Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Olympics to Have Massive Surveillance Network

Posted by michael on from the platonic-ideals dept.

sharkdba writes "CNN has an article about Olympic digital security. This should be of interest to /. readers since it's a supposedly largest surveillance network ever. Thousands of cameras are combined with software (AI agents?) to look for anomalies. Also words are parsed (scan equivalent to OCR). I understand the idea that if you're in public expect no privacy, but even CNN says: 'Although the state's right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary is recognized, there is fear that these measures will have a negative impact on basic human rights.'"

58 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. I must be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What does this have to do with my rights online?

  2. Some observations and questions by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when is surveillance acceptable? What level of surveillance is acceptable? Under what conditions? Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen? Why do the naysayers never have any better alternatives, but just negative comments? I may sound sarcastic, but these are serious questions. I realize there is a balance, and that the debate is valuable, but seriously: do people ever recognize the hypocrisy of criticizing every action taken, while simultaneously saying "not enough was done" when something *does* happen? (And yes, it is very often the very same group of people.)

    Even today, the US was criticized for not responding adequately (or publicly, previous to this point) to the threat of terrorists potentially using tourist helicopters as weapons (or for delivery of a weapon), by the same group of people who attacked the recent public release of critical intelligence threat information as purely politically motivated. (Think about this for a second: if the local authorities in New York and DC were simply told secretly about the newly obtained threat information, as they *most certainly* should have been, the information would DEFINITELY have leaked to the press once it hit local authorities and local police agencies, who would then DEMAND that DHS reveal the full nature of the information - a lose/lose situation [and it doesn't matter that the information was "old" - it's well, well known that attacks are planned years in advance, as in the case of 9/11]. So instead, DHS reveals the information, and targets threat information as locally as possible, and they're crucified for releasing it exclusively for political reasons.)

    Please, try to give real answers (not in the form of a Ben Franklin quotation).

    (Also, "CNN" doesn't say that last quote; it was attributed to six "human rights groups" who wrote a letter of protest to the Greek government.)

    1. Re:Some observations and questions by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen?

      Newsflash: the people who complain that surveillance is an invasion of privacy are not the same people who will cry that "not enough was done" when something happens.

      There are a lot of people in the world, and they all have different opinions. You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. Deal with it.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Some observations and questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Newsflash: the people who complain that surveillance is an invasion of privacy are not the same people who will cry that "not enough was done" when something happens.

      There are a lot of people in the world, and they all have different opinions. You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. Deal with it.

      Actually, they are oftentimes not the same person, but the same "group" of people. For example, groups of people who are rabidly anti-Bush contain these same two populations of people. While I'll agree it's possible to dislike Bush for different reasons, it doesn't seem to make sense to dislike Bush for reasons that are practically in binary opposition; e.g., not doing enough surveillance and monitoring essentially "allowing" 9/11 to happen, vs. "too much" surveillance and questionable tactics (cf. PATRIOT), intended to instill fear rather than have any impact on averting terror. It is logically incongruous for a single "group" of people to have such divergent views, with the goal of ridding the White House of Bush the supposed "solution" to each problem. (Not to mention that sometimes it is indeed the SAME SINGLE PERSON who holds these ideas.)

    3. Re:Some observations and questions by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surveillance might start to be acceptable when it has any chance of being beneficial. It's a placebo, and it's horribly intrusive. If you tried, it would take you five seconds to find a way to kill a bunch of people their despite the precautions.

    4. Re:Some observations and questions by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes they are the same people. If you're rabidly anti-Bush, you'll find a way to object to whatever he does. If there's an incident he didn't do enough. If there isn't, you can always complain about how high the security was. Same thing with Clinton and Bosnia. When he tried to avoid violence he was blasted for not doing anything; when he did he was called a war-monger. If you hate somebody enough, you can find reasons to object to anything they do or don't do.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Some observations and questions by dead+sun · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What does surveillance give you? What is a huge network of cameras going to do? You want to be able to watch from 100 different angles as a crowd is killed? Great.

      Because deterrence and and an idea of who did something after the fact is about all you get.

      Picture this scenario: A group of 5 or so mad out of their mind people hides a few guns and a load of explosives in a private vehicle, drives into the city. Maybe you can catch them at a security checkpoint, but if you're lulled into thinking surveillance is going to catch them you're likely out of luck. This vehicle then rams an entrance gate, the lunatics set the car bomb timer, get out, and start shooting, herding people towards the car. They stop only when swarmed by the public (unlikely), mown down by security, or out of ammo, using the last bullet on themselves, glorious martyrs to a cause. The bomb hits a highly public area, scares the pants off people (hey, terror from terrorists, novel), and maybe gets a few people or some infrastructure while they're at it. If they're lucky (in the sense of their cause) they get the whole crowd to believe that of the maybe 50-100 people killed it certainly could be them next. They're on the news nonstop with all the security camera coverage a media outlet could ever want.

      They were going to die at the culmination of their plans regardless. They have nothing to be deterred from by it being on camera. All the better for them. Physical security is lessened because everybody thinks the cameras are some silver bullet. All this can't be prevented and people are inspected to a closer eye from the government. Who wins, besides the camera makers?

      --
      If not now, when?
    6. Re:Some observations and questions by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without a 4-inch-thick steel building with a security checkpoint that lets no one in who is wearing clothing, you'll never be safe. As long as you can bring in a can of hairspray or a laptop, any security measures are pointless. The only thing you can defend against are dirty and nuclear weapons, and you don't need cameras and transcriptions of everyone's phone calls to do it.

      Stupid people will say lots of annoying things. When they tell you you didn't do enough, you ignore them. If you're in power and it happens, then that sucks, but somebody else gets your job because stupid people are allowed to vote, and there's nothing you can do about it without becoming Bush.

    7. Re:Some observations and questions by BenSnyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no genius and I don't have all the answers but I'll at least take a crack at it. Fundamentally, it comes down to trust. Who do you trust and how much and how often? Terrorism is a phantom enemy. You don't know about it until it's too late. The building is reduced to rubble, the hostage is already a hostage, etc. Is it acceptable to record the conversations and the comings and goings of everybody in Athens because of the fear of terrorism? And for the majority of us (I dare say) on Slashdot I'd bet that we believe that it's not a stretch to say that this tech is or will be soon used by other law enforcement agencies for their own purposes. I don't even dare to respond to anything past your first paragraph - it begs arguing situations instead of policy ideals - so don't take it as a slight that I didn't rejoin that topic. That's a discussion without an ending.

      Instead of trying to draw larger truths, lemme just offer you my opinions. I don't trust my government. Bush, Chaney, Rice, Powell, Wolfie, and the rest are all on my shit list. I want them or their subordinates knowing my business like I want a baton shoved up my ass. We're talking about the Olympics but I have no problems believing that the current US administration is just salivating at being able to get their hands on that tech, if they haven't already.

      My government lies to me. In fact, short of defectors like Richard Clarke, et al, it seems incapable of admitting a wrong. So if you're asking me, when is surveillance acceptable, my answer is NEVER.

      Now, label me a member of the tin foil hat brigade if you wanna, but I'm not stupid either. I see the cameras at intersections. I know that a camera is on me when I walk into most stores. I get it - privacy is under a never ending string of attacks. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it.

      From where I'm sitting - and on 9/11 I was very close to the WTC - I'd rather have privacy than safety. The potential for abuse is too large without honest public dialogue about how surveillance will be conducted and what limitations will be put on it.

      I know you don't want to hear the Ben Franklin quote - but there's truth in it. If you want safety, there are only two ways to guarantee it - go someplace very very far away from everything else, or be monitored constantly. Everything else is a security threat. In the interest of knowing what I'm talking about, I'm reading 1984 right now. Even Winston and Julia knew that if you played right in front of the cameras, you could manage a secluded meeting now and again. Therefore, there is no safety, only the illusion of safety.

      You could install cameras in every corner of the world but people would still die.

      The fundamental problem with surveillance is that it takes its cue from the military. The military ethos, as espoused by our administration, is pre-emptive strike. That means force. We will win through force, invasive force, whether it's a bullet in the abdomen or a camera recording conversations.

      Why not try the method known as 'dialogue'? I realize that dialogue involves honest intentions from all dialoguing parties - but ultimately it's the only solution. Otherwise, we'll blow some shit up, then they'll kill some people or blow some shit up and that cycle will continue. In matters of domestic security (as well as event security like the Olympics) it will only get more invasive. Those that are deemed dangerous according to some unknown algorithm will be dealt with - vaporized was the word used in 1984. It's not going to work.

      So my answer - if it makes you feel better to see a rent a cop at your grocery store after 11pm. If it makes you feel safer to know that somebody or some camera is watching your every motion in public places - I'm glad. But it's not security, it's just an illusion. The solution to terror is to eliminate the reasons why terror exists. But we're not serious enough about solving the problem to contemplate that solution. At the moment, anybody who consider

    8. Re:Some observations and questions by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Surveillance might start to be acceptable when it has any chance of being beneficial.

      Surveillance isn't beneficial?

      >It's a placebo

      Maybe. But even if it is just a placebo, I still think it is beneficial.

      >If you tried, it would take you five seconds to find a way to kill a bunch of people their despite the precautions.

      Have some faith in the people who call themselves security experts (and have the experience to back it up). People tell me all that time that computers are junk and pointless and a waste of time. I ignore them because they have little experience and in my opinion don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure you've had a similar experience regarding some topic or another. Now...why should I believe you when you say what you could and could not do given present security measures? Are you experienced in the field? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or do you make what you consider to be a well-informed conclusion based on news articles which probably tell the truth, but certainly not the whole truth?

    9. Re:Some observations and questions by bjhonermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is how is the surveillance actually going to stop terrorism from taking place?

      Take for instance the practice of racial profiling in certain places. There is a lot of evidence (some of it testimony from police officers themselves) stating that the practice actually hurts the ability of the police to protect the population. At the same time there are significant human rights problems with the practice.

      Now, I'm not arguing that the surveillance in Athens will cause the same problem or violate people's rights in the same way but I think it's a valid question. Is the serveillance going to be used to violate human rights more than it will be used to protect people? It's all in how it is actually done.

      -Brian

    10. Re:Some observations and questions by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surveillance is useful after-the-fact. You look at the tapes to catch the bad guy. It's a deterrent for people who don't want to be caught. The people they're trying to stop are going to be dead at the end and they know it. They want cameras. They want as many people as possible to see the carnage and be afraid.

      How does a camera have any hope of stopping someone who walks in with a suitcase bomb and a trigger on the handle? Even if they saw that the guy was acting funny, all they could do is approach him, because you sure as hell can't shoot him on suspicion. And so they go up to him, and bonus for him, 'cause now he gets to kill some cops, too.

      We're all about as expert as anybody in terrorism surveillance, because it's only existed for three years, and we think about it as much as anyone.

    11. Re:Some observations and questions by halowolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What I find most disturbing in changes to law to increase surveillance/intrusion powers of government agencies is the lack of accountability that is also added. Agencies are increasingly given power to do anything required in the national interest while the people that targeted get no legal recourse to recover any damages done to them over poor or shoddy work by an agency, or a clear abuse of the power given to an agency.

      I think it gives agencies a reason to do poor and shoddy work because there is no consequence to "collateral damage" done because what they do is considered to be in the national interest. I would think that it would be in the national interest that there be proper consequences to the abuse of these powers so that they only act when they are sure that they are doing the right thing for our safety. Or in circumstances when they just target the wrong person out of pure incompetence.

      However in the back of my mind I can't help but think that there are circumstances that could occur where waiting for the ability to perform the security task without "collateral damage" would not be in the public interest and lead to a greater danger.

      So many shades of grey. I wonder if I'm making any sense at all on this...

    12. Re:Some observations and questions by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could be nicer and have less people hate you. Hell you could actually have people like you.

      Did the terrorists target canadians or the new zealanders? No. You know why? It's because everybody likes canadians and kiwis.

      The terrorists didn't attack us because we are free (so is most of the world) they attacked us becuause they hate us. They hate us because we do and have done terrible things to them. Sorry to be blunt but it has to be said.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    13. Re:Some observations and questions by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you hate somebody enough, you can find reasons to object to anything they do or don't do.

      This also happens when you are in political opposition to a person and could stand to benefit personally from their ouster, even if you don't hate them (or even their views on the issues) at all.

    14. Re:Some observations and questions by Feyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i agree, cameras are good for the propaganda and nothing more.

      until people realize the simple fact that human lives are expendable, bullshit like this will continue to go on

      on 9/11, 3000 people died? 5000 maybe? more than that die each day from multiple causes. there's 6 billions humans on earth from the last number i heard, 250 millions in america alone. take out 5000, it's a negligible number, easily replaced by the next batch of immigrants from mexico.

      it's not a number game, it's a PSYCHOLOGY one. if no one paid any attention, the idiot terrorists would stop their useless bombings. alas that will never happen, because people are dumb, and dumb people believe what the government-controlled medias tell them, and the medias tell them to be very afraid

      go on, be afraid. encourage the terrorists.

    15. Re:Some observations and questions by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad to see people who know the truth. Terrorists don't hate us because WE are free, they hate us because we are stopping THEM from being free. (Support of Israel, support of Saudi Arabia, positioning of 100,000 troops in Iraq)

    16. Re:Some observations and questions by lavaface · · Score: 4, Insightful
      you're rabidly anti-Bush, you'll find a way to object to whatever he does.

      I am opposed to a society governed by surveillance because I believe it will lead to tyranny. Unwelcome thoughts and philosophies can quickly fall prey to overzealous policing. For instance, minor violations may be excused if you are a member of the "correct" party but cracked down upon if you are an "insurgent." Ever heard of COINTELPRO?

      As a thinking human (who happens to be American), when I say the government fails to do more to prevent terrorism, I don't think it's a failure of total knowledge of individual actions (the terrorists). Rather, it is a failure to understand cultures and indeed, to grossly misrepresent them.

      If there is another large terrorist attack, I wouldn't say "why don't we have chips in all subversives yet?" Instead, I would ask "Why is it that the U.S. government failed to recognize Al-Queda's position on US military intervention in the Middle East?" One of the principal reasons for 9/11 was American hegemony in the Middle East. So what do we do? Invade Iraq! Brilliant! Some have swallowed the conventional wisdom bs that terrorists attack "because they hate freedom." Bzzzzt! Wrong! Study up a little and play again.

      What the US "fails to do" is respect the rights of other global citizens and act as a tool of the bigass corporations. Maybe you think otherwise.

      --
      harmonious design
    17. Re:Some observations and questions by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      positioning of 100,000 troops in Iraq

      And why did the US, France, and Britain have to do that? Under UN auspices, remember. To clean up Saddam's mess in Kuwait.

      This blame game could go on all day. Or all century. Terrorism (deliberately blowing up/kidnapping/killing) targeting civilians is never acceptable.

      Truth my ass.

    18. Re:Some observations and questions by canicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That isn't necessarily true. The U.S. is the superpower in the world, not Canada and not New Zealand. No, it doesn't help that we have troops deployed in over a hundred countries, but the terrorists would have attacked us in time without that. I have no doubt that if I looked, I could find the terrorists preaching jihad against Canada or New Zealand. They just aren't as appealing a target.

      Also, remember that this has been going on since before either of us were born. There was a jihad against the infidels for three hundred years before the first crusader donned his armor, it has persisted after the Crusades ended, and it will persist after western-style democracies have ceased to exist.

      The U.S., since it is the sole superpower in the world, just happens to wear a big, red bullseye, and due to globilisation our natural defences (two oceans and two peaceful nations as borders) are no longer effective. The terrorists are fighting, not for freedom or any of our ideals, but for religion, and they won't be appeased, nor will they stop. Let's stop trying to rationalize their behavior and just get used to an endless stream of terrorists, because it won't end, and they won't give up.

    19. Re:Some observations and questions by brendanoconnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off I would like to say, I disagree with parts what you wrote. I respect your right to write it, and you should be able to believe whatever you want to believe.

      The idea that a bunch of cameras will stop a determined individual from doing wrong is silly. I think everyone will agree on that. With the Olympics being such a major event, I think that the cameras may let some people have a sense of security. Even if it is a false sense. I think the general masses need to have some sense of security, real or not. You may disagree or not.

      I personally think war and battles and such are never going to solve anything. It is a primitive way to solve a problem. Talking is of course the best way to solve any problem. The real question is, how do you get everyone to the table? That is the hard part.

      Now, assuming we could get a terrorist group to the table with a particular goverment (like that would ever happen), the two parties would both have to fully explain there position and why they feel they are right. What if both sides feel they are so right and the other side so wrong that no agreement between the two parties ever comes to fruition? Fighting will surely start again.

      It is my belief that the current problems between the West and the terrorist groups of the Middle East go back at least 50 years, perhaps even longer, and they are by no means simple. Every side feels they are right, and neither side wants to give up anything. Many of the people involved with the terrorist groups in the middle east believe deep down inside in what they are doing. They are willing to die for what they believe in. Talking with these people just will not work. If it was that simple, it would of happened. This is the very reason that so many atrocities happen on a daily basis between Isreal and Palastien.

      As for your rant about cameras in grocery stores and other businesses. Those cameras are there because in some cases the store will be able to pick up shop lifters. In other cases these cameras are there to record what happens with the customers. A perfect example of why a company needs this footage is for use in court against people that would fake a fall. It might surprise you to find out just how many people out there think it would be a perfect plan to trip on something, anything, and get the company to pony up the dough.

      Also, and this probably will fall on deaf ears, the people watching the cameras, if anyone, will not tell much a difference between one customer and another. There are simply to many people and quite frankly, the company just does not care what you are doing. Chances are, your like most people and you just want to shop. You go on with your life, the company goes on providing a service to the customers.

      There are many reasons people wish to terrorize other people. Simply saying people just need to talk and all would be good is naive. Sure, it sounds great on paper, and it would be nice, but its just not how things work.

      Brendan

    20. Re:Some observations and questions by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "No, it doesn't help that we have troops deployed in over a hundred countries, but the terrorists would have attacked us in time without that."

      No. Terrorists have been very specific about their complaints with the US. It's actually just a couple of long standing US policies and could very easily be changed.

      1) Support of corrupt arab dictators such as the saudi family, shah of iraq, saddam hussein.
      2) Unconditional support of israel, protection of israel from international law, funding israel in their support of the occupation of palestine.
      3) The presense of US troops on Muslim holy places.

      That's all. Nothing myterious or religious.

      P.S the crusades were initiated by the christians.

      "Let's stop trying to rationalize their behavior and just get used to an endless stream of terrorists, because it won't end, and they won't give up."

      No it won't end because we won't change our policies. Besides now that al-quada has laid out the blueprint everybody else in the world who has a grudge against us (gee isn't that just about everybody) is waiting in line. Yes get used to endless terrorism we have sown way too many bad seeds and now they are starting to sprout.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    21. Re:Some observations and questions by brendanoconnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll probably get modded down for this because my comment is in disagreeance, but here we go.

      One of the principal reasons for 9/11 was American hegemony in the Middle East. So what do we do? Invade Iraq! Brilliant!

      You obviously do not support Invading Iraq. I support that action. In this case, doing nothing would of been far worse then what we did do. You imply this will cause more attacks, when really, they (terrorist) probably already have several targets setup and are in the setup process as we speak. They will happen whether we like it or not.

      As you said before, our government and the middle east do not see eye to eye. The problem is not that we do not repsect the rights of other global citizens, but rather that we often times pick a side of a conflict that we should not get involved in to start. The entire middle east problem with regards to the U.S. can probably be placed at about 1936 when the British pulled out of Palastine (which was a colony of their at the time) due to fighting between the relocated jewish people and the palastians. We decided to pick up where the british left off, and we sided with the Jewish people, helping them setup Isreal. Taking the side of Isreal was basically telling the Islamic people that we chose Judeism over Islam. Now we have put ourselves right in the middle of a holy war that has been going on for over a thousand years. Obviously there is no easy solution, and I think it is rash and vey unfair of you to so strongly accuse our current adminitration for some of the problems we face today, when in all reality, these problems were here well before G. W. Bush was in office. I am not claiming that all the dicessions by this administration are great, but it is not fair to blame all the problems on Bush Jr. and company.

      If you want to mod me down because I do not have the slashdot view of politics, so be it.

      Brendan

    22. Re:Some observations and questions by lu004202 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      3000 total strangers is negligible to you and me. Your mother is negligible only to me. Is she easily replaced by a Mexican immigrant?

      You are just trying to misdirect people. I agree that more people die each day from other causes than died in the 9/11 attacks. Does that make their deaths any less significant, though? A few years ago the NRA came out with a PR commercial that said that more people drown in pools each year than in gun-related accidents. Does that make gun-related accidents any less significant than pool drownings?

      So, your solution is to just ignore them? Then they will just try harder. I'm not saying invading Iraq was right; I just don't think flat out ignoring them is a viable solution. It's not so fucking easy to ignore them when decent Americans AND Iraqis (and others) are being slaughtered. I wonder, if someone bombed your neighbor's house, would you be able to ignore it? Just because all this shit is happening "way over there" doesn't mean we can just ignore it. However, being so afraid that you can't go out of your home is not a solution, either. Just try to be more aware of your surroundings and you should be OK.

    23. Re:Some observations and questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "You are just trying to misdirect people. I agree that more people die each day from other causes than died in the 9/11 attacks. Does that make their deaths any less significant, though? A few years ago the NRA came out with a PR commercial that said that more people drown in pools each year than in gun-related accidents. Does that make gun-related accidents any less significant than pool drownings?"

      The NRA commercial does point out something important:Why the fervor to outlaw guns but not the more deadly pools? Consequently, why do we need to spend many billions, majorly reorganize the intelligence agencies, create a new executive agency, and shred the constitution to stop what amounts to an insignificant portion of overall deaths in this country? I'm not trying to cheapen anyone's death, but 9/11 sparked such a strong kneejerk reaction, its amazing half the population isn't on artificial limbs from their lower legs popping off.

    24. Re:Some observations and questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      (anonymous because of mod points)

      If there is another large terrorist attack, I wouldn't say "why don't we have chips in all subversives yet?" Instead, I would ask "Why is it that the U.S. government failed to recognize Al-Queda's position on US military intervention in the Middle East?" One of the principal reasons for 9/11 was American hegemony in the Middle East. So what do we do? Invade Iraq! Brilliant! Some have swallowed the conventional wisdom bs that terrorists attack "because they hate freedom." Bzzzzt! Wrong! Study up a little and play again.

      BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. By your logic, we shouldn't have retaliated against Japan for Pearl Harbor, we should have wondered what possessed the peace loving Japanese to attack our imperialist military installation. We shouldn't have joined the war against Germany, we should have tried to understand how our involvement in the Post-WWI European situation led to the rise of Hitler.

    25. Re:Some observations and questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First of all, I do not think I have enough information about the situation in the middle east to really understand it. In my opinion, Brendan's point of view is more balanced than comments suggesting America established something of a hegemony in the middle east. Fact is, the western world has reached a point that combines a certain amount of freedom together with a certain amount of quality of life (you can call it materialism or whatever, but I am very happy I am able to buy a new car and go where I want to go, thank you). The western world, whatever it exactly means, is a continuation of history, reaching back to the Roman times and earlier. Pax romana, pax britannica, pax americana etc.

      Putting everything aside, just looking at the facts as far as I can understand them, I support the American point of view and although I would sometimes prefer to wait a little longer before stepping into some conflict, I do agree with the general view Americans tend to have. It is too easy to simply condemn the actions of America. I am happy America takes stand if/when necessary, which does not imply I necessarily agree with all actions they take. All in all, I am reasonably sure that America's interest is more 'my kind of thinking' than what lies at the basis of the middle east and similar regions.

      Anyway, just wanted to say this to balance the scale a little. And yes, I am happy I was born in a western european country and not in the middle east or somewhere else. Thank you for listening.

    26. Re:Some observations and questions by RWerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that you're too rash in your judgement. If America moved out of Middle East, Al-Qaeda would still want to attack it. Just look at what is happening in Spain, Northern Ireland or (a few years ago) in Palestine. Basques have autonomy, and yet ETA is still killing people. There was a lot of peace effort in Northern Ireland, and yet some parts of IRA still fight. A few years ago, prime minister Barak of Israel offered Arafat a lot more than Sharon is ever going to offer the Palestinians, but Arafat started second intifada. The point is, for these people (ETA, IRA, Hamas, surely Al-Qaeda too) terrorism is a way of life. What would become of Ben Laden, if he ceased to be a terrorist? No more money, no more protection from fanatic supporters. Very likely someone would finish him off. To make matters worse, Al-Qaeda does not have central organization, so it is not a partner for negotiations, however asurd negotiating with them may sound like.

      Please do not forget too, that America is protecting a nation or two in the Middle East (Israel -- which would presumably be able to take care of its own -- and Kurds -- who would be unable to defend themselves agains Saddam). Moving out from Middle East would mean letting Saddam finish the Kurds off. America let shiites down in 1991, it was a sad story. Wouldn't it be damaging for the America's image abroad if it happened again? My objection against making America's presence in the Middle East does not mean that I don't agree with some other arguments of yours. To be precise, America's presence in Saudi Arabia is especially irritating for the Arabs, and maybe in this case the costs are bigger than the gain. Saudis are a pain in the ass for America, that's for sure. Also, I also think that invadind Iraq was a mistake.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    27. Re:Some observations and questions by idamaybrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like the freedom-loving taliban did. Oppressing women, killing infidels, killing people who don't stay in line.

    28. Re:Some observations and questions by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case, doing nothing would of been far worse then what we did do.

      Flatly untrue. Doing nothing would have been vastly preferable to what our leaders did.

      Looking back with what we know now this statement can be made pretty easily. When the decision to go to war was made, the intelligence available indicated that Iraq was a threat. Judging the decision for war with information available months after the start of the war is unfair. The war was justifiable with the information available at the time. NOTE: I'm not saying that the war wasn't opposed and at the start of the war I wasn't completely convinced that it was necessary. My thoughts were that if the US was willing to go to war, they (meaning the leaders who have access to classified intelligence) must have had information that the general public would not have access to and that information justified the war. I'm sure that choosing "Doing nothing" seemed a bad idea at the time.

    29. Re:Some observations and questions by MagicBox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am opposed to a society governed by surveillance because I believe it will lead to tyranny. Unwelcome thoughts and philosophies can quickly fall prey to overzealous policing. For instance, minor violations may be excused if you are a member of the "correct" party but cracked down upon if you are an "insurgent." Ever heard of COINTELPRO?

      --- There is a huge, I mean humongous misinterpretation that people have about *safety precautions* as opposed to *violation of privacy*. I agree with you that we shouldn't be governed by surveillance, but I *WANT* that to be the case when a huge event such as the olympic games are happening. You want that too. In fact anyone not belonging to AL Qaeda will want that. Don't look at it from the *invasion of privacy* angle. Instead try to think of it as a measure to save *thousands and thousands* of lives, men, women, children, thousands of years of culture and heritage. Sometimes deperate times call for desparate measures: And unless you haven't gotten the point yet, we live in desparate times. There are groups of people out there that never sleep, but think of ways to kill as many people as possible 24/7/365. To denounce your own country for trying to protect you is a mistake. To denounce any country for trying to protect it's citizens is a mistake. I am not a US citizen, but I have lived there. US has it's problems like everyother country has, but it's the balance of trust between its government, it's army and people that makes it what it is: the most amazing country in the world. It is so very true that the word UNITED fits your country perfectly. Don't hammer down on your government for raising the bar as far as safety and security goes just because you can.


      If there is another large terrorist attack, I wouldn't say "why don't we have chips in all subversives yet?" Instead, I would ask "Why is it that the U.S. government failed to recognize Al-Queda's position on US military intervention in the Middle East?" One of the principal reasons for 9/11 was American hegemony in the Middle East. So what do we do? Invade Iraq! Brilliant! Some have swallowed the conventional wisdom bs that terrorists attack "because they hate freedom." Bzzzzt! Wrong! Study up a little and play again.

      --- I must say, word like this is what makes my stomach turn. Study up you say? So while while thousand's of US citizens die, I should pick up books and try to study why *TERRORISTS* do kill innocent people right? Oh how wrong you are. You think you're one of those who swallowed the RED pill don't you? It is sad that you are still living in the matrix. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group who's aim is not only America. Their aim is to side with the evil. Read up a little. You think if America wasn't involved at all in the middle east (which if you even knew a little about world politics, economy and so, you'd see that it's impossible for that to be true) you think those people would not have died? Wrong again. Read up a little.



      What the US "fails to do" is respect the rights of other global citizens and act as a tool of the bigass corporations. Maybe you think otherwise.
      -- Yes in fact I do think otherwise. I also think you must be BIG on saving the trees also. I wonder where you see this *failure* in US's part. When Saddam himself killed his own people, when AL Qaeda themselves terrorize their own countries, just because those countries want a little more freedom and cooperation with the world, you talk to me about US *fails to respect the rights....*. Everything about your statement is wrong. You pick a little thing and try to make it the main agenda, failing to see the big picture. In early 1900s when England, France, Germany failed to give autonomy to my country, US was the only one to recognize it, which lead to an independence of my country a few years later. My point is, America has been the balance of the world and the leader in freedom and people's rights for a very long time, before you and I were born. What I urge you to do is get over your personal aganda (which seems to be wrong) and wake up and smell the coffee. The real world is different than what you imagine it to be

      --

      The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
    30. Re:Some observations and questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To denounce your own country for trying to protect you is a mistake. To denounce any country for trying to protect it's citizens is a mistake.
      You are making a few mistakes yourself.

      It a mistake to presume that the motivations driving your "country" to take away your rights are benign or sincere.

      What exactly is your "country"? Is it a geographical area? You speak of it, as if a "country" is a single persona, with motivations and rationality which makes sense on a human level.
      A country is a collection of competing and self interested individuals, with access to massive weaponry and manpower, finances and the ability to seriously harm the lives of thousands or millions of people (including its own citizens).

      Are you so certain the interests of this so called "country" is aligned with the citizens? What guarantees such a thing?

      The flaws in our systems of democracy go beyond simply low voter turnout. There is also very little real assurances that the governments actions truly are "for the people". The mere fact that years after the abuse has occured you can elect someone else (to rule your life), or petition that secret documents be unclassified, does not guarantee that the government is automatically right. If the government was always right, we would not need courts or even laws (except as educational directives) for that matter.

      Don't hammer down on your government for raising the bar as far as safety and security goes just because you can.

      If no one "hammered" down, then how far would that bar be raised? Perhaps it would be safest and most secure to simply kill anyone who has the potential to change the system. The slightest risk of changing the status quo, could be stamped out with extreme prejudice and overwhelming shock and awe force. This would deter anyone from developing the potential to change the system. The system is perfect. Trust the system. You are a cog in a perfect machine.

      The government is doing little or nothing to prevent the, over 1 million people, annual traffic fatalities. What about the hundreds of thousands killed in natural disasters, famines, etc etc etc.

      When did this terrorism become the greatest threat to mankind and civilization?

      The argument is insincere, because even with a perfect shield against all possible terrorism, your average life expectancy has increased only a tiny fraction, and now you have exchanged a life of freedom for a life of constant supervision, and utter dependence on the system and on the approval of a faceless machine which you no longer have any power to influence or negotiate with. And to even question its absolute authority and immense "goodness" is grounds for being cast out of society or labeled a threat to "security".

      So while while thousand's of US citizens die, I should pick up books and try to study why *TERRORISTS* do kill innocent people right? Oh how wrong you are.

      YES. You should pick up that book. How long does it actually take to read books? And perhaps congree should have READ the patriot act before passing it. And perhaps the President should have read the Intelligence breifings about Al Qaeda prior to September 11th. But just because you were ignorant in the past, that doesn't mean you need to be ignorant for the rest of your life. The problem isn't going to be solved overnight, especially by simply guessing blindly at the solution. Terrorists kill innocent people, and so do precision guided bombs. War kills innocent people. And your point is that leaders should stop reading books, already, and start firing more missiles.

      You, and those of you who hate books, fail to recognize that "terrorists" is not a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic. It is not a form of identification. Trying to develop a strategy to win the war against "Al Qaeda" by making that victory contigent on winning the war against the tactic of terrorism, is stupid. Do you think Al Qaeda is waging a "war against air supremacy" or a "war

  3. I can't quite see whats wrong with this... by NeoThermic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... If this can prevent security breaches, then I'm all for it. Its being used for the Olympics, not for the average street.
    An organiser of the games can take whatever steps they feel necessary to ensure the safety of the crowd and the athletes of the games.
    I'm not sure about anyone else, but I would rather be followed about on camera and be safe, than to have no cameras, and end up killed by some form of security breach.

    NeoThermic

    --
    Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    1. Re:I can't quite see whats wrong with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A camera watching won't stop you dying, it'll just ensure that CNN has a nice clip to show afterwards.

      .
      .
      .
      .

      (OK I admit scenarios where a camera network saves your life are possible, but I don't think it's likely enough to justify the cost.)

  4. Wow by Xerxes2695 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand the need for security, but the problem with measures like this, is that once people become accustomed to seeing cameras everywhere, it's very easy to just leave them in place. Over time, more and more of our freedoms are sacrificed in the name of security, creating a society of fear, and a "Big Brother" situation in government. This is what the defined goal of terrorism is, to instill terror, to make us sleep with one eye open. Extremists will never win through conventional warfare, but through a series of calculated clandestine attacks, they can influence politics, make or break presidential elections, and sway popular opinion. We are playing right into their trap.

  5. Face it... by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sort of thing will become pervasive. In the 50s it was the Red Scare and "commies". This time around it is "terrorists". "Homeland security" will be used as an excuse to futher the Orwellian state.

    The only hope is to accept it and subvert it from the inside. The more digital this stuff gets, the easier it is to fuck with it.

    Lets get to fucking.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. Brings to mind... by nlawalker · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face... was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..." -- George Orwell, 1984
    For those of you that haven't RTFA, I highly suggest. Brings to light some amazing technological feats. I don't know what to say about the level of surveillance though; that picture of the blimp in the sky is what made me think of 1984, and one wonders what the cityscape under the photographer's lens looks like.

    Although the level of security will be so high as to probably induce paranoia, I believe people will still be afraid of the looming threat of terrorist attacks. We're talking about a city here, with all it's dynamics and movement, not to mention the extra jillion people that will be there, each with his or her own agenda and places to be. I can't help but think that it's not enough, but what is?

  7. Draconian Olympics games by British · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the excessive corporate sponsorship(okay that never stopped), the banning of non-sponsored products, the excessive surveillance, the silly Draconian laws enacted over what city takes place in, blah blah blah.... ...honestly, screw the Olympics.

    I have no intentions of watching them, and I'm just waiting for the IOC secret police to make their first arrests to someone who erects a "screwtheolympics.org" website.

  8. people are voting with their feet by kylemonger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ticket sales to this Olympics are dismal. You don't HAVE to submit to the surveillance. You can stay home, like lots of other people.

  9. terrorism works by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fear works. all the terrorists have to do is manage to blow up one high-level target every couple of years and then just sit back as the West smothers itself in its own security blanket.

  10. Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996??? by hadesan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whatever security measures are deemed necessary by those running the Olympic games should be put in place. People are there to compete, not worry about being killed by some wacko asshole terrorists. Security goes a long way to preventing most terrorist activities or at least makes it that much more difficult.

    As someone mentioned in the earlier posts, all it takes is someone willing to die for their "cause". As far as I am concerned that is all the more reason to hunt every last one of the bastards down; before they have a chance to organize anything remotely similar to September 11th anyplace else in the world.

  11. There are no real answers Dave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's the problem as I see it.

    Let's face a hard fact: it is impossible to defend against fanatics who are willing to die. We can make it more difficult to accomplish certain types of attacks in certain places, but we will always leave countless avenues wide open for spectacular attacks.

    That's why I see a this type of security as counterproductive and wasteful. Public officials are just covering their butts. Disparage Franklin all you want, but we really could be giving up essential liberty for some temporary safety.

    Here's a good article examining the problem. The author shares my pessimism:

    http://www.policyreview.org/aug04/laqueur.html

    We are going to have to live for this for the rest of our lives, and 'living with it' means accepting that an entire city will periodically wiped out. If losing a city every ten years or so is the worst that happens, I say we will be getting off easy. A bioweapon release is what is truly horrifying.

    Fanatical muslims are not rational. They are not long term thinkers. They have not thought beyond 'crushing our skulls'. They have not thought about what the world would be like even if they succeeded in exterminating 99% of westeners.

  12. I don't believe ... what is the realistic tech? by pikine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't believe the claim that the software they use can, in general, "see and hear." Software agents can "see" and "hear" only in a very specific sense. For example, using Motion, you can capture only the frames that are "interesting," i.e., with some things moving. Some existing vision technology allow the recognition of large areas of exposure (visible light or infra red), like that caused by an explosion. It may be able to count cars and see if they're moving. I know of a project at my school to recognize faces in partial images (taken by uncalibrated cameras) in a conference room and see how many distinguished individuals are actually present.

    As for sound, I accept that there are speech recognition software for many languages available nowadays, but none of them are good enough because: (1) You have to speak in a certain way for good recognition (no biting tongue, clear prenounciation, clear word break, standard accent), and (2) The ambient (on the streets) where the samples are taken is too noisy.

    I think the way CNN runs this article is misleading of the current state of technology. It might be the case the their reporter doesn't understand the press release well, or that the reporter just wants to write something cool. Maybe they want to scare the public too. Shame on them.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  13. Rights, Shmights by timminator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't want anyone to catch you in public watching the olympics, then stay home with your tin foil hats and bandolier full of TV remote controls. Don't try watching the olympics on TV at the mall either, because somebody else in the store might be pointing a camcorder right at you.

    --
    +++
  14. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >The security was an absolute joke. Anyone could have gotten on the public transport system or rented a large truck and blown up a low-value (but still prominent) target.

    Let me try to ask this politely...
    HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?

    You probably weren't aware of half of the security that was present, and we may not even find out if a plot like this were to be foiled.

  15. Going to be swimming in false alarms... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Aside from the obvious privacy concerns, one might suspect this system is going to generate so much data and so many false leads that the security forces are going to either a) ignore this stuff, or b) be so busy chasing things up that they'll miss the obvious-in-hindsight.

    Much of this stuff is just "security theater", as Bruce Schnier puts it, anyway.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  16. some answers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This Olympic surveillence is not just "any attempt at surveillence", it's "supposedly [the] largest surveillance network ever". People are concerned about the protection of our basic human rights, because we don't trust the government. Governments do bad things, always have, probably always will. America was founded on distrust of the government, which spread around the world once we demonstrated how to build a better government based on the mitigations of that distrust.

    Terrorist attacks don't just "happen". In the case of Al Qaeda's WTC planebombings, their organization was created and protected by the CIA. There was a great deal of information available to prevent the attacks, but the expensive, intrusive government structure that we pay and elect to protect us failed. The result has been not only the counterattacks on these terrorists, that they accept as the price of sowing chaos, but the increase in the oppressive power of our government.

    That distrust of government is the unifying factor between the questions of "acceptable surveillence" you started asking, and your defense of DHS (that you drifted into) in their release of Al Qaeda info this past week, in conjunction with raising the Threat Level in NYC and DC. In early July, reporters predicted that Bush would produce a Pakistani terrorist during the Democratic National Convention, as he had asked. Bush asked for someone, the Pakistanis produced someone, DHS waited several days to announce it. *Hours* before Kerry's acceptance speech, and prematurely for intelligence purposes, slashing the terrorist's value as a double agent, and sending capturable terrorists into hiding. The importance of the pre-9/11 plans reportedly siezed in Pakistan, that were invoked to explain the new security measures in NYC and DC, are apparently higher than in Las Vegas, where similar info has caused no escalation, nor even notification of the city. The difference is that NYC is the site of the Republican National Convention this month, and DC is of course the perennial focus of both parties.

    It doesn't take much all-American distrust of the government to see the appropriation of terrorism by the government to campaign for reelection, regardless of the cost in protecting us from terrorism. That's consistent with the government's appropriation of terrorism to get the war in Iraq they wanted. And that same government will use surveillence for all its other purposes, mainly perpetuation of its power, regardless of the cost in basic human rights, including liberty, and even life itself.

    We're not facing some theoretical Constitutional scenario. We're facing vast abuses of our rights daily, on a scale only before imagined by paranoids. Small wonder that we are kicking back. And our fear is underscored, because we *need* the government to protect us from the actual threat of these terrorists. So we reject the actual destruction of our rights, while we search for ways to continue to protect us from the threat of terrorism. That seems sensible, and patriotic, to me.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  17. Re:Agreed by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There is really nothing that can be done in a free society. They're gonna' get us.

    Well, the best solution is not act in such a way that half the world has serious grievances with you. It's not just a case of "they hate us because they hate freedom" -- there's more to it than that. Of course, one wouldn't know it from the media coverage...

  18. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How do I know? Because I live in Boston.

    Most of Boston and Cambridge was wide open. The Fleet Center well protected but that was about it. I saw countless number of people with large bags getting on the T without being checked.

    Automobiles were not being checked. If a terrorist with 1) explosives 2) a car and 3) a willingness to die, hundreds could have been killed only blocks from the convention center.

    I think you have bought into the security myth.

    There is no real security.

  19. diplomacy & security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    why not just have the IOC kick the US and Britain out of the games? The terrorist organizations targeting them and their foreign embassies, troops, and military bases are cowardly and evil, and their actions go far beyond protecting sovereignty. But the "coaltion"'s own military and economic imperialism proved to be unacceptable to the UN, I don't see why we should allow them to compete in friendly international competitions when their leaders are fomenting war, religious discord, and empire-building. Increasingly invasive security like this is has only become a reality because Bush and previous leaders chose to spread their influence outside their own states and lead a nebulous, neverending 'war on terror.' Sit down and read 1984 if you haven't. If we have the war, the terrorists, and the hated enemy figure, it's no surprise that security and surveillance will be high to protect the public from dissidents, and people will be scared to travel or gather in large groups without said security; eventually losing the will to risk any travel.

  20. Re:Security Theatre by lavaface · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Real security in the context of terrorism comes from better intelligence gathering and better spooks.

    I might add "better relations with other nations."

    --
    harmonious design
  21. Re:A dose of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Wow, that was productive. Now back to real life. Islamists do not want to negotiate. Their demands are not simple concessions or small political gains. Their only desire is the destruction of all things not Islam. They do not value human life, and they have absolutely no desire to concede a single point to an opposing view.

    Wow, that was productive. Now back to real life. Communists do not want to negotiate. Their demands are not simple concessions or small political gains. Their only desire is the destruction of all things not Communist. They do not value human life, and they have absolutely no desire to concede a single point to an opposing view.


    Sounds an awful lot like the 1950s, doesn't it?

    You'd find that a lot of Islamic people would like these terrorists dead too. Work with these people and cut off the terrorists' oxygen from *both* sides of the equation -- stomp on them hard, but also make it easier for the moderate Moslems to portray co-operation with the West as a good idea.
  22. Is this even possible? by teneighty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    Spoken words collected by the cameras with speech-recognition software are transcribed into text

    Last I looked, speech to text technology wasn't even close to being capable of "transcribing" speech from arbritary speakers (i.e. not trained for that speaker, uncontrolled volcabulary, etc) - let alone a number of them simultaneously in a noisy environment. No doubt the NSA does have some impressive technology in this area that is far ahead of what is publicaly known about. Is there some recent advance in this area I'm not aware of? This particular technology is something I'm extremely interested in, and I would dearly love to know how well this system of theirs works (if it even exists - I'm highly skeptical). Can anyone shed more light on this?

  23. Indeed : ) by sbszine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's my preference... it's mentioned in the interview too:

    You can imagine living in a community where the landlord keeps hornets' nests, and he keeps whacking the nests. And then he keeps telling you, you need to buy protective clothing. He's right, but I wish he'd stop whacking the nest.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  24. Pointless Crap by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any terrorist with any competence (hard to find, I know, but some must exist somewhere) will not be in the least deterred by a bunch of cameras - unless he happens to look EXACTLY like Osama bin Laden.

    In the immortal words of Wulfgar (Rutger Hauer doing his Carlos the Jackal impression) in the movie "Nighthawks", "Remember - there is no security."

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  25. Olympic security (sic) by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well. The CNN article seems like a blatent plug for SAIC. Since I live here (and have done for a long time) I'll comment.

    1. The blimp only works when there is no wind. That doesn't happen a lot given the heat driven wind from the local geography (the attic plain is surrounded by mountains a la LA). Today and yesterday we didn't have any wind so I could have got some great shots
    of the blimp (why no markings eh?)... Too damn hot
    without that wind. Hope it picks up otherwise we'll see some horribly dehydrated athletes...

    2. I don't know if /. people saw it, but there was a big fuss about the non delivery of the SAIC led consortium's C4 integration software. Maybe it only got reported in the local athens press, but from what I can gather it was "yet another big (software) project turns rotten". I'll try to go back in time to check and post if I can nail that one...

    3. I'm more worried about the 'net' staying intact locally. We just had yet another "net brownout". Panic. The worst terrorist scenario is in your mind. If you combine rumours of an attack with
    an internet brownout then you'd get much more fear
    than any real attack. What are our brothers from
    the NSA/CIA/MI56 going to do there? Shoot OTE (the local PTT).
    Now *there's* an idea.

    4. They make a lot of laws here. Most get broken.
    Greeks are inherently libertarian. The only rule
    seems to be A: don't do drugs B: don't do violence. Other than that you can ignore the "Sons of Oedipus" because they are just like red lights on roads - designed to be ignored.

    4a. OOPS. The wind just came back and bit our flying patch cables... Oh - I can see the copper
    Hey: It still works... (should I check for the blimp?)

    5. More seriously, all of the noise about potential hits on the olympics masks more disturbing trends in privacy both online and off.
    I could mention the UK police database of genetic
    info as one that bothers me. I'm sure slashdotters
    know of others...

  26. Terrorists are our friends by danila · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem is, there is no going back. The governments today are completely unable to recognise the value of privacy because they are scared of terrorists or at least are pretending to be scared, and we can do nothing to change their thinking.

    No matter how effective the fight against terrorism is, and no matter how safe the next years are, the government will never back off from further development of totalitarian control measures. The only way to ever get our freedoms back is to completely destroy the current system. Ironically, our main ally here are the terrorists. I have little hope that this conflict between citizens and their governments may be resolved peacefully. So, the worse it becomes, the better it is. Only when the government attempts to takes all freedoms from the people, will the people hear the wake-up call.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  27. Get some experience before critisising, CCTV Works by dapprman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do note how most the people claiming the security will have no effect come from one country that has only suffered one real terroist incident (regardless of how large), yet still assume they know all.

    CCTV has been used sucessfully in the UK (thats England to those of you who do not realise places exist outside of the US of A) for several decades, not only as a crime prevention mechanism, but also as an anti-terrorist device.

    People have mentioned that information is the key thing, well cameras are an observational device,a nd what that is used by most nations who regularly suffer from terrorism.

    Oh and as to freedom vs security, I'm sure there are a lot of arab muslims out there is the world who applaud your right to have the freedom to be killed.