Slashdot Mirror
Military Testing WMD Sensors at Super Bowl
Lam1969 writes "Members of the Michigan National Guard will be at the Super Bowl on Sunday to deploy 'sensor fusion', a real-time, IP-based wireless technology that combines readings from portable and fixed devices that can potentially detect terrorist threats. While sensors capable of detecting chemical, biological, or radiological threats have been used at previous Super Bowls, the readings had to be communicated by radio between different security personnel. Sensor fusion automatically takes readings from the devices and uploads them to a central, secure Web server, where security staff anywhere can monitor conditions at the event. From the article: 'The software uses open standards and is open-source, based on the OSGi Service Platform, which is a standardized, component-oriented computing environment for networked services. OSGi allows networked devices to be managed from anywhere in the world, while allowing software to be installed, updated or removed on the fly while the device is operating.'"
Let's hope it isn't anything like those voting machines.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
They mentioned that the central web server was secure, but is there any information about the security of each node?
Whenever I hear anything about Wireless networking, I instantly have a security lightbulb that goes off in my head. Since it's based on IP technology, is there anything in place to prevent traditional wireless security issues? Can you spoof nodes?
Granted, no system is perfect, but I'm wondering if this system could be used to draw security away from a particular area, only to allow a potential threat to get in the back door.
This may seem like a silly question, but how can you test for something that won't be there?
Are they just trying to restrict false positives? Or just show off that they have something? This is just going to be another ineffective technology that too much money was spent on.
Runnin' On Empty
Because the best place to beta test a top-secret military project is in a forum with six billion people watching.
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be used here, but why weren't they tested at, say, a regular Lions game beforehand? It's the same number of people in the same location, just not as many of them are VIPs with the associated security concerns in case of evacuation.
By the time this sensor figures out that someone has a WMD strapped to their chest, the WMD is obviously already there at the stadium (or relatively close, depending on where they set it up) and everyone there is already in danger. I mean, how likely is it that the terrorist bought a ticket and is going to the game? Remember in the movie "Sum of All Fears" they just dropped off a vending machine a few days before the game. So I am guessing they are just checking to see that this kind of thing works "In the real world" more than anything. I could see it being more useful at airports watching for WMDs making their way into the country or something.
This was making news in the Wall Street Journal and other papers back in the early part of 2002. Maybe that's why the military wants to test at the SB? A huge sample and plenty of possibilities for picking up cancer patients that could lead to positives.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/0 4/0630206&threshold=0
DC has sensors that sound similar. They've also proven to be almost useless: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/18/tular emia/
Apparently, the British soccer hooligans have nothing on American football fans. Over there, they're happy if they can keep glass bottles out of the stands.
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be used here, but why weren't they tested at, say, a regular Lions game beforehand? It's the same number of people in the same location, just not as many of them are VIPs with the associated security concerns in case of evacuation.
This has little to do with the technology, or any actual threat. It is a fairly high-profile event, and so it is widely perceived as a target for an attack. If you stage public, high-profile events creating the perception of security you calm people down, and the event can proceed as planned.
It's just like scanners at airports - you counter the perception of a threat with the perception of security and everybody walks away happy. It means that a technology to, for example, scan passengers at airports without any visible organization or inconvenience is actually a lot less useful than a largely inneffective - but public - display of zeal. If you had an effective, unobtrusive way to scan people, you'd probably still need to keep sham security stations active, hassling people and delaying proceedings, just for the needed visibility.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Terrorism's aim isn't usually just to screw up an infrastructure. They tend to realise that it's a heck of a lot more productive to kill a few people and make everyone cry their eyes out, than for a few corporations to fall to their knees (which, given the fact that there's a lot of EXCELLENT IT infrastructures on this planet - run by slashdotters often!).
Emotional terrorism will nearly always beat information terrorism, especially when any sort of harm caused creates huge economic strains in the rush, build up and subsequent 'security increase' afterwards (why the hell do they even entertain the idea of half million pound sluggish weapon scanners at busy train stations in the UK?)
> So if the source code is available for anyone to analyse, AND the software can be updated on-the-fly... what makes this effective? Why does everyone keep assuming terrorists are stupid? Attacks don't succeed through stupidity, they succeed through ingenuity. Look at the source, find a hole, "fix" the software, detonate a WMD...
Yeah, 'cause closed source always keeps the evildoers out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Live it! All day long, all the time, at every event and every gathering. Let it control your life. Vote only for those who make you feel safe. Attack those who would limit government power.
FEAR
It becomes you.
Sorry, as someone who's worked with robots before, I just had to clear this up.
Sensor fusion is whenever you take data from multiple incoming sensors, and automatically combine them to form a picture of the world. This system FEATURES sensor fusion, however it is not called that.
I think testing the system during the superbowl is a great idea. I think telling people that you're testing it during the superbowl is a stupendously foolish idea. You're going to have all sorts of people screwing with it, from people bringing in irradiated crap, to just plain 802.11 devices setup to jam it.
Wait, unless that's what they're testing about the system.....
--Michael
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
Well I'm Canadian and if they ever attack our Superbowl, we know what to do.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
I once got into a U.S. Open golf tournament by volunteering for "Emergency Services." After spending about 5 minutes setting up some tables, I wandered away and got a beer and watched the tournament like everyone else. And the badge looked cool.
The OSGi framework mentioned is very cool indeed. It's best known usage is the Eclipse IDE. It can also be used in web applications, where especially the Wicket component web framework delivers a very good integration. There are several users working with OSGi compliant frameworks (most notably Oscar, which is in the Apache incubator under the name Felix), and Wicket. I have used Oscar and Wicket in a commercial product and we were very satisfied with the runtime re-deployment of new components.
Terrorists have their target audiences. The Al Qaeda wants to impress people in the muslim countries, who think of "football" as the sport that's played by kicking a round ball with the feet. If 90% of the TV news anchors around the world have to explain what this "super bowl" thing is, and its true importance in the collective American mind, the intended message of the attack would be wasted. It's not as if there was an attack in the World Cup, whose audience does reach in the billions mark.
Future capabilities could include small wireless cameras linked to facial-recognition software databases that would help identify suspects in crowds, he said. "It can be kind of scary," Ricker said, "but it's not as scary as the alternative."
Not as scary as a (possible) terrorist attack with many casualties? I happen to disagree. I find it very annoying that law enforcement/government seems to want to have any type of 'disturbance' of our society under control. Be it terrorism, crime, violent protests, hooligans, whatever.
Just imagine an 'ideal' world where this would actually work: camera's everywhere, all your actions registered, all terrorists locked away, 100% of crimes solved, citizens obeying all rules, drop a chewing gum on the street and a fine is automatically subtracted from your paycheck, leave your doors unlocked and nobody would even think of walking in to steal your belongings. Bomb attacks only happening in movies or history books.
Now THAT is a scary thought. Would you want to live that way? I sure as hell don't. Sure, streets would be clean, life would be safe and easier, but it would also be very boring.
No need to make life 'perfect'. Just do what is needed to bring negative things down to acceptable levels. Find a balance between that and how much effort is spent to archieve it.
It seems to me this balance is often lost. Are measures really cost-effective? Just imagine that all the money going to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq had been spent on health care and development aid for poor countries instead. That could have lifted millions out of poverty. Anyone in the Bush administration even have a rough estimate about how many (potential) terrorism that would save, or what boost that would give the US economy (and image)?
'Suspect packages' are found every other day now, and train stations cleared or appartment blocks evacuated. Terrorist strike prevented? Nope. Somebody forget their cellphone or shopping bag, and countless men-hours were wasted.
Common sense, people. Traffic, starvation (if you're really poor) or disease might kill you. If you're 'lucky', a lightning strike, plane crash or falling coconut (yes, they kill more people than sharks!) might do it. Looking at how likely it is, mr. Bin Laden & friends are near the bottom of the list. So why is so much effort wasted on that? I'll take some crime and the occasional bombing instead, thank you....will it protect the American public from the wardrobe malfunction threat?!?
Another overexposed nipple could spell doom for us all...
The Machine stops.
... testing it in Iraq? They'll be able to work out false positives there just as well, since there's no WMDs there to find, either.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
As I see it - OSGi is just an operating system on top of an operating system, and much of the functionality can actually be achieved easier by other means.
Otherwise - a wireless sensor network as it actually is about is fairly simple, but isn't each node in the net rather expensive? A node actually talking IP will require an IP stack and that in turn will require a fair amount of CPU power together with OSGi. But on the other hand - if the nodes are able to run IP and OSGi they are certainly able to use encryption and certificates to validate the data. Cheaper wireless sensors doesn't have enough punch to be able to do much encryption - but on the other hand you may afford to lose a couple of them before anything becomes a problem.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
By the time this sensor figures out that someone has a WMD strapped to their chest, the WMD is obviously already there at the stadium (or relatively close, depending on where they set it up) and everyone there is already in danger.
Or, more likely, the sensor never figures out that someone has a WMD strapped to their chest, because
1. Nobody has any and
2. The people who actually might want to do harm to America could just as easily pull this off with totally ordianary weapons of non-mass destruction-- and are much more likely to
and so while you're spending all this time staring at the WMD detector, whatever actual threats may or may not actually exist just walk right past you undetected.
In the last 20 years the only successful major terrorist attacks against the United States were pulled off with boxcutters, fertilizer, and pickup trucks, and yet we're focusing on expensive, high-tech gadgetry that you practically need the support of the U.S. government to get hold of anyway.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Try opening a map. You think just maybe an arena seating 65,000 wouldn't be as a tempting a taget and an easier kill than the twin towers?
I, for one... Welcome our new terrorist-smeller pursuivant overlords
And well you should. The terrorists have the will, and a plan to become our new overlords. If they succeed, you will be living in a genuine theocracy uniting church and state, governed by Sharia law, in all of its harshness, including threat of crucifixion, beheading, stoning, and amputation.
Our present "overlords" do well in defending us against the malice of the would-be Islamist terrorist overlords. The Islamist terrorists have a demonstrated interest in conducting infamous attacks aimed at mass murder, and a stated goal of killing four million Americans in pursuit of their nightmare state. The Superbowl is a natural target. The terrorists have the will to kill everyone at the Superbowl, but lack the opportunity due to the vigilance of our present "overlords",.... long may they "reign".
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The thing is:
Chemcial, (Most) Biological, and Radiological Weapons Are Not WMDs.
Chemical weapons are notoriously inefficient. In World War I, several tonnes of chemical weapons were produced for every fatality that they caused. Aum Shinrikyo tried almost (20?) attacks before they finally got fatalities, and most of their attacks did absolutely nothing. Chemical weapons are very ineffective killers, and aren't even that great at maiming, compared to normal weapons. They're just scary.
Most biological weapons developed thusfar are designed not to spread contagions from person to person very readily, as you don't want a region you're taking over to infect your own troops. Anthrax is a good example of this. It's biological, but it's used in the same way chemical weapons are. Not a WMD -- just scary.
Radiological weapons are the least damaging. "Dirty bombs" weren't developed by modern nations for a good reason: they don't do much (the Japanese investigated use of them in World War II and had a program to investigate their use, but nobody has done much with the concept since). The problem is that to kill people with radiation, you typically need long-term exposure. However, people flee when they suspect that something is wrong. All you do is scare people and make them not want to go back to a given area. Sure, if you had several tonnes of high-level waste and a discrete dispersal mechanism you might be able to cause some casualties, but you could cause a lot more with (much easier to acquire and use) several tonnes of high explosives.
To sum up: Nuclear weapons are true WMDs. A few biological weapons (such as smallpox) are WMDs, but they're closer to "doomsday devices"; most biological weapons aren't because militaries don't want their own weapons to attack them back. Chemical weapons aren't WMDs. Dirty bombs aren't WMDs.
Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
I'm not sure what definition you're using of "WMD," but to the US Government, a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon IS a weapon of mass destruction, period. Or rather, a 'weapon of mass destruction' is defined as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.
This definition comes from the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which you can read here. However the way it's described -- not as an explicit definition, but almost as an implicit assumption, suggests to me that the term was used in this way for a significant time prior to this. In the US Code, it also includes radiological, as well as Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons. (USG uses of WMD.)
However, your point -- namely that there are some weapons which meet the USG criteria for being a "WMD," but probably are not capable of doing that much damage (depending on the type and method of use), is very true. However saying that they are "not a WMD" is a bit of a large statement, because the US Government disagrees with you, and at the end of the day, that's who people are going to listen to and that's the definition that's going to be widely used.
I think that if you want to discuss 'true' WMDs -- that is, weapons which have the capability of inflicting a large amount of damage or number of casualties -- you are better off using the term "mass casualty weapon" or something else, rather than the term "WMD."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."