Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Security Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Minneapolis Airport Gets $20 Million Hi-Tech Security Upgrade

Comments Filter:
  • by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Monday May 14, 2012 @01:41PM (#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?
  • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Monday May 14, 2012 @01:45PM (#39997005) Homepage Journal

    "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?

  • by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Monday May 14, 2012 @02:03PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, 2012 @02:08PM (#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:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday May 14, 2012 @02:40PM (#39997613) Homepage

    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.

  • by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Monday May 14, 2012 @03:33PM (#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.

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik