Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit

Gerhardius writes "Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $212 million contract to provide cameras and sensors for New York City subways, bridges and tunnels." The entire program is being conducted under the guise of anti-terrorism and includes plans for a possible wireless network which would allow cellular phones to be used in case of emergency.

Comments

Lockheed?

[Eightyford]

I thought they only made airplanes? Tell me Cheney wasn't CEO of them too...

I'm only half joking by the way, karma be damned.

Re:Lockheed?

[varmittang]

You will be surprised, they make a whole lot of that don't deal with planes. And much of that stuff is Security related.

Re:Lockheed?

[blueadept1]

No, he wasn't the CEO, but his wife serves/served on the board.

Re:Lockheed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who keeps posting this?

Re:Lockheed?

[bleckywelcky]

Less than 50% of LM's business is related to rockets/planes/missiles/spacecraft/etc anymore. In fact, they even run software support centers for other larger corporations. They do a lot of information technology work and the related hardware.

They are what is called a "system" house. Basically, let's say the US government needs a large complex system, let's say a nuclear powered carrier. A system house like LM will manage the entire project from concept development to nut and bolt production to assembly and service through it's entire life. Yet, they may not actually build a single part for the system themselves. They have subcontractors that actually build the stuff. And those subcontractors may have their own subcontractors for smaller portions of their particular part. And those subs may have other subs ... etc etc. LM's job is to ensure the requirements at the top that were conceived during concept development flow down all the way to the actual production and assembly of each individual part.

The systems they manage can be anything from carriers to airplanes to satellites to tanks to communications networks to software support.

However, since LM does have tons upon tons of aerospace and aeronautic experience, they typically do build some items themselves. And in some cases they build the majority of the system themselves (like satellites, solar arrays, etc).

Re:Lockheed?

[Fussen]

Locks. They are making locks. Heed their locks. If you don't heed Lockheed's locks then you probably won't heed the lockdown.

Re:Lockheed?

[TrentL]

I thought they only made airplanes? Tell me Cheney wasn't CEO of them too...

No, we make much more than airplanes. We're involved with Customs, law enforcement, air traffic control, GPS, combat training systems, the US/Canadian/UK censuses (sp?), and even the National Archives, among many other things. Unlike Cheney, our CEO is actually a real businessman.

Re:Lockheed?

[An ominous Cow art]

How many locks would a Lockheed lock if a Lockheed could lock heeds?

In other news

[superpulpsicle]

New subway train panels are now armed with homing missiles. Followed by M-16s under every seat in case of emergency. Train headlights have also been replaced with vulcan cannons.

Re:In other news

[teledyne]

What's so funny about the parent post?

They really do.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Followed by M-16s under every seat in case of emergency.

Nope, the government doesn't trust civilians with those kind of weapons.

Re:In other news

[Yocto Yotta]

I don't get it. Why would they put them under the seats then?

Re:In other news

[Waffle Iron]

>Followed by M-16s under every seat in case of emergency.

Nope, the government doesn't trust civilians with those kind of weapons.

That's right; simulation exercises have shown that the average citizen doesn't have enough shooting experience to reliably score one clean headshot, much less seven or eight. This task is best left to professionals.

Re:In other news

[anthony_dipierro]

I hear in England they're hooking up the cameras to the M-16s, so that anyone wearing a jacket or who looks vaguely like a terrorist will be instantly shot on sight.

Re:In other news

[MrLint]

should the trains just have 'rail guns'?

oh how i will be punished for that.

traffic cams

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure this will work as well as the traffic cams the monitor in maryland .....

I wonder if the cameras will run some form of linux?
or maybe just some type of rtos.

Guise?

[Rayaru]

It seems pretty a fairly legit description of what the money is being used for.

Re:Guise?

[CrazyJim1]

Yah, I think Congress really tries to do its best for homeland security, and not knowing what is feasably possible, they try everything, and chalk wasted dollars up to "research", since they learned what is feasable and what is not.

I'm sure its very lucrative to get one of thse government jobs to install technology or research dynamite smelling bacteria. I'm curious how surveillance is going to work. At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists? I bet it will cut down on the number of people who jump over the subway tool booths.

Re:Guise?

[bhirsch]

You must be new here.

Re:Guise?

[nuggz]

This will work because
A The cameras in London stopped the first attack
B The cameras in London stopped the second attack.
C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane.
D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.

Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks. Adding information to overloaded analysis systems won't stop terrorist attacks. Adding more laws and giving more power to law enforcement won't stop terrorist attacks. Invading other countries won't stop terrorist attacks.

Properly analysing the information that is available might help thwart attacks.

In many of the recent attacks both the technique, target and perpetrators were already KNOWN. Law enforcement was just unable to effectively use that knowledge.

These plans seem to have it backwards, the problem isn't that the information doesn't exist, it's that people don't know what to do with it.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reference to the tube killing is outdated, records have recently been released revealing that Menezes did not do any of the things described in the initially media reports. Wikinews entry, content less valuable than source links but linked for ease of reference to those source links: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brazilian_shot_by_poli ce_on_London_Underground_was_not_acting_suspicious ly

Re:Guise?

[QuantumG]

AT WHAT COST

You can't even travel on the subway in NYC without getting your bags checked by police. If it wasn't for the terrorist threat that kind of shit would never be accepted. So what's next? They'll ask everyone for ID. No doubt. They probably already do this and note down the name of anyone who "looks suspicious" but you can guarentee that before the end of the year they will be asking everyone for ID and a pat down with a metal detector. So now we've got cameras and motion detectors as well. Great.

All this means that anyone who can afford to avoid the subway will do so (even more than people already do in NYC). Which means it's the poor who are going to receive most of the scrutiny from the police. A false arrest will not result in a speedy dismissal, so what have we got? A new and improved way for NYC cops to round up the poor.

Constant police presence in public places with the power to search and harrass people who have broken no laws is how totalitarian states are born.

Re:Guise?

[ciroknight]

For how long? If you ask me, people's jump to conclusions about the risk of terrorism are the same people who would jump to conclusions about Jews, African Americans, or any other conclusion that was sponsored by the state.

Anti-Terrorism means Anti-freedom. The terrorists have won because we have allowed them to. We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars, harming the environment, and costing us a fortune due to the newly raised gas prices, which, one could argue, the money trail leads right back to the terrorists through OPEC. (Of course, this is highly speculative, and reactionary; it'd be nearly impossible to follow the money through OPEC)

At least they should have said what the cameras would be used for. "Hey, people. If you want the police to be able to catch criminals in subways, instead of us sticking officers down there, we're gonna stick a camera. While an officer might be able to catch the person right away, a camera will catch it all on film, where it'll be more useful to the prosecution, but not nessicarly help you right away.

"We know this is an inconvienience, but you are in a public place, and your expectation of privacy is little if any. We won't use this to spy on you, so you don't have to wear your tinfoil hats. But it'll be cheaper than sticking a bunch of cops down there. Thanks, that's all."

Re:Guise?

[DDiabolical]

The usual ignorance.

The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were. If a suicide bomber jumped on a train on the underground in NYC, and blew himself up, we couldn't even figure out who did it!

The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.

The failed July 21st attacks meant the police could track them down, and arrest them!

You can't even comprehend the amount of intelligence that may have now been attained with the arrests of these terrorists.

However, you seem happy enough to let terrorists try and try again, without knowing who is behind attacks, until they're successful.

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

I would also like to criticize the use of the word "guise," but I have the sick feeling that the editor that used this word doesn't understand what "guise" means.

This will work because
A The cameras in London stopped the first attack
B The cameras in London stopped the second attack.
C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane.
D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.

You are ignorant because

A. You don't realize that cameras are normally intended to collect data about perpetrators after the fact.

B. This is how they were used in London.

C. They worked. They identified all the perpetrators in the first attack, and in the second failed attack, led to their arrests.

Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks.

What privacy do you have on a subway? Just curious. Your subway must be different than mine.

Re:Guise?

[hereschenes]

I'm with you man. Mod the article description as Flamebait. Just because there have been some questionable decisions and terrible mistakes committed with respect to preventing terrorists from carrying out their perverted desires... it doesn't mean that every anti-terrorist action is automatically tainted.

Re:Guise?

[IO ERROR]

These plans seem to have it backwards, the problem isn't that the information doesn't exist, it's that people don't know what to do with it.

In this case, it really is that the information doesn't exist. The MTA has doesn't have that many cameras in the subway system.

In addition, the proposed system is supposed to have computer software which will detect suspicious packages, though how it does that I have no idea. Consider:

Lockheed Martin will lead a team of contractors in creating an "integrated electronic security system" that will include closed-circuit television cameras, motion detectors and "intelligent video" software that can automatically determine if a package has been left on a train or if a person is in a restricted area.

Sounds interesting. Anyone have more info on how this system works?

Re:Guise?

[TapeCutter]

Public video cameras are impartial, thier evidence cuts both ways and keeps everyone "honest".

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were.

But strangely enough when they shot one of the 'identified' terrorists it turned out that he wasn't one after all. Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...

Re:Guise?

[Vile Slime]

> If a suicide bomber jumped on a train on the underground in NYC, and blew himself up, we couldn't even figure out who did it!

I hardly think you're right. The bombers aren't trying to make any big secret about who they are. As evidenced by the 9-11 hijackers, they carried legitimate ids.

You basically have a set of people who thumb their noses at others and are quite happy to smile into the cameras as they do it (or carry an id, i.e. 9-11). They want people to know who they are in a sense.

On a similar note, I hear it happens all the time in London with common crooks (am I wrong) where they don't care, they just need to steal that ipod to get their next fix, who cares if they look into the camera.

Re:Guise?

[goodcow]

Unless you yourself live in New York, please don't claim the terrorists have won because "we're all now so afraid of using public transport."

I live in New York. I'm not afraid to use the busses and subways, and considering I get onto a cram-packed 6 train every day, the vast majority of my fellow-New Yorkers don't either.

These measures, even if they are in reaction to terrorism, should've been put in place years ago anyway for the simple fact of keeping people out of locations they shouldn't be in in the first place. They'll also have the side benefit of contributing to convictions for crimes by street thugs like robberies.

As for the argument that there should be cops there instead, for one, with the amount of stations, and the grand size of the systems, this just isn't practical from a financial standpoint. And secondly, I would find it more invasive to have cops at every entrance and exit rather than cameras.

Re:Guise?

[wytcld]

The point from the recent London bombings would be that the cameras allowed the police to quickly identify the perps and zero in on their accomplices -- and an innocent Brazilian electrician.

The way to balance this stuff is to make a whole lot of stuff no longer criminal. Yes, go after the real terrorists. No, don't use these cameras to stop kids from selling pot to each other. Yes, catch muggers with them. No, don't bust people for drinking a cola where you don't want them to. If you get rid of the laws which provide for all sorts of silly and wasteful reasons for busting people, then cameras aren't on balance a bad thing. Unless the person watching you through them just happens to know the person you're kissing passionately on the platform is not your spouse, and uses the facial-features database to ring your cell phone to demand payment for silence.

But really, do the sort of people who'd do that live in New York City??

Re:Guise?

[TheNationalist]

Actually, the London bombers were first identified by their identification cards found at the scene of the crime, not the camera footage. The camera footage was merely used as auxillary information.

Besides, if a person is going to blow himself up, how will cameras help at all? It surely isn't going to deter them.

Re:Guise?

[jemfinch]

More probably, the story submitter is just a standard illiterate slashbot who doesn't know that "guise" implies an ulterior motive.

Jeremy

Re:Guise?

[hobbes75]

Rarely saw such an insightful comment of an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Guise?

[rblum]

The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were. If a suicide bomber jumped on a train on the underground in NYC, and blew himself up, we couldn't even figure out who did it!

That's certainly worth $212 million - the bastard might do it again!

Re:Guise?

[TheNationalist]

To correct some of your information:

C. They worked. They identified all the perpetrators in the first attack, and in the second failed attack, led to their arrests.

Photo identification left at the scene of the crime identified the bombers. The photos from the cameras merely acted as auxiliary information. You can read the whole chain of events here.

Re:Guise?

[timeOday]

What privacy do you have on a subway? Just curious.

One minimum standard of privacy (perhaps not relevant to the cameras) is the freedom from being patted down or searched, unless there is some particular reason and a warrant:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

However, the majority do not care for this particular provision any more. We also have random car searches, which are in flagrant violation of the same ammendment, but you can't tell the Supreme Court that.

Re:Guise?

[snuf23]

Yep. It's a guise. Actually this is being funded by RIAA/MPAA. The cameras have super magneto xray vision and can detect illegal MP3 bits located on any iPod. OGG isn't supported yet, but word on the street is that it's coming.
The also sniff out DVDR and CDR content with a 97.1% accuracy.
All this information is cross referenced through a massive database and whammo you get sent a check for the exact cost of everything illegal in your possesion.
Works just like those insta-ticket traffic cameras.

Re:Guise?

[pi_rules]

The cameras in London enabled them to identity who the suicide bombers were. If a suicide bomber jumped on a train on the underground in NYC, and blew himself up, we couldn't even figure out who did it!

Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity.

Except their body.

The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.

No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea it is tainted.

Look, I agree, attacking civilian targets is bitch. But people don't act without a motive, regardless of how sick, deranged, ill, or angry they are. It's important to understand your enemies motives and goals.

Israel was officially created after WWII by the Allies. Israel and Palestine have been at war with each other for fifty years. We continue to support Israel today.

Israel is the main reason why the Islamic extreme give a fuck about the USA.

So great, a bunch of cameras. Catch the guy blowing himself up on camera, really useful. I'd rather our government take the whole sum of money they have devoted to 'Homeland Security' and put it towards education. Instead we have the rich people in power, taking money from the rest of us, and giving it to each other with bullshit backpats like this one.

Also, note: TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS. You think no one else could do it for less? Please. I'll do it for 5!

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars...

You don't live in NYC, do you? Real New Yorkers don't even own cars.

Re:Guise?

[Stephen Samuel]

The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.

Yep... They picked up the pieces and gave them a life sentence.... Or is that a death sentence?

I'm guessing that there are already cameras in the NYC underground, so it wouldn't be that hard to figure out who blew themselves up there, today.

Thing to note here is that they're going far beyond that. Most of the city is going to end up wired for sound. 1984 was dated 20 years too early.

Re:Guise?

[bc90021]

What privacy do I have on a subway?

United States Constitution, Amendment IV:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The first step was cameras. Sure, they could say "Well, these are just substitutes for police eyes". Since I can't reasonably expect to be private from police eyes, this one slides.

However, now we are subject to "random searches" of backpacks and other large items. This is clearly not constitutional! The cameras were a first step. Now they can randomly search anyone. Soon, it will be that you'll have to be willing to stop at the checkpoint and prove who you say you are.

It's what's known as a "slippery slope". Once you start down it, you end up at the bottom, where the end result is a police state. We've installed the Big Brother cameras, and now we have the Big Brother random searches. Soon it will be Big Brother checkpoints.

Re:Guise?

[westyx]

said body (and clothes, and etc) now spread over a large section of track, intermingled with the remnants of everyone else's body and clothes and the carriage they were travelling in. Sure, you'll eventually be able to get a description (male. had two arms and legs. and a head. and was white), but it's much easier when you can start your investigation with "this is what they looked like, this is where they got on".

Re:Guise?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A. You don't realize that cameras are normally intended to collect data about perpetrators after the fact.

And how is this information is worth paying $212M for hardware to see what the dead criminal looked like? Has the identity of the London bombers helped find "terror cells"? I think it was HSA officials that said that the most dangerious ones are the lone wolves anyway, so it would be a dead end for that investigation.

That's a lot of money for fuzzy video that likely wouldn't stand up in court, assuming the bomber(s) had survived.

In the end, it is looking like a lot of money that will be spent that won't do anything to prevent a catastrophe.

Re:Guise?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

But strangely enough when they shot one of the 'identified' terrorists it turned out that he wasn't one after all. Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...

Cute. Very cute. All the cameras were "off". If true, that makes me suspicious if they were either deliberately turned off to avoid having to deal with pesky evidence, or the data simply erased.

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

No, it only told them what they looked like.

Uhh, yeah, what they looked like. Seems like a good place to start. Your idea ("the bomber had a HUMAN BODY!") leaves a little to be desired.

The cameras also tell them where they entered the public transportation system, what they were carrying, what they were wearing, how they acted.

When you're trying to piece together a crime, it helps to have as much data as possible. I don't think comprehensive video footage of a public, high-value target like a subway or building is an invasion of privacy, nor unreasonable.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

What were we being lied to about?

Re:Guise?

[zxnos]

The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.

No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.

confused. anyway, with a picture you can send flat-foots out to ask people if they know who it is or compare the image to all the mug shots that the police have.

Re:Guise?

[ScentCone]

So great, a bunch of cameras. Catch the guy blowing himself up on camera, really useful.

So, the Brits used their similar camera system to capture images of the four guys that they did catch, and whose support system they immediately started to dismantle - including those that fled the country. If the Spaniards had a similar system, they may not have taken so long to track down the people that left cell-phone triggered backpack bombs on several trains - not suicide bombers. Do you think that every person who wants to damage people and infrastructure in the west also wants to personally die doing it? Hardly. That's for the chumps in their ranks. Video of the smart ones is especially valuable.

I'd rather our government take the whole sum of money they have devoted to 'Homeland Security' and put it towards education

Education of who? The fundamentalist schools that are producing this whole "kill the heretics for Allah" are feeling plenty well funded, and certainly don't want what I'm guessing you'd think of as an education (the sciences, an embrace of reason, a respect for liberty and democracy). You indicate in your post that Israel and western support for it is the problem. But why is it a problem? Because it's a liberal democracy surrounded by backwards, mysoginistic, theocratic thugocracies? Only a younger generation of Palestinians have any chance of growing up thinking that there is a purpose in life beyond removing Israel from the map. Putting money into "education" isn't going to change your average jihaddist's world view. Only an open economy, transparent government, and regular elections and trade throughout the middle east will do that. Pretty much like what's shaping up in Iraq and Afghanistan, though there is a long way to go. You know, sort of like the decade-plus that it took the US to get a ratified constitution after the declaration of our independence?

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo moron, how about if rather than commiting suicide, a terrorist decides to just leave the bomb in a train? How the heck are all the bodies of the dead innocent going to help you find who you are looking for in this scenario?

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fed up with these knee-jerk reactions. No, not government's - yours.

Yeah, there are a lot of things being legislated under the 'guise' of anti-terrorism that are fucking stupid. That doesn't mean everything being legislated in the name of anti-terrorism is.

At least they should have said what the cameras would be used for. "Hey, people. If you want the police to be able to catch criminals in subways, instead of us sticking officers down there, we're gonna stick a camera. While an officer might be able to catch the person right away, a camera will catch it all on film, where it'll be more useful to the prosecution, but not nessicarly help you right away.

Try telling people that you are raising their taxes to pay for officers instead of cameras and see how far that goes. Cameras are cheaper and act as a deterrent.

On a side-note, I've had anti-camera people tell me that cameras are being used as a replacement for police officers and that crime rates don't change where the cameras are installed - in the same breath - and concluding that this means they don't work. If you think this, then please, think a little harder before replying.

Anti-Terrorism means Anti-freedom. The terrorists have won because we have allowed them to. We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars

Over here in the UK, we've had cameras on public transport for ages, mostly to deal with vandalism. No fear, no privacy invasions, and nobody's avoiding public transport because of it. And you know what? These cameras were pretty damn useful when it came to tracking down the London bombers.

Why don't you pull your tin foil-wrapped, paranoid head out of your arse and realise that not everything the government does with information and technology is automatically an infringement on your rights?

Re:Guise?

[magarity]

At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists?
 
You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place. And the recent islamofacist bombers were tracked down and caught impressively quickly after the tapes were perused. As for detecting and preventing ahead of time, nothing can do that outside of an oppressive police state that prevents free movement of people. And no, surveillance cameras used to track down criminals after the fact do not an oppressive police state make. Ask any Londoner how oppressed they feel.

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

However, now we are subject to "random searches" of backpacks and other large items. This is clearly not constitutional!

If what you are saying is true, perhaps not. However, you are not subject to anything. You have the choice to take private transportation to your destination, and avoid random searches of your backpack.

Personally, I think the rule should be, if you cross this line to enter the subway system, you will be subject to a bag search or metal detector scan, and you will not be allowed to leave the premises unless you allow this to happen. Otherwise a terrorist just tries one subway entrance, is asked for a bag check, denies it, leaves, enters another subway entrance. Repeat until successful, where is the public safety in that?

It's what's known as a "slippery slope". Once you start down it, you end up at the bottom, where the end result is a police state.

I'm a Libertarian, so believe me I am really interested in the loss of freedom. But you are trying to ride a PUBLIC TRANSPORT. You are trading freedoms for convenience, and the safety of yourself and your fellow passengers (if the security measures are executed CORRECTLY).

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

Well, it's a good thing these terrorists were stupid enough to carry their wallets with them. Will that happen again?

And what about the failed second bombings? Video tape was used to locate them, not photo ID.

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

And how is this information is worth paying $212M for hardware to see what the dead criminal looked like? Has the identity of the London bombers helped find "terror cells"?

Video footage helped capture the attempted bombers in the second bombing in London, so yes it did help catch terror cells. Without the video footage, would these men have been able to try again? Probably.

That's a lot of money for fuzzy video

$212M... I am guessing the video won't be fuzzy.

video that likely wouldn't stand up in court, assuming the bomber(s) had survived.

1. How are you making this assumption? The video could definitely stand up in court.

2. The primary purpose of the video is to CAPTURE THE SUSPECTS. Once you've done that, you normally can gather more damning evidence. In this case, they found their hideouts, their bomb-making materials, etc.

In the end, it is looking like a lot of money that will be spent that won't do anything to prevent a catastrophe.

If the second bombers weren't caught in London and managed to set off a third bombing that killed a bunch of people, would your position still be the same?

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have started with profiling.

1. In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles by
(a) Superman , (b) Jay Leno, (c) Harry Potter, or (d) a Muslim man between 17 and 40 years old.

2. In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and killed at the Munich Olympics by
(a) Olga Corbett , (b) Sitting Bull, (c) Arnold Schwarzenegger, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

3. In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over and 90 Americans were held for 444 days by
(a) Sen. Strom Thurmond , (b) Elvis, (c) a tour group of Minnesota grandmothers, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

4. During the 1980s, several Americans were kidnapped in Beirut by
(a) John Dillinger , (b) the king of Sweden, (c) the pope and a gang of Cardinals, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

5. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown up, killing 220 Marines, by
(a) a Domino's Pizza delivery man , (b) the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, (c) Catherine Zeta-Jones, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

6. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year-old American passenger thrown overboard in his wheelchair by
(a) Davy Jones , (b) Brooks Robinson, (c) the Little Mermaid, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

7. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by
(a) Captain Kangaroo , (b) William Jennings Bryan, (c) Mother Teresa, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

8. In 1988, Pan American Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb in midair by
(a) Butch Cassidy , (b) the Sundance Kid, (c) the Tooth Fairy, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

9. The World Trade Center was bombed the first time in 1993 by
(a) Stonewall Jackson , (b) Michael Jordan, (c) Winston Churchill, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

10. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by
(a) Baby Snooks , (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) the World Wrestling Federation, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

11. On September 11, 2001, airliners were hijacked to crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by
(a) Bugs Bunny , (b) the Florida Supreme Court, (c) Lou Gehrig, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

12. In 2002, Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal was kidnapped and beheaded by
(a) Bonnie and Clyde , (b) the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, (c) Billy Graham, or (d) Muslims between the ages of 17 and 40.

13. In July of this year, several targets were attacked in central London, killing 52 persons, by
(a) the archbishop of Canterbury , (b) Margaret Thatcher, (c) Sen. John McCain, or (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

Re:Guise?

[That's Unpossible!]

That's certainly worth $212 million - the bastard might do it again!

Or he might leave the bomb instead of committing suicide, and do it again. Or he might screw up the bombing, and we catch him before he does it again.

Hmmm, maybe you're not as smart as you thought?

Re:Guise?

[snero3]

Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity. Except their body.

I don't know if you have had any experience with bodies that have been blown up but if you had you would know there is pretty much nothing left but residue.

No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.

Having the ability to visibly to identified the bombers and then track their last couple hours/minutes of movement would go along way to finding out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc. IE you might get a partial/full number plate of the car that drop them off, they may have made one last phone call and you can then track that number etc.... It is a lot like having log files from a server that died, most of the time it won't tell you what crashed the thing but it will be invaluable in helping to find out the source of the problem.

You're being lied to. Wake up

one for one

You are being ignorant. Wake up.

Re:Guise?

[philipgar]

Actually, I think the fact that the metro is a service provided to you is reason enough to justify the searches of bags. Its an agreement you make when you agree to use the subway.

If what you said is true about this being an unreasonable search, then it could also be said that checkpoints for drunks along the highways is unreasonable. By the same means the fact that a visitor visiting a US government intelligence facility should not be searched because that is an unreasonable thing to expect.

The 4th ammendment protects you in your home and in your private life. It does not protect your privacy at someone elses house. If someone wanted to watch every action you took in their residence that is legal, however I think in most states you must first warn them that they're being recorded etc etc. The same goes when you are on corporate grounds, and the same can be implied about a quasi governmental corporation such as the MTA.

The "slippery slope" you discuss is trying to protect rights you do not have. Saying soon we'll have big brother checkpoints is a laugh as we already do. Along our highways are weigh stations and fruit/vegetable inspections, drunk inspections etc etc. Don't think this hasn't been in effect for years.

Phil

Re:Guise?

[dasunt]

Since you brought up the subject of the risk of terrorism, lemme expand on it a bit.

This year, I can predict that 3000 Americans will die due to one factor: fires. That's the yearly death toll, mind you. Roughly 15000 this decade (which is only half over). Compared to about 3000 Americans on US soil dead to terrorism this decade (2000-2005).

Most fire deaths occur at home. And most could have been prevented by using smoke detectors. Google tells me that roughly 2000 deaths could be prevented each year if there were working smoke detectors at the residence.

Now, some fun with numbers: Department of Homeland security funding: About 30 billion. Number of Americans: About 350 million. Cost per smoke detector: $20. To buy every American a smoke detector would cost $7 billion dollars, or about a 1/4th of the DHS budget. Amazing. If you count the cost of a 9V battery at $1, the cost of maintaining a program (assuming a new battery / year) would be $350 million, or $3.5 billion over 10 years. So, for the cost of $10.5 billion dollars (a little more than 1/3rd of the DHS budget), 10,000 American lives would be saved. We should add in advertising costs though. Google tells me that about one and a half billion dollars were spent on political ads in 2004. We'll be generous, and dedicate 3.5 billion to the job: Now we have a total cost of $14 billion dollars, or just slightly under half of the DHS funding for this year.

If we cut the DHS funding by half for this year only, we would save American lives this year and 10,000 lives in 10 years.

Amazing, isn't it? Now where do you think they money should be spent?

PS: The next time someone expresses worries about terrorism, ask them the last time they checked their smoke detector. If it hasn't been within 6 months, shame on them.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY
> evidence behind that might clue people into their
> identity.

> Except their body.

Maybe I'm naive, maybe asking people to identify suicide bombers based at a burned-up former piece of terrorist meat is as easy as showing them a photograph...

Re:Guise?

[vought]

islamofacist

Using terms like "islamofascist" indicates that you do not really understand what it is that the radical muslims who commit these crimes are trying to achieve.

Check out the wiki entry for fascism. Then, read the Wiki article on radical islam.

After reading both, I'm sure you'll find it easy to understand why a radical islamist is not a fascist, and there's virtually no common ground between the two ideologies as they apply to government.

Re:Guise?

[timeOday]

However, you are not subject to anything. You have the choice to take private transportation to your destination, and avoid random searches of your backpack.

The idea that you forfeit your constitutional rights by setting foot on public property is preposterous.

And the private transportation argument is bogus, since we also have checkpoints and random stops on the roadways.

It's a shame what they've done to the 4th ammendment.

Re:Guise?

[Rayaru]

Ah, of course. How silly of me to miss this.

Re:Guise?

[ryanov]

He was clearly referring to Britain there. There WAS a lot of talk of people being afraid to use mass transit and IIRC, the traffic went way up after the bombing. I dunno how it is NOW, but that's what the GP was referring to.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

NYC is a very likely target ...

NO WAY!!! I overheard some guy talking the other day, and I heard this rumor that NYC might have already had some sort of little terrorist scuffle. I hope it wasn't too bad.

</sarcasm>

Re:Guise?

[ryanov]

I love it when ignorant folks like you chime in with all of your knowledge of the teaching of a fundamentalist Islamic school. I'll bet you dollars to donuts you don't know shit about it and are passing on the same rhetoric that everyone does. Let's face it -- what is the average person's familiarity with a fundamentalist school, or for that matter, what a young Palestinian thinks when he/she gets up in the morning?

Stop spouting hate -- eduction of who? Prejudiced people like yourself.

Re:Guise?

[jayloden]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I guess it all depends on how you (or more accurately, the Supreme Court) defines "unreasonable", now doesn't it. The reason searches of bags in airports and other public places is not considered unconstitutional is that they are not considered "unreasonable" by the courts. You are of course, free to try and argue this with the Supreme Court. I'm not saying one way or the other if searching people's bags is a good thing or not, just pointing out that semantics can be very important in law, and in this case, crucial to the legality of a search.

Re:Guise?

[aardvarkjoe]

Cute. Very cute. All the cameras were "off". If true, that makes me suspicious if they were either deliberately turned off to avoid having to deal with pesky evidence, or the data simply erased.

Or maybe, just maybe, that Anonymous Coward is making things up.

Re:Guise?

[InfiniteWisdom]

Ask any Londoner how oppressed they feel.

You're talking about people who are largely satisfied with a very lame "oh well too bad. We're not going to change anything, though" response when an innocent civillian is murdered by the police.

Re:Guise?

[ryanov]

You're not getting those diseases from the subway -- I hate to break it to you.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply because you aren't being searched by the cameras and nothing is being seized by the cameras.

Think about it. Does a police officer need to obtain a warrant to look at you walking down the street? No? Then your appearance is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The cameras were a first step. Now they can randomly search anyone.

The cameras haven't happened yet. The searching is a different thing that happened last month. If you take a course in logic, you might learn that "A happens, then B happens" and "A is bad" does not imply that "B is bad". TFA is about B (the cameras); it onl mentions A (the searching) in passing.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRA didn't bomb the subways anyway. As for tracking down "the muslim bombers", they sure caught SOME people. What makes you think they caught the real baddies? After all, they shot that Brazilian guy in the head, and he had nothing to do with any of it.

England also has a long history of tossing people in the brig for the heck of it, and beating confessions out of innocent people. Ever see In the Name of the Father? Now they want the power to lock you up for 3 months without due process or probable cause. That's plenty of time to beat anything out of anyone.

Re:Guise?

[belmolis]

That's a good point. People frequently misperceive risks and deal with them irrationally.There is a whole psychological literature on this, due in large part to the late Amos Tversky. One example is fear of flying. Statistically, the risk of flying is much less than the risk of being killed in an automobile accident.

The cost of smoke detectors should really be considerably less than parent calculates, for two reasons. One is that a lot of people already have them. The second is that we don't need one per person. For residential areas, you need at most one per room. Since most couples sleep in the same bedroom and kids often share rooms, the number of smoke detectors needed per person is probably less than 0.5. It should be safe to cut the cost estimate in half.

On the other hand, its hard to compare the damage at risk from terrorism with that from fire. Death by fire arises from a large number of events each of which has only a very small probability of killing more than a few people. Statistically, over a country the size of the United States, estimates of the total number of deaths by fire and other such causes are going to be quite reliable. Terrorists, unlike fire, do not strike at random. They usually want to cause as much damage as they can, and modern technology gives them the means to do that. With luck a suicide bomber kills no one but himself; without it, he'll take a dozen or so people with him. The 9/11 terrorists killed 3,000. They probably could have increased that number by an order of magnitude if they gone for something less flashy than the world trade center, say blowing up a major sports arena or concert venue while an event was going on. A small nuke could kill several hundred thousand. The problem is, it is very hard to estimate the relative probability of a successful terrorist act that kills only a few and one that kills many thousands. This makes it hard to distribute resources rationally, even if you are so inclined and in principal understand how to do so.

Re:Guise?

[KingPrad]

I'm always relieved they identify the suicide bombers after the fact. Way to go, boys. Thanks.

Re:Guise?

[darkmeridian]

I saw the system on the local news, since I live in New York City. The system automatically, and in real time, tracks individuals by putting a box around each person as they move. The system can detect changes from normal, such as a stationary object that was not there previously. This could help prevent terrorism. Or if someone got mugged, and then fell on the floor. Lots of uses, actually.

Privacy concerns should be minimal. If you are doing something private on the subway sytem, you should be arrested.

Re:Guise?

[jeffkjo1]

Ask any Londoner how oppressed they feel.

The United States is not Britain. We are not raised to respect and embrace our government, we are raised to be skeptical of it. If you recall, we broke away from England because we didn't agree with how they did business.

Re:Guise?

[deaddrunk]

Oh yeh we really respect our politicians over here *rolls eyes*. Perhaps you should find out stuff before posting nonsense like that.

Re:Guise?

[shmlco]

Not to be paranoid, but this assumes, of course, that both sides have equal access to the evidence...

Police brutality? No, sorry. That camera was down for maintenance.

I also suspect a police chief, mayor, governor, congressman, senator, or even a strongly connected businessman (just to name a few) can see pretty much whatever feed they wish. But can we as citizens watch the feeds that show use their comings and goings?

Re:Guise?

[danielrose]

You papers please sir. (spoken in a nasty nazi accent)

Re:Guise?

[Gordonjcp]

Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...

Stranger still is that footage from this "little incident" from the cameras that were supposedly off has been shown several times on the TV.

Re:Guise?

[some guy I know]

Don't forget:

14. President John F. Kennedy was killed by
(a) Santa Claus, (b) an American between 17 and 40 who had served or was serving in the U.S. military, (c) Pope John Paul II, (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

15. The Alfred P. Murrah Building building in Oklahoma City was blown up by
(a) an Anonymous Coward, (b) an American between 17 and 40 who had served or was serving in the U.S. military, (c) Jennifer Lopez, (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

16. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed, either directly or indirectly, by
(a) George Herbert Walker Bush, (b) Americans between 17 and 40 who had served or were serving in the U.S. military, (c) George Walker Bush, (d) Muslims between 17 and 40.

OK, 16 was a trick question; the answer is "All of the above".
Still, you can see how choosing the events can lead to different conclusions.

Other horrors that were not inflicted by young Muslims:

The Olympic bombing in Atlanta: Caucasian American Christian.
The immolation of over 50 people, including children, at Waco, Texas: the FBI, mostly Caucasian American Christians.
Various attempted genocides (American Indians, Jews, Muslim Yugoslavians, etc.): Caucasian American Christians, Caucasian Europeans of various faiths, Caucasian and Negro Africans, Oriental Cambodians, etc., etc.
Various earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornados, etc.: God or Mother Nature, depending on your point-of-view.
The Spanish Inquisition, and, more recently, the molestation of countless children: Catholic Priests and other Christians.
The Macarena: North American Caucasians (probably Catholic).
The crucifixions of Jesus Christ and other Jews (and non-Jews as well): European Caucasian pagens.

And, on an even more destructive level, none of the aliens who have tried to destroy the planet Earth (e.g., the Borg, Praetor Shinzon, Ming the Merciless, Emperor Tod Spengo, etc.) were Muslim.

Re:Guise?

[ZosX]

Cute. Very cute. All the cameras were "off". If true, that makes me suspicious if they were either deliberately turned off to avoid having to deal with pesky evidence, or the data simply erased.

Or maybe, just maybe, that Anonymous Coward is making things up.

It is true. The police had basically no information about this guy and they went up and shot him after ordering him to turn around. From reports I have heard they may have not even identified themselves. The cameras were all convieniently "not working." So there wasn't any video evidence. The police have since apologized, but the fact of the matter remains that they have murdered a man in cold blood without even trying to make a reasonable arrest.

The whole thing reeks of coverup and foul play. One would think that within days of a terrorist attack, the Underground would have made doubly sure that at least their security cameras were all rolling. Not a single video image. How about that one?

I agree with the great grandparent. Nothing is gonna stop terrorism. The more terrorists you kill, the more martyrs you create. The more innocent people you slaughter in the process, the more you fuel the source of the terrorism. IF you think this war can be won, maybe you need to start listening to the Jews for advice because clearly they are doing a wonderful job of containing just a small neighboring state. Just in case you never went to history class, white men have been killing arabs for thousands of years now in the name of holy war. How the war is on terrorism is any different is completely beyond me, what with its rhetoric about evil nations and liberation and democracy. What is the real evil? Is it the terrorists who hate us with a lot of valid reasons? Or is it the country that sponsored those terrorists in the first place as well as propped up certain dictators, like Saddam Hussein? No doubt the taliban were not the greatest of rulers, but at least they helped us keep the Soviets from taking over some prime pipeline territory. Sadly, Afghanistan is still ruled by the same corrupt warlords, nothing is much better, and the US once again could likely care less with the spotlight going to Iraq these days. If anyone thought we were going to be helping the Afghannis, well then, I must apologize for getting your hopes up. Of course, control of the opium trade is also a nice bonus for the CIA as well, because we all know how they love to smuggle drugs into America.

Now we are in Iraq. I don't know who is more evil. Saddam for killing his people with banned chemical and biological weapons or us supplying such weapons to him, knowing that he was using them on his own people. The same people that wanted us to go to war to find such weapons were the people that sold them to him, like Donald Rumsfield for instance. Maybe they had trouble sleeping at night thinking about how many hundreds of thousands of people those weapons had killed in both Iraq and Iran, then again I really doubt it. Never mind the countless thousands upon thousands of children that died from starvation alone thanks to a failed Food for Oil programme. Let us not forget that we also played Iran and Iraq like twisted Puch and Judy marionettes by supplying both sides with all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. I guess, once again, oil is likely the only motivation, because any other possibility just doesn't have nearly as much money tied to it. Don't get me started on the Rockefeller--Afghanistan connection. The choice of the twin towers makes so much sense when you see it in the right context.

Now we have police attacking protestors with stun guns and K9 dogs for blocking traffic. And we have the national guard invading raves and beating the living piss out of the participants. The police state is already here, the question is how much further will we let it go? Like many people have said. You cannot stop terrorism. If you make it impossible for people to blow up trains, they will start attacking theatres, city squares, office lobbies, etc, etc, etc. You ar

Re:Guise?

[KillShill]

if a person was going to blow himself up, why would he take his identification card with him?

well thankfully, the small bomb that blew up several buildings and killed dozens of people left the identification card intact.

Re:Guise?

[Tim C]

Good point. Suicide bombers don't leave ANY evidence behind that might clue people into their identity.

Except their body.

Did you see the pictures of the aftermath of the bombings? The Tube carriages bus were total wrecks. The side of the top deck of the bus was peeled away like someone had used a tin opener on it. There were body parts strewn over a reasonably large area. I really don't think that making a positive id of the bombers based on their physical remains is going to be half as easy as you seem to think it is.

No, it only told them what they looked like.

Yes, that's what the OP said. Armed with the photos the police could (and did) mount a public appeal for information (it was all over the media for several days). They got that information, and they got the men.

Yes, you could do that with a good shot of a corpse's face, but as explained above, that may not be possible.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

No, you're being paranoid. I have seen the images of the failed bombers with my own two eyes. They most definitely were used in an appeal for information, and the police most definitely did arrest them. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that every newspaper and TV and radio news broadcast in the UK is lying to us, in which case I think CCTV is the least of your worries.

Re:Guise?

[furrywithwings]

My smoke detector is line powered with a UPS powering the units when the mains are down. :P Do i get a cookie?

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Education of who?

"whom".

Re:Guise?

[furrywithwings]

This article is a crock. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wir e/sns-ap-subway-searches-poll,0,5333035.story?coll =sns-ap-nation-headlines It's not even a representative sample at all. Obligatory URL http://www.nyclu.org/mta_searches_suit_pr_081805.h tml

Re:Guise?

[Tim C]

But strangely enough when they shot one of the 'identified' terrorists it turned out that he wasn't one after all.

He was not identified as being one of the failed suicide bombers. He was seen coming out of a house that the police had under surveilence as it was known to have connections to the failed suicide bombers.

Yes, they shot him. Yes, they fucked up big time. No, at no time has it been claimed that he was positively identified as one of the four failed bombers who were caught on CCTV.

Even stranger is the fact that apparently all cameras where off during this little incident...

The police claim that no footage was available from the cameras. Several newspapers have since disputed that claim. Metronet (the company responsible for those cameras) have issued a statement saying that they are not aware of there being any problems with them. Pictures of the man lying dead on the floor of the Tube carriage have been printed in most UK newspapers, shown on TV, etc.

You can google for your own sources, but here are a couple to get you started: Yahoo news and the Times

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending the actions of the police; as I say above, they fucked up big time. An innocent life lost is a tragedy no matter which "side" is responsible for it. However, your claims are simply wrong and are in no way insightful.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, if it makes you happier to believe that everyone is out to get you, then go on. "

Hello irony?

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the system is now. The NYPD can't hold you if you refuse a search (yet), and you can simply walk out of the subway, and try another entrance. There are still enough entrances in the major egress points that you can avoid it. I have refused being searched over 20 times now, and I give the officer on a duty a statement prepared by the civil liberties union that basically says, "If you want to search me, arrest me." NYPD officers have been instructed NOT to arrest violators, because this would lead to discussing this in front of a judge, and this is the last thing that the authorities in charge want to happen. I have heard reports of people being arrested for illegal substance posession and I am very curious to know how these cases turn out as it is fundamentally an illegal search without cause.

Re:Guise?

[Tim C]

We are not raised to respect and embrace our government

I can only assume that you've never spoken to a Brit on the subject, let alone been here. In no way are we "raised to respect and embrace our government".

Just look at the treatment anything controversial gets at the hands of the media - immigration, id cards, the Iraq war, etc - and you'll see anything but respect and embracing of the government.

Re:Guise?

[sodaquad]

And no, surveillance cameras used to track down criminals after the fact do not an oppressive police state make. Ask any Londoner how oppressed they feel.

I work as a CCTV operator here in London, we do traffic enforcement, which is what most of the cameras are for. Everything we do is tightly regulated by the Human Rights Act (1988) and the Data Protection Act (1998) and a comprehensive Code of Practice. We have to respect privacy (or be sacked!). For example, our traffic cameras cannot linger on people, we look only at vehicles, the video tapes have to be stored securely and confidentially and they must be destroyed (degaussed) when no longer useful.

Any CCTV images of people you have seen, from the UK, will have been taken under special exemptions provided for the police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) - the same act that governs phone tapping etc. They can only track an individual on CCTV if they suspect them of criminal activity. They don't just track people at random.

As part of our training we have to know all this privacy legislation and are tested on it.

There is no comperable Data Protection law in the US. If you are going to increase the amount of CCTV you use then perhaps you need also to consider legislation that will protect your privacy?

Re:Guise?

[some guy I know]

You are trading freedoms for convenience, and the safety of yourself and your fellow passengers

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Frankiln

Re:Guise?

[sholden]

So that he could be identified, since being anonymous doesn't help the cause, or maybe they didn't mean to be suicide bombers but expected to leave the bombs to explode after they had left, but a jewish consipracy decided otherwise. Having ID also makes it less likely for things to go horribly wrong when you get asked for it somewhere (and being asked for it goes hand in hand with random searches and video cameras watching your every move)...

Well, as large as your knowledge of what bombs do to identifications might be, in the case of the London bombings various forms of identification were found at the scenes. Which makes sense to me, bombs aren't going to do much damage to a thin piece of plastic other than move it around. People die because their organs don't cope well with shockwaves and debris - but small pieces of plastic don't have organs. Buses get shreded because their structure tries to resit the shockwave, and fails - but small pieces of plastic don't attempt to contain the blast and hence don't get ripped to shreds. Heat does bad things to small pieces of plastic but unless the explosions results in a fire which isn't extinguished quickly there isn't enough heat for enough time.

But of course my small amount of common sense will have to give in to you unbacked up assertions. You are an export in explosions, right?

Re:Guise?

[Tim C]

We are? I was under the impression that the media were taking a pretty harsh line over the whole affair - certainly there have been calls for Sir Ian Blair's resignation over it.

Yes, a lot of people seem to take the attitude that it's an inevitable consequence of waging an effective war against terror (or somesuch bullshit), but that doesn't mean that we all do.

Re:Guise?

[locofungus]

Cute. Very cute. All the cameras were "off". If true, that makes me suspicious if they were either deliberately turned off to avoid having to deal with pesky evidence, or the data simply erased.

Or maybe, just maybe, that Anonymous Coward is making things up.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4175498.stm

"As the row over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes rages, the papers consider new claims from staff at Stockwell Tube station.

The Times says they insist CCTV cameras on the platform were working when police shot the Brazilian electrician.

Police officers are said to have told investigators no footage was available. "

Re:Guise?

[dalesc]

The cameras were not off. This has now been ascertained for certain.

However, all the video footage has gone missing.

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Guise?

[Strobineller]

The second is that we don't need one per person. For residential areas, you need at most one per room.

There are 4 persons living in my house. There are 11 rooms (including garage and attics(2)). I think a lot of people living alone have 3+ rooms (bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and usually living room as well, no?). Makes 1.5+ for couples without children. I think the figures are quite far from 2 persons per bedroom, and those are rarely the only rooms in homes.

Re:Guise?

[AgeOfUnreason]

London did get bombed after the 'square mile' was put in place they just bombed outside the square mile or other centers like canary wharf. The other interesting thing is yes the cameras did help identify the guys that did the recent bombings. However for some reason these cameras stopped working when the police shot an innoccent man on the tube!

Re:Guise?

[JollyFinn]

Unless the person watching you through them just happens to know the person you're kissing passionately on the platform is not your spouse, and uses the facial-features database to ring your cell phone to demand payment for silence.

But really, do the sort of people who'd do that live in New York City??

Yes.

Re:Guise?

[Stephen Samuel]

Education of who?

Probably the like of Pat Robertson who referred to a democratically elected head of state who got 65% suppor in a a mid-term plebecite a "strong-arm dictator" and called for his assasination.

-- but he's not a terrorist, because he's on our side. (for some definition, or other, of 'us').

(( In my world, he's not far from a christian version of the mullahs who warp islam to the point of condoning suicide bombers. If the Bush administration insists on classifying his comments as harmless, then the US might as well replace it's stars with swastikas ))

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm,

Do you know that any CCTV cameras stopped working or any recordings went missing? Is there any official comment from anyone suggesting this is the case? No - there isn't. There are a number of contradictory media reports claiming everything from 'there were no tapes because they were removed after the previous days bombing' via 'there were tapes but the police blanked them' to 'all the tapes are there, were working, and the rest is media BS'.

I saw one report yesterday that the head of the IPCC had said he has all the CCTV in his posession and that it is 'very, very, useful'. Read into that what you will - I have no more reason to give it significance than the others but it shows the lack of consensus and fact.

Surely we can soon learn not to base our judgements either on immediate eye-witness statements reported as fact or un-named leaks from secretaries being paid by the tabloids.

Wait for the Investigations to report.

Re:Guise?

[Weirsbaski]

> At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists?

You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place.

Homer: No bears since the bear patrol.
Lisa: Dad, that's rather specious reasoning.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: No Dad, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy that magic rock.

Re:Guise?

[Thomas Miconi]

Excuse me ? Al Qaeda is explicitly a fascist organisation. Many "ideologists" of radical Islamic were admirers of Mussolini, Zawahiri being a prominent example.

Fascism, in the most basic sense, means that the important unit of civilisation is the community, not the individual. The individual is expandable, the strength of the community is the real objective. The term comes from the Latin fasces - bundles of rods - which are a metaphor of this: one rod may break, but the bundle is still strong, as long as all the rods stick together.

Religious, political and nationalistic extremists all follow the same basic pattern: a bunch of fanatics preach for the Cause (the Nation, the triumph of the Proletariat, the Faith), and of course, anyone who opposes the lunatics is an enemy of the Cause, and therefore should be eradicated. If you disagree with this, you are yourself an enemy of the Cause.

Preaching to the disaffected masses, they can indoctrinate an army of grunts which they can manipulate at will and use as cannon fodder. This is where they get their strength. The Cause is more important than the individual. Individuals can, and must, be sacrificed to the Cause. So the more people they can get, the better off they are. Of course, when by coincidence the outer world happens to follow their predictions (say, when the Great Satan invades a muslim country for apparently no reason whatsoever), this is like manna from Heaven for them. Watch the grunts flow in !

You'd think that no one would fall for that. You'd think no one would give their lives to support a bunch of lunatics in their quest for global domination. But you'd be surprised at how easy it is to take a normal guy out of the street and brainwash him into submission - especially if you can convince him that some kind of injustice is done to his "Brothers", and that the only way to defend your Brothers is to go and fight for the Cause (that is, for the fanatics).

Hell, you can even convince them that the best way to defend their Brothers is to blow these Brothers up by the hundred, as is currently happening in Iraq ! Of course, the trick here is that the ones that you blow up are not really your Brothers - they are the traitors, they are enemies of the Cause, for one simple reason: they do not submit to the fanatics. Since the fanatics and the Cause are one single thing, it is therefore perfectly normal to go and slaughter them until they give up and submit.

Thomas-

Re:Guise?

[mark_lybarger]

every room doesn't have a smoke detector. i assume it's based on local building codes, but my home is 5 hrs old and on the ground level there is exactly one smoke detector. it's in a hallway between the front room and the back of the house which has the kitchen/family room. the family room has much used fireplace, but no smoke detector. upstairs, each bedroom has a detector, and one in the hallway. there's also one in the basement for good measure i suppose.

Re:Guise?

[awol]

actuall the CCTV footage was used to identify where the bombers joined the underground (Kings Cross Tube), and hence where they entered London (Kings Cross Rail) and hence where they joined the transport network (Luton) and hence the car that they left in the car park at Luton Station. All within about 24 hours.

They did this by scanning _all_ the CCTV footage of the underground for guys with back packs and radiating outwards from the bomb sites.

This speed of analysis, yet alone that the analysis was even possible at all was dependent on CCTV.

Re:Guise?

[wafty_cranker]

The cameras did not help identify the bombers on 7/7 at all. The fact that they were all deliberately carrying papers that identified themselves pretty much gave the whole identity game away. About half of the cameras on the tube worked. These allowed the police to trace the movements of the terrorists within London, not to identify them. They weren't from London, so their associates weren't identified from cameras either.

Suicide bombers are usually more than happy for people to know who they are. They do things like videoing themselves before the act, saying who they are, and what they're about to do. (There's also a psychological factor in this - people are less likely to back down from the atrocity if they've already said "Goodbye" to everyone they love and why they did it.)

FYI one of the failed bombers (the one at Shepherd's Bush) was tackled by THREE men as he tried to get off the tube and out of the station. Curiously for someone who was willing to be a suicide bomber, he was afraid of being caught...

I live in London. I dislike the sheer number of cameras we have here. The only effect the bombers have had on me is that I didn't go to work one day because of the disruption to the transport network, and on the 21st it took me a ridiculously long time to get into the centre and back out - partly because I wanted to take the tube through Stockwell... but the police were busy shooting someone there.

The only ways that terrorism can be stopped is through infiltrating the groups that commit the atrocities and finding out where, and when, they plan to attack. Or to stop everyone doing anything without a permit.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't fear terrorist because there aren't any. Terrorism would be against the Human Rights Act (1988). The use of explosives is also tightly regulated, so they won't be able to use explosives, if they intended to blow up something.

So what precisely keeps you from abusing the system, e.g. for blackmailing people?

Re:Guise?

[Bimo_Dude]

but he's not a terrorist, because he's on our side. (for some definition, or other, of 'us').

Somebody (I don't remember who) said this once: "If they are on our side, they are freedom fighters; if they are on the other side, they are terrorists."

Osama was a freedom fighter in the 80s. Now he's a terrorist.

Re:Guise?

[DataCannibal]

If there's not a single video image, as you claim, how come the IPCC (as you know so much about it I shouldn't have to tell you what that stands for) have video footage showing that Jean Charles de Menezes entered the station without running, took a free newspaper and passed normally through the ticket barrier?

Could it be that you are talking out of your arse?

Re:Guise?

[anthony_dipierro]

You know, a link would be nice, from either of you.

Re:Guise?

[Insipid Trunculance]

You might want to read this post from an ex-line controller of the tube about how it would be strange if the cameras were working.

Its funny how many oracles post on /. without bothering to sift their facts from their bull.

Interested readers might want to read this and this.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

while we are on the subject of Terrorism.
Let's not forget Dennis Weaver's pregnant Wife and the 85 AMERICAN women and children 'Terrorists'in Waco,brutally murdered by your Gangster Government!
Lokheed and Universities,like Georgia tech are NOT
'Defence'oriented.They are Camps of Terrorism,operating under the Buzzwords of Defence.
The next big Wave of "Terrorists'will ultimately come from the disenfrenchised American People themselves,against the wallstreet and corporate Mob,terrorising bamboozled America and the World!

Re:Guise?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I work as a CCTV operator here in London, we do traffic enforcement, which is what most of the cameras are for. Everything we do is tightly regulated by the Human Rights Act (1988) and the Data Protection Act (1998) and a comprehensive Code of Practice. We have to respect privacy (or be sacked!)

That's all well and good. But what happens when those human rights laws are repealed, freeing you guys up to do the formerly forbidden in the name of the new law?

You say that won't happen? Think again.

Tony Blair is now going around saying that the first step (not a step, the first step) in fighting terrorism in the UK is to find a way around the Human Rights Act. Citation: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =4277344

If Blair has his way, your job is going to become exactly the kind of evil oppression that the tin hat brigade has been worried about.

At least in the US we still have a chance to keep the cameras from going in in the first place. Its too late for you guys.

Re:Guise?

[mikael]

Maybe because the police already had the Mr de Menezes restrained before they started shooting.

If the Police argue that was because they thought he had a bomb, why did they let him on a bus, let alone into the station?

I don't see why Sir Ian Blair should resign though - it really looks like the armed unit were trying to justify their actions and avoid prosecution. Especially considering how the security cameras in both the station and carriage seem not to have been working.

Re:Guise?

[I_M_Noman]

You don't live in NYC, do you? Real New Yorkers don't even own cars.

I'm a NYC native, and yes we do.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are doing something private on the subway sytem, you should be arrested.

Huh? My reading a book on the A train is my own damn business (read: private), and you want me arrested for that? Right-wing loony.

Re:Guise?

[arkanes]

I've seen news footage of the body lying in the carriage (clearly wearing a light jean jacket, by the way, not any sort of "bulky" thing). It had to have come from somewhere. The footage I saw was high resolution and color though, so maybe a news crew made it to the scene before the corpse was cleaned up? Seems unlikely. Or maybe it was a "re-enactment".

Blair should resign because he's taking this stonewall "I support my officers" line when its clear to anyone paying any attention that they freaked out and shot a suspect. We'll probably never know exactly why but I wouldn't be suprised if it was a revenge/anger type thing. Or hell, even a Pulp Fiction style bump. But it's abundently clear that there was a fuckup, and while I'd stop short of saying there was a "coverup", the immediate police response was half-truths and justifications. It'd be a lot more honest, now that it's being exposed, to be forthcoming and straightfoward.

Re:Guise?

[I_M_Noman]

However, now we are subject to "random searches" of backpacks and other large items. This is clearly not constitutional! The cameras were a first step. Now they can randomly search anyone.

It's funny, but I have yet to even see a cop doing a bag check during my daily commute. And that's on two subway lines and the PATH, each way.

Some yahoo wrote a letter to the Daily News a week or so ago that said "anyone who objects to the random bag checks on the subway obviously never goes to a concert or sporting event because they check your bags there too." Sure, but there they check everybody. No exception. If they were to figure out an efficient way to do that on the subway I'd have less of a problem with the searches.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even travel on the subway in NYC without getting your bags checked by police.

I find that hard to believe, as that would require checking millions of bags a day. What I heard was that there were random voluntary searches, and you could refuse and just try again at another subway station.

All this means that anyone who can afford to avoid the subway will do so (even more than people already do in NYC).

And do what? Walk? Take the bus? Take a cab? Taking a cab is about the only reasonable solution, and even that isn't going to get you to many places as quick as the subway.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you never went to history class, white men have been killing arabs for thousands of years now in the name of holy war.

Well, if those white men are Muslims, then yes. Islam started with conquest and war. It is the duty of every true Muslim to fight until the whole world is under Islam.

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

Re:Guise?

[ScentCone]

And, of course, I completely agree that Robertson is an ass. The main difference, though, is that he's free in this country to be an ass, even though his nonsense is terribly damaging to international relations. He's no different than that Cindy Sheehan woman protesting in Crawford, in the sense that either one of them can spout non-helpful, utter BS. I guarantee that similarly disruptive (meaning, counter to the politics/policies of whatever party is in charge) media-covered diatrabs from people in, say, Iran, would not leave the speaker quite as comfortable as it does here.

Robertson is not on "my" side. He's a counterproductive twit that actually believes his own mythology, to the point of real delusion, I think.

FWIW, I don't believe the administration considers the comments "harmless," but rather jumped (and quickly) to distance themselves from it. Definitely not helpful. The problem is that if they spend too much time talking about it, that just adds credibility to Robertson, something no one needs.

But back to the original point... education? Unless you mean "idealogical education," no amount of diverting money from Homeland Security is going to fix either Robertson or some operating cell of would-be train bombers here in the US.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's see - you insulted him and said that you bet he doesn't know what he's talking about. But you neglected to prove him otherwise. Brilliant.

Re:Guise?

[James Lewis]

Can we get a fact check on this please? I'm willing to bet that at least half of those "facts" are exagerated, misleading, or out right wrong. The author needs to reign in his fury, because I have trouble believing the credibility of someone who, in one post, manages to accuse two of the most open, progressive, and free countries in the world of being terrorists and/or police states.

Re:Guise?

[Jom112]

Catching Toll booth jumpers is how they probably plan on paying for it.

Re:Guise?

[Kombat]

Don't forget:
14. President John F. Kennedy
15. The Alfred P. Murrah Building
16. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians

Oh goodness, this is not a game you want to play.

• Unsuccessful WTC "van" bombing in early 90's.
  
• Successful WTC attacks in 2001.
  
• Pentagon plane attack in 2001.
  
• Pennsylvania plane crash in 2001.
  
• EgyptAir crash in the Atlantic.
  
• US Embassy attack in Kenya.
  
• US Embassy attack in Tanzania.
  
• Bali bombing.
  
• London attack #1.
  
• London attack #2.
  
• "Millenium" bomb plot to blow up LAX.
  
• Olympic hostage taking in Munich.
  
• Every single suicide bombing and car bombing in Iraq and Israel for the last 50 or so years.
  

Your list is pretty much exhausted. Mine can go on indefinitely. I strongly suggest you stay away from the "White Christians are terrorists too" angle. It just doesn't hold up. 3 exceptions to the rule (I'm ignoring your examples that weren't in the last century) doesn't not prove the rule wrong. That's why they're called "exceptions to the rule."

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

> . IF you think this war can be won, maybe you need to start listening to the Jews for advice because clearly they are doing a wonderful job of containing just a small neighboring state. Just in case you never went to history class, white men have been killing arabs for thousands of years now in the name of holy war.

Nice troll. I'll see your "white liberal guilt" and raise you, though.

If the Israelis wanted to win their little war, (and for that matter, if we "white men" wanted to win their somewhat-larger war) they could win it in an afternoon.

The reason they (and we) don't, is because we'd prefer not to kill Arabs.

> May the history books be ever so unkind.

Incidentally, another argument in favor of a the extermination of the planet's 1.5 billion Muslims, is the fact that history is written by the winners.

Of course, if we did that in the name of holy war, the worshippers of JHVH and Christ would have become indistinguishable from the worshippers of Allah. Perhaps the Muslims will rejoice in their final milliseconds, realizing as they stare into the oncoming overpressure wave that their mindset did end up taking over the world, just not quite in the way they'd hoped :)

Re:Guise?

[InfiniteWisdom]

I wouldn't stop short of saying there was a coverup given the fact that the recently leaked documents show that the statements they've been making for weeks after the incident were no exaggerations or half-truths but pure fabrication.

In my opinion all officers involved in the shooting and subsequent coverup ought to lose their jobs and stand trial on some pretty serious charges.

Re:Guise?

[Kombat]

Ooo, I thought of a couple more.

• Lockerbie plane bombing in Scotland (Pan Am Flight 103)
  
• USS Cole bombing.
  
• Anthrax mail attacks.
  
• Air India Flight 182 bombing.
  
• Richard Reid shoe bomber.
  

These are all just off the top of my head. Feel free to add more.

Re:Guise?

[bwalling]

You have failed to establish any sort of ulterior motive for the placement of the cameras. You may feel that cameras do not lead to safety, but that opinion does not suddenly create a conspiracy.

Re:Guise?

[ryanov]

Yeah, man, because I attended a fundamentalist Islamic school and regularly pow-wow with terrorists. How would I know? My point is that HE would not know either. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if I'm wrong, and I'm sure so would you.

Re:Guise?

[magarity]

Definition

The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:

* exalts the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

* stresses loyalty to a single leader.

* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.

* engages in syndicalist corporatism.

* implements totalitarian systems.

 
The islamofascists fit every one of these definitions from the wiki you linked. As for fundamentalism, the problem is people who use islam (see: misc ayatollas in Iran, OBL, etc) for their fascist political ends, not people who want to strictly observe. That's why I specifically use the term islamofascist and not islamic fundamentalists.

Re:Guise?

[lgw]

Thanks to the wonderful and often-denied rise in the standard of living here in America over the last 25 years, the ratio of people/room went down from nearly 2 in 1980 to less than 1 in 2000. Nice progress for a single generation.

Re:Guise?

[lgw]

Blah blah blah ... they hate us because of Israel ... yadda yadda yadda ... use defense money for education instead ... whine bitch moan ... it costs too much.

I say we do what's right, regardless of what motivations it gives sick and deranged people. But I'd guess you'd prefer that the Jews were left in concentration camps, instead of risking the ire of sick and deranged people by creating and defending Israel. Heck, we spent one Hell of a lot of money in WWII that could have been spent on education instead! I'm sure that preventing ruthless dictators and other random powerful sociopaths from inflicting damage on the world is a simple matter of education. Just like using the lowest bidder for defence equipment makes sense, regardless of quality.

There is *definitely* some education needed here.

Re:Guise?

[drsquare]

Why do people get so worked up about that Brazilian? Dozens of people were killed a couple of weeks before, why don't each of them get the same attention? When terrorists are trying to blow people up, innocent people are going to die. It's a war, it's no more tragic if he's killed by the police or whether he's killed by a bomb.

Do you want police to take a soft approach to terrorism? The same people criticising now would be the same people criticising if he'd blown himself up on the train.

I'd question:
1. What was he doing in that house.
2. Why was he here illegally?

Re:Guise?

[UnrefinedLayman]

They can only track an individual on CCTV if they suspect them of criminal activity.

This is what the tinfoil-hat crowd fears, and rightly so. It shows that the entire surveillance system's propriety hinges on what is determined to be criminal activity at the time. Even though all criminal law is a determination at the time, there is a difference between outlawing something and having a system in place to immediately track/follow/eavesdrop/arrest/incarcerate all offenders.

The first step is to put the police-state infrastructure into place with the assurance that it won't be used in such a manner. In reality, it is entirely possible that it never will be used, and it would be foolish to believe that it must be. Likewise, it is foolish to believe that it never will be. The next step is to make criminal anything you want, and is considerably easier than the first step once you've completed that first step.

Beginning a police-state is far, far easier than ending one, and like most people I am spectacularly lazy. That's why I work now to stop it from ever materializing.

Re:Guise?

[jafac]

There is no comperable Data Protection law in the US. If you are going to increase the amount of CCTV you use then perhaps you need also to consider legislation that will protect your privacy?

Most Republicans (the party that is currently in power) in this country, do not interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy.

Despite the 4th and 5th Amendments. Sad fact but true.

With the current regime in power, it is extremely unlikely that legislation protecting the privacy of US citizens will be drafted, let alone allowed into committee for discussion, let alone allowed to be brought to a vote, let alone passed, let alone signed, let alone survive Supreme Court oversight.

The American Taliban (religious conservatives) do not want a right to privacy, because then they would not be able to impose their medieval moral codes onto our private sexual behavior. The religious wingnuts who worship Mammon (ie. the Anarcho-Capitalists) do not want people to have a right to privacy, because then Corporations would not be able to impose their advertisement, or regulate their Intellectual Property. Jesus was wrong. You *can* server two masters. You won't love one and hate the other though. You'll hate both.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the same act that governs phone tapping"

As I recall, that's a fairly lax law - given that 1 in 6 UK phone calls are automatically recorded and many are recorded due to the presence of "keywords".

Re:Guise?

[sodaquad]

Before 1998 there had been a number of cases of Britain being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act* was meant to bring British law into line with European law and avoid this embarrasment. If Blair strays too far he will risk more cases in Europe. But I agree that we have to keep an eye on him - he is due to step down before the next election to make way for Gordon Brown. Without the need to seek reelection he is free to push unpleasant legislation without consequence, and once in power Brown can blame everything on him.

I hope that in the US you do avoid the proliferation of CCTV, but as I said - if it's going to happen you will need legislation to protect privacy.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv13.htm
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

Re:Guise?

[quarkscat]

"...they try everything, and chalk wasted dollars up to "research", since they learned what is feasable and what is not."

I would like to point out that such tactics are good (great, really) for the USA's defense contractors, but not necessarily so good for either "homeland security" or the taxpayers. The DHS still does not have enough "boots on the ground" to secure our national borders, or to protect our seaports. An apparently concious decision was made to limit the growth of the Federal workforce in favor of whatever cockamamy "high tech" ideas the defense contractors come up with. So the DHS has pissed away $500 Million USD on a "seaport nuclear bomb detector" that is good only at detecting diatomaceous clay-based kitty litter, and little else. For that same money, the USA could have built an Israeli-style border wall and hired the additional US Border Patrol to guard it.

Re:Guise?

[bluGill]

Yep, codes. I'm pretty sure they are national not local.

You need them near or in each bedroom, and one on each level. When you have a vaulted ceiling the vault is a different level. (Thus the odd situation of many houses having smoke detectors just a few feet apart)

You want smoke detectors as far from kitchens and fireplaces as you can, without sacrificing good detection. These locations produce small amounts of smoke from time without there being a problem. False alarms need to minimized. These areas tend to not produce smoke when there is nobody there though, so it is assumed you can evaluate the danger without aid of a detector.

Re:Guise?

[some guy I know]

Your list is pretty much exhausted.

Sigh.

Ruby Ridge.
Dresden.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki.
Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, and most other serial killers.
The Black Panthers.
The Weathermen.
The Symbianese (sp?) Liberation Army.
Southern Lynch mobs.
The Crusades.
Stalin.
Mao.
Idi Amin.
Liberia, Rwanda, the Sudan, Ethiopia, etc., etc.
Some neo-nazi groups.
Some anti-abortion groups.
Some environmental groups.
The Unabomber.
Various generic dictators or authoritarian governments in places like Central and South America, Africa, China, etc.

More recently:
British police.
U.S. Congress and GWB.

Re:Guise?

[antv]

/* You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place. */

Hey, I just got a cell phone with tiger-protecting camera, and guess what - not a single tiger attacked me after that.

/* And the recent islamofacist bombers were tracked down and caught impressively quickly after the tapes were perused. */

Let me understand this straight:
* There were cameras in London before bombing
* Bombing still happened
* Cameras did bupkus to prevent them

Just what exactly is impressive about it ?!?

/* As for detecting and preventing ahead of time, nothing can do that outside of an oppressive police state that prevents free movement of people. */

So, what exactly is the point of having those cameras ? So we could punish suicide bombers after they blow themselves up ?

It could be used by police to fight regular crime.
However, then those cameras should be open to public review and there should be strict rules as to what exactly police could do with those cameras.
A closed monitoring system installed by government under guise of "fighting terrorists" is a treat to my privacy.

/* And no, surveillance cameras used to track down criminals after the fact do not an oppressive police state make. */

The difference between criminals and terrorists you do not understand. For preventing crime they are useful, indeed. Prevent terrorist acts they will not. Tracking terrorists after the fact nearly useless is. A big pork-barrel project for Lockheed-Martin this looks like.

Re:Guise?

[Kombat]

Again, I'm ignoring stuff that happened over a century ago. And "Hiroshima/Nagasaki?" Come on, give me some credit. We're talking about terrorist acts here.

The thing is, all the "white Christian" terrorist examples are just isolated examples of lone nuts. JFK assassination? Lone nut. Waco? Lone nut. Ruby Ridge? Lone nut. Unabomber? Lone nut. Oklohoma City? OK, you caught me. 2 nuts.

9/11? 17 nuts. See what I'm getting at? The "white terrorists" are just random, screwed up, misguided whackos. The ones doing the most damage out there are the ones who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam.

Re:Guise?

[hesiod]

> engages in syndicalist corporatism.

Excuse my lack of understanding, but how do they fall under this definition? Maybe I don't understand the term, but from the individual words, it would appear that it means "an attempt to make all economic functions part of a government, by use of direct action." (strikes, sabotage are the d.a. examples from dictionary.com)

Re:Guise?

[rblum]

Yep. Right. We'll catch him like we caught those guys on expired visa before they flew planes into the building.

It's pork for a defense contractor, plain and simple. It's not going to protect a single soul in NYC. But go ahead, believe in security through a surveillance state - that has always worked out in the past, right?

We have more than enough security measures in place - more data isn't going to help overwhelmed analysts. (It is, however, a great boon to people who want privacy - the more data channels there are, the either it is to DDoS the people/computers behind it)

Re:Guise?

[hesiod]

> It's a war

No, it is not. A war has defined "sides." Just because a word has been tossed about incorrectly to get people to support it, it does not automatically make it so.

> it's no more tragic if he's killed by the police or whether he's killed by a bomb.

How can you say that? Being blown up by a bomb is certainly not desired, but a bit of it is to be expected due to enemy confrontations. When a civilian is killed by the very people charged to protect him , that is entirely different! It shows these people are terrible at their jobs, especially after they lied about what happened.

Somewhat separately, anyone who works in public service who lies to the public should be immediately fired, and if it was serious enough, jailtime should ensue immediately.

Re:Guise?

[johnnnyboy]

Why do people get so worked up about that Brazilian?

Because he could have been you.
Because someone was murdered.

It's a war, it's no more tragic if he's killed by the police or whether he's killed by a bomb.

Since when was this a war?
Where's the enemy?
Who's the enemy?
Why do you go around labeling people?
Is that how you distance yourself from the murdered "Brazilian" or another?

He could have very well been an "anglosaxen" or one of "you people".

Re:Guise?

[drsquare]

Because he could have been you.
Because someone was murdered.

It could have been me in on the London tubes, it wouldn't have been any more or less tragic. A day after a series of failed bomb attacks, of course the police are going to take the cautious approach.

I'd rather they take that stance and have a few innocents be killed, than them take a more cautious approach and have dozens of innocents killed. Yes it's bad when the police kill innocent people, but shit happens, we don't like in a perfect world.

He could have very well been an "anglosaxen" or one of "you people".

What difference would that make? By 'us people' do you mean people here legally, rather than the illegal immigrant Brazilian?

Re:Guise?

[Eric S. Smith]

Police brutality? No, sorry. That camera was down for maintenance.

Indeed...

Re:Guise?

[hesiod]

> If you are doing something private on the subway sytem, you should be arrested.

Thinking is generally a private activity... Wait, you must be in charge of "Homeland Security?"

Re:Guise?

[Stephen Samuel]

The main difference, though, is that he's free in this country to be an ass, even though his nonsense is terribly damaging to international relations.

If you think he's free to call for the assassination of a foreign leader, then I suppose you also support the right of extremist Islamic Mullahs to call for suicide bombers? If not, then feel free to explain the difference.

Re:Guise?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

More probably, the story submitter is just a standard illiterate slashbot who doesn't know that "guise" implies an ulterior motive.

Or maybe the sumbitter knows that guise implies an ulterior motive, and believes there is an ulterior motive for implementing this system. If the incidents in London tell us anything, it is that it won't stop bombings, and it won't be used to aid investigations against police misconduct. The BBC has said that there is no footage of the case where police murdered the suspicious-yet-innocent immigrant.

Re:Guise?

[ScentCone]

If you think he's free to call for the assassination of a foreign leader, then I suppose you also support the right of extremist Islamic Mullahs to call for suicide bombers? If not, then feel free to explain the difference.

Good, though slightly wrong question.

First, I do not think that he's in a position to (or free to) "call for" anyone's assassination. In much the same way that overblown yahoos saying that "Bush should be shot" or other over-the-top rhetorical nonsense shouldn't be confused with giving marching orders to people. A Mullah that has a loyal band of young men visiting his mosque every week, to whom he essentially says, "go forth and kill heretics, now" is, I think substantially different than someone saying (however stupidly), "we'd sure save a lot of trouble if we just took the head off the enemy instead of having to invade his whole country to accomplish the same thing."

Mind you, that whole discussion presupposes some sort of existing armed conflict in progress, and unlike Saddam, Chavez is certainly not shooting at NATO planes every day. I mean, he's a jerk, and he's definintely stirring the pot in Columbia and elsewhere, but he's not invading Kuwait or gassing non-communist-leaning villagers. So, in that context, Robertson's rhetorical musings are absurd, but probably not to be confused with suggesting that his loyal religious followers actually do anything about it. On the other hand, there's always the chance that some loon will perceive it that way and act anyway... but that's a lot like saying Grand Theft Auto made you kill a cop. BS.

On the other hand, sitting across the table from a Mullah (or any other figure) that has been droning on for weeks, months, or years about how you should consider yourself lucky to be in his influence, and don't forget the 70 virgins, and here's Ahmed, who has a special backpack for you to wear on a train, blah blah -- there's something rather more immediate and specifically instructive about that sort of thing. Of course, some jackass preacher who talks an anti-abortion wingnut into doing the same thing is the same thing. It's incitement.

I'd be delighted to see Robertson lose his public voice. And Falwell. And Louis Farrakhan. All of them and their ilk. I'm trying to draw the distinction, though, between tone-deaf punditry/musings and actual, specific incitement to direct violence, or logistical support thereto.

The Mullahs that preach, in broad terms, that the heretic cities should run with blood, etc., are certainly making use of free speech. How free that should be when they're in the country on a temporary visa - that's a separate discussion. How and when that general ranting makes the transition to direct, specific incitement, support, or instruction - an admittedly difficult line to draw. Britain is wrestling with that right now, and part of how they address the issue is by drawing the distinction between their citizens, and those that are there as visitors/guests. That definitely makes it easier to err on the side of caution. I'm reminded of the (Supreme Court, wasn't it?) justice who said he can't define porn, but he knows it when he sees it.

Re:Guise?

[ScentCone]

Spend a little time watching the documentaries coming out of Pakistan, Taliban-era Afghanistan, etc. On those occasions that a madrasah (Islamic school) has allowed western camera crews to record the setting, it's certainly disturbing in some cases.

But here is a decidedly sympathetic article by a guy that researched the role the madrasahs are (or are not) playing in the molding of young minds into what, in some cases, become extremist jihaddis. You'll note that even the author, who decidedly chastises the west for frequently "not getting it" when it comes to these issues, confirms that a subset of these schools, drenched in wahabism and fueled with some families' oil money, were the factories that turned out the core of the Taliban. That movement is brutally medeival in its treatment of its own women, of any other culture, and famous for happily hosting folks like bin Laden in Afghanistan - a country they moved into and took over like a violent cancer. I'm sure you've seen the lunchtime former-soccer-field executions of women who (gasp!) tried to work outside their houses, or send their daughters to school. But more importantly, it's the mullahs produced by some of these programs that leverage the wide-open immigration policies throughout Europe and set up shop. In some cases, they have very good luck finding impressionable, or addled enough young suburban Muslims to go out and carry (or be) bombs.

Your deliberate misreading of my comment, to suggest that every fundamentalist Islamic school exists only to train terrorists, is nonsense. But they don't all have to do it for at least a few to none the less lean that direction, as they demonstrably do. The leaders of these schools proudly say they do.

So, you can be surprised that I would know, or you can go and digest the information yourself, and then YOU can know. But I'll stick to my original point, which is that altering how US education dollars are spent isn't going to change the creed that's preached to 8-year-olds in some of the crazier madrasahs in Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

Re:Guise?

[mmkkbb]

Does it beep and say "low battery" when the battery goes? My apartment has that little feature since it's on land that's zoned for commercial use.

Re:Guise?

[InfiniteWisdom]

if the terrorists are killing innocent civillians and the police are killing innocent civillians, what's the difference between the two?

As for your questions:
1. It wasn't a house, it was an appartment building where lots of innocent people were living
2. The police knew nothing about his immigration status, at the time (given that they didn't even know who he was) so that's just lame after-the-fact justification

Re:Guise?

[bc90021]

The difference is that a sporting event is a *private event*. *Public* transportation is just that, and paid for with my tax dollars.

Re:Guise?

[drsquare]

if the terrorists are killing innocent civillians and the police are killing innocent civillians, what's the difference between the two?

The fact that terrorists deliberately kill civilians whilst the police are interested in stopping terrorists. If you actually think that the police WANT to kill innocent people, then you might as well find another country to live in.

Re:Guise?

[cdrguru]

We'll stop spouting hate when the schools that infiltrators have actually gotten in to stop teaching the benefits and honor of martyrdom.

You are correct - I have no idea what the average Palestinian thinks. I do know they elected a thug that refuses to force armed gangs roaming the streets to surrender their weapons. I do know the average Palestinian supports the current leaders that want to kill every last Israeli, and perhaps every last Jew.

I suppose it can be argued that we have no business interfering in that genocide, since we did not interfer in others.

Re:Guise?

[pi_rules]

one for one

You are being ignorant. Wake up.

Touche.

I see you have made a good point, that the CCTV systems can be used to track back from the incident until the time that they entered the subway station, or at least that's how it would play out in NYC I presume. London has a bit of an advantage as they are slathered in CCTV systems above ground and below.

So, yes, you have a point and I will concede that having a total survelience grid helps out of the police when back tracking a crime where the criminal left no traces of themselves by blowing themselves to smitherines.

Ignorant as I may be... doesn't that seem like a very backwards manner in which to gather intelligence? To survey every citizen, law abiding or not, and work backwards from the crime scene? To collect massive amounts of data on people in the hopes that you catch somebody in the act so you can figure out who was behind it?

Keep in mind, Aswat was named as the "mastermind" behind this whole thing before they had the CCTV footage of the guys entering the subway station. Seems like they already named the mastermind, a known terrorist that had dealings with MI6 earlier on without the aid of the CCTV systems. How?

Easy... you keep track of the known terrorists in the world, figure out who they're talking to, and then monitor those people. I find it hard to believe that the intelligence agencies of the USA and the UK are -clueless- about who's behind all this and need CCTV to figure out the chain of command from the bottom up. When you're going from the bottom up -every- citizen is now a suspect. I don't like that. It doesn't make me feel very cozy.

The USA managed to name bin Laden as the "mastermind" beind the 9/11 attacks in the US pretty darned quick. Certainly not enough time to gather up security tapes from airports, identify the potential hijackers, and to draw the lines back to bin Laden. If they did, I sure wasn't told of it.

Don't you also find it very odd that this CCTV system is being proposed so closely to the London bombings? I'd imagine it'd take a while for Lockheed to put together such a bid, or to suite their technology to this particular situation. They had to have been planning this implementation for some time. Government agencies, and their contractors, are not known to be fast acting bodies. This was in the works for a while, and with the London bombings the public will finally accept/fund the program.

If the public accepts this, the total survelience of the subway system, soon we'll see it in other cities, and it will creep out to every street corner. Total survelience, all the time, anytime you leave your house. You will be tracked, monitored, and profiled.

Terrorism is an international matter, and should be handled by the military and intelligence agencies. If they can't do the job, I'll take my risks rather than subject myself to total survelience.

Re:Guise?

[snero3]

The USA managed to name bin Laden as the "mastermind" beind the 9/11 attacks in the US pretty darned quick. Certainly not enough time to gather up security tapes from airports, identify the potential hijackers, and to draw the lines back to bin Laden. If they did, I sure wasn't told of it.

Wasn't he just a suspect for a very long time? Wasn't it just the media (looking at fox) that named him the master mind before any really evidence came to light? Also remember that being suspect can really mean many different things, if I live next door to a murder and I am questioned in regards to that murder (even if it is just to ask when was the last time I saw the dead person) I am consider a suspect. Also didn't he claim to be behind the attacks really early on?

Don't you also find it very odd that this CCTV system is being proposed so closely to the London bombings? I'd imagine it'd take a while for Lockheed to put together such a bid, or to suite their technology to this particular situation. They had to have been planning this implementation for some time. Government agencies, and their contractors, are not known to be fast acting bodies. This was in the works for a while, and with the London bombings the public will finally accept/fund the program.

Ya they probably have been planning on selling stuff to the govenment for ages, who wouldn't? But also if you have ever got a IT tender you would know that what the sales person says and what the actually system can do are two different things. It would only take 1-2 days to knock up a tender from a sales point of view

Terrorism is an international matter, and should be handled by the military and intelligence agencies. If they can't do the job, I'll take my risks rather than subject myself to total survelience.

How do you think they are going to track these terrorist? They can't really go up to them and ask "hey can you give me a quick run down of what you have done in the last few days?" Things like CCTV, phone taps etc... which I agree encroach on our freedom are really the only way do this. A totally free country is always going to be an easy target. So we have the choice either accept the increased surveillance or accept the inevitable deaths

Re:Guise?

[ryanov]

Please. Genocide? Which side by far outmatches the other in terms of power and number.

Re:Guise?

[ZosX]

Well. What facts do you dispute? That we armed Saddam Hussein? That Donald Rumsfield was involved in selling them to him? That we supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s? That we installed the Taliban to help us out in the Afghanni-Soviet conflict? That we and the Soviets were both interested in the area specifically for an oil pipeline? That Rockefeller was interested as well? That the CIA has historically been involved in drug smuggling operations, like, oh say, running coke from Columbia to the west coast. Hell the guy that blew the lid on that has had multiple assasination attempts. But, he was just making it all up, right?

Its a fact that Saddam called George Bush Sr. to consult with him before he invaded Kuwait, as Bush had long standing relations with Hussein at the time.

How do you think Iraq got all of those WMDs in the first place?

I suggest if you are really curious to pull the fucking wool over your eyes you start doing some of your own investigation. The facts are out there and have been repeated many, many times.

And yes. If you read the fucking news like the other person who responded to the parent, the CCTV operators swore up and down that the cameras were working at the time of the shooting and yet the police have repeatedly stated that there is not a single video other than the one they released of the man entering the station. If that isn't a coverup attempt, I have no idea what is. By the way, protesters across the nation are now running into police violence. It will be interesting to see where this escalates on the home front. More police violence usually equates with more protesters. Wonder how long it will be before we have Kent State all over again.

Re:Guise?

[mikael]

I've seen the pictures, and going be the angle they were taken, would definitely assume they came from the CCTV cameras mounted above the doors.

I personally can't see what they have to cover up. The worst penalty the officer who fired the shots could get would be 3 years for manslaughter. The police made it far worse for themselves by constantly changing the story on a daily basis (and it keeps seeming to change - now they are blaming poor radio communications underground).

Re:Guise?

[InfiniteWisdom]

I'm not saying that the police WANT to kill innocent people... just that they ought to be a lot more careful about killing innocents. In this case they didn't bother to positively ID the man before shooting him dead. Then they lied about him wearing an unseasonally bulky jacket, they lied about the fact that they shot him while he was running away when in fact they already had him restrained. Then they don't even issue a real apology or promise to reduce the chance of this happening in the future.

Finally, it might make you feel like you're being very proactive and what not with a shoot-to-kill policy but it's completely ineffective. About 10 seconds worth of rewiring will turn a push-to-detonate bomb into a bomb with a dead man trigger. You hold the button down... if you shoot the guy it blows up. The Irish terrorists have a long history of doing that.

It's sad that Tony Blair announces that "they try to change our way of life, but we won't change" and then goes from a land that's proud to have largely unarmed police officers to carrying out summary executions.

And yes, I DID find another country to live in... it's called the United States of America. I'm sure as hell not setting foot in the UK until you guys regain your senses.

Re:Guise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the great grandparent. Nothing is gonna stop terrorism. The more terrorists you kill, the more martyrs you create.

I concur 100%. Let's all stop looking for terrorists, and if we should accidentally stumble on any of them, let's give them lollipops instead of killing them. There's no point in trying to stop it, nothing can stop it. And I'd hate to create martyrs, so let's just decay their teeth.

Now we are in Iraq. I don't know who is more evil. Saddam for killing his people with banned chemical and biological weapons or us supplying such weapons to him, knowing that he was using them on his own people.

That's funny, everyone else seems to think the chemical weapons came from the Netherlands. Thanks for clearing it up that it was the US. Thanks also for justifying the terrorist act that killed thousands of innocents, including hundreds of foreign nationals who can't even be guilty of the make believe "crimes" you heap upon the US. When does your plane leave?

Re:Guise?

[furrywithwings]

Yes, it's hugely annoying, because it beeps through all the units. Useful, but still annoying.

Re:Guise?

[DataCannibal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

or any other reputable UK news web site

Re:Guise?

[anthony_dipierro]

Ah, thanks.

I for one...

[Wazukkithemaster]

Welcome our new cellphone using, military aircraft designing, subway securing overlords? no wait... you just want to know whats in my bag...

Guise?

[bwalling]

The entire program is being conducted under the guise of anti-terrorism

Or, it's possible that it really is about prevention of attacks. NYC is a very likely target and everyone just saw what happened in London. Of course, if it makes you happier to believe that everyone is out to get you, then go on.

X10

[blueadept1]

BUY X10 SUBWAY CAMS NOW ONLY $249.95

Protect your subway, underground, or sewage pipes with these 180 full degree motion cams! BONUS!!11 Purchase X10 ULTRA MONITORING SOFTWARE and get a FREE Voyeurcam! Great for putting under street drains!

With X10, privacy is obselete! (TM)

Re:X10

[cagle_.25]

Da*n, I thought I could only get spam through my e-mail. Now's it's on Slashdot, too?!

Re:X10

[pangu]

Yes, but can I see the CHUDs with it?

Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

But we all know this is just an excuse to stop the rampant urination. But without the urine, it won't be the NYC subway any more and the terrorists will have won.

Re:Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism

[HermanAB]

Don't worry, the unique NYC Subway Urine Smell(TM) can be preserved using this thechnology: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/193216 &from=rss

Re:Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

If they put some damn urinals down there people wouldnt do it here or there...for the worlds most complex subway system it sure lacks the most basic of needs.

Re:Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism

[jaysones]

This smell is a necessary byproduct of subway operation. The F-line in NYC hasn't had wheels in 5 years. It just floats along on a river of urine.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I think I'm going to change my major to something "anti-terroristic" like. Seems like thats where the money is gonna be!

(Wow - funny, my non-script confirmation is "terrors." I guess someone already graduated in this field...)

that was a long time ago

[mnemonic_]

Lockheed Martin is now the world's largest defense contractor, handling everything from sea/air/land/space vehicle development to "system of systems" integration (which basically could be anything). Had they merged with Northrop (as was planned) in the 90s, they would have had a good chance at stifling Boeing's growth into the defense market.

Re:that was a long time ago

[DSL-Admin]

Hmm... why does this sounds familar with Cyberdyne from Terminator????

I wonder how long it will be before we see the 101, 1000 and X floating around?

scary stuff...

oh yeah, lets not forget SkyNet...

Hey...

[Psionicist]

At least they are not homemade endoscopes.

Re:Hey...

[WAG24601G]

At least they are not homemade endoscopes.

No, no... those will be used at the ticketing gates.

Re:Hey...

[Franklinstein]

That's in the next phase of the project once people have swallowed this one.

Pesky Metric System

[MooseByte]

Fortunately transit security cameras are free from such pesky issues as the fatal mixing of metric and English units of measure.

The guise of anti-terrorism?

[bhirsch]

I would love to hear what the "real" reason is for cameras in subways. Maybe if I put on my tin foil hat it will come to me.

1. Cameras in subways
2. ...
3. Profit!

Re:The guise of anti-terrorism?

[Gruneun]

1. Cameras in subways
2. ...
3. Profit!


It's government contracting, so there is no second step. In fact, if Lockheed does it right, the first step really isn't required, either.

I kid, but I say this as one of those "slimy government contractors" working for a competitor in another sector. In reality, I don't think they're installing the cameras under the guise of anti-terrorism action with some nefarious intention, nor do I think that Lockheed is invading a passenger's privacy (on a subway platform? what privacy?).

Is Lockheed taking advantage of the situation, meaning a plump contract that was created out of equal shares necessity and fear? Sure. Why wouldn't they?

Motion Sensors

[Malyven]

How sensitive are these sensors going to be? I am assuming they will only been in low traffic areas (because putting a motion sensor in a high traffic area is a little silly) which doesn't really seem to be MO of any attacks that I know of. Also in those areas could they not be set off by some of those larger than normal NYC Rats?

Re:Motion Sensors

[YrWrstNtmr]

So in high traffic areas, they are going all the time. Sounds good to me. And high traffic areas aren't necassarily high traffic 24/7.
In low traffic areas, they are going only when motion is detected. Again, sounds good to me.

As far as the giant NYC rats...even a cheapo Logitech cam allows a sensitivity adjustment before it triggers.

Re:Motion Sensors

[anthony_dipierro]

In the city that never sleeps, it'd make more sense to just run them all 24/7. Why add a new point of failure? But that's probably the plan, anyway. The point of the motion detectors is probably more to alert people viewing things in real time, not to activate the cameras.

How would it prevent the kind of stuff

[melted]

How would it prevent the kind of stuff that happened in London, though? Can this thing see trhough the backpack of a suicide bomber?

To me the whole thing looks like another instance of "synergy" between government and a large corporation whereby a little bit of my (taxpayer's) money gets given to some execs at LM with a bit of help from some senator whom they helped to get elected.

Will it solve ANY problem at all? I highly doubt it.

Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[nihilistcanada]

Well, other than providing the executives of Lockheed-Martin with yet another banner bonus year this will do zero to prevent terrorism. The UK has more video surveillance than anywhere on the earth. Yet amazingly enough terrorists found their way onto the subways and busses and killed scores of people. When people are willing to kill themselves in an attack video surveillance means nothing. All it provides is a good set of pictures for Islamist websites to make an online martyrs shrine with.

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[twb010]

true, cameras do little to prevent terrorism. they are there to catch the people that did it.

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[Mazem]

As if fear of punishment is going to deter a suicide bomber...

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[Anonymous Coward]

Right so instead of spending millions more in cash on something that won't STOP an attack and is moving us further down the road toward a 1984ish society where every thing you do outside of your domicile is videotaped in the name of "security" why don't we put that money and effort towards preventing the terrorists from reaching the subway with their bombs in the first place.

I don't have a problem with cameras in general but when the govt is using my tax money to turn the country into a survelliance state where I can be monitored like some criminal in C-block every time I step out the front door well that is just not what I consider being FREE.

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[TapeCutter]

"The UK has more video surveillance than anywhere on the earth. Yet amazingly enough terrorists found their way onto the subways and busses and killed scores of people."

Yes we all know that anyone can get onto a subway while wearing a turban and the camera operators are powerless to stop them from doing so. However, since the "Minority Report" is nothing more than bad-fiction the authorities can only provide details and culprits after an event. This can assist to reduce future attacks by quickly identifying those who provide the bombers with thier bombs (as it has done in London).

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[rtaylor]

As if fear of punishment is going to deter a suicide bomber.

The cameras seem pretty good at preventing a second attempt by the same person when they fail the first time around.

Terrorist attacks are like anything else in life, your first attempt usually doesn't work out as planned and you take the experience gained and try again.

Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London

[smitth1276]

I hate to break it to you, but this will barely register as even the tiniest blip on Lockheed-Martin's bottom line ($212M / $30+B represents about 0.2% of total revenues). It isn't about providing the executives of Lockheed-Martin with yet another banner bonus year. Everything isn't some conspiracy theory, guys. Slashdot has a serious problem with paranoia.

I'm just waiting...

[West VA Flamer]

For when police start to ask "are you a terrorist?" in thier usual barage of questions. Protection and domination merge at somepoint and it seems to me that that point is approaching soon.

Re:I'm just waiting...

[snuf23]

Reminds me of the brief time after September 11th that you had to check the "no I'm not using the computer for terrorist activities" box when purchasing a new computer.

Re:I'm just waiting...

[MavEtJu]

Are you, or have you ever been, a suicide-bomber?

Yet again idiots win!

[isotope23]

The article even says it can't stop a suicide bomber. But hey, lets burn any semblance of privacy for feel good measures instead of
looking at the root causes.Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off? I can tell you right now that if the chinese or russians were over here, inevitably some americans would be suicide bombers against them.

Cause and effect.

It's sad to think we went from men like this:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

or this :

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

or this:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

--Samuel Adams

To the SHEEPLE we have today.

I guess Franklin was right,

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[william_w_bush]

Yeah, while I agree with you on our side, don't forget we're just afraid of the sheeple lined up on the other side of the field hearing "So you have these 50 virgins and they are completely submissive to your will...".

In a battle of wits both sides have been disarmed by their leaders. Just be glad nobody is actually fighting in this semi-standoff, when the buildup phase of the defense budget hits saturation a war will break out because they have nothing better to do with themselves.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Zorque]

I, myself, am sick of the "terrorist" label being thrown around as often as it is. If I never hear the word again, it will be too soon. However, how does having security cameras and motion sensors violate basic rights? Oh, no. They're watching me walk and get on and off the train. It's not like you're doing anything in a subway that the Government really wants to know about (provided you're not a terrorist yourself, of course).

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[isotope23]

You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War?
What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. Then we act shocked when the people over there revolt and are pissed at us? We have troops around Mecca, and the holy sites in Iraq and yet "they hate us for our freedom"? We are playing at empire, and terrorism is its natural consequence.

You know the best part? The asshats in power let us deal with the fallout while they have their praetorian guards and run for a "secure and undisclosed location" whenever the shit hits the fan. I bet we could fix all this with a simple constitutional amendment :

"All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."

If you want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, you can't be afraid of mingling with them can you?

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[iceanfire]

What exactly are you trying to protect? Your right to privacy in a public place? That sounds kinda stupid seeing as how other passengers are constantly violating that 'right' anyways. I agree that if they started installing cams in your house/other private property, then you'd have something to rant about. But it seems kinda silly to do so otherwise.

Example : Walmart is allowed to have cameras in it's property for security, why doesn't anyone wail about their right to privacy there? In the same way I think the subway is owned by someone (most likely the govt) and the fact that they want to install cams on it, seems fine to me.

Also while it may not prevent suicide bombings, at the very least it can help us find those who plant bombs and leave the spot (also may act as a detterrent to those who are less faithfull to their cause).

I agree that privacy is important, but that doesn't mean its the only thing that is important.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

To the SHEEPLE we have today.

Woo, I'm going to oppose conformism, so I'm going to join everyone who uses the term "sheeple" -- without even defending the usage! We're all different! We're all individuals, just like everyone else!

Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off?

Of course we do. But then what do you do now? Suppose...right now...you become president/dictator/whatever of the US. How do you...un-piss-off the world? Withdraw the troops? You're going to have a few people in some locations (areas of Africa and Eastern Europe come to mind) mad at you for taking away the peacekeeping forces. And then you're going to have the people who're already pissed off, take advantage of the opportunity and attack.

There ain't much you can do. To use another analogy...even if you have an abortion, you've still lost your virginity. The US has been acting like world police for long enough that you can't expect anyone to be nice if we just stop it today.

Oh, and I don't think security cameras are quite "chains and slavery". If you like quotes, how about this:

"Now I make it my earnest prayer that God would...incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government...." -George Washington (the original version, actually, not the modified misquote.)

And do you even know what a republic is? It's a system of government that isn't a monarchy and rules by the right of the people to form a government (as opposed to, say, the divine right of kings and such nonsense). It does not have to be a democracy. Even Iran is a republic - a theocratic one, granted, but definitely a republic and not a monarchy.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[isotope23]

However, how does having security cameras and motion sensors violate basic rights?

Hmmm lets try this :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

I'd say if I pay taxes to build the damn subway, then I've got a right to privacy when I use it.

Don't forget the random searches of bags etc. ant to bet if they find drugs or whatever during said search they'll arrest the poor slob?

I was under the impression that we are presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. (Quaint I know) I guess I was one of the few who actually paid attention in Civics.....

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[cagle_.25]

You make a good point, but it's not enough.

Why is Iraq in 2005 so different from Japan in 1945? We did far more and far worse to the Japanese people and to their egos, than we ever did to the Iraqis. Yet Japan went almost immediately on a trajectory to having good relations with the U.S.

Or consider this: if the Iraqis just want us out of there, then why do some of them continue to carry out actions that will prolong our stay? It's not too difficult to see that if the insurgents took a break for a couple of years, then public pressure would bring the U.S. troops home and ... bada bing, bada boom ... the insurgents would have no competition anymore. Yet they don't take that approach. It's inexplicable on a simple "imperialist oppressor" model.

Or this: why did Afghanistan become the breeding ground for terrorists? We'd never been there.

I think the "imperialist" analysis is over-simplified. Factors like oil, Israel, Islam v. Christianity going back to the Battle of Tours in AD732, and the perception of the U.S. as a "Christian nation" all play a non-negligible role.

And yes, even hatred of some of our freedoms -- the rights of women, the right to free speech including porn, and the right to worship (or not) without molestation -- plays a role.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

We have troops around Mecca,

No, we do not.

You should keep up with the two year old news.

And they weren't near Mecca, even before that.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Dhalka226]

I guess I was one of the few who actually paid attention in Civics.....

I think you missed a few classes. The Supreme Court has said that in order for the fourth amendment to apply, the person needs to have a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated.

Now, yes, I agree with you: the bag searches may well be unconstitutional, and they are already being challenged in court. We'll see the outcome of that soon. ("Soon" in court reckoning, anyway.) Beyond that, since they are essentially optional, they are random, and they're not done at every station, I think it is a horribly ridiculous thing even if it's perfectly legal.

The premise that you have an expectation not to be watched while you are in a public place, however, is silly. Everybody is perfectly free to watch you. A cop standing there is free to watch you. Your fellow travelers are free to watch you. You're free to watch them. That is the nature of a public place. What is the legal difference if you're watched by a cop or a camera? If you want to talk about legalities involving who can view those tapes, how long they're stored, etc, fine--but their mere existence does not violate any of your rights.

Your problem is that you are either not even loosely up on the case law that evolves and shapes the legal realities we live in, or are simply ignoring it altogether. From an idealistic viewpoint, your interpretation of the 4th Amendment might be right. But guess what? The Constitution--that same document you're quoting from--names the Supreme Court (and such courts as Congress may create, blah blah) the interpreters of the law. Not isotope23. And until some subsequent court sees fit to reverse, they have spoken and you lose. As an aside, if you want to get real technical, the Constitution makes no mention of a Supreme Court authority to strike down any laws. John Marshall took that upon himself and it has stuck. But I digress.

Call me when they start pointing these cameras into your home window and we'll talk. While they're pointed in public places, whether your tax dollars built them or not, you're just blowing steam.

For the record, I don't claim to be a lawyer or any sort of legal expert, and I may have oversimplified the USSC rulings (you know they love exceptions in their legaleese), but I am fairly certain that the concept of what I said is accurate.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[zxnos]

What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

well, if my government had a propensity to kill dissidents and the liberating country allowed asshats to say stupid things like "go assassinate that leader over there", or "yeah, lets turn the mideast into glass", i would be happy about it.

"All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."

If you want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, you can't be afraid of mingling with them can you?

sorry, this changed when kennedy was assassinated. do you really want our government officials open to attacks from any nutjob? i know i cant wait for the fun that will occur here when our elected officials keep getting killed because they have to ride the bus.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[That's Unpossible!]

You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War?

I understand it is a lot more complicated than that. Yes, it would be simpler if we weren't "over there." We'd also be speaking German. Or Russian.

What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?

That depends. Was U.S. President Saddam Hussein's secret service raping my sister before this occupation of D.C.?

We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. Then we act shocked when the people over there revolt and are pissed at us?

The people in Iran are pissed at Israel, too. What did they do to Iran? Oh, they were being Jewish. Those bastards. Are you saying the Iranian government is rational?

We have troops around Mecca

No we don't. We did have troops in Saudi Arabia, mostly all gone, and never near Mecca.

We are playing at empire, and terrorism is its natural consequence.

Really, empire? What lands are we taking over? We just toppled Saddam Hussein and are helping train Iraqis to police their own country, establish a constitution and elected government. Not exactly my kind of empire.

"All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."

On this we agree. However, they already DO! We pay for all their transportation. Ha, not what you had in mind I bet.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[TapeCutter]

"Why is Iraq in 2005 so different from Japan in 1945?"

In Japan the Emporer was allowed to continue his rule.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[DigiShaman]

Islam is about world domination. No, really, it *IS* that simple. Unless you practice it's faith, you are by default (as written in the Koran) an enemy Allah and must be killed. Death is your only atonement in his eyes. Hence you are an infidel!

And FYI. Islam comes from the root word of Aslama which translate to "to surrender, resign oneself" in arabic. In other words, you don't live your life for yourself. You live your live for the sole purpose to be directed and guided by Allah. In return for your unbridled loyalty, you are promised salvation.

Fact is, we are fighting a WW4 - the holy wars (WW3 was the cold war). Survive, or submit. You have no other options!!!

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[TapeCutter]

"The people in Iran are pissed at Israel, too. What did they do to Iran? Oh, they were being Jewish."

There is also the small matter of Israel's military, they have already blown up an Iranian nuclear reactor in the past and they are threatening to do it again.

"Are you saying the Iranian government is rational?"

I'm saying no national government is rational.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[ConsumedByTV]

Don't forget that Japan actually attacked America. That's an important part to leave out.

You're aware that Iraq didn't attack us, right?

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad to think we went from men like this: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

Isn't that pretty much what the terrorists are saying, now?

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[isotope23]

As far as Iran, yes they are despotic. Do they have a right to be pissed with Israel? Perhaps seeing the way the Palestinians have been treated. Does either excuse our meddling in their internal affairs beforehand? No.

Regarding Mecca, this link
"Saudi Arabia has Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Many Muslims oppose the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. They say non-Muslims should not be welcome in land that is holy to Muslims."

And yes, Empire

Some choice reading

"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence"

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"

"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas"

read the thing yourself.

I'd say when the chief strategists go around saying "Pax Americana" (mentioned four times in the document above) yeah thats playing empire

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[TapeCutter]

That's correct, Saddam was unwilling to surrender to the US, probably because he did not attack the US and was not hiding nukes in his garden shed.

In Japan, the Emporer's general did not surrender even after the bomb was dropped. The general thought that the US decision to change the unconditional surrender demand to one that offered to preserve the Emporer's palace and privlages was a sign of weakness. The general chose ritual suicide when the Emporer himself decided to surrender.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[TapeCutter]

From the content of your post I very much doubt you have actually read the Koran or the Bible.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[ptbarnett]

There is also the small matter of Israel's military, they have already blown up an Iranian nuclear reactor in the past and they are threatening to do it again.

No, that was an Iraqi nuclear reactor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[deaddrunk]

The US trained a lot of the terrorists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army there. After seeing the success of a terror campaign against one superpower they turned their attention to the infidels occupying the Muslim holy land and Muslim Jerusalem.

As for the Iraqi insurgents they see the US forces as an army of occupation to be resisted and don't necessarily believe that they will be leaving any time soon. The troops in Saudi Arabia have been there a long time after all.

I do concede your point that it's a hell of a lot more complex than "they hate our imperialism" or "they hate our freedoms" but doing something about our imperialism would certainly remove a great deal of the recruiting power that the mullahs have.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[ggvaidya]

you are by default (as written in the Koran) an enemy Allah and must be killed

wtf is an enemy Allah? Allah == God, yeah?

And FYI. Islam comes from the root word of Aslama which translate to "to surrender, resign oneself" in arabic. In other words, you don't live your life for yourself. You live your live for the sole purpose to be directed and guided by Allah. In return for your unbridled loyalty, you are promised salvation.

From Luke 22:42: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

Surrendering is imho a fairly common concept in most religions.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess I was one of the few who actually paid attention in Civics....."

Yeah, I wish life was as simple as a class.
You must not be paying attention at all then in the grocery store where dozens of cameras are following you. If you feel so strongly, why do you still shop there, why do you still buy gas from the gas station?

"I'd say if I pay taxes to build the damn subway, then I've got a right to privacy when I use it."

Your idea of "privacy" is idiotic, you have no "privacy" in the public place. The cameras do what ANYONE else can do in a PUBLIC place, WATCH you. Look up the definition of PUBLIC; cameras do not equal search.
Taxes? Give me a break. Your taxes go to many things, among them roads. Is the police officer who patrols the road violating your privacy? No.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[cevnet]

why did Afghanistan become the breeding ground for terrorists? We'd never been there.

For your amusement:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/agfrank/interview_of _brezinski_.html
INTERVIEW OF ZBIGNIEW BREZINSKI
National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration
from Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Please read this for more background:
URL:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/ Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[TapeCutter]

My bad, but I think the rest of the post is valid.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[william_w_bush]

umm? yes?

My point is there is stupidity has had value as a scarcity resource.

No we are completely at fault for them hating us, but they don't hate us for the reasons they should hate us(VASTLY raping their region via imperialism), just like we aren't afraid of them for the reasons we should be afraid of them(countries funneling money to bad people for oil).

And no, we do not have a government for the whatever by the whoever, we have a representative democracy... although I don't quite see how a stupid, spoiled, religious, ignorant millionaire asshat from texas really represents me as a person, because, well I'm not like that.

Perhaps we should elect representatives like ourselves, instead of like we want to be. Lets get some fat-balding adulterers up there! Big stupid illiterate people who like to sit around watching reality tv instead of pillaging corporate america while we're distracted.

Or maybe not.

Representative democracy is very good for the representatives, not so good for the democracy. Ask the guys from rome how corruption of officials affects the state.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[cagle_.25]

Yep, that's one reason. Also in the mix was MacArthur's administration of post-war Japan, which is regrettably far beyond Sanchez's and Casey's work in Iraq. Read here for details.

But also, Japan had been entirely decimated and rose from the ashes with U.S. help. Iraq's level of suffering after the war was trivial compared to that of the Japanese; accordingly, the level of improvement brought by the Americans has been minimal.

But even one more thing is true: we brought a humongous force (350,000) into Japan and locked it down tight. No such action occurred in Iraq. Perhaps that would have been impossible to do? But if we could have managed it, then the roadside bombings, sabotage, and looting would have been much less.

So here's the hard question: why didn't we take in enough troops to lock Iraq down? Were we just not serious enough about the war? Were the military planners intimidated by the shifting political winds? (link for those who wish to recall those times) Did we fear that Hussein really did have a nuke and would vaporize a large number of our troops? I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the pre-planning of the war, because two things are clear:

1) Rumsfeld is not, in general, an idiot, BUT

2) The Iraq war appears to have been horribly planned and mismanaged.

Those who think that we went into Iraq to further some conspiracy to get their oil are giving the administration far too much credit for forethought, IMO.

Re:Yet again idiots win!

[DigiShaman]

Anytime you have a country that is...

1. Sitting on a huge f-ing reserve of oil.
2. Closing Parliament sessions with "Death to Israel"

Ya, Irans nuclear ambitions are peacefull. uhuh.

Question: How do you deal with such religious zealotry that is found in Iran?

welcome to slashdot

[mnemonic_]

Security cameras are in every supermarket, mall and gas station in the US, and motion sensors are installed in many utility tunnels already (too many urban explorers these days). I guess ScuttleMonkey is trying to say that these cameras and sensors will be actually used to spy on molemen. The US government has never respected the rights of its good, subway-living, citizens.

Heaven forbid they track people's pictures and locations! Who knew that 9-11 could lead to the security-measures of a 7-11?

Not for you!

[dj245]

The entire program is being conducted under the guise of anti-terrorism and includes plans for a possible wireless network which would allow cellular phones to be used in case of emergency.

Any wireless network underground, while helpful, would probably collapse under the traffic of a few hundred people in a packed train (assuming an incident occured during rush hour). Since you cannot predict an attack, it is likely that these circuits would be dedicated to emergency services from the start or switched over to emergency services should an incident occur, just like many main wireless traffic circuits were in London. The security of calling home to tell people you're ok should something happen from inside a tube just isn't there and never will be.

Re:Not for you!

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, somehow the Japanese manage to all use their celphones in concrete train stations without overloading the circuits.

I think it just depends on how robust the system is built to be.

$212 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

State of the art security system: $212 Million
Having to take a shit in a NYC subway station bathroom and contracting 10 STDs: Priceless

"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[EMIce]

I was there yesterday and quite a few devices were sitting above the sliding doors and in a row along the ceiling as you came into the terminal, and they were oval shaped. They rotated on a platform and spun on a spindle, giving them 360 degrees of freedom. Each white oval was maybe 1.5 feet by 1 foot in diameter and they seemed to follow and track things, mobilizing suddenly at times, but remaining in default position most of the time.

The thing is the each egg shaped "camera" seemed to point with either a lens on one end the oval or a square shaped opening on the opposite side. The square shaped side I imagine has some other sort of detection ability. They looked big and expensive, and I was kind of curious what sort of tech goes into these.

Is anyone on slashdot working on these sorts of applications? Maybe someone could shed some light on what sort of sensory abilities these things have?

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

Same poster as above here. Another thing of note were what looked like fins along the ovals, so it appeared like they needed considerable cooling.

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

considerable cooling == low white noise === 0lux cameras. ie night vision

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that makes intelligent video surveillance software. What you probably saw was a master/slave camera combo. The master camera is in a fixed position and has a wide field of vision. When it detects something interesting, it can direct the slave camera to zoom in and get a higher resolution image of its target.

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[McGiraf]

Maybe someone could shed some light on what sort of sensory abilities these things have?

This is classified information, why do you want to know? Are you a terrorist?

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually write software for the company that makes the security software and hardware that MTA is using and can shed some light, though not everything as I am not allowed to divulge much of it (posting anonymously also because if I cross any lines I don't want to get in some deep sh*t).

Basically, the cameras will be for surveillance mainly with certain cameras that can perform "intelligent video". What that entails is, in this case, "object removal and tracking" where you can pinpoint an object within the camera's FIXED view (these are not PTZ( pan/tilt/zoom) cameras) and have an alarm sent to a central monitoring station if that object is removed and (to an extent) track the movement of that object. They are also using, according to the article, "object left behind", where you can have an alarm sent to the central command if anybody leaves an object behind which, in a subway, means something suspicious is sitting there and needs to be checked out. This is already in place in many major airports, they just don't publicize it like for this project.

The cameras themselves have no intelligence to them, they simply provide a video feed to a server running software that processes the video real-time and makes the "intelligent" decisions as to what is going on.
The PTZ cameras (not using "intelligent video") are simply hooked up to a recorder that stores all video and archives particular video that is tied to an event. In their example, you would be able to pull up the video of somebody attempting to gain unauthorized access to a door automatically either in real time or after the fact simply by looking at the access denied event and launching the associated video.

The big thing is, there are so many cameras and so few command center employees that the best they can do is watch for someone in a subway tunnel who doesn't belong, someone doing something incredibly suspicious or to help determing AFTER a problem what happened and to help catch criminals who have already committed a crime. If somebody gets killed in the subway, they will have the ability to find that attack on camera and provide images that will help catch the person.

Feel free to post replies with any questions and I'd love to give any info I am allowed to. This is really some amazing technology, but it's also NOT CSI. The technology available at this time is not at all what you see in the movies or on TV.

Re:"Cameras" at JFK airport in NYC

[leonia]

If these "cameras" were in the British Airlines/United terminal at JFK, you were likely looking at an electronic light show. It's mounted at the entrance, with about 50 of these things. They can indeed swivel 360 degrees, but have nothing to do with security.

Good for NYC

[malchus6]

Lockheed is a quality defense contractor, and they Already do good work in NYC with the NY/NJ Port Authority (bridges and tunnels). So alot of the work probably overlaps in the homeland security realm. Nothing wrong with a keeping things under one umbrella. One less layer of problems to deal with...

So...

[game kid]

...the next arcade shooter won't have fighter jets?

Kick ass. I'd love to be a express train op, blasting any local-stop trains that get in the way.

Yes, I can imagine it. Raiden IV--blast militant gangs, corrupt cops and the occasional billionaire Mayor (in his giant metallic mothership, of course)...with a missle-toting flying train. And a purple proton laser. Or something.

(Well, III was taken, so...)

Re:So...

[springbox]

the next arcade shooter won't have fighter jets?

The problem with that game is that it'd be a rail shooter ;)

But they should also....

[Anonymous Coward]

improve the standard of smelly subways and stations. No proper air ventilation adds to this problem. That would prolly *kill* more people than some lunatic terrorist.

And the war on terror

[Anonymous Coward]

rings in another sale!

not for security

[Anonymous Coward]

the article states two scenarios: In the first, a person tries to enter a secure facility using an expired electronic access card; a computer detects and signals the security breach on an aerial photograph of the area. Officials would pinpoint the site, watch the attempted entry on a video monitor and send a security officer to check out the situation. this is the first reason they give, that if someone tries to "enter a secure facility", the subway, the cops will pick them up. THERE IS NO CHANCE A TERRORIST WONT PAY $2 TO BLOW UP A SUBWAY CAR, this is only to catch poor people, teens, and other minorities. the second reason stated in the article is if a bag is left in an area, they will see it and then evacuate the area. How is this worth 220 million.

Yet anothe PR bullshitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Lockheed Martin is not protecting ANYBODY

All Lockheed Martin is doing is sitting back and getting rich on goverment contracts and laughing to the bank. Just take a look at the war in iraq and other lucrative contracts that they get.

The only ones protecting anybody is the New York Police Department, and the Soldiers in Iraq.

Re:Yet anothe PR bullshitter

[netrangerrr]

"The only ones protecting anybody is the New York Police Department, and the Soldiers in Iraq."
How about the Soldiers in Afganistan and the Special Ops guys in Pakistan trying to find and kill the Al Qaeda leadership? Oops, we got distracted and forgot about Bin Laden!

Re:Yet anothe PR bullshitter

[Anonymous Coward]

hah yah, i forgot about them guys.. what was the real reason why where over there again? theres been so much confusion as to why the reason, no one really knows. sucks we arent even fighting for the real reason anymore (9-11).. i was all for invading afganistan, but when we went up north, shit went south.. thank you troops in afganistan who are fighting for the real cause still

Boots on the Ground Security

[netrangerrr]

$212 million could put an armed & trained police officer on every train and loading platform in NYC for about 2 years. Train them on the profile and MO of terrorists and have them question people who match the profile (no random search crap) that would be real "boots on the ground" security. You might actually PREVENT an attack.

if only London had this...

[weighn]

Then we would have fantastic footage of the execution-style murder of Jean Charles de Menezes...

What problem does this solve?

[SuperBanana]

In the first, a person tries to enter a secure facility using an expired electronic access card; a computer detects and signals the security breach on an aerial photograph of the area.

And this is needed because a piece of paper with "where each card reader is physically located" isn't sexy enough?

Officials would pinpoint the site, watch the attempted entry on a video monitor and send a security officer to check out the situation.

...because you can't just send a "security officer" in the first place? And do we really think that our intrepit Bad Dude will stick around to have a chat with the "security officer"?

In the second, a briefcase is left on a busy Midtown subway platform. As a camera beams live images, software can differentiate the moving people from the motionless package, sending off an alert about an unattended, suspicious object. Police officers with bomb-sniffing dogs would be sent to the platform.

...and if it actually is a bomb, by the time they've figured out "hey, we should go down there and check it out", it blows up. If it doesn't, it's just some guy's briefcase he absent-mindedly forgot on the platform.

Plus thanks to cell phone coverage, terrorists can now leave IED's with cell phones for activators on a train...

I'd rather they spend it on air conditioning

[tinrobot]

Seriously, have you ever been in a New York Subway in August?

Talk about toxic.

You live in an ivory tower

[circletimessquare]

I live in Times Square New York City.

Until September 11, 2001, I worked at the World Trade Center.

I just watched the same religious militants bomb the London Underground.

I have ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

So you know what I think?

I say put the cameras on the subway already.

Am I scared? Am I giving up freedom for safety? Am I giving up rights hard fought for by my ancestors for a little sense of security?

No, I'm simply being prudent about the world we live in.

This is not Orwellian Big Brother going on, really. No one is burning any books and telling you what to think. I'm not giving up any rights. There's no fascism going on. There's no fundamentalism going on. Really. This is simply prudent deterrance going on here. REALLY. There are no jackbooted thugs. There are no secret police. There is no slippery slope. This is not a paranoid schizophrenic scifi fantasy world. This is not a Hollywood dystopian B-grade plot. There is no Sith Lord. There is no Agent Smith.

R-E-A-L-L-Y.

Welcome to reality, leave your histrionic idealism at the door. You're not being helpful, you're just being a loud angry child who can only keep track of one simplistic concept in your mind: idealistic appeals to Revolutionary War era sloganeering.

It doesn't have one damn thing to do with cameras in the subway.

Not one. Grow up and develop an appreciation for the complexity of real life. Hopeless hysterical idealism doesn't help at all.

Give me a break. Loud children without any appreciation for nuance in this world. You know how to thump your chest and act indignant when someone waves propaganda about all of our rights going down the toilet.

The only thing going on here is just a whole hell of a lot of hysterical simplistic children.

Very loud, very pathetic. Of no help to the problems facing us at all.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[QuantumG]

Go back to Kuro5hin.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[DrEldarion]

I think I love you.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[QuantumG]

So how do you feel about being searched as you get on the subway? Is the freedom to ride public transport without being searched by police worth the "security" you get from that? Or do you just avoid catching the subway now? What happens when the police say they need power to search anyone at any time because the next terrorist attack doesn't happen at some well defined checkpoint like an airport or a subway? At what point will you say enough and by then don't you think it will be too late?

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[isotope23]

Really?

No slippery slope? So holding an american citizen
indefinitely without trial is acceptable. (That's part of the Sixth amendment gone.)

Charged with an offense carrying six or less months in jail PER CHARGE? You have no right to a jury trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. (I'd say that's the rest...)

Secret searches without a warrant? (ala Patriot act, administrative subpoenas) Thats the Fourth down.

Finally, I've got two more bits of advice.

First, YOU WILL NEVER be safe. Life is inherently unsafe. Deal with it. If in your preference warrantless searches are reasonable, fine, urge your representatives to CHANGE the Constitution. To pay lip service to the Constitution while shredding it is an injustice to your relatives who died bringing it into existence.

Second, we cannot choose our family, nor the circumstances we are born into. The real choice we do have is the ideals by which we live. You may choose a "safer" world in which you are prodded and probed, and generally treated like cattle.

If defending the principles of dignity, liberty and justice is your version of unrealistic and childish behavior so be it, I'm guilty as charged.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War."

So do I, but I haven't forgotten why they fought, or what their blood paid for.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[Anonymous Coward]

I have ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

Ah. Were they terrorists, or just insurgents?

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[JimBobJoe]

Until September 11, 2001, I worked at the World Trade Center...I just watched the same religious militants bomb the London Underground...I have ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

So you know what I think?

Yes. You are very very scared. It's wonderful that you can admit to that. Those who disagree with you request the following.

a.) That you understand that there are those of us who are very very scared of the side-effects of mitigating the things which scare you.

b.) That it's possible that you are being manipulated, unjustifiably, by others, through the medium of your fear.

c.) That it's possible that you are not necessarily in a position to assess, objectively, the situation, because of your fear.

And as long as you admit to that, I'll be happy to admit to the same above as well, except, my deep seated fears come from a different source, but I will try to understand a, b, and c from your point of view.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[10101001 10101001]

So you know what I think?

I say put the cameras on the subway already.

It's funny you say that, given this link: New York Murder Rate in 2000. Some more googling indicates that in 2004 the murder rate was under 500. So, it's reasonable to say that that over the spans of 8 years there's been more "regular" murders than the murder performed on 9/11. Further, death in motor accident rates are many times the homicide rate, so I'd imagine that it only took one or two years before NYC covered 4000 dead.

Do you support sticking a camera in every alley and along every roadway? Of course, nothing about a camera will stop those motor accident rates (though they'll at least be caught). And if there's cameras in the alleys, I'm sure that they'll just murder in the building or at the docks or somewhere else there aren't cameras. But my major point is, this is a serious waste of money. If New York City is getting $200 million to work on anti-terrorism, then I'd expect it to be spending at least $5.5 billion on trying to stop motor accident deaths (this based on death statistics and counting 9/11 as homicides). Hell, I'd expect at least $400 million spent on working on resolving suicide.

So, we're talking over $150 billion on just trying to cure motor vehicle deaths. Do you see that coming anywhere? Now, you might say that motor vehicle deaths are accidents and hence there's no one to hold coupable, so more effort is spent on going after the terrorists. But you don't see NYC receiving an equally matched $200 million to help with their homicide problem. There's hardly any talk about trying to stop the cigarette trade to stop lung cancer; with lung cancer being 30% of all cancer deaths and 90% of lung cancer being the result of cigarettes, you'd think we'd have law makers going crazy over the cigarette drug and its 10 fold killing rate over homicide--and all this is on the positive spin ignoring that there are people who survive the cancer.

So, my biggest complaint is not even that there's going to be cameras on the subway, which for the most part is a hugely pointless exercise, but that all of this money is funneling from a supposedly monetarily conservative government to fight terrorists instead of a war on drug or a war on conservative spending or one of the many other supposed wars the Republican lead government stands for. The hypocrisy of it all just tells me it's a show and dance, where the politicians make it all too clear they don't really give a fuck about the people.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[awol]

No slippery slope?

No. No slipery slope. You see you are forgetting a very important distinction about "public" transport. It's public. When you choose to participate in public life then your private rights are mitigated by the public need. I am a vehement believer in privacy and the right to exclude the State from interfering in my private life, but travelling the subway is not private life. You may make the valid argument that there is not a public need for this level or monitoring, but it is just that an argument. One in which there are two sides and one about both sides have validity.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[demachina]

You can add rigged show trials. Show trials with the outcome predetermined by the government are a classic characteristic of a police state. Two Arab men in Detroit were convicted on terrorism charges. The government's case rested on two pieces of evidence:

- A tourist video the men had made of their family's trip to Disneyland. The government insisted they were casing Disneyland for a terrorist attack, and they just cleverly made it look like a tourist video to conceal their nefarious plan.

- The testimony of a con man who was up on fraud charges. The government offered to reduce the charges in return for his testimony against the men. Needless to say a conman offered less jail time opted to lie and say whatever the DOJ wanted him to say.

The men were eventually freed after the conman started making jailhouse confessions to his cell mates that he had lied to get his charges reduced, otherwise two innocent men would still be rotting in jail thanks to zealous DOJ prosecutors trying to build terrorism cases their boss could parade on TV, even when there was no case. This case is described in the excellent BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares on the similarities between neocons in the U.S. and Britain, and Al Qaeda and how they are using each other to institute repressive societies dominated by religious fanaticism.

You may recall another tourist tape made the news a while ago, where a Muslim tourist's video of Las Vegas was insanely declared by the government to be evidence of planning for an attack on Las Vega. Needless to say you are no longer free to video tape your vacation in America especially if you are Muslim, though the government can now video tape you every minute you are outside. They really need to start working on true Big Brotherism and make TV two way so they can watch us inside our homes (though they can already watch and listen to everything we do on the internet, telephone or our settop boxes, and the Patriot act gives them the right to secretly break in to our home and look at our personal possessions without ever telling us, this is referred to as "sneak and peek".

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[isotope23]

Really?

Hypothetical question:

Suppose a cop was assigned to follow you wherever you go in public. You are not suspected of doing anything wrong, he's just following you wherever you go. According to your view this would be justified correct? How long would you allow this to go on before you try and put a stop to it? What then is the difference that makes cameras more acceptable? Is it the "out of sight out of mind" principle?

Frankly I'd suggest they drop the cameras and put more cops in the subway. Cameras cannot stop a crime, a cop can. A policeman can watch you while you are within his view, but his sight is not archived, cannot be linked to facial recognition, cannot be played back ad ininitum.
A cop is there and any of his actions can be witnessed by others.

There are no witnesses with the camera jockey. They can and will do stupid crap like checking out chicks, make blooper tapes etc.

The line I draw is this: when I am in public I may have a limited expectation of privacy if you are there and see me, fine. When my interaction in public is capable of being stored, played back and analyzed however, that crosses the line into my privacy.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[awol]

Hypothetical answer,

Under what "law" is the State entitled to assign this cop to me? Is it covert surveillance? In my State this kind of directed surveillance requires court sanction. Therefore it is protected from abuse by the rule of law.

As for the inappropriate use of CCTV footage. It is impossible to support this kind of monitoring without appropriate controls. The idea of a blooper tape is an excellent example, the offence that one would be committing by making one is very, very serious in the UK. A breach of a number of laws (see another poster that mentioned the specific legislation) and the laws are already in place.

Re:You live in an ivory tower

[isotope23]

Under what "law" is the State entitled to assign this cop to me?

Frankly, this is what cctv is doing IMO. Example,
a big anti war demonstration downtown or some
other protest. Want do you want to bet the powers that be would analyze the cctv footage of that day to try and ID some of the protesters?

What happens when your photo ID is tied in so a
comparison can be run? Anonimity goes out the window.

BTW, under the current law I don't believe a uniformed policeman would be violating anything
by following you around in public. The same justification you use for cctv applies, you are in public and have no expectation of privacy.

But you still get mugged.

[tekrat]

Why is it that even with all this increased security in the the name of 'protecting the American public', you still have as much crime as ever in the subway?

How can homeland security ever hope to thwart a terrorist, if they can't thwart a 15-year-old with a glock?

I don't think anybody feels safer in the subway, just try riding the 'F' train at midnight and you'll notice that it still has the same level of crime as pre-9/11.

Guise?-Porn Bill.

[Anonymous Coward]

In keeping with Slashdot. Maybe they should have said "under the guise of porn".

Sounds like Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Google IM isn't the only big news of the day... maybe they're monitoring your movements, behavior, etc. to put adsense on the trains.

Laughing Man

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $212 million contract to provide cameras and sensors for New York City subways, bridges and tunnels." Geez. Didn't anyone learn anything from the Laughing Man inccident six years ago as he escaped on the Neo-Tokyo subway. Security camera systems couldn't even prevent them from putting that logo over his face on all the Subway security systems... Oh wait... Wrong movie.

Bullshit - Penn & Teller say so...

[NotQuiteReal]

STDs from a toilet? Bullshit!

See Penn & Teller, Season 2, episode 2? Maybe... I forget which it was exactly, but I can say from personal experience that I have never contracted an STD from a NYC subway toilet!

Re:Bullshit - Penn & Teller say so...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know you haven't given somebody one?

This is how they protect the children in Utah

[Anonymous Coward]

"Camouflaged troops" descended in helicopters on a Utah canyon Sunday night to bust up a permitted and insured rave party.

A horrific video recording of the police and military violence against hundreds of dance kids can be found here.

http://cutup.org.nyud.net:8090/dir/fascism.mov

Detailed account of what really happened
http://www.404audio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1481 4

Utah Forum Database of first hand accounts.
http://www.utrave.org/showthread.php?t=20020

WikiNews Link
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Dance_party_broken_up_ by_police_in_Utah%2C_USA

Anyways, so much for your right to peaceful assembly. It was fully licensed, permitted, and insured. 100% legit. It's sick and disgusting what happened, but we can probably expect more vicious gestapo tactics to try and incite violence and fear. Read a few personal accounts of what happened.

Re:This is how they protect the children in Utah

[mrraven]

That movie made me cry. We've gone over the edge and lost our basic civil liberties. I mourn for our constitution and bill of rights. Some of us will fight a police state... If you camafoged cops think you can round us all up like cattle with your snarling dogs it's not going to go down like that.

Fight the power!!!!!!!

Paranoia

[Axel2001]

The government keeps on spending money on technology that will keep us "safe" from terrorism. But we're when or where the next attack will happen, so let's just be paranoid and spend a lot of money on stuff like this.

Let's make everything as safe as possible. Coincidentally, the same technology that will "protect" us will also make us more susceptible to government surveillance. Come on, people: wake up. Our civil liberties are being rapidly chipped away every day under the guise of the government "protecting" us. ID cards, cameras in public places, the Patriot Act - when it all doesn't work, they'll use it as an excuse to have even more of these type of "utilities" to "fight" terror. I'm supposed to trust the same entity that gave us a national color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System" with "protecting" me from an unnamed, ever-changing enemy? Of what utility is this - what does it measure, how scared I'm supposed to be?

Give me a break.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

The record.

[PAPPP]

While the various conceptual problems with large-scale surveillance have been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, I wonder if it will be as bad as the other attempts at large-scale surveillance in the U.S.

Hmmm, Madrid comes to mind

[gfordham]

which would allow cellular phones to be used in case of emergency

...or to use cell phones to detonate those backpacks full of explosives.

Re:Hmmm, Madrid comes to mind

[TapeCutter]

Most mobile phones have an alarm clock function. Since the terrorists are trying to create random carnage on the subway why do they need a network?

Re:Hmmm, Madrid comes to mind

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. The Madrid bombings were detonated using the cell phones' timer function. Cutting off the phone network would not have done anything to prevent those attacks.

Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

Lockheed might not be evil.

And it is generally a good idea to find and prosecute people who are behind terrorist attacks.

If thinking this makes me a right winger, so be it.

Re:Contrarian views

[Catbeller]

"And it is generally a good idea to find and prosecute people who are behind terrorist attacks."

And how exactly would this work with this all-eyes-are-on-you system for 200 million?

Is anyone thinking?

What terrorists? How would you "find and capture" them? Especially if they are dead in the attack? Suppose they don't want to bother the trains, and instead, oh, blow up the water pipelines? Can you place cameras everywhere? If you can, how will you answer the first two questions?

The only people being locked down are us. We are voluntarily entering prison, for no sane reason whatsoever.

Most terrorist plots busted up in the US are hatched by white men. Fact. How would this stop them? Or is this just a war on funny looking brown people, ignoring the crazy white men who are actually arming and plotting?

A giant surveillance system, protecting no one, and 200 million bucks down the drain, and we all enter prison every time we take a train ride, all for nothing and serving no purpose.

Want to prevent "terrorist" attacks, by which I assume you mean brown funny people?

Don't invade their countries, don't steal their money, don't torture their people, and pay attention to what your president has done. Al Queda has gone from a despised group of loonies to the heroes of the oppressed in the muslim underclass, and its all-because-we-validated-their-worst-predictions about what we would do after being attacked by 40 loons -- invade and hold the oil fields. Bush and company are maneuvering to invade Iran now -- another rich oil field. Amazingly enough, the terrorists from the 9-11 attack were mostly Saudi Arabians -- and we haven't even said boo to the Saudis. And everyone has noticed.

We are earning the hatred of those who had no truck with al Queda, and its not because they hate our freedom. They hate us because we're murderous, two-faced hypocrites. A few of those angry young people will be crazy enough, fervent enough, to start killing innocent people here in the US -- and it won't be because they hate us; they hate what we do, and hate us because we simply don't give a damn about what happens to the funny brown people.

Cameras. God. Just stop killing innocent people! Apologize for the invasion of Iraq! Let the people in prison go. It's freaking simple! We're GENERATING the terrorists!

Re:Contrarian views

[timmarhy]

it's not that cut and dry. do you think saddam was an angel? he murdered million of kurds using nerve gas. you simply can NOT point the finger at anyone country, we are all guilty of something. the difference is we won't all blow up innocent people. fyi though i think the camera's won't do jack shit. just one more thing slipped in under the "war on terror" bandwagon.

Re:Contrarian views

[deaddrunk]

And who sold him the nerve gas in the first place and only stopped supporting him when he slipped his leash?

Re:Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most terrorist plots busted up in the US are hatched by white men. Fact."

47% of statistics are made up. Fact.

I assume you have a link from the Department Of Justice supporting that assertion? I doubt it.

Re:Contrarian views

[RajivSLK]

You have many errors in your post but I will pick on just one:

Al Queda has gone from a despised group of loonies to the heroes of the oppressed in the muslim underclass...

In reality they aren't the oppressed underclass at all. In contrast they are often well to do people with good jobs and secular educations, many at english schools. They own their own houses, cars and businesses. This isn't a case of the squirrely looking guy marginalized and outcast from society. Aside from their radical fundementalist Ismalic views they are seemingly main stream members of society.

Re:Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

No, us generating the terrorists would be when Reagan had the CIA equip and train Osama Bin Laden and his pals...

Now we're reaping the terrorists we created, and inflaming the pyre with, as you say, our propensity to kill and torture civilians, giving credence to Bin Ladens allegations the the US is ought to slaughter Arabs.

Re:Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

You have many errors in your post but I will pick on just one:
In reality they aren't the oppressed underclass at all.

He was not saying that Al-qaida was underclass. He said that they are heroes of the opressed underclass.

If you want to point out errors, be sure to be right..Like me :-)

Re:Contrarian views

[nwbvt]

"What terrorists? How would you "find and capture" them? Especially if they are dead in the attack? Suppose they don't want to bother the trains, and instead, oh, blow up the water pipelines? Can you place cameras everywhere? If you can, how will you answer the first two questions?"

Not all terrorist attacks are suicide attacks. Maybe you havn't been paying attention to the news lately, but not too long ago the London subways were bombed and surveillance cameras helped police determine their identities. No, this won't stop every possible type of terrorist attack, but it will help prevent a specific type of attack. If we had a two hundred million solution to all terrorist attacks, I would be pissed off that it hadn't already been implemented.

"Most terrorist plots busted up in the US are hatched by white men. Fact. How would this stop them? Or is this just a war on funny looking brown people, ignoring the crazy white men who are actually arming and plotting?"

Believe it or not, white people aren't like vampires. We will show up on video just as well as Arabs. And the fact that we are busting terrorist plots hatched by white guys is evidence they are not being ignored.

"Amazingly enough, the terrorists from the 9-11 attack were mostly Saudi Arabians -- and we haven't even said boo to the Saudis."

And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.

Re:Contrarian views

[WilliamSChips]

And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.

It makes more sense than thinking they're agents of the Iraqi government. ;)

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> Al Queda has gone from a despised group of loonies to
> the heroes of the oppressed in the muslim underclass...

In reality they aren't the oppressed underclass at all. In contrast they are often well to do people with good jobs and secular educations, many at english schools.

So what? Robin Hood came from landed gentry, there are plenty of other myths and legends of heros of the underclass who were not members of the underclass themselves.

Osama is still the most popular name for newborn boys in the Muslim world -- its because bin Laden is very popular among those who feel they have no power to fight for themselves. You do not get that popular if people think you are just slaughtering innocents.

Re:Contrarian views

[OreoCookie]

I also disagree with spending millions on these asinine surveillance systems. The problem is I can't tolerate asshats like you who run down my country. You sound like you're off your medication and that turns people off big time, so they don't hear anything you have to say and they go on supporting the politicians who promote these pork barrel "security" systems. You need to get some perspective.

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If we had a two hundred million solution to all terrorist attacks, I would be pissed off that it hadn't already been implemented.

The price isn't just $200 million. The price is a significant chunk of our freedom. The value of that is immeasurably large.

What has happened to our "America, home of the free and land of the brave" that we should willingly throw away our freedom for such meaningless scraps of false security? We cower in terror at the mere thought of an attack that hasn't even happened once on our soil. Why are we so ready to give up our freedom for "protection" that is a) applicable to only one kind of attack and b) only useful after the fact?

So, when we really do see an attack of a different nature, how much more freedom would you have us give up in response? When we get to the point where we have no more freedom left at all, do you think that will be enough to protect the cowards among us?

And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.

Saudi Arabia is by large the primary source of Salafism, a branch of Sunni Islam that is just a hairsbreadth away from readily justifying terrrorist attacks. Almost all government officials (aka members of the house of Saud) are Salafi themselves. There is a direct connection between Salafiyyah as exported (with state dollars) by Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorism in the west.

Re:Contrarian views

[zrq]

Not all terrorist attacks are suicide attacks. Maybe you havn't been paying attention to the news lately, but not too long ago the London subways were bombed and surveillance cameras helped police determine their identities.

The cameras are primarily used for monitoring criminal rather than terrorist activity.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article 307679.ece
A spokesman said that the police made regular requests to see footage as part of their investigations, although the vast bulk of such requests involved criminal rather than terrorist activity.

When the cameras could have caught images of a suspected terrorist ... none of them were working.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article3076 49.ece
None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working, a police document revealed.

Re:Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

not too long ago the London subways were bombed and surveillance cameras helped police determine their identities

Helped determine their identities after they were already dead, you mean. Would have been nice if we'd known who they were beforehand. Kinda like in Minority Report

Re:Contrarian views

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

The Netherlands..

Google for it, but it's true...

Re:Contrarian views

[FatAlb3rt]

So in contrast, should we ban cameras or monitoring equipment of any type in public? Are cameras in police cars reducing your freedom? Red light cameras? Cameras in ATMs? Security cameras in retail establishments? Roadside emissions sampling? Traffic congestion cameras? Tourists taking pictures? How about a private pilot flying over and taking a picture of your neighborhood?

Ease up on the tinfoil.

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Should we ban "tourists taking pictures?"
Ease up on the tinfoil.

Ease up on the bogus analogies.

Your attempt to belittle my point does absolutely nothing to address the fact that networks of closed circuit tv cameras are a very high price for very little gain in actual safety.

Do you actually want to throw away your heritage for nothing? No? Then why the fuck are you supporting doing just that?

Re:Contrarian views

[FatAlb3rt]

Just a couple of the steps in stopping attacks is finding out who did them (since the groups don't always take responsibility), what they did, and how they did them. Having another resource of information is extremely valuable.

You can already be highly tracked the way it is if you're using a cell phone or even credit/debit cards. And it's not really any different - it can be abused too. Is it? Probably not. Same with subway cameras.

Re:Contrarian views

[lgw]

You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You never have had such. This therefore does nothing to reduce your privacy. I have no idea what you're whining about. We all have a reasonable desire for privacy, but if you do something in public, guess what, you're not doing it in private.

These cameras are primarily intended to catch criminals, not specifically terrorists, in any case.

Re:Contrarian views

[drsquare]

What terrorists?

Perhaps the ones who blew up and tried to blow up the London Underground? Or Madrid? You're pretending that suicide bombers getting on public transport isn't a danger. That's ridiculous. New York is a big target. Blowing up a New York subway would be a massive coup for terrorists.

How would you "find and capture" them?

I'm no genius, but I suspect that if they're caught on camera it might be a lot easier to track them down. In fact CCTV in London caught the suicide bombers there.

Don't invade their countries, don't steal their money, don't torture their people, and pay attention to what your president has done.

Tell that to the Iraqis. They invaded Kuwait for no particular reason, stole who knows what, tortured and killed god-knows how many people, and the Iraqi people didn't even hint at revolt.

And what do you mean THEIR countries? The London bombers were born in Britain, Britain didn't invade itself. You think they were Iraqis out to avenge the invasion? In that case they should have attacked Parliament or some other legitimate political or military target. But no, they've just been listening to hate preachers in the local mosque. They hate Britain and its people but they want to live here. THEY'RE the hypocrites.

Just stop killing innocent people! Apologize for the invasion of Iraq! Let the people in prison go. It's freaking simple!

An odd thing to say, as the WTC was attacked before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think your problem is you're assuming that terrorists have legitimate grievances and reasons for their actions, rather than just using things like Iraq as vague excuses to kill people and be a hero to all the other terrorists. Bear in mind they DELIBERATELY TARGET CIVILIANS.

Another problem is that when you decide policy based on what the terrorists want, is that you make terrorism a legitimate way to force policy. If the American government pulled out of Iraq because of terrorism, then anyone in the world who wanted to force you to do something could get their way just by strapping bombs to themselves and getting onto a train.

Call me a traditionalist, but countries should be run by elected governments, not suicide bombers.

Re:Contrarian views

[OMEGA Power]

And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.

No, but the fact that several of the highjackers were using airline tickets purchased by the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US might indicate government involvment

Re:Contrarian views

[justin12345]

So in contrast, should we ban cameras or monitoring equipment of any type in public? no
Are cameras in police cars reducing your freedom? no
Red light cameras? yes
Cameras in ATMs? no
Security cameras in retail establishments? no
Roadside emissions sampling? no
Traffic congestion cameras? no
Tourists taking pictures? no
How about a private pilot flying over and taking a picture of your neighborhood? no

"Ease up on the tinfoil."

The problem here is that these cameras are going to be used as law enforcement devices, giving the powers that be greater power. Its important that we have the ability to nonviolently or violently dispose of our own government should the need arise. Technology in general, and surveillance technology in particular, could potentially make that difficult or impossible.

I'm not suggesting we will need to overthrow the government anytime soon or anything. Its just that if the British had had the ability to monitor (and therefor control) the locations of key North American British citizens two hundred some years back, the US would not necessarily exist.

Re:Contrarian views

[hesiod]

Overall, your points are good, but a few things struck me:

> In fact CCTV in London caught the suicide bombers there.
After they delivered the attacks. Cameras are NOT used to STOP terrorist acts.

> They invaded Kuwait for no particular reason
That's entirely untrue. There were reasons. They weren't good reasons, but alas, reasons existed.

> the WTC was attacked before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
And The United States was sticking its dick in the Middle East LOOOOOONG before the WTC attacks.

> Another problem is that when you decide policy based on what the terrorists want
And the terrorists don't want Americans to be clamped down on by their own government? Despite your statement, policies ARE being changed because of their actions!!!

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You can already be highly tracked the way it is if you're using a cell phone or even credit/debit cards. And it's not really any different

So if we can already be "highly tracked" like that, why do we need another way to be tracked? You apologists always make the argument that, "we've already lost our privacy so what's the point of fighting it?" But if that were true, the powers that want more power would not be pushing for these additional encroachments.

Re:Contrarian views

[deaddrunk]

Now I'm really depressed. I thought the Dutch were better than that.

Re:Contrarian views

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the Iraqis. They invaded Kuwait for no particular reason, stole who knows what, tortured and killed god-knows how many people, and the Iraqi people didn't even hint at revolt.

Not quite true. The US did manage to get a large number of them to revolt, but once Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, the US decided not to pursue Saddam any further. At that point, they basically abandoned those who revolted, leaving them at the mercy of Saddam. He was able to quickly wipe them out.

I believe that this "abandonment" was mainly because the US didn't want to get into the business of storming after and killing world leaders with an invasion force. Some view that as a mistake - that they should've taken care of Saddam when they had the chance. "Victory" may have been a lot easier to achieve back then than it is right now. Others of course think that the US were right not to invade back then, and they shouldn't have done so now.

In the end, the US would've been criticized either way. The way it played out, they got to look like bad guys twice, since they both abandoned the rebellion and ended up invading anyhow. But there is little doubt that they would've faced much more criticism in 1991 if they had invaded than they did for stopping the fight once Saddam withdrew.

Re:Contrarian views

[FatAlb3rt]

I don't consider myself an apologist, and you probably don't consider yourself a conspiracy theorist. I guess that my assumption isn't that there's some sort of ulterior motive behind things like this. There was a bunch of yelling and screaming when the Patriot Act came about - life as we know it is over. Well, now that we're a few years in, can you honestly say it has affected your life? I just refuse to believe that the politicians are sitting in a room rubbing their hands together with a devilish grin as they brainstorm as to how they're gonna fuck with the commoners.

Re:Contrarian views

[nwbvt]

"The price isn't just $200 million. The price is a significant chunk of our freedom."

I hate to break it to you, but the freedom to be invisible in a public place (such as the NYC subways) is long gone. In fact, it never existed in the first place. These security cameras are not the telescreens from 1984.

"Saudi Arabia is by large the primary source of Salafism, a branch of Sunni Islam that is just a hairsbreadth away from readily justifying terrrorist attacks. Almost all government officials (aka members of the house of Saud) are Salafi themselves. There is a direct connection between Salafiyyah as exported (with state dollars) by Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorism in the west."

You could make the same connections between PETA and ALF/ELF or the Catholic Church and the guys who bomb abortion clinics. Does that mean we should round up all PETA members next time a drug research lab is bombed or all practicing Catholics next time an abortion doctor is killed? I find it ironic that you think surveillence cameras are an intolerable breach of our human rights, but that people should be considered guilty of a crime just because they have similar viewpoints of the actual perpetrators.

In case you are interested in real history, bin Laden and the Saudi government are not on good terms. He is still pissed at them for choosing the Americans instead of him to protect them back in '91.

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well, now that we're a few years in, can you honestly say it has affected your life?

Absolutely. In many ways, and none for the better.

One small example - green lasers. There was a rash of reported laserings of airplane cockpits over the last year. Despite significant reasons to doubt many of the reports such as pilots obviously mistaking other natural phenomenon like st elmo's fire for a green laser as well as the physics of hitting and stabling tracking an airplane cockpit for any length of time.

The result? One guy in NJ gets arrested and detained under the patriot act for shining his laser into the sky at a helicopter and a mass crackdown on green laser sellers plus monitoring of forums like the lasers forum at candlepowerforum.com. Sure, the guy was a dumbass, but there was NO need to invoke the patriot act on him.

So, because I own and talk about legally using a high-powered green laser I am now listed in at least one government agency's files and am that much closer to being detained without access to a lawyer if I end up caught up in the wrong set of circumstances.

Meanwhile, the appropriate question you should have asked about the patriot act is - how has this constitution-trampling act benefited your life?

The answer is -- in no measurable way. There has not yet been a single actual terrorist caught and charged with the provisions of the patriot act. Instead its use has warped for all kinds of tasks which the party line said it would never be used for. Mr laser for example, drug enforcement, organized crime, etc. Stuff we already had plenty of laws on the books for.

I just refuse to believe that the politicians are sitting in a room rubbing their hands together with a devilish grin as they brainstorm as to how they're gonna fuck with the commoners.'

Again bogus analogies. It is far simpler than that, no conspiracy necessary. It is just a bunch of people who believe that they can do no wrong and thus wish to mandate that they be trusted to do no wrong. Good intentions all around. Except that these people willfully ignore the lessons of history that power corrupts. The more power they take for themselves the more corrupt the organizations will eventually become. Maybe not today (although I consider the reported mis-uses of the patriot act to already be clear corruption) and maybe not even tomorrow. But eventually, and more than likely SOON.

Corruption and abuse of power is a fundamental law of human nature applicable to any organization. It's why the constitution was a model of checks and balances. Tearing down those checks and balances can only increase the amount of corruption.

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

the freedom to be invisible in a public place (such as the NYC subways) is long gone. In fact, it never existed in the first place.

You greatly exaggerate my point in order to build up a strawman. I never said a thing about "freedom to be invisible" but I will say that these networked cameras are an unreasonable search. When the bill of rights was drafted, no one could have even conceived of such tools backed by databases and networks in the hands of the state. Thus, while it may not be popular opinion with the courts, I feel confident in believing that the authors of the bill of rights would consider them a direct violation our right to be secure in our person from unreasonable searches.

You could make the same connections between PETA and ALF/ELF or the Catholic Church and the guys who bomb abortion clinics.

Hardly. Furthermore, in both or your examples they are a) not a government and b) not directly funding terrorist groups.

I find it ironic that you think surveillence cameras are an intolerable breach of our human rights, but that people should be considered guilty of a crime just because they have similar viewpoints of the actual perpetrators.

Again you grossly exaggerate my point so as give yourself a pathetic strawman to break down. Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I am a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the common muslim man and woman.

The point, again, is that the Saudi government is directly supporting an extremist group that is directly connected to all of the major terrorist attacks in the west and most of them in the east too. In many cases, this support is intended to redirect the blame they desevere for their part in the state of the middle-east squarely onto the shoulders of the west.

In case you are interested in real history, bin Laden and the Saudi government are not on good terms. He is still pissed at them for choosing the Americans instead of him to protect them back in '91.

I'm pretty sure I know more about bin Laden and his association with the house of Saud than you do. Just because bin Laden has personal issues with the Saudi royal family doesn't mean that al queada is in any way adverse to using the money and the actions of the Saudis to further their goals of propaganda.

Re:Contrarian views

[nwbvt]

"You greatly exaggerate my point in order to build up a strawman. I never said a thing about "freedom to be invisible" but I will say that these networked cameras are an unreasonable search. When the bill of rights was drafted, no one could have even conceived of such tools backed by databases and networks in the hands of the state. Thus, while it may not be popular opinion with the courts, I feel confident in believing that the authors of the bill of rights would consider them a direct violation our right to be secure in our person from unreasonable searches."

Your opinion of the viewpoints of people you never met notwithstanding, the courts have determined that viewing something in plain sight in a public place is not an unreasonable search. Guess whose opinion ends up mattering.

" Hardly. Furthermore, in both or your examples they are a) not a government and b) not directly funding terrorist groups."

a) The Vatican set aside, so what? Are governments the only ones who can be held accountable for terrorist actions?

b) Want to make a bet? PETA has certainly donated money to ELF, which the FBI considers a domestic terrorist group. And you mentioned an indirect funding of terrorism by the Saudis (Saudi government -> Salafi organizations -> terrorists), not direct. Its very possible if you were to dig deep enough in the Catholic Church you would see the same thing. Its even possible you have donated money indirectly to violent groups. Each time you make a financial transaction, what do you do to verify that money does not get used for violent purposes?

That point put aside for a second, the post I was responding to only mentioned money as an afterthought. Its primary concern was the beliefs of the members of the Saudi government, the implication being that they should have been considered guilty of 9-11 because they believe in a radical form of Islam. Feel free to refine your statement if you see fit, just understand the error of that post.

"In many cases, this support is intended to redirect the blame they desevere for their part in the state of the middle-east squarely onto the shoulders of the west."

Are you telling me you know the intentions of leaders of foreign governments? I hope you work for the CIA, that clairvoyance will come in handy in preventing the next terrorist attack.

Re:Contrarian views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

the courts have determined that viewing something in plain sight in a public place is not an unreasonable search.

Viewing is a whole hell of a lot different from recording, archiving and cataloging.

a) The Vatican set aside, so what? Are governments the only ones who can be held accountable for terrorist actions?

b) Want to make a bet? PETA has certainly donated money to ELF, which the FBI considers a domestic terrorist group.

In either case, the US government is not encouraging business relationships with those groups, while they are just as gung-ho as ever to support domestic business relationships with the Saudis.

Are you telling me you know the intentions of leaders of foreign governments? I hope you work for the CIA, that clairvoyance will come in handy in preventing the next terrorist attack.

No clairvoyance required, the CIA can read public news articles and analysis just as well as I can.

Re:Contrarian views

[nwbvt]

"Viewing is a whole hell of a lot different from recording, archiving and cataloging."

Archiving information is different from searching. So you are not arguing that this is an "unreasonable search", but that the government should not store this information. There is a clear difference between searching and storing information, and while one was limited by the Bill of Rights, the other is mandated (though in a much more limited form) by Article 1, Section 2.

" In either case, the US government is not encouraging business relationships with those groups, while they are just as gung-ho as ever to support domestic business relationships with the Saudis."

Well neither group generally engages in "business relationships", though certainly there are many members of the US government who encourage ties to each group. And I believe both have tax-exempt status, so the government does provide incentives to give money to each (if you count that as a business transaction). But this line of argument is a red herring, the origional accusation was that the Saudi's must be guilty because they share ideology and through an indirect means funds with terrorists. Using that logic, PETA members and the Catholic Church must be guilty of terrorism as well.

" No clairvoyance required, the CIA can read public news articles and analysis just as well as I can."

Now that I think of it, the CIA probably would want someone who can distinguish between facts and conjectures.

Ok, feel free to insert a CIA joke relating to that last statement here.

Waste of money?

[Anonymous Coward]

When are Americans going to realize that their foreign policy is what creates terrorism?

If the US had not abused the Middle East for decades these kind of things would not be needed. The war on terror is one of the biggest lies out there.

War only fuels terror.

But I think it is good in one way because it can reduce crimes.

wunnerful

[Anonymous Coward]

...plus cameras and butt recognition technologies that will automatically mail fines to commuters when they run instead of walk.

Great for New York...

[BlackSabbath]

but I wonder if it will take $200M for each of the hundreds (if not thousands) of other cities' transit systems around your country which are now more viable targets.
Of course next time they might not target transit systems at all...

THIS is why its called ASYMMETRIC warfare.

You folks might want to check out Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear", or back issues of Crypto-Gram (http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html).

Still, if the customer feels good - does it matter if its just a placebo? And shareholders of Lockheed Martin - woo hoo!

--
My slant on global affairs.
http://newtonsthirdlaw.blogspot.com/

taxpayer money wasted

[gregorlowski]

I live in NY City, and for the past few weeks there have been cops in many subway stations doing random searches. According to this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8660152/

This is costing the city $2 million per week.

If you look at this page (New York MTA):
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/ind-perform/per-nyct. htm

You'll see that the subway system sees about 120 million riders per month with 3 customer accidents and injuries per million per month. That's 40 injuries per month from accidents. Sometimes these are things like fatalities caused from someone getting bumped off of an over-crowded subway platform during rush hour onto the tracks...

So the city spends $2 million per week to "fight terrorism on the subway" and $212 million for security cameras on the subway rather than actually making a difference a difference by improving the system. Go to some G-train subway stations in brooklyn. The structural steel girders are rusting out and the stations are in dire need of maintenance.

And how much money has our government spent starting wars in the middle east (first gulf war, troops in Saudi Arabia, current Iraq occupation)... hundreds of billions of dollars

And then people over there get pissed off and want to set off subway bombs, and then we pay for it again by dealing with an army of cops checking our bags on the subway.

If they want to make subway riders safer, spend money on safety and infrastructure -- not cops -- to reduce accidents. If the government wants to eradicate terrorism, stop spending money on killing people in the Middle East. But of course getting rid of terrorism isn't the issue -- the issue is control of the dwindling global reserves of oil and new business opportunities in the middle east for American companies.

And we as taxpayers have to pay for it, and I have to let cops search my bag if I want to ride the subway to work and pay for that too.

Re:taxpayer money wasted

[bc90021]

Don't let them. Ask them for a warrant. They still need one in this country. Until people stop asking, that is, and just accepting that the cops "can" search your bag.

Re:taxpayer money wasted

[gregorlowski]

btw, I shouldn't be posting late at night...

120 million riders x 3 accidents per million = 360 accidents per month NOT 40 (duh).

So there you have it. 360 subway injuries per month from accidents. How many people were killed in the London subway bombings?

Even if you disregard any issues of morality or preserving freedom and liberties, simply on a cost-benefit analysis this is totally goddamn stupid -- it's just a BS pork barrel project, albeit one that screws people's lives. How many lives will this 200 million+ dollars (plus cop overtime pay) save? What is the benefit of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Re:taxpayer money wasted

[Austerity Empowers]

A number of those "accidents" are suicides or attempted suicides. You would be amazed at how many people try to kill themselves by jumping in front of a train. FYI, to those feeling the need to self nominate: a train is neither guaranteed death, nor instant, nor painless. Find another way.

Re:taxpayer money wasted

[gregorlowski]

OK, you can try to do that, but then you can't ride the subway to work. At best they just won't let you get on. At worst you'll get arrested for some BS charge (mob action, disorderly conduct, etc etc). Have you actually ever tried to argue with a cop about the law when you're in the right and they don't want to hear it?

They don't care. In 2001 NYC agreed to pay settlements of $50 million for cases of prisoner strip-search abuses

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40 61EFC3F540C738FDDA90994DB404482&incamp=archive:sea rch

The city pays millions every year for settlements in police brutality cases. It's part of the NYPD budget. Cops do not care if you tell them "Hey, you can't do that to me. Read the Constitution." They'll kick your ass. Seriously. I once saw the cops beat the crap out of some guy at my subway station on the platform as hundreds of witnesses got off the train in rush hour. The guy was sprawled out on his stomach as 2 cops held him down with with their feet and another cop choked him while his face turned red. The guy was not moving at all, and they continued to choke him and kick him for probably a full minute as I (and at least a hundred other commuters) walked past to exit the subway station.

If you want to stop police abuses, people have to organize en masse to demand changes. Telling the cops that they're violating the law will only get you in jail or in the hospital.

Cameras and searches

[TapeCutter]

The difference between cameras and searches is that the camera is there to provide details about what happened (like a black box in an aircraft), a search is inteneded to prevent it happening (like a cell search in jail). A camera assumes everyone is innocent, a search assumes the opposite.

Insightful vs Stupid people

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right.

Bin Laden is one evidence of why the war on terror is just a way to lead the PNAC agenda.

Most people don't realize that they are taking part of the biggest scam ever.

US mainstream lies and is full of propaganda, especially Fox News.

The documentary on CNN last Sunday really surprised me, I though they would never show things like that on US mainstream news. But I guess it was quite mild compared to the hard truth.

The American public need to learn what their government is really up to, like all covert operations and how much corporations affect the government. The US is no longer a democracy it is turning into a fascist state.

Enforce the constitution!

Re:Insightful vs Stupid people

[netrangerrr]

Not really a fascist state - more of a corporate state.
The war is big business! Imagine how much money anyone in the oil industry is making now! If you are an oilman, and your friends are oilmen, destabilizing world oil prices is a stroke of pure get-rich GENIUS! More money for less product. US Defense contractors are also rolling in dough while our soldiers and the locals in Iraq are getting shafted.

And - oops - we forgot Bin Laden!

Out of proportion

[JonathanR]

Considering this funding on a per victim basis, this must be the most expensive public safety program yet.

Consider how many people have been killed in automobile accidents, and how comparatively little public money gets spent 'preventing' that carnage.

There might not be another terrorist attack on US soil for the next decade, but I'll guarantee that more than 40,000 people will die on US roads next year.

Re:Out of proportion

[Eagle7]

little public money gets spent 'preventing' that carnage

Do you have your head in the sand? I don't have time to go dig up numbers, but just think about highway safety programs... an entire government agency to test cars, roadside phones, guardrails, highway maintenance, anti-drunk driving programs, ESSUV commercials... I could go on and on. I'm pretty sure that if you took all safety-related traffic programs in the US for the last, say, 5 years, it'd trump a couple hundred million dollars (which really isn't all that much in government terms).

Re:Out of proportion

[JonathanR]

I'm sorry, but when was the last time the government let a contract or start a new program worth about $1.7billion in a bid to reduce the road death toll?

Re:Out of proportion

[hackstraw]

Considering this funding on a per victim basis, this must be the most expensive public safety program yet.

Consider how many people have been killed in automobile accidents, and how comparatively little public money gets spent 'preventing' that carnage.

There might not be another terrorist attack on US soil for the next decade, but I'll guarantee that more than 40,000 people will die on US roads next year.

True. Human behavior and its irrationality is amusing at times.

In dealing with safety and humans, the underlying thing is risk perception. A person will walk quickly with no problem across a 1 foot wide plank on the ground. Raise the plank a few stories, and then the person will walk much more carefully and slowly.

Objectively, the whole fear of terrorism thing is irrational. But then all emotions are irrational and temporary. Granted 40,000 people will die while driving every year, and we all drive every day, but nobody has seen a 3,000 car pileup with 3,000 casualties at one time either. The same goes for air travel in general. People are much more scared of flying than driving in a car, but even if the driver were to suddenly die while driving, other drivers and passengers are not necessarily in immediate danger of death. Its a little different on an airplane -- the plank has been raised a few stories this time.

Granted, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent a group of organized people that are willing to die to ensure the success of their mission. That can be fearful, so doing anything, even speaking to gods can lessen the fear.

you totally miss the point

[Lawrence_Bird]

libertarian stuff aside the point of the cameras is not to
prevent a terrorist attack - the odds of that are virtually
nil.  What they will be used for is to assist in the capture
of non-martyr terrorists, criminals, or identifying dead
terrorists.  So if you are going to argue the libertarian
case then argue it against what they really are there for.

As for the other part of this contract, I'm not sure what
kind of crack or meth these people are smoking when they
decide to wire up the subway system for cell phones.  Even
if they are not doing the tunnel proper, the signal will
still propogate a bit out of the station, and frankly will a
bomb detonated in the station instead of in the tunnel be
that much worse? Our military are using signal blockers
in Iraq to try to prevent IED's being triggered by cell
phones and here we make it just that much easier to be
used in a mass casualty environment, all in the name of
some dope being able to call his friend and tell them
they are getting on the subay.  Freaking genius!

Democracy and wasteful spending comment

[Antony-Kyre]

This sure seems like wasteful spending. Do we really need them? Okay, that aside. I think the only way I'd be almost okay with this type of surveillance is if the voters approved it, whether it's a bad idea or not.

Any issue which regards removing our privacy needs to be dealt with by a city/county referendum. That way it's not our representatives telling us what to do, so-to-speak.

What about hunting Al Qaeda?

[netrangerrr]

Why don't we actually put some decent resources/manpower towards hunting down and destroying the Al Qaeda leadership? Oh, it seems were got distracted and ended up spending it all in Iraq and on expensive "feel good" security at home.

Silly US government - we forgot about Bin Laden!

Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit

[Anonymous Coward]

...while Lockheed Martin Warplanes provide the need for NYC Transit protection.

the fallacy of the slippery slope

[circletimessquare]

"if they legalize marijuana, what next, pedophilia?"

Re:the fallacy of the slippery slope

[QuantumG]

That the usual kind of stupid response I expect from you. Can you please answer the question(s). Of course you won't. You'll just get out your megaphone and yell into it that there is no slippery slope.

Prevention of attacks?

[i41Overlord]

Or, it's possible that it really is about prevention of attacks. NYC is a very likely target and everyone just saw what happened in London

London already had cameras everywhere, but that didn't seem to stop the bombings there, did it?

What New York City reminds me of

[br00tus]

I live in New York City. I didn't go into Manhattan (the main borough of New York City, and where the WTC was) for months after 9/11, but when I did there were troops everywhere. When I walk into one of the main train stations nowadays, Penn Station, I often see police walking in a group with German shepherds, which reminds me of old black-and-white filmstrips of a police force of another country patrolling with German shepherds, and the association is unpleasant. I also still see uniformed troops carrying rifles, which reminds me of my travels in third world countries. Which is to the point, the US is beginning to look more and more, visibly, like one of the third-world banana republics I have visited. I've even heard talk on TV and the radio of creating "free trade zones" so the US can do more manufacturing work. I've passed by free trade zones in third world countries - usually they are big factories surrounded by shantytowns, the police presence around which is akin to what the police presence was like in Northern Ireland years ago. I don't think all of this is a new phenomena, it seems like the US has been on the same course since the early 1970s in all things economic, military and political.

As far as to some of the people here talking about terrorism, I find this quite ridiculous. There is a complete blackout in the US media as to what is going on in most of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi, his main demand since US troops entered Saudi Arabia were for them to leave. Nothing happened so, if it's true Al Qaeda did 9/11 (which seems the most likely hypothesis to me), then it was due to his desire for the US army to leave Saudi Arabia. The US could care less, but less than two years after 9/11 the US did leave, so Al Queda got what it wanted out of 9/11. This has not been discussed at all in the US corporate media of course. Nor why the US has military bases in Panama, Colombia, Cuba (where the US is torturing prisoners, a base the Cuban government has been asking the US to leave for years), the Philippines and so forth, and why everyone who wants the US military to leave these places is a "terrorist" or drug dealer or Islamic radical or whatever. It's all a lot of nonsense. The US military is all over the world for the benefit of the richest 1% of Americans, it is horribly oppressive, and I along with other people around the world are fighting to roll back this evil empire. Create all the rationalizations you want, mod me down to -1 Flamebait so people won't read this, but we will act and we will win.

Re:What New York City reminds me of

[benzapp]

The US military is all over the world for the benefit of the richest 1% of Americans, it is horribly oppressive, and I along with other people around the world are fighting to roll back this evil empire.

And I think this highlights why you WON'T win, and why the organized opposition of the Left is ineffective.

Materialism is not the motivation of historical change. Karl Marx was wrong. Empires are not created and destroyed to materially benefit the few. Materialism is an ancillary tool of control, both in the bestowing of bounty and the enforcement of famine. The only difference between capitalist and communism regimes is capitalists placate their masses with plenty of useless crap, and communists keep their people perpetually hungry. The great leaders of the past who will be remembered for all time, whether or Caesar Augustus, Henry VIII, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Adolf Hitler, all were motivated by much more than materialism.

I think you need to look a little deeper. What these fanatics gain who control the international system of finance, the multi-headed hydra of evil which has infected our world for the past century, is far different than simple wealth.

That said, the Left fails today because they offer nothing to the masses to fight for. People do not sacrifice their lives so that wealth allocated to the top 1% of the population can be redistributed to the bottom 99%.

Materialism is the enemy. The reduction of human pursuits, hopes, and dreams to the economists fantasy is what is destroying our spirit.

When you start attacking the ruling class of Harvard economics majors, perhaps then we will have a start. Until that time, you and every other rebellious anti-war leftist will fail to do anything but whine, and in the end you will lose.

it's called critical thinking

[circletimessquare]

you: "do we need to signal before turning? do we need to wash the windows? do we need to take the second left?"

me: "we need to start the car first"

i don't pander and soft serve your every question

instead, via critical thinking, i cut to the overriding concept

that's what my "stupid response" is

i'm not your wet nurse, i'm not here to hold your hand

think

don't be pedantic

creationists often argue that because scientists won't argue with them about every one of their stupid criticisms of evolution, it means they are scared to argue or are avoiding powerful questions the creationists are posing

the truth is that scientists don't have the time to pick apart every obvious logical fallacy creationists put forth in every imaginable variation

so now you know what it's like to be a creationist

Re:it's called critical thinking

[QuantumG]

What a surprise.

How about humint?

[Anonymous Coward]

For $212 million you could hire 212 very intelligent human beings to prowel the subways and tunnels for ten years. If you could accept less qualified personell, such as your typical security gaurd types, you could double the number. That would give you 24*7 coverage with 103 human beings to roam around and keep an eye on things for ten years. I think even the low paid human security guards would be much more efficient than cameras monitored by equal numbers of low skilled people and a hell of a lot cheaper too. But that's just my impression. All I know is cameras have never prevented anything but humans have. Two famous cases are Diana Dean who stopped Ahmed Ressam as he tried to enter the US to bomb L.A. Airport, and
Richard Jewell who warned about the Atlanta Olympic Park bomb and was accused of planting it before later being proven inoccent and a real hero. No cameras have ever been reported saving lives like this that I know of.

The Power Of Nightmares

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Curtis, has put it in plain site of everyone as to what terrorism really is..

2004: The Power of Nightmares (BBC Two) drew parallels between the rise of
Islamic terrorists and the US neoconservatives who exploited the terror they
created...

But as to the specifics of the topic of securing the trains is absurd... all it suggests is that the surgery went really well but the patient died, and all it does is play into the hands of the corporate elite to push for their agenda of making more money... Think about it for a sec. Money can buy you anything from a Hooker to Bazooka...

nice chest thumping

[circletimessquare]

when you are done playing the battle hymn of the republic the rest of us here in reality are ready to talk

you've gone off on a really fascinating diatribe

but we're talking about putting cameras in the subway if you hadn't noticed

so try again, but this time try talking about the subject matter at hand instead of marching off to ideological war

thanks for playing

Re:nice chest thumping

[isotope23]

but we're talking about putting cameras in the subway if you hadn't noticed

yes I noticed, and you might be right, except for two factors.
1) cameras will not stop suicide bombers.

and

2) there is ALWAYS an exception for things like these to be used (hence abused) in other CRIMINAL (i.e. non-terrorist) investigations. Not just crimes committed in the subway, they will be used to track people using the subway to get around. You are naive to think otherwise.

As an innocent citizen, how long would you find it acceptable for a cop to follow you? An Hour?
A Day? I think you would start complaining in short order.

Good news for the Surveillance Camera Players

[Sir Tandeth]

http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html Only someone completely distrustful of all government would be opposed to what we are doing with surveillance cameras. -- NYC Police Commissioner Howard Safir, 27 July 1999. the Surveillance Camera Players: completely distrustful of all government.

native son

[Anonymous Coward]

New Yorker ACing in on this one. Born here, seen the WTC as a hole in the ground twice in my lifetime. (miss the people, not the ugly buildings)

While I'm way left of center, and do see other signs of creeping police state in my country (tis of thee ...), I don't have problems with subway cams here or in London. Doupt they'll do much good, a little suspect about the price, but not getting out my tinfoil hat for this one.

Remember, the first (that we know of) attempted subway nail bombing in the 90s was foiled because the roommate decided that the plotters were scumbag idiots (agreed) and walked into a police station. I work with Muslims and they (most of them?) seem to genuinely hate the Islamists. You can buy beer 24/7 and women of all shapes and sizes wear very little during the summer. These guys should be our first line of defense. They also thing the 'jews' did it (...sigh ..)

If you're worried about creeping facism in the US, look no further than blackboxvoting.org.

If you have a problem with the NYPD, try living in LA.

Re:native son

[Genus Marmota]

If you have a problem with the NYPD, try living in LA.

I'd say they're about even. I used to live in the Loisada (at the time a predominantly Puerto Rican neighborhood). I witnessed beatings and murders and I learned to be afraid of the cops (even though I was a honky). Not paranoia, fear of getting shot. NYPD is an occupying army in the barrios, neck deep in the drug trade and a lot of them (like my entire precinct, the 7th) seemed to have no problem with capping someone who got in the way.

I agree that it probably won't accomplish much. But damn, it gives me the creeps.

Re:native son

[VilePSU2]

Racial slurs like "Honky" are unacceptable.

There is not such thing...

[WebCowboy]

..as a company that "only makes airplanes" anymore--at least anything bigger than little hobby planes. Airbus maybe is the closest thing, and it isn't really a standalone company--it is a consortium of big tech companies glued together with government subsidies and the participants are big conglomerates that make everything too.

Take a look at pretty much any player in the aerospace industry past and present. and they are/were all mega corporations that did/do a bit of everyhing. Boeing and its subsidiaries range from jet planes to weaponry to real estate to financing. General Electric has their paws in everything from turbines to television networks. Rockwell made moon rocket engines, modems for PCs and everything in between. Bombardier has made planes trains and automobiles (or parts thereof).

Airplanes are too sophisticated to be made by mere "airplane companies"--the technology involved is so all-encompassing that such a company by default would be a capable player in a wide range of markets.

Re:There is not such thing...

[IWannaBeAnAC]

General Electric make (or at least, used to make) nuclear weapons too.

Defense? heh...

[Spy der Mann]

Obviously they couldn't defeat Osama with OFFENSIVE weapons / stealths and all those Lockheed toys the US govt was so pride of... and now they're going back to the defense.

"And now I switch my Lockheed card, into defense mode".

Very interesting... yes, very interesting indeed.

Headline is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

To say that they are "protecting" NYC's transportation is a statement of opinion, not of fact. The fact is, they are spending ~$200mil to install cameras and sensors. Whether they provides any protection or not is a separate question. My opinion is that this will have no value at all, other than for Lockhead Martin shareholders.

London has the most extensive cameras-and-sensors system ever in the world. It did not prevent a deadly series of bombings. It didn't do anything to protect the life of an innocent passenger who was killed by London PD. In fact, now that the London cops killed that guy, all five cameras in the area of the shooting mysteriously didn't work, so there's no footage of the actual killing!

Why do American taxpayers keep on footing the bill for these boondoggles? When will it stop?

When I think about it with a clear head, it seems like there are a few good ways to prevent terrorism that might actually work that we should try:

• Stop buying oil, from the Middle East or from anywhere else. Our oil habit pours trillions of dollars into the hands of the Saudis and their friends, and some of these trillions of dollars trickle down into Al Queda. We should stop it at the source.
• Stop it with the interventions, foreign aid, and military adventurism. Every time a US soldier kills an Iraqi, ten family members become candidates for Al Queda recruitment.
• Teach Americans that we are all individually responsible for observing and reacting to problems. The problems of 9/11 could have been nipped in the bud if the passengers on those planes had fought back. And don't tell me that they couldn't have known; you can be sure that if hijackers had tried to take control of an El Al flight, before or after 9/11, there would have been a riot and some dead hijackers and none would have ever made it to the cockpit.
• As part of "teaching individual responsibility", we need to reform CCW laws in major metropolitan areas like NYC and California. Responsible citizens, with arms ready to go and proper training, can stop an attack as it begins.

It seems to me that pouring money into Lockhead Martin to try to solve this no better than doing nothing, and could be worse.

Re:Headline is misleading

[Goffee71]

All the cameras will be used for is identifying the bombers after the carnage they've caused, this is not prevention!

Security Job Security

[Doc Ruby]

For decades, Lockheed and its competitors have lobbied the US government to prosecute wars that consume their war materiel. Now they can keep all that lobbying at home, and justify protecting their industry from foreign competitors. With Americans in the crosshairs.

more mta nonsense

[furrywithwings]

The cameras seem to be a good idea on paper, but as with anything involving the MTA, implementation is going to be the key factor. If the MTA does their usual bullshit, they'll not do anything in the boroughs outside manhattan, and it'll just bee another pisspoor excuse 'for security' HOowever, the MTA still does 'random screenings' that have done nothing to improve security while trampling over everyone's civil rights, and being questionably unconstitional. http://www.nyclu.org/mta_searches_suit_pr_081805.h tml

money well spent

[tq_at_sju]

they should pass out anti-suicide literature in the subways, only then will they thwart attacks

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

why should there be a body? slashdot isn't any less restrictive about posters' freedoms

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't know if this is real or not, but I'd like to see some more opinions on it and maybe the other side of the story, if it exists. You think something this serious would get on the news. Or well, with what I read in the link, maybe it's the kind of stuff that gets hidden.

It made Fark yesterday, a relatively neutral source for analysis.

Looks like a very strong (possibly excessive) show of force, but the actual force used (as opposed to merely shown) was in line. Looks like the tear gas wasn't unleashed until later - not as a pre-emptive tactic. Most of the smoke in the video appears to have been dust kicked up by the choppers. In short, looks like a routine fuckup on the part of the cops.

(I, too, thought that when they rounding people up for the death camps, they'll start with ravers in Utah, because... well, I couldn't figure out why, other than that maybe glowsticks make the baby Joseph Smith cry. I mean, ravers in Utah being the first folks to get disappeared. Damn mind control rays again. Even I'm not crazy enough to believe that. So I adjusted my tinfoil hat, and felt much better. :)

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This really happened. Normally when a rave is busted up, a few police show up, often times it is due to noise complaints. In the olden days the cops would ask them to kindly turn the music down. Often there were even several warnings by the cops. Then they'd shut it down, but still were decent respectable humans about it.

According to accounts I read, even asking a question got you a gun to the head, trying to collect personal belonging, photograph or video the events unfolding, or ask any question, resulted in being attacked, arrested, tagged with made up charges like drug distribution (in one acct I read, this occured because the guy was trying to tear down his tent).

All accounts said people were behaving peacefully and leaving (kids these days are used to authorities showing up and saying, "Sorry, this event is over"), and as they were going there was tear gas fired on them. I used to go to raves, and I've been to many that were shutdown. In every case it was peaceful. Fights don't break out. This isn't your drunk beligerant football jocks evening out at the club type of scenario. This was a total excess on the part of the police/government. One report suggested the action came because they were worried it would be used as staging ground for protest against Pres Bush (visiting Mon or Tue).

Anyways, this action was totally excessive on the pretense of drugs. Regardless, I think their action was overbearing and totally uncalled for. I know that some in law enforcement disagree. But never before have I seen it necessary to use military style tactics with automatic weapons etc on young adults. Someone could have been accidentally shot and it would have turned into a real tragedy. My own view is that this is school yard bully tactics on a peaceful crowd. It's essentially a concert event. There's lots of things I don't like about the rave scene, and it would be nice if all the children stayed at home and did their homework, and didn't bring drugs etc. So the police and parents in general have some valid concerns... I do disagree with the official version (based off reports I read and my own personal experience), the media seems to have just parroted the official sheriff's dept press release for the most part... Also, when the rave organizer tried to present all the official paper work, the confiscated it, told him didn't have any permits, and put a gun to his head telling him to get the f*ck out now. This is just completely unnecessary. I would expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future. Signs are all around and it makes me sad.

Sherriffs offical report
http://www.co.utah.ut.us/News/DeptNewsDetails.asp? wn_system=SHERIFF&ID=17759

Utah Local ABC News
http://www.4utah.com/local_news/local_headlines/st ory.aspx?content_id=9E880C47-B98E-4172-A5AE-9988C4 5CE8A7

Anyways, raves are ultimately about music, dancing, and having a good time. It's a place where anyone, any race, any look, geek or cripple, or whatever, is accepted for who they are, a big gathering of the tribe... It's really a shame that this is happening. because besides the kids nextdoor who go to these things, I've met many different well educated geeks and technical folks, professionals and engineers at these events.

what does the following concept mean to you:

[circletimessquare]

"paranoid schizophrenia"

you don't live in a hollywood b-level movie, the sith lord and agent smith in the white house just don't care about you as much as you think they do

the real world might be more mundane then you think it ought to be, but that doesn't excuse from imprinting your hysterical scifi dystopian fears on the rest of us

Re:what does the following concept mean to you:

[isotope23]

Ahh I see. I disagree with your worldview and instead of refuting either point one or two you resort to name calling.
Very amusing coming from someone who just posted with a title "the fallacy of the slippery slope "

Contrary to your opinion there is a plethora of evidence of government abuse/surveilence during the vietnam era. Thats the whole reason the CIA and FBI were not allowed to communicate pre-9/11. They had the power once and abused it. So you keep on trusting your officials, chances are they won't notice you if you remain within accepted norms. But hey, what do I know, I'm "crazy" right?

Gotta love it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love it...

US makes mess = criticism

US *finally* steps in to try and clean up mess it made = criticism

Do you ever get the feeling some people will just hate the US no matter *what it does? Granola, anyone?

Re:Gotta love it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"US makes mess = criticism" "US *finally* steps in to try and clean up mess it made = criticism

Open criticism is what makes America what it is.

Fervent unquestioning belief in a nations goodness, while stifling dissent under the guise of patriotism, is exactly the sort of thing Americans should stand up to. We need different mind sets of people for this nation to work. If liberals do something wrong, conservatives should hound them for it and vice versa.

What is completely appalling is not learning from that dissent.

Re:Gotta love it...

[deaddrunk]

If the US stopped making mess in the first place or at least punished those who did make the mess it would go a long way to removing that hatred. But no you carry on pissing people off and then pretending that they're the ones with the problem when they react.

Re:Gotta love it...

[CheechWizz]

US makes mess = criticism
US *finally* steps in to try and clean up mess it made = criticism

The thing that makes me wonder if the US is simply 'cleaning up' it's own mess is that the people who benefit from making a mess in the first place are the same that benefit from 'cleaning up the mess'.

Re:Gotta love it...

[WilliamSChips]

US *finally* steps in to try and clean up mess it made = criticism

I dunno, there seemed to be a lot less criticism during the first Gulf War...

MOD PARENT UP

[bclark]

I don't know if this is real or not, but I'd like to see some more opinions on it and maybe the other side of the story, if it exists. You think something this serious would get on the news. Or well, with what I read in the link, maybe it's the kind of stuff that gets hidden.

i don't trust any officials

[circletimessquare]

it's just that, unlike you, i see that there is very little at stake here to lose and a reasonable amount to gain

you take a prudent relatively harmless move and leverage that via paranoia and a slippery slope into a dystopian fantasy of jack booted thugs out to control your thoughts

here's some more name calling for you: you're histrionic

Re:i don't trust any officials

[isotope23]

Really, and what exactly do you gain with the cameras?

Cameras will not stop suicide bombers. You know it, I know it, the politicians know it too. If they could, London which probably has the highest density of cameras anywhere would have been able to stop at least the second attack.

So what good are they? Will it stop some crime? Perhaps. But I'd bet what you and others who support this crap really get from them is the FEELING of safety. You are willing to accept governmental intrusion for the ILLUSION of security. That to me is just sad.

Re:i don't trust any officials

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you're a real douchebag.

Simple minds, simple thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I think George Bush might be the worst person to put in charge, I am reminded by someone like yourself that there are worse people that could be at the helm...

Thank GOD for the little things!

neither have i

[circletimessquare]

nor do i hold their sacrifice in such contempt that i believe what they fought for is as flimsy as tissue paper and the whole enterprise hangs by a thread on the existence of... cameras in the subway

they didn't sacrifice their lives so grown adults could act like hysterical children over nothing

in fact, were they here today, they would recognize the threat and see as prudent the responsive measures, and cast a worried glance at the legions of lightheaded fools who scream high holy murder over nothing

please, those guys would recognize the march of the chicken littles

Re:neither have i

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a little pinprick in the body of freedom.

Just a little tear in the tissue paper.

Hysterical reactions to mere annoyances.

Speaker for the dead, who is the fool?

They *do* hate us for our freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

They hate us for our freedom to kill them

you're the fool riddle speaker

[circletimessquare]

next time you should try haiku, yoda:

guard freedom from those
who oppress and from those who
think it is so weak

dance around the obvious

[circletimessquare]

all you want

if you have a good idea subways might be attacked, you do something about that

watching the subways might be a good start

durrrrrrr.....

now go back to whining about illusions and feelings

i'll stick with the concrete and prudent

how's that sound to you?

lol ;-P

Re:dance around the obvious

[Xentor]

Well here's how I see it, perhaps a bit between the two of you.

1) The cameras will not necessarily STOP the terrorists, but may help to track them down to infiltrate or thwart their compatriots.

2) The cameras themselves are not an invasion of privacy. They're being put in a public place, where no one should expect any form of privacy.

3) They may help to deter other kinds of criminals. Late at night, most of the subway stations are nearly deserted, making them ripe territory for muggers, kidnappers, etc etc. I think security cameras would be a welcome deterrent there.

I'm not sure if I buy all the hype that these cameras will lead to an Orwellian state, with our every move being tracked. As most people here seem to realize, the government doesn't have the resources to do actually ANALYZE all of this data. If the situation changes, then my viewpoint will change accordingly, but as things are now, these cameras seem to be a good thing.

(And this is coming from someone who rides the 4/5 train to Grand Central Station twice a day)

But in the words of Dennis Miller... "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Re:dance around the obvious

[isotope23]

and you sir can take comfort in the fact that by installing the cameras, and the random searches and whatever else the politicians dream up, that the terrorists have indeed won.

BTW, did I ever say there was some sort of shadowy cabal bent on the destruction of the USA? No. I believe that these abuses are done primarily through moral and political expediency. The ends do not justify the means.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "

James Madison

Re:dance around the obvious

[trixillion]

As a person riding the subway every day, I have to say that your rhetoric is empty. I for one welcome the subway cameras. Which I consider a terrible waste of money for preventing terrorism. But an excellent use of money for preventing crime in the subways. See, if you lived here, you would know that the MTA has been seriously reducing the number of station agents making the stations, in principle, more dangerous at night. So the added security against real, day-to-day crime comes as a relief. If you do not live here, then why are you so passionate about this. I mean, look I appreciate your concern and all for me, but mind your own business.

Also, please explain to me what it is exactly that the terrorist will have won? What are their goals? Unless you can show me where turning the US into an Orwellian society is explicity one of their goals, then your rhetoric is absurd. Don't be such a fanatic. All fanaticism is the same, right or left. Just a bunch of fools who cannot deal with nuance.

Re:dance around the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point.
They win when we are dead, or dhimmi.

Re:dance around the obvious

[isotope23]

Which I consider a terrible waste of money for preventing terrorism.But an excellent use of money for preventing crime in the subways.

If you want to cut crime, take the 212 million and hire more agents at night. Which do you think is more effective at cutting crime, a camera or an officer standing on the platform?

If you do not live here, then why are you so passionate about this. because this will be used as a precedent to justify its expansion to other cities.

look I appreciate your concern and all for me, but mind your own business.
Lol the irony is delicious! Mind my own business while the cameras mind it as well....

Also, please explain to me what it is exactly that the terrorist will have won? They win a little bit whenever we surrender the ideals our free and open society is based upon.

True they may not "hate us for our freedom", but whenever we put up cameras, search people,ban nail clippers, etc. we are doing these things
because of their actions. Every time you bump up against these things you are reminded of their acts, and your fears it will happen again.
That is their goal, to create terror, and to keep you from forgetting it.

Re:dance around the obvious

[trixillion]

Remind me, I'm a little fuzzy, which of the three forms of irony would that be. Physical, clearly not. Verbal, no that would require intent on my part. Must be dramatic. Well, no that doesn't really qualify either. See there would have to actually be aforementioned cameras watching you as well, then maybe it would qualify. But since the cameras don't exist except in your schizophrenic fantasy, there is no dramatic irony here. I think you mean something else entirely. Perhaps you meant "Lol the extent of my delusions is delicious!"; would that be the expression you were looking for? It would certainly flow better with the sentence that followed it; and it would be illiterative to boot.

Isotope, making us fear isn't a goal in and of itself. Learn the difference between a goal and a strategy. The strategy is a means to an end. Try again, what is their goal? Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with video cameras or our freedoms. Actually let me spell it out. They have many goals, they are pretty fractured ideologically. Some of their goals are various themes on, getting the West out of the Mid East militarily, economically, culterally and politically. Another is to unite the Islamic world under a caliph. And the ultimate goal is to convert the entire world to Islam. Terrorism is primarily aimed at the first combination of affiliated goals. And it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. See if they can cause us sufficient pain and aingst, then they believe we will decide the Mid East isn't worth the trouble and we will pull out militarily, economically, culterally and politically. It wouldn't be a bad strategy except they are sitting on all that oil we want so we aren't going anywhere, period. Otherwise, it might have worked a long time ago. Notice that causing us to lose freedoms or become an Orwellian society doesn't achieve any of their goals (it actually probably hurts their goals.) So stop saying otherwise. You sound uneducated and naive, which I know that you are not. You've merely been indoctrinated. Which is forgivable, if annoying.

Re:dance around the obvious

[Scroatzilla]

I find "irony" in the fact that you are trivializing the concept of an Orwellian society. You almost seem unaware that that has NEGATIVE connotations. The fact that foisting that type of society upon US citizens doesn't help the terrorists is irrelevant. Rather, the shame lies in the reactionary short-sighted solutions that politicians love to funnel zillions of dollars into as a direct result of terrorist actions.

Perhaps that is the sentiment behind the common saying "If you ___, then the terrorists have won." Perhaps they have not achieved their "goals," but they are succeeding in completely disrupting ordinary citizens' lives.

Re:dance around the obvious

[isotope23]

Semantics semantics, how about "the incongruity of your statement is apparent?" You tell me to mind my own business while we are disucssing the monitoring of individuals within a public space.... Since it is a public space, does it not become public business? Trix, the first goal (not primary goal) of any kind of terrorist action is to create fear, hence the term TERRORism. Playing on that fear to create change is a strategy or the "ISM". Regarding your comment that "their" ultimate goal is to convert the world to islam is I think invalid. I think the overwhelming majority would just like to be left alone. BTW you cannot seriously believe in Islamo-fascism while at the same time discounting a tendency towards fascism here at home. In regards to the Middle East,I know we aren't going anywhere. It's immoral IMO but sadly it seems morality is something many in government and the general populace are willing to sacrifice for convenience. Again I reiterate the loss of our freedom is not the terrorists goal, their first goal is creating fear. On the other hand our government's goal is the greater centralization of power. This has been an ongoing phenomenon since the founding of the republic. This centralization of power in fewer and fewer hands is what I take objection to. Our official have a strategy of using the same fear of terrorism to achieve their goals. Pre 9/11 people were up in arms whenever there was a program for facial recognition systems in public, a national ID proposal, or attempts to weaken the bill of rights. Post 9/11 the fear of terror is played upon to justify all these centralization measures. Now is it some shadowy cabal bent on world domination? Most likely not. Much more probable is that those with power are interested in keeping what they have and finding ways to gain maore. The hundreds of pages of the patriot act were written long before 9/11 and were just dusted off to be voted on when the time was right. I may be naive in your estimation, but I have come to believe that the only choices we truly have in this life are the ideals we live by, and how well we try to uphold them. My personal belief is the centralization of power is corrupting and inherently a bad thing. I believe that human beings are imperfect. Thus by allowing a smaller group of people to control a greater amount of power is to invite its inevitable abuse. Government is IMO a necessary evil. Thus the smallest possible government we can get by with it the best we can hope for. The cameras and their acceptance is a symptom of the greater problem.

i don't know

[circletimessquare]

were there any americans caught in the revolutionary war suicide bombing ferries in edinburgh or driving boats laden with explosives into workhouses for the poor in birmingham?

well you're easy

[circletimessquare]

i'm not scared

really

i'm angry

anything else i can help you with today?

Re:well you're easy

[JimBobJoe]

anything else i can help you with today?

Yes! :-)

Fear and anger are often lumped together as similar emotions. (I can't seem to recall where I got that from...however I recall something that the only negative emotion that was not related to the others was jealousy.)

In either case, you can go ahead and replace the word scared/fearful with angry, and the text means the same (at least for me.) In hindsight, anger should have been there from the beginning (as well as the more general "stress.")

On a side note, in all the time I lived in the city, I only heard myths regarding inhabitants of the Times Square area, but never actually met one.

Re:Guise? $10 per person

[Stephen Samuel]

It seems pretty a fairly legit description of what the money is being used for.

The New York Metropolitan area has a population of about 22M. so $212M is just short of $10 for every man woman and child in the metropolitan area. At that price, I could probably make a bulk purchase of a wifi (or bluetooth) webcam for each and every New Yorker, and still have millions left for the infrastructure and servers.

One thing that I'll point out is that this is probably an example of corporate welfare in that they're probably going to put in rhe infrastructure for subway access to cell phones (at government expense) and then basically hand over that infrastructure to a couple of cell companies at pennies on the dollar.

Equally intersting is that this infrastructure is going to be something of an achilles heel. Just as it's going to be available to people to call out of the subway, it's going to be equivalently useful to a terrorist group to call in to the subway (say, to a bomb package).

Now, we've got a bigger security problem -- but that's OK. Well just solve it by making it legal to listen in on all cell phone calls without a warrant (or supply a blanket warrent. which is essentially the same thing)

Big Brother is alive and well, and living in New York -- but that's OK... This one's benevolant.
:-( .... (( patent pending Microsoft ))

ah yes, that fallacy

[circletimessquare]

"you can't try to solve any problems in this world because there are other problems too"

somewhere buried in your fount of cynicism and negativity is someone who actually cared about something once

try to find that person again and get back to us

Re:ah yes, that fallacy

[10101001 10101001]

somewhere buried in your fount of cynicism and negativity is someone who actually cared about something once

I'm not sure if you really believe this or not, but I feel rather compelled to correct your belief. Distrusting some people, or especially organizations of people, is not cynicism. Cynicism of the whole world is a paranoia of people or of how the world works, and I believe neither of theses are real. How the world works often now is only a factor of how people decide to respond to things, and it's the fact that many people either do not care yet or do not believe enough yet to change that sets the temporary course.

Further, it is not negativity to realize that politicians are most often interested in votes more than people or that people jump behind the disaster of the day than the mundane killers of life. The first is a function of democracy and the sloth of people well off enough to not need to think much. The latter is a function of repetition of a previous unthought of and the media's thirst for reporting on yet a new disaster. In the end, I'm a Libertarian not only because I believe it wrong to force one's will on another, but I also believe that people naturally are able to overcome all these problems without the need for force. If anything, it's only the question of people stepping up to catalyze the change, even in societies which otherwise are made static by forces external to the individual.

Finally, I think in truth the major concerns of terrorism are already solved. Yes, the suicide bombers can still attack the subway trains. But any sort of hostage taking will almost certainly be different. The media has, in its own way, done its part to awaken people that compliance doesn't mean one will live. That's a lesson that can be extended to all cases. And in the end, I think it's the resilience of people to not be swayed by threats or acts that will insure that terrorism will fail; a fitting analogy, imho, is the act of ignoring the bully who calls you names, and if he tries to commit force on you, you respond in kind without fear.

wonderful

[circletimessquare]

i think that when you write your screenplay for your great hollywood movie, you've developed a sound psychological grasp for the mechanisms underpinning your character's story arc from fear to rage

but if you want to talk about real people, instead of anakin skywalker's descent into the darkside, you want to try to look at the reality of human emotion as it is

or you could continue telling me that my feelings of anger are invalid, and that i should be a mindless emotionless robot when confronted with terrorism

surely this is a superior approach to dealing with the problems facing us today: don't fight the problems, just alter our understanding of how human behavior works!

lol ;-P

Re:wonderful

[JimBobJoe]

or you could continue telling me that my feelings of anger are invalid, and that i should be a mindless emotionless robot when confronted with terrorism

Oh no, I never said that. I've got a similar combination of fear and anger that manifest in regards to my thoughts on civil liberties, my concern that they will perish in the future, et cetera (and which is always alarmed that fear and anger on your side is more compelling.) I'm going to be the first to admit that I'm not reacting objectively, and that I'm not motivated by some sorta objective goal/thought. But when it comes to presenting the case for liberty, I'll put together the facade necessary to make my case.

surely this is a superior approach to dealing with the problems facing us today: don't fight the problems, just alter our understanding of how human behavior works!

*giggles*

What's frightening is that I think your last paragraph was ripped right from Machiavelli. :-)

then the choice is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Deport all foreign born Muslims (& their kids) to their country of origin. Do this for the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Anyone entering those countries illegally will be shot on sight. Domestic terrorists will also be quickly executed.

Cell phones

[AgeOfUnreason]

Cell phones on the subway! Didn't the madrid bombers use cells phones to activate the bombs?

tin foil

[tabby]

Lockheed-Martin is the worlds largest manufacturer of tinfoil hats too.

Prevention

[nuggz]

You missed my point.

These cameras will not PREVENT an attack.
From the article
"We will try everything, and deploy all technologies possible, to prevent an attack from happening,"

Your rebuttal agrees that in my examples attacks were not prevented. If the goal is prevention (as stated in the article). How will this solution achieve it?
It won't, so why are we wasting money when it won't solve the problem?

Mainstream Media

[Bimo_Dude]

Just look at the treatment anything controversial gets at the hands of the media - immigration, id cards, the Iraq war, etc - and you'll see anything but respect and embracing of the government.

As an American who has seen/read/heard the mainstream media from the US and the UK, it seems to me that the media in the UK is far more critical of their government than the US media is of ours.

It is always interesting to compare articles in the FT and the Washington Post regarding the same topic. The FT (supposed to be conservative, I think) usually has more criticism and information than the Post (supposed to be 'left-wing').

root causes = joke

[mark_jabroni]

There were any number of terrorist attacks on the US or US interests well before we had troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

For any number of terrorists, the fact that the US :

1. refuses to approve of the destruction of Israel
2. refuses to live under Shariah

is more than enough reason to attack us.

Not sure if you noticed

[mark_jabroni]

So, how does catching people after a terror attack (which prevents them from executing another terror attack) fail to prevent terrorism? Do all terrorists get bored after their first attack?

You mean the space shuttle guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear it now... "The system was working perfectly until a 1 pound piece of foam fell from the ceiling and blocked the view of the cameras"

simple

[mark_jabroni]

Auto accidents are not meant to intimidate americans, to make them afraid, or to influence US foreign or domestic policy. They are not deaths of intent.

Also, I would imagine 210 million wouldn't go very far in the road safety department.

"under the guise"?

[geoffrobinson]

Tell us what you really think.

Re:"under the guise"?

[east coast]

Tell us what you really think.

This is the crux of the matter isn't it? It's not as much that money is being spent on the security of the subways but rather people who think that if the government is monitoring a public place that there is some kind of wrong on the part of the government.

When are people going to get it thru their thick skulls that in a public place you have no right to privacy and that you can be monitored legally. People act like the government is putting cameras in their bedrooms. I just don't understand why this is.

Pork!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yummy Terror Pork!

King's Taster

[handy_vandal]

All the cameras will be used for is identifying the bombers after the carnage they've caused, this is not prevention!

Analogy: the King's Taster, who tastes food before the King does.

The taster does not save the King's life. The purpose of the taster is to provide post-mortem evidence of assassination: if both the King and the taster die, chances are they died of poisoned food.

-kgj

You didn't say anything at all

[cookie_cutter]

Hmm, a composition of ad hominem attacks and groundless assertions counts as +3 interesting? A sad state of affairs.

Conspiracy

[nuggz]

I am not claiming there is a conspiracy.

I am claiming that this strategy will not achieve the stated goals.
If a project will not succeed at its objectives, ie preventing terrorist attacks, it should not proceed.

If there is other merit to the project, ie catching criminals/terrorists after committing a crime, it should be evaluated on those realistic objectives instead.

I think it is dishonest to promote a solution that does not solve the target problem, even if it will result in other benefits.

groan

[dazedNconfuzed]

The failed July 21st attacks meant the police could track them down, and arrest them!

Only because they were too stupid to kill themselves despite going to extraordinary lengths to do so.

The IRA bombings ceased when the cameras went in precisely because the bombers intended to survive. What too many don't seem to realize is: these guys don't. Suicide bombers don't care if their approach and attack is recorded - they may even revel in the idea - because they won't be around to be tracked down & arrested.

CCTV surveilance has its uses. Unfortunately, for this application, its benefits are minimal.

Re:Guise? (THe automagical numberplate readers)

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget the car numberplate readers Transport for london use to charge people going in and out of london congestion zone.

Also Davivd blunkett annouced to little press coverage that the same technology had been extended to cameras on main roads in and out of 5 major cities in england.

But then we'd expect this of him, he was after all a neonazi in disguise (just look at his policies on immagration)

the crack? money

[fantomas]

"I'm not sure what kind of crack or meth these people are smoking when they decide to wire up the subway system for cell phones"

The crack? votes, and money. Telling people they can phone 911 when they are in the subway makes people feel good, means they'll vote for the councillors who made this happen. Plus money, it's a free market economy. X million commuters a day on the subways, how much income is that if each of them makes a 10 cent phone call? I shouldn't be suprised if the phone companies weighed in to help make it happen.

"mass casualty environment"

I call it "going shopping", or "going on the subway to meet up with some friends". I think you should ease off those FPS games ;-)

Yes, you do dance...

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your childish taunting and insults aside, you are dancing around the fact that our constitutional rights are being altered by the paranoid fear of terrorists coming from people like you.

You should look into some anti-pscyhotic meds while you undergo cognitive therapy to come to terms with the traumatic events of 9/11. The rest of us don't want big brother, and calling us paranoid while you want to empower the state to do what it wants to our constitutional rights becuase your sorry ass is scared of terrorists, is completely hipocritical.

Yipes!

[Anonymous Coward]

When we have to submit to one of THOSE before we board the subway, only the Goatse guy will be laughing.

Once again, lacking facts...

[schnoid]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but it seems that many people that are quick to shout 1984! are lacking the facts. I think the main point of these cameras is not to track faces, but determine if something out of the ordinary is occuring as it happens. This is an "intellegent" video system. Basically what it does is detects bodies walking by, and zeros into packages that are left behind by travelers (or terrorists). This is a primary way that terrorist activities are carried out. There may be more to it, but I am unaware of any other utilities for this technology. It's sad to see so many paranoid people freaking out about cool technology before knowing any facts.

maybe think better about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why all are so eager to fight terrorism and not its roots?

there's a post higher up that says some things right: don't invade other countries for stealing their oil, money and gold, don't kill them, and WATCH closely what your "America - the right country" (feel the sarcasm) does to others and how it does...

You know, you should reconsider one thing: what if your "good" president and government wanted to control you all? would you agree? nope...
but if they - let's say - "help" creating these terrorist fears and the whole crap going around these days, then you see, the effect is the one they awaited: you are all willing to be controlled... and you don't see it, you are all so blind and scared (btw: scared, and it's your fault, for being stupid and not acting as citizens, but as "american sheep") that you willingly accept any control...

have fun, people... but read some *good* SF, and think a bit if you aren't brainwashed, mindcontrolled, misled and so on... SF might not be SF anymore in a few decades if you all continue to be so ignorant... oh, and I would start with the "Dune" series of books, from the 3rd on you can learn something about how politics can work, though not that extreme...

have fun, I'm not American, and I don't like England, so I breathe a bit easier... hope my people have better eyes than you people have...

maybe think better...?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why all are so eager to fight terrorism and not its roots?

there's a post higher up that says some things right: don't invade other countries for stealing their oil, money and gold, don't kill them, and WATCH closely what your "America - the right country" (feel the sarcasm) does to others and how it does...

You know, you should reconsider one thing: what if your "good" president and government wanted to control you all? would you agree? nope...
but if they - let's say - "help" creating these terrorist fears and the whole crap going around these days, then you see, the effect is the one they awaited: you are all willing to be controlled... and you don't see it, you are all so blind and scared (btw: scared, and it's your fault, for being stupid and not acting as citizens, but as "american sheep") that you willingly accept any control...

have fun, people... but read some *good* SF, and think a bit if you aren't brainwashed, mindcontrolled, misled and so on... SF might not be SF anymore in a few decades if you all continue to be so ignorant... oh, and I would start with the "Dune" series of books, from the 3rd on you can learn something about how politics can work, though not that extreme...

have fun, I'm not American, and I don't like England, so I breathe a bit easier... hope my people have better eyes than you people have...