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.
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/
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.
> 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
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
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.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
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."
Sure, it's a bit hyperbolic, but it makes a point
However, I don't think we are missing the forest for the trees. We need to worry about every tree, and the entire forest.
Al Qaeda, unlike the previous Islamic terrorists, seeks to destroy our country as a force in the world, and ultimately to convert it to an extreme form of Islam - by force. So does Iran, after they have destroyed Israel and recovered from the nuclear counterstrike.
The Islamofascists have claimed a special dispensation from Allah to kill up to 4,000,000 to do it. And of course, if that doesn't do the job, I'm sure they can get the quota raised. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has sought, and is continuing to seek, weapons of mass destruction - things actually made for that - in order to do so.
Yes, they may use low tech attacks against us, although those tend to have less of a combat multiplier. They could blow up a bunch of school buses and really piss us off, but pissing us off and scaring us is not their goal (unlike the Palestinian terrorists of the past). Their goal is to really hurt us very badly. And to do that, they need to make attacks that are very deadly.
The simplest one of those, I would think, is downing a bunch of airliners with either bombs in cargo, or MANPADs. That would have substantial economic consequences. But it would also piss us off a whole bunch and not really hurt us more than 9-11 did. Furthermore, they tried this in the mid 90's ( Bojinka ) and were only stopped by accident.
Just to maintain their street cred in the terrorist world, they have to top 9-11. The easiest way to do that, if they can get hold of it, is to use a WMD - preferably a nuke.
A small, simple ( gun design enriched U-235 ) device would kill a very large number of people - primarily from fallout from the ground burst (especially since it would require a lot of U235 that would turn into fallout instead of fission energy). These weapons are so easy to design that almost anyone with a bit of a science background, a bit of engineering, and access to a machine shop could build it. The US used one in WW-II and never even tested it first. The only hard part is getting enough U-235, and guess who keeps announcing that they are going to make a whole bunch of that - starting today (or was it yesterday?). It's that beacon of sanity, Iran. You know, the country whose president talks of his green halo that strikes dumb UN ambassadors when he speaks? Who denies the holocaust and has said that he will destroy Israel? The guy whose bosses have said that they can stand nuclear retaliation if the result is worthwhile - even if it takes out a whole bunch of Muslims? The country which has long been the most significant sponsor of terrorism in the world (can you say Hezbollah and their chemical armed missiles?)?.
Yeah, those guys are just one of the threats to make Al Qaeda (a loose term anyway) a whole lot more dangerous.
Or perhaps we should consider the Al Qaeda linked cell which was picked up in London. Those dudes were working on Ricin, a very nasty (if not that toxic by CW scales) poison. They probably learned how to do that from Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda guy who lived in Iraq under Saddam and who is now cooperating with the Baathists in killing Iraqis and Americans. He too was make Ricin weapons, and also tried to set off a large (of rather odd) chemical WMD attack in Jordan last year.
Or we can look at how easy it is to genetically alter bacteria and viruses to make them into really nasty bioweapons - contagious and deadly. The rate of improvement in genetic engineering (measured in cost per base pair synthesized or decoded) is faster than Moore's law (my daughter used to do this stuff for a living and may be doing it again shortly). If you want to get really nervous, and know a bit about bacteriology, google up "mousepox" and "interleukin," and then remember that Islamofascists, unlike other enemies we have had, really don't care if they turn loose something that takes out 90% of the world's population. Also easy
The only good weather is bad weather.