Silk Road forums
Discussion => Shipping => Topic started by: dabdiego on June 22, 2013, 09:56 am
-
Hey Y'all,
Let me start this thread by stating:
TO ANY OF CUSTOMERS OF PURPTREE4ME WHO SEE THIS, IT IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL. WE HAVE HAD NO ISSUES WITH OUR SHIPPING IN THE LAST 9-10 MONTHS. WE ARE ONLY TRYING TO EXPAND OUR KNOWLEDGE! :)
That being said, me and my partner got to thinking the other day as we were watering our current crop. We have both read through the forums, ESPECIALLY the shipping forums, many many times and have gained a huge knowledge of how the postal system works. One thing that we can't seem to recall ever reading, however, is how often Postal Inspectors are flagging and inspecting packages that turn out to be totally within legal boundaries and USPS requirements. In other words, how many "innocent" people using the mail service are having their packages looked into. This thought came up in response to discussion on the current NSA exposure on their PRISM program. Are postal inspectors given anything close to this privilege?
Obviously they can't be opening everything, there are not enough hours available in their budget to do that we're sure. Instead we are wondering how liberally they are inspecting a suspicious box. Note this isn't necessarily a question of how many get opened up, but more pointedly how many are being singled out to be inspected by a dog.
There may be a really easy answer to this, maybe not. If it is posted somewhere else already we are sorry, but we are pretty active on this forum and have read a TON of information as we are vendors and this is our job. I guess we were comfortable with the idea that only packages with the classic red flags (hand written labels, express mail, poor packaging, excess tape, made up return address, bad name at receiving address, etc) but are wondering how many packages with all stealth measures being implemented are still being investigated. Do you guys think they would have time to do a "random screen" of every "x" number of otherwise non suspicious packages?
Thanks in advance for any insight and, again, there might not be a straight forward answer to this question. We are just looking for some discussion and opinions. Information you don't want public can definitely be messaged to us directly :) In return we will fill you in with everything else we find regarding the topic.
Best,
Dabdiego
-
That is a very good question. I have thought the same thing. Subbed and wish I could give you a plus one if I could
-
I was also thinking about something similar to this, but slightly from a different angle. We saw that document recently stating what agencies need to do in order to get a report of all the mail an individual has received, but I wonder if agents within the USPS itself (postal inspectors) are able to simply do a search for the info instead of going through that lengthy process they laid out for other organizations (FBI, DEA, IRS, etc.)
-
All good questions, and for sure these are some of the same ideas we had. Anyone have any information they can fill us in on?
Best,
Purptree4me
-
I don't think you'll find info on how many packages are sniffed and the warrant-worthy rate out of that. I'll keep looking, though. I think it would vary widely by site, and by dog, and there is the problem of false positive/handler cues...
Dogs fatigue pretty fast on a sniff. Not all facilities have dogs. Centers do, customs do, but otherwise it has to be worth hauling the dog around... Dogs are finite resources and using them on random non-suspect parcels would be a waste of said resource.
USPS/USPIS have ISIIS, which is their database. I can't find much on the standards for data entry into ISIIS, which is possibly nowhere near as rigorous as the standards for a mail cover/mail track. Nor is there much out there on what they're doing for traffic analysis. (Nor would I expect them to be announcing it from the rooftops.)
Don't know what's happening with Banks' FOIA request from USPS/USPIS... but from the memorandum - see excerpt - you can get a hint of what they can access within ISIIS.
Case 1:06-cv-01950-EGS
Investigative files “may contain investigative reports, notes and memoranda, background data including arrest records, statements of informants and witnesses, laboratory reports of evidence analysis, search warrants, [and] summons[es] and subpoenas,” and also may contain records pertaining to consensual electronic surveillance. Katz Decl. ¶ 18. In addition, the Investigative File System may contain personal data such as fingerprint and handwriting samples, voiceprints, photographs, and individual personnel and payroll information. Id. In order to retrieve personal data from these files, one uses an individual’s name or Social Security number as a search term. Id. Two systems of records, the Inspection Service Database Information System (“ISDBIS”) and the Inspection Service’s Integrated Information System (“ISIIS”), “contain additional or summary duplicative case files and other information in support of investigations.” Id. For example, the ISIIS “contains the case management system utilized by postal inspectors to track and document USPIS criminal investigative cases.” Baxter Decl. ¶ 5.
2005, from postal bulletin. Breaks edited in more or less arbitrarily, sorry 'bout that. This is the most comprehensive document on ISIIS that I could find, it's not much
Ode to ISIIS
The Inspection Service Integrated Information System
The mission: a new ISDBIS, the Inspection Service Database Information System, with the ability to do what no ISDBIS had ever done before. The strategy: to develop a strategy. As any Postal Inspection Service employee knows, ISDBIS was a sprawling, inflexible, and hard-to-handle system, comprising a complex cluster of programs and subsystems. Mega work-years went into its creation and more went into ensuring that every new business rule for every aspect of case management was incorporated. ISDBIS was a reliable workhorse. But with changes in technology escalating at about the speed of Hurricane Katrina, ISDBIS was no longer state of the art. Information options for Postal Inspectors, analysts, and everyone else in the agency with “a need to know” were expanding, and the now-archaic database system with the nearly unpronounceable name had lost its relevance. Chief Postal Inspector Lee Heath knew he had to bring his agency into the 21st Century. The only way the Inspection Service could successfully accomplish its goals—without a big investment in “people power” and other resources—would be to build new technology that could boost productivity. ISDBIS was cumbersome and expensive to maintain, and a replacement was overdue.
Yet obstacles loomed for Information Technology Division (ITD) staff. Year 2000 issues demanded major overhauls to bring Inspection Service systems in compliance. Then came 9-11, followed by several bouts of anthrax, and ricin trailed close behind. Throughout it all, ITD employees stayed on target with day to day system development and enhancement requests.
Enter the U.S. Postal Service’s IT office with bad news: IT vendor charges were surging, cost cuts were the order of the day, and job loads for postal data centers needed to be better distributed. Much of the Postal Service’s operating system and scheduling software that ran ISDBIS was on the chopping block. When the agency announced that ISDBIS would be moved to another data center, ITD knew it was time for a change. Unless they revamped ISDBIS, the Postal Inspection Service would be slapped with exorbitant charges, plus several million dollars extra in license fees for mainframe computer software—not to mention a host of workload dilemmas.
One Module at a Time
It was time for a brand new system, a system with increased functionality. A system that required users to input data only once, and in the easiest way possible. A system that could max out data integrity by building in “business rules.” A system that shared data seamlessly between applications, permitted wide access to data, ensured painless data retrieval, and accommodated ever-changing priorities. ITD managers formed a team to focus on a new version of ISDBIS. The result was The ISIIS Development Team.
ISIIS: Inspection Service Integrated Information System.
The ISIIS Development Team included about 30 Postal Inspection Service employees and contractors and comprised Postal Inspectors, subject-matter experts (SMEs) in case management, ISDBIS mavens, programmers, technical writers, and quality assurance testers. The team’s first task was to document every program and every screen display in ISDBIS and, along the way, define business rules. New database design and coding requirements were also integral to the mission.
The Financial Crimes Database (FCD) was deployed in September 2003. The Workhours Module debuted in early November and, on March 1, 2004, a major platform of ISIIS went live: the Resource Management System (RMS). The deployments were part of the solution, but also became part of ITD’s problem. ISDBIS was an integrated system. ISDBIS case management relied on information from RMS and the Workhours Module data. FCD brought in data from credit card companies. Monthly reports and Briefing Book stats borrowed data from all ISDBIS components. While the ISDBIS migration team documented business rules and the ISIIS development team coded the Case Management Module, other team members had to design a means to allow RMS, the Workhours Module, FCD, and ISDBIS to be able to “talk” with each other.
Slaying Dragons
The “challenges” side of the scale weighed a lot more than the “accomplishments” side, and there wasn’t much time left. Daily meetings revealed only more policies needing more clarification. Questions by ITD staff multiplied in their quest to understand and respond to user needs. Decisions based on 1987 technology had to be reconsidered. At last, portions of the Case Management Module were ready for testing— except that data from ISDBIS wasn’t yet fully migrated. The ISDBIS Data Base Administrator wrote procedures to ensure data was migrated accurately to ISIIS, and ISIIS Data Base Administrators tried to shorten the time needed for migration to less than a week.
Staff members now focused on a number of intensive activities:
- Testing and retesting programs.
- Documenting programs for training purposes.
- Migrating more than 14 million records from ISDBIS to ISIIS—more than 3 million of which contained errors and had to be corrected.
- Developing and testing reports.
- Clarifying policy changes.
- Migrating ISDBIS from the San Mateo PDC to Eagan.
One by one, the ISIIS Team slew the dragons. ISDBIS, a system in use for 17 years, was laid to rest. On the weekend of July 4, 2005, ISIIS sprang to life.
ISIIS Grows Up
So what does the Postal Inspection Service think of its new system? Barely more than a year on the job, the juvenile ISIIS is still flexing its muscles—er, programs— and employees are still learning to love a new way of working. Problems have been minor, especially compared to the enormous reach of the newly hatched system. Users now input data themselves—considered a good thing by some and extra work by others. Managers say that, by tracking national results and trends, ISIIS leads to improved decision- making. Data found in most ISIIS reports are updated weekly, compared to ISDBIS monthly updates. While some users prefer using stats from the Briefing Book, others have adapted to a new style. By any measure, ISIIS is a triumph.
Other law enforcement agencies are still struggling to develop a “virtual case file”—aka online case management—but to date, all have failed. After spending tens of millions of dollars, they’re still working on it. We’ve got ISIIS.
ISIIS for the Future
New ISIIS subsystems are in the works or will be adopted as technology advances. Recent enhancements include Mail Covers, the Polygraph Examiner System, Forfeiture Tracking, and the Laboratory Information Management System. Property Disposition, Suspicious Incident Reporting, and the Electronic Surveillance Tracking System will be integrated with existing systems. A number of forms are in line for automation, and wireless, mobile functionality is still to come. If you’ve got ideas for ISIIS, talk to your Division Case Management Coordinator. ITD—and ISIIS—is listening.
-
I don't think you'll find info on how many packages are sniffed and the warrant-worthy rate out of that. I'll keep looking, though. I think it would vary widely by site, and by dog, and there is the problem of false positive/handler cues...
Dogs fatigue pretty fast on a sniff. Not all facilities have dogs. Centers do, customs do, but otherwise it has to be worth hauling the dog around... Dogs are finite resources and using them on random non-suspect parcels would be a waste of said resource.
USPS/USPIS have ISIIS, which is their database. I can't find much on the standards for data entry into ISIIS, which is possibly nowhere near as rigorous as the standards for a mail cover/mail track. Nor is there much out there on what they're doing for traffic analysis. (Nor would I expect them to be announcing it from the rooftops.)
Don't know what's happening with Banks' FOIA request from USPS/USPIS... but from the memorandum - see excerpt - you can get a hint of what they can access within ISIIS.
Case 1:06-cv-01950-EGS
Investigative files “may contain investigative reports, notes and memoranda, background data including arrest records, statements of informants and witnesses, laboratory reports of evidence analysis, search warrants, [and] summons[es] and subpoenas,” and also may contain records pertaining to consensual electronic surveillance. Katz Decl. ¶ 18. In addition, the Investigative File System may contain personal data such as fingerprint and handwriting samples, voiceprints, photographs, and individual personnel and payroll information. Id. In order to retrieve personal data from these files, one uses an individual’s name or Social Security number as a search term. Id. Two systems of records, the Inspection Service Database Information System (“ISDBIS”) and the Inspection Service’s Integrated Information System (“ISIIS”), “contain additional or summary duplicative case files and other information in support of investigations.” Id. For example, the ISIIS “contains the case management system utilized by postal inspectors to track and document USPIS criminal investigative cases.” Baxter Decl. ¶ 5.
2005, from postal bulletin. Breaks edited in more or less arbitrarily, sorry 'bout that. This is the most comprehensive document on ISIIS that I could find, it's not much
Ode to ISIIS
The Inspection Service Integrated Information System
The mission: a new ISDBIS, the Inspection Service Database Information System, with the ability to do what no ISDBIS had ever done before. The strategy: to develop a strategy. As any Postal Inspection Service employee knows, ISDBIS was a sprawling, inflexible, and hard-to-handle system, comprising a complex cluster of programs and subsystems. Mega work-years went into its creation and more went into ensuring that every new business rule for every aspect of case management was incorporated. ISDBIS was a reliable workhorse. But with changes in technology escalating at about the speed of Hurricane Katrina, ISDBIS was no longer state of the art. Information options for Postal Inspectors, analysts, and everyone else in the agency with “a need to know” were expanding, and the now-archaic database system with the nearly unpronounceable name had lost its relevance. Chief Postal Inspector Lee Heath knew he had to bring his agency into the 21st Century. The only way the Inspection Service could successfully accomplish its goals—without a big investment in “people power” and other resources—would be to build new technology that could boost productivity. ISDBIS was cumbersome and expensive to maintain, and a replacement was overdue.
Yet obstacles loomed for Information Technology Division (ITD) staff. Year 2000 issues demanded major overhauls to bring Inspection Service systems in compliance. Then came 9-11, followed by several bouts of anthrax, and ricin trailed close behind. Throughout it all, ITD employees stayed on target with day to day system development and enhancement requests.
Enter the U.S. Postal Service’s IT office with bad news: IT vendor charges were surging, cost cuts were the order of the day, and job loads for postal data centers needed to be better distributed. Much of the Postal Service’s operating system and scheduling software that ran ISDBIS was on the chopping block. When the agency announced that ISDBIS would be moved to another data center, ITD knew it was time for a change. Unless they revamped ISDBIS, the Postal Inspection Service would be slapped with exorbitant charges, plus several million dollars extra in license fees for mainframe computer software—not to mention a host of workload dilemmas.
One Module at a Time
It was time for a brand new system, a system with increased functionality. A system that required users to input data only once, and in the easiest way possible. A system that could max out data integrity by building in “business rules.” A system that shared data seamlessly between applications, permitted wide access to data, ensured painless data retrieval, and accommodated ever-changing priorities. ITD managers formed a team to focus on a new version of ISDBIS. The result was The ISIIS Development Team.
ISIIS: Inspection Service Integrated Information System.
The ISIIS Development Team included about 30 Postal Inspection Service employees and contractors and comprised Postal Inspectors, subject-matter experts (SMEs) in case management, ISDBIS mavens, programmers, technical writers, and quality assurance testers. The team’s first task was to document every program and every screen display in ISDBIS and, along the way, define business rules. New database design and coding requirements were also integral to the mission.
The Financial Crimes Database (FCD) was deployed in September 2003. The Workhours Module debuted in early November and, on March 1, 2004, a major platform of ISIIS went live: the Resource Management System (RMS). The deployments were part of the solution, but also became part of ITD’s problem. ISDBIS was an integrated system. ISDBIS case management relied on information from RMS and the Workhours Module data. FCD brought in data from credit card companies. Monthly reports and Briefing Book stats borrowed data from all ISDBIS components. While the ISDBIS migration team documented business rules and the ISIIS development team coded the Case Management Module, other team members had to design a means to allow RMS, the Workhours Module, FCD, and ISDBIS to be able to “talk” with each other.
Slaying Dragons
The “challenges” side of the scale weighed a lot more than the “accomplishments” side, and there wasn’t much time left. Daily meetings revealed only more policies needing more clarification. Questions by ITD staff multiplied in their quest to understand and respond to user needs. Decisions based on 1987 technology had to be reconsidered. At last, portions of the Case Management Module were ready for testing— except that data from ISDBIS wasn’t yet fully migrated. The ISDBIS Data Base Administrator wrote procedures to ensure data was migrated accurately to ISIIS, and ISIIS Data Base Administrators tried to shorten the time needed for migration to less than a week.
Staff members now focused on a number of intensive activities:
- Testing and retesting programs.
- Documenting programs for training purposes.
- Migrating more than 14 million records from ISDBIS to ISIIS—more than 3 million of which contained errors and had to be corrected.
- Developing and testing reports.
- Clarifying policy changes.
- Migrating ISDBIS from the San Mateo PDC to Eagan.
One by one, the ISIIS Team slew the dragons. ISDBIS, a system in use for 17 years, was laid to rest. On the weekend of July 4, 2005, ISIIS sprang to life.
ISIIS Grows Up
So what does the Postal Inspection Service think of its new system? Barely more than a year on the job, the juvenile ISIIS is still flexing its muscles—er, programs— and employees are still learning to love a new way of working. Problems have been minor, especially compared to the enormous reach of the newly hatched system. Users now input data themselves—considered a good thing by some and extra work by others. Managers say that, by tracking national results and trends, ISIIS leads to improved decision- making. Data found in most ISIIS reports are updated weekly, compared to ISDBIS monthly updates. While some users prefer using stats from the Briefing Book, others have adapted to a new style. By any measure, ISIIS is a triumph.
Other law enforcement agencies are still struggling to develop a “virtual case file”—aka online case management—but to date, all have failed. After spending tens of millions of dollars, they’re still working on it. We’ve got ISIIS.
ISIIS for the Future
New ISIIS subsystems are in the works or will be adopted as technology advances. Recent enhancements include Mail Covers, the Polygraph Examiner System, Forfeiture Tracking, and the Laboratory Information Management System. Property Disposition, Suspicious Incident Reporting, and the Electronic Surveillance Tracking System will be integrated with existing systems. A number of forms are in line for automation, and wireless, mobile functionality is still to come. If you’ve got ideas for ISIIS, talk to your Division Case Management Coordinator. ITD—and ISIIS—is listening.
Hey Thyme,
Thanks a ton for the information. I took a read through it once and will probably do so again in a little bit to make sure I've absorbed as much as I could. Some of it is difficult with the postal language I don't fully understand :o
Anyways, what are your thoughts on the "polygraph examiner system" listed at the end under the "ISIIS for the Future" heading? I have heard of airports starting to use or at least developing technology that will read the micro expressions of people traveling through the airport to target signs of anxiety, fear or anger. Obviously there is more to it than this as many innocent people are a variety of feelings while traveling, but I'm sure you get the idea. Is it possible that this type of technology would be implemented to post offices, perhaps even in combination with new guidelines for postal clerks to verbally ask for confirmation that the package contains no contraband? This may be a bit over the top and paranoid, but it is definitely best to be a step ahead than a step behind. What do you guys think? Is this something to be worried about, or just conscious about? Looking forward to the responses :)
Best,
Purptree4me
-
Dogs are very rare in the US postal system. :)
Definitely over thinking things when talking about the facial expression software and machines. The newly developed laser based molecular scanners would work MUCH more effectively. Hopefully they will never be used in the postal system in our lifetime though. Here are my two threads about the newly developed laser based molecular scanners http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=167048 http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=144014
-
I'm not so sure Jack. A quick tor-based search yields plenty of trophy photos of canine parcel interdiction efforts ;)
Granted, most of them are UPS/Fedex or otherwise problematic, but there are still plenty of USPS interceptions by dogs. Police forces encourage their canine units to go out and do community work. Walk the halls of schools, check mini-storage units, and other things.....such as checking post offices and mail facilities.
-
I'm not so sure Jack. A quick tor-based search yields plenty of trophy photos of canine parcel interdiction efforts ;)
Granted, most of them are UPS/Fedex or otherwise problematic, but there are still plenty of USPS interceptions by dogs. Police forces encourage their canine units to go out and do community work. Walk the halls of schools, check mini-storage units, and other things.....such as checking post offices and mail facilities.
Dogs are rare in the postal system. I know postal workers and every [postal worker that has come here and talked has said they have never seen one. I also received kilograms of MDMA without vacuum sealing or moisture barrier bags for years.
-
I'm not so sure Jack. A quick tor-based search yields plenty of trophy photos of canine parcel interdiction efforts ;)
Granted, most of them are UPS/Fedex or otherwise problematic, but there are still plenty of USPS interceptions by dogs. Police forces encourage their canine units to go out and do community work. Walk the halls of schools, check mini-storage units, and other things.....such as checking post offices and mail facilities.
Dogs are rare in the postal system. I know postal workers and every [postal worker that has come here and talked has said they have never seen one. I also received kilograms of MDMA without vacuum sealing or moisture barrier bags for years.
Maybe where you are, that's true but it may not be true anyplace else. If dogs were rarely being used, there would be few arrests, if any. I guess it comes down to what the definition of "rare" is. It's easy to search and find plenty of examples of K9 parcel intercepts so its definitely going on somewhere. Not trying to scaremonger but I think underestimating our nemesis is a mistake.
There are dogs being used to check USPS. Its easy to verify, just do a quick search for "K9 parcel interception" or something like that and you can see plenty of examples. LE loves those trophy photos...
-
I'm not so sure Jack. A quick tor-based search yields plenty of trophy photos of canine parcel interdiction efforts ;)
Granted, most of them are UPS/Fedex or otherwise problematic, but there are still plenty of USPS interceptions by dogs. Police forces encourage their canine units to go out and do community work. Walk the halls of schools, check mini-storage units, and other things.....such as checking post offices and mail facilities.
Dogs are rare in the postal system. I know postal workers and every [postal worker that has come here and talked has said they have never seen one. I also received kilograms of MDMA without vacuum sealing or moisture barrier bags for years.
Maybe where you are, that's true but it may not be true anyplace else. If dogs were rarely being used, there would be few arrests, if any. I guess it comes down to what the definition of "rare" is. It's easy to search and find plenty of examples of K9 parcel intercepts so its definitely going on somewhere. Not trying to scaremonger but I think underestimating our nemesis is a mistake.
There are dogs being used to check USPS. Its easy to verify, just do a quick search for "K9 parcel interception" or something like that and you can see plenty of examples. LE loves those trophy photos...
There are few arrests compared to what goes through the postal system in the US... I know of people who have shipped weed without even vacuum sealing it... There is thousands and thousands of packages of drugs in the postal system everyday. They don't even find one percent of them.
-
They might not find even one percent of them, but the goal is to make sure that the one percent does not include your parcel. There are relatively few arrests overall compared to crimes committed. I would like to not be one of the arrested. Shipping un-contained substances doesn't reduce the odds of investigation or arrest but does leave one vulnerable to dog inspection if things get to that unlikely point.
Dogs are rare in the postal system per se (if there are any, I can't find them budgeted), but USPIS continues to call local/regional LE in with the dog for a sniff after inspectors do the initial checking.
Yes, parcel inspections surely *are* relatively rare as it is, and full postal interceptions are even more rare. Drugs-in-the-mail stories are still newsworthy, even involving small quantities that would NOT be newsworthy in face to face transactions. They're still worth a press-release and a bit of "omg, guys, look at this" attitude by LEO.
Maybe all the material re: dogs in interdiction efforts is a bunch of sound and fury, I don't know, but they are real tangible critters to me. I've seen a handler show up and take the detection dog into the back of a local PO, as well as a regional/'big' PO, more than once, and from more than one agency, and in other states. [In retrospect, I know now that at least one of those was a week-long organized operation with scheduled dog-visits to go over parcels.] Still... I'm just not at the PO all that often. It can't be all that infrequent.
My regional (not local) interdiction team reports mail intercepts using dog, at least every month, which are largely postal and flagged initially by USPIS. This definitely isn't unique to my region, after combing through some years' worth of press releases and arrests.
I am not inclined to chill out much about this today; I am looking at three press releases in recent weeks re: intercepted parcels in my area, all of which were flagged and then run through detection dog, none of which had adequate aroma blocking, none of which were what I'd consider major quantities.
Fuck that. Even if that was out of dozens or hundreds for the area. Those wouldn't have been opened if they hadn't resulted in an alert on sniff. There's the possibility of a false/cued positive but relatively unlikely in this case. These were likely preventable with appropriate packaging. That's maddening.
The worst case scenario that I can envision from operating on the assumption that, although it's very unlikely, any parcel might be examined and then presented to a dog is that... I'm wrong and I'm paranoid. I'm, like, SO OKAY WITH THAT. Being crazy does not scare me. Obviously. :P
-
Good post Thyme +1
To be clear, I was not trying to suggest we be lax with our packaging. I was merely stating that K9s are rare in the postal system. :)
-
I fear we are not paranoid enough. However, if we can ever consistently and provably beat the dogs then we change the game. I am not yet entirely convinced that is the case.
MBBs are a major improvement though...
-
I fear we are not paranoid enough. However, if we can ever consistently and provably beat the dogs then we change the game. I am not yet entirely convinced that is the case.
MBBs are a major improvement though...
Moisture barrier bags combined with proper handling works great. It appears that in the future we will have to beat drug sniffing bees. ;)
The humble bee is being put to work. But they aren’t just making honey; they are busy being trained to sniff out drugs and explosives.
By becoming ‘sniffer bees’, the honeybee, Apis mellifera, could soon be Britain’s answer to combating national security threats and drug smuggling. Honeybees have an acute olfactory sense, which can be thought of as a very sensitive sense of smell. By training the bees to associate an odour with a reward, scientists are able to train the bees to detect almost any odour.
Honey BeesThis technology, which has been developed by Inscentinel Ltd., a small spin-out company based at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, has a variety of potential applications, including the detection of illegal drugs and explosives in airport security and the military, as well as in medical diagnostics and food quality control.
“Bees are at least as good as sniffer dogs but are cheaper and faster to train, and available in much larger numbers. It is dependent on the specific odour, but bees can detect some odours that are present in parts per trillion - that’s equivalent to detecting a grain of salt in an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” says Dr Nesbit, a research scientist at Inscentinel Ltd.
Training bees
Honeybees have the ability to learn and memorise. The bees are loaded onto individual holders where they sit comfortably whilst exposed to an odour which is passed over them in short pulses. Whilst exposed to the odour, the bees are simultaneously rewarded with a small drop of sugar syrup, which the bees stick their proboscis (tongue) out to receive. This is a classical Pavlovian conditioning method. Once conditioned, if the bees pick up the odour they’ve been trained to detect, they stick their probosces out in anticipation of the syrup, before the syrup is offered. This proboscis extension reflex is the signal that the scientists use to determine successful conditioning. It takes between two and eight rounds of training which is completed in just a few hours, with the reflex lasting for several days.
Making the science reality
Once trained, up to 36 bees are loaded into a handheld sensing device. The bees can be trained to detect the same odour, or smaller groups of bees can be trained to detect different odours within the same device. The bees are exposed to a constant stream of clean, filtered air until a sample of air from an area requiring testing is sucked into the machine. An optical sensor records any bees extending their proboscis, which is then interpreted by software. Based on a statistical population of bees, a simple odour present/absent response follows. The whole detection process takes around six seconds.
What about bee welfare?
The bees are not harmed whilst performing their sniffing duties; the health and comfort of the bees dictates the performance of the sensing device. Each bee works for a maximum of a two-day shift before it is returned, healthy and unharmed, to the hive, to enjoy the rest of its life working for its colony.
Nesbit explained that the bees have potential uses in other fields as well as national security: “We are currently involved with a project commissioned by a fruit juice factory who wants to use the bees to detect if the oranges they buy for juicing are infested with storage pests. Alternatively, the bees can also be used in medical diagnostics” she said. Nesbit explained that as some diseases are linked to a specific odour being released in the urine, blood or breath, the bees can be used as a method of detection, producing a medical diagnosis.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/features/article/humble-honey-bee-in-national-security/
-
OK, but I am not going to train a bunch of goddamn bees to test packaging. I have to draw the line somewhere.
heartzies,
thyme
-
OK, but I am not going to train a bunch of goddamn bees to test packaging. I have to draw the line somewhere.
heartzies,
thyme
;D I love you!