Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
So when is surveillance acceptable? What level of surveillance is acceptable? Under what conditions? Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen? Why do the naysayers never have any better alternatives, but just negative comments? I may sound sarcastic, but these are serious questions. I realize there is a balance, and that the debate is valuable, but seriously: do people ever recognize the hypocrisy of criticizing every action taken, while simultaneously saying "not enough was done" when something *does* happen? (And yes, it is very often the very same group of people.)
Even today, the US was criticized for not responding adequately (or publicly, previous to this point) to the threat of terrorists potentially using tourist helicopters as weapons (or for delivery of a weapon), by the same group of people who attacked the recent public release of critical intelligence threat information as purely politically motivated. (Think about this for a second: if the local authorities in New York and DC were simply told secretly about the newly obtained threat information, as they *most certainly* should have been, the information would DEFINITELY have leaked to the press once it hit local authorities and local police agencies, who would then DEMAND that DHS reveal the full nature of the information - a lose/lose situation [and it doesn't matter that the information was "old" - it's well, well known that attacks are planned years in advance, as in the case of 9/11]. So instead, DHS reveals the information, and targets threat information as locally as possible, and they're crucified for releasing it exclusively for political reasons.)
Please, try to give real answers (not in the form of a Ben Franklin quotation).
(Also, "CNN" doesn't say that last quote; it was attributed to six "human rights groups" who wrote a letter of protest to the Greek government.)
1.5bn cost versus 3,000,000 tickets sold = $500 per spectator spent in security.
How are these Games supposed to make money?
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.
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.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
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? :)
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.
... half of the 5.3 million tickets are still unsold.
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?
...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.
I forget what 8 was for.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
sig's not here
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"
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.
+++
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.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
That's my preference... it's mentioned in the interview too:
You can imagine living in a community where the landlord keeps hornets' nests, and he keeps whacking the nests. And then he keeps telling you, you need to buy protective clothing. He's right, but I wish he'd stop whacking the nest.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
-- 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...)
----