Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade 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."
Orwell International Airport? (Score:3, Interesting)
"no proof is required" (Score:5, 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?
Re:Orwell International Airport? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:LOL ... tautology ... (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:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:means better stalked (Score:5, 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.