Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Software Hardware

Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl 287

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the three-inches-to-your-left-and-straight-ahead dept.
Apache4857 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that Homeland Security agents monitoring the Superbowl will be doing so in 3D. Using streams from two cameras, the LifeVision 3D system is able to project images onto a 20-inch screen that is equipped with a depth tube. This depth tube makes images appear to rise 30 inches off the screen and sink 30 inches into the screen allowing real world volumes and distances to be displayed accurately. Using this system security officials will be able to search sidewalks, monitor faces, and even peer under vehicles.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:16PM (#14647214)
    Jem and the Holograms will perform at the half-time show.
  • Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crass25 (884537) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:16PM (#14647217)
    We've all been waiting for this for a long time. I've heard of speakers like kurzeil using similiar technology to give speeches across the world. Now how long till this replaces standard tv?
    • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Directrix1 (157787)
      Exactly how will this miracle of 3d vision, enable anybody to see anything they couldn't see in 2D. Additionally, what aspect of this 3d viewing device makes a camera capture video "underneath cars" and crap like that. What a bunch of bullshit. I don't like my money going to shit like this. I don't care how good it makes those sheep feel.
      • >Additionally, what aspect of this 3d viewing device makes a camera capture video "underneath cars" and crap like that.

        yeah, it's like the moment in Enemy of the State where the government types woth their fancy computers are able to take the CCTV footage of someone and rotate the image to look from the other side.
  • But still... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imsabbel (611519) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:16PM (#14647218)
    this isnt a hologram.
    (i know hologram sounds cool, but you cannot call any crap that has some stereoscopic view that way)
    • You're right. They should have used Arnold Rimmer instead.
  • 3-D viewing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:16PM (#14647220)
    Maybe the agents just want to view the wardrobe malfunctions in 3-D.
  • by ds_job (896062)
    I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there. I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this. Probably just makes people think they are being watched which will either make them feel secure or vindicated about their Orwellian nightmares. They'll all be checking out womens cleavages anyway...
    • I somewhat agree. If the DHS has to even be there in the first place, plain-clothes officers would make much more sense.

      I think that you're right, too that this is how an Orwellian nightmare begins at least. It begins when it makes people feel secure. And cozy. And it ends when... well, I don't know if it ends.
    • I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this.

      A cost/benefit analysis was done and we found that this project is very wortwhile (to us)!

      James Fischbach,
      CEO of Intrepid Defense & Security Systems

    • I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there.

      There are.

      " "Including private security guards, we'll have upwards of 10,000 people involved," said William Kowalski, the assistant special agent in charge of the Detroit FBI. "

  • by paulthomas (685756) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:19PM (#14647228) Journal
    I think this is a really good use of funds. Well, at least I would if I too were feeding at the trough.

    Best,
    Paul
    • Narc out your roomate. I did, and I bought a Gateway FPD2185W with the reward. It has a native resolution of 1680 x 1050 pixels, an aspect Ratio: 16:10, triple video inputs: 2xComponent and one S-Video. PC Magazine described it as "a stylish 21-inch widescreen LCD that delivers better-than-average performance and lots of features". I also bought a 60GB iPod with a 2.5" 320 x 240 color TFT screen which I store all my Huey Lewis and the News mp3s on. Rolling Stone Magazine described Huey as the "misunderstood
  • by cwebb1977 (650175) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:19PM (#14647229) Homepage
    The two-dimensional thing called offensive line protects Roethlisberger well enough. Who needs 3D?
  • by g253 (855070) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:19PM (#14647234) Homepage
    This is massively cool and all, but how is it helpful to peer under vehicles? You don't need 3D for that, and 3D won't help if the cameras are too high above ground... Anyway, they'll just use it to peer under skirts, like we would.
    • Support civil liberties, wear a kilt to the next SuperBowl!

      (If you're wondering how this would help civil liberties. well, let's just say it will probably cause naughty camera operators to go blind. Or at least wish they had.)
    • by sabNetwork (416076) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @07:34PM (#14647466)
      Sir, uh, we need $150,000 for a holographic 3D TV to watch the Superbowl on. For uh, national security.

      Oh yeah, and... we need $1,000 for a large order of chicken wings. Those bad guys might try to poison those. We want to be the first to know.

      And some beer. No reason for that one, just thought I'd ask.

      --
    • The linked article doesn't say anything about peering under cars. It's either submitter or /. editor daydreaming and recalling bad Will Smith movies.
  • by Vengeance_au (318990) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:20PM (#14647236) Homepage Journal
    What the hell is this technology doing being deployed in a security role? The rule is : ALL COOL TECH IS DEVELOPED FOR PORN! It then trickles down into other mundane uses, like saving our lives.
  • Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)

    by RyatNrrd (662756) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:20PM (#14647237) Homepage Journal
    Nothing is too elaborate to protect us from Janet's Terror-Boobs!
  • Cost (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:21PM (#14647239)
    I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?
    • Hmm.. could it be because they have pat-downs for those?

      Or because they're concerned about the threat associated with a vehicle strapped with enough explosives to take out and/or destabilize a large part of a stadium?

      I give up, which is it?
    • Yeah, God forbid your tax money is being spent on a project that won't end world hunger, cure cancer, rid us of the need of foreign oil and wipe our collective asses all at the same time. You know, it's the slashdot way, if a tax funded project doesn't stop every potential vulnerability in a system it is a complete waste of cash and time. Outraegous I say! I won't put up with it!

      Instead I'll sit around slashdot and talk up how cool a case mod is that uses old pizza boxes as a cooling system or about how so
      • God forbid your tax money is being spent on a project that won't end world hunger, cure cancer, rid us of the need of foreign oil and wipe our collective asses all at the same time.

        I'm okay if we don't do that, as long as we don't waste what we have on a false sense of security.

        You know, it's the slashdot way, if a tax funded project doesn't stop every potential vulnerability in a system it is a complete waste of cash and time.

        Since you know the slashdot way so well, I'll explain this in slashdot terms: Thi
        • If we know this, then they know this, and if they're dedicated, they're not going to stop

          Uh, but if you can find the threat you can stop it. This is a step in finding the threat but it's being underplayed as nothing more than a waste of money. The grandparent post doesn't even acknowledge that this has any value, it's much more of the attitude "I can defeat their measure, it's a waste".
      • by uradu (10768)
        > and wipe our collective asses

        Jesus, you don't even get to have your own ass in the US anymore? Not even the Soviets went that far...
    • I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?

      Its not mentioned how much this costs. But I would imagine that they are not looking for a pipe bomb kinda guy like the one that showed up at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. They are looking under cars and through the crowd for the guy that just got a job from Budweiser that will deliver all of the poisoned beer. Or they m
      • They are looking under cars

        A 3-D camera improves this how?

        and through the crowd for the guy that just got a job from Budweiser that will deliver all of the poisoned beer.

        A 3-D camera improves this how?

        Or they might be looking for the Cessna plane that will shower the crowd with antrax.

        I'm going to go ahead and roll my eyes first, then ask how a 3-D camera would be better for this than cheap-ass radar, which I'm sure is also employed.

        Or the handicapped guy in a wheelchair with the assemble and shoot machine
  • by Stalke (20083) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:21PM (#14647241)
    Even if they can "pear under vehicles", they won't have any additional information that is available on the video screen. The advantage with a 3D environment is have a better perception of what the 2D image is recording. It doesn't provide any additional information (unless one of those cameras is infrared or better yet, baggage scanner from an airport).
  • by imipak (254310) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:21PM (#14647242) Journal
    but, astonishing as it sounds, terrorists watch TV, too. No doubt the people physically at the Superbowl are a little bit safer (and probably feel a bit safer, as well) for all this techno. Sadly, however, the hypothetical station-wagon full of stereotypical evil bearded Muslim fundamentalists (possibly with swords between their teeth and eyepatches? Who dares imagine what shapes the great American subconscious dreams...) - anyway, they're going to screech to a halt in a cloud of rubber. "Mustapha, you son of an infidel! The place is swarming with cops. Curses!!!!!!" *twirls moustache furiously for a moment* "I know, we'll do it next Saturday, at the Denver Earthworms vs. Seattle Turnipfarmers game, instead. Bwaa,hahahahaha!"

    Net result in security: nil.

    Bruce Schneier has some excellent things to say about "security" measures that defend against movie-plot threats. If you don't read Crypto-Gram yet, go sign yourself up, and learn how counter-intuitive reality can be.

    (You might also think about how little you should trust your own intuition, and then deduce things about people who boast of theirs... but I don't want to interfere with domestic political matters :)

    • God I wish I had mod points. I can't believe some idiot actually modded you as a troll for pointing out the obvious. I honestly have nothing to add to your statement. You said it better than I could, and have voiced something that did a little more than cross my mind every time this whole "superbowl terrorist" topic comes up. I'm sure that there's something more worthwhile to be doing than to spend a few million dollars to carefully observe every event that comes along. I mean, it's just leading to the
    • by StikyPad (445176) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @08:14PM (#14647582) Homepage
      Sort of like "I know burgalars are just going to come in through the windows, so I don't lock my doors." Other sentiments along those lines include:

      "There's no point patching XP; any real hacker will just discover a new exploit."
      "Why bathe? I'm just going to get dirty again!"
      "No point saving this money when I'm just going to spend it eventually anyway!"

      I mean really, when you get down to it, the only thing police do is clean up after crimes; they almost never prevent them. We could save tons of money if we just abolished law enforcement.

      It's impossible to prevent every eventuality, but if you can reasonably implement measures to stop or deter most of the obvious ones, there's no reason not to. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to pour resources into preventing unlikely attacks. Should we set up a grid underground to prevent someone from tunneling in? Equip the stadium with rotary blades in case it needs to make a quick getaway? With finite resources, you have to apply them toward preventing the most obvious scenarios, and then work your way toward less the less likely/feasible options. And unless security is priceless to you, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. The whole reason people are upset about the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, etc. is because they believe it's too high of a price to pay for security. But apparently you disagree.
      • when you get down to it, the only thing police do is clean up after crimes; they almost never prevent them.


        To the extent the criminals get put in jail, any crimes they commit thereafter will be confined to the inside of the jail.

    • Bruce Schneier has some excellent things to say about "security" measures that defend against movie-plot threats. If you don't read Crypto-Gram yet, go sign yourself up, and learn how counter-intuitive reality can be.

      Here's a link [schneier.com].
  • Corporate Welfare (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PingXao (153057)
    The Super Bowl is a game played by privately owned teams. It brings in hundreds of millions in revenue for the NFL from advertising.

    Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?
    • by green pizza (159161) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:31PM (#14647279) Homepage
      Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security.

      Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland, in the United States of America.

      Put another way, if there is an emergency at your local shopping mall, it's the local taxpayer-supported police and fire departments that will come to help. The mall rent-a-cops are only there as first responders and as a first line of defense. The local taxpayer-supported agencies do all of the real work, including booking/charging teenage petty theft.
      • Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland

        It sickens me to see the word 'homeland' enter into the vernacular of north america. We never used this word before Bush's administration created it in the frenzy of false nationalism that followed 9/11.

        Fatherland? Motherland? Homeland.

        Thank you, but I'd rather not have my political discourse include the kind of rhetoric that was used to justify conquest and genocide.
    • The way security gets paid for, is usually laid out as part of the haggling when a stadium is first built.

      Part of it security costs are normally paid by the National Football League and part by the City the stadium is in.

      So, to answer your question directly, the reason "taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game" is because when the stadium was built in Chicago, it was probably part of the agreement.

      I bet Chicago is also getting State and Federal funds earmarked for anti-terrorism efforts too.

      La
    • Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game?

      Because the players, coaches and fans are still American citizens?

      I dunno, that's just a guess.
    • Detroit is similar in many ways to Beirut... gunfire, explosions, and slums. So I guess yeah, it is kinda like a foreign country. Can we give Detroit to Canada?
    • Certain high profile events such as the Olympics, political conventions and the super-bowl are protected by the US secret service.

      "When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan."

      details here [secretservice.gov]

    • And the NFL pays millions in taxes for those millions of dollars that it earns. Are you saying that the police should only protect you if you are on public property and are not currently earning any money? I really don't see your point.
    • Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?

      To the extent that the government shouldn't be involved in doing special favors for various private interests, I agree with you. However, the job of Homeland Security isn't just to protect public buildings (the White House, Capitol, etc.); it's to protect the *public*, no matter where the public is. The police provide security for polit
  • Scant on details (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paulthomas (685756) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:27PM (#14647262) Journal
    The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.

    Best
    Paul
  • B*lls**t (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scdeimos (632778) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:29PM (#14647270)
    "For the military, it can offer much better facial recognition," Fischbach said. "Instead of looking at a two-dimensional photo, you're looking at an entire head."
    Anyone who's worked on stereoscopic vision (which is all that this is) will tell you this is crap. With a pair of cameras mounted like "eyes" (5-15cm apart) you're still only seeing one side of the object. The depth information is extremely helpful in feature extraction, but you're still only seeing one side of the object.
    • Not to mention the fact that people trying to recognize troublemakers probably have a couple of 2D mugshots to work with, at best. Seems that looking at someone in a vastly different perspective would make it harder to match up.
    • Well, the end of the article suggests that they actually use four cameras:

      "If George Lucas had four cameras on her when he shot it, I could take them and present a real-world image of her right now," Fischbach said.

      They may only project the images from two at a time because it's probably harder to look at an object when you can see both sides of it, because it's harder than it sounds to make light opaque.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:35PM (#14647288)
    because we think it is important. So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
  • or a new niche of Up Skirts.
    • You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.

      You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.

      This sounds like a severe case of secur
      • Why is this so doubtful? Security firms have used mirrors on sticks for peering under cars for as long as I have paid attention to such things. Why couldn't they use a webcam on a stick instead? If the computer receiving the data has an idea how fast the cam is being waved around under there, it should be able to put together a pretty good 3D image, even if the webcam's resolution is fairly low. Even better if you just put cameras on some sort of crawler cart you roll under the car. Sure you could mount the
  • Hologram? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:40PM (#14647308) Homepage Journal
    Looking at the rather skimpy article, it doesnt appear to be a hologram, any more then the special effects were in the movie it references.

    holograms *require* interferrence patterns.. i dont see that happening with this product.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05, 2006 @06:48PM (#14647333)
    Require everyone to eat a strip of bacon before they're allowed in
  • I believe this rote is called Virtual Holography.
  • There is a real danger for people watching this, both in the dome as on TV. People will be dying from boredom.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @07:44PM (#14647495)
    I'm sure the security team did not buy it. Instead this Press release was given out, using the NFL and Superbowl as some sort of legitimizing example of in the field use.

    I'm almost certain that it is sitting there, turned off... with 3 beers sitting on it.

  • This is something I haven't been able to confirm myself, but I know someone who said among the best times to do something criminal would be during the Superbowl, outside the Superbowl. Eye witnesses at a minimum as so many is inside/there watching, and possibly even police forces being somewhat fewer, especially in the vicinity.
  • by whoda (569082) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @09:38PM (#14647780) Homepage
    Peering under cars from cameras that are above head level, and presumably much higher up than that? I must say, that is some pretty impressive technology there.

    Funny how the article linked says NOTHING AT ALL about peering under cars. So, is it a sensationalist submitted headline? Something the editor made up and added? A line from a different article? What?
  • by Digital Vomit (891734) on Sunday February 05, 2006 @10:40PM (#14647947) Homepage Journal
    I love it how so many news sites talk about some interesting visual thing on the internet -- a visual medium -- yet fail to provide fscking pictures!

    "3D holographic imaging! Take our word for it: it looks cool!"

  • Depth tube? How long does that take to warm up?
  • by JFMulder (59706) on Monday February 06, 2006 @12:24AM (#14648322)
    There were quite a few dodgy referee decisions in that game. I can't believe they gave Pittsburgh that first touchdown. The ball never even touched the line. And no, I'm not a Seattle fan, I'm not even from the States.
  • by imuffin (196159) on Monday February 06, 2006 @10:41AM (#14650466)
    The only good thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials. [tubespot.com]

    And you can download them from this site, too.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...