Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Olympics to Have Massive Surveillance Network

Posted by michael on from the platonic-ideals dept.

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

27 of 441 comments (clear)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      evil is as evil does
    9. Re:Some observations and questions by Feyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

      go on, be afraid. encourage the terrorists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      positioning of 100,000 troops in Iraq

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

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

      Truth my ass.

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

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

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

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

    13. Re:Some observations and questions by canicus · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Amazing cost by robogun · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    How are these Games supposed to make money?

  3. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Makes you wonder if... by abulafia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.
  6. Human rights? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:terrorism works by lavaface · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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."
      --
      harmonious design
  9. From my greek point of view by pangel83 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  10. Security Theatre by sbszine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

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

      I might add "better relations with other nations."

      --
      harmonious design
  11. Indeed : ) by sbszine · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling