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!

The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the bubble-ball dept.

Security 265

Hugh Pickens writes "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday, one part of the game they will not see is the massive deployment of federal and local law enforcement resources to achieve what is being called the most technologically secure Super Bowl in history, an event that has been officially designated as a National Security Special Event (PDF). At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles. 'We can detect people, handguns and rifles,' says Customs and Border Protection Officer Brian Bell. 'You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it. Our goal is to look at every vehicle that makes a delivery inside the stadium and inside the secure perimeter.' Next is the 51-foot Featherlite mobile command center for disaster response that will support the newly constructed $18 million Regional Operations Center (ROC) for the Marion County Department of Homeland Security that will serve as a fusion center for coordinating the various federal agencies involved in providing security for the Super Bowl. One interesting security measure are the 'Swiveloc' explosion-proof manhole covers (video) that Indianapolis has spent $150,000 installing that are locked down during the Super Bowl. In case of an underground explosion, the covers lift a couple of inches off the ground — enough to vent gas out without feeding in oxygen to make an explosion bigger — before falling back into place. Finally the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI has installed a network of cameras that will be just a click away for government officials. 'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

cancel ×

265 comments

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

Fear (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898159)

You know the terrorists have won when...

Re:Fear (4, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898707)

The terrorists won when America stopped being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and became a bunch of fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, limp-wristed namby pambies.

Re:Fear (5, Insightful)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898781)

You know the terrorists have won when...

Also:

You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...

Re:Fear (0)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898879)

Bingo! We have a winner!

You hit the nail on the head, FridayBob.

Re:Fear (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899073)

You know the terrorists have won when...

Also:

You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...

And such a stupid occasion. It's just more money worship. Otherwise, jocks and the jock-sniffers who think they're important are the very most expendable members of society.

Re:Fear (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898911)

You know the terrorists have won when...

When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?

When we changed our foreign policies that they didn't like?

When we completely withdrew from the countries where they are from?

When we quit supporting the local enemies of those terrorists?

Look, this kind of "security" may be stupid, but claiming that it's evidence that the terrorists "won" is just moronic. "Making people scared" wasn't the goal, in itself. Osama and pals didn't care about Superbowl gamma ray scanners, or airport strip searches, or any of the other stuff that people point to and say "THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!"

Re:Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899031)

Actually yes, they did. Curtailing our freedoms was explicitly part of their aims, and I doubt they dared hope that one single attack would be so effective.

Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

omganton (2554342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898167)

...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898213)

Space exploration should not be what is focused on right now. Neither should football, this isn't about football it is about a large group of people gathering and a potential terrorist target, you may not agree with the way it is handled but this is not about football, its about protecting people if anything. You on the other hand are a troll.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898299)

I'd rather have the 'terrorists' than this war on terror garbage.

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898497)

Welcome to democracy. Most of us are quite willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from being murdered on national television.

You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898533)

So why the fuck didnt you vote Bush out in 2004?

Hypocritical indeed

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898769)

So why the fuck didnt you vote Bush out in 2004?

Hypocritical indeed

Maybe he did. The majority of people choose to vote Bush in again. Personally, I didn't agree, but that's democracy for you.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899021)

that's debatable. Bush one the popular vote by a couple thousand votes(over an even bigger idiot I might add) however in reality less than 1/6th the population voted for him. slightly less than 1/6th voted for Kerry and 4/6th decided that neither candidate was worth voting for.

If only not voting counted for something.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898545)

If something major was going to happen, it would've already, and at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. It doesn't make sense to me to spend this kind of money and instill this level of fear in America for an unproven threat. I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898677)

That is some deeply flawed logic. You can always say "if it was going to happen, it would have", right up to the point where it does happen. And then a few years later, you start saying "if it was going to happen again..."

The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.

Therefore, if there is a 0.1% chance of an attack, it is worth spending up to $38M to prevent it. But such a likelihood only gives a 10% (1 - .999^100) chance of happening in a century, so your statement, "If something major was going to happen, it would've already" falls flat.

Security theater is bad. But not all security is theater.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899087)

Wait, since when is the male life expectancy 78 in this country? Women, yes. Men are more like 72 and that's not counting how obese and poisoned with crap we are now days.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

anglico (1232406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898713)

"...at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. ..."

yet those venues aren't broadcast live around the world like the superbowl. Terrorists would love to have that kind of an audience. Of course I don't believe in the FUD that our government and many others try to cram down our throats at every opportunity, but it would make a very valuable target to terrorists.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898799)

I don't think terrorists are stupid enough to hit a major event like this.
I would think they would know that no matter who did it, we would hunt them down in a fit of rage and end their miserable lives -- and the lives of all their associates and families. Could you imagine how upset the rest of the world would be if someone took out the World Cup final?

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898913)

Who, exactly, are you still afraid of? In his State of the Union speech, Obama claimed that Osama bin Laden no longer threatens the U.S. (natch) and al Qaeda's leaders have been defeated. [voanews.com] How much money are we spending to protect the Super Bowl from an enemy that our Commander in Chief claims has already been defeated?!?!

Meanwhile...ROTCryingMEyesO (4, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898635)

"Many of us are far too willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security."

It took some major editing, but I fixed that for you.

"You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority."

Clearly, that is exactly what a few people are allowed to do. And worse, they are allowed to throw the US Constitution out the window in the process.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898717)

Fucking coward.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1, Flamebait)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898731)

Then why are you and your Republicantard cronies forcing your views on the rest of the planet? Go sodomize yourself with a stiff wire brush - sideways.

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Flamebait)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898759)

I'm not a Republican you fucking dipshit. I'm about as far from one as a human being can be.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898861)

You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.

You know, those of us who are sick of this "security at any cost!!!" crap could say the same thing to you. After all, we have to help foot the bill for it, we have to acquiesce to the "security" searches (in violation of the 4th Amendment, no less). What gives you the right to force your opinion (fear) on me?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898903)

"hundreds of thousands"

Damn! How big is that stadium?!?

Irony (3, Insightful)

Bonker (243350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898543)

And while all this fear mongering, submission to armed authority, 'convenience arrests', and security theater is happening, thousands of Americans will be singing

"mumble mumble mumble something something Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"

*shakes head sadly*

Yeah. Enjoy the game. Really. There's not a lot else left now, is there?

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898343)

its about protecting people if anything

It's about fearmongering and harassing red-blooded law-abiding citizens, conditioning them to accept government intrusion into their lives, and making work for low-rent thugs while scores of teachers are being laid off.

You are the one who's trolling. Since when in history has an American football game ever been subject to a terrorist attack? Note: a drunken fan who throws a plastic cup of beer at a rival team's fan is not a "lone wolf" terrorist [foxsports.com] no matter what the government tells you.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898855)

...you may not agree with the way it is handled

You're right. I don't.

...but this is not about football, its about protecting people if anything.

I beg to differ. It's about fear -- specifically, it's about using fear as a tool to get the masses to accept whatever kind of authoritarian measures the government wants to put in place so that they have however much control they want over our lives. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on space exploration.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

1729 (581437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898337)

...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

It's not just ensuring that "Football is safe." The Super Bowl will have on the order of 100k people in and around the stadium and more than 100 million people watching. We can argue about whether the specific measures will be effective, or whether they invade privacy, or whatever, but don't dismiss a high-value terrorism target as just a football game.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898373)

If the NFL feels its a target, then the fucking NFL can pay the bill.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898483)

It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Even the most hardcore libertarians usually will at least concede that much. The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point. If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government (whose top concern is reelection) than a private, for-profit organization (whose top concern is saving money).

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898605)

This argument is stupid. Do you have any idea how many events in the U.S. have about the same amount of attendance? Summerfest in Milwaukee draws 100,000 people every day for 11 days straight, and I'm really quite sure the feds arent helping with security.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898751)

Summerfest is also much less densely packed, making it a vastly inferior target. And it's not nationally televised, so it wouldn't have the same impact on national morale that an attack on the Super Bowl would. This isn't rocket science, here.

Re:Meanwhile... (2, Informative)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898785)

Most top tier NCAA football games have more attendance. Aren't the stadiums at Michigan and Penn State the largest, and consistently sold out?

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898871)

This isn't rocket science, here.

Having read through your past posts, I'm sure that you're grateful that such is the case.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898807)

it isn't the most watched event on American TV, fuck I have never even heard of Summerfest until now

so which is really the bigger target if you wanted to cause a big fucking stink? An event that will pack 100,000+ in attendence with 106.5 million watching every single second? Or some music festival that a lot of people have never heard of?

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898849)

The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point.

The government response to any other private "too big to secure" event consists of "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event". So, following your (entirely true) statement, the government should simply ban the superbowl.


If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

Roads. Schools. Water. National defense (stress both the "national" and the "defense" parts of that). And although I'll throw "police" in there as well, I do so with the caveat that providing police protection for the populace at large does not equate to providing security for a private, for-profit event.


Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government.

I feel much safer looking after myself. And damned good that I do, because apparently during the superbowl, all the Big Eyes will look just that much less closely at all the other prime targets.

Al Qaeda didn't attack the WTC with an airplane to show the holes in our impenetrable airport security screening procedures; they did it because no one thought they'd use the airplanes themselves as weapons, only as a bargaining chip for hostages or money or guns.

So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.

Re:Meanwhile... (1, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898909)

So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.

Only because IT IS a highly visible trap. Security by intimidation of potential attackers only works if you actually do intimidate the potential attackers.

And, FYI, you do not look out for yourself. You can't. No one can. No one is always alert, all the time, for any emergency. We rely on each other to look out for us when we let our guard down (which is all the time). That's the great thing about society. I wish the anarchists could understand that, but they're all convinced that they are supermen. Gods incarnate who can look after their every need.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898493)

Well-said, motherfucker. Well said.

Here in San Diego the Chargers were threatening to move to L.A. if we didn't build them a new stadium, and they wanted the taxpayers to subsidize the stadium. Note: the Chargers haven't won a single super-bowl and got their asses handed to them(by the San Francisco 49'ers) in the one super bowl in which they played.

Note: the lowest-paid NFL players still make over $100,000 a year(the median is around $750,000) while you are feeding your kids ramen noodles because you can't find a job.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898733)

OTOH, those NFL players end up with a three-year career, and lifetime medical expenses.

So...what does it mean?

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898801)

That they, the fans and the civic and state governments that bend to pressure from billionaire owners are, collectively, a bunch of fucking morons.

But I'm all for keeping the Superbowel safe. Can you imagine if al Qaeda did kill a few thousand people at the game? Fuck, we'd have ten years with of awful tributes to the fallen as low IQ types chanted "USA USA USA" and presidents and congressman would give speeches of how they died for freedom and football.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898513)

The NFL doesn't invade other countries. The government does.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898661)

Anybody who believes that they may be making themselves a target for terrorists by going, and still goes so they don't miss their precious football game, is destined to die in adherence to Darwinian law.

One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898179)

What game do they play at the Super Bowl?

Re:One question (4, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898183)

Hand egg.

Re:One question (-1, Offtopic)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898531)

Hurr hurr! You're hilarious! You should do stand-up!

Do the one about the metric system next!

Re:One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898223)

Football!

Is this a trick question? Oh.../.. Right.

Re:One question (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898231)

What happens is that two football clubs football at each other and the one that footballs the hardest wins at football. That and something about Michael Jackson's sisters nipple.

Re:One question (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898319)

Except in Egypt, where even a home team win can lead to 78 deaths on the field [go.com] .

Vancouver melted down after the cup loss and just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898833)

Vancouver melted down after the cup loss and just thing what would happened if they lost in round 1 game 7 to the blackhawks. That may ended in a even bigger mess.

Re:Vancouver melted down after the cup loss and ju (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898887)

How many confirmed deaths in Vancouver hockey riot?

None you say?

Thought so. Even in Canukistan people don't kill over hockey.

The FBI webcam network (4, Interesting)

supersat (639745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898193)

'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Who sets this kind of thing up without any authentication?!

Re:The FBI webcam network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898277)

So you're saying Anonymous may take over the Super Bowl?

post dirty secrets of corruption on the scoreboard during half time?

Re:The FBI webcam network (5, Funny)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898285)

Brigadier General Stewart "Bareback" Goodwin

Re:The FBI webcam network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898387)

Nobody sets these things up without any authentication. Brigadier General is a man of few words who doesn't need to state the obvious: these cameras do have authentication.

Please don't misunderestimate the esteemed Brigadier General!

Re:The FBI webcam network (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898441)

If you can't watch them, then bring your microwave ovens and knock out their WiFi. FBI won't be able to watch either.

I wonder if those gamma-ray scanners are going to be looking for microwave ovens.

Re:The FBI webcam network (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898525)

Yes indeed. There are a zillion ways you could defeat security. I remember back when 9/11/2001 happened. I was working for the Rhode Island Department of Attorney General at the time. We got all sorts of documentation on how you could hide weaponry on things that even TSA wouldn't scan for and that would get through scans without issue.

And to disrupt you really don't need a microwave system. Just load up Backtrack and go for broke. It's a pretty sure bet they'll use WEP!

Re:The FBI webcam network (1)

mbstone (457308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898921)

If you work for the Homeland Security, do you get access to the All-22 Shot [wsj.com] ?

What's the worry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898203)

Are ya'll expecting something that you should perhaps be telling us about? Not that I could give two shits less about football, but still.

One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming up.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898205)

Which will invalidate any attempt at security. nice GPS autopilot and crude balloon puncturing mechanism to deliver payload.

Re:One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming u (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898407)

Visit from Secret Service in 3,2,1...

Re:One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming u (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898563)

Your high explosives are nothing compared to the farts which will issue from tens of thousands of asses
halfway through the game.

All we need to do is ignite those farts, and the whole place will go up !

Of course, if the DHS outlaws beer and tacos, they might save the day.

Re:One $1000 balloon with high explosives coming u (1)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898749)

You just ripped of one of the regular Joker plots that Batman has to foil.

Of course, this whole attack the superbowl thing is a re-used plot [wikipedia.org] , too.

If you had the right (Internet) address... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898215)

> you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there...

Now there's a gauntlet, if I every saw one.

A challenge (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898221)

They have just created a challenge in regards to just that Internet address is...

Re:A challenge (2)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898383)

And then when a thousand /. geeks go looking for the hidden "internet address" and find it - the Government can say "Look we have 1000 internet terrorists attacking us, we need to have better control over the internet!." :(

TSA Ball Rubs at the Superbowl? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898233)

Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch. Who needs a half-time show, just put a camera on that fiasco.

Re:TSA Ball Rubs at the Superbowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898477)

Half the time I wish they would. Maybe that'd wake people up faster to the bullshit that air travelers (and, increasingly, bus/rail travelers) are going through on a daily basis. Wake them up to the national security state that's emerging all too rapidly. I wager far more US citizens watch football than fly on a regular basis.

Feel up? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898553)

Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch

"Feel up"? Don't you mean "irradiate"? G-ray scanner capable of looking through inches of steel isn't too safe for gonads. Especially if they don't shut down the source if traffic gets tied up in front of it.

If most of 'em weren't already past breeding age it might make a nontrivial improvement in the nerd/jock ratio of upcoming generations.

(Yes, yes, I know they said it was for use on cargo vehicles. But if operated with the usual competence level of government projects ...)

Let's 'ope nobody tweets "destroy Super Bowl" (4, Funny)

sehlat (180760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898249)

Or they'll cancel the 'ole bleedin' lot!

Fuck all this (4, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898267)

Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.

Re:Fuck all this (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898363)

This ^^^

A Challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898271)

"'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

Sounds like he's issuing a challenge.

The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. (5, Informative)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898287)

They were because they KEEP EXPLODING!!!

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29819089/detail.html [theindychannel.com]

Re:The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. (4, Funny)

pnot (96038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898381)

If you don't want your manhole to explode, stop eating vindaloo.

FInally (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898351)

we won't have those constant superbowl terrorist attacks!

I just have to ask since everybody so far has... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898355)

ignored this: GAMMA RAY DETECTORS? I don't really have the full grasp on which types of radiation are 'safe' or not, but if these scanners are strong enough to see through 6 inches of steel and detect humans/weapons, can they really be that safe to use on (I assumed) every citizen coming through the checkpoint in order to park at the superbowl?

Honestly I'd rather take my odds with being hit during the superbowl than being irradiated just to get inside. Then again, if it sterilized even a fraction of the football crowd.... :D

Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898469)

It's a thing [wikipedia.org] , and yes, what it sounds like: they have a radioactive source that gives off gamma rays, which pass through a truck, and then gamma ray detectors that look at what passed through. Sort of like a heavy-duty xray machine, except at these sizes/energies, the gamma-ray machines are actually safer than getting blasted with xrays.

Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898877)

Gamma-ray machines run at 1.25MeV, while diagnostic x-rays are done in the range of 0.02-0.15MeV. How is 10-60x more radiation safer?

Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899009)

Medical x-rays are safer, but they don't come anywhere near penetrating a steel truck at that power. The kinds of x-ray machines needed to scan a whole truck [wikipedia.org] are more like 5-10 MeV.

Meanwhile (3, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898395)

Someone mixes tiny nitroglycerin tablets with breadcrumbs and the Super Bowl is canceled due to pigeon poop.

Re:Meanwhile (4, Funny)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898427)

That would be a fowl deed.

Re:Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898615)

coo, coo! (coup!)

Neckbeards, that's your cue (4, Funny)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898401)

"Oh boy!" thought Milton, "A article on football! And not the soccer version, the American football kind!" He could barely contain his troll-citement. He never fully recovered from the traumatizing memories of high school where the sports jocks viciously bullied him, and this was a perfect opportunity to remind the world how stupid the concept of this sport was! He put his fingers together, pondering on what kind of "insightful" comment would get modded up by his fellow neck-beards. A reference to hand-egg and the stupidity of the name? Nah.. been done before.. Perhaps a comment on the overall barbaric nature of the sport and a jab to all the rednecks and jocks that enjoy it? Better.. but maybe...

"Wait a minute..." he thought. "Maybe I should be contributing to the contents of the article? Perhaps I should mention how government funds shouldn't be involved here, but they'll be there anyway due to close ties between football and the military. Maybe something on security theater and a reference to airports and perhaps a lack of any terrorist related activities in football games?" But the thought quickly left his mind, as there was too much bitterness towards those jock types he worked with in marketing (and couldn't stand) and instead posted "HURRR maybe they should up the radiation on the metal detectors so the in-breed hicks that attend the game get sterilized!!"

Re:Neckbeards, that's your cue (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898669)

4/10, condescending without being offensive. Briefly going over your comment history, I suggest you stop trying to be funny. Humor is not one of your strengths.

Though I must commend you for being able to sum up Slashdot in entirety with just one post.

Surveilling the cameras (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898403)

'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there

Wow that's tight security when the cameras themselves are being monitored by cameras. I wonder whether the camera-surveilling cameras are also being surveilled?And before anyone makes a smart ass remark about an infiinte regression of cameras watching cameras that's clearly silly (you only need a hanful of cameras to have enough to form circle where all cameras are being watched by other cameras).

Gamma ray cargo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898439)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What's this about gamma ray cargo? I did skim TFA but saw no reference to gamma rays. Did the submitter just pull that out of his backside or is someone really planning on bringing gamma ray cargo to the football game? If so, why?

As far as irradiating vehicles, how cancer-inducing is that going to be? There's no reference in TFA to how they're planning on seeing through six inches of steel beyond a reference to "a high-tech sensor and a robotic arm", but dollars to doughnuts, if it can penetrate six inches of steel, whatever they're doing will be less-than-healthy to living organisms. Even if they limit this to delivery vehicles, the drivers are likely to fare poorly.

Re:Gamma ray cargo? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898627)

you know drivers can get out of their vehicles? when all of this started I was a delivery driver, and going onto post I was always directed over, asked to get out, did the wand thing and they would xray the entire truck after a visual

Exactly nothing will happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898475)

Of course, this is reason to a) declare a huge success and so naturally b) deploy (and spend) even more, next time. The fact that in all likelyhood exactly nothing would have happened without all that, is of course nothing but crazy talk.

This sort of thinking, by the by, is what "faith" consists of, and it runs just about the entire planet. Most established religions are cheaper and thus more cost effective, though. But then, it's always the fresh converts that're the most zealous.

*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday (1)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898607)

"As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday"

It's this Sunday not next Sunday! =) Grammatically correct or not I don't know, but "this Sunday" is so much clearer.

Re:*this* Sunday, not *next* Sunday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898791)

Well if millions of people are glued to their seats this Sunday, its gonna take a massive effort to free them all, so perhaps many millions will still be glued to those seats next Sunday as well you insensitive clod!

captcha: congest

Major Second Amendment violation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898811)

The Constitution says we can carry weapons anywhere we damn please. It's bad enough having them taken away on airplanes and in court houses, but now the Super Bowl? The very heart of Americanism? What's the country coming to?

If the terrorists attack the Super Bowl and every single citizen there were armed, there would be no more terrorists!

(There would be no more a lot of other people either, but we Americans are A-OK with collateral damage.)

Re:Major Second Amendment violation! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898907)

What's the matter with you? Are you in favor of gratuitous violence?

Now, sit back and watch your football game.

Most technologically secure Super Bowl in history (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898847)

Yea but then the adversaries are the most technologically capable in history as well.
Scanners that can look through 6" of steel you say ?
Does everybody have to take their shoes off as well ?
Such statements tickle the fancy of hackers that have no negative motives but love a challenge.

Then again ... getting on that wonder list for the sake of a prank might hamper their next flight to comic con.

Scanners (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898883)

You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it.

So much for bringing your own booze or food in. The stadium concession business is safe!

Detection does not equal prevention. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898893)

All I have to say to the Feds is: good luck with that.

Indiana is a "shall issue" concealed carry state. Indianapolis has an exception to concealed carry in city parks, but the stadium is not a city park.

What that means is: the Feds have no authority to prevent someone from taking a legally-carried concealed handgun into the stadium.

It may be against the stadium rules. That I don't know. But it isn't against the law.

Impressive but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898969)

Why pays for this in the end? Borrowed money from overseas I bet! Live within your means, America!

Who's paying for all this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898983)

I hope my tax dollars are paying for all this security just so that companies and team owners can rake in millions from ad revenues and sales.

captcha phrase: balling

Really? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899075)

>At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles.

Just wait until they use this on a vehicle that still has a human being still inside it when they turn on their death/maim ray.

They really want to open themselves up to that kind of liability?

--
BMO

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?