Slashdot Mirror
Internet + Wireless Cameras = Homeland Security
NumberField writes "According to an article by
Steven Levy posted on MSNBC, Jay Walker of PriceLine fame is talking about a
system he calls
US HomeGuard. His plan is to hire large numbers
of unsophisticated users to monitor Internet-connected security cameras looking for
suspicious activity. Although many security details (i.e.,
DOS attacks,
cryptography,
privacy)
need to be handled carefully, it's a weird enough idea that it might actually work..."
how about the testing and short training of the TSA screeners at airports?
You think that these people are any better at looking at Xray machines?
Looks lika a good way to see what is available for theft on those locations.
I don't know where everyone is getting these crazy fears that it's 1984 playing out in real life. These cameras are protecting the private or secure public areas. We're talking about power plants and dams here. No one that wants their privacy needs to be in these places. I mean, its not like they're going to put one up in the middle of town square. That would defeat the purpose entirely. The picture would change every five seconds, so someone would have to LOOK at it every five seconds, much less find someone on there who might be a terroist.
I agree with the poster that it is so crazy that it might work. The only thing that i doubt is that they're going to pay $10/hour for people to watch this. That's a very good salary, and i wouldn't mind doing it for that much.
"Men lie."
"Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
-Dan Brown
Seems quite worrisome to me... There's a great potential for abuse when dealing with this many people on this scale. And it also could provide easier access to sensitive information for terrorists. The problem with terrorists is that they can pass as normal citizens. So who's to say that they won't sneak themselves in to these programs to give themselves access to these areas?
Blatant self-promotion: Jerek.net
Wait, let me get this straight:
1. Hook up some cameras to a network.
2. Hire people to monitor the output of the cameras. (People who may or may not have an understanding of the technology behind the cameras and the network.)
3. Security!
How is this weird? This is how security camera operations have worked for half a century. The only new things here are the use of an open, instead of closed network, and cheap, instead of expensive, cameras.
Whoopdy-freaking-doo.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
1984, George Orwell. (on-line version)
What are the odds on them starting to recruit children from the schools first...?
No long would people let someone hi-jack their plane
You mean like all those hijacked planes recently that landed in cuba?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Yes, privacy depends on your location. If you're standing on a street corner in plain view of the world then I don't see how you can object to your actions being watched by the police or anyone else who happens to pass by. Are we all supposed to avert our eyes because you might want a little privacy?
You think it would be more cost effective to have the cams do a live feed over the net and anyone could watch them. If someones sees some funky stuff goin' down they could call it in and get a reward based on the crime they just helped stop.
Speaking of which, browse through this essay on Orwell's 1984 to spot some familiar themes.
...for false allegations made by watchers
Actually I believe this..
I have the ability and software to hook my police scanner to my computer and do VOX recording (actually nothing tricky, I plugged the scanner headphone jack into the line-in on the computer and found some freeware VOX software that will use any Windows installed codec for compression on the fly). Anyway.. During the sniper scare in DC last year I happened to catch a few of the incedents. I learned a lot about human nature listening to these recordings. You would not believe how many people were calling 911 with incedents of white vans cutting people off, speeding, driving erratic, reckless and suspicious after a shooting incedent. For those that do not live in this area, the police basically shut down every highway, exit, and bypass when these shootings happened and it basically shut down the Washington/Baltimore/Northern VA area everytime looking for a white van. It seems that every white van in the peoples eyes was doing something "wrong". Well in northern VA there are thousands and thousands of white vans, it is a booming contruction market here and they are everywhere. Human nature lead those that called to not see things as they really were but tainted by the hype of these crazy white vans, they were absolutely sure they had found the snipers and would stretch the truth to ensure they were heard by the police. IMHO, this was a major reason why it took so long to actually find the real snipers, everyone was so preoccupied with the white vans they saw nothing else that mattered, it turned out to be an old Chevy Impala. I do not believe the average person could monitor cameras or be in charge of determining security risks without too many false alarms. You can only cry wolf so many times.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
No it isn't. Cite the part of the constitution that says "We have the right to privacy wherever we go." ...
I know this is a touchy subject for some of you out there, but:
The Constitution isn't perfect. Which is why you can make amendments in the first place, and why in most countries, the constitution can even be altered.
I'm not talking about your legal rights here, I'm talking about your moral rights, which are what the law should be modelled after - what is right and what isn't? Just that something isn't in the law doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
Yes, the article specifically mentioned pointing those cameras at places where nobody is supposed to be.
For now.
For years, the government has gotten around the Constitution by outsourcing its atrocities. They can't really abridge the rights of people by interrogating them here, so they let their allies do it. They're prevented from infringing the privacy of the people (but in many cases still do it), but they're fine with letting companies collect the data and then rifling through their records.
They've made a science of preserving the illusion of freedom while making it scarcer and scarcer in real life. That's because the government's primary goal is to protect itself. The consumers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hitizens come a distant second.
If by some miracle the webcam idea works (and I really don't think it will, except as a psychological deterrent to attacks on soft targets), someone will suggest it gets "spread" to other places. The citizens of the nation will manage to keep themselves under tight scrutiny at the behest of the government. Can you say "worst case scenario," boys and girls?
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
The point is putting cameras at places where normal people aren't supposed to be (nuclear power plants, chemical plants). In that context it makes more sense. Yes it is a little 1984 and could be misused.
My big concern is that it could let potential terrorists know where the cameras are actually placed and give them details about other security measures in place. I guess that's all in how it is used.
Anyway, after seeing the Nova documentary on how vulnerable some targets really are, a little security is better than the level we have now.
This doesn't sound as bad as I first thought, but it also doesn't sound very effective.
First of all, a bunch of extra people watching the permiters of soft targets is a good thing. Many people would like to do that to contribute to their national security as long as
a) it didn't infringe constitutional rights and
b) they didn't have to be full-time security guards to do it (that is, they wouldn't have to change they're life substantially to help out)
a) This is satisfied by having the web cams only along secure perimiters. You expect to be watched around secure installations; it's a necessary evil.
b) This is satisfied by software that selects only unusual changes, so the amature security guard doesn't have to look at an empty strech of fence forever on the off chance a Terrorist might show up.
The problem I see is the filtering of "unusual changes". Obviously, although most cameras will be looking at areas that have no movement and no change and are generally boring, some will be focused on gates, or on areas bordered by public streets and sidewalks. Those places will have a lot of movement and change. The software can't send the watchers an alert every time a car goes through a security gate or drives down a street, so it'll have to filter out a lot of activity that is "routine". So, all a Terrorist has to do to circumvent this is to do something inocuous every day near a camera until it's time to strike, when he goes to the exact same place and does the same thing, except with a lethal twist. The program has already filtered him out, so no alert is sent to the watchers.
On one hand, this would force terrorists to establish patterns before they struck, which would be better than nothing.
On the other hand, this type of preparation is similar to how they planned for 9/11. They did a lot of dry runs on airport security to figure out what would be suspicious and what wouldn't. These cameras would be a similar hurdle.
A significant difference between the cameras and airport security is that a Terrorist testing airport security probably has a good idea every time he alerts the suspicions of airport security guards, while, in regard to these cameras, he would not have any idea when his actions were sent to watchers. So figuring out what works and what doesn't would be less certain.
Still, having people watch the perimiters of soft targets would probably help the watchers feel better if nothing else. (Everyone keeps making jokes about Homeland Security because it seems to be giving advice on how to survive terrorism, and no real suggestions of how to prevent terrorism. This would allow us to feel that we're doing Something) Also, the filtering would probably be improved over time, so that something that might go unnoticed one year can be recognized the next.
this is a great idea. put one in every room in Washington DC and State Gov't building that lobbyists exist in. if the lobbyist is making policy (like energy, etc) then we'd have a record without having to sue the VP's office.
I think that every elected official could have one in their office, this would help ensure that they are on the up and up.
I mean, if they aren't doing anything illegal, immoral or shameful they have nothing to hide, right? and if they are, they don't have a right to keep it under wraps...not on our nickel.
this is PUBLIC property, we taxpayers are the employer and employers have the right to monitor their employees, right?
we could also put them in the executive offices and board rooms of every company ever busted for wrongdoing of any kind. keep tabs on them while were at it.
William Shatner could could host a weekly show with submitted high(low)lights of the last weeks monitoring effort.
I can't believe some of the things that I am reading here... First, let me say that I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Walker's idea that adding cameras in these areas will actually increase security. Cameras (for the most part) are forensic tools. They are tireless eyes that capture everything for later review. I don't think that adding these cameras with a bunch of bored homebodies watching is going to protect me from a terrorist attack. I would prefer to see actual guards partolling the perimeter of the mentioned "targets." Also, please learn some more diverse literary references. I am tired of the same old 1984 reference everytime the government does something. It is old. As for this whole "Big Brother" idea. It is pure paranoia. This is a private venture by an entrepreneur attempting to make money. Pure and simple. I would agree that Mr. Walker is attempting to make money from people's fear of being terrorized, but I don't see any deeper threat than that. This venture doesn't even appear to have government sponsorship at this time. Third, NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PLACES MONITORED. You can bet your ass that if I ran a company that had power plants, sensitivie areas, dangerous chemicals, etc. I would have a secure perimeter. I would have a big-ass fence with razor wire, armed guards, dogs, flood-lights, and yes, even cameras. I wouldn't pay some dope $10/hour to sit on his fat ass at home watching the cameras, but they would be there. Finally, who cares? I honestly don't give a damn if the government wants to take pictures of me walking down the middle of Fifth Avenue. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place. I am in public. I expect that there will be other people there and some may even be paying attention to what I am doing. Therefore, anything I want to remain private stays in my home or somewhere else where I can reasonably expect privacy. I think this new proposal, in and of itself, will be largely ineffective except to provide forensic evidence AFTER something has happened. I think money could be better spent on other measures. It is fascinating to me, however, how some people find conspiracy in everything. I certainly have skeletons in my closet that I want to stay there, but I don't see the FBI knocking on my door because they saw me walking down the street.