Slashdot Mirror


Blimps Monitor Crowds At Sporting Events

Death Metal tips news about how defense contractor Raytheon is adapting military-style surveillance packages for use aboard blimps at public events like the Indy 500. "Until recently, Raytheon's eye-in-the-sky technology was used in Afghanistan and Iraq to guard American military bases, working as airborne guards against any oncoming desert threat. Using infrared sensors and a map overlay not unlike Google Earth, the technology scans a large area, setting important landmarks (say, the perimeter of a military base), and constantly relays video clips back to a command center. If a gun fires or a bomb is detonated, the airships can detect the noise and focus the camera — all from a mighty-high 500 feet." Though the technology is expensive, Raytheon is shopping it around to police departments and other organizations that might want to keep an eye on large gatherings of people.

180 comments

  1. FP by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Funny

    Silly Raytheon.

    There aren't going to be any terrorist attacks.

    You just throw money at congressmen.

    But seriously, this is horseshit. The only bad guys they catch will be the ones up in the nosebleed section sitting alone with their girlfriends who are discretely giving them head or playing "bouncy-horse" on their laps.

    1. Re:FP by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      There most certainly will be attacks, as there are just too many asshats for there not to be.

      The first line of defense is the same as anything else: someone calls the authorities when they see one shaping up. Then an investigation can do a "sting" and take them down, as was recently the case in New York.

      The second line of defense is to stop attacks in progress if at all possible. That means armed responders and/or civillians nearby.

      Cameras may be slightly helpful, but most likely the response will still be too slow and uncoordinated to be effectual, especially in a crowd.

      The last line of defense is actually the most important: realize that we can occasionally be hit, and show some resilience. Do tell the story on the news, but don't go wall-to-wall with it for days or weeks. Have some nuts and keep living as normally as possible.

      Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare from an individual or enemy who is too weak to directly attack.

    2. Re:FP by Ezrymyrh · · Score: 0

      Damn you for providing that link! i had to watch it over and over to.... Oh i get it. Thank you

      --
      The love of good Whiskey,Woman,Weed is all i need.
    3. Re:FP by mikael · · Score: 1

      But there are pissed off Gypsies who don't like police helicopters flying over their camps:

      Gypsies smash 5 million pound police helicopter

      Now the police could just tether a blimp from the nearest car showroom and nobody would know.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  2. Big Brother Overlords. by Narpak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I for one welcome our eye in the sky Big Brother (hey some of us actually like our big brothers) Overlords.

    1. Re:Big Brother Overlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid moron

    2. Re:Big Brother Overlords. by Narpak · · Score: 1

      You are one of them authority questioning liberal manhating feminist anarchistic Stalinistic satanists aren't you.

    3. Re:Big Brother Overlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes
       
      Now. In all seriousness, get a life so that you have something to lose and then DIE IN A FIRE.

  3. Right to peaceably assemble by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In Transformers 2, we are faced with the possible annihilation of the human race at the hands of the Decepticons. The scary thing is that these robot/aliens take on forms that make them blend in with our everyday environment. We don't see the threat because the threat is masquerading as part of our normal world.

  4. Irritating line from TFA by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The airship is great because it doesn't have that Big Brother feel, or create feelings of invasiveness," says Lee Silvestre, vice president of mission innovation in Raytheon's Integrated Defense division.

    Oh, okay. As long as we don't feel like we're being watched, everything's all right then.

    Excuse me? Isn't the whole idea of a good spy not to make the targets feel like they're being watched? Is it okay for foreign agents to get copies of classified documents as long as we don't feel like they're doing it?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Irritating line from TFA by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Blimps and airships have featured in many works of dystopian fiction. Especially alternative time-line "soviets won" type works.
      So I think he could be wrong about that one.

    2. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is it okay for foreign agents to get copies of classified documents as long as we don't feel like they're doing it?"

      Isn't that what happens now with the Israeli government?

    3. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but blimps have also been used in utopian fiction, and in reality they have both previously been used for both good and bad purposes, just like airplanes, trains, cars, and video recording devices of all kinda.

      Most peoples perception of whether a blimp is good or bad relies almost entirely on it's markings and previous experiences with those markings, the Goodyear blimps(s) have been used and seen as passive, non-threatening for years, how would you tell if it's a "good" or "bad" Goodyear Blimp? A smaller one, that's painted white with happy colored trim, even at a lower altitude, would likely be seen much the same, it's not attacking an killing people, it's just pleasantly floating there like some airborn whale.

    4. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably correct.

      For example, I just got done taking a huge dumpster. But today's deuce was a bowl full of floaters. Now while the floaters exit the anus much easier, with the accompanying fanfare of the sound and smell of the trapped methane jetting out of my asshole during the whole experience, I found myself longing for the normal deuce -- a massive pile of brown reaching up from the depths of the bowl and, on special days, actually rising above the water like a volcanic island being born.

      Airshit is okay, but it is overrated IMHO.

    5. Re:Irritating line from TFA by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever suspects the Goodyear blimp

    6. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Most peoples perception of whether a blimp is good or bad relies almost entirely on it's markings and previous experiences with those markings, the Goodyear blimps(s) have been used and seen as passive, non-threatening for years, how would you tell if it's a "good" or "bad" Goodyear Blimp?

      I suddenly got this vision of an Evil Goodyear Blimp; black and red covered in spikes, with ominous smoke/fog trailing along behind it. Yup with that one you'd just know that it was up to no good.

    7. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Oh no it's the Badyear Glimps.

    8. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if they are Israelis

    9. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Glimp's sleeping.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Irritating line from TFA by westlake · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole idea of a good spy not to make the targets feel like they're being watched?

      Actually, it can be quite productive to rattle the chains now and then. People make mistakes when they are spooked.

      As long as we don't feel like we're being watched, everything's all right then.

      There are times and places when no one really objects much to being watched - but will object to an show of force.

      The blimp floating lazily overhead just isn't that intimidating.

    11. Re:Irritating line from TFA by migla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a good point, but I'd like to chime in that one thing about big brother is precisely to make us feel watched. If you make people feel watched all the time, they will internalize the surveillance and they will watch themselves and you won't even have to watch them. Panopticon.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    12. Re:Irritating line from TFA by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Ha! I was picturing a blimp with Ron Paul's name on the side... XD

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re:Irritating line from TFA by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Evil Goodyear Blimp

      You mean kinda like this?

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    14. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goodyear?

      No, the worst.

    15. Re:Irritating line from TFA by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      L: They won't see us!
      B: Uh-huh
      L: Uh-uuh
      B: Uh-huh
      L: Uh-uuh
      B: UH-HUH
      L: Not if we JAM it!
      B: AAH-HAH! You're right!
      L: Down scope!
      B: Down scope!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  5. Stupid and shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    This technology is useless without an active targeting and response system.

    Your enemies will think you are weak without an accompanying predator drone.

    1. Re:Stupid and shortsighted by icebike · · Score: 1

      And the drone would be cheaper.

      Just getting a blimp to the site would cost more and require way more advanced planning and advanced notice.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Stupid and shortsighted by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Just getting a blimp to the site would cost more and require way more advanced planning and advanced notice.

      Huh? Blimps are already often at these sites. If you decide to hold a convention in Paris, and someone comes up with a plan involving putting cameras on the Eiffel Tower, how much money do you allocate to getting the Eiffel Tower to Paris?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Stupid and shortsighted by jd2112 · · Score: 1
      Just getting a blimp to the site would cost more and require way more advanced planning and advanced notice.

      By chance, in many cases Goodyear or some other company is already sending a blimp to many of these kinds of events. I'm sure they wouldn't mind mounting some equipment on it for a small fee...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Stupid and shortsighted by icebike · · Score: 1

      There are less than 5 Goodyear camera blimps in the US.
      So your definition of "many" is rather flawed.

      No one is proposing to use existing blimps.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  6. I'm okay with surveillance by MLS100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    The problem is in the abuse of this, like the footage that came out of the police using their night surveillance equipment to spy on individuals having an evening with a lady in their penthouse.

    So as long as abuse is monitored and actively discouraged, what's wrong with being watched while you're in public?

    1. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [quote]As long as I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.[/quote]Simply because you "don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy" doesn't mean that this type of surveylence is reasonable.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Do you think someone is going to be doing something they don't want people to see while they're at a baseball game?

      What makes you think this will have a negative impact on anyone in the crowd?

      I guess maybe you might be worried about false positives (e.g. toy guns or whatever), but false positives tend to be resolved easily.

    3. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I guess maybe you might be worried about false positives (e.g. toy guns or whatever), but false positives tend to be resolved easily.

      If by easily you mean they are arrested and searched and spend 3 - 4 months or more fighting with a legal system that doesn't want to let go because that would mean admitting they made a dumb mistake?

    4. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think someone is going to be doing something they don't want people to see while they're at a baseball game?

      Marge: Children, tell me when your father stops scratching himself. (long pause) Kids?
      Bart: We will, mom.

    5. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      Since I live in a free society, I reasonably expect that I wont be subjected to wholesale surveillance simply because I am in public.

    6. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      The issue goes far beyond the matter of reasonable expectation of privacy. Raytheon's newest totalitarian toy serves to gather information, information that can be stored, analysed and cross-referenced with other sources. That means that when someone employs Raytheon's new toy, along with other similar systems, that someone is now able to register everything you do in public. That means where you go, who you go with, how much time you spent in a place, who you talked to... That someone is putting himself in a position where he knows everything there is to know about you. To put it in other words, that person is placing himself in a position of power over you. And why exactly should someone have that power over yourself?

      Let's just put it this way. If those blimps were deployed in the 70s throughout the former soviet union then nowadays we would be talking about those blimps as an example of evil totalitarian practices that were simply unacceptable in the free world.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    7. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by migla · · Score: 1

      Maybe there'll be a great upheaval of some sort and some crazy privacy zealots will gain control over the country and all the data and then they will line you anti-privacy people against the wall and shoot you? That's why you need privacy, to protect you from the crazy privacy zealots.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    8. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're out in public someplace, and you notice someone staring at you. Creepy! You move a little bit and he follows you with his eyes. Scary! You walk away, hoping he doesn't follow you... then you realize he is in a blimp 500ft in the sky and there is nowhere to hide. And he is also taking video, calling up your DMV records, and logging your location for the FBI. Time to buy a shoulder-fired rocket!

    9. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Shark · · Score: 1

      Free World
      1776-1963
      RIP

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    10. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with surveillance is, it WILL be abused. Just think of the political uses. You happen to be mayor, governor, or senator, incumbent in a pretty close race. Oh, wait, sweet. We can just put a surveillance team on the challenger, and wait for SOMETHING to happen. If the candidate doesn't do something illegal, immoral, or unethical, one of his aides or advisors will. Sweet. Just think of the possibilities!!

      I could give you hundreds of other potential abuses without trying very hard. Just use your imagination - if you can't come up with a lot of scary scenarios for yourself, you are challenged in some way.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      > So as long as abuse is monitored and actively discouraged...
      I'm sure any abuse will be monitored and discouraged to the same extent it currently is :-)

      Oh and by the way, your back-yard is now considered a public space. Don't be alarmed though, we won't tell anyone what you get up to there.

    12. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      So, for example, if you take the day off work to go to a baseball game and your boss knows someone with access to the face-recognition generated "list of attendees", that's ok?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      devil's advocate: google?

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    14. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and I both know that's just a sitcom premise and not a real thing.

    15. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So as long as abuse is monitored and actively discouraged, what's wrong with being watched while you're in public?

      Who's watching the watchers?

      Falcon

    16. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Wear a hat? the camera is at a high elevation, so it can't see your face easily.

    17. Re:I'm okay with surveillance by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      As TFA stated, the technology is absurdly expensive.

      None of our lives are remotely interesting enough for the police to bother dedicating that many resources toward spying on our daily activities.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  7. This is great! by joocemann · · Score: 3, Funny

    Considering the fact that we've had so many problems with stadium slaughterings and bombings.

    oh wait... i ate too much scramby eggs w/ sarcasm on the side.

    Lol @ excessive response to lesser problems.

    1. Re:This is great! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lol @ excessive response to lesser problems.

      Something must be done to combat terrorism.
      This is something.
      Therefore, we must do this.

    2. Re:This is great! by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Oh noeess!! There's a terrorist in the stadium!!

      meanwhile, the 2,039 cheeseburgers they sold during the show will probably lead to more loss of life...

      haha. Fear for terrorists just feeds the fire (aka 'terrorized'), and statistically I'm a bit more worried about day to day life killing me than a terrorist. Hell, we're not done worrying about pinko commies! They're gonna eat our babies!

    3. Re:This is great! by Shark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should be worried about pinko commies... Nationalizing banking, insurance, healthcare, education, car manufacturing, transportation, your corner store. ;) Just face it dude, they won... Oh wait, I have to go get these damn kids off my lawn.

      More seriously though, even the russians are shaking their heads at what's going on. Germans who are old enough to remember too.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    4. Re:This is great! by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I think you've got your terms mixed up. When you understand the difference between socialism and communism, you can make more effective arguments. But since you can't at present, you've made a very poor and basically wrong example.

    5. Re:This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be worried about pinko commies... Nationalizing banking, insurance, healthcare, education, car manufacturing, transportation, your corner store.

      I can't believe people still buy into this BS.
      Yeah, giving Public money to a Corporation so it DOESN'T GO BANKRUPT is called "Nationalizing".
      Ok, so instead, let's let all of these businesses go under, putting tens of thousands of average Americans out of works at a time when there is little work to be found, while the instigators of this mess walk away with Millions upon Millions of dollars as a reward. That is real useful.
      how about instead of wandering around with your End-of-the-World sign hanging from your shoulders, you come up with a solution that doesn't turn our economy into a third-world nation overnight?
      If you're so upset about this trend of "Nationalization", you must also be upset at your great Savior, Dubya. After all, many of these ideas being enacted were thought up during, and by, his Administration.

    6. Re:This is great! by Shark · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about centralization of powers by the state. Be it under the guise of ever increasing socialism or all out communism.

      The gradual centralization we see here will lead to something more akin to fascism, not communism.

      Then again, maybe the joke hit a bit too close to home, I thought the obvious exaggeration would have been a good enough clue that I wasn't so much making an argument as being humorous.

      As a clarification of the 'more seriously' bit of my post though, I wasn't referring to communism, just the state taking over everything it can get its hands on, call it whatever you want it won't make much of a difference what name you give it in the end.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    7. Re:This is great! by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Then, how, exactly, does your joke that isn't referring to communism, suffice to serve as a response to irrational fear of pinko commies?

      1) Joke fail
      2) On-topic fail

      I still don't get your joke; but if your joke was to make you look funny by equating socialization to pinko communism (an irrationally feared political construct), then I guess I'm laughing.

  8. Oops by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I read the title, I thought this was about donut-eating cops.

    Never mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. I lolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I read this and facepalmed, then I looked at the byline:

    BadAnalogyGuy

    Ah, that explains everything.

    these robot/aliens take on forms that make them blend in with our everyday environment.

    Like a car, for example. Do you think you could work a car into your analogy somehow? This is Slashdot, after all.

    1. Re:I lolled by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll
      I don't think it's a bad analogy. Just make a few substitutions:

      In modern America, we are faced with the possible oppression of the human race at the hands of the military industrial complex. The scary thing is that these agents take on forms that make them blend in with our everyday environment. We don't see the threat because the threat is masquerading as part of our normal world.

      Fixed that for him.

    2. Re:I lolled by icebike · · Score: 1

      I read this and facepalmed,

      So we know this AC doesn't wear glasses.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:I lolled by rob1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or he does, and had to wipe fingerprints off afterwards.

  10. People being monitored!? by Karganeth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Using traditional slashdot logic, I have arrived at the conclusion that this must be bad... somehow.

  11. So much for those rooftop romances by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

    Then again, haven't they always had those "weather satellites"?

    --
    "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
  12. Stadium mayhem by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1. Re:Stadium mayhem by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously though, in the entire history of modern stadiums, is there really enough of a threat to warrant constant surveillance of that kind? How many millions of people go to stadiums each year for games and races, and how many are killed, blown up, stabbed, or raped, 0.01%?... if that? And are these blimps really going to prevent that from happening again? I doubt it.

      The eye-witnesses combined with the usual surveillance (guards, cameras, at the gates, ticket centers, etc) is likely quite sufficient in tracking anyone who blows something up or kills someone, and probably even better at tracking down people who may have planted something there days or weeks beforehand when the blimp wasn't even there.

      Besides, your example is excluded almost entirely from this scenario, that wasn't a normal event, it was a large gathering of people essentially forced to that location which just happened to be a stadium, in a rather intense point of time, the same sort of stuff would have happened no matter where they were, and the military and whatever else was already involved and would have brought their own surveillance equipement, not called in the survaces of some private blimp.

    2. Re:Stadium mayhem by icebike · · Score: 1

      You DO KNOW that the Superdome rumors were ALL proven false don't you?

      And you DO KNOW it has a DOME, rendering blimps ineffective, don't you?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Stadium mayhem by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      Riots. Tend to happen every big soccer game.

    4. Re:Stadium mayhem by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Yes, however they have increased security, and increased security, and they still happen.

      So, basically the result is, they add some of these blimps to soccer games, riots still happen, their choice of action now is to add more blimps, riots still happen, so they add more... as well as adding more regular security, eventually people stop going because it's no longer entertaining or pleasurable, or people bring bigger weapons/motivation and turn attacking blimps and guards into the riot, people end up going just to attack the security, or the "games" go underground, where they become even more dangerous.

      They'd probably be better off having a sort of mosh pit, regular seating for the passive observers, some caged no-mans-land for the people who take it far too seriously, but then who decides who goes where? Or you could drug everyone as they enter, or make them wear electric collars... fun stuff...

    5. Re:Stadium mayhem by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I don't understand whats wrong with *knowing* that there might be a riot at the game and then making the personal choice whether to go or not.

      We make choices like this all the time... the foods we choose... the media we feed ourselves and progeny. etc etc etc. Hell, watching Bill O'Reilly comes with the risk of learning (through example) to be hateful and indignant, if not outright intolerant. Do we need a blimp to keep him safe? No. It's your choice to interact or not. Same w/ the stadium in the case of the 'riots' previously mentioned...

      Now as for the shootings and bombings... I'm still waiting for that to be worth my worry.

  13. Interesting? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Wonder how many of these were flying over the skies of Pittsburgh and Detroit last night?

  14. not a privacy issue by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that this is in yro makes it sound like someone thought it would be a privacy issue, but I don't see why. The idea is to use it on crowds of people at sports events, etc., where they don't have any expectation of privacy. Viewing from 500 feet and at a high angle, with a field of view wide enough to take in the whole crowd, they're not going to be able to identify individuals. They propose zooming in to a particular region if there are gunshots or something, and maybe then, if the angle is appropriate, they could get some kind of view of an individual's face, although it seems unlikely. What makes surveillance like this scary is if it (a) goes into places where you do have an expectation of privacy (like the Obama administration's plans to read email that crosses international borders), (b) is ubiquitous (as it is in the UK), (c) raises the prospect of aggregating data in creepy ways (like being denied health insurance because you buy too much vodka with your preferred customer card at Albertson's), or (d) forces us to take the government's word that it isn't going to be used more than they said (like the Bush administration's wiretaps). The blimp concept doesn't seem to lend itself to any of these.

    1. Re:not a privacy issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in California, don't you? :') (That is the emoticon for "tears of joy", by the way.)

    2. Re:not a privacy issue by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea is to use it on crowds of people at sports events, etc

      The problem isn't the sporting event, it's the "etc."

      These things are expensive. They're not going to sit there just for Superbowl Sunday or whatever. They'll be used for as much surveillance as they can get away with. Whether it's a good idea or not. Think 'mission creep'.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:not a privacy issue by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, what do they do with it the other 300 plus days that this is not used for an outside sporting event ? .. Of course they use it.. perhaps under the pretext of "training",. but it would be used, and abused you can count on it.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    4. Re:not a privacy issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until corps start buying the footage with facial recognition and compare it to those that have called in for the day.

    5. Re:not a privacy issue by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      The idea is to use it on crowds of people at sports events, etc


      The problem isn't the sporting event, it's the "etc."

      These things are expensive. They're not going to sit there just for Superbowl Sunday or whatever. They'll be used for as much surveillance as they can get away with. Whether it's a good idea or not. Think 'mission creep'.</p></quote>

      Exactly. It reminds me how all that "anti-terrorist" legislation that was passed in the US was suddenly used to monitor and hunt down all those anti-war and WTO protesters. Somehow these tools find themselves not being used against their announced targets, the evil doers and axis of evil characters, and are instead used to pacify those pesky citizens in the home front.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    6. Re:not a privacy issue by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      >>The idea is to use it on crowds of people at sports events, etc

      >These things are expensive. They're not going to sit there just for Superbowl Sunday or whatever. They'll be used for as much surveillance as they can get away with. Whether it's a good idea or not. Think 'mission creep'.

      The slippery slope is always something to worry about. But I'd like to hear a realistic description of how that would work here. Its overhead point of view, hundreds of feet up, is going to give it mostly blurry shots of the tops of people's heads, with the line of sight often blocked by buildings. Suppose I wanted to use this thing for Maximum Evil. What exactly would I do?

      To me, it seems inherently less worrisome than the pervasive surveillance cameras on the streets in many places in the UK. For one thing, it's going to be pretty obvious that there's a blimp in the sky, whereas it's pretty easy to miss the fact that there's a surveillance camera mounted high up on a building. There's the whole creepy thing in the UK with the voice from the video camera scolding you for spitting on the sidewalk; that can't be done with the blimp, either.

    7. Re:not a privacy issue by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      The idea is to use it on crowds of people at sports events, etc

      The problem isn't the sporting event, it's the "etc." These things are expensive. They're not going to sit there just for Superbowl Sunday or whatever. They'll be used for as much surveillance as they can get away with. Whether it's a good idea or not. Think 'mission creep'.

      Viewing from 500 feet and at a high angle, with a field of view wide enough to take in the whole crowd, they're not going to be able to identify individuals.

      Yet. Optics is an advancing field. Combine "yet" with "mission creep"... get the picture?

  15. Black Sunday? by bdsesq · · Score: 1

    There was a book with a movie followup about putting a bomb in a blimp over the super bowl.

    Looks like it just got easier to do that.
    Who watches the watchers?

    1. Re:Black Sunday? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      we do?

    2. Re:Black Sunday? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      a bomb in a blimp over the super bowl.

      Sounds like some sort of scatological fetish book to me.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  16. Good old Raytheon by gringofrijolero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if they offer cool tech for us regular citizens to watch over the authorities. Kinda doubt it.

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    1. Re:Good old Raytheon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to, it already exists. It's called a ballot. Know it, use it, love it.

      I just DESTROYED YOU!!! YOU GOT PNWED BITCH!

    2. Re:Good old Raytheon by gringofrijolero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      :-) You're absolutely right. Everything they have, we handed to them on a silver platter.

      Peace out, dogg

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    3. Re:Good old Raytheon by JudgeSlash · · Score: 1

      Are there American laws regarding sousveillance? What would be the ramifications to a citizen who flew a ROV Blimp with camera gear and either filmed the other blimp or filmed the crowd in the stadium in the same fashion?

    4. Re:Good old Raytheon by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are several open UAV platforms out there now, including planes, helicopters, and quadrocopters. Any sizable and stable remote controlled aircraft is a candidate, but the quadrocopters are probably your best bet for video surveillance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Good old Raytheon by gringofrijolero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Laws only apply to the bottom 90% of the population. That's the way we like it, as noted in the AC's reply. Air traffic rules would probably preclude any "non-official" flights over major events at low altitude. Ramifications would include lost of their toy and probably a fine.

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    6. Re:Good old Raytheon by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      How dare you ask such a thing citizen, please come with us.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Good old Raytheon by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well applying laws to everyone would make everyone equal, and as we all know equality is the same as communism. And communism is against freedom, which is unAmerican. Therefore, in the spirit of freedom, only those people who deserve it are allowed to be free.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Good old Raytheon by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I live in Iran, you insensitive cl@:ppp# no carrier

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Good old Raytheon by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      They don't need to, it already exists. It's called a ballot. Know it, use it, love it.

      I won't point out the obvious, i.e., the votes can be seen to be rigged.

      Rather, I'll just agree with John Thorne when he says "If voting ever really changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  17. Raytheon is a For-Profit Corp. No Surprise Here! by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 1

    Raytheon is a for-profit corporation in a country where everything is for sale including the country. They are just trying to make a profit off of the pop-fear of domestic terrorism.

    Try to change the culture of "profit first" above anything else and educate the masses if you want to never see programs like this again.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
  18. What happens when you shoot the blimp? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this make the blimp an obvious target for anybody who really wants to do mischief?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:What happens when you shoot the blimp? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Exactly - so their buddy sits outside the stadium and shoots it with a WW2 rifle first... Goodbye blimp!

    2. Re:What happens when you shoot the blimp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons. An SA-7 or two would make short work of it. (That's provided the blimp doesn't spot the gunners first.)

      / ironic captcha: "freest"

    3. Re:What happens when you shoot the blimp? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Exactly - so their buddy sits outside the stadium and shoots it with a WW2 rifle first... Goodbye blimp!

      People do this all the time, actually. It's a kinda scummy commentary on humanity how often they find bullet holes in blimps. It should be noted they usually find them long after the blimp has landed. A bullet hole isn't very big compared to a blimp. Not enough helium leaks out during a several hour flight for this to even be noticeable. You have to pump a lot of machine gun rounds into one before it really starts to loose buoyancy is a noticeable way. And it'll be a very, very easily survivable crash. More a slow sinking to the ground...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  19. "Great Squad Leader in the Sky" syndrome by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Probably a bad idea. This is known in the military as the "Great Squad Leader in the Sky" syndrome (a phrase coined by David Hackworth, one of the greats of small-unit combat), and has been since Vietnam. Leadership from a helicopter overlooking a combat zone sounded like a great idea; at last, the commander could see everything. In practice, it works very badly.

    Piping vast amounts of imagery back to a command center is popular with commanders and politicians, but not with grunts. It's useful for finding enemy activity, but not much help once the enemy has been engaged.

    It turns out that the technology the people on the ground really like is small robots. Sending in a robot first in urban warfare is very popular with the troops. Nobody likes going into a possible ambush or booby trap several times a day. Eventually the odds catch up with you.

    1. Re:"Great Squad Leader in the Sky" syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do preferred urban warfare tactics at all affect whether surveillance at sporting events is a good thing?

    2. Re:"Great Squad Leader in the Sky" syndrome by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      I think you're thinking about it from a wartime point of view. Ideally, if you go to, say, a NASCAR race, you're hoping somebody won't start opening with gunfire or blowing stuff up. You're looking for any activity in a sea of non-activity, and it sounds like this is well-adapted to the purpose.

      I don't imagine they'll use it for something as simple as a car race, but I could see some potential application for very high-profile events like the Super Bowl or New Year's Eve in New York City.

    3. Re:"Great Squad Leader in the Sky" syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main difference is that the people on the ground can get killed while those in the command center most likely not. The armchair experts want to "be part of if" so they can justify themselves.

      So you'll have the grunts wanting comms/guns/ammo/tactics/robots that actually work, where the command center folk will want to have remote control of the grunts legs and trigger fingers as well as live graphics, sounds and hot coffee and big screens.

  20. Even if there are attacks by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there are terrorist attacks in a stadium, I think video footage BEFORE the gun or bomb noise would typically be of greater interest than the footage after.

    It'll take about 0.5 seconds for sound to travel the 500 feet up to the airships.

    Thus all that fancy expensive tech might end up giving you just lower res pics before the camera zoomed and focused in and got videos of everybody except the culprits.

    How expensive is that system going to be?

    If it's in the millions and I was seriously going to be monitoring stuff, I'd rather spend the money on more hires cameras that are always running, than some fancy "pointing" system with fewer cameras.

    --
    1. Re:Even if there are attacks by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much of what is sold as Protection these days is all about catching people AFTER the fact.

      How many total FAILS do we need to see that buses still get bombed and innocent Brazilians still get shot in the head no matter how many security cams you hang up?

      The truth is that the real terrorists don't care if they are caught, and this type of situation will not prevent sneaking weapons or explosives into a stadium, or prevent someone half a mile away from dropping a 8 or 10 mortar rounds into an event before the police could roll a single squad car.

      Further, a blimp in the air will set the event security staff at ease making it easier for nefarious individuals to accomplish their goals.

      This is utterly pointless technology.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Even if there are attacks by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...I think video footage BEFORE the gun or bomb noise would typically be of greater interest than the footage after.

      It'll take about 0.5 seconds for sound to travel the 500 feet up to the airships.

      Thus all that fancy expensive tech might end up giving you just lower res pics before the camera zoomed and focused in and got videos of everybody except the culprits.

      but the after-footage will be useful for broadcasting over and over again, putting the general public into a state of panic, so politicians and corporations can exploit their fears and get away with even more wasteful spending.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    3. Re:Even if there are attacks by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much of what is sold as Protection these days is all about catching people AFTER the fact.

      That's because doing things that would catch them BEFORE the fact are kinda frowned upon. You know, things like checking luggage and searching people before they board flights, searching the belongings of people coming into the country, listening to conversations overseas and so on. Hell, people are pissed that they have to show friggin ID before boarding a plane!

      So make up your mind. Do you want to catch these guys BEFORE an attack or AFTER?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Even if there are attacks by selven · · Score: 0, Troll

      We want to catch them before they even become terrorists, by doing things like not sending troops to shoot up their homeland.

    5. Re:Even if there are attacks by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      Because that's how the FIRST round of terrorists got started. We shot up their homelands...

      When exactly did we do that to Bin Laden?

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    6. Re:Even if there are attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Say what? Most of the fuckers who did the London bombing were born in the UK. Now if their loyalties lay somewhere else, there's another solution they could have taken. They could have fucked off and gone there, the bud-bud head-shakeing packy cunts.

    7. Re:Even if there are attacks by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      No, people frown upon gestapo style security theater bullshit like the liquids ban and telling people that it is illegal for them to know what is and is not illegal.

      Real security isn't nearly so annoying despite being far more thorough. It's also easily twice as fast as the security theater we have now.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re:Even if there are attacks by selven · · Score: 1

      How the first round started has no relevance to the problems we are facing right now. It's like saying quarantining people is a bad idea because the first round of swine flu came from pigs, not people.

    9. Re:Even if there are attacks by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      It has no relevance only because you want it to have none. In truth, it demonstrates that we can't simply "not shoot up their country" to avoid terrorism. The fact is, there aren't a lot of Iraqi and Afghani terrorists outside those countries. It's countries we AREN'T shooting up that are producing terrorists.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    10. Re:Even if there are attacks by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      it may be able to pinpoint a location and look at what is there, even 2-3 seconds after the gunmen may still be visible with a rifle or what not.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    11. Re:Even if there are attacks by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell, people are pissed that they have to show friggin ID before boarding a plane!

      As they should be, checking ID to board a plane does nothing for safety, everyone of the 911 hijackers had ID. And these new "Real ID" cards will only give people a false sense of safety, they'll only be good until someone cracks them, which is only a matter of tyme.

      Do you want to catch these guys BEFORE an attack or AFTER?

      "Anyone who will give up a little liberty for safety will never get nor deserve either."
      From Benjamin Franklin, who lived in a tyme when the enemy could enter a person's home and drag them away.

      Falcon

    12. Re:Even if there are attacks by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      When exactly did we do that to Bin Laden?

      The US desecrated his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, when US troops were stationed there after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Thinking Saddam may invade Saudi Arabia, bin Laden offered the Saudi crown protection from Saddam. Instead the Saudis asked the US.

      I don't agree with it but that was bin Laden's reasoning.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Even if there are attacks by icebike · · Score: 1

      That's because doing things that would catch them BEFORE the fact are kinda frowned upon.

      Clearly you haven't attended a ball game any time recently.

      People are screened at the gate. Bags are checked.

      But the whole point of your post is that we EITHER have to let people get killed and catch the culprits after the fact OR we have to set up a Gestapo state. You seem to allow no middle ground.

      Silly as the method proposed by TFA is, it is at least an attempt at a third approach.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:Even if there are attacks by icebike · · Score: 1

      Why assume gunmen?

      Do you know how long it takes to drop 15 mortar rounds in tube?

      Do you have any idea how hard a mortar team in an alley would be to spot from 500 feet?

      And since that alley might be half a mile from the stadium, do you know how long getting cops over there would take?

      Like I said, this is a pointless technology.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:Even if there are attacks by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      He said essential liberty for a little temporary safety, don't mix it up.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    16. Re:Even if there are attacks by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Mortars are war weapons, those aren't very common for illegal activity. It's like arguing what the police could do to stop a tank.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Even if there are attacks by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      Why assume gunmen?

      Do you know how long it takes to drop 15 mortar rounds in tube?

      Do you have any idea how hard a mortar team in an alley would be to spot from 500 feet?

      And since that alley might be half a mile from the stadium, do you know how long getting cops over there would take?

      Like I said, this is a pointless technology.

      On the assumption of gunmen, we agree. There are other, probably more effective means to accomplish the terrorists goal. As for the mortars...
      One tube and crew? If not, how many? Answer... yes, I do.
      Spotting the source of mortar fire? The technology to do that, while the first round is still on it's way up, has been around for quite some time. So let's see, about 5 seconds sounds about right.
      Why do you assume that "sending the cops" is the only possible response?

    18. Re:Even if there are attacks by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      A mortar is a ridiculously easy weapon to make. Just ask the precursor to the Mossad.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    19. Re:Even if there are attacks by icebike · · Score: 1

      The technology to do that, while the first round is still on it's way up, has been around for quite some time. So let's see, about 5 seconds sounds about right.

      Why do you assume that "sending the cops" is the only possible response?

      Because US Cities only have cops.

      Anyone who seriously even hints that counter fire will ever be allowed in US Cities is delusional.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:Even if there are attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the after-footage will be useful for broadcasting over and over again, putting the general public into a state of panic, so politicians and corporations can exploit their fears and get away with even more wasteful spending.

      Oh, if only it was just wasteful spending we had to deal with.
      instead, we now get saddled with the same kind of draconian laws that we, as citizens of the "Land of the Free", denounce in other countries.
      If all they did after 9/11 was tax us more, then I think fewer people would be upset. However, those of us that actually paid attention in Social Studies can see disturbing trends in the ever-tightening regulations being enacted by our Government.

    21. Re:Even if there are attacks by M-RES · · Score: 1

      Why has someone modded this ignorant racist bigot of a troll 'Insightful'? Shame on that modder for supporting this intolerance.

    22. Re:Even if there are attacks by M-RES · · Score: 1

      We "did this" to Bin Laden back in the days before he projected his campaign beyond the borders of his home country (Saudi Arabia). His original ultimatum was basically "get the hell out of my country, and take your stinking weapons, military bases and thousands of troops with you. Oh, and keep your nose out of our business in future." His ultimatum was also aimed at the brutal Saudi Dictatorship which is propped up by the west through arms sales and tacit political support offering it 'respectability'.

      Any other points of history you need help with?

  21. [thread usurped for breaking news] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The summary forgot to mention a shocking revalation from the article, where Lee Silvestre, vice president of mission innovation talked about their choice of operating system:

    Linux just isn't ready for the blimp yet. It may be ready for the web servers nerds use to distribute TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average blimp operator isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface with map overlay and infrared sensors to check their terrorist threats with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing our blimp software.

    Now we know who's been trolling Slashdot!

    1. Re:[thread usurped for breaking news] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      A troll, I think. At least, I don't see that text in the cited article.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:[thread usurped for breaking news] by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's because you're an Apple fanboi and the RDF caused you to read it wrongly. That or he was joking, you choose.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:[thread usurped for breaking news] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      That's because you're an Apple fanboi and the RDF caused you to read it wrongly. That or he was joking, you choose.

      Nobody ever jokes on slashdot, so it must be that fanboi thing.

      I do notice that the moderation got changed from informative to "funny".

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  22. Should have been kept quiet? by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

    Call me silly, but I think something like this would have been far more effective if they had just shut up about it. I mean, I am not all for big brother, but if they are gonna do it, it's going to be far more effective if no one knows about it.

    1. Re:Should have been kept quiet? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Call me silly, but I think something like this would have been far more effective if they had just shut up about it.

      Call me paranoid, but there have been blimps flown over sporting events for a long time, now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Should have been kept quiet? by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

      Yes, the blimps have been there for a long time, but little suspicion has been drawn about them until now. They were just camera platforms for the game. Now they are full surveillance packages. Had they just inserted them quietly, I think it would have been more effective. Oh, but here I am assuming you know anything about intelligence gathering and tactics. Silly me. Though, the tricky part them becomes determining which ones have the package, and which ones do not. Anyways, I think you should understand the point of the reply before being stupid. :P

    3. Re:Should have been kept quiet? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Pot calling the kettle black here?

      Perhaps it would be more effective if no one knows about it. Meanwhile, back in the real world where that's not even remotely realistically possible, particularly when the blimps in question are civilian vehicles being operated by civilians for commercial purposes, almost invariably involved in *drawing attention to* the airship...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Should have been kept quiet? by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

      You know, this is true. I had not considered the status of the pilots. But, it was not the attention to the airship that I was referring to, but what was contained within.

      My whole point is that "intelligence" programs are generally more effective when no one knows about them.

  23. Look! Over there! by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If a gun fires or a bomb is detonated, the airships can detect the noise and focus the camera."

    Note to self: if ever wanting to defeat the system, remotely or have a friend, set off a string of fire crackers somewhere else while I carry on unwatched.

    "Though the technology is expensive, Raytheon is..." hoping customers won't be put off by a system that falls for the equivalent of "Look! Elvis!"?

    1. Re:Look! Over there! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      These days it is possible to use audio fingerprinting and multiple semi-directional microphones to detect the heading and distance to a shooter, and even the type of weapon and ammunition (within certain parameters.) I don't know for sure that Raytheon will put anything like that into this package, but they are experts in remote sensing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Look! Over there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NJ has had a gun shot detection system in place for a little while. Recently it picked up on a shooting where a little kid was shot and before 911 could be called police were on the way. Sometimes violence just happens it isn't planned out.

      http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/new_jersey_police_herald_gunsh.html

  24. I propose we by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 1

    Combine this technology with the techniques used in the DIY Arduino Blimp Drone project discussed here before, add some offensive capabilities, and create our own surveillance droids to you know, keep the neighbor's kids off our lawn.

  25. Bang! Pop. Crash. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Agreed. Also, anyone seriously criminal would just shoot at the blimp, possibly from miles outside the stadium.

    1. Re:Bang! Pop. Crash. by Plunky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. Also, anyone seriously criminal would just shoot at the blimp, possibly from miles outside the stadium.

      Actually, bits of flaming blimp raining down on a crowd would be pretty terrifying in itself. Remind me to take a tinfoil umbrella.

    2. Re:Bang! Pop. Crash. by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People shoot at the Goodyear blimp all the time. They usually don't find out about it until later, after the blimp lands. A bullet hole doesn't make a large enough hole for the helium to leak out quickly enough to be noticeable in the span of a flight that's only four or six hours or so.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Bang! Pop. Crash. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a helium-filled blimp here, not a hydrogen-carrying zeppelin. Having someone toss a tarp over you isn't all that terrifying. More annoying, really. And why would be it flaming?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Bang! Pop. Crash. by selven · · Score: 1

      If you poke a hole in anything but a hot-air balloon (which runs out of fuel eventually anyway, poking it will just make it run out faster), it will eventually leak out and fall to the ground.

    5. Re:Bang! Pop. Crash. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      This should be modded +5 insightful.

      Why are so many /.ers so paranoid?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  26. Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK by fantomas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK.

    Not unless you're one of those folks who think UK=England, and England=London. Of which there are quite a few.

    (Actually I've never quite understood why people mix up the UK and England as being synonymous, any ideas?)

    Mind you I accept there is too much surveillance over here.

    1. Re:Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      It's not so much mixing up and emphasis on what's important and what's not. And it's not just ignorance of the country or being from a far off land. I'm from Minnesota, and I have a strong tendency to think in terms of Minnesota="The Twin Cities". After all, Minnesota consists of the Twin Cities and... well... nothing much worth noting. XD

      KIDDING! Kinda...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK by hachete · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have too much surveillance. And it hasn't reduced crime by an amount commensurate with the cost, IMO.

      The English used to refer to England standing in for the whole of the UK. A synecdoche if you will. So, the monarch of this torpid islands used to sign themselves King or Queen of England, and that would apply to the whole. The multiple volume Oxford History of England was, you guessed it, a history of the UK. It has changed, particularly since devolution. We are British now, apparently, although this tends to apply those outside of London.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    3. Re:Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      No, never was that true. James the first was King of England & Scotland. I don't see how a private publication has any bearing on what the official definition of the nation might be either. Britain refers to the group of islands, not the nation. The nation is the United Kingdom. How is that England on its own ?

      I can't remember the last time I saw a camera, except in high traffic areas where they are used for traffic monitoring or in city centres where it makes more sense than trying to patrol every street and back alley to prevent crime. The whole big brother thing has been vastly over-inflated. If the cameras were ubiquitous, then the police would know who's been vandalising my car, or the sculpture a bit further down the road. They don't know.

    4. Re:Surveillance isn't ubiquitous in the UK by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      And yet, people are somehow okay with ubiquitous surveillance present in every supermarket and convenience store on the planet.

      I also don't understand how anybody in the "heavily survailed" areas of London has any expectation of privacy to begin with. London is a very large and crowded city. All major public areas are likely to have several police on patrol as it is.

      (Parent poster is also correct that there is considerable geographic diversity within the UK. Cultural variations between adjacent cities can be larger than the cultural divide between entire US states on opposite ends of the country)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  27. Not quite right by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only bad guys they catch will be the ones up in the nosebleed section sitting alone with their girlfriends...

    I believe the scenario is Alfred Hitchcock's:

    The crowd at a tennis match is following the action.

    Back and forth, back and forth, their heads and bodies constantly on the move, bobbing, twisting, in unison with the play.

    All but one....

    The killer is in the crowd, but he is not truly part of the crowd, and that is a subtle and important distinction.

    It can be a useful - practical - distinction.

    Something you can see, something you can act on.

     

    1. Re:Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, we shot him - but it turns out he wasn't a killer. He was just staring at some girl across the way. A bit rude maybe, but he really admired her form apparently. Oh well, maybe we'll get the killer some other way later.

    2. Re:Not quite right by c_forq · · Score: 1

      So next time my girlfriend drags me to a tennis match I'm not interested I'm going to get detained, searched, and questioned? (Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm on slashdot, so don't have a girlfriend, and wouldn't leave the basement, etc., etc.)

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    3. Re:Not quite right by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      Yes. Failing to act like everyone else is justification for detention. Or maybe it's just grounds to pay a little closer attention to you, put a plainclothes officer near you for observation.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    4. Re:Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you like to goto tennis matches we should just shoot you now and put you out of your misery.

  28. unconstitutional, also I hate J.K. Rowling by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

    Where in the constitution does it say they're allowed to spy on you with a Zeppelin while you're watching a football game.

    NOWHERE, that's where!

    Next they'll be putting cameras in your bathroom, just in case.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  29. the technology is expensive by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So ? They will just raise taxes to pay for it. Remember folks, its 'for the children'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  30. What do you guys do in real life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey nimrods, blimps use helium which is NOT combustible. But they do hide the black helicopters flying above them. Don't worry, that's just the Obamas going to NYC, or Paris or Las Vegas.
    Get a life!!

  31. Locked On Blimp: +1, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    waiting for interception command.

    Yours In Avionics,
    Kilgore Trout

  32. Bravo the Military Industrial Complex! by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Using high-tech blimps to spy on sporting crowds is a fantastic idea to fill the gap until our intelligence services work out some way to get their own people into the crowds of these events, but to do that they would need to crack the intelligence crown jewels and figure out how and when these events will be held. It's great the things that government and the military industrial concept can achieve that a lesser mind might be tempted to do on the cheap.

    And to the NSA guy sneering at this post, why aren't you doing something about bin Laden instead? He's on the Afgani-Pakistan border. Everyone knows it. The Daily Show event did a live cross from there. Or don't you guys get cable?

    1. Re:Bravo the Military Industrial Complex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we're not looking because he's been dead for a few years already.

  33. Luckily... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... it's illegal in the US to fly an airship less than 1000 feet above a gathering of people, or less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 lateral feet of the airship.

  34. There is no privacy at a preannounced public event by voss · · Score: 1

    Like a football game or political rally, you can be expected to be monitored by police, event security and the media.

    blimps have been at football games with cameras for 49 years. The idea of using blimps for anti-terrorism purposes is not scary nor is it that big of a news story.

     

  35. That's bad in itself. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Funny

    "People shoot at the Goodyear blimp all the time."

    It would be scary to ride in the blimp.

    1. Re:That's bad in itself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused about why someone tagged this story as "!yro". Is it not a story about your/our rights, online? It's not, of course, a story of our/your online rights, but that's okay, since it's "yro" not "yor"....

  36. We do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do!

    Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
    Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    We do! We do!

    Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
    We do! We do!

    Who robs cavefish of their sight?
    Who rigs every Oscar night?
    We do! We do!

    1. Re:We do! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      not *them*, us! :D

    2. Re:We do! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      ps. I hear there's more futurama in the pipeline, yay \o/

  37. hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feebs completely setup and entrapped some very low IQ morons, the same sort of guys could have just as easily been talked into sticking up a hotdog cart. Really, that's the best you got for catching dangerous terrorists lately? They had a guy on the inside who talked them into everything, they are just as much the "terrorists" as the dudes they arrested.

    Try again. terrorism is the great boogieman being used to institute some brave new world order bullshit..that's it, that's all it is. They created so called "al queda", go look it up, they don't even hide this fact anymore. this ios the same al queda they gave training to and supported when they were fighting the russians, then when they were destroying the serbs, they are US assets. It's a joke, and they have you completely brainwashed about it obviously.

        The coalition of maximum profits boys are getting nailed because they are over invading foreign lands..seems anyone would fight back against invaders.

    The war on terrorism is designed to extract tax money by the billions and give it to the already stinking rich blood profits wall street investors in the military industrial complex, plus it gives the elite fascists (both sides of the fence, D and R is a ploy) an excuse to completely ignore the Constitution, and lastly, helps to keep the USA as Israel's bitch. Been going on throughout various administrations and it doesn't matter who is in charge. Dwight Eisenhower warned us explicitly about it, because he knew it would happen. "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler (highest decorated marine general evar), go look it up, it is free online to read.

    And you want real terrorism? That's robot death from the skies, highest tech you can get, against poor farmers living in mudbrick little hovels who couldn't find the US on a map. THAT'S terrorism. State sponsored hideous genocidal terrorism, wrapped up in a flag and fed to hooting fans who got sucked into joining thinking it was something between a football gamer and a video FPS game, brainwashed children in adult bodies.

  38. Re:Raytheon is a For-Profit Corp. No Surprise Here by Shark · · Score: 1

    You have a point, but I don't think the problem is so much the 'for profit' bit as the 'country for sale' bit. Government in bed with (selling out to) corporations is textbook fascism. Politicians who love their country would not be selling it out to the highest bidder. Then again, politicians tend to love power not their country.

    Bottom line here is that there are great constitutional safeguards against this. The people just forgot that *they* are the government (you know, government of the people bit) so they just let the buffoons on the hill do whatever they want without demanding any accountability.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  39. Cool new section! by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I must have missed the announcement... when did Slashdot add the new Your Rights Outside section?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  40. However, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not looking for you stealing nachos from the concession stand, it's looking for explosions, loud disturbances, etc.

  41. Only the black blimps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones without id numbers.

    With stealth mode.

    Fortunately, I have my apt rigged with incendiary devices and a set of fireman's gear in the secret room.

  42. Re:Raytheon is a For-Profit Corp. No Surprise Here by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Try to change the culture of "profit first" above anything else and educate the masses if you want to never see programs like this again.

    Someone tried to remove the profit motive once. Soviet Russia, called it was I think.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  43. Wait what? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    How come this didn't get sold to North Korea? I can already see the implementations there. Gatherings of one or more persons on a street corner are illegal. Actually maybe this thing needs a !NK and !2people tag.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  44. Re:Raytheon is a For-Profit Corp. No Surprise Here by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 1

    The point was "profit first, above anything else", not removing the motivation for profit. There are higher priorities than profit.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
  45. Do Away With it All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say get rid of all security at all public events. After all, they rarely do anything other than take some drugs or a bottle of booze away from paying customers. They're not needed just like blimp security cameras.

  46. The blimp floating lazily overhead just isn't that by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    intimidating.

    It may not be for most people but when the watchers can follow everybody many will think differently.

    Falcon

  47. great walls of fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know the Iraqis and Afghanis have a new technique for spotting terrorists. Apparently they're often found hiding under blimps. Watch out when blimps come to America.

  48. MN by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Minnesota consists of the Twin Cities and... well... nothing much worth noting.

    I don't know, I like the North Shore. I haven't yet but I'd like to check out the Boundary Waters as well.

    Falcon

  49. Silly Raytheon... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    "...In other news, Goodyear and Raytheon announced a partnership that promises to increase national security by 107% over the next 8 years. The new system, designed by Raytheon, is expected to be in service once final miniaturization is completed. Currently, Raytheon is testing new light-weight designs with great success. The newest design attaches to the nose piece of the Goodyear blimp..."

    http://www.feldmanbd.com/GoodyearBlimpCrash.jpg

  50. liberty vs safety by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    He said essential liberty for a little temporary safety, don't mix it up.

    I don't recall the exact phrase but it still applies. I bet the Gestapo and KGB would of loved these technologies. Some may, no will, say but the US won't abuse them however history has shown the government or people in the government will abuse them. I doubt many slashdotters lived through J Edgar Hoover's reign of the FBI but he vary much abused his power. Even less lived through McCarthyism and Mccarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee or the Hollywood Blacklist. As late as the 1970s the US government were forcibly sterilizing American Indian women as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

    No, I do not trust government, I fear government more than anything else, including those "terrorists" the government wants to protect us from.

    Falcon

  51. So then... by M-RES · · Score: 1

    ...how does it detect a weapon with a silencer? Or stop a bomb with a remote detonator/timer?