Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Security Technology

The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl

Comments Filter:
  • by supersat ( 639745 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @08:37PM (#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."


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

  • Fuck all this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @08:44PM (#38898267) Homepage

    Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.

  • Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @09:15PM (#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).

  • by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @09:36PM (#38898635) Homepage

    "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... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @09:41PM (#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.

  • by SatanClauz ( 741416 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @10:52PM (#38899119)
    NFL, please just go away.


    Indianapolis resident that works downtown.

    just fucking go away please

  • Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alien Being ( 18488 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:52PM (#38899497)

    It's not the government's responsibility to protect a bunch of rich football dickheads in a private stadium. If the ticketholders can afford to spend $500/seat then they can afford to chip in to buy their own security.

    I'd love to see an MIT-type hack like this one just to embarrass Deputy Fife. []

  • Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by million_monkeys ( 2480792 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @05:56AM (#38900897)

    Thanks for the clarification. Excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen and don't know so much about this. I'm curious though: what difference does it make when the Congress declares war, other than symbolic?

    Apparently not a whole lot in practical terms. As you noted, we've attacked lots of countries without declaring war.

    The U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, but it doesn't specify the means of doing so or the effect of that declaration. So that's not particularly helpful. Since the early 1970s, there are strict limits on how long the president can commit forces without a declaration of war or 'authorization of force'. In the time since that law was passed, Congress has always opted for the authorization. There is a diplomatic difference as an authorization of force is perceived as less extreme. Whether there is any function difference, I don't know. An authorization of force has certainly been sufficient for us to attack a bunch of countries.

    So why the hang up over an actual declaration? I assume it's mostly a political issue. Undeclared conflicts have always been controversial, but lately it is being brought up more often due to Ron Paul trying to make it an issue in the upcoming presidental election. Americans who are tired of being at war - or tired of spending money to be at war - are picking up on it as well.

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb