Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Communications

Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit 436

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the 1,984-watchful-eyes dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit More

Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit

Comments Filter:

  • Lockheed? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Eightyford ( 893696 )
    I thought they only made airplanes? Tell me Cheney wasn't CEO of them too...

    I'm only half joking by the way, karma be damned.
    • You will be surprised, they make a whole lot of that don't deal with planes. And much of that stuff is Security related.

    • Re:Lockheed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by blueadept1 ( 844312 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:16PM (#13385738)
      No, he wasn't the CEO, but his wife serves/served on the board. [hartford-hwp.com]

    • that was a long time ago (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@u m i ch.edu> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:17PM (#13385744) Homepage Journal
      Lockheed Martin is now the world's largest defense contractor, handling everything from sea/air/land/space vehicle development to "system of systems" integration (which basically could be anything). Had they merged with Northrop (as was planned) in the 90s, they would have had a good chance at stifling Boeing's growth into the defense market.

    • Re:Lockheed? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TrentL ( 761772 )
      I thought they only made airplanes? Tell me Cheney wasn't CEO of them too...

      No, we make much more than airplanes. We're involved with Customs, law enforcement, air traffic control, GPS, combat training systems, the US/Canadian/UK censuses (sp?), and even the National Archives, among many other things. Unlike Cheney, our CEO is actually a real businessman.

  • In other news (Score:3, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:10PM (#13385697)
    New subway train panels are now armed with homing missiles. Followed by M-16s under every seat in case of emergency. Train headlights have also been replaced with vulcan cannons.

  • Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rayaru ( 898516 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:11PM (#13385703) Homepage
    It seems pretty a fairly legit description of what the money is being used for.

    • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:17PM (#13385750) Journal
      Yah, I think Congress really tries to do its best for homeland security, and not knowing what is feasably possible, they try everything, and chalk wasted dollars up to "research", since they learned what is feasable and what is not.

      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.

      • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by magarity ( 164372 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:53PM (#13386344)
        At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists?
         
        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.
        • islamofacist

          Using terms like "islamofascist" indicates that you do not really understand what it is that the radical muslims who commit these crimes are trying to achieve.

          Check out the wiki entry for fascism [wikipedia.org]. Then, read the Wiki article on radical islam [wikipedia.org].

          After reading both, I'm sure you'll find it easy to understand why a radical islamist is not a fascist, and there's virtually no common ground between the two ideologies as they apply to government.

        • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Informative)

          by sodaquad ( 849437 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @02:10AM (#13387135) Homepage

          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?

    • welcome to slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@u m i ch.edu> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:25PM (#13385796) Homepage Journal
      Security cameras are in every supermarket, mall and gas station in the US, and motion sensors are installed in many utility tunnels already (too many urban explorers these days). I guess ScuttleMonkey is trying to say that these cameras and sensors will be actually used to spy on molemen. The US government has never respected the rights of its good, subway-living, citizens.

      Heaven forbid they track people's pictures and locations! Who knew that 9-11 could lead to the security-measures of a 7-11?

    • Re:Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      For how long? If you ask me, people's jump to conclusions about the risk of terrorism are the same people who would jump to conclusions about Jews, African Americans, or any other conclusion that was sponsored by the state.

      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 rai

      • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wytcld ( 179112 )
        The point from the recent London bombings would be that the cameras allowed the police to quickly identify the perps and zero in on their accomplices -- and an innocent Brazilian electrician.

        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 wh

      • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dasunt ( 249686 )

        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

        • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by belmolis ( 702863 )

          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 pe

    • Yep. It's a guise. Actually this is being funded by RIAA/MPAA. The cameras have super magneto xray vision and can detect illegal MP3 bits located on any iPod. OGG isn't supported yet, but word on the street is that it's coming.
      The also sniff out DVDR and CDR content with a 97.1% accuracy.
      All this information is cross referenced through a massive database and whammo you get sent a check for the exact cost of everything illegal in your possesion.
      Works just like those insta-ticket traffic cameras.

  • I for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wazukkithemaster ( 826055 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:11PM (#13385707)
    Welcome our new cellphone using, military aircraft designing, subway securing overlords? no wait... you just want to know whats in my bag...

  • Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bwalling ( 195998 )
    The entire program is being conducted under the guise of anti-terrorism

    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.
    • How would it prevent the kind of stuff that happened in London, though? Can this thing see trhough the backpack of a suicide bomber?

      To me the whole thing looks like another instance of "synergy" between government and a large corporation whereby a little bit of my (taxpayer's) money gets given to some execs at LM with a bit of help from some senator whom they helped to get elected.

      Will it solve ANY problem at all? I highly doubt it.

    • Re:Guise? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:25PM (#13385798) Homepage
      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.

      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.

      • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DDiabolical ( 902284 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:31PM (#13385837)
        The usual ignorance.

        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:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:44PM (#13385908)
          The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were.
          But strangely enough when they shot one of the 'identified' terrorists it turned out that he wasn't one after all. Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...
          • But strangely enough when they shot one of the 'identified' terrorists it turned out that he wasn't one after all. Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...

            Cute. Very cute. All the cameras were "off". If true, that makes me suspicious if they were either deliberately turned off to avoid having to deal with pesky evidence, or the data simply erased.

        • Re:Guise? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Vile Slime ( 638816 )
          > 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!

          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

        • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheNationalist ( 908193 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:48PM (#13385931) Homepage
          Actually, the London bombers were first identified by their identification cards found at the scene of the crime, not the camera footage. The camera footage was merely used as auxillary information.

          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:Guise? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by pi_rules ( 123171 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:12PM (#13386082)
          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!


          Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity.

          Except their body.

          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.


          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.
          • No, it only told them what they looked like.

            Uhh, yeah, what they looked like. Seems like a good place to start. Your idea ("the bomber had a HUMAN BODY!") leaves a little to be desired.

            The cameras also tell them where they entered the public transportation system, what they were carrying, what they were wearing, how they acted.

            When you're trying to piece together a crime, it helps to have as much data as possible. I don't think comprehensive video footage of a public, high-value target like a subway or buil
          • 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.

            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.

            confused. anyway, with a picture you can send flat-foots out to ask people if they know who it is or compare the image to all the mug shots that the police have.

          • Re:Guise? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by snero3 ( 610114 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:08PM (#13386424) Homepage
            Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity. Except their body.

            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 up

            one for one

            You are being ignorant. Wake up.

      • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) *
        I would also like to criticize the use of the word "guise," but I have the sick feeling that the editor that used this word doesn't understand what "guise" means.

        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 tha

        • Re:Guise? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheNationalist ( 908193 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:01PM (#13386016) Homepage
          To correct some of your information:

          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].

          • Well, it's a good thing these terrorists were stupid enough to carry their wallets with them. Will that happen again?

            And what about the failed second bombings? Video tape was used to locate them, not photo ID.

        • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by timeOday ( 582209 )

          What privacy do you have on a subway? Just curious.

          One minimum standard of privacy (perhaps not relevant to the cameras) is the freedom from being patted down or searched, unless there is some particular reason and a warrant:

          "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 pla

        • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bc90021 ( 43730 ) *
          What privacy do I have on a subway?

          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".
          • The difference between cameras and searches is that the camera is there to provide details about what happened (like a black box in an aircraft), a search is inteneded to prevent it happening (like a cell search in jail). A camera assumes everyone is innocent, a search assumes the opposite.
          • However, now we are subject to "random searches" of backpacks and other large items. This is clearly not constitutional!

            If what you are saying is true, perhaps not. However, you are not subject to anything. You have the choice to take private transportation to your destination, and avoid random searches of your backpack.

            Personally, I think the rule should be, if you cross this line to enter the subway system, you will be subject to a bag search or metal detector scan, and you will not be allowed to leave th

            • Re:Guise? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:22PM (#13386501)
              However, you are not subject to anything. You have the choice to take private transportation to your destination, and avoid random searches of your backpack.
              The idea that you forfeit your constitutional rights by setting foot on public property is preposterous.

              And the private transportation argument is bogus, since we also have checkpoints and random stops on the roadways.

              It's a shame what they've done to the 4th ammendment.

          • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by philipgar ( 595691 )
            Actually, I think the fact that the metro is a service provided to you is reason enough to justify the searches of bags. Its an agreement you make when you agree to use the subway.

            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 amme
        • A. You don't realize that cameras are normally intended to collect data about perpetrators after the fact.

          And how is this information is worth paying $212M for hardware to see what the dead criminal looked like? Has the identity of the London bombers helped find "terror cells"? I think it was HSA officials that said that the most dangerious ones are the lone wolves anyway, so it would be a dead end for that investigation.

          That's a lot of money for fuzzy video that likely wouldn't stand up in court, assumin
          • And how is this information is worth paying $212M for hardware to see what the dead criminal looked like? Has the identity of the London bombers helped find "terror cells"?

            Video footage helped capture the attempted bombers in the second bombing in London, so yes it did help catch terror cells. Without the video footage, would these men have been able to try again? Probably.

            That's a lot of money for fuzzy video

            $212M... I am guessing the video won't be fuzzy.

            video that likely wouldn't stand up in court, assum

      • 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.

        In this case, it really is that the information doesn't exist. The MTA has doesn't have that many cameras in the subway system.

        In addition, the proposed system is supposed to have computer software which will detect suspicious packages, though how it does that I have no idea. Consider:

        Lockheed Martin will lead a team of contractors in creating an "integrated ele

    • More probably, the story submitter is just a standard illiterate slashbot who doesn't know that "guise" implies an ulterior motive.

      Jeremy

      • Re:Guise? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
        More probably, the story submitter is just a standard illiterate slashbot who doesn't know that "guise" implies an ulterior motive.

        Or maybe the sumbitter knows that guise implies an ulterior motive, and believes there is an ulterior motive for implementing this system. If the incidents in London tell us anything, it is that it won't stop bombings, and it won't be used to aid investigations against police misconduct. The BBC has said that there is no footage of the case where police murdered the suspicious

  • X10 (Score:5, Funny)

    by blueadept1 ( 844312 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:13PM (#13385717)
    BUY X10 SUBWAY CAMS NOW ONLY $249.95

    Protect your subway, underground, or sewage pipes with these 180 full degree motion cams! BONUS!!11 Purchase X10 ULTRA MONITORING SOFTWARE and get a FREE Voyeurcam! Great for putting under street drains!

    With X10, privacy is obselete! (TM)

  • Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:13PM (#13385718)
    But we all know this is just an excuse to stop the rampant urination. But without the urine, it won't be the NYC subway any more and the terrorists will have won.

  • Hey... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Psionicist ( 561330 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:17PM (#13385745)
    At least they are not homemade endoscopes.

  • Pesky Metric System (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:17PM (#13385746)

    Fortunately transit security cameras are free from such pesky issues as the fatal mixing of metric and English units of measure.

  • Motion Sensors (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Malyven ( 774978 )
    How sensitive are these sensors going to be? I am assuming they will only been in low traffic areas (because putting a motion sensor in a high traffic area is a little silly) which doesn't really seem to be MO of any attacks that I know of. Also in those areas could they not be set off by some of those larger than normal NYC Rats?
    • So in high traffic areas, they are going all the time. Sounds good to me. And high traffic areas aren't necassarily high traffic 24/7.
      In low traffic areas, they are going only when motion is detected. Again, sounds good to me.

      As far as the giant NYC rats...even a cheapo Logitech cam allows a sensitivity adjustment before it triggers.

  • Well, other than providing the executives of Lockheed-Martin with yet another banner bonus year this will do zero to prevent terrorism. The UK has more video surveillance than anywhere on the earth. Yet amazingly enough terrorists found their way onto the subways and busses and killed scores of people. When people are willing to kill themselves in an attack video surveillance means nothing. All it provides is a good set of pictures for Islamist websites to make an online martyrs shrine with.

  • Yet again idiots win! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:24PM (#13385792) Homepage Journal
    The article even says it can't stop a suicide bomber. But hey, lets burn any semblance of privacy for feel good measures instead of
    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."
    • Yeah, while I agree with you on our side, don't forget we're just afraid of the sheeple lined up on the other side of the field hearing "So you have these 50 virgins and they are completely submissive to your will...".

      In a battle of wits both sides have been disarmed by their leaders. Just be glad nobody is actually fighting in this semi-standoff, when the buildup phase of the defense budget hits saturation a war will break out because they have nothing better to do with themselves.
      • You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War?
        What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

        We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. Then we act shocked when the people over there revolt and are pissed at us? We have troops around Mecca, and the holy sites in Iraq and yet "they hate us for our freedom"? We are playing at empire, and terrorism is its natural consequence.

        You know the best part? T
        • You make a good point, but it's not enough.

          Why is Iraq in 2005 so different from Japan in 1945? We did far more and far worse to the Japanese people and to their egos, than we ever did to the Iraqis. Yet Japan went almost immediately on a trajectory to having good relations with the U.S.

          Or consider this: if the Iraqis just want us out of there, then why do some of them continue to carry out actions that will prolong our stay? It's not too difficult to see that if the insurgents took a break for a couple

        • We have troops around Mecca,

          No, we do not.

          You should keep up with the two year old news. [chron.com]

          And they weren't near Mecca, even before that.
        • What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

          well, if my government had a propensity to kill dissidents and the liberating country allowed asshats to say stupid things like "go assassinate that leader over there", or "yeah, lets turn the mideast into glass", i would be happy about it.

          "All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."

          If you want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, you can't be afra

        • You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War?

          I understand it is a lot more complicated than that. Yes, it would be simpler if we weren't "over there." We'd also be speaking German. Or Russian.

          What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

          That depends. Was U.S. President Saddam Hussein's secret service raping my sister before this occupation of D.C.?

          We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. The
    • To the SHEEPLE we have today.

      Woo, I'm going to oppose conformism, so I'm going to join everyone who uses the term "sheeple" -- without even defending the usage! We're all different! We're all individuals, just like everyone else!

      Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off?

      Of course we do. But then what do you do now? Suppose...right now...you become president/dictator/whatever of the US. How do you...un-piss-off the world? Withdraw the tr
    • I live in Times Square New York City.

      Until September 11, 2001, I worked at the World Trade Center.

      I just watched the same religious militants bomb the London Underground.

      I have ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

      So you know what I think?

      I say put the cameras on the subway already.

      Am I scared? Am I giving up freedom for safety? Am I giving up rights hard fought for by my ancestors for a little sense of security?

      No, I'm simply being prudent about the world we live in.

      This is not Orwellian

      • Re:You live in an ivory tower (Score:5, Insightful)

        by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:27PM (#13386532) Homepage Journal
        Really?

        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.

        • when you are done playing the battle hymn of the republic the rest of us here in reality are ready to talk

          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
    • libertarian stuff aside the point of the cameras is not to
      prevent a terrorist attack - the odds of that are virtually
      nil. What they will be used for is to assist in the capture
      of non-martyr terrorists, criminals, or identifying dead
      terrorists. So if you are going to argue the libertarian
      case then argue it against what they really are there for.

      As for the other part of this contract, I'm not sure what
      kind of crack or meth these people are smoking when they
      decide to wire up the subway system for c

  • Not for you! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:26PM (#13385809) Homepage
    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.

    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.

  • "Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EMIce ( 30092 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:30PM (#13385835) Homepage
    I was there yesterday and quite a few devices were sitting above the sliding doors and in a row along the ceiling as you came into the terminal, and they were oval shaped. They rotated on a platform and spun on a spindle, giving them 360 degrees of freedom. Each white oval was maybe 1.5 feet by 1 foot in diameter and they seemed to follow and track things, mobilizing suddenly at times, but remaining in default position most of the time.

    The thing is the each egg shaped "camera" seemed to point with either a lens on one end the oval or a square shaped opening on the opposite side. The square shaped side I imagine has some other sort of detection ability. They looked big and expensive, and I was kind of curious what sort of tech goes into these.

    Is anyone on slashdot working on these sorts of applications? Maybe someone could shed some light on what sort of sensory abilities these things have?

    • Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I work for a company that makes intelligent video surveillance software. What you probably saw was a master/slave camera combo. The master camera is in a fixed position and has a wide field of vision. When it detects something interesting, it can direct the slave camera to zoom in and get a higher resolution image of its target.

  • Good for NYC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by malchus6 ( 870609 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:33PM (#13385851)
    Lockheed is a quality defense contractor, and they Already [lockheedmartin.com] do good work in NYC with the NY/NJ Port Authority (bridges and tunnels). So alot of the work probably overlaps in the homeland security realm. Nothing wrong with a keeping things under one umbrella. One less layer of problems to deal with...
  • Seriously, have you ever been in a New York Subway in August?

    Talk about toxic.
  • Why is it that even with all this increased security in the the name of 'protecting the American public', you still have as much crime as ever in the subway?

    How can homeland security ever hope to thwart a terrorist, if they can't thwart a 15-year-old with a glock?

    I don't think anybody feels safer in the subway, just try riding the 'F' train at midnight and you'll notice that it still has the same level of crime as pre-9/11.

  • Great for New York... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BlackSabbath ( 118110 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:47PM (#13386301)
    but I wonder if it will take $200M for each of the hundreds (if not thousands) of other cities' transit systems around your country which are now more viable targets.
    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]

  • Out of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JonathanR ( 852748 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:57PM (#13386366)
    Considering this funding on a per victim basis, this must be the most expensive public safety program yet.

    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.
  • This sure seems like wasteful spending. Do we really need them? Okay, that aside. I think the only way I'd be almost okay with this type of surveillance is if the voters approved it, whether it's a bad idea or not.

    Any issue which regards removing our privacy needs to be dealt with by a city/county referendum. That way it's not our representatives telling us what to do, so-to-speak.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close