Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-the-better-to-see-you dept.

Security 104

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."

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

TSA: Ball Lickin' Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996691)

Lick my blals [sic], security theatere!

MOD PARENT UP!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996915)

Kno wha i'm saaaaaaaaayin?

means better stalked (4, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996719)

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

Re:means better stalked (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997243)

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 (4, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998109)

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 (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998173)

Because unlike in Hollywood movies, bomb sniffing dogs aren't machines with 100% uptime, 100% detection, 100% target coverage, and 100% trigger rates.

Re:means better stalked (4, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998241)

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.

Re:means better stalked (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999413)

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.

Re:means better stalked (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999421)

Machines, like dogs, do not have 100% uptime, detection, or trigger rates. As for target coverage, they are already bottlenecking everyone through a predetermined path. They don't need 100% coverage. Bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detector are good enough. Besides, there are already machines that will act like bomb-sniffing dogs if you want a little extra probability of detecting a bomb.

Re:means better stalked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40002657)

As others have said, neither are machines. In fact, if you have been paying attention, it should be apparent to you that these machines ... suck. Anyone who follows up knows that the TSA - Machine complex have allowed many more serious potential threats through while stopping harmless things like cup-cakes.

Also, dogs can take shifts. They can easily have two or three dogs on duty at a time and make sure that each person is carefully sniffed by two dogs before boarding the plane. That way if one dog does make a mistake, the other will catch it. and a metal detector at entrance points is good enough for detecting metal objects, they sure as heck beat those worthless scanners (for example, remember Adam Savage from Mythbusters accidentally slipped a pretty long blade through without being detected).

Re:means better stalked (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997305)

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

FTFA:

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

Calm down, will you? All it looks like they did was buy iPhones for the airport staff to replace their old Sony Cybershot [digicamhistory.com] cameras and Nokia Cellphones [wikipedia.org]

Catching TSA thieves (3, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999939)

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?

and like so many tech products (1, Flamebait)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996737)

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.

Re:and like so many tech products (1)

Pirulo (621010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996757)

No problem,
we only need to scare the white ones.

Re:and like so many tech products (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996895)

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

Re:and like so many tech products (2)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996979)

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

Re:and like so many tech products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998023)

I'm totally invisible to cameras too when I am naked, but only if no one is looking at me.

LOL ... tautology ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996769)

"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 ... (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997095)

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 [cdn3.gbot.me] 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 ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997231)

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.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998865)

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.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#40001739)

Technology that slows down the security line cannot feasibly make you safer because it causes backups that inherently make you less safe.

Utterly false.

If you don't let anybody on the plane, nobody can blow it up.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997267)

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 ... (1)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997323)

It's pretty much the same at JFK. I do see TSA riding the trains though. They need to get to their cars afterall.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997367)

but...but...Profiling=Racisim to several members of the US government

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (4, Insightful)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997553)

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 ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997647)

Seems to me that the main weakness in the system was the lack of lockable cockpit doors. That has been corrected.

Yet they still let dune coon's on board. Make the fucker's ride cammels if they want to go anywhere I say.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (2)

harperska (1376103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998153)

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 ... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999689)

Due to the inspections, no more terrorists are there to be discovered. So it means it helps. More of this will make it eve

(Obvious sarcasm warning)

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (5, Insightful)

Bomazi (1875554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997891)

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 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997979)

What methods of security the private airlines choose to implement is ENTIRELY up to them.

As long as the .gov is not involved, I can make the choice on my own which airline I feel is "safe enough."

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000781)

Israeli-type security is not acceptable. I shouldn't be interrogated just because

And the rest of this sentence doesn't matter. You will be questioned if it saves my life, and thank you but fuck your entitlement issues: Your desire not to be questioned does not trump my right not to be detonated upon. Israeli type security has a proven safety record, it's effective, cheap, and doesn't result in people being rendered sterile or developing cancer because people like you can't stand the idea that you could be questioned by the authorities.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40006347)

. Israeli type security has a proven safety record, it's effective, cheap, and doesn't result in people being rendered sterile or developing cancer

Though Israeli security is highly effective, it's by no means cheap. Israel spends at least 10x as much as much per passenger than the US for airport security. It also doesn't scale. There are 1.3M passengers going through Israeli airports yearly, and almost 750M through US airports. To question each passenger for ~10 minutes (conservative average for Israili security) the US would need 3 million full time, highly *trained* security agents (compare that to the 50k TSA agents who are anything but highly trained).

The fact is, most people in the US would prefer to live with the crappy security theater we have (which has still been effective enough in the last decade) than pay an extra $50+ per ticket.

And seriously? Name one case of someone becoming sterile or developing cancer due to body scanners. Your argument would be much more interesting without the hyperbole and unresearched statements...

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998115)

anyone with even average intelligence can easily figure out how to kill hundreds, if not thousands, at any...

Place...
No need to bring in Israeli's. No need to do anything more than anywhere else a lot of people gather. School, church, office building, mall, parks. Just as easy to target, no TSA there... Why do we need them at the airport?

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998347)

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 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999069)

We would have to pay the screening personnel more. And that's done by the lowest bidder isn't it?

Think about it.... (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997383)

If they're replacing an old video tape system from the 80's, then you can bet that the resolution of the cameras are standard definition. They may even be B&W. If the storage medium was tape, it was probably stored in analog by something as simple as a VCR. Those heads can clog so easily, and degrade so that the resolution is even worse.

Adding new cameras gives them the opportunity to have higher resolution video, controllable mounts for direction and zoom, and probably a professional DVR system that would store the video digitally, which would make it easier to submit video of suspects to law enforcement for standard crimes, not just terrorists.

Re:Think about it.... (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998533)

And all that will still leave the system worthless for anything other than emergency response.

Video surveillance is useless for identifying people because (1) compression impacts exactly those spatial frequencies needed for face recognition and (2) humans are bad at identifying faces (unless they are very familiar). Even if a face is not present in a lineup, people say it is 70% of the time.

[1] Video Surveillance is Useless (presentation) http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~pk/Research/VideoIsUselessANZFSS/ [uwa.edu.au]
[2] Video Surveillance: Legally Blind? http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~pk/Research/pkpapers/legallyblind.pdf [uwa.edu.au]
[3] Face Recognition in Poor Quality Video http://pss.sagepub.com/content/10/3/243.short [sagepub.com]

Re:Think about it.... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000349)

Making lots of assumptions about the codecs used, aren't we...

Re:Think about it.... (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about 2 years ago | (#40002421)

Fair enough, but the psychological aspects don't depend on the codec.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (2)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998417)

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.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999001)

I would expect any such system to provide sufficient storage to hold the last n hours of data (specified by policy) and for the data to be thrown away after that. This isn't a particularly difficult task for computers to handle.

I would also assume that these cameras would operate on an entirely separate network from any of the rest of the airport's traffic—probably on dedicated fiber runs to their security center that run in the same conduits where the video lines ran before.

In other words, it shouldn't be a significant change for them other than in terms of what they can do with it. If it requires their IT department to do lots of extra work, they got ripped off by the company designing the system.

Re:LOL ... tautology ... (1)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001607)

You would expect wrong then, in most cases. The very best storage tool (probably Lenel's, but maybe Pelco's) provides nothing better than a "guesstimate" as to storage needs or network overhead. If you're recording in MJPEG format (hugely wasteful, but the only format available for many of the megapixel cameras) it wouldn't be too bad, but it still depends on the complexity of the scene. If the camera can do MPEG4 the tool now has to account for the amount of motion in the scene. If H.264 is an available codec then it needs to account for what percentage of a scene will have motion in it for what percentage of the time. Good luck with that.

To get the bid the vendor will assume MPEG4 for the majority of the cameras, H.264 for a percentage of the rest, and the remainder MJPEG. In all likelihood, because of the peculiarities of the high definition security camera market (marketing is more important than real features) the percentages are likely to be reversed.

That's life in the real world for security system installers.

Whew (2)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996777)

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.

Re:Whew (4, Funny)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997649)

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

Finally... (5, Funny)

Patent Lover (779809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996817)

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

Re:Finally... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996877)

Somehow I doubt the TSA will use the cameras to incriminate themselves.

Re:Finally... (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996995)

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... (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997087)

Hell we can't even manage to get cameras in the US Supreme Court and people would watch that.

Re:Finally... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996943)

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

I'm betting somehow they won't be putting cameras there, or they'll be conveniently out of service most of the time.

But I would absolutely agree these people need to be under 100% surveillance as well -- they pose far more risk than most air travelers, both in terms of smuggling and in terms of security risk.

Re:Finally... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997529)

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. This will either cause them to fix the cameras or not screen bags, their choice. This would cause uproar via the public if they halted flights the moment security cameras were offline, causing them to fix the problem or have a black mark on public reputation of the TSA. But that is like shitting on a turd, nobody will notice ;)

Re:Finally... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997613)

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.

MAC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996865)

I always get excited when I see something about my home state make slashdot, but alas it is always bad news. The MAC is just a bunch of political appointees attempting to funnel money to Mark Dayton's supporters. At least the high-res cameras seem like they might have some useful public effect (whether you agree with the need or not), unlike many of the things they do: millions of $$ to rename the damn terminals, millions of $$ providing/installing noise insulation in single family homes(those people all paid less because they were by the airport).

Anyway, next time you fly thru MSP look to the camera and flip the MAC a high-def bird for increasing the cost of your flight, your parking and your airport food purchases.

So much detail ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996945)

They'll be able to see the slightest of foot taps in the men's room.

Orwell International Airport? (2, Interesting)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996951)

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?

Re:Orwell International Airport? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997045)

I sure as heck hope that the middle-easterny people get detained at airports! It seems to work for Israel! I don't know if you really need all the HD cams for that though, just stop them at security.

Re:Orwell International Airport? (4, Interesting)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997205)

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:Orwell International Airport? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998897)

Judging from your earlier paranoid post, I'm guessing this guy was Arab or Persian, right?

Re:Orwell International Airport? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997153)

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

Actually, it might be worse -- the USA will require that any airport boarding passengers destined for the US will have an equivalent level of security, and be required to share this in real time with the CIA, or be told they can't send planes.

So, it won't really be about 'spare' money, as money you have to spend if you plan on being a departure point for US bound people.

I'm waiting for them to just give up and start stripping people so they can be put into blast-proof shipping containers while they're bound and blindfolded for transport -- just to be sure. You know, like Silence of the Lambs meets Cattle Class in air travel.

I wish I was only joking. But we seem to be trending there.

Re:Orwell International Airport? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997165)

You sound like a urine-colored (Thank you Mr. Andrew 'Dice' Clay!) shill.

Everyone in the USA/UK knows that only white octogenarians and their grandchildren are terrorists. As they are the only ones obviously being asked to step aside for special head-to-toe searches. You urine-colored actual terrorists are given a free pass because it is simply 'Politically Incorrect' to ask you to step aside for a special head-to-toe search. You know, the urine-colored guy that tried to set his shoe bombs on fire wasn't given a special search, nor was the urine-colored guy that tried to blow up his underwear.

Clearly you are a shill, and not one of the discriminated against 80yo white women nor one of the 4yo grandchildren. That also makes you a urine-colored racist against non-urine-colored people. You fucking urine-colored racist shill.

Yeah, how dare they (1, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997235)

I mean, how dare a Dutch jeweller put up high quality camera's so the two gentlemen who merely came here to seek someone elses fortune be caught on camera red handed AND still the mother of one claims it wasn't one of them and they never did anything because to a certain type of people, getting hold of a weapon in a country were guns are restricted is perfectly normal.

Can you guess the skin color of these mis understood individuals who are so pitiful for being so scared by an unarmed man they had to shoot him multiple times at close range. And then were so remorseful they rather succesfully managed to flee except that thanks to high-def images everyone knew who they were so the few family members who didn't do anything to stop them getting weapons convinced them to turn them in.

When profiling certain races doesn't lead to a 99% success rate in finding criminals, racial profiling will stop. I had a rather nice view of some bleeding hearts results at profiling at Weesp train station today, a check for tickets atthe exit. Gosh, whites, asians even a few blacks. And two middle eastern type. Fat, heads shaved at the back... gosh... they didn't have tickets. HOW suprising! But no racial profiling. Everyone has to show tickets, just to catch two. That is efficient, else they might feel picked on... Maybe if just ONCE these types bought a ticket, the only they got one if they got access to a free one.

Oh, it is not everyone with a brown skin, but with clothing, hairstyles, attitude, it is just to easy to pick them out.

But oh no, that is racist. No it fucking isn't. It is culturist. It is the simple knowledge that certain cultures lack morals. Mod me down all you want, that is what they done in Belgium, anyone who dared to be anti-PC was ignored... and the resentment just grew and grew. Right now the issue can the still be solved, another decade or two and someone somewhere with charisma and nasty ideas will build a powerbase on that resentment and then every bleeding heart will ask "how could this happen".

Re:Yeah, how dare they (2)

dinfinity (2300094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998315)

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.

Re:Yeah, how dare they (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998331)

Racial profiling, if legal, will continue as long as we have racists in positions of power. Which is likely to be hundreds of years, at least.

Re:Yeah, how dare they (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998597)

Racial profiling, legal or no, will continue as long as we have racists in positions of power.

I think that's what you meant.

Re:Yeah, how dare they (1)

claar (126368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001055)

I was somewhat with you until "It is the simple knowledge that certain cultures lack morals"; that's just too broad of brush stroke.

While I think statistics-based profiling has merit, to say that an entire culture lacks morals either defines culture in a bizarre way (like, "people of middle-eastern descent who also lack morals"), or the statement is simply rampant racism/prejudice.

Re:Orwell International Airport? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998027)

I fly quite a bit, and I have yet to see anyone "middleastern" looking, even mildly so; being put through any further inspection after walking through the magnet/naked image scanner.

Are you inferring that the camera operators, being hidden from the view of the public, would be more racist?

Re:Orwell International Airport? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998857)

They could do this now, and yet they don't. Why are you a paranoid nutjob?

Fairly major transit hub. (1)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996987)

The Twin cities are a major transit hub for flights originating from Asia.

Most of my trips from SE Asia via Tokyo, Narita have ended with a transit through Minneapolis when I was in College in the Midwest.

Re:Fairly major transit hub. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997069)

Also be wary of KLM or Delta flights from Europe (especially from Pairs or Amsterdam) as it was the main Northwest hub until they were bought by Delta.

Re:Fairly major transit hub. (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000363)

So is LA, SF, New York, and Chicago. Your point?

As a Minneapolis resident... (3, Funny)

Icepick_ (25751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997003)

I feel safer already.

"no proof is required" (4, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997005)

"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:"no proof is required" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997177)

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

In this case it's a euphemism for "jc42's failure in reading comprehension prevented him from realizing that the phrase was something the article submitter said about the MAC's position rather than something the MAC themselves said".

Re:"no proof is required" (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997827)

You're right, of course. I do try to keep in the back of my mind that any news story that I read should be prefixed with "This reporter claims ...", but it's easy to forget that qualification and think that the reporter is telling the truth about what the article's subject actually said.

And I suppose that we could really use occasional reminders that, in cases like this where there's a political (or religious or artistic or ...) component to the story, there may be a high probability that the reporter is lying to us readers. So keep up the good work, and continue to remind us that /. summaries sometimes are outright lies.

/. may in general be more reliable than the MSM, but achieving that level of reliability isn't very challenging. ;-)

Re:"no proof is required" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40005053)

I dunno, it was pretty obvious to me, but then again I read the summary. I simply read it as the view of the reporter about how they presented the justification for the security cameras. Obvious, no lies, no shenanigans. Just reading.

So will it find that crap I accidently get through (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997021)

Since this my home town airport will they finally find the crap that I accidentally bring through security like:
Pocket knives forgotten in my pocket
Straight edge razors in the carry on suitcase
Shotgun shells forgotten in my coat pocket
Rifle round forgotten in my coat pocket

Re:So will it find that crap I accidently get thro (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997245)

I doubt it - neither Kalispell (Montana) airport nor MSP airport caught my wife's mini boxcutter or pocket knife multitool (3 inch pocketknife) in her purse. She didn't even realize they were there until arriving home.

Remember when Terrorism... (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997199)

meant being Irish?

I don't remember this much hoopla being lavished on ... say... the Guildford Four.

Re:Remember when Terrorism... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000383)

For a bunch of murdering assholes, the IRA was fairly good about not targeting civilians just for the hell of it.

Why is no one doing anything? (1)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997225)

It's an election year. It seems that many Americans are genuinely worried about increased surveillance. The idea that it's all ineffectual security theater against an ephemeral and perhaps non-existent enemy also appears pervasive. So why aren't you making it an election issue? Millions of people loudly declaring "I won't vote for you unless you restructure/abolish the TSA" would send a pretty strong message.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997349)

That doesn't work when both parties are in favor of doing something.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998995)

Then vote for one of the OTHER parties that are available. There aren't just "two" parties, however the system is designed for just "two".

Re:Why is no one doing anything? (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997371)

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.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997549)

One of the candidates IS making it an issue.

But you won't vote for him.

Were you living under the rock?... (2)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998093)

... 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 [slashdot.org]

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 [youtube.com] (note that it is a speech from 2007, pre-current wave of intencified abuse).

Paul B.

Re:Why is no one doing anything? (2)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998235)

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?

Courage Mom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997423)

(insert Patriotism here)

Latex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997603)

So what they are saying is a terrorist can put on a latex mask and pose as someone else and still blow us up on a flight. Great.....

(MAC) is beginning a $20 million upgrade (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997761)

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.

"no proof required" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997917)

Proof? Obviously not needed. It's about security. Mark. My. Words: Se-Cu-Ri-Ty. No proof required. Obvious, of course. Or are you one of them pinko-hippie-commie-nazi-paedophile terrists or sumtin'? Right, thought so.

now people will be really secure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998195)

I meant...the people who own the company which sold the 10M$ system ...now they are financially secured....

Not Orwellian (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998287)

Having security measures and surveillance at a location like this isn't my problem. It's the surveillance of daily activities, monitoring of my transactions, and snooping on my communications that bothers me.

MAC is where EMPIRES are built! (2)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998711)

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.

Terrorist incidents in Minnesota: 0 (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998841)

As far as I can find, Minnesota has never had an incident of terrorism. "Terrorism" in Minnesota seems to consist of throwing glitter at people. [minnpost.com]

Re:Terrorist incidents in Minnesota: 0 (1)

borcharc (56372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999425)

Minnesota is a hotbed of terrorism investigations, I have heard they are #2 behind NYC. There have been several grand juries that have been somewhat publicly investigating Somali refuges for participation in terrorism training camps, money laundering, and the Zacharia Musawi matter.

As for the airport, they are epic tools. I have heard from several reliable sources that they do not record tapes on the current camera system or have employees monitor it. A few years back I questioned an MAC (airport) official on this he got very shaky and tried to feed me a line about how they fixed all of that. Then all he wanted to talk about was who my source was, very convincing. All this system will do is have hard drives full of data that will never be watched except to delete incriminating videos of their officers, a rare event as they spend most of their time outside the terminal harassing passing drivers on Highway 5 or biking at high speed through the terminal. This will never get better until society has enough of overboard policing and the members of the MAC stop being political appointees and stand for elections.

I blame Bruce Schneier (1)

nickovs (115935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001289)

Not only did Bruce [wikipedia.org] demonstrate how useless the security at MSP is [theatlantic.com] , but it's his home airport. My guess is that the TSA want all this extra 'security' to keep tabs on him.

Airport Improvement Fee (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 2 years ago | (#40002037)

Any word about an "Airport Improvement Fee" (actual wording may vary) that will be tacked on tickets flying out of/terminating in Minneapolis?

Somali Muslims targeted? (1)

swell (195815) | about 2 years ago | (#40002813)

Could this have anything to do with the large population of Somali immigrants in Minneapolis? There are indications of a criminal minority among them.

"Over the past 25 years, the United States has admitted about 84,000 Somali refugees [they've got that figure about right, but they don't include all those who got in through other immigration programs or who came in illegally and have disappeared---ed]. Close to 40 percent live in Minnesota."
http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/why-so-many-somalis-in-minneapolis/ [wordpress.com]

To say it is happening in that city is to ignore that it may be targeting a particular population. Or maybe there are other security risks in that city that I am unaware of...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>