Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade

means better stalked by harvey+the+nerd · 2012-05-14 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now we can be better stalked and assaulted by miscellaneous anonymous government bureaucrats.

Re:means better stalked by cayenne8 · 2012-05-14 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why don't they just hire out a bunch of bomb sniffing dogs which would catch most anything of real danger to the plane....and quit irradiating people?
Oh wait...that would make sense...and not cost the taxpayers an arm and a leg....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:means better stalked by mr1911 · 2012-05-14 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why don't they just hire out a bunch of bomb sniffing dogs which would catch most anything of real danger to the plane....and quit irradiating people?
It will make a lot more sense once you accept the fact that the vast majority of things the government does for "safety" or "security" has nothing to do with actual safety of security of the citizenry.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Re:means better stalked by Baloroth · 2012-05-14 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Because unlike in Hollywood movies, bomb sniffing dogs aren't machines with 100% uptime, 100% detection, 100% target coverage, and 100% trigger rates.
And unlike in the movies, neither are the machines.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:means better stalked by cayenne8 · 2012-05-14 09:22 · Score: 2

Because unlike in Hollywood movies, bomb sniffing dogs aren't machines with 100% uptime, 100% detection, 100% target coverage, and 100% trigger rates.
Well, they can't be any worse than the system we have now??
Heck, I think they'd be better..they are a large part of Israel's protective measures, and their track record is pretty good.
And why no 100% uptime? I mean, you cycle dogs in and out on shifts just like you do the humans...and no system has 100% detection.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

LOL ... tautology ... by gstoddart · 2012-05-14 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The ability to have more coverage, by definition, is you have the chance to be safer."

Who needs 'proof' when all you've said is that having more coverage gives you a chance to be safer? Well, yes, "it might help", which simply can't be refuted since it doesn't really say much.

One more step towards the 100% surveillance society we're moving towards.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... by girlintraining · 2012-05-14 05:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Who needs 'proof' when all you've said is that having more coverage gives you a chance to be safer?
Except it's a lie. I have been to the airport. There's a light rail transit station directly under the main terminal. There are about 20 stops along the route, none of which have any security, including the one at the airport; All of the processing and security stuff is up a long flight of stairs and across the lobby. The main lobby has regular glass along the ceiling, and all of the above-ground entryways also are made of glass, including glass turnstiles. picture There's many more you can pull; It's a major stop-over point, many pictures are available online.
Bottom line: 30 seconds after you exit the train, you're standing in a crowd of hundreds. Do the math. Cameras aren't going to save those people. It's the same if you arrive by bus, cab, or you feel like leaving your car in one of the pickup lanes right outside the doors.
It's all security theatre... anyone with even average intelligence can easily figure out how to kill hundreds, if not thousands, at any large airport. The simple fact is airports create crowds, the security creates chokepoints, which in turn make the crowds larger... and none of the security "improvements" since 9/11 have done anything but provide a feeling of security. If these people want real security, they should invite the Israeli's to come over and train them on how to do behavioral profiling, get rid of carry-on luggage, and stop masturbating with high tech toys. The Israelis have been much more effective in preventing terrorist attacks than the US has been, and all they use is "Mark I eyeball" and decompression chambers for the luggage. It's one of the biggest failings of US intelligence in general: They don't want to get their hands dirty. Technology is no substitute for training and observation when doing this kind of work. In fact, very often, it'll just get in the way.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by gstoddart · 2012-05-14 06:05 · Score: 2

Except it's a lie.
Strictly speaking, it's not a 'lie'. It just glosses over things like what you said.
When he said "more security gives you a chance at being more secure", it's a totally un-falsifiable statement. It's such an open ended statement as to be meaningless since it doesn't say anything at all.
I'm not going to refute anything you said, because I agree with you. But in terms of the justification they provided, it can't be refuted because it's not a true enough statement to be refuted.
And, of course, trying to apply reason here will only get you a "Why do you hate America?" kind of response because those pushing these things are beyond any form of fully rational discussion.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live in Mpls., and you're correct. No security at all on the trains, etc.
However, I beg leave to point out that DHS and TSA - clearly, after all these years - do not have as their goal the protection of those vulnerable hundreds and thousands of citizens who are exposed by these amateurish and essentially worthless 'security precautions'.
It has been obvious for some time that the security infrastructure in the US (and elsewhere) is much more directed at the concept of 'grooming', no?
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by rossjudson · 2012-05-14 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any idea how many actual terrorists have actually been discovered by TSA personnel doing security inspections? Seems to me that the most likely answer is zero. You can then make the argument that the increased security procedures have scared off potential terrorists, I suppose.
There just doesn't seem to be any limit to how far ball-free politicians will go to make air travel appear to be "safer", while at the same time completely ignoring other modes of transportation that are equally dangerous (and equally pointless to monitor).
Seems to me that the main weakness in the system was the lack of lockable cockpit doors. That has been corrected.
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by Bomazi · 2012-05-14 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Israeli-type security is not acceptable. I shouldn't be interrogated just because I have the audacity to travel. A pre-911 level of security with some improvements (better intelligence, reinforced cockpit doors) is more than enough. Terrorism is one of the most unlikely cause of death, behind food poisoning or slipping in a bathtub. We could avoid all that shit if we spent a thousandth of what we waste on "security" on teaching statistics.
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by harperska · 2012-05-14 07:23 · Score: 2

As far as I recall, all of the actual terrorists that have been caught have been discovered by intelligence efforts long before they got anywhere close to the airport. See for example the recent underwear bomber 2.0 plot. Meanwhile, the TSA has failed on numerous times to actually catch bad things going through their checkpoints, such as underwear bomber 1.0, the shoe bomber, and Adam Savage's razor blades. Yet every time the intelligence community successfully disrupts a terrorist plot, it is used as an excuse to 'enhance' the TSA checkpoints even further.
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 07:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stop with the Israeli myth. Israel has horribly intrusive airport security, and to wish that upon Americans is to wish apartheid, and repeal of all civil rights and lberties. It will be much worse than we have to deal with today.
Discalimer, detained for 24 hours, by Israeli security. Had property confiscated and never returned, and some very expensive property returned (after 3 months), but destroyed. Copied my entire journal. Also withheld our luggage for several days so had to just hang out at Rome airport for almost a week waiting for Israeli security to release our luggage. Our offense? Trying to check our bags in 4 hours before flight, so we could go get lunch. Our goal with the flight, to get out of the most oppressive, racist, hell-hole I have ever had the displeasure of visiting.
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by cusco · 2012-05-14 07:52 · Score: 2

I work in the physical security field, and this contract should have come with big flashing lights saying, "DANGER! DANGER! RUN AWAY!" If they're going from a handful of low-res, low frame rate analog cameras recording on VHS tape to, well, one of the largest non-casino installations in the Midwest essentially overnight I can pretty much gaurantee that the staff (especially the IT staff) are in no way prepared for something like this. A single megapixel camera can generate over a gigabit of network traffic all by itself at a fairly low frame rate, and over half a gig of storage an hour. Western Digital and Cisco must be drooling at the thought.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:LOL ... tautology ... by dgatwood · 2012-05-14 08:32 · Score: 2

I think the point was that such statements are falsifiable if it can be shown that the reverse is true. Technology that slows down the security line cannot feasibly make you safer because it causes backups that inherently make you less safe. Therefore, because there is at least one significant reduction in safety, even in the optimal scenario, it can only move the risk around.
Of course, that doesn't apply to passive security technology (these cameras, for example). And these cameras do have a reasonably chance of making you safer. If someone goes through security improperly and tries to get lost in the crowds (which occasionally happens accidentally, but could realistically be used as an attack vector), higher resolution cameras with face detection could make it much easier to not only find the person, but also quickly determine who that person has interacted with inside the terminal, where that person might have hidden contraband, etc.
Further, even when it is accidental, this can eliminate the need to shut down the airport, search everywhere, and re-screen all of the passengers. Although this doesn't make you safer per se, it does reduce your chances of missing your connecting flight.
So I would say that this sort of upgrade is almost inarguably an improvement in air security, unlike most of the other "improvements" over the past decade.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Whew by DWMorse · 2012-05-14 05:28 · Score: 2

Thank GOD! I felt so scared I was going to die to terrorists, when I managed to catch my flight to Denver in under 30 minutes of xrays, scanning, and waiting in line. Something needs to be done remove this streamlined process. We're talking about entire HOURS less of waiting in line while the TSA herds people like cattle. It's about time someone corrected this oversight at MSP and got those wait times up where they belong.

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?

Re:Whew by bbecker23 · 2012-05-14 06:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Idea! The goal of airport security isn't to actually prevent terrorist attacks on planes, but, rather, to make flying so inconvenient that only terrorists are willing to fly. Then, bam, stinger missile.

Terrorism: solved

--
cat /dev/random > sig.txt

Finally... by Patent+Lover · 2012-05-14 05:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe now they can finally catch all those TSA screeners pilfering things from people's bags.

Re:Finally... by localman57 · 2012-05-14 05:44 · Score: 2

This is why all government funded survelence cameras need to have publicly available feeds. The world is moving towards ever more cameras, all the time. I don't think that tide will ever turn. This creates a system of those who are watched, and those who watch. The watched are inherently below the watchers. If we're going to move towards this sort of state, the way to return fairness to the citizenry is to give them the same power as the government to watch everything. It's a 21st century version of the Freedom Of Information Act...
Re:Finally... by gstoddart · 2012-05-14 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Easiest solution is to state (via rule or regulation) that no TSA screener can open a bag if the camera's are "out of service" for any reason
Yeah, brilliant, that should bring them into line.
I mean, it's not as if there's any rules against them to stealing from your luggage or using their position to smuggle drugs, which is why they can get away with it now. We just need a rule -- why did nobody think of this before?
Seriously, though -- we just need to stop trusting them by default and make sure they're under video surveillance all the time, just like the rest of us. There's been enough instances of the airport security/baggage people being the ones stealing and smuggling that you can't just take them on face value.
This is absolutely a case where "trust, but verify" is needed. But, of course, they'll complain their privacy is being invaded and that it's not cost effective to monitor them -- despite that's what happened to the rest of us.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:and like so many tech products by gstoddart · 2012-05-14 05:37 · Score: 5, Funny

it won't work on black people. I'll be able to run through the concourse buttnaked and security will never be able to find me.

I for one welcome our new running-through-the-airport-buttnaked people-of-color overlords.

I believe that would make air travel far more interesting. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Orwell International Airport? by dryriver · 2012-05-14 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

So anyone who looks even mildly Middleeastern can expect to be searched from head-to-toe and watched over by X number of security cameras while he/she moves through the airport. Then he/she will fly into an airport somewhere else in the world, where the exact same thing will occurr again. Special search because of your mildly Middleeastern looks, and cameras that follow you around the airport 24/7. --------- This is INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, not SECURITY. But by the time America figures this out, it will be too late. Every airport in the world with a little spare money will follow the American example eventually, and flying anywhere will turn into a truly Orwellian experience. -------- What good is safety, if the method that provides it is largely based on being SELECTIVELY RACIST against anyone with mildly Middleeastern looks?

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.

Re:Orwell International Airport? by dryriver · 2012-05-14 06:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone I know visited Israel for 1 day on a business trip. He was detained and questioned by the Israelis for 4 - 5 hours there, for no particular reason. They accused him of having "hidden intentions in visiting Israel". Then they put his name on some kind of "suspect persons list" and let him go. Now, anytime he tries to board a plane anywhere in the world, he is asked to step aside for "special screening". -------- There is the crappy Israeli security model for you: Accuse someone of having random malicious intentions. Detain the person. Question the person. Then put the person on a special "suspect persons list", so that he/she gets harrassed by security at any airport he/she has to pass through from now on. ---------- Its a model that works for idiots only, really. And you are being blatantly racist in saying that you hope anyone vaguely middle-eastern looking should be searched thoroughly.

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.

Re:and like so many tech products by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · 2012-05-14 05:42 · Score: 2

We'll have to hire white people to follow you around to trip the cameras.

As a Minneapolis resident... by Icepick_ · 2012-05-14 05:45 · Score: 3, Funny

I feel safer already.

"no proof is required" by jc42 · 2012-05-14 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The MAC asserts that improved camera technology yields improved security as though the connection between the two is so strong that no proof is required."

My immediate thought was "What is 'no proof is required' a euphemism for?"

Probably something along the lines of "We have no supporting evidence, and decided not to bother testing it, because the results might come out wrong for our marketing, so we're going with the 'obvious to anyone but a real dummy' approach."

What else could they be trying to hide with such a comment?

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? by dkleinsc · 2012-05-14 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because this is something that the Washington establishment, which involves most people in both major parties, have decided is not going to be an election issue, along with Gitmo, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, the imprisonment and killing of American citizens without trial, the noticeable lack of prosecutions of Wall St bankers for fraud, and mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA.

Basically, it doesn't affect anybody who's rich enough or powerful enough to own a private jet, so nobody with the wealth or power to influence elections cares about it.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

(MAC) is beginning a $20 million upgrade by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-05-14 06:51 · Score: 2

In other words, The Metropolitan Airports Commission is flushing another $20 million of tax payers money down the endless sewer that is known as the TSA.

I wonder if in 200 years the TSA will be remembered as fondly as we do the Salem witch trials. Instead of drowning, we're gonna see if gamma radiation kills you or not. If not you obviously must be a terrorist and should be shot or sent to Gitmo. In fact in 5 years I think these bastards are just gonna kill anyone who shows up at the airport. If you're not a terrorist, why else would you want to fly? Hell, flying ain't natural anyhow. Only witches, (cough) I mean terrorists would want to fly.

Were you living under the rock?... by PaulBu · 2012-05-14 07:18 · Score: 2

... or did I miss <sarcasm> tag? ;)

Even if you read only /., you could not have missed this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/1823258/rand-paul-has-a-quick-fix-for-tsa-pull-the-plug

And yes, his dad's presidential campaign is going on well better than expected (though you are unlikely to read about this in mainstream media), for Ron Paul's views on TSA see, e.g., this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a14ktflduO0 (note that it is a speech from 2007, pre-current wave of intencified abuse).

Paul B.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? by robinsonne · 2012-05-14 07:32 · Score: 2

Because the media isn't making it an election issue. In an election year, you don't hear about squat unless the media in general wants you to hear about it.

What good are millions of people loudly declaring something while they're stuck in "protest/free speech" zones away from anyone with eyes to see them or ears to hear them?

Re:Yeah, how dare they by dinfinity · 2012-05-14 07:43 · Score: 2

Anecdotal evidence (done badly)? Check.
Statistics pulled out of your ass? Check.
Unfounded feeling of superiority? Check.
Blatant lies? Check.
Argumentum ad populum? Check.

Please crawl back under your safe rock and the fantasy world that it protects.

MAC is where EMPIRES are built! by swb · 2012-05-14 08:17 · Score: 2

The airport commission is where empires are built. If MAC isn't remodeling something or building something or buying a dozen new squad cars for the airport police (look! you can see them all parked together, like they don't need that many...), they're making sweetheart deals with the one remaining major carrier.

The funny thing is, since the NWA/Delta merger, Delta can't ship assets out of MSP fast enough (maintenance, ground operations, etc). Why MAC thinks we need a brass-plated airport when in 10 years the only direct flight you can get out of MSP is to another carrier's hub city is beyond me, but they have built a multi-terminal airport that's just ridiculously large and unsuited to the future role of air travel in MSP or the future of air travel in a era of expensive fuel.

Catching TSA thieves by billstewart · 2012-05-14 10:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The TSA has a history of stealing stuff from people's checked luggage and occasionally even their hand luggage or laptops. Maybe these cameras will be used to catch some of those thieves?

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Slashdot Mirror

Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade

33 of 104 comments (clear)