Slashdot Mirror


The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl

Hugh Pickens writes "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday, one part of the game they will not see is the massive deployment of federal and local law enforcement resources to achieve what is being called the most technologically secure Super Bowl in history, an event that has been officially designated as a National Security Special Event (PDF). At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles. 'We can detect people, handguns and rifles,' says Customs and Border Protection Officer Brian Bell. 'You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it. Our goal is to look at every vehicle that makes a delivery inside the stadium and inside the secure perimeter.' Next is the 51-foot Featherlite mobile command center for disaster response that will support the newly constructed $18 million Regional Operations Center (ROC) for the Marion County Department of Homeland Security that will serve as a fusion center for coordinating the various federal agencies involved in providing security for the Super Bowl. One interesting security measure are the 'Swiveloc' explosion-proof manhole covers (video) that Indianapolis has spent $150,000 installing that are locked down during the Super Bowl. In case of an underground explosion, the covers lift a couple of inches off the ground — enough to vent gas out without feeding in oxygen to make an explosion bigger — before falling back into place. Finally the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI has installed a network of cameras that will be just a click away for government officials. 'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

174 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know the terrorists have won when...

    1. Re:Fear by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The terrorists won when America stopped being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and became a bunch of fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, limp-wristed namby pambies.

    2. Re:Fear by FridayBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know the terrorists have won when...

      Also:

      You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...

    3. Re:Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know the terrorists have won when...

      Also:

      You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...

      And such a stupid occasion. It's just more money worship. Otherwise, jocks and the jock-sniffers who think they're important are the very most expendable members of society.

    4. Re:Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the terrorists won some time in the early 80s.

    5. Re:Fear by symbolset · · Score: 2

      The terrorists I am worried about are the pigopolists raking in the dough on the video. I used to enjoy the game, but I can't in good concience watch it any more.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:Fear by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the terrorists won some time in the early 80s.

      1880's?

    7. Re:Fear by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?

      When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?

    8. Re:Fear by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Name one constitutional freedom you have lost. The terrorists have been legitimized and rely mostly on the "Progressive" and "Elitist" political ideologues who shift all of the blame onto the victim instead of the actual perpetrators. Their comments on a terrorist attack basically boil down to something like "Oh it's terrible some people died BUT they (victim) deserved it". It's the "BUT" that provides legitimacy to the terrorists.

      People spare no vitriol when describing US faults and give the perpetrators of terrorist acts a free pass by their silence and lack of focus on both the perpetrators and the victims.

    9. Re:Fear by daspriest · · Score: 2

      NDAA, right to due process was damaged greatly if not lost by that particular act.

      The 9th and 10th amendment have died long ago.

      Need more?

      Oh, you said name one, so there you go.

    10. Re:Fear by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      reagan era was a definite shift to go backwards. I'd pin the start of america's first decline (in recent times) at the start of ronny's days in office.

      the guy did so much wrong for the country, its such a crying shame.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Fear by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?

      When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?

      The men represented in this video, who were shot down en mass by the Federal government without benefit of indictment or trial, and Al-Awlaki, share a common trait. Do you know what it is?

      Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States and made himself the enemy during wartime. He aided those trying to kill Americans. Killing Al-Awlaki was a completely legitimate act of war that did not require charges, indictment, trial, or sentencing. It isn't a question of criminal law, but war. And yes, the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war - that is settled law. If he actually wanted to be judged in a court of law, he could have surrendered.

      --
      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
    12. Re:Fear by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      In all fairness it was not Ronald Reagan writing the script... he was just following the director. Directors of the same cut still running the show nowdays too...

    13. Re:Fear by quenda · · Score: 2

      Name one constitutional freedom you have lost.

      - The right to a trial. Anyone who refuses to plea-bargain faces a heavy penalty. Perhaps years in jail for an offence that normally attracts a non-custodial sentence.
      - The right to a speedy trial. People can be locked up for years on remand. (This probably applies in most countries.)
      - warrantless wiretapping

      just for a start.

    14. Re:Fear by azalin · · Score: 1

      Life is never simple and the fucking nut jobs who commit, plan, support or even endorse such attacks should be regarded as filthy scum and can rot in hell being butt raped by 50 demons day in and out. But one also does have to ask oneself, why do they hate me so much they willingly die do harm us. What have we done to them (quite a lot I'm afraid) to warrant such hate. No one is free of sin (maybe except this guy they nailed to a cross two millenniums ago) but you can't really tell everybody what to to (even if you are right) without picking up a few enemies on the way.
      The reason so many people utter these "but"s you mention, are that we don't even bother to act as we preach. We preach freedom and democracy, yet support dictators because they are easier to do business with. We hail a bill of rights and a constitution but have Guantanamo Bay, so we don't have to play according to our own rules. We trained the Taliban and gave them weapons, because they were fighting the Russians at that time. We must first clean our own yard and look carefully at all the skeletons in our basement. Maybe an humble an honest apology might be called for here and the.
      If that was done, any attack would call for the righteous wrath of all decent people. Some idiots never learn and we will not live in a peaceful world for a very long time, but should not fall to their levels.
      "Be nice" as John Niven phrased the one true commandment.

    15. Re:Fear by cavreader · · Score: 1, Troll

      "We trained the Taliban and gave them weapons"
      Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England provided the majority of weapons, money, and training. The CIA probably contributed something to the cause but most of the money and support supplied by the US was for the refugee camps in Pakistan, And it was Britain who divided up India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during their colonial days which sits at the root of all the problems in that region. I just wish the US would pull out of Afghanistan and let the locals kill one another in peace as long as they keep it local and don't come looking for trouble in the US.
      There has been an on-going narrative that states the US is responsible for just about every bad thing that happens in the world. However, when you ask for details about how the US was responsible for this or that the arguments tend to become a little fuzzy. One example would be the 1953 incident in Iran. The US is blamed for removing one leader and installing the Shah but no one can provide any details about how this was done. In 1953 the US along with the rest of the world were still recovering from WW2 and actively fighting in Korea. The British were the ones who were fighting Iran over the nationalization of their oil companies. Britain went as far as attempting a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to build up a political crisis to remove the incumbent President who was supporting the nationalization of their assets. While this was going on the Iranians were not just standing around waiting on England or the US tell them what to do. Like any other country on the planet there were different political factions amongst the Iranian population and any action taken to remove a leader and install another one would have had to be agreed to and implemented by a sizable number of Iranians. Did the US tell Iran if you don't do this we will invade? Or did the US offer favorable trade deals to those who supported the Shah? Did the US assassinate the old leadership to put someone new in power? You hear people describing the Shah as brutal and he may have been but no one ever asks who that brutality was targeted against. Iran was becoming a modern western orientated country and the Islamic extremists were the ones fighting this trend. Imagine that, Islamic extremists being upset and needing a good kick in the head to keep them from killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Every US foreign relationship requires cooperation by the foreign country representatives the US is engaging with. During the cold war the US supported some questionable foreign leaders but those little 3rd world countries had a potent negotiating tool that went something like "Support us and give me what I want or we will ask the USSR". I am sure the Soviets had to contend with the same type of demands in reverse. So I will gladly acknowledge US interference that can be factually supported. Every time someone says the US did this or did that in dealing with foreign governments they should provide at least some details and acknowledge that there it always takes a minimum of 2 parties to forge an agreement. If the US bribed a foreign country official to get certain demands met you also have to acknowledge that it was up to the foreign officials to accept the bribe.

    16. Re:Fear by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      The terrorists won when America stopped being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and became a bunch of fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, limp-wristed namby pambies.

      HEY! I may be a fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, and limp-wristed. But don't call me a namby pamby.... That hurts...

    17. Re:Fear by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      Also it depends on if you win..

    18. Re:Fear by digitalsolo · · Score: 2

      Odd, I would bet that some of the jocks and jock sniffers may say the same about the nerds.

      I'm not a jock by any means, but I can still appreciate professional sports from time to time. In fact, I even enjoy occasionally (attempting) to play basketball, football, and especially hockey with friends. I certainly see no reason to despise someone because they made the most of society's obsession with the games they play.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    19. Re:Fear by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      bible humping

      All sorts of images just popped up in my mind. Weird. All of them. Very weird...

    20. Re:Fear by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2

      An insightful mod on a person who feels they can assess the 'expendability' of a human being based on whether or not they attend a single sporting event. Only at Slashdot.

      Why a sporting event and not, say, which church they attend?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    21. Re:Fear by looseSpark · · Score: 1

      The NDAA is a fact not an opinion. But I'm not so sure there is any way to answer your question without an opinion or a judgement. You could easily shut down anything by claiming it's just an opinion or judgement (by using your opinion or judgement); i.e. you may think the NDAA is not a loss of rights, someone else does. Ultimately, every perceived violation of the Constitution comes before a judge who gives a professional judgement / opinion on whether it is a violation or not.

    22. Re:Fear by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States

      When did he ever hold a firearm within a mile of a US soldier? Never, or we don't know? Then it sounds more like you are lying to prop up your provably incorrect personal opinion, rather than discussing the events and meaning of those events.

      . If he actually wanted to be judged in a court of law, he could have surrendered.

      Judged for what? He was never charged with anything. Should I surrender for terrorism in case the US thinks I'm a terrorist? I could surrender once a week, in case something happens from one week to the next that puts me on the Presidential assassination list.

    23. Re:Fear by treeves · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. That gets covered too.
      How about based on eating this or that?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    24. Re:Fear by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Laws are passed and implemented by the Legislature and Executive branches of government. However, if some one is arrested or has suffered mal-treatment by law enforcement agencies the Judicial branch takes over and can over rule the laws passed by the other branches of the government. The adversarial judicial process is how rulings of laws are appealed all the way up to the supreme court where it will determine if the law violates the constitution. The supreme court judges are selected and approved by the Executive and Legislative branches but the appointments are for life and the justices can make their rulings without the fear of being re-elected. Look at the recent states that passed harsh penalties on illegal immigration and the court suspended or nullified some of the provisions in those state laws. The system is certainly not perfect but it is one of the better legal systems in the world.
        You can certainly have your own opinions on various laws but unless you can provide some concrete examples of people actually losing their constitutional rights your opinion is meaningless. The original post on this thread implied that US citizens were losing their "freedoms" and I wanted a real life example to support that claim.

    25. Re:Fear by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Back up your statement by refuting anything I mentioned in my post with facts. If you really believe your own version of history why don't you post under your own name instead of AC.

  2. Meanwhile... by omganton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather have the 'terrorists' than this war on terror garbage.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Meanwhile... by 1729 · · Score: 2

      ...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

      It's not just ensuring that "Football is safe." The Super Bowl will have on the order of 100k people in and around the stadium and more than 100 million people watching. We can argue about whether the specific measures will be effective, or whether they invade privacy, or whatever, but don't dismiss a high-value terrorism target as just a football game.

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      its about protecting people if anything

      It's about fearmongering and harassing red-blooded law-abiding citizens, conditioning them to accept government intrusion into their lives, and making work for low-rent thugs while scores of teachers are being laid off.

      You are the one who's trolling. Since when in history has an American football game ever been subject to a terrorist attack? Note: a drunken fan who throws a plastic cup of beer at a rival team's fan is not a "lone wolf" terrorist no matter what the government tells you.

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the NFL feels its a target, then the fucking NFL can pay the bill.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Meanwhile... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Even the most hardcore libertarians usually will at least concede that much. The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point. If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

      Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government (whose top concern is reelection) than a private, for-profit organization (whose top concern is saving money).

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Well-said, motherfucker. Well said.

      Here in San Diego the Chargers were threatening to move to L.A. if we didn't build them a new stadium, and they wanted the taxpayers to subsidize the stadium. Note: the Chargers haven't won a single super-bowl and got their asses handed to them(by the San Francisco 49'ers) in the one super bowl in which they played.

      Note: the lowest-paid NFL players still make over $100,000 a year(the median is around $750,000) while you are feeding your kids ramen noodles because you can't find a job.

    7. Re:Meanwhile... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If something major was going to happen, it would've already, and at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. It doesn't make sense to me to spend this kind of money and instill this level of fear in America for an unproven threat. I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    8. Re:Meanwhile... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Anybody who believes that they may be making themselves a target for terrorists by going, and still goes so they don't miss their precious football game, is destined to die in adherence to Darwinian law.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:Meanwhile... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is some deeply flawed logic. You can always say "if it was going to happen, it would have", right up to the point where it does happen. And then a few years later, you start saying "if it was going to happen again..."

      The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.

      Therefore, if there is a 0.1% chance of an attack, it is worth spending up to $38M to prevent it. But such a likelihood only gives a 10% (1 - .999^100) chance of happening in a century, so your statement, "If something major was going to happen, it would've already" falls flat.

      Security theater is bad. But not all security is theater.

    10. Re:Meanwhile... by anglico · · Score: 1

      "...at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. ..."

      yet those venues aren't broadcast live around the world like the superbowl. Terrorists would love to have that kind of an audience. Of course I don't believe in the FUD that our government and many others try to cram down our throats at every opportunity, but it would make a very valuable target to terrorists.

    11. Re:Meanwhile... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      So why the fuck didnt you vote Bush out in 2004?

      Hypocritical indeed

      Maybe he did. The majority of people choose to vote Bush in again. Personally, I didn't agree, but that's democracy for you.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    12. Re:Meanwhile... by KhabaLox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most top tier NCAA football games have more attendance. Aren't the stadiums at Michigan and Penn State the largest, and consistently sold out?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    13. Re:Meanwhile... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      That they, the fans and the civic and state governments that bend to pressure from billionaire owners are, collectively, a bunch of fucking morons.

      But I'm all for keeping the Superbowel safe. Can you imagine if al Qaeda did kill a few thousand people at the game? Fuck, we'd have ten years with of awful tributes to the fallen as low IQ types chanted "USA USA USA" and presidents and congressman would give speeches of how they died for freedom and football.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Meanwhile... by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      it isn't the most watched event on American TV, fuck I have never even heard of Summerfest until now

      so which is really the bigger target if you wanted to cause a big fucking stink? An event that will pack 100,000+ in attendence with 106.5 million watching every single second? Or some music festival that a lot of people have never heard of?

    15. Re:Meanwhile... by pla · · Score: 2

      The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point.

      The government response to any other private "too big to secure" event consists of "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event". So, following your (entirely true) statement, the government should simply ban the superbowl.


      If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

      Roads. Schools. Water. National defense (stress both the "national" and the "defense" parts of that). And although I'll throw "police" in there as well, I do so with the caveat that providing police protection for the populace at large does not equate to providing security for a private, for-profit event.


      Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government.

      I feel much safer looking after myself. And damned good that I do, because apparently during the superbowl, all the Big Eyes will look just that much less closely at all the other prime targets.

      Al Qaeda didn't attack the WTC with an airplane to show the holes in our impenetrable airport security screening procedures; they did it because no one thought they'd use the airplanes themselves as weapons, only as a bargaining chip for hostages or money or guns.

      So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.

    16. Re:Meanwhile... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...you may not agree with the way it is handled

      You're right. I don't.

      ...but this is not about football, its about protecting people if anything.

      I beg to differ. It's about fear -- specifically, it's about using fear as a tool to get the masses to accept whatever kind of authoritarian measures the government wants to put in place so that they have however much control they want over our lives. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on space exploration.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    17. Re:Meanwhile... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.

      You know, those of us who are sick of this "security at any cost!!!" crap could say the same thing to you. After all, we have to help foot the bill for it, we have to acquiesce to the "security" searches (in violation of the 4th Amendment, no less). What gives you the right to force your opinion (fear) on me?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    18. Re:Meanwhile... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      "hundreds of thousands"

      Damn! How big is that stadium?!?

    19. Re:Meanwhile... by artor3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.

      Only because IT IS a highly visible trap. Security by intimidation of potential attackers only works if you actually do intimidate the potential attackers.

      And, FYI, you do not look out for yourself. You can't. No one can. No one is always alert, all the time, for any emergency. We rely on each other to look out for us when we let our guard down (which is all the time). That's the great thing about society. I wish the anarchists could understand that, but they're all convinced that they are supermen. Gods incarnate who can look after their every need.

    20. Re:Meanwhile... by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who, exactly, are you still afraid of? In his State of the Union speech, Obama claimed that Osama bin Laden no longer threatens the U.S. (natch) and al Qaeda's leaders have been defeated. How much money are we spending to protect the Super Bowl from an enemy that our Commander in Chief claims has already been defeated?!?!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    21. Re:Meanwhile... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      that's debatable. Bush one the popular vote by a couple thousand votes(over an even bigger idiot I might add) however in reality less than 1/6th the population voted for him. slightly less than 1/6th voted for Kerry and 4/6th decided that neither candidate was worth voting for.

      If only not voting counted for something.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    22. Re:Meanwhile... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't a war on Osama. It's war (well, not actual war as we haven't had one since WWII) on terror. As soon as terror signs a peace treaty with us and surrenders, we'll get back to all that stupid freedom garbage. Any day now, surely. Pick an enemy that you can fight indefinitely and have all the time in the world to shape the country as you see fit under the threat of "terror".

    23. Re:Meanwhile... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with saving hundreds of thousands of lives, get real pal. This is because of the billions of dollars in advertising, marketing, and swag associated with the event. The biggest advertisers in the world have spent tens of millions just getting ready for it.

      If there was a terrorist attack during the event, it would hurt the economy very deeply for years to come as people avoided the event.

      Additionally it isn't a few tens of millions, the Iraq war is already in the trillions, we have scanners that cost hundreds of millions, the shredding of our founding document, the list goes on and on. All in the name of fighting terrorism to hide the failed foreign policy of the past 60 years.

      A few tens of million.... that's some funny fucking shit right there.

    24. Re:Meanwhile... by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      But why is the government paying to protect ticket-holders at a private event? I doubt it spends an adequate amount securing elementary schools.

    25. Re:Meanwhile... by SDrag0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Oil_Stadium

      It's a giant ugly-ass box right in the middle of downtown Indianapolis surrounded by a lot of one way streets with no great parking.

      --
      I don't have time to make a sig
    26. Re:Meanwhile... by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      If something major was going to happen

      It HAS happened. Look at several past Olympics

      I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.

      I'm against things like TSA. Personally I don't think they need any kind of security for boarding a plane. But this is a little bit different. For one thing you are not required to attend the super bowl. Unlike air travel, you really are there by choice.

      There is always security at large scale sporting events. Did you know that most large arenas have their own holding cells? Sure it is mostly for drunk spectators, but still. While this may be overkill, this is not the same security theater you see at the airport.

    27. Re:Meanwhile... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The costs have been far more than tens of millions, and we've lost more lives to fighting the war on terror than the attacks that started said war. It's also cost us much of our freedom.

      Also, please don't speak for the majority or call this bullshit democracy. Most people got tired of this shit years ago, but a few loud assholes have been shouting "IF YOU DON'T DO X THE TERRORISTS WIN" garbage and basically none of our representatives had the balls to stand up against what had quickly became a vocal minority.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    28. Re:Meanwhile... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not the government's responsibility to protect a bunch of rich football dickheads in a private stadium. If the ticketholders can afford to spend $500/seat then they can afford to chip in to buy their own security.

      I'd love to see an MIT-type hack like this one just to embarrass Deputy Fife.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLg2XpY0L3w

    29. Re:Meanwhile... by toutankh · · Score: 1

      (well, not actual war as we haven't had one since WWII)

      How do you define an "actual war"? What is it that differentiates WWII from Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq for instance?

    30. Re:Meanwhile... by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Ok, first of all.. the only sport where hundreds of thousands are in the stadium at once is auto racing. Someone can chime about whether or not they have that kind of security.

      Secondly, "most of us" are quite willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars of other people's money, to reduce an already low chance to of terrorist activity to an imperceptibly low chance. How magnanimous of us.

      Frankly, I don't care how much is spent to make the event "safe" from terrorists, as long as that money comes exclusively from the pockets of the promoters and sponsors of the event. Indianapolis should not have to spend one cent of public money for a private, for-profit event that only a small fraction of its citizens can attend, or are even interested in attending.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    31. Re:Meanwhile... by toutankh · · Score: 1

      If you were to target worldwide audience, the (relatively) recent wedding of the British prince would be a good choice.
      The football world cup is another good choice but only happens every 4 years, so I guess the Superbowl is good enough.

    32. Re:Meanwhile... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      For 10K deaths, you would have to be better orchestrated than 9/11, which had just under 3K deaths. In all likelihood, this stadium would be a weaker target for an equally well orchestrated attack, as this stadium can't fall nearly as far as a 110 story skyscraper.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    33. Re:Meanwhile... by million_monkeys · · Score: 2

      I assume he defines an "actual war" as one that involved Congress declaring war, which hasn't happened since WWII.

    34. Re:Meanwhile... by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      The government response to any other private "too big to secure" event consists of "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event". So, following your (entirely true) statement, the government should simply ban the superbowl.

      Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of the government saying: "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event"?

    35. Re:Meanwhile... by daspriest · · Score: 1

      Not many more then any other football game on any given Sunday. Most people watch the game on TV.

    36. Re:Meanwhile... by eineerg · · Score: 1

      Everyone would flock to their tv's to watch the news coverage if there was an attack anyway, i fail to see how it being televised makes a difference.

    37. Re:Meanwhile... by daspriest · · Score: 2

      With a capacity of 70,000...

      Far less then many college stadiums that hold over 100,000 almost every saturday during the season.

    38. Re:Meanwhile... by daspriest · · Score: 1

      I think the governments job is to provide for the common defense, not to protect me from anything, including myself. I don't feel safe being looked after by anyone but me, and surely don't trust the government or a corporation to do that. If I go to a mass gathering of people, then I accept the risk that I may die because some asshat thinks it will make a good target, I am sad that the populous feels they need to be protected. But hell, I believe in freedom, and it ain't free. Sometimes you have to be brave and accept that you may die at the hands of someone that wants to try and make a point. Letting them make that point only lets them win.

      Man up, cowards.

    39. Re:Meanwhile... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      yet those venues aren't broadcast live around the world like the superbowl. Terrorists would love to have that kind of an audience.

      No. Terrorists know that the media is controlled by the enemy. Gone are the days when Ahmed blows himself up to get his cause on TV, because his cause will not get on TV. The explosion will, but not the message.

      Think about it-- do you even know what motivates someone to blow themselves up? No, you don't, because they don't put that on TV. All you get is racism and "they hate us cuz our FREEDOMS."

      The idea that terrorists are still fighting some sort of bomb-fueled propaganda war is silly. They just want blood... and they're getting their fill in Afghanistan and Iraq(still).

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    40. Re:Meanwhile... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.

      Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out? So why are you multiplying that by life expectancy? Shouldn't it just be $100K * 10K people, i.e. $1B? And if I'm misunderstanding, if you mean something along the lines of annual profit produced, your number still has an RIAA-level of inflation. 10,000 people gone, sure, but there are 20 million people in this country that are unemployed, with a current production value of 0, just waiting to fill those jobs. In six months, there would be almost 100% job placement in those empty positions.

      Yes, I am a heartless Darwinist.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    41. Re:Meanwhile... by glittermage · · Score: 1

      I concur that this event is no more at threat than a rock concert. This is a waste of money or simply a way to test new technologies for corporations that want to sell high tech anti-terror equipment to the government. I simply want our local, state, and federal government to spiral faster into financial insolvency so all the non-essential government functions can be revisited.

    42. Re:Meanwhile... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 2

      The only good thing about the war on terror is that it has de-emphasized the importance of the war on drugs.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    43. Re:Meanwhile... by toutankh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. Excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen and don't know so much about this. I'm curious though: what difference does it make when the Congress declares war, other than symbolic? Does it for instance mean that citizens have to participate to the war effort, or that some kind of martial law becomes effective?

    44. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I seem to be talking to the minority over and over again, but it seems I cannot find the majority. Must be too small.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that in a democracy, the power hungry need the support of the stupid.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, the only way to change something is to somehow convince at least 1/4 of them to vote for another candidate.

      In other words, don't hold your breath.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, kids in elementary schools aren't as expensive to replace, the investment in them hasn't been that high yet.

      Cynical? Yes, sure. I'm a realist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    48. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Still watch? Hell, given how sensationalist we are, people would tune in just for the small chance to see people die!

      In a nutshell, a terrorist attack would be a bonus.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Throw in the olympics and you have a target every other year.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bread and games.

      It's as simple as that. Football is more important than anything else. The same is true in the EU. Football (although a slightly different game here) is a mass distraction device that keeps Average Joe's mind off troubling issues.

    51. Re:Meanwhile... by million_monkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for the clarification. Excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen and don't know so much about this. I'm curious though: what difference does it make when the Congress declares war, other than symbolic?

      Apparently not a whole lot in practical terms. As you noted, we've attacked lots of countries without declaring war.

      The U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, but it doesn't specify the means of doing so or the effect of that declaration. So that's not particularly helpful. Since the early 1970s, there are strict limits on how long the president can commit forces without a declaration of war or 'authorization of force'. In the time since that law was passed, Congress has always opted for the authorization. There is a diplomatic difference as an authorization of force is perceived as less extreme. Whether there is any function difference, I don't know. An authorization of force has certainly been sufficient for us to attack a bunch of countries.

      So why the hang up over an actual declaration? I assume it's mostly a political issue. Undeclared conflicts have always been controversial, but lately it is being brought up more often due to Ron Paul trying to make it an issue in the upcoming presidental election. Americans who are tired of being at war - or tired of spending money to be at war - are picking up on it as well.

    52. Re:Meanwhile... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Considering all the outrage a certain wardrobe malfunction cause a little back, maybe they should also ban tits (and not only female ones) .

    53. Re:Meanwhile... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to file any big public event? Not sure about the laws in your area but here you do need to provide emergency plans, escape routes, ambulances on standby and more. The police and the mayors office will probably be helpful but if they think it to be dangerous they will not put they seal on it. Neither you will get any insurance and you will be liable for everything happening.
      Of course, if you are "important" and the want you to hold your event, they might look the other way. Love Parade in Duisburg anyone?

    54. Re:Meanwhile... by pla · · Score: 1

      And, FYI, you do not look out for yourself. You can't. No one can. No one is always alert, all the time, for any emergency.

      Any of us could get hit by a bus tomorrow. It happens, and in the "real" world, you simply die and the worms get their turn. It doesn't matter how much of your taxes goes to maintaining the roads, to well-designed intersections, to free medical care for all. We all die when our turn comes.

      So no, not a superman. Just a boring ol' mortal human who will take vigilance over nannyism any frickin' day of the week.

    55. Re:Meanwhile... by Skater · · Score: 2

      The problem with this line of logic is that those events (Olympics, prince wedding, world cup) all have very good security too - check '72 Munich Olympics to see why. So trying to say the Super Bowl isn't a high-value target because there are others, and so doesn't deserve good security, doesn't make sense.

    56. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're scary...

      He does look out for himself, everyone does. We don't rely on other people to be alert for us, we do expect /some/ measure of support from other people (and usually more from friends/family, than from strangers), but really not that much. It is certainly not the governments job to ensure nothing bad happens to anyone at any point.

      Sometimes, generally only where it makes sense, we trade in a bit of freedom and money (rules & taxmoney in return for laws) for the convenience of having the government take care of something. One example of this is road safety, the police/gov attempts to keep the roads safe by making sure people don't park all over the place, don't leave wreckage on the middle of the freeway, etc. It's not their job to make sure no accidents happen, they just do as much as they can with the funds they've been given for it. The alternative is that all of us have to clear the rubble on our path ourselves, at huge (time)costs, so it is much cheaper to all chip in a few $ and let the government create a troop of people to do it.

      If someone feels they need protection on the street, the police is certainly not gonna supply them with a full time bodyguard for their entire life. You'll have to pay one out of your own pocket if you want that (which is exactly what many celebrities choose to do). The main counterpoint is, that if there's a specific threat to a person, the government might provide temporary individual protection (lets say, local gangmember threatens to kill you), or if someone is assisting the government in one way or another (lets someone "snitching" on a mobster), but these are not the police or governments main focus.

      At the end of the day, 90% of the "looking after you" has to be done by YOU. You do this by being educated to avoid risk (Don't walk around alone at night in your miniskirt, dont cross the street without looking around, dont walk close to a ledge on the roof of a building, etc) and you also stay as alert as you feel is needed (dont drive while sleepy, keep track of when you need your insuline, etc).

      When you're a child, your parents and teachers supplement your safety needs because yours are lacking, once you leave the nest you should have learned enough to probably be ok. Some of us are unlucky and will get hit by a car, some might get impaled by a frozen stream of urine from an airplane, unfortunate, but that is mortality. Most developed people do not feel the need to fork over more liberty or money to outsource the job of keeping them self a bit safer to the government. Those who do crave this generally do so due to psychological problems or other irrational thoughts (such as buying into the whole fear the terrorists propaganda that powerful men and companies who have things to gain keep stuffing at us all).

    57. Re:Meanwhile... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      You expect those people to show up to work Monday?

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    58. Re:Meanwhile... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Well, American GDP is 14.58 trillion. Figuring 400M Americans, at a 60% employment rate, you're looking at about $61K.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    59. Re:Meanwhile... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Your math is wrong. It would be worth spending 38M if and only if doing so eliminated that 0.1% risk. It only mitigates it however, its still possible someone could execute a successful attack.

      You have to determine what the likelihood of success is after the steps you plan to take and use the difference of that and the 38M risk adjusted cost to calculate the most you should spend.

      It sounds like they are putting in some pretty damn effective controls; but there is still a HUGE attack surface so its hard to say.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    60. Re:Meanwhile... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out?

      No.

      The actual value of a citizen to society is their economic contribution. This is the value tax dollars might reasonably be used to protect. Most of us are not insured to that amount because the beneficiary do not enjoy our total economic contribution.

      Also I don't think it makes sense to break the economic value out by simply dividing by life span to get a per year figure. If anything 40+ year olds are worth MUCH LESS than 20 somethings. They have far fewer productive years remaining and many costly ones in most cases.

      If the state is going to focus resources on security for any group of citizens it should be those in their late teens through perhaps mid 40s. Unlike children most of the investment in their development is sunk and unlike the middle aged and elderly the greatest amount taxable productivity is to be derived.

      So yes the typical College bowl game should recieve this type of security treatment before the Superbowl does.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    61. Re:Meanwhile... by dhaines · · Score: 1

      4/6th decided that neither candidate was worth voting for

      Or 4/6 couldn't be bothered to tear themselves away from their televisions to cast a vote.

    62. Re:Meanwhile... by aceboomblain · · Score: 1

      The popular vote is irrelevant. The US is a representative democracy. In presidential elections, voters registered in their state of residence are voting for the electors to represent their state.

      Voting is a responsibility. If you vote (or decide not to vote) for a candidate based on whether you think they have a chance of winning or not, you are voting irresponsibly; which makes you part of the problem.

    63. Re:Meanwhile... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Because that was part of the requirements for getting the event held in Indianapolis. They likely spent a lot more to dig up Georgia street between the basketball stadium and the football one to rebuild it as a pedestrian corridor between the two, so they'd have room to install the super bowl village.

      But the city went to the NFL and competed to get this thing, as did several other cities, because despite the up front costs it will make money from it. Thus why the NFL and the fans who attend the game don't have to pay for security out of their own pockets.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    64. Re:Meanwhile... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The 9/11 attackers kinda screwed up in that they hit the buildings fairly early in the morning, before a lot of people had gotten to work. The buildings weren't even close to full capacity at that hour. In addition, many people were able to escape after the planes hit, as it took over an hour for the buildings to collapse. Finally, the attackers may not have cared that much about killing so many people; their primary target was the buildings themselves, being an American icon in their minds.

      An attack on a stadium would be very different; it'd be pretty impossible for them to blow up the whole stadium without a MOAB or similar. They'd probably succeed in killing more people just through panic and tramplings than in anything else they do, unless they release chemical or biological agents.

    65. Re:Meanwhile... by tiegs · · Score: 1

      Declarations of war have been essentially obsolete since the Second World War. Since the formation of the United Nations, wars of aggression are explicitly an international crime. An official declaration of war could be evidence in a war crimes trial. By not issuing official declarations anymore, governments make it easier to defend themselves on the basis of "it wasn't really a 'war'" or "we were just defending ourselves."

    66. Re:Meanwhile... by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Not to sound too much like a tin foil mad hatter , but I wouldn't doubt the staging of an "unsuccessful terrorist attack" just to show how "effective" their security was so morale about "security" can be boosted.

      Just my 2 cents worth of tinfoil.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    67. Re:Meanwhile... by ChoppedBroccoli · · Score: 1

      This is pretty spot on. In the grand scheme of things I would imagine a human life is worth their (average economic output due to both their labor + personal spending/yr) + (avg tax revenue generated from income/yr) + (avg tax revenue generated from purchases/yr) - (avg gov money spent on the individual due to services, etc/yr) Hard things to adjust for are how many other people connected to this human being would be affected by their loss to the point that it would hurt their own economic output profile. This could be emotional affects, loss of opportunity to work for/with or do business with them, loss of opportunity to learn/inspire for younger generation, and so on... I don't know it that amounts to 100k yr or not, but that doesn't seem wholly unreasonable. I doubt these numbers are easy to calculate at all as they have a domino affect. A human being that has passed too early has lost their ability to provide and spend on goods and services, which in turns slightly changes the numbers for each company they would do business with, which in turn changes the tax generated from those companies as well, which in turn slightly lowers the profits for that company, which in turn slightly reduces pay/benefits/shareholder worth for that company, which in turn reduces these people's ability to spend, which in turn....

  3. Re:One question by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hand egg.

  4. The FBI webcam network by supersat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

    CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

    Who sets this kind of thing up without any authentication?!

    1. Re:The FBI webcam network by Swanktastic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brigadier General Stewart "Bareback" Goodwin

    2. Re:The FBI webcam network by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      If you can't watch them, then bring your microwave ovens and knock out their WiFi. FBI won't be able to watch either.

      I wonder if those gamma-ray scanners are going to be looking for microwave ovens.

    3. Re:The FBI webcam network by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed. There are a zillion ways you could defeat security. I remember back when 9/11/2001 happened. I was working for the Rhode Island Department of Attorney General at the time. We got all sorts of documentation on how you could hide weaponry on things that even TSA wouldn't scan for and that would get through scans without issue.

      And to disrupt you really don't need a microwave system. Just load up Backtrack and go for broke. It's a pretty sure bet they'll use WEP!

    4. Re:The FBI webcam network by mbstone · · Score: 1

      If you work for the Homeland Security, do you get access to the All-22 Shot?

    5. Re:The FBI webcam network by ender- · · Score: 1

      Nobody sets these things up without any authentication. Brigadier General is a man of few words who doesn't need to state the obvious: these cameras do have authentication.

      Please don't misunderestimate the esteemed Brigadier General!

      Would that be the same fantastic protection we put on drones in Afghanistan?, the video from which could be watched using a $26 software program?

    6. Re:The FBI webcam network by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, all it takes is a nuclear bomb?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:The FBI webcam network by cffrost · · Score: 1

      In other words, all it takes is a nuclear bomb?

      No. An EPFCG is cheaper, smaller, and more easily acquired/assembled by a non-government entity than a nuke. There are a few more similar EMP-generation technologies, but EPFCGs produce more RF energy than any other single non-nuclear device; see: Pulsed power.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:The FBI webcam network by azalin · · Score: 1

      'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

      CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. Who sets this kind of thing up without any authentication?!

      Let's slashdot it before the General gets a dmca takedown notice, because they don't have a license for transmitting the soupbowl on the internet.

    9. Re:The FBI webcam network by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      "You asked for miracles, Theo, I give you the FBI."
      - Hans Gruber (Die Hard)

  5. A challenge by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    They have just created a challenge in regards to just that Internet address is...

    1. Re:A challenge by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      And then when a thousand /. geeks go looking for the hidden "internet address" and find it - the Government can say "Look we have 1000 internet terrorists attacking us, we need to have better control over the internet!." :(

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  6. Re:One question by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happens is that two football clubs football at each other and the one that footballs the hardest wins at football. That and something about Michael Jackson's sisters nipple.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  7. TSA Ball Rubs at the Superbowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch. Who needs a half-time show, just put a camera on that fiasco.

  8. Let's 'ope nobody tweets "destroy Super Bowl" by sehlat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or they'll cancel the 'ole bleedin' lot!

  9. Fuck all this by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Fuck all this by geekoid · · Score: 2

      This ^^^

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Fuck all this by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.

      The special security is already paid for. It's funded through something we call "taxes".

      --
      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
  10. The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Informative

    They were because they KEEP EXPLODING!!!

    http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29819089/detail.html

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. by pnot · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you don't want your manhole to explode, stop eating vindaloo.

  11. Re:One question by icebike · · Score: 1

    Except in Egypt, where even a home team win can lead to 78 deaths on the field.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  12. FInally by geekoid · · Score: 2

    we won't have those constant superbowl terrorist attacks!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:FInally by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      I realize I'm way late posting, but I bet the extreme security measures aren't being taken because they expect the risk of attack to be so high, but because it is a good chance for them to get some experience at both the logistical and operational experience of running such a large security operation. Think of it as practice for the next time we host the Olympics.

  13. Meanwhile by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone mixes tiny nitroglycerin tablets with breadcrumbs and the Super Bowl is canceled due to pigeon poop.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be a fowl deed.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  14. Neckbeards, that's your cue by Beerdood · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Oh boy!" thought Milton, "A article on football! And not the soccer version, the American football kind!" He could barely contain his troll-citement. He never fully recovered from the traumatizing memories of high school where the sports jocks viciously bullied him, and this was a perfect opportunity to remind the world how stupid the concept of this sport was! He put his fingers together, pondering on what kind of "insightful" comment would get modded up by his fellow neck-beards. A reference to hand-egg and the stupidity of the name? Nah.. been done before.. Perhaps a comment on the overall barbaric nature of the sport and a jab to all the rednecks and jocks that enjoy it? Better.. but maybe...

    "Wait a minute..." he thought. "Maybe I should be contributing to the contents of the article? Perhaps I should mention how government funds shouldn't be involved here, but they'll be there anyway due to close ties between football and the military. Maybe something on security theater and a reference to airports and perhaps a lack of any terrorist related activities in football games?" But the thought quickly left his mind, as there was too much bitterness towards those jock types he worked with in marketing (and couldn't stand) and instead posted "HURRR maybe they should up the radiation on the metal detectors so the in-breed hicks that attend the game get sterilized!!"

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    1. Re:Neckbeards, that's your cue by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4/10, condescending without being offensive. Briefly going over your comment history, I suggest you stop trying to be funny. Humor is not one of your strengths.

      Though I must commend you for being able to sum up Slashdot in entirety with just one post.

    2. Re:Neckbeards, that's your cue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HURRR maybe they should up the radiation on the metal detectors so the in-breed hicks that attend the game get sterilized!!

  15. Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a thing, and yes, what it sounds like: they have a radioactive source that gives off gamma rays, which pass through a truck, and then gamma ray detectors that look at what passed through. Sort of like a heavy-duty xray machine, except at these sizes/energies, the gamma-ray machines are actually safer than getting blasted with xrays.

  16. Irony by Bonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And while all this fear mongering, submission to armed authority, 'convenience arrests', and security theater is happening, thousands of Americans will be singing

    "mumble mumble mumble something something Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"

    *shakes head sadly*

    Yeah. Enjoy the game. Really. There's not a lot else left now, is there?

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Irony by ender- · · Score: 1

      And while all this fear mongering, submission to armed authority, 'convenience arrests', and security theater is happening, thousands of Americans will be singing

      "mumble mumble mumble something something Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"

      *shakes head sadly*

      Yeah. Enjoy the game. Really. There's not a lot else left now, is there?

      Not that I go to a lot of sporting events, but on the few that I do go to, I actually stopped singing [or showing any overt respect for] the national anthem when the government, under Bush, started with their Patriot Act, taking-away-our-freedoms crap. It was too much of a lie. I briefly started again when Obama was elected, but when he signed the NDAA, it decided it was time to stop again.

      It's sad really, how many people will sing it proudly, and beam patriotically at the flag, and then turn around and take away your freedoms... :(

    2. Re:Irony by houghi · · Score: 1

      "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."
      Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith | Padme Amidala

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Feel up? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch

    "Feel up"? Don't you mean "irradiate"? G-ray scanner capable of looking through inches of steel isn't too safe for gonads. Especially if they don't shut down the source if traffic gets tied up in front of it.

    If most of 'em weren't already past breeding age it might make a nontrivial improvement in the nerd/jock ratio of upcoming generations.

    (Yes, yes, I know they said it was for use on cargo vehicles. But if operated with the usual competence level of government projects ...)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. *this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

    "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday"

    It's this Sunday not next Sunday! =) Grammatically correct or not I don't know, but "this Sunday" is so much clearer.

    1. Re:*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Eh.. what?

      The next sunday is the 5th. The previous sunday was january 29th. In what world is it unacceptable to refer to the next sunday as "next sunday"

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      actually, as someone who grew up in the US, it *is* more correct to say that feb-5 is 'this sunday' (today is feb-1) and the sunday that comes after the 5th is 'next sunday'. 'this one' or 'the next one' (meaning the 2nd one).

      don't try to figure it out. it just is that way. I did not make the rules..

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      to better explain it, the 'full' version would be "this *coming* sunday". they leave the middle word out almost always but if it ever needs explaining, they add the middle part and actually emphasize it.

      so, 'this sunday' from now is feb-5 and 'next sunday' is the sunday on week after feb-5.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      If you think I'm making this up, here is a quote from Seinfeld:

      Jerry: This Wednesday?
      Sid: No, next Wednesday, week after this Wednesday.
      Jerry: But the Wednesday two days from now is the next Wednesday.
      Sid: If I meant this Wednesday, I would have said this Wednesday. It's the week after this Wednesday.

  19. Re:Gamma ray cargo? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    you know drivers can get out of their vehicles? when all of this started I was a delivery driver, and going onto post I was always directed over, asked to get out, did the wand thing and they would xray the entire truck after a visual

  20. Meanwhile...ROTCryingMEyesO by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Many of us are far too willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security."

    It took some major editing, but I fixed that for you.

    "You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority."

    Clearly, that is exactly what a few people are allowed to do. And worse, they are allowed to throw the US Constitution out the window in the process.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  21. Re:One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming u by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    You just ripped of one of the regular Joker plots that Batman has to foil.

    Of course, this whole attack the superbowl thing is a re-used plot, too.

  22. Most technologically secure Super Bowl in history by giorgist · · Score: 1

    Yea but then the adversaries are the most technologically capable in history as well.
    Scanners that can look through 6" of steel you say ?
    Does everybody have to take their shoes off as well ?
    Such statements tickle the fancy of hackers that have no negative motives but love a challenge.

    Then again ... getting on that wonder list for the sake of a prank might hamper their next flight to comic con.

  23. Scanners by PPH · · Score: 1

    You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it.

    So much for bringing your own booze or food in. The stadium concession business is safe!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Vancouver melted down after the cup loss and ju by icebike · · Score: 1

    How many confirmed deaths in Vancouver hockey riot?

    None you say?

    Thought so. Even in Canukistan people don't kill over hockey.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  25. Detection does not equal prevention. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    All I have to say to the Feds is: good luck with that.

    Indiana is a "shall issue" concealed carry state. Indianapolis has an exception to concealed carry in city parks, but the stadium is not a city park.

    What that means is: the Feds have no authority to prevent someone from taking a legally-carried concealed handgun into the stadium.

    It may be against the stadium rules. That I don't know. But it isn't against the law.

    1. Re:Detection does not equal prevention. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If it's against stadium rules, the Feds certainly do have the authority to prevent someone bringing a handgun in, because at that point they're trespassing."

      No, they do not. Trespassing laws are state and local laws, not Federal, and Federal agents have no authority to enforce them.

    2. Re:Detection does not equal prevention. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "There are more than enough overskilled attorneys that can argue for the legal theory of "zones of reasonable expectation of diminished liberty" for just such a purpose. Right now it covers about 3,794,101 sq mi. [wikipedia.org]"

      Probably true, but there are just as many who could argue against it, with more facts and reason to back them up.

    3. Re:Detection does not equal prevention. by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      It may be against the stadium rules. That I don't know. But it isn't against the law.

      Both the NFL and CIB, who manages Lucas Oil Stadium, have banned firearms from the stadium. It is one of the terms you agree to when you purchase a ticket. Bring a firearm with you and you will be turned away at the outer gate.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    4. Re:Detection does not equal prevention. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No great surprise. But the Feds have no place enforcing it. In a case such as this, that would probably be illegal, since they have no legal authority to be enforcing trespass laws.

  26. Re:Major Second Amendment violation! by PPH · · Score: 1

    What's the matter with you? Are you in favor of gratuitous violence?

    Now, sit back and watch your football game.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Medical x-rays are safer, but they don't come anywhere near penetrating a steel truck at that power. The kinds of x-ray machines needed to scan a whole truck are more like 5-10 MeV.

  28. Really? by bmo · · Score: 1

    >At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles.

    Just wait until they use this on a vehicle that still has a human being still inside it when they turn on their death/maim ray.

    They really want to open themselves up to that kind of liability?

    --
    BMO

  29. I want the superb-owl to go away by SatanClauz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    NFL, please just go away.

    Sincerely,

    Indianapolis resident that works downtown.

    just fucking go away please

    1. Re:I want the superb-owl to go away by SDrag0n · · Score: 1

      Seconded, by an Indianapolis resident that doesn't work downtown.... Oh, and while your at it, take Lucas Oil Stadium too. I'm tired of helping pay for it with extra taxes.

      --
      I don't have time to make a sig
  30. Look out for the blimp... by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 1

    A hundred comments and no one has mentioned the Goodyear blimp yet? Sad...

    1. Re:Look out for the blimp... by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if all of Slashdot was born after 1977...

  31. Wasted effort by vinn · · Score: 1

    And we're all sitting here thinking, "A couple of engineers could figure out how to get around it in a matter of a few hours."

    When do we get our government back?

    --
    ----- obSig
  32. The manholes in Indy by SDrag0n · · Score: 1

    If you've ever walked around Indy in the winter, you know some weird stuff is up with the manholes anyways. There are always huge piles of steam pouring out random locations around downtown.

    --
    I don't have time to make a sig
  33. Re:One question by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    They bowl, silly.

  34. Re:Vancouver melted down after the cup loss and ju by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    no its soccer they kill over

    Egyptian soccer riot: Death toll at 73

  35. Re:One question by toutankh · · Score: 1

    To be fair, this also happened in England and Belgium, although both times due to English "people".

  36. Re:since when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I had the distinct displeasure of witnessing that event personally, and you know what asshat, I still believe that I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist then to live in a country that fears death so much that they would let a group of power hungry assholes control them and piss all over the document they swore to defend and support. So fuck off and grow a pair, freedom isn't free, it comes with risks. One of those is death.

  37. Bogus numbers by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

    I question the truth of the story's claims. A gamma source used for X-raying that is powerful enough to go through 6 inches of steel would require a radiation exclusion zone around the vehicle. The driver would have to exit the truck and move outside the zone. The statement "Officials said the VACIS machine can scan at least six semi-trucks within minutes, " is a distortion or even a lie, because in each truck's case, 1) the driver would have to exit the truck and move away 2) the scan would have to be done 3) the screen images would have to be examined in depth. This can't be done for six trucks as cited in a few minutes with full coverage of contents. I consult in the industry and the quoted numbers don't seem right. I really smell theatre here.

    1. Re:Bogus numbers by Animats · · Score: 2

      A gamma source used for X-raying that is powerful enough to go through 6 inches of steel would require a radiation exclusion zone around the vehicle. The driver would have to exit the truck and move outside the zone.

      It really is a radioactive gamma source mounted on a truck. It's supposed to be used only on uninhabited vehicles. SAIC's "terms and conditions" for the thing are posted. Here's SAIC's disclaimer:

      "Since VACIS inspection products use radioactive sources in this process, the End User is responsible for obtaining and abiding by all necessary and appropriate approvals from the applicable cognizant regulatory agencies or authorities in their country of use. Buyer/End User is responsible for safely operating the system in accordance with all SAIC instructions/manuals and training and any applicable regulations/requirements of the jurisdictions in which the system will be operated. Buyer/End User shall consult with the relevant licensing authority regarding whether and in what manner disclosures (including signage) should be made to persons who may be scanned by VACIS inspection products as incidental occupants of vehicles. SAIC is not responsible for any claims, actions or liabilities associated with the improper installation, operation or maintenance of the products. Improper operation would include, but not be limited to, failure to comply with any conditions, requirements, safety measures and procedures provided or required by SAIC and/or any cognizant regulatory agency."

      Their video shows someone driving a car through the thing.

    2. Re:Bogus numbers by Animats · · Score: 2

      Los Alamos tried one out. They were satisfied with the radiation safety. Of course, their people wore their routine three dosimeters (cumulative, short term, and alarming.)

    3. Re:Bogus numbers by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Yes, some inspection systems use a radioactive source in a lead container, with a shutter. You cannot drive through on of these. You have to move the source and detector array past the vehicle to scan it. But this means a moving gamma source is run the length of the vehicle and the users must take special precautions no one is anywhere in the path of the beam. Without lead or concrete shields this is dangerous to anyone nearby. I was concerned about what you noted about the car, but if you examine the video you will see the car is actually unoccupied and parked as the scanner moves past it. I am frankly amazed they dare use the gamma source without a radiation shield on the other side. That is incredibly sleazy and potentially dangerous.

  38. How does this work by russotto · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing how this is going to protect against terrorists who have followed the lesson of the successful terrorists of years past: Read Tom Clancy. I don't care how much high tech scanning you do of the people who get in, a terrorist with a nuke is still going to be able to get close enough to blow the whole place up.

  39. Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sort of like a heavy-duty xray machine, except at these sizes/energies, the gamma-ray machines are actually safer than getting blasted with xrays.

    These are definitely not safe. To get any brightness from gamma rays requires much higher intensities due to lower interaction rates. I would definitely NOT want to be anywhere near one of these machines. One small misconfiguration, or someone standing in wrong spot, and you are blasted by radiation in range of mSv/min..

    Frankly, this shit is ridicules. It's like the 1920s and their xray shoe fitting machines! Maybe it's time to get personal dosimeters to protect you from these "safety devices". And I'm someone that would not think twice about visiting Fukushima or Chernobyl or even living in most of the "contaminated" area.

  40. Re:One question by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Really? And here I was thinking the biggest football event was the world championship every four years.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Re:One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming u by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If you outlaw beer and tacos at a sports event, you will have a situation on your hands!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. Re:Problem with dollar values. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with numbers is that you're assigning them to a single arbitrary time period. The correct way of saying that would to spend $38b on ensuring those very people are safe at all times in all parts of their lives.

    If a hypothetical super bowl bombing doesn't occur then statistically several of your 10k people won't live to the end of the year anyway due to other problems. We spend ludicrous amounts of money against an unknown and unpredictable threat that is likely to affect only a minuscule percentage of our population, and given the current state of security is likely to remain a threat despite everyone's best efforts. All the while we can clearly see statistically people die every year and they don't get a dime spent on them.

    Take the $38bn and put it into some basic healthcare if you want return on investment, not fighting the maybe terrorists.

  43. Re:One question by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Funny

    No dude, sports are named after what they do the least during the game.

    Basket Ball - The ball is in the basket for only a very small portion of the game.
    Base Ball - The ball touches the base for only a very small portion of the game.
    Foot Ball - The ball touches the foot for only a very small portion of the game.

    Hand Egg would following this convention be Soccer, and only for the very short period of time where one team picks a fight with Manchester United and some poor striker ends up getting punched in the eggs.

  44. Re:One question by azalin · · Score: 1

    Really? And here I was thinking the biggest football event was the world championship every four years.

    yeah but this is only for the non US part of the world, so no one here really cares about it.

  45. Re:Obligatory right wing nut job post by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    The person who owns the stadium, or having legal control and authority over it, is well within their rights to tell you that you may not possess a firearm. They can impose whatever conditions of occupancy they wish, and you must abide by them.

    Whether or not a "no guns" sign has force of law depends on the State. But, at the end of the day, if it can be demonstrated in court that you knew or should have known that you were bound by the owner's "no guns" policy, and you are caught with one, it'll be criminally defiant trespass (or the particular State's equivalent). That happens to be a prohibiting offense in my State.

    I love my right to keep and bear arms, but I love my private property rights even more. The former exists in part to protect the latter, so do not be surprised if you find yourself eating lead one day because you think you can CCW anywhere you please despite the property owner's terms and conditions.

  46. What the NFL *really* needs is by qxcv · · Score: 1

    A jihad upon the enemies of football!

    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
  47. Who's Paying For This? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    We're talking about millions or possibly billions of dollars for all this equipment crap, the logistics, the overtime pay for the local cops, the extra Feds, yadda yadda...

    And where is all this money coming from? You can bet your sweet ass the NFL isn't spending a dime of its own money for all this. The NFL is like the roach motel of money: dollars go in, but they don't come out.

    So, in Eric Cantor speak, how much medicare and social security is being cut to pay for all this, since the government isn't allowed to spend a fucking penny (remember how we lost our AAA credit rating?) without serious cuts elsewhere to pay for it.

    Or is that only the case for programs the democrats want, and football is another matter entirely? I'm amazed that politicians will mouth off for hours on the floor of Congress about some minor bill for a park and how that's going to bankrupt the USA, but they feel they've got the money to burn for this crap?

    You've gotta be kidding me. Excuse me, but this USA is bankrupt, fools! There are no jobs. The middle class is falling into poverty. Didn't you hear the Republican State of the Union response? How do we have the cash for this nonsense?

    Sorry kid, Granny can't get dialysis because we hadda' gamma ray through six inches of steel to find nothing. Because we're frigging terrified of a bogeyman, a bodgeyman who we need to spend 15 billion to defend ourselves against a guy with a $12 rifle.

    Look at our history since 9/11. It's appalling: Billions spent. Trillions spent. And yet, we can't defend against simple roadside bombs made from leftover munitions and a cell-phone. The bad guys spend $5 and we spend 50 Billion to defend against the $5 -- those numbers are NOT sustainable. It's insanity.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  48. Manhole locks not for security reasons. by Pionar · · Score: 1

    The reason the manhole covers had locks installed had nothing to do with security. It was because Indianapolis Power & Light substations, which are underground in downtown Indy, kept exploding and blowing manhole covers 20 ft in the air.

    There were 4 such explosions last year.

  49. Most technologically secure Super Bowl in history by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    Er, great. Isn't it pretty much a given that every subsequent Super Bowl will win that title?

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  50. The Sum of All Fears (2002) by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Someone has been watching too much.

    Ben Affleck, yuck.