Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade

New submitter bzzfzz writes "The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is beginning a $20 million upgrade of its surveillance system. The upgrade will include 1800 high-definition cameras, facial recognition systems, and digital archiving to replace the analog tape system in use since the 1980s. The system will serve both security and operational goals. 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."

Comments

means better stalked

[harvey the nerd]

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

Re:means better stalked

[cayenne8]

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....

Re:means better stalked

[mr1911]

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.

Re:means better stalked

[Baloroth]

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.

LOL ... tautology ...

[gstoddart]

"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.

Re:LOL ... tautology ...

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:LOL ... tautology ...

[rossjudson]

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 ...

[Bomazi]

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.

Finally...

[Patent Lover]

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

Re:and like so many tech products

[gstoddart]

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

"no proof is required"

[jc42]

"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?

Re:Orwell International Airport?

[dryriver]

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.

Re:Whew

[bbecker23]

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