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.'"

8 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 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?
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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. 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.

  3. 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...

  4. 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