Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit 436
Gerhardius writes "Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $212 million contract to provide cameras and sensors for New York City subways, bridges and tunnels." The entire program is being conducted under the guise of anti-terrorism and includes plans for a possible wireless network which would allow cellular phones to be used in case of emergency.
Re:Lockheed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Informative)
C. They worked. They identified all the perpetrators in the first attack, and in the second failed attack, led to their arrests.
Photo identification left at the scene of the crime identified the bombers. The photos from the cameras merely acted as auxiliary information. You can read the whole chain of events here [bbc.co.uk].
Re:taxpayer money wasted (Score:2, Informative)
120 million riders x 3 accidents per million = 360 accidents per month NOT 40 (duh).
So there you have it. 360 subway injuries per month from accidents. How many people were killed in the London subway bombings?
Even if you disregard any issues of morality or preserving freedom and liberties, simply on a cost-benefit analysis this is totally goddamn stupid -- it's just a BS pork barrel project, albeit one that screws people's lives. How many lives will this 200 million+ dollars (plus cop overtime pay) save? What is the benefit of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Informative)
I can only assume that you've never spoken to a Brit on the subject, let alone been here. In no way are we "raised to respect and embrace our government".
Just look at the treatment anything controversial gets at the hands of the media - immigration, id cards, the Iraq war, etc - and you'll see anything but respect and embracing of the government.
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Informative)
And no, surveillance cameras used to track down criminals after the fact do not an oppressive police state make. Ask any Londoner how oppressed they feel.
I work as a CCTV operator here in London, we do traffic enforcement, which is what most of the cameras are for. Everything we do is tightly regulated by the Human Rights Act (1988) and the Data Protection Act (1998) and a comprehensive Code of Practice. We have to respect privacy (or be sacked!). For example, our traffic cameras cannot linger on people, we look only at vehicles, the video tapes have to be stored securely and confidentially and they must be destroyed (degaussed) when no longer useful.
Any CCTV images of people you have seen, from the UK, will have been taken under special exemptions provided for the police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) - the same act that governs phone tapping etc. They can only track an individual on CCTV if they suspect them of criminal activity. They don't just track people at random.
As part of our training we have to know all this privacy legislation and are tested on it.
There is no comperable Data Protection law in the US. If you are going to increase the amount of CCTV you use then perhaps you need also to consider legislation that will protect your privacy?