...If a place is that important, they should have armed sucurity 24-7...
The above was addressed by the second point in my comment.
...Making the whole idea redundant. Now, why would someone put forward the idea of creating a scalable system where the populattion becomes the eyes and ears of the state for cash? Can you say "TIPS2"...
The intent was not for the "population" to become the eyes and ears of the state, but for the state to employ members of the pop to look at flaged images or feeds that require human intervention - probably the "flagging" is done by a system similar to TIPS2 (assuming you're talking about some Imaging Processing system.)
Is the scale of what he's talking about a bit silly, probably; would it be better for the companies who will theoretically (according to the article) "absorb the cost, and happily" provide their own version within their established security force, probably.
The point is and was that your original post regarding the purpose of cameras - "evidence" collection - and the required response time for security personnel was inaccurate.
As with all things, the potential for good uses must be weighed against the risk of bad uses (commonly known as part of risk analysis).
Where could you put this to good uses?
1) Airports
2) Train stations
3) Sports Events (all kinds)
4) Schools (oh no, not the Jon Katz discussion...)
In the above case, adult criminals, not kids
5) Hospitals
6) Child Care facilities
On the other hand - if "They" took these pictures and started correlating them with your information, that could be bad.
You will only show up (under the current system) if YOU ALREADY HAVE A RECORD! So, it would be safe to assume that the chaff is discarded (i.e. all those people who didn't match a profile were coppied to/dev/null - in which case, WHY are you Worried?
Just my $0.02
The point of the encryption could be to prevent any cable leakage from being monitored. It is a basic van eck work around. The problem is that until everyone is using digital displays, the analog signal that is used by the CRT to actually do the displaying, and the display itself, emit enough radiation to be monitored. The primary method of preventing this is to implement either shielding around the unit or make the distance to the perimeter greater than the maximum distance the radiation can reach. Either of these two options is cheaper from the stand point of van eck. If they are attempting to enforce some other type of content control, this would be the perfect method...probably more likely IMO.
Don't know where the Header came from as it directly contradicts what a recent report Constellati on 3D, Inc. -CFMD- Sets Goals 2000 - 2001 said that their "Goals" were going to be. The article, from business wire, indicated that their first product would not be seen until 2001: "The target date for commencement of production is the second quarter of 2001." So sue me if the html doesn't work...
Slashdot Mirror
on the main page? Seems kinda weird. I did refresh the main page a number of times...
The above was addressed by the second point in my comment.
The intent was not for the "population" to become the eyes and ears of the state, but for the state to employ members of the pop to look at flaged images or feeds that require human intervention - probably the "flagging" is done by a system similar to TIPS2 (assuming you're talking about some Imaging Processing system.)
Is the scale of what he's talking about a bit silly, probably; would it be better for the companies who will theoretically (according to the article) "absorb the cost, and happily" provide their own version within their established security force, probably.
The point is and was that your original post regarding the purpose of cameras - "evidence" collection - and the required response time for security personnel was inaccurate.
First, monitoring systems ENABLE response - the intent here is to provide additional protection to special facilities (as indicated in posts above.)
Second, the types of facilities that are indicated typically have their own indigenous security detachment.
Just a thought (or two.)
As with all things, the potential for good uses must be weighed against the risk of bad uses (commonly known as part of risk analysis). Where could you put this to good uses? 1) Airports 2) Train stations 3) Sports Events (all kinds) 4) Schools (oh no, not the Jon Katz discussion...) In the above case, adult criminals, not kids 5) Hospitals 6) Child Care facilities On the other hand - if "They" took these pictures and started correlating them with your information, that could be bad. You will only show up (under the current system) if YOU ALREADY HAVE A RECORD! So, it would be safe to assume that the chaff is discarded (i.e. all those people who didn't match a profile were coppied to /dev/null - in which case, WHY are you Worried?
Just my $0.02
Doesn't mean it can't be compressed. I hardly think size will deter HD-VHS pirates.
The point of the encryption could be to prevent any cable leakage from being monitored. It is a basic van eck work around. The problem is that until everyone is using digital displays, the analog signal that is used by the CRT to actually do the displaying, and the display itself, emit enough radiation to be monitored.
The primary method of preventing this is to implement either shielding around the unit or make the distance to the perimeter greater than the maximum distance the radiation can reach.
Either of these two options is cheaper from the stand point of van eck. If they are attempting to enforce some other type of content control, this would be the perfect method...probably more likely IMO.
Don't know where the Header came from as it directly contradicts what a recent report Constellati on 3D, Inc. -CFMD- Sets Goals 2000 - 2001 said that their "Goals" were going to be. The article, from business wire, indicated that their first product would not be seen until 2001: "The target date for commencement of production is the second quarter of 2001." So sue me if the html doesn't work...