Olympics to Have Massive Surveillance Network

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.'"

Comments

I must be missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with my rights online?

Re:I must be missing something

[Jack Action]

If you're in Athens during the Olympics, you're online whether you like it or not.

Re:I must be missing something

[KZigurs]

They didn't give you access to the webcasts from female toilets in greece?

Some observations and questions

[daveschroeder]

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.)

Re:Some observations and questions

[HeghmoH]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[daveschroeder]

I'll agree with the basic premise that there are still ways around any level of security, thus reducing the value of the surveillance for security purposes, and more greatly exposing it as an intrusion into one's privacy (not to mention a waste).

But would you agree that there are indeed some measures that can make an attack significantly more difficult, or perhaps even catch or avert others? I guess the question is: what's a reasonable threshold for such measures?

Also, I'm fine with the answer that it's a "placebo", and is thus unnecessarily intrusive for no substantial beneficial purpose; however, my only problem would be the cries that not enough was done if there were an attack. Not the cries themselves, mind you - but the fact that the some of the cries (no, not all, but a good number) would be from the same group of people who berated the surveillance in the first place.

Re:Some observations and questions

[darco]

Try. ...

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Re:Some observations and questions

[dead sun]

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?

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[BenSnyder]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[thedillybar]

>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?

Re:Some observations and questions

[bjhonermann]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[halowolf]

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...

Re:Some observations and questions

[thecampbeln]

* A cheap plastic pen modified to carry poison delivered thru it's modified (or replaced) ball point. Even if it only made people sick, the "terror" would be well recognized.

* A cheap plastic pen carrying a more sophisticated poison (probably traceable after the fact), where skin contact is all that is required to kill (then you'd just need to draw on people). As above, even if it only made people sick, the "terror" would be well recognized.

* As another poster noted, a pair of hands capable of breaking some else's neck/gouging out eyes/mameing in any number of ways.

* Infect some poor bastard outside of the "secured zone" with a virulent pathogen, then send 'em on in (again, probably traceable after the fact).

* Anthrax (again, tracable-ish).

* Spiking food/drinks sold within the venue with who knows what.

* Or how about attacking people outside of the secured zone!? It'd still be the Olympics after all.

Thank god the terrorists are relativity stupid. If they really wanted to install fear in the US after 9/11 all they would need is a couple bastards with grenades and a near by mall. Let's just hope they don't read /. =)

Re:Some observations and questions

[thedillybar]

>Surveillance is useful after-the-fact.

The issue here is intelligence. In this case, some of the intelligence is gained through surveillance, but it's still intelligence.

>How does a camera have any hope of stopping someone who walks in with a suitcase bomb and a trigger on the handle?

Imagine some questions:
Why is he carrying a suitcase?
Why does he look nervous?
Who is he?
Where is he from?
Who does he hang out with on the weekends?
Why does he want to see the Olympics?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Ideally, your intelligence will be able to answer all of these questions so you know how big of a threat the person is. In reality, you gather as much intelligence as possible to help determine whether or not he/she is enough of a threat to confront the person. If you knew enough background information, you could make this decision with reasonable accuracy (and without infringing on too many innocent people).

>And so they go up to him, and bonus for him, 'cause now he gets to kill some cops, too.

First of all, you try to approach him before he enters. Secondly, the more you know about the person, the more likely you can convince him not to do something he will regret (or in some cases, not to do something that he won't regret). In either case, it increases the chances of being able to save lives.

Re:Some observations and questions

[killjoe]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Feyr]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[shut_up_man]

Dude, I'm a New Zealander living in Canada. You just made my day twice.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Okay, but I'm not sure why it had to be said to me. I agree with you. But that would only help if any of this had anything to do with saving lives.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Gherald]

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

How is it beneficial? You do realize we're using placebo in the usual makes-you-feel-good-about-yourself-but-does-nothin g sense, not as in "deterant"

And IMO false security is much worse than little or no security at all.

Re:Some observations and questions

[phoenix.bam!]

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)

Re:Some observations and questions

[John Courtland]

I agree. You can watch all you like, but when some guy manages to sneak in a carbon fiber knife and slaughters 20 people before the guards get there, all these multimillion dollar cameras really did was provide the guys in the viewing room a spectacular shot of it.

See, I look at it this way: they pretend this "surveillance" is an ACTIVE defense. That's silly. Prominent and well-trained security are the best. Besides, nothing is ever going to stop a guy hellbent on causing damage. You will never stop a guy with a row of pipebombs under his coat who is willing to die.

Cameras are only good for proving an incident happened, IMO. And they aren't even that good without a proper chain of evidence to back them up.

Re:Some observations and questions

[lavaface]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with the Sydney Olympics. The site was 'locked own' but the security only extended to the edge of the site.

The passener railway line into the Olympics crosses over a major expressway on its way into and out of the Olympics site. All that was required to disrupt the Sydney games was to drive a semitrailer packed with deso and fertiliser under that bridge and set it off. Boom, all spectator access into and out of the Olympics site gone (and a train full of passengers if the timing was right) and publicity galore.

I ran this by a friend after the games. He is quite senior in the Army Reserve (National Guard) and was working on Games security. He confirmed that such a possibility had not been guarded against and basically said 'so what, it was outside our brief to have security there.'

Point is, there is always a way around security, particularly if there doesn't have to be an escape route.

Re:Some observations and questions

[wronskyMan]

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.
IIRC, with the recent terror alerts, the US Capitol police were instructed, if they found someone who:
1. Appeared to be concealing explosives
2. Ran away or used other evasive action
they were authorized to take a head shot: linky

Re:Some observations and questions

[furball]

No, the Israelis are experts in terrorism surveillance. They have people with checkpoints. We don't. We are way behind.

We've been dealing with terrorism for 3 years. They've been at it for about half a century. After 9/11, we went to the Israelis to get help on how to handle airlines for example.

Re:Some observations and questions

[canicus]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Wow. That's a new low. Intensely evil and still not going to do anything to stop a prepared terrorist.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're right. I apologize for my wrongness. Isreal's going to be a lot better at stopping terrorism than anyone here.

It's going great, too.

Re:Some observations and questions

[techno-vampire]

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.

I'm not as certain about it as you are, but I won't argue the point. I can't disagree that we let business considerations influence our actions more than we should but I don't think that's all we consider. However, if you'll read the entire post I gave an example of a liberal finding reasons to bash Bush and another one of a conservative bashing Clinton. That's because finding excuses to blame somebody you don't like no matter what they do is human nature. Liberals, moderates, conservatives and members of every lunatic fringe do it.

Re:Some observations and questions

[GarryOwen]

I see idealism is alive and well among our youth, that is a "good thing". However, I disagree with some of your points.
Surveillance does work, as you can spot suspicous or troublesome behavior before it gets worse. I have seen first hand, while on a call at a cassino, how well a trained human eye can spot a person who is just "out of place". Now can that person still cause damage, perhaps, but it will most likely be far less than what would have been caused had they been able to get optimal placement.
You state the main reason why dialogue doesn't work, all parties involved have to have honest intentions. Unforetunatly alot of people are seeking power and aren't above lieing and pretending to seek peace while waiting for war or resupply (North Vietnam is a good example).
As for the Palestinians, they really need some high quality self reflection and perhaps realize that Israel isn't the only reason for their current state of being. If the palestinians put as much effort into education and self improvement instead of constantly trying to dismantle Israel they may actually get somewhere.

Re:Some observations and questions

[thecampbeln]

The point is that you only need a very few people in a few locations to install fear. Shit, with the Anthrax stuff in the US, all "they" needed to do was keep sending out envelopes with nothing more then flour in them. Once it was widely publisized that some was found somewhere, it's enought to scare the shit out of everyone everywhere.

Think about this: If in 2 seperate locations in the US, a single guy walked into a mall with 2-3 gernades and rolled them into the food court. Would you go into a mall anywhere in the US anytime soon? Hell, it could be the same guy (though that'd limit the amount of fear caused if that could be proven).

Re:Some observations and questions

[cbreaker]

You're so right, and although I don't support Bush at all, and believe we should at least have not been misled into the war, the people over there that think we're there so they can't be free are the ones that want to control the oil and drug cartels. They will kill anyone to do it so that the few can be rich and the rest can be slaves.

Reguardless of the reasons we're in Iraq, I do believe that a great deal of the American government and people are trying their damned best to get the people over there to be a free society; free from the supression and torture of the past so many years.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

If you don't waste all your money putting video cameras in your cities, you can put Geiger counters on your borders.

Re:Some observations and questions

[brendanoconnor]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[Bull999999]

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?"The problem is that no matter what the answer is, there always will be US military intervention in the Middle East as long as the oil plays an important role in the economy, no matter which party is in power. Don't forget that cheap oil also benefits the Americans in general as it drives their thirst for the gas guzzling SUVs.

Re:Some observations and questions

[kfg]

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.

And if you have one you'll never be safe.

KFG

Re:Some observations and questions

[killjoe]

"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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[killjoe]

yes I'll believe that the day Iraq joins OPEC so that they can get the maximum price for their oil. Until then we can all safely presume they will continue to be our puppet govt.

Re:Some observations and questions

[brendanoconnor]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[Fr3d]

Your overall reasoning is true but security cameras do have some effect.

Cameras will not stop crazed murderers or terrorists by any means nor will they help prosicute martyrs with bombs. Cameras stop the criminals who are scared of being caught. They will think of possible consiquences and will stop.

Yes, the camera makers do win, and yes, the security is mostly just propaganda. But there is reason in your drugstore security, and there should be.

Re:Some observations and questions

[zurab]

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?

You ask the question the wrong way. Instead try asking yourself this: If governments had an ability and resources to track and record every move every human being ever made (chips, cameras, implants, what have you), everything they said, every action, thought they had, everything they bought, consumed, saw, heard, dreamt, etc., etc., where would you draw the line? Would you allow your whole life to be recorded and tracked in such a manner by your government without boundaries? If not, what would you think would be an acceptable level of surveillance by your government and what would be out of bounds?

How do you define these boundaries and how do you enforce them to make sure they are not abused, their powers expanded and overstepped? Instead of complaining about people who express their concerns about this issue, why don't you answer that question?

Re:Some observations and questions

[canicus]

Then we disagree on whether it will stop once their demands are met. I don't beleive it will, and I firmly believe history validates that. Why do I believe it won't happen?

1). The overwhelming majority of conflicts in the world involve Muslims against someone else. That cannot be said so firmly of any other religious identity.

2). Setting aside Turkey, there is no Muslim country even close to a functioning democracy and liberty. Even Turkey has "acheived" that so recently, it can hardly be considered stable. They aren't fighting for freedom to remove despotic regimes, but for setting up their own, a la Iran, and this is whether the fighters are Wahabbist (who consider Wahabbist Saudi to be too lax), Sunni, Sufi, or whatever.

3). Those terrorist actions of attacking the infidel are prescribed specifically in the Q'ran.

4). It is still the common practice in Muslim countries to rabidly persecute other religions, including the "people of the Book," Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (the latter being by far the most tragic). Other religions in the world have moved away from that being the norm.

On the Christians, "starting" the Crusades, first it is specically the Roman Catholic Church. Neither the non-Chalcedonians nor the Eastern Orthodox sent troops. In fact, these were raped and plundered by the Crusaders.

Second, it was a response. Let's not forget the Arab invasions, where Spain was subjegated and which Charlemagne stopped in 732 at Poitiers, and they were attacking the very gates of Constantinople. Let's not forget also the slaves taken and forced into battle in the name of Allah to spread religion and empire. Then we have the second wave of attacks, that took a large portion of the Eastern Roman Empire's territory in the tenth century. If the destruction of Muslim holy sites is sufficient to warrant terrorism, what of the destruction of the Christians', because they did just that to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. What finally sparked the Crusades? The killing of Christian pilgrems on the way to holy sites.

This list of Muslim aggressions before the Crusades is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. However, why is it that Christians initiated it, when Christians never took any religious military action before 1095? There are examples aplenty of Islamic. Christians were patient through three hundred years of said aggression and only initiated Crusades at the second wave of Muslims (Arabs first, then the Ottomans). All this, and the Arab waves nearly destroyed Europe. Saying Christians started it is just telling half the story, just like saying that Hindus began attacking Muslims is just telling half the story.

Considering the above facts, I think that my position is both justified and historical. Again, they aren't exhaustive, but they are sufficient. It will never end, even if we pull out.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Caraig]

Why was this modded as -1 'Troll?' It's actually reasonably true. You don't see the target of the Nerds' Revenge being the overall nice, inoffensive guy. The guys who get clobbered by the nerds in all those movies are the bullies who think they own everything they survey.

Now, this is an inadequate similie, I know. (Not to mention an uncomfortable one.) But it boils down to the fact that we've pissed off people and that drove some people to become terrorists. Sayng 'They're jealous of us' or 'They're afraid of us' are specious arguments at best. There are documented reasons, from their own mouths, of why terrorists do what they do. Their missions and objectives and purposes are declared; they have to be, else they're not getting their message accoss. And make no mistake, terrorists HAVE a message even if they deliver it in unconsconable ways. Parent is essentially correct. The US has done and continues to do things that they dislike enough to kill a lot of US citizens over.

If you want to fight ANY terrorists you need to know what drove them to this in the first place. In the case of al'Qaeda, it was the US' continued support for Israel and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. To address the issue of terrorism in ignorance of the terrorists' objectives is rank foolishness.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Hungry Student]

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.

Consider yourselves lucky, the UK's been dealing with terrorism for much, much longer than 3 years. Terrorism has not only existed for three years, maybe for you it has, but for the rest of the world, they've been dealing with it for much longer and have considerably more experience in countering it and dealing with it.

Re:Some observations and questions

[KZigurs]

In fact there are NO precautations. Surveilance network does exactly that - monitors. And any suicidal bomber will be blown long ago when dispatched security officers will arrive on scene.

Of course, of course, there are still plainclothes security guards, a lot of police, etc, but - there was absolutely no reason to install such massive camera base because it gives NOTHING. Especially if the security precautations are realy intented to prevent terorist attacks, where a normal guy walking with hotdog and bootle of beer can suddenly turn into suicidal bomber just by taking his jacket off (and that's optional too).

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[vivia]

Maybe it's not the same group of people to complain both about invasion of privacy and about lack of security measures. Does anyone remember what was being said in the past about the fear of a terrorist attack during the Olympic games, and (most impotantly) WHO was saying that? Sounds like governments around the world nearly trying to sabotage the Olympic games by keeping people out of it. So they decided to take unprecedented security measures, not because they think that this would help that much, but mostly to say "We've done enough for your security, you may feel safe and attend the games". I guess they were successful. I wouldn't like a camera to watch my every step and a computer to watch all my conversations either, but remember how many polls there have been asking people "Given the threat of a terrorist attack during the Olympic games, would you attend them?". In a few words: Now, with all this unjustified surveillance, it's just groups of individuals who complain. Without all this mess, it would have been governments and media worldwide, as it was until a couple of months ago - and I believe they can influence MANY more people. If *you* were organising the Olympic games, what would you prefer?

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[The Grassy Knoll]

>You can't make all of the people happy all of the time

Oh, you're not allowed to quote Ben Franklin, but you ARE allowed to paraphrase Abe Lincoln?

I must be new here

.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Rolo Tomasi]

Charlemagne stopped in 732 at Poitiers

That was actually Charles Martel (martel meaning hammer in French), Charlemagnes grandfather.

Re:Some observations and questions

[canicus]

Thank you, I stand corrected. I was typing from memory and got the two mixed up, and I should probably have proofread it.

Re:Some observations and questions

[H09N0X10U5]

That's the fucking point: Canada and New Zealand don't go around the world, rubbing other countries' noses in the dirt

Another fucking point: if they could, they probably would.

Re:Some observations and questions

[H09N0X10U5]

We're all about as expert as anybody in terrorism surveillance, because it's only existed for three years

Can someone explain why terrorism surveillance has only existed for three years? I thought CCTV cameras were invented long before that, and I'm sure terrorism did too. Perhaps us dumbass Brits, Germans and Eyetalians never thought to connect the two together. Thank God for those smart Americans like the one who posted the parent comment via the interweb that their former VP invented.

Re:Some observations and questions

[RWerp]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[idamaybrown]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

And some might add that trying to obtain NZ passports fraudulently (as some Israeli Mossad agents did recently) to carry out illegal activities (ie. assassinations) in other countries constitutes a terrorist act too.

(A terrorist act on NZ's sovereignty, and a terrorist act in whichever country they decide to murder someone -Be it Bolivia, Mexico, or even Canada.)

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

repeat after me:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Got that into your thick skull now?

Re:Some observations and questions

[at_18]

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.

There's a world outside the US, you know. Terrorism and related surveillance has existed for much more.

Re:Some observations and questions

[atriusofbricia]

Hmmm.... This was guaranteed to be modded up. He used the "Mod me down" shields that always works!! :)

---Engage shields---

Mod me down if you like because [I don't have the slashdot view||I disagreed||I didn't include any of the standard /. jokes||Your reason here].

---Shields---

Re:Some observations and questions

[Loco3KGT]

The issue with the Middle East goes farther back than that.

If you have read Common Sense, a great little writing on why England didn't stand a chance and that government should be small and hold very little power, you will see where Thomas Paine refers to people from the Middle East as "heathens."

This whole situation dates back to the Crusades and even farther.

They've been engrained with the hate and it isn't going anywhere. We appease Saudi Arabia to ensure oil supplies, they continue to encourage a boycott of American goods.

And realize that oil doesn't just fuel big thirsty SUVs, it fuels our econoboxes and our hybrids too. Even if you use less oil, you're still contributing to the problem.

--loco3kgt
--conservative
--supporter of the war
--econobox driver

Re:Some observations and questions

[danila]

And the best thing is that improvements in technology will make it possible to use robots for suicide attacks. I am not a professional killer, but there are countless ways to utilise cheap but powerful technology like webcams, image recognition and GPS to kill pretty much everyone (including presidents, roman popes, etc.). Make a cheap cruise missile (like that guy in Australia did), put a GPS on it, record a position of the motorcade with a few webcams, calculate their speed, extrapolate their position and launch the cruise missile from a few kilometers away. Use GPS to hit the target. Voila. Score one for freedom fighters. :)

Of course this particular scheme may have shortcomings (though feel free to use it, if it doesn't), but the point is that technology empowers everyone and no amount of smokescreens like they use in Athens now will be effective in stopping real attacks. It may be possible to control some aspects of technology, but there is no way the state can control all of it, everywhere, 100%.

Re:Some observations and questions

[danila]

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

BTW, it's much more effective to use a public vehicle. Noone checks buses or taxis, ever. Just pack the explosives into travel bags, dress like a tourist and use a taxi. :) Then, when you are inside the city, move into the clean car (that passed the check at the entrance) and assemble the bomb.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Golobarti]

Surveillance is not acceptable pure and simple. Yes, perception exists that insufficient surveillance, lax laws and inadequate funding of spy agencies open the door to undesirable activities, but consider this: Case 1. No surveillance methods are in place and an undesirable event occurs. Response to case 1: Increase surveillance. Case 2: We walk all over the constitution, suspend civil rights, tag everyone with an rfid and have everyone under surveillance 24/7. All these measures fail to prevent an undesirable event. Response to case 2: Increase surveillance. I know that slippery slope arguments are flawed, but it appears that increase of surveillance is warranted regardless of the outcome of the said increase, giving the government a degree of control that Hitler could only dream of (if only due to the development of technology). Once we have everyone in civilised countries under surveillance a certain degree of exaggeration will be necessary to justify the existence of costly spy agencies and you can be sure that some exaggeration will take place (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction anyone?) Re-read 1984. Look at the Stalinist era in Soviet Union. I'm afraid that once we run out of enemies, we'll re-classify some of the more benign crimes as enemy number 1. Terrorists, drug dealers and pedophiles of today might be replaced with Hackers, file sharers and smokers tomorrow. Just recently a bunch of marijuana smugglers were charged under Patriot law designed to combat terrorism. What's next? Do we classify anyone using a weapon in robbery as an enemy combatant? If anything we should decrease surveillance. Yes we will have to live with consequences of that decision, but the alternative is far scarier then anything that Bin Laden can come up with.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Jim_Maryland]

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.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Quimo]

Surveillance is not only useful after the fact but to minimize the impact of an event. Yes a few police officers may lose there lives stopping a suicide bomber but loosing a couple people instead of large group is better in my books.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Brando_Calrisean]

You're an absolute fool if you think terrorists haven't/aren't targeting Canada. This is untrue - at least according to the local intelligence community. But of course, you're more informed than they are, right?

Re:Some observations and questions

[joshmccormack]

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.

I understand your perspective, but America has done a lot of things, and stands for a lot of things that get people very, very upset. People who believe strongly enough to sacrifice themselves for their God, their people and their ideals. Understanding this will only mean knowing some terrorists cannot be bargained with.

Some people are quite reasonable and peace loving, and would like the US to do things we don't want to do. If we don't do those things, this might inspire a hatred in them toward us and a devotion to what they hold dear that would encourage them to hurt us. Knowing this is valuable, but won't necessarily allow diplomatic means of preventing attacks.

There is no global government. The closest thing to it made resolutions against Iraq that they violated daily for years. Defending brutal dictators who violate your own ideas on surveillance and repression speaks of a lack of willingness to defend others.

Do big corporations benefit directly from the Iraq war? Probably. Does that mean their sponsorship of terrorism (e.g. rewarding Palestinian families of suicide bombers), violation of UN resolutions (e.g. firing on UN sponsored planes in the no fly zones), and horrible treatment of people (e.g. for saying what they want, worshipping who they want and disagreeing with the government) should be ignored because fighting them would benefit some company?

Re:Some observations and questions

[Brando_Calrisean]

Sorry, forgot to provide a link to the story on CBC News

Re:Some observations and questions

[nnappe]

> two peaceful nations as borders
Mmm I thought the US was at war with Mexico. You, know, they stole a lot of its territory.
OK, that was long ago, but the US-friendly mexican policy is supported much more by the political and economical establishment then by the population.
The zapatist army is not exactly a US friend, isnt it? And it is supported (morally, when not materially) by a fair amount of mexicans.

Re:Some observations and questions

[dead sun]

BTW, it's much more effective to use a public vehicle. Noone checks buses or taxis, ever.

I suppose if you wanted to be really clever you could get a public emergency vehicle, like an ambulance. That's a large vehicle that could be filled with whatever you choose. And when the sirens are blaring who's gonna stop it to check it's contents?

Re:Some observations and questions

[MagicBox]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[joshmccormack]

America let shiites down in 1991, it was a sad story.

I'm not arguing that a lot of horrible things happened to people after what seemed like the premature end of the first gulf war. But I wonder...

Knowing what we all know now, how people hate to be occupied, even if it's just to set up a government for them to run, doesn't it seem like pulling out when the US was logical? With the Iraqi military in pieces, no fly zones over the kurds and shiites, didn't they have their best opportunity to have their own revolution?

So many people think we acted inappropriately, and unfortunately it didn't work out, not taking Saddam Hussein, but I think there may have been some wisdom in that decision.

Re:Some observations and questions

[canicus]

Even if it is supported solely by the political establishment, it is still a peaceful country. I don't see the Mexican people taking up arms and attacking the U.S. either. One does not have to love his neighbor to be at peace with him. He need only not attack.

Hostile relations with the people also do not change the fact that the border acts as a shield either.

Re:Some observations and questions

[RWerp]

It's not about pulling out. If America just pulled out, it wouldn't be wrong. What was wrong was that America first encouraged shiites to start an uprising, and then didn't help them. Without American help they were weak, Saddam crushed the rebellion and took sweet revenge. In 1991 Saddam was too strong for any domestic revolution to have a chance of success. Don't you think some people didn't try to stage a coup d'etat? All attempts failed miserably with terrible consequences to the people involved. Sometimes Saddam acted first, before people did anything, and executed them just because of his paranoia.

Re:Some observations and questions

[joshmccormack]

New Zealand was part of the coalition for a while.

And as for not participating and being friendly, in WWII Denmark let the Nazis roll into their country and didn't suffer any casualities. They also had the priveledge to supply the Nazis with materials so they could attack other countries.

The US has considerable international influence and interests. When you're that big, it's hard not to make enemies. Also, we have so many mistakes under our belts we can't just act nice now - people have hated us for a long time and are not willing to forgive and forget.

Re:Some observations and questions

[joshmccormack]

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.

Unfortunately the time machine is in the shop, so changing the past won't be possible for a while yet. Until then perhaps we can just be nice and promise to stop being bad.

And by the way, the 'christians' in the crusades attacked other christians, too. Using the crusades to point out failings of christians only succeeds in pointing out the failings of people. Being christian does not imply perfection - it's a journey. And too many people call themselves christian, but are not at all.

Re:Some observations and questions

[j-turkey]

3) The presense of US troops on Muslim holy places.

That's all. Nothing myterious or religious.

I was with you right up until that point. The presence of US troops on "Muslim holy places" is mysterious and/or religous. It's not like US troops have occupied Mecca and are hiding out in mosques as we speak.

We're in Saudi Arabia for a reason...and their soverign government has recgonized it and allowed our presence. We were (at one point) in Iraq for a reason (GW 1). Now I'm with you that it's not the US's job to be the police all over the world, but our actions aren't necessarily illegal or nefarious. These people (terrorists) are freaky religous zealots who (IMO) cannot be appeased.

Now while I agree that our foreign policy should probably be changed to a more Roosevelt-centric "Walk softly" kind of policy (or even a Nixon-centric "diplomacy first" policy)...I'm not sure that we should ever allow terrorists to believe that they can make us change our policy in their favor. (I'm trying really hard here to avoid using the term "send a message"). The only thing this will do is make these zealots believe that terrorism just plain works. They will indoctrinate more young, naive people into their organization who will blow themselves up for the holy cause and only hand more power to the ruthlessly corrupt who will continue to use terrorists tactics to extort from us whatever they want.

My fear is that we've (we being the western world...not just the USA) already done this. In Spain's latest anti-US election, the reason for the results can be argued one way or another...but because of the timing of the terrorist attacks, terrorist organizations can claim that they alone swayed the vote (whether or not they're right...there is actually a shred of credibility to it -- which is more than I can say for the 72 virgin servants in paradise. Young, radical Muslims will be duped into seeing it as a hands-down victory.). Furthermore, in the United States, Americans are more divided than ever (united we stand...what a bunch of bullshit, I've never seen the country more polarized). We have sacrificed our freedoms for the placebo of "security" that you speak of. In Athens, there is a $312 million dollar security effort, using Orwellian tactics to secure us. Will it help? I don't know, but it's certainly a sad commentary on what they've pushed us to do to ourselves.

It's funny, when the threat of global nuclear war mutually assured us all destruction, people didn't seem as worried as they are now. Individuals certainly aren't more at-risk now. What's the rationale? Before anyone says "these guys are completely irrational and have no regard for their own, or any other lives" -- we didn't think the Soviets were a rational enemy either (at least, that's what our propaganda had us believe).

Re:Some observations and questions

[furball]

You think we're doing a better job than Israel with terrorism? Our border is porous. They're about to put in a goddamn wall.

Re:Some observations and questions

[danila]

Sounds like a perfect plan. And then you can use even more bomb-ridden ambulances to go to the explosion site and kill even more people. Who is going to suspect them?

Re:Some observations and questions

[benzapp]

They do random checks of taxis in tunnels in New York.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Tackhead]

> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
>
>Got that into your thick skull now? Repeat after me:

Who the fuck cares?

The guy was giving $25K per suicide bomber, and publicly stating so. That qualifies as state-sponsored terrorism.

If your diplomatic sense is "only attack in retaliation for 9/11", invading Iraq was unjustified.

If your diplomatic sense is "blow the hell out of state sponsors of terrorism", then Iraq was a legitimate target.

YMMV. Frankly, I think Iraq was a legitimate target, because "blow the hell out of state sponsors of terrorism" happens to be our stated policy on the subject.

I think Iraq had no direct involvement in the 9/11 attack. I think the way in which a large proportion of the population was manipulated into believing that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 was brilliant spin-doctoring on the part of the administration. I also think that said spin-doctoring was wholly unnecessary and reflected poor political judgement, because in doing so, they provided an angle for the opposition to use in the election.

Since we're goring sacred cows, let's put "Bush Lied" to rest. No, he didn't. He acted in good faith on the best intelligence information he had at the time. Problem was, that information appears to have been wrong.

It was "wrong" in the sense that in any hierarchical power structure, the poor schmucks at the top (who need to know what's going on, because they can act on it) can never know what's going on, because the poor schmucks at the bottom (who do know what's going on, but can't act on it) are forced to tell the schmucks at the top what they want to hear, in order to keep their jobs.

When Saddam asks you "How are my nukes coming along?", the correct answer is "Very Good, Your Almigty Obeseness, Sir! We're keeping those UN clods very busy chasing us in the desert! Just a little bit longer, Sir, and you shall turn Tel Aviv into glass, unite the Moslem fanatics behind you and the world will run red with the blood of your enemies!", because "Actually, you have some raw materials and some leftover parts, but we haven't made any real progress" is the answer that gets you shot.

It's not much different when the President asks his intel folks "So, what's the scoop on Saddam's WMD?" The correct answer is "Sir, his scientists are keeping the UN very busy chasing them all over the desert, so he must have something worth hiding!", because "We know he wants 'em, but we haven't a fucking clue whether he has anything or not" is the answer that gets you fired.

As they said in Ghostbusters: When someone asks you if you are a God, you say YES.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

No. I'm not saying we're doing better than Israel, I'm saying there's nothing you can do if someone wants to kill random people, even if you're as good at it as Israel is.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're right, of course, but I was under the impression that until we got hit, people were sane about it. I thought that until 2001, CCTV cameras were mostly used for non-buzzword crimes. I was hoping the idea of using cameras this way was stupid enough that it had to come from us.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Some observations and questions

[antigrimace]

Amen.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Spectra72]

Canada and New Zealand persue politics of the weak. That's not a putdown, its simply geo-political reality. They know they can't act like a superpower, because they can't project any power...anywhere. Acting tough simply isn't an option for these countries. So they are wedded at the hip to the ideal of "being polite" and trying to solve all of their disputes inside multilateral organization like the UN.

For better or worse, the US can contemplate the use of force when dealing with other countries (Afghanistan and Iraq). They can also use diplomacy (dealing with the EU, China, NK, ..etc, etc) and go to the UN, like they are currently doing over the Sudan crisis. The US has options, Canada and New Zealand do not.

The old saying "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is generally applied to the US in situations like this. There is another side to that coin though. "When you don't have a hammer, you do your best to pretend nails don't even exist".

Re:Some observations and questions

[Spectra72]

"...On the Christians, "starting" the Crusades, first it is specically the Roman Catholic Church. Neither the non-Chalcedonians nor the Eastern Orthodox sent troops. In fact, these were raped and plundered by the Crusaders...

And even more than the Catholic Church, it was the people that were to become Brits, French and Germans. It was more of a land grab than a religious thing...sure it was cloaked in the mantle of religion, but the Crusades were essentially Europeans doing what Europeans do best...stealing other's land. They killed other Christians to get to the Holy Land, once there, they squabbled and fought amongst themselves and made alliances with the Muslims as they saw fit. Not exactly religious purists those Crusaders. The Crusades were European politics, just transported to the Holy Land.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Dread_ed]

"1) Support of corrupt arab dictators such as the saudi family, shah of iraq, saddam hussein"

And they were sooo happy when we changed our mind about Saddam that they....blew up the world trade center. And they were sooooo happy when we deposed Saddam that they....decided that they should attack those people who are in Iraq building schools, water treatment facilities, civil buildings, electrical production and transmission infrastrucure for the Iraquis at no cost to them. Oh, and by the way, Osama is part of the Saudi family as well so the demands are bogus IMHO.

"2) Unconditional support of Israel, protection of israel from international law, funding israel in their support of the occupation of palestine"

The US has restricted the aggressively defensive nature of the Israelis more times that anyone can count. If it was not for the US tempering the actions of the Israelis the Israelis might have already done to the Palestinians and the other Arab nations close to them what theose nations want to do to Israel.

As for international law, I call bullshit. International law condemned Sadaam and no one did a thing except the US. Furthermore, international law is a violation of sovrenty and invalidates the basis by which a country operates. If a country cannot make laws and enforce them withtout intervention or interdiction by a international committee then they are just a puppet. Furthermore, if a country lets an international body dictate what laws they make and how they act, they are most likely not acting in their own best interests and the interests of their people. THAT is sufficient reason for revolution in my opinion.

"P.S the crusades were initiated by the christians."

And the USA ia a nation of Christians according to Muslims. As if that was not enough to make us the object of their hatred, we have freedom of religion as well. As long as we have a large number of Christians in this country we will, by their very presence, incur the anger of most Muslim countries.

Anyways, by your account, changing our policies would make no difference. According to you we have angered the whole world at us and have been doing so for a long time, and now the chickens have come home to roost. Fair enough, so if we can't go back then we must go forward. The only survivable path available to us is the one that we are on, ie. dominate, decimate, and confuse the enemy and keep them so occupied in their own backyard that they have no time to jump our fences.

Re:Some observations and questions

[MagicBox]

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

-- Hah. *take away my rights*? It is also a mistake to presume that your government is *taking away your rights* because it's not being sincere with you as to why it is doing so. So there, we're on a lock. However when I see my government trying to make changes after a major catastrophe, then I can understand, and as a human being with a bit of judgement on me, I accept changes. The goverenment will spy on you either way. I'd rather know they are doing it. They are being sincere. There are far more worst dangers out there in fact that you are not even aware of than the government putting extra cameras in a public place, or questioning someone's motives for taking "unpictoresque" pictures of a landmark. I am sure you hear the news. I wonder if you have any idea how many other plots have been avoided since these *changes* are put to place. In fact these changes are too small in my opinion.

Are you so certain the interests of this so called "country" is aligned with the citizens? What guarantees such a thing? -- Yes I am very certain. In more than one occasion USA has taken us under their wing. But I am not an american fan for just that reason. I have lived surrounded by an 87% muslim population. I have also lived in a communist system. And I have had a chance to explore the *american* sytem (which is really a more supreme western system). I will be honest with you: You have it good. Really good. And what's more you are allowed to *complain* and get your government to listen to you.

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

It has always been. But not at this scale. It has been growing by the decade. Terrorism and middle east have been associated for a long time. Terrorism might be a tactic, but sure as hell it wouldn't exist if a *group, religion or ethnicity* didn't endorse it to further their agenda. Al Qaeda is a group. Their agenda is a Jihad against the *other* world. I wonder what it takes to get people to realize that. I guess it's easier for me since I lived in a different system than you. But looking attheir actions and slogans, it should be easy for anyone to realize the same.

That you would think accusing someone of being in favour of saving trees discredits their argument, is an indication of how weak and indefensible your own argument is.

--Actually I should've not generalized, but the punch line was that some people complain about everything. I have nothing against saving the trees. I won't kill anyone about it though.

You like to BS quite a bit....but then you're entiteled to your opinion. Watch out don't get burned by it though...I gotta get back to work...but I'd have a few more things to add for sure...

Re:Some observations and questions

[Reteo Varala]

Two words... Hilary Clinton.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Reteo Varala]

The Islamic extremists call this the Jihad. The holy war.

Since when could that be resolved over talk?

Say what you want of Christian Fundamentalists, but don't assume they're the only ones who have an unreasonable zeal.

Men trying to right a wrong wouldn't take their own lives in the process... it would prevent them from taking further steps. This is religious, folks, and it's not going to be solved by discussion.

Re:Some observations and questions

[Dread_ed]

NEWSFLASH: This is in GREECE, not the USA.

The GREEKS are worried about terrorist attacks in this case, not the Americans. Why are the Greeks afraid? Because terrorists do not ultimately care who they kill as long as it gains them what they want.

Also, this is the Greek OLYMPICS. Who attends the olympics? I could easily say that there will be people from every country in the world at the olympics. So if the terrorists hate us because of the terrible things we have done to them, why are the Greeks so worried, and everone else in the world for that matter, that they will pull some dastardly stunt? Because terrorists do not care who they hurt or kill as long as they feel that it furthers their goal of control or capitulation through fear.

With a worldwide audience and a huge spotlight what better place to gain the attention that they think their cause deserves. And what better way to get it than to kill innocent people without any provocation?

Seriously, with that distorted a viewpoint how can you say that they only reason that they attacked the USA is because of what we did or are doing to them. Your answer is simple like a child's answer, but it is ultimately wrong.

There is no excuse for terrorists to do what they do, there is no justification for their actions, and there is no action taken by Americans or any other country that should precipitate the kind of attacks that terrorists engage in.

Unfortunately, they feel justified in the expression of their religious beliefs in that their most holy text proscribes killing unbelievers. They proclaim this by saying that "Allah is great" while driving a plane loaded with people into the ground, they proclaim this by cutting off a man's head and proclaiming how "Allah is great", they do this by torturing and killing innocent civilian workers in Iraq in a manner that is described explicitly in the Quoran as the method that Allah wants them to use to kill unbelievers. This is echoed in their willingness to kill themselves in process of murdering innocents. Why sacrifice themselves if they did not have an eternal reward for the killing of "Christians and infidels."

You want reasons why they attacked us? One, they think that they are doing Allah's work. Two, they think this because their religious leaders tell them so. Three, their religious leaders also happen to be, because of their societal structure, pretty bloodthirsty and brutal people (otherwise they would not rise to power or keep it.) Four, they do not have any systematic theology to guide them in the absence of a sane religious leader and their religious texts advocate the killing of unbelievers and the destruction of their nations. Five, as a result of a very long series of bad decisions on a national level they have almost stone age conditions in their countries for a large part of the populace. Six, destitute people with freedom restricting governmental polocies and a national religion that advocates killing unbelievers are ripe for the picking when it comes to finding someone with nothing to lose and an axe to grind.

Sure they hate us, but it is not as simple as what we do or do not do to them. Their actions are motivated by their desire for power, their willingness to kill others as a result of their religious beliefs, and the utterly destitute conditions that their national leaders have gotten them into but which they attribute to the USA.

Also, there were people of many different countries including Great Britan and Canada in the world trade center. They knew that. They picked that target because it was conspicuous and represented what they hate about America.

Re:Some observations and questions

[developer55]

So, as I understand your comments, organizations should do nothing until they can do everything? That is not the way of evolution. Steps taken toward a goal inevitably are determined to be of no use at all, or contribute positively to the end result. I am no fan of the intrusive methods utilized all too frequently, but to not try to improve the situation is not going to make things better.

Re:Some observations and questions

[teflaime]

But we also know that all of the contradictory information that was available with the intelligence was stripped out and not seen by the people making the decisions. If all the negative intelligence indicators had been available, would congress still have abidicated it's duties under the Constitution to the President?

Re:Some observations and questions

[Jim_Maryland]

Good point, but I was primarily trying to indicate to the parent poster that criticizing a decision in hindsight is not really fair. What we can review is the process that leads to information not being available as well as refining interpetation (maybe someone drew the wrong conclusion with the given data). At this point, the intelligence agencies and political leaders really need to go through a "lessons learned" review to make sure the same mistakes don't happen.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I'm not saying you should do nothing until you can do everything. I'm saying you should do nothing if people are dying of cancer and all you can do is give them arsenic. They're putting up walls made of paper because they don't know how to build walls made of stone, and yes, it would be better to do nothing.

Re:Some observations and questions

[CosmeticLobotamy]

That's true, cameras will deter normal crime. If they're spending that much money deterring purse-snatchers, though, they're much bigger idiots than if they were doing it for terrorists.

But I'm not worried about that. If they want to blow their money on a false sense of security, that's cool. The phone monitoring is horrible on its own, but I'm not going to get my panties bunched. I'm worried about the precedent and the fact that the cameras and phone monitoring equipment aren't going to go away after this, and unnecessary monitoring is always a bad thing.

It's not an infringement for cops to look at you on the street. It's an infringement, moral if not legal, for a cop to follow you and write down everything you do and keep the record indefinitely when he has no reason to think you've committed a crime.

Amazing cost

[robogun]

1.5bn cost versus 3,000,000 tickets sold = $500 per spectator spent in security.

How are these Games supposed to make money?

Re:Amazing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way the Atlanta Games did in 1996 -- massive advertising whore-out by the locals and abusive practices by the corrupt IOC.
Next question, please. :)

Re:Amazing cost

[josecanuc]

"Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs the T-shirt. Spaceballs the lunchbox. Spaceballs the coloring book. Spaceballs... the flame thrower! Kids love it."

Re:Amazing cost

[Kenja]

"How are these Games supposed to make money?"

Ads, broadcast rights, cheap crap to sell to jerks aka souvenirs. Also, keep in mind that the boost to the local economy is far more then 500$ per seat. These people need to eat etc.

Re:Amazing cost

[rohan_leader]

Just in case anyone was wondering how the deficit might be made up, there is also significant revenue from sponsors, both government and corporate sponsors. Also, taxes, from spectator spending is also directed to fund these security measures.

Add that to the amount that is used out of personal taxes, and you can easily understand how such measures are carried out.

Re:Amazing cost

[guard952]

Advertising

Re:Amazing cost

[mantera]

The games will make money from advertising and commercial sponsorship deals, but eventhough, it's already clear that the Greek taxpayers will suffer for a decade out of hosting the Olympics.

What is ominous though about this 1.5bn cost is how it'll serve as both a precedent and a de facto early-adopter funding for the emerging "security" technologies and therefore providing you with *security*, an act that's indistinguishable from monitoring your activities, will be a thing that's far more normal and affordable for a government to do.

After all, who would be opposed to "security"? surely someone *evil* who's up to an *evil* thing; The good, law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide! *sarcasm*

This is in quite the same way the CIA conducts "enhanced interrogation techniques", more commonly known around the world as *torture*, but hey, torture is only ugly word, gotta use more palatable words that the public will accept such as... ummm... homeland security?!

Re:Amazing cost

[trainsnpep]

The games make practically no money. The sale of tickets is purely to eliminate people mobbing events. Think of the income the Olympics will bring to Athens. Thousands of hotel reservations, mostly price gouged. Millions of meals to serve. Transportation for all the spectators. The point is that you can't go to Athens any time soon without spending thousands on hotels, food, transportation, extras, tickets, and all that.

Re:Amazing cost

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It makes me wonder if there was a misplaced decimal place.

Re:Amazing cost

[e40]

Collateral spending. Think of all the other stuff they'll spend money on: hotels, food, sex, transportation, entertainment, etc, etc.. I'd be surprised if the daily take per person was less than $500 (other than tickets). Everything those people do besides breathing will cost them something.

Re:Amazing cost

[HermanAB]

That pales into insignificance compared to the amount the USA is spending in Iraq and that doesn't even protect anybody...

The only way that America can win the war in the middle east, is by invading, killing half the priests and converting the rest to Scientology, Mormonism, Southern Baptist - every freakin wacko US religion and scare the bejeezus out of them by preaching fire and brimstone non stop...

Re:Amazing cost

[tazanator]

Well I can say from first hand experiance at atlanta the strip joints went from $1 tip for dancers to the dancers expecting $10 tips. The cover charge and drink prices doubled. The food was also more expensive, the only saving grace I had was as part of the security detachment from the army we got drinks for free (what the athletes and VIP's didn't want) Security was a show (8 hour shifts sitting in chairs most equipment was turned off to process people for venues faster) until the bomb went off and after that well we were very ragged at the end (12 hour shifts tons of gear high alert).

Re:Amazing cost

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

One word: Tourism.

A spectator in Athens will give many times more than $500 to Athenian businesses; thus, the event is very profitable for Athens, who is sponsoring the games and paying for a considerable part of it. The tickets per se don't have to make money.

Bookies

[usefool]

If words are parsed, other official might be interested in such surveillance, for instance, to keep track of bookies, or for (human) traffic management.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

There is very little you can do to stop fanatics who are willing to die.

I was in Boston during the DNC. 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.

There is really nothing that can be done in a free society. They're gonna' get us.

Re:Agreed

[DrCash]

I seriously doubt that anything substantial will happen at the olympics. Terrorist organizations (and definitely Al Qaeda) know that security is going to be tight as hell during the olympics, and most likely won't even bother planning anything major. Al Qaeda's tendencies are to attack when we least likely expect, like some oddball, non-holiday, non-event tuesday in September,...

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Re:Agreed

[DeepHurtn!]

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...

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Agreed

[name773]

but not all muslims are terrorists... what a horrible option.
(why aren't you modded troll??)

Re:Agreed

[cujo_1111]

Do you want to kill all Irish people because of the IRA?

Do you want to kill all Christians after what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma?

Do you want to kill all white male caucasians because of what the Unabomber did?

Or should we just wipe out the human race because we resort to violence when we feel strong enough about something?

The best way to eliminate terrorism is to find the root cause and fix it. The current method obviously isn't working too well.

Re:Agreed

[arivanov]

Non event? Ever though what is the US emergency telephone number?

Re:Agreed

[DrCash]

True. But how many people in the country made that connection prior to Al Qaeda's little acrobatic manuevers with large buildings?

Unless these are webcast..

[maskedbishounen]

..I'm not interested. I mean, they do have security cameras in the female facilities.. right?

Of course CNN is saying that...

[sud_crow]

...the games are not being played in the USA...

Too fast

[Capt'n Hector]

It's probably a blessing in disguise that Athens took so long to finish preparations for the olympics. Since it is said Al Qaeda spends years preparing for an attack, I don't think anything big will happen at the olympics. That's also the kind of thing a bunch of cameras won't do shit against.

Re:Too fast

[Capt'n Hector]

I wasn't trying to be funny. Whoever finds this funny has some serious problems.

Re:Too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded you up. It IS funny

Subscriber service available?

[erroneus]

Since we in the US will not be able to see it without paying some jackass company a bunch of money and still not be able to see it live, I wonder if we can tap into the surveilance network? :)

Re:Subscriber service available?

[superpulpsicle]

If you were reading up on olympic progress, the greek folks are just behind assembling everything. From track paint to a roof over a new pool. What makes you think they took the liberty to install surveillance on time when everything else is delayed. No offense on greek folks please. This is just fact.

Re:Subscriber service available?

[Frogbert]

There are plenty of free satellites up there that you can point a dish at, some of these are bound to have some coverage, it may not be in english but commentry isn't exactly necessary.

I can't quite see whats wrong with this...

[NeoThermic]

... 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

Re:I can't quite see whats wrong with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Wow

[Xerxes2695]

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.

Define massive surveillance network

[lukewarmfusion]

I would consider millions (billions?) of people, all over the world, watching the games on television and the Internet to be a pretty massive surveillance network.

Re:Define massive surveillance network

[cujo_1111]

A few things count against the effectiveness of that surveillance:
- Annoying commentators that talk over everything
- 20 minutes out of every hour, the surveillance system will be down due to 'messages from our sponsors'
- The terrorists could have a conference at the synchronised swimming and not be spotted as no-one watches that event

Re:Define massive surveillance network

[mp3phish]

Just like a few things count against the effectiveness of the surveillance being discussed in the article:
- Annoying blind spots that blotch up the big picture
- 20 percent or more of the croud being in a blind spot at any given time
- The terrorists could coordinate using cell phones or send hand signals as everyone else in the stands is moving around too.

Here is a better solution: Set up a camera to watch every 4 seats in the stadium. Have armed guards walking the isles while each person sits in their seats, not moving, with their hands beside their body. Anyone who moves will be digitally recognised and singled out by security forces. Nobody can cheer because it just isn't safe to do it. It might cover up the terrorist threat.

Especially when...

[daveschroeder]

... half of the 5.3 million tickets are still unsold.

Re:Especially when...

[timeOday]

...but is it security concerns, and if so, which kind? Fear of being blown up, or fear of not having fun due to delays and the discomfort of being watched all the time?

CNN ran a story on the poor indicators for level of interest, and a lot of Greeks said they weren't comfortable with the police-state nature of the games. You can tell people to have "reasonable expectations" all you want, but Olympic attendance is optional so people can vote with their feet. (Obviously not so easy when Big Brother comes to your home town).

The One

[Eberlin]

Agents looking for the anomaly? Sounds like a hack sci-fi social commentary movie. Someone cue Ellison, I think they need to contact The Oracle.

This just seems too intrusive. Has biometrics proven itself enough for people to spend fortunes implementing such things? Sure, the olympics is a high-profile event that probably requires some over-the-top deterrance, but this?

Unfortunately, I'm not alone in my inability to find the elusive balance between security and privacy.

Software agents?

[mr_jrt]

I'm surprised it's taken this many comments to mention agent smith. :) Maybe the games will be concluded by a badly choreographed CG fight in the rain between a tree stump and one of these `agents'....all done in the best possible taste of course.

Security .. hah!

[failedlogic]

Security?

Considering the only branded foods available on ground will be, namely, McDonalds and Coke I don't think how this will fare well for spectators. My stomach feels insecure after eating that garbage! I feel sorry for everybody else. All the special forces, police, etc won't be able to help there. Maybe they need more doctors on hand or perhaps some dieticians?

Re:Security .. hah!

[Armchair Dissident]

That's probably the reason for all the security: They're just making sure you're not drinking pepsi ;-)

Makes you wonder if...

[abulafia]

...it would make more economic sense to not admit anyone, CGI the crowds in for broadcast, and pocket the 1.3B you didn't spend on security.

Re:Makes you wonder if...

[thedillybar]

>..it would make more economic sense to not admit anyone, CGI the crowds in for broadcast, and pocket the 1.3B you didn't spend on security.

ummm...what about the athletes?

Re:Makes you wonder if...

[MoOsEb0y]

It's not like the crowds don't act like robots already....

Re:Makes you wonder if...

[kubrick]

How do you know that's not already happening?

<matrix>There is no gold medal.</matrix>

(Sorry...)

Human rights?

[iamdrscience]

Well I don't know about human rights, but I bet that the security guards who get to keep an eye on the women's gymnastic events from 100 different angles are pretty happy.

Face it...

[chill]

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.

Re:Face it...

[ThatWeasel]

Put a smile on your face while the cameras televise your life because you don't want Big Brother thinking that you're unhappy.

Brings to mind...

[nlawalker]

"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?

Re:Brings to mind...

[Frogbert]

That blimp is a stupid publicity stunt, the Greek government wants people to be able to look up and see a blimp and think... gee I'm safe.

No one bothered to point out that a blimp can get into a whole lot of shit if it simply gets windy.

Re:Brings to mind...

[kfg]

Actually, one of my first responses to this was that the blimp provided the prime target.

When security structures start reaching large sizes they have a hard enough time defending themselves.

KFG

Bigger concerns

[iamdrscience]

After reading the article, I'm far less concerned about the cameras at the Olympics than I am about the other measures they've taken such as scanning phone communications (both mobile and land line) as well as monitoring e-mail, images and other electronic traffic. It seems to me that that kind of stuff is really what crosses the line. Ridiculous surveillance in public is one thing, but extreme surveillance of private communication is entirely another.

Re:Bigger concerns

[techno-vampire]

Want to mess with their heads? Get somebody that's going there to send out a massive spam with images in it. Watch them go crazy trying to monitor several million messages with images.

Seriously, the whole problem here is that the security team is being expected to make everything perfectly safe, prevent every imaginable threat and is being given as much money as they think they need to do whatever they want. No matter how much they do, they can always think of something else to watch for, something else to block, something else to throw money at. Clearly, the idea of perfect security, perfect safety, zero risk under any circumstances has gotten out of hand.

Re:Bigger concerns

[hadesan]

Negative... I disagree completely when it comes to this event.

The reason they scan the phone lines and land lines is so that people do not use them for remote detonation of devices. I have heard in some events that the military actually jams phone communications during susected terrorist or bomb threats (Spain train bombings come to mind.)

Draconian Olympics games

[British]

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.

Re:Draconian Olympics games

[mat catastrophe]

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.

Oh. Ha-ha. I thought you were talking about the National Conventions here in the United States. Silly me!

Re:CNN too little too late

[HebrewToYou]

Are you being carted off to jail for dissent?
Are you suffering indignity too great to measure?
Has TBA [The Bush Administration] censored you?

Obviously not.

So quit your damn bitching, you idiotic liberal.

people are voting with their feet

[kylemonger]

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.

Re:people are voting with their feet

[Errtu76]

You're right. I don't HAVE to. But sometimes i WANT to. If you look at this with a mind like yours, it really doesn't matter anymore: your rights (online), because if you don't like it you should stay home ...

Sorry i can't find better words to express my opinion, but i really disagree with this statement.

it's our secret weapon

[PortWineBoy]

Hopefully the plan is to also force the athletes to eat the same crap. I bet those Kenyans won't be so fast after a super sized #1 meal!

Does anyone else find the idea of software scanning for anomalous behavior at what will most likely be a huge Greek party pretty funny? Ever been to a Greek party? (or at least seen My Big Fat Greek Wedding?)

It all looked pretty anomalous to me.

terrorism works

[pizza_milkshake]

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.

Re:terrorism works

[lavaface]

and all the while, the large defense companies and security companies laugh their ways to the bank. For that matter, the banks, the financiers that supply both sides of most armed conflicts, must sit smugly indeed. Another appropriate 1984 quote:

"The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living."

Re:terrorism works

[arivanov]

If there will be any targets blown up they will be more then one and they will be blown up by friendly fire, not terrorists. Patriot missiles, with fire permit at sectors of civilian airspace including the approach sector for Athens airport and no IFF on all planes (not that it helped in the gulf). Nope, thank you. This will be one even I will definitely stay as far away from as I can.

That is besides the fact that the batteries were bought entirely as a result of drowning the relevant officials in bribes. Good advert for Raytheon. In fact perfect advert for Raytheon because with all the fleet and fighter jet deployment the Patriots can be simply turned off and used for advertisement only.

Actually, the fact that the Greeks have decided on using S300 for all sites that do not have navy and air cover (Thesaloniki and all other cities with out-of-Athens events) kind'a confirms my suspicion on this one.

It is the same with the rest of the surveilanse and security. About 10% of it is for real, the rest is an advert for arms companies. Same as on the Olympic stadium. It is all about advertising merchandise. Missiles instead of Cola and gunships instead of Gatorade. And that is for the even that was supposed to be a symbol of world piece. Fsck... Screw this Olympics. I am not even watching it...

Re:terrorism works

[bwy]

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.

Nuclear weapons work too. All the US has to do is mangage to nuke one terrorist filled state every couple of years, and then just sit back as the fallout settles and Bin Laden and crew die of radiation poisoning.

Re:terrorism works

[zeet]

So, let's say (off the wall) that Iraq had 1000 terrorists that would attack us on our homeland. This seems high.

Iraq has 24 million people living there.

So you bomb this particular country, you kill half the terrorists, and 12 million people?

I'd like to perform laser eye surgery on you. Let me just get my grenade ready ...

Re:Your Rights Online?

[ChipMonk]

Well, it's either Your Rights Online, or Your Rights Offline. Is there any indication in the article that the security network is isolated from the Internet? No? Then it's online.

I don't care if there is only one computer that connects to both the Internet and the Olympic Security Network. That will still be too many.

That and...

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

i'm sure the vendors (no, not just the hotdog guy on the corner, i mean the gucci's, nike's, mcdonald's etc. that show up too) have to pay a fee (or nine!). :-)

Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[hadesan]

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.

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[geomon]

As far as I am concerned that is all the more reason to hunt every last one of the bastards down...

You have just exhibited the difficulty in determine just who the bad guys are:

Sept 1972? Palestinians.
April 1995? Angry White Guy.
July 1996? Angry White Guy.
Sept 2001? Saudis.

Which specific bastards are you going to hunt down?

Do we just completely flush our civil liberties to make certain that we catch the bad guys?

Great idea: become just like our like our enemies!

Why are we fighting them again?

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[hadesan]

Sept 1972? Palestinians.

- members of PLO faction called Black September, believed to be led by Abu Daoud (admitted his role in his autobiography, Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist.) (Captured, released by Germans, most others assassinated by Israelis)
April 1995? Angry White Guy.

Valley Militia??? In 1996, federal agents busted 12 members of the Valley militia group, the Vipers due to their bomb making activities. McVeigh was executed.
July 1996? Angry White Guy.

Religious Fundamentalist??? Prison.
Sept 2001? Saudis

Al Qaeda

The specific people are those who associate with the terror groups, those who fund them. Do we just completely flush our civil liberties to make certain that we catch the bad guys?

No. We live in a surveillance nation. Everyone has video capture devices on everythign from phones to regular cameras. I would rather have PUBLIC places made as difficult as possible for the bad guys blend in with everyone else (those who are living in a civil society AND being civil.)

Great idea: become just like our like our enemies!

WTF? Since when did we start killing non-combatants and destroying civil targets intentionally?

Why are we fighting them again?

I for one wish to live in a civil society and watch my children (and eventually my grandchildren) grow up in one as well. Unfortunately, these people do not wish to allow that civil society to exist outside of their narrow views which conflict with pretty much the rest of the world and common respect for other human beings. Their answer is to kill us without any room for reason. Since they cannot be transported someplace where they won't try to kill us - there is only one choice - Capture and/or kill them.

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[Ill_Omen]

No. We live in a surveillance nation. Everyone has video capture devices on everythign from phones to regular cameras. I would rather have PUBLIC places made as difficult as possible for the bad guys blend in with everyone else (those who are living in a civil society AND being civil.)

The phrase you're looking for is "police state". Examples include East Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, Argentina under military rule several years ago, Cuba, etc.

Or were you expecting those magic surveillance cameras to be able to pick out only those people who were actually on their way to blow up a building, ignoring the non-violent protesters, political opponents, loitering teenagers wearing black...

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[lavaface]

As far as I am concerned that is all the more reason to hunt every last one of the bastards down

So . . . what? So their sons can grow up and venge their fathers' death. To defeat terrorism, attack root causes. That's the only way we'll ever make any real progress.

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[hadesan]

Noun 1. police state - a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)

All the examples you give are places where that surveillance could/would extend into your home (PRIVATE areas) without any due cause. What activities are you doing that are being repressed? What secret police are maintaining control over you? You are in public - public means just that. If you expect to be PRIVATE in a public area you are living in a fairytale world. There are cameras on everything nowadays (street lights for speeders, people's phones, etc.)

If those surveillance cameras start to extend into your homes that is when the problem starts. The Olympics are covering a PUBLIC venue which has been targeted as a high profile event.

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[hadesan]

Mothers and daughters can be terrorists too.

Since you have such a clear vision on this subject... What are the root causes of terrorism and how would you address them?

What did the people who died in the Trade Centers bombings do to bring about their death? How about the plane bombing victims?

You assume that we (collective we as U.S. citizens) have done something to deserve these attacks?

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[geomon]

What activities are you doing that are being repressed?

Political actitivity.

When the State has cameras at every vantage point in public spaces, their presence has a tendency to squelch legitimate political discourse (e.g., rallies).

Just how long do you think it will take for the first elected official to use the public surveillance system for political activities?

Are you that trusting that you believe that the surveillance world you crave will not be used for the purposes you didn't intend?

Re:Remember September 5th, 1972... July 1996???

[geomon]

I for one wish to live in a civil society and watch my children (and eventually my grandchildren) grow up in one as well.

You have a better chance of being killed in your car in an accident on your way to work than being a victim of terrorism. That is a fact.

It is childish to believe that the State's sole function is to protect everyone of its citizens from every possible fate. Do you support wrapping every person, from birth, in bubble wrap to protect them from injury?

We all have a responsibility to protect each other. Installing cameras in every public venue only provides the public with a false sense of security.

If you are such a fan of surveillance, then tell me why the surveillance system maintained by the CIA and the NSA failed to detect terrorist activities in the US and abroad?

The only truly successful intelligence program is one that relies primarily on personal contact, human intelligence. Just ask the US Justice Department. That is the program they used to break the back of the Italian Mafia on the East Coast.

Re:CNN too little too late

[evilad]

None of the above.

But I am afraid.

don't blame them

[haxorphreak]

I don't blame 'em for the tight security. There's bound to be a terrorist attack (actually saw it in a dream).

When you're out in public.....

[simetra]

You are NOT guaranteed total anonymity everywhere all the time. Why is this so freakin hard to understand?

Really, come on. If you're out in public, and you commit a crime, you have every right to be caught and punished. If you're not commiting crimes, you have nothing to worry about. This Big Brother paranoia is sickening.

Re:When you're out in public.....

[Xerxes2695]

"If you're not commiting crimes, you have nothing to worry about."

Please send me the keys to your car and house, along with a urine sample, so that I may ransack your house, read your mail, rifle through your underwear drawer, and inspect your gadget (just to be sure your not a terrorist).

Re:When you're out in public.....

[Ill_Omen]

Umm, not to be a jerk or anything, but the OP wasn't talking about "in your house". I believe the specific phrase, right there in the title of the message, was "when you're out in public".

I think this is fine, in this case.

[ErikTheRed]

If there are specific public areas that are considered highly desireable targets, then it's only prudent to have correspondingly high security, even if it's intrusive (I'm speaking generally). Especially in a place like this, where nobody's putting a gun to your head and saying "go to the olympics" (especially since Uday Hussein is no longer in charge of the the Iraqi teams) - attending the Olympics is a purely optional pursuit, and people can make an informed choice as to whether or not to subject themselves to the additional scrutiny. Think of it as a privacy trade-off, just as you consider the financial trade-offs of attending a relatively expensive event such as this.

Life is full of such trade-offs, and as long as people are allowed to make informed choices - especially in activities such as this that are purely optional - I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, stay home. HDTV probably gives you a better view anyway!

Re:I think this is fine, in this case.

[BenSnyder]

I tend to agree with you. If it's your party, you should be able to secure it however you want to. The irksome thing about the Olympics is that cameras exist not only at the games, but largely throughout Athens. For my own taste, that's when it intrudes too much into the daily lives of those that live there. If I were a resident, I would feel violated.

Re:I think this is fine, in this case.

[H09N0X10U5]

"If I were a resident, I would feel violated."

-1: drama queen.

no one going

[Leadmagnet]

Looks like there maybe a bigger problem. About half of the 6 million tickets have only been sold so far, only 200k last week. They are hoping to sell the rest by this Friday! www.drudgereports.com has an article about it.

From my greek point of view

[pangel83]

Basically $1.5bn dollars was what the games were supposed to cost. That was sort of covered by the European Union, Sponsors, and Greece. The final cost was closer to a $3bn price, due to the mismanagement and the corruption of the previous government.

That extra $1.5bn is going straight to the taxpayers.. I expect that my country will not be able to get over this debt for the next 25 years.

Still, I expect that no foreigner can understand how much to these games mean to us. I am greatly looking forward to them!!!

PS: It also goes without saying that all the greek construction companies will be doomed on the post-olympics era since no major projects are going to take place in the forthcoming years...

defined goal of terrorism?

[interactive_civilian]

Xerxes2695 said

This is what the defined goal of terrorism is, to instill terror, to make us sleep with one eye open.

Really? That sounds like propaganda to me. Personally, I was under the impression that the goal of terrorism is something more along the lines of, if you want to take down a giant, sometimes the only way is to sling a stone at his knee.

Re:"State's right"?

[quantaman]

'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.'"

WTF?

Constitutional Amendment 28:

"The state shall have the right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary."


A very good point, the Greeks are merely using the powers granted to them by the US Constitution...

Re:"State's right"?

[rpj1288]

Ah, but this is in Greece. A classmate of mine was greece, and according to him, the police already abused their powers. I get the feeling that Greece's government already has a bit more power than the US.

There are no real answers Dave

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Original Poster: RTFA

[The Dark]

From the original article:
"The Olympic Games are accompanied with extended security measures that are unprecedented for Greece," six human rights groups said in a protest letter to Greek Parliament in July. "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."
From the slashdot article:
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.'

It is not CNN saying these things, it is "six human rights groups" from Greece.

Re:Original Poster: RTFA

[Jack9]

In addition, I cannot fathom how monitoring activity TO ANY DEGREE violates basic human rights, as I am only up to snuff on the American Bill of Rights and would be hard pressed to consider privacy, a basic human right rather than a moral habit.

I don't believe ... what is the realistic tech?

[pikine]

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.

It is never enough

[brunes69]

You cannot have both a free society and be free from terrorist attacks. It is impossible. The more "security" you add the more Orwellian your government becomes.

A balence must be struck. And IMO it should be struck further toward "freedom" than it is being currently.

Some food for thought:

Dorothy Thompson:

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."

John Adams:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Wendell Phillips:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

And the ever popular Benjamin Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Re:It is never enough

[kfg]

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."

Or to say the same thing in a different but more generalized way:

"A man flattened by an opponent can get up again. A man flattened by conformity stays down for good." -- Thomas Watson Jr.

KFG

Re:It is never enough

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Dorothy Thompson is wrong. That's an idiotic statement. Believe that and you also believe that criminals can't be rehabilitated, addicts can never kick their addiction, nobody can ever make a life change, the world only ever goes downhill.

Stupid. And wrong.

2) John Adams - Nice quote. But still wrong. If that should be the only purpose of a government, then you can forget about providing public infrastructures, enriching public lives, providing a community etc. Gee, sucks to live in his world.

3) Wendell Phillips has a good point. No argument there.

4) Ah, good old Benjamin Franklin. Thanks for not forgetting this one. But, in this thing, he was an idiot. An idiot and a politician.

Here's the only counterargument that's needed for Ben's quote:

Who defines "essential"? What's essential for you is not essential for me... and vice versa. It renders the entire quote void of relevance for the real world.

(One more counter-argument for fun though: Lets go reductio ab adsurdum on that quote shall we? I lock my doors and windows at night. They won't prevent someone who really wants to from breaking in - they are therefore "temporary security". I gave up my freedom and liberty to open my windows and doors without taking 5 seconds to unlock them. So I guess you and Ben can get together and come take my doors and windows, hell even the walls. Guess I don't deserve any liberty or security at all huh?)

Wow... Thanks Ben. Rhetoric at its best - helps to rouse the people behind your cause, but at the end of the day, only fools would follow trust the reasoning.

Re:OT question about the Olympic Games

[john82]

Ever watch basketball in the 20 years before the US started sending acknowledged professionals? US kids were playing ... foreign professionals. How about hockey? Notice that the Soviet Union team was made up of players from the Soviet Army?

Individual sports federations decide whether or not they allow "professionals" to compete. The definition of that word varies from sport to sport. The US had the opportunity in several sports before they ever decided to take advantage of it.

Rights, Shmights

[timminator]

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.

Re:Rights, Shmights

[Thelxepeia]

Exactly. If it hurts, don't do it. The Gmail syndrome.

What are you smoking?

[brunes69]

Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Propeganda? WTF?

Of course the defined goal of terror is to instill terror. Its the f*cking definition of the word.

You can debate whether or not a given person is a terrorist, but you can't debate what a terrorist is.

Re:What are you smoking?

[Jack9]

There is no such thing as a terrorist without a political agenda. Beyond the basic cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", terror for terror's sake is more along the lines of an anarchist. The root of a word does not define it. Good try!

P.S. Voltair was a well spoken, and is an often quoted, moron.

Going to be swimming in false alarms...

[Goonie]

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.

some answers

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:some answers

[BenSnyder]

well said, my hat is off to you...

privacy, etc

[v1x]

I was at the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, and that happened right after 9/11, so we were told that the security was even greater than it had been in the previous olympics. The point is that in order to prevent yet another tragedy, such measures were entirely *necessary*.

Since an event like the Olympics draws people from different parts of the world, conflict is bound to arise in some form or the other, given the fact that many nations are not exactly at peace with a lot of other nations (ourselves included). So it doesnt even have to be a terrorist-related threat that may push up security to new levels: anticipating & preventing anything from happening is the main objective of such operations.

In the light of this, I fail to understand why people would then want to drag privacy issues in the middle of all this. If you want real privacy, go shut yourself into a cave or a bunker and cut yourself from the rest of the world. Privacy in your home & privacy in a public place are entirely different things. If you step out onto the street, you are in a public place, and therefore need to redefine your expectations of privacy in that place. Realistically, the two will never be the same.

read your own definition

[interactive_civilian]

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Obviously, the defined goal of terror is coercion. Terror is the means, not the end. The end is a change in whatever situation is making the terrorist angry enough to resort to terrorism.

Saying that terror itself is the goal of terrorism sounds like propaganda because it gives a Government a great excuse to remove some freedoms in order to guard against "terror" so that the people don't have to be afraid.

IMHO.

Re:Interesting to see this in a betting situation

[ron_ivi]

Or stock-market fraud as Business Execs discuss their companies won & lost customers, etc.

Olympic Crimes Against Humanity!

[Mulletproof]

"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." ...Until that snack truck(s) blows up in the middle of a crowd, killing and maiming scores of people while raining lunchen meat down upon the shell-shocked masses. Then we can create an 'Olympic Investigation Commision' to slog through this farce again, wasting tax-payer dollars to lament on the couldwouldshouldas and the need to create an omni-potent 'Olympic Intelligence' czar to prevent future attacks, while politizing the entire investigation and turning up token results.

Sorry, but I gotta pass on this one. It's the freakin Olympics. If survellience at the public games is the worst "human rights" violation you can come up with, pardon me if I sleep in tommorow. People suffer worse invasions of their privacy stepping into casinos anywhere in the world.

the next headline should read...

[deft]

Terrorist notifed as to what areas of the olympics will be "rights positive". These areas will be free of "rights imposing" things like security and suveilance, who might look at you, thereby profile you, etc.

The "rights negative" area will also be in effect, for people who will submit themselves to tyranny and the like. Those who believe that security and surveilance are good things will be ushered to a secure area to view the games.

It will be no extra charge for the secure area to view the "fireworks show" on the insecure side.

I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most such systems, I doubt this system works at all. We can't even get network intrusion detection systems to examine packets at this scale without tons of false positives -- you're telling me SAIC can make a *human* intrusion system that's worth a damn? Real time recording, parsing and scanning of the conversations of millions of visitors? I don't buy it.

Security Theatre

[sbszine]

Check out this Bruce Schneier interview from Newsweek where he talks about real security vs security theatre. He basically says that surveillance, ID cards etc just provide an illusion of security (especially when limited to only a few sites: secure the olympic statium and they'll bomb the subway, or the CBD, or the stock exchange etc). Real security in the context of terrorism comes from better intelligence gathering and better spooks.

Re:Security Theatre

[lavaface]

Real security in the context of terrorism comes from better intelligence gathering and better spooks.

I might add "better relations with other nations."

Relax

[Seanasy]

This only so they can catch people wearing Nike t-shirts.

Not Surprising

[FunkyMunky]

This is not surprising at all. The olympics are Greece's opportunity in the international spotlight. The United States made a fool out of itself in 1996 with the bombing incident and other fiascos. The olympics tend to spur huge gains in tourism for a good number of years after their completion. Makes sense that they would not want to jeopardize this.

Re:OT question about the Olympic Games

[hadesan]

The Olympics were never meant to be just for amateurs. The Greek olympians trained year round and were sponsored. They did not even have a word for amateur.

The idea of amateurs only was foisted by the British gentile society as a way to keep professional laborers from competing in the sports (no day laborers could wrestle for example, working rivermen could not compete in rowing, etc.)

I think A&E had a good story about the whole thing recently...

A snippet of some Olympic myths (I like the one about the wine...) http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/olympic s/games.html

Re:OT question about the Olympic Games

[techno-vampire]

Yes, the US was sending kids to play against foreign professionals and beating their pants off. The only time the US basketball team lost a game in those years was when the clock was set back to allow the other team to score in a tight game. Even then, we still got the gold.

"Thousands of cameras" for security but...

[Timbotronic]

zero tv cameras broadcasting in HD and/or widescreen. At least that's what we're getting in Australia. The coverage will all be in Standard Definition at a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Considering all the money that's been spent on the Olympics I find this a bit disappointing. Anyone getting HD or 16:9 coverage outside of Aus?

Re:OT question about the Olympic Games

[techno-vampire]

Thanks for the link. BTW, Krup, mentioned in the article as having made the first torches, also used a set of interlocking rings as a logo. Most people today think they're gun barrels, but they're not; they're train wheels. Krup was well known for making the best train wheels long before they started making guns.

oops!

[lavaface]

That last bit should have read "NOT act as a tool . . ." Damn hasty preview. Our nation has never been perfect (Native American genocide, slavery, etc.) but at least there has always been a strong element of idealism and respect for fellow man. These days, even that gets drowned out by greed, lust and a deep mistrust of anyone that's not yourself. It can't go on like this for long.

Market rejection for obnoxiousness

[Animats]

At some point, customers get fed up. Lollapolloza - dead. Comdex -dead. United Airlines - near bankrupcy. Now, the Olympics.

Re:"State's right"?

[0x0d0a]

Ah, thanks.

I was still thinking of the DNC cameras...

The only problem is...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...this time, the 'bad guys' are really blowing stuff up. Purposely targeting civilians. You think they'll be nice guys and just stop because a few troops leave? Must be a nice view through those rosy glasses.

Want to fuck with something? Want to really help the situation?

Fuck with their stuff. Get the fools blowing stuff up to actually stop doing that. Subvert them from the inside.

You game? Or are you just after the geek street cred from hacking a surveillance cam?

Re:The only problem is...

[chill]

My implied point was that the surveillance system and the pervasive monitoring will be there LONG after the Olympics and even the terrorist threat is gone.

Now that it is in place, one excuse after another will be found not only to keep it, but to upgrade and enhance it.

diplomacy & security

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:A dose of reality

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

meh

[ttyp0]

Nothing to see here. Basically a corporation suckers them in to over paying for some microphones and tape recorders. Really no different than Oracle charging California $90 million for some software. I highly doubt the technology is really as advanced as it is hyped.

Is this even possible?

[teneighty]

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?

Re:Is this even possible?

[surprise_audit]

Behold the power of outsourcing - if the technology isn't available to transcribe speech-to-text, hire 10,000 temps from India... Hand them a tape each and a cheap acsii terminal with a word processor. Heck, hire 100,000 if you need to...

Indeed : )

[sbszine]

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.

Re:Indeed : )

[Pike]

So who whacked whose nest first?

Slightly OT: Any RealPlayer feeds? :-)

[phandel]

How many more Olympics until I can finally watch water polo on my computer?

Any foreign TV stations broadcast their channel over the internet that just happen to be covering the Olympics?

Thanks,
Peter

Forget Orwell...

[Jack Action]

To pun on Marshall McLuhan, welcome to the Global Olympic Village.

Where, like life in a true village, everyone knows what you're doing.

Maybe if you add Orwell and McLuhan together you get a true picture of where we are heading. This will either be very terrible or very funny.

Re:A dose of reality

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not say muslims. I specified islamists meaning islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber types. I understand that there are millions of muslims in this world who wish these nut jobs would just go kill themselves quietly in a corner. I also understand that muslims who choose to ignore the problem are complicit with those who would blow up women and children in a street market.

I'm a pro-life Catholic, but if I knew someone from my church was planning to blow up a Planned Parenthood I would do everything in my power to stop them. This is not about politics, this is not about religion, this is not about power. This is about the rule of law and the responsibility of every human being to be a contributing member of society at large. That means the dual responsibility of respecting others rights while ensuring that other people stay within their boundaries.

Re:The system is a polyglot...

[PingPongBoy]

Don't worry. With all the paranoia the only people who will show up will be terrorists. Then they blow each other up.

Pointless Crap

[Master of Transhuman]

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."

Don't mind me!

[fleener]

Don't mind me. If you think I'm acting strangely, it's only because I've been holding in my urine for the last 12 hours, too afraid to perform for the urine cam.

Salt Lake

[hckrdave]

My mom was at the salt lake Olympics... she had recently seen on the news that they would have snipers perched throughout the venues. She whispered into my uncles ear "I wonder where the snipers are" instantly it was obvious that all the security in the area starting watching them. This lasted all day as they moved from venue to venue constantly being watched. The on the way home they were followed by unmarked ford explored to my uncles home in salt lake. There was a government car out front all night long. They finally left when they saw my mother help my aunt into the car (she has ms). Needless to say everyone was freaked out. I can't imagine how much better the tech has gotten since then?

Re:Salt Lake

[hckrdave]

True normally i would think that my mom was just nuts(come on she's my mother) i had two uncles that that told me the same story.... its freakey

"The terrorists ate my homework!"

[KZigurs]

You definetly have no principles whatsoever.

I wouldn't mind to be killed by some terorist or local fuckup, if this has to happen. But instead I get a lot of annoyance, security that question me what color my underpants is and by fearing the "TERRORISTS" give them a perfect cover for any fuckups they will make.

"The terrorists ate my homework!"

Olympic security (sic)

[Fallen Andy]

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...

Re:Why would terrorists want to ruin the Olympics

[tehcyder]

Er, why has this not been immediately modded as flamebait/troll?

Re:Yep

[H09N0X10U5]

Are you also sane enough to despise the people who constantly talk up China (or sometimes Russia) as the nation that will, as they put it, "stand up to US imperialism"? Let fatty Moore go and make a film about their governments and see how far he gets. They'll shove a cattle prod up his asshole as soon as they can find it. The big fat fuck.

MCDonalds And Coke

[oliverthered]

Don't worry, this is all to stop people eating food and waring cloths that are not made by the official sponsors (or at least a good counterfit).

In 2004 Olympics Greece...

[Project2501a]

Games Watch you (eating souvlaki)

-- Yes I live in Athens, Greece (unfortunately) and yes, i can see the effing blimp right outside my window at work.

-- ADD:SIG --

Lessons in English for Greek lovers-wannabes:

"Hi, baby! Me I am! Yesterday you gave her to me, because you are very searched woman. Are you to find her together, tonight?

No? Because no? Come on baby! I'll have you in opa-opa! Carpet I will be to step me! Come on baby, don't break her to me...

(To all the geek ladies in the house, with style and grace...)

Depends on the weather,

[mishmash]

What if it's windy and the "security blimp" just blows away / can't be used.

Re:"moderate Moslems"

[idamaybrown]

Who are these two people?

Can we get an Olympic subject?

[wowbagger]

Can we get an Olympic subject on /.?

That way, I can flip the ignore bit on it.

Now that the Olympic committy are going after anybody who uses a circular motif in their logo, or any derivitive of the word "Olympia", now that we are starting to allow things like "The Dream Team" into the Olympics, the spirit of human excellence, *sportsmanship*, and competition are gone.

I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about the Olympics - I won't watch them, I don't care about them, and I wish to show my disregard - please let this become a topic.

As for the security issues - shows of "security" are going to become the norm, get used to it.

Or better still, DON'T get used to it - don't go to these places, write your government appointed representatives (I chose that wording deliberately, think about it) to complain.

Personally, I think the best security would be to enable and encourage THE PEOPLE to take part in their own defense.

Terrorists are our friends

[danila]

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.

Get some experience before critisising, CCTV Works

[dapprman]

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.

it's going to be fun

[WormholeFiend]

reading the comments in YRO when the 2008 games come around...

Re:A dose of reality

[Brando_Calrisean]

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.

Hey, I think you're on to something here!

Yeah...and...

[jav1231]

This may be the first Olympics where there are more security personel and athletes than spectators.

Re:Yep

[iamacat]

Well, in post-Soviet Russia

• You are free to have an abortion without threats of violence
  
• You are not expected to carry an ID in public
  
• Radio stations are allowed to talk about sexuality
  
• Moore would cringe from things people are saying about government, or people in the government are saying about each other.
  
• Republics were allowed to become separate countries because people there wanted to. Chechnian first war was a sad exceptions. Eventually they were allowed independence and current war is a result of them attacking a neighbor.
  
• You have a right to fair use of your software, music, DVDs and e-books, by reverse-engineering DRM if necessary.
  

This is not to say everything is rosy. Poverty is widespread and military draft is an inexcusible abuse of half of country's population. Mostly abuse by commanders and lowlife that should be in jail but was also drafted as soldiers rather than any enemies. That's why I am in US, thank you very much. But I am sure this guy was very glad to get the hell out of here.

Careful what you say.

[Thieron]

Joe is walking down the street on the way to an event talking to his buddy about the latest big summer movie. It was the bomb! Suddenly men in sunglasses and suits grab him up.

Yeah, this should be fun. How much time is going to be wasted with people having to check reports from the software where someone used a work like bomb in a normal context to dismiss it. I can see the eyes blurring and any real mentions getting lost in all the false alerts.

I don't know if this software is capable, but they need to make sure that it just doesn't check for certain words, but also the context. Even then, the number of false alerts could overwhelm any security force.

The software will only be as good as the people that interpret the information it generates.

Just because you're paranoid....

[maduro55]

doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

Re:OT question about the Olympic Games

[benzapp]

I don't have a link, but I have studied the issue extensively.

There were several kinds of olympic games, but there was growing concern that specialization was a problem. Later games got around the problem by requiring people to win several different events.

You wouldn't win the prize if you could only wrestle, but you had to run as well.

Incrementalism

[Muttonhead]

The Olympics and other venues are always used to rachet up the police state. People love the games and won't protest. It's the perfect time to take away more liberties under the guise of keeping us safe.

Man, these Olympics are the BOMB!

[Ikoma Andy]

Ow! Hey! Leggo a me!

Dead languages making a comeback

[unixpro]

Since this thing understands most European and, apparantly, middle-eastern languages, I'll be taking classes in Navajo. That'll stop em!

Wonder if it understands Klingon....

Re:Some observations and questions = !BenFranklin

[Dick Faze]

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
-- George Washington

Corollary

[Mr Guy]

Repeat after me:

Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Everyone got that into your thick skull now?

MOD PARENT UP! - Re:Some observations and question

[vDave420]

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.

Preach it, brother!

You have nailed my thoughts and concerns down almost exactly.

Wish I had the mod points for ya (and that you could go to +6! =)

-dave-

so weird to me....

[tacokill]

Its so strange to me that everytime I hear Bush say "the terrorists hate our freedom", I think of the 3 items you just laid out.

Bin Laden's complaint was never with our freedom, rather it was for the exact 3 things you lay out above. You know why I think that? Because that's what he said

We're out of Saudi now, aren't we?

[theonomist]

Last I heard, the US military was out of Saudi entirely. And al Qaeda is still killing civilians there.

Hello? Bin Laden objects to non-Muslims being permitted to set foot in Saudi. They're not defending their homeland from foreign military adventurers; they're persecuting foreigners, like the KKK.

Basques, by the way, still do not have full autonomy. That's not just splitting hairs; would the US have settled for less than full autonomy from England?

Re:We're out of Saudi now, aren't we?

[RWerp]

Last I heard, the US military was out of Saudi entirely. And al Qaeda is still killing civilians there.

Didn't know. In fact, you've just proved the point which I made in the previous posts in this thread: terrorists don't have a clear logical reason (I'm not implying that governments do, either) for doing what they do. In my opinion, it's just like Monty Python's "I fart in your general direction!". I don't think it really matters that much for Al-Kaeda, whether they kill Saudis or Iraqis. Sure, some nationalities are better targets (the prime prize being probably US citizens or Jews), some or worse, but I think that after somebody killed or helped to kill so many people, it's a habit. You either like it or not. Reminds me what I read about Nazi or Soviet tormentors. They liked it. Terrorists like it. Otherwise, they wouldn't stay in business, would they?

Hello? Bin Laden objects to non-Muslims being permitted to set foot in Saudi. They're not defending their homeland from foreign military adventurers; they're persecuting foreigners, like the KKK.

This, too, is some news to me. Did he object to even foreign Muslims visiting Mecca, really?

Basques, by the way, still do not have full autonomy.

If they want to separate from Spain, they're brain damaged. Who would give them fat paychecks of regional aid?

Re:We're out of Saudi now, aren't we?

[theonomist]

Terrorists like it. Otherwise, they wouldn't stay in business, would they?

Personally, I think it's a really serious case of something closely akin to Undergraduate Political Extremism Syndrome: Some people don't know who they are, or why they're breathing, or why they matter. They feel like their lives are more meaningful, interesting, and significant if they're engaged in a millenial life-and-death struggle for the soul of humanity and the future of Planet Earth, toe-to-toe with Absolute Evil in the form of, you know, Starbucks or people who wear leather shoes or whatever. Or communism, or capitalism, or the Jews. Whoever's handy.

The bottom line is, the undergraduate extremist mind is neither subtle nor patient, and favors pathological oversimplification of both problems and solutions. They love conspiracy theories: All the world's problems are due to one small group of evil people -- kill 'em and all our problems will vanish!

Did he object to even foreign Muslims visiting Mecca, really?

Erm, "foreigners" was the wrong word. "Infidels". Non-muslims. "Them" as opposed to "us", for bin Laden's own personal definitions of "them" and "us".

My impression is that the Arab word conventionally translated into English as "nation" doesn't exactly mean "nation state" as we in the West understand it. Sometimes it seems to mean "the Arab race", sometimes "the Islamic world", sometimes... whatever. Are multiple distinct Arabic words all being translated as "nation", perhaps by different translators? I often wonder just how deep the semantic divide is between the two cultures.

If [Basque separatists] want to separate from Spain, they're brain damaged. Who would give them fat paychecks of regional aid?

The EU, perhaps? Heh heh.

Anyhow, nationalism and irredentism ain't necessarily logical. Similar economic arguments applied to the Irish Free State in the 1930s, and they pried themselves loose from England anyway. It's generally true that people would rather be governed by an "us" than by a "them", and are often willing to risk a pay cut for the sake of establishing such a government. They usually also tell themselves that unimaginable prosperity will follow hard on the heels of the Revolution, but that's just because people (all of 'em) are dumbasses.

Re:We're out of Saudi now, aren't we?

[teflaime]

No, the US still has a significant military presence in the Saudi penninsula. They just aren't doing anything. But there are still bases in Ryhad(sp?). There was speculation that the creation of bases in Qatar was to allow for the significant reduction in US forces in Saudi. But nothing has ever been said about a total pull out in official briefings.

Re:CNN too little too late

[HebrewToYou]

That's not called censoring.
It's called being respectful.

Automoton or not, I at least intelligent enough to not ridicule CNN for not harping on a topic that doesn't need it. You're a bloody joke of a human being.