Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lockheed Martin Hardware to Protect NYC Transit

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the 1,984-watchful-eyes dept.

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.

23 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. Guise? by Rayaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Guise? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. Re:Guise? by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Guise? by DDiabolical · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Guise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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...
    5. Re:Guise? by TheNationalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Check out this guy's BZFlag cheat client!
    6. Re:Guise? by TheNationalist · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      --
      Check out this guy's BZFlag cheat client!
    7. Re:Guise? by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    8. Re:Guise? by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Guise? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      zosxavius photography
    10. Re:Guise? by sodaquad · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

  2. X10 by blueadept1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  3. Under the GUISE of anti-terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. Re:Lockheed? by blueadept1 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  5. that was a long time ago by mnemonic_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Hey... by Psionicist · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least they are not homemade endoscopes.

  7. Yet again idiots win! by isotope23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  8. welcome to slashdot by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  9. Good for NYC by malchus6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 can fool some of the people all of the time ... and those are the ones you should concentrate on.
  10. Re:Video surveilance sure worked well in London by Mazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  11. Out of proportion by JonathanR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:You live in an ivory tower by isotope23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  13. Re:Contrarian views by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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!