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.
Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, it's possible that it really is about prevention of attacks. NYC is a very likely target and everyone just saw what happened in London. Of course, if it makes you happier to believe that everyone is out to get you, then go on.
that was a long time ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure its very lucrative to get one of thse government jobs to install technology or research dynamite smelling bacteria. I'm curious how surveillance is going to work. At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists? I bet it will cut down on the number of people who jump over the subway tool booths.
Video surveilance sure worked well in London (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet again idiots win! (Score:5, Insightful)
looking at the root causes.Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off? I can tell you right now that if the chinese or russians were over here, inevitably some americans would be suicide bombers against them.
Cause and effect.
It's sad to think we went from men like this:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
or this :
"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
or this:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams
To the SHEEPLE we have today.
I guess Franklin was right,
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Re:Guise? (Score:4, Insightful)
A The cameras in London stopped the first attack
B The cameras in London stopped the second attack.
C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane.
D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.
Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks. Adding information to overloaded analysis systems won't stop terrorist attacks. Adding more laws and giving more power to law enforcement won't stop terrorist attacks. Invading other countries won't stop terrorist attacks.
Properly analysing the information that is available might help thwart attacks.
In many of the recent attacks both the technique, target and perpetrators were already KNOWN. Law enforcement was just unable to effectively use that knowledge.
These plans seem to have it backwards, the problem isn't that the information doesn't exist, it's that people don't know what to do with it.
Not for you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Any wireless network underground, while helpful, would probably collapse under the traffic of a few hundred people in a packed train (assuming an incident occured during rush hour). Since you cannot predict an attack, it is likely that these circuits would be dedicated to emergency services from the start or switched over to emergency services should an incident occur, just like many main wireless traffic circuits were in London. The security of calling home to tell people you're ok should something happen from inside a tube just isn't there and never will be.
Re:Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-Terrorism means Anti-freedom. The terrorists have won because we have allowed them to. We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars, harming the environment, and costing us a fortune due to the newly raised gas prices, which, one could argue, the money trail leads right back to the terrorists through OPEC. (Of course, this is highly speculative, and reactionary; it'd be nearly impossible to follow the money through OPEC)
At least they should have said what the cameras would be used for. "Hey, people. If you want the police to be able to catch criminals in subways, instead of us sticking officers down there, we're gonna stick a camera. While an officer might be able to catch the person right away, a camera will catch it all on film, where it'll be more useful to the prosecution, but not nessicarly help you right away.
"We know this is an inconvienience, but you are in a public place, and your expectation of privacy is little if any. We won't use this to spy on you, so you don't have to wear your tinfoil hats. But it'll be cheaper than sticking a bunch of cops down there. Thanks, that's all."
Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were. If a suicide bomber jumped on a train on the underground in NYC, and blew himself up, we couldn't even figure out who did it!
The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.
The failed July 21st attacks meant the police could track them down, and arrest them!
You can't even comprehend the amount of intelligence that may have now been attained with the arrests of these terrorists.
However, you seem happy enough to let terrorists try and try again, without knowing who is behind attacks, until they're successful.
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
This will work because
A The cameras in London stopped the first attack
B The cameras in London stopped the second attack.
C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane.
D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.
You are ignorant because
A. You don't realize that cameras are normally intended to collect data about perpetrators after the fact.
B. This is how they were used in London.
C. They worked. They identified all the perpetrators in the first attack, and in the second failed attack, led to their arrests.
Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks.
What privacy do you have on a subway? Just curious. Your subway must be different than mine.
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hardly think you're right. The bombers aren't trying to make any big secret about who they are. As evidenced by the 9-11 hijackers, they carried legitimate ids.
You basically have a set of people who thumb their noses at others and are quite happy to smile into the cameras as they do it (or carry an id, i.e. 9-11). They want people to know who they are in a sense.
On a similar note, I hear it happens all the time in London with common crooks (am I wrong) where they don't care, they just need to steal that ipod to get their next fix, who cares if they look into the camera.
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
The way to balance this stuff is to make a whole lot of stuff no longer criminal. Yes, go after the real terrorists. No, don't use these cameras to stop kids from selling pot to each other. Yes, catch muggers with them. No, don't bust people for drinking a cola where you don't want them to. If you get rid of the laws which provide for all sorts of silly and wasteful reasons for busting people, then cameras aren't on balance a bad thing. Unless the person watching you through them just happens to know the person you're kissing passionately on the platform is not your spouse, and uses the facial-features database to ring your cell phone to demand payment for silence.
But really, do the sort of people who'd do that live in New York City??
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, if a person is going to blow himself up, how will cameras help at all? It surely isn't going to deter them.
Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet anothe PR bullshitter (Score:1, Insightful)
How about the Soldiers in Afganistan and the Special Ops guys in Pakistan trying to find and kill the Al Qaeda leadership? Oops, we got distracted and forgot about Bin Laden!
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity.
Except their body.
No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.
You're being lied to. Wake up.
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
United States Constitution, Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The first step was cameras. Sure, they could say "Well, these are just substitutes for police eyes". Since I can't reasonably expect to be private from police eyes, this one slides.
However, now we are subject to "random searches" of backpacks and other large items. This is clearly not constitutional! The cameras were a first step. Now they can randomly search anyone. Soon, it will be that you'll have to be willing to stop at the checkpoint and prove who you say you are.
It's what's known as a "slippery slope". Once you start down it, you end up at the bottom, where the end result is a police state. We've installed the Big Brother cameras, and now we have the Big Brother random searches. Soon it will be Big Brother checkpoints.
Great for New York... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course next time they might not target transit systems at all...
THIS is why its called ASYMMETRIC warfare.
You folks might want to check out Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear", or back issues of Crypto-Gram (http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html [schneier.com]).
Still, if the customer feels good - does it matter if its just a placebo? And shareholders of Lockheed Martin - woo hoo!
--
My slant on global affairs.
http://newtonsthirdlaw.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place. And the recent islamofacist bombers were tracked down and caught impressively quickly after the tapes were perused. As for detecting and preventing ahead of time, nothing can do that outside of an oppressive police state that prevents free movement of people. 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.
Out of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider how many people have been killed in automobile accidents, and how comparatively little public money gets spent 'preventing' that carnage.
There might not be another terrorist attack on US soil for the next decade, but I'll guarantee that more than 40,000 people will die on US roads next year.
Re:Guise? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if you have had any experience with bodies that have been blown up but if you had you would know there is pretty much nothing left but residue.
No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.Having the ability to visibly to identified the bombers and then track their last couple hours/minutes of movement would go along way to finding out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc. IE you might get a partial/full number plate of the car that drop them off, they may have made one last phone call and you can then track that number etc.... It is a lot like having log files from a server that died, most of the time it won't tell you what crashed the thing but it will be invaluable in helping to find out the source of the problem.
You're being lied to. Wake upone for one
You are being ignorant. Wake up.
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
If what you said is true about this being an unreasonable search, then it could also be said that checkpoints for drunks along the highways is unreasonable. By the same means the fact that a visitor visiting a US government intelligence facility should not be searched because that is an unreasonable thing to expect.
The 4th ammendment protects you in your home and in your private life. It does not protect your privacy at someone elses house. If someone wanted to watch every action you took in their residence that is legal, however I think in most states you must first warn them that they're being recorded etc etc. The same goes when you are on corporate grounds, and the same can be implied about a quasi governmental corporation such as the MTA.
The "slippery slope" you discuss is trying to protect rights you do not have. Saying soon we'll have big brother checkpoints is a laugh as we already do. Along our highways are weigh stations and fruit/vegetable inspections, drunk inspections etc etc. Don't think this hasn't been in effect for years.
Phil
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you brought up the subject of the risk of terrorism, lemme expand on it a bit.
This year, I can predict that 3000 Americans will die due to one factor: fires. That's the yearly death toll, mind you. Roughly 15000 this decade (which is only half over). Compared to about 3000 Americans on US soil dead to terrorism this decade (2000-2005).
Most fire deaths occur at home. And most could have been prevented by using smoke detectors. Google tells me that roughly 2000 deaths could be prevented each year if there were working smoke detectors at the residence.
Now, some fun with numbers: Department of Homeland security funding: About 30 billion. Number of Americans: About 350 million. Cost per smoke detector: $20. To buy every American a smoke detector would cost $7 billion dollars, or about a 1/4th of the DHS budget. Amazing. If you count the cost of a 9V battery at $1, the cost of maintaining a program (assuming a new battery / year) would be $350 million, or $3.5 billion over 10 years. So, for the cost of $10.5 billion dollars (a little more than 1/3rd of the DHS budget), 10,000 American lives would be saved. We should add in advertising costs though. Google tells me that about one and a half billion dollars were spent on political ads in 2004. We'll be generous, and dedicate 3.5 billion to the job: Now we have a total cost of $14 billion dollars, or just slightly under half of the DHS funding for this year.
If we cut the DHS funding by half for this year only, we would save American lives this year and 10,000 lives in 10 years.
Amazing, isn't it? Now where do you think they money should be spent?
PS: The next time someone expresses worries about terrorism, ask them the last time they checked their smoke detector. If it hasn't been within 6 months, shame on them.
Re:You live in an ivory tower (Score:5, Insightful)
No slippery slope? So holding an american citizen [goldsteinhowe.com]
indefinitely without trial is acceptable. (That's part of the Sixth amendment gone.)
Charged with an offense carrying six or less months in jail PER CHARGE? You have no right to a jury trial. [cnn.com]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. (I'd say that's the rest...)
Secret searches without a warrant? (ala Patriot act, administrative subpoenas) Thats the Fourth down.
Finally, I've got two more bits of advice.
First, YOU WILL NEVER be safe. Life is inherently unsafe. Deal with it. If in your preference warrantless searches are reasonable, fine, urge your representatives to CHANGE the Constitution. To pay lip service to the Constitution while shredding it is an injustice to your relatives who died bringing it into existence.
Second, we cannot choose our family, nor the circumstances we are born into. The real choice we do have is the ideals by which we live. You may choose a "safer" world in which you are prodded and probed, and generally treated like cattle.
If defending the principles of dignity, liberty and justice is your version of unrealistic and childish behavior so be it, I'm guilty as charged.
Re:Contrarian views (Score:5, Insightful)
And how exactly would this work with this all-eyes-are-on-you system for 200 million?
Is anyone thinking?
What terrorists? How would you "find and capture" them? Especially if they are dead in the attack? Suppose they don't want to bother the trains, and instead, oh, blow up the water pipelines? Can you place cameras everywhere? If you can, how will you answer the first two questions?
The only people being locked down are us. We are voluntarily entering prison, for no sane reason whatsoever.
Most terrorist plots busted up in the US are hatched by white men. Fact. How would this stop them? Or is this just a war on funny looking brown people, ignoring the crazy white men who are actually arming and plotting?
A giant surveillance system, protecting no one, and 200 million bucks down the drain, and we all enter prison every time we take a train ride, all for nothing and serving no purpose.
Want to prevent "terrorist" attacks, by which I assume you mean brown funny people?
Don't invade their countries, don't steal their money, don't torture their people, and pay attention to what your president has done. Al Queda has gone from a despised group of loonies to the heroes of the oppressed in the muslim underclass, and its all-because-we-validated-their-worst-predictions about what we would do after being attacked by 40 loons -- invade and hold the oil fields. Bush and company are maneuvering to invade Iran now -- another rich oil field. Amazingly enough, the terrorists from the 9-11 attack were mostly Saudi Arabians -- and we haven't even said boo to the Saudis. And everyone has noticed.
We are earning the hatred of those who had no truck with al Queda, and its not because they hate our freedom. They hate us because we're murderous, two-faced hypocrites. A few of those angry young people will be crazy enough, fervent enough, to start killing innocent people here in the US -- and it won't be because they hate us; they hate what we do, and hate us because we simply don't give a damn about what happens to the funny brown people.
Cameras. God. Just stop killing innocent people! Apologize for the invasion of Iraq! Let the people in prison go. It's freaking simple! We're GENERATING the terrorists!
nice chest thumping (Score:3, Insightful)
you've gone off on a really fascinating diatribe
but we're talking about putting cameras in the subway if you hadn't noticed
so try again, but this time try talking about the subject matter at hand instead of marching off to ideological war
thanks for playing
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good point. People frequently misperceive risks and deal with them irrationally.There is a whole psychological literature on this, due in large part to the late Amos Tversky [stanford.edu]. One example is fear of flying. Statistically, the risk of flying is much less than the risk of being killed in an automobile accident.
The cost of smoke detectors should really be considerably less than parent calculates, for two reasons. One is that a lot of people already have them. The second is that we don't need one per person. For residential areas, you need at most one per room. Since most couples sleep in the same bedroom and kids often share rooms, the number of smoke detectors needed per person is probably less than 0.5. It should be safe to cut the cost estimate in half.
On the other hand, its hard to compare the damage at risk from terrorism with that from fire. Death by fire arises from a large number of events each of which has only a very small probability of killing more than a few people. Statistically, over a country the size of the United States, estimates of the total number of deaths by fire and other such causes are going to be quite reliable. Terrorists, unlike fire, do not strike at random. They usually want to cause as much damage as they can, and modern technology gives them the means to do that. With luck a suicide bomber kills no one but himself; without it, he'll take a dozen or so people with him. The 9/11 terrorists killed 3,000. They probably could have increased that number by an order of magnitude if they gone for something less flashy than the world trade center, say blowing up a major sports arena or concert venue while an event was going on. A small nuke could kill several hundred thousand. The problem is, it is very hard to estimate the relative probability of a successful terrorist act that kills only a few and one that kills many thousands. This makes it hard to distribute resources rationally, even if you are so inclined and in principal understand how to do so.
Re:Contrarian views (Score:1, Insightful)
47% of statistics are made up. Fact.
I assume you have a link from the Department Of Justice supporting that assertion? I doubt it.
Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe, just maybe, that Anonymous Coward is making things up.
It is true. The police had basically no information about this guy and they went up and shot him after ordering him to turn around. From reports I have heard they may have not even identified themselves. The cameras were all convieniently "not working." So there wasn't any video evidence. The police have since apologized, but the fact of the matter remains that they have murdered a man in cold blood without even trying to make a reasonable arrest.
The whole thing reeks of coverup and foul play. One would think that within days of a terrorist attack, the Underground would have made doubly sure that at least their security cameras were all rolling. Not a single video image. How about that one?
I agree with the great grandparent. Nothing is gonna stop terrorism. The more terrorists you kill, the more martyrs you create. The more innocent people you slaughter in the process, the more you fuel the source of the terrorism. IF you think this war can be won, maybe you need to start listening to the Jews for advice because clearly they are doing a wonderful job of containing just a small neighboring state. Just in case you never went to history class, white men have been killing arabs for thousands of years now in the name of holy war. How the war is on terrorism is any different is completely beyond me, what with its rhetoric about evil nations and liberation and democracy. What is the real evil? Is it the terrorists who hate us with a lot of valid reasons? Or is it the country that sponsored those terrorists in the first place as well as propped up certain dictators, like Saddam Hussein? No doubt the taliban were not the greatest of rulers, but at least they helped us keep the Soviets from taking over some prime pipeline territory. Sadly, Afghanistan is still ruled by the same corrupt warlords, nothing is much better, and the US once again could likely care less with the spotlight going to Iraq these days. If anyone thought we were going to be helping the Afghannis, well then, I must apologize for getting your hopes up. Of course, control of the opium trade is also a nice bonus for the CIA as well, because we all know how they love to smuggle drugs into America.
Now we are in Iraq. I don't know who is more evil. Saddam for killing his people with banned chemical and biological weapons or us supplying such weapons to him, knowing that he was using them on his own people. The same people that wanted us to go to war to find such weapons were the people that sold them to him, like Donald Rumsfield for instance. Maybe they had trouble sleeping at night thinking about how many hundreds of thousands of people those weapons had killed in both Iraq and Iran, then again I really doubt it. Never mind the countless thousands upon thousands of children that died from starvation alone thanks to a failed Food for Oil programme. Let us not forget that we also played Iran and Iraq like twisted Puch and Judy marionettes by supplying both sides with all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. I guess, once again, oil is likely the only motivation, because any other possibility just doesn't have nearly as much money tied to it. Don't get me started on the Rockefeller--Afghanistan connection. The choice of the twin towers makes so much sense when you see it in the right context.
Now we have police attacking protestors with stun guns and K9 dogs for blocking traffic. And we have the national guard invading raves and beating the living piss out of the participants. The police state is already here, the question is how much further will we let it go? Like many people have said. You cannot stop terrorism. If you make it impossible for people to blow up trains, they will start attacking theatres, city squares, office lobbies, etc, etc, etc. You ar
Re:Gotta love it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Open criticism is what makes America what it is.
Fervent unquestioning belief in a nations goodness, while stifling dissent under the guise of patriotism, is exactly the sort of thing Americans should stand up to. We need different mind sets of people for this nation to work. If liberals do something wrong, conservatives should hound them for it and vice versa.
What is completely appalling is not learning from that dissent.
Re:Contrarian views (Score:3, Insightful)
Al Queda has gone from a despised group of loonies to the heroes of the oppressed in the muslim underclass...
In reality they aren't the oppressed underclass at all. In contrast they are often well to do people with good jobs and secular educations, many at english schools. They own their own houses, cars and businesses. This isn't a case of the squirrely looking guy marginalized and outcast from society. Aside from their radical fundementalist Ismalic views they are seemingly main stream members of society.
Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as large as your knowledge of what bombs do to identifications might be, in the case of the London bombings various forms of identification were found [guardian.co.uk] at the scenes. Which makes sense to me, bombs aren't going to do much damage to a thin piece of plastic other than move it around. People die because their organs don't cope well with shockwaves and debris - but small pieces of plastic don't have organs. Buses get shreded because their structure tries to resit the shockwave, and fails - but small pieces of plastic don't attempt to contain the blast and hence don't get ripped to shreds. Heat does bad things to small pieces of plastic but unless the explosions results in a fire which isn't extinguished quickly there isn't enough heat for enough time.
But of course my small amount of common sense will have to give in to you unbacked up assertions. You are an export in explosions, right?
Re:Contrarian views (Score:3, Insightful)
The price isn't just $200 million. The price is a significant chunk of our freedom. The value of that is immeasurably large.
What has happened to our "America, home of the free and land of the brave" that we should willingly throw away our freedom for such meaningless scraps of false security? We cower in terror at the mere thought of an attack that hasn't even happened once on our soil. Why are we so ready to give up our freedom for "protection" that is a) applicable to only one kind of attack and b) only useful after the fact?
So, when we really do see an attack of a different nature, how much more freedom would you have us give up in response? When we get to the point where we have no more freedom left at all, do you think that will be enough to protect the cowards among us?
And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.
Saudi Arabia is by large the primary source of Salafism, a branch of Sunni Islam that is just a hairsbreadth away from readily justifying terrrorist attacks. Almost all government officials (aka members of the house of Saud) are Salafi themselves. There is a direct connection between Salafiyyah as exported (with state dollars) by Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorism in the west.
Re:What New York City reminds me of (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think this highlights why you WON'T win, and why the organized opposition of the Left is ineffective.
Materialism is not the motivation of historical change. Karl Marx was wrong. Empires are not created and destroyed to materially benefit the few. Materialism is an ancillary tool of control, both in the bestowing of bounty and the enforcement of famine. The only difference between capitalist and communism regimes is capitalists placate their masses with plenty of useless crap, and communists keep their people perpetually hungry. The great leaders of the past who will be remembered for all time, whether or Caesar Augustus, Henry VIII, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Adolf Hitler, all were motivated by much more than materialism.
I think you need to look a little deeper. What these fanatics gain who control the international system of finance, the multi-headed hydra of evil which has infected our world for the past century, is far different than simple wealth.
That said, the Left fails today because they offer nothing to the masses to fight for. People do not sacrifice their lives so that wealth allocated to the top 1% of the population can be redistributed to the bottom 99%.
Materialism is the enemy. The reduction of human pursuits, hopes, and dreams to the economists fantasy is what is destroying our spirit.
When you start attacking the ruling class of Harvard economics majors, perhaps then we will have a start. Until that time, you and every other rebellious anti-war leftist will fail to do anything but whine, and in the end you will lose.