: account fear of flying. Well all, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: problems and stuff like that. Just what kind of mood
Speaker 1: urine that day if you and your wife just had
Speaker 1: a fight on the way to the airport, because Emily
Speaker 1: and I have a long standing tradition of fighting before
Speaker 1: any plane flight. Oh yeah, oh yeah, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: a good thing. Um. And then of course, once this
Speaker 1: is in place, one of the guys called what we
Speaker 1: would see a security theater, which is not being shifty
Speaker 1: or acting like you know, you're going to Hawaii on
Speaker 1: a vacation, so trying to trip up the machine. So
Speaker 1: look forward to that too. Yeah, the end, the end.
Speaker 1: So if you want to learn more about our colleague,
Speaker 1: Shanna Freeman's um predictions for future crime databases. You can
Speaker 1: probably get away with just typing in future crime in
Speaker 1: the certain far at how stuff works dot Com. Also
Speaker 1: try typing in Unicorn. See what comes up. I think
Speaker 1: you'll be pleasantly surprised. And Chuck I said, Uh, search
Speaker 1: bar right, which means it's time for listener mail. Josh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call this. Uh, I had no idea that
Speaker 1: we had a official listening club. That's what I'm gonna
Speaker 1: call it. This is on the blog, but I'm gonna
Speaker 1: read this, and this is kind of blew me away.
Speaker 1: The there are some U. S Americans living in South Korea,
Speaker 1: and they actually formed a little listening club and they
Speaker 1: get together and they listen to our show. And they said,
Speaker 1: during the assemblies, we listened to you to ponder various
Speaker 1: interesting topics and then discuss them further by offering our
Speaker 1: own thoughts and experiences, and complement our sessions with libations
Speaker 1: of the alcoholic variety. So they formed a drinking game
Speaker 1: to our show. Let me tell you what they drink too.
Speaker 1: And they're listening now, so we're going to really get
Speaker 1: them hammered at this point. Every time there's a new
Speaker 1: statistic quoted, which I believe we do on four out
Speaker 1: of five shows at least. And when we refer to
Speaker 1: our producer Jerry. Over here, there's Jerry. Hey, Jerry. So
Speaker 1: we've said Jerry like four times since probably about four shots.
Speaker 1: You said Jerry, I said Jerry. We refer to our
Speaker 1: producer Jerry when someone shares any of our first names.
Speaker 1: So if they're in the club and we say their
Speaker 1: first name, by happenstance, they drink And I know who
Speaker 1: wrote this was Richard, So we're gonna say Richard like
Speaker 1: four more times Richard, Yeah, and Jerry and uh, also, um,
Speaker 1: when chuckers, when you say chuckers, I don't know that
Speaker 1: I said that in this one, did I You could
Speaker 1: say now chuckers. And the final thing, Josh, they drink too.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna like this is they're getting your back, dude.
Speaker 1: The whole I'm me thing that we've been hearing about
Speaker 1: for the past a hundred and sixty shows. Whenever you
Speaker 1: actually correct yourself now with the IMI is when they drink,
Speaker 1: so he writes and says, uh, they drink soju, by
Speaker 1: the way, which is a rice wine they say on
Speaker 1: Soju josh a say siped casually, the rice wine is
Speaker 1: not without its merits, but done our way. It all
Speaker 1: but guarantees a regrettable late night phone called to a
Speaker 1: coworker or former lover, fearful platitudes, mutual admiration, or some
Speaker 1: form of public nudity later in the evenings. So Josh, Sir,
Speaker 1: I beseech you stop hyper correcting. Let it fly pleadingly.
Speaker 1: Richard tired of being hungover in Korea, Richard, Richard, Well,
Speaker 1: thanks Richard for sending that in. Chuckers like Jerry liked it,
Speaker 1: Richard clearly liked Charle like it. And I and me
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry I shouldn't say that, I should correct myself. Well,
Speaker 1: if you want to send chuck in I and email,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, chucking me an email or Chuckers chuckers an
Speaker 1: email and me uh, you can send that to stuff
Speaker 1: podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on
Speaker 1: this and thousands of other topics, is that how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. Want more house stuff works, check out
Speaker 1: our blogs on the house stuff works dot com home page.
Speaker 1: M HM brought to you by the reinvented two thousand
Speaker 1: twelve camera it's ready. Are you