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?

[blueadept1]

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

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?!

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.

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.

Hey...

[Psionicist]

At least they are not homemade endoscopes.

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.

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?

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...

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!

[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

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.

"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]

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.

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...

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

[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.

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!

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/

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: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: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!

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: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: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.

tin foil

[tabby]

Lockheed-Martin is the worlds largest manufacturer of tinfoil hats too.

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:So...

[springbox]

the next arcade shooter won't have fighter jets?

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

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: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.

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.