Luther - Well, I started from an interest in biometrics and an emotional reaction to the thumb scanner that provides access to the Institute, and the finger printing everybody had to undergo. That was the spark. I felt something was not right... So all summer I was thinking about what I was going to do. I just kept on coming back to it and I wanted to find out why I was feeling so strange about it. Was it just a silly psychological thing or was there something deeper, something with a bigger social relevance? I started exploring the issue of a trusted third party in a first project called Superthumb. Then Eyal joined the project.

Eyal - There is a saying that the devil never comes with horns and a red cape. When the devil comes, he will look like us. That's what Luther talks about and what attracted me in this project. We tend to easily accept things if they come from an authority, such as a government. What I found interesting was how much we are willing not to see biometric technology as invasive, even though it is invasive almost by definition. We accept it as obvious, especially in the wake of recent terrorist events. So we took it a step further. How far would people be willing to go if you wrap this sinister, dark and authoritarian tool in a nice, beautiful wrapping? How much would people be willing to take in return for some kind of reward? That's why we focused on air travel and airports, because they are fascinating hubs - physical hubs for people to go from place to place, but also social as well as psychological hubs.

Luther - We asked ourselves what the most controlled access points are nowadays? The answer is obviously airports. So we wanted to put our thing in there and see how far we could push it, what people would accept if we give them a nice wrapping and rewards. How much people are willing to give up in return for certain benefits. We were inspired by existing companies such as the Dutch company Privium. Its members use an iris biometrics to smart card authentication system to cross borders quickly. The company has special relationships with governments, and, this is a small but interesting detail, you also get priority parking at Schiphol airport. It's very popular. People accept it because they get a parking spot and go through borders quickly. It is convenient and makes sense given the target audience and the context of the airport.

But you are also going a step further in another sense. You are not looking at a physical scan of a body part, such as an iris or a thumb. You propose a system that would involve a sophisticated test that you use to tell something about the personality of the person being scanned, about what he or she might know, might want, might think, might like or might want to buy.

Eyal - We took this step because we really needed to create a dilemma. The Privium service is not a real dilemma. Most people, most frequent flyers, would do it because it is convenient. We are taking the extra step. You are basically selling, or rather leasing, your brain in return for benefits. These benefits are important and we purposefully created a fuzzy line between what is defined as "government" and what is "corporate". Airports are also interesting in that sense. We constructed a test based on existing technology. We didn't invent anything that is not based on extensive scientific research in the field of neuropsychology. From the test we can find out what you know about a certain terrorist event, and conclude whether you can be trusted or not.

Like a lie detector?

Eyal - In a way, but much more accurate. The brain doesn't lie per se. The reactions are automatic and autonomous. If you are shown something that you are familiar with, you cannot train yourself not to recognise it. But there's another layer to it: in the same test, we can also look into what you know or don't know about marketing-related things, like products, brands, names or types of media. It sounds almost unreal but it is actually much more simple than most people might believe.
Then we designed a fictional service as part of a "social fiction" as we call it. This fictional company, which we called 'Acclair', offers frequent flyers and high-end air travellers the convenience of a fast, comfortable, delightful security procedure, which includes the electrophysiological brain test that only takes one minute. So instead of standing in line for security every time you fly, you go through a one-minute test. You also get other perks. Acclair has two types of customers: the frequent fliers and companies or corporate entities to whom we sell the knowledge gained from these air travellers. Acclair allows you as a traveller, to go through security quickly and gives you benefits in return, and in exchange for which you allow us, in a way, to penetrate your mind.

But you would need staff to collect these data. So the data would have to be very valuable in order to justify the expense of the staff.

Luther - What makes it viable for corporations is the fact that they have immediate market research: a stream of customers is available for market research every minute of the day. So, in a user-friendly environment, we combine a security system that allows governments to catch terrorists with a market research system that offers personalised rewards. We think it could be a viable business. The question is would people accept it?
In addition, our service reduces the number of passengers going through checkpoints, and therefore reduces the number of personnel required, the amount of space required, training expenses and malfunctions.

Eyal - A very important point is that this project is a form of social criticism or social commentary. One could say that we are creating a new citizen, a new member of society, since we establish your value as a citizen by what you know, not where you come from or where you've travelled in the past. If you are a frequent flyer, go through these tests every time you fly, and pass all of the tests with flying colours, we can assume certain things about you. One thing is that security-wise you are a trusted member of society. So maybe we can give you some benefits that we wouldn't give to other people, who haven't gone through this test. For instance, we came up with the idea of "amnesty points". If you are trusted you are not a threat to society, yet every once in a while you still might make a mistake, a legal mistake. As a trusted member of society, an authority might be willing to exempt or pardon you. The smart card, which is the Acclair membership card, therefore contains information and points. When you then encounter a challenging situation, let's say you are stopped for speeding or get involved in a bar brawl, you can submit your card which metaphorically says: "I'm a trusted member of society, here is my card and now you can deduct two hundred points from my account to pay for this misdemeanour". In a way, we are building a new system of how a government would view its citizens, members of its society.

Now doesn't this assume that the world consists of good and bad people, with a clear line in between? You are good or bad, black or white. A lot of people are grey. Also when you are not a danger in one society, you could become one in another because there is something in that society that outrages you.

Luther - When you go through the enrolment procedure, there's a blanket pardon. If you fully divulge everything that you know and whether you have participated or seen certain acts that are illegal, those would never be used against you. So once you've become "acclaired", you've become part of an acclaired class. You are cleared. You could even imagine that certain people would use the service precisely not to have to deal anymore with a dodgy past. Like in the catholic church. Here I would pay a certain amount and all my sins are erased.

Eyal - We are actually solving some problems for some people. For instance, imagine that I am a Muslim, that I have a dark coloured skin, and that I live in Iran. I also run my own business, am a good person and have never committed a crime. Yet I might have difficulties doing business in the US or even entering the US. Using our service, you can prove your viability as a trusted person to, in this case, the US authorities. So our service blurs the line between what is good and bad.

But governments are increasingly relying on interviews and personal contacts to assess the credibility of the person. For instance, if you apply for a work visa for the United States, you are required to have an interview with a counsellor officer. A questionnaire or a computer test is not sufficient. When you are passing through the checkpoints in Israel, for instance to go to the West Bank, the soldiers there also don't work with computers, but rely instead on personal evaluation. Why would governments then accept a system that takes away this human discretion?

Luther - Human interviews are not going away. But security screening is always an imperfect process and there is no way you can effectively interview all potential suspects. Acclair is born in a period of extreme paranoia and offers a way to tap into the brain, and record its reactions for network-wide evaluation. Hopefully, a human would complement the screening process, but it would be cheaper if a machine could do it.

Eyal - We are not taking away human discretion. On the contrary. We are allowing the "human agents" to utilise their skills in a more efficient way. This system allows authorities to have a very strict screening process. 95% of the people enrolling in this service, would not have to go through an interview, so that they could concentrate on the remaining 5% who would be further inspected and investigated. So it makes sense also from a business or financial point of view.

As a social commentary, there are now two ways to go. One is to develop it into a highly believable prototype that could convince people that the service actually exists in order to get debate going. Another way is to actually implement it, because it is actually possible to develop such a service, and get the commentary going that way.

Luther - We built a website that looks as if the thing exists, www.acclair.co.uk, as if the company is based in England, and has a strong foothold in Asia with clients in Hong Kong and Singapore, but I don't see us actually starting such a service. Instead, we have built an effective Brain Fingerprinting (BFP) experience prototype that is quite effective in generating discussion around these issues of acceptability. We're also creating evidence and traces of the service in various media to try to disperse the meme of Acclairism.

Eyal - We are not trying to fool people into believing this is a real service. We are trying to make the fiction as real as possible so the audience can experience it, and, ideally, this will provoke the debate we are interested in.

What does the prototype look like? Is it an airport checking counter?

Luther - It simulates the airport security clearance procedure. The main component is a headset that allows you to watch a Brain Fingerprinting video and it simulates an EEG system to measure brainwaves. The system is used to catch a particular type of person who might be involved with a crime, or is a terrorist. It also contains images used for the market research aspect of the test. In the prototype, the user can go through the test and after the test, see what the attendant sees on a BFP monitor-the test image stimuli, the brainwave reactions and the gained Neurocapital^T points. But it is also important that we situate the prototype within the glowing, clean and beautiful Acclair environment which serves to sugar-coat with user-friendliness the inherently invasive test. This is how we present the prototype in an exhibition context.

What of the Interaction-Ivrea experience has changed you most?

Luther - For me, the exposure to different people. People that come to mind first are Chris Downs and Ben Reason that run Live-Work and their inspirations from the Royal College of Art. They too create social fictions and use a critical design perspective where you take a project into the real world and see what people would do with it. This is a critical design method and it verges on conceptual art. It has influenced how I approach design by blurring the boundary between art and design.

And you, Eyal?

Eyal - I'm still overwhelmed by how designers think. Sometimes it amazes me, sometimes it disappoints me. Designers have a different aesthetics of life. Not just visual aesthetics, but a different way to look at people, a different way to look at the world. And then they implement this different view, this worldview, in their work.

What do you mean by different, can you be a bit more specific?

Eyal - Here I found myself looking at things through glasses of extremity. Either I hate what's being done, or I am overwhelmed by it. so far, I have found two "truths" in design, two kinds of wisdom if you like. The first is the beauty in encapsulating a complex idea, belief or function in a clear and simple manifestation. If it is being done right, it is nothing less than poetry. Physical poetry. The other is that there's an absolute need to find the mutual gene between the two DNA's: that of the product and that of the person. Something that will bond them, oftentimes seamlessly. And that is so hard. So organising a large-scale exhibition of inflatable white objects is one direction. A two meters long red telephone is another direction. What we do is a third direction. I find all three exciting at times, troubling at times, sometimes good, sometimes bad. But I believe that, in the end, this is what we as designers should do.

Are you an interaction designer now?

Eyal - Not yet. I'm on my way, though.

What are your plans now?

Eyal - I have no plans yet. My chances of becoming a designer are equal to my chances of becoming a waiter, equal to my chances of becoming a Prime Minister. I only know that I am going back to Israel for a while and that I want to work with people that I like. I found working alone depressing. But that will not be easy.

And you Luther?

Luther - I would like to art direct a media-slash-interaction design-slash-product design company where they create multiple types of experiences. Like IDEO. where they work closely with the client, and don't just create the product, but all the experiences around the product. Using experience and critical design to illustrate how products and services are used in everyday life. That would be quite interesting. I would like to work with a diverse team to develop large experience design projects. Eventually I want to teach, merging my arts background with the field of interaction design, straddling the middle zone, where my knowledge of new media could be combined with theory and critical design.

Are you planning to work together?

Luther - It's still open to discussion. The Acclair project will still live on for some time. It would be nice to show it somewhere else.

Eyal - I'd like to visit him in Oakland that's for sure.

Well, it's a hot topic and if you find the right angle, you should be able to get some coverage, just like Jason Tester had last year. Good luck with it!

(Interview by Mark Vanderbeeken)