Quantcast

Underground Thinks Hi-Tech Security is Only Okay

On the top of our list of things we like to know but then wish we didn't know: The London Underground as announced that they rejected the subway surveillance system that the MTA will be putting into our subways. Hmm, that makes our new hi-tech deal seem, well, not that special. The NY Post says that the London Underground felt that things like the "intelligent video cameras" which are supposed to notice unattended bags don't work as well as "standard cameras and human observation." Well, Gothamist supposes that having cameras and humans to observe would be the first thing the MTA would need - the MTA's employees and resources seem to be spread way too thin. The article does address what was our first question: "And while the [London Underground's] extra manpower and cameras couldn't prevent July's terrorist attacks, they did help identify suspects within hours." What's interesting are the stats: There are 6,000 closed-circuit cameras on both train cars and in the stations on the Underground, and almost all of London's 8,000 buses are wired, whereas our buses are far from wired and all subway stations will get cameraas by 2008 (though 1,000 cameras are being installed shortly at key locations).

The Underground did concede that the MTA's use of the $212 million in equipment will be different, and Lockheed Martin, the contractor/sucker who will be supplying the MTA with the new equipment, says, "[I]n the case of the MTA, it is boosting its security system with technology that is more evolved, more state-of-the-art and what's best for its riders." Right: Better late than never.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • ken

    I think that automated detection will work much more reliable then people looking at the screen. Of course there will be kinks at first, but it's a good investment if detecting unmanned luggage is the security people want.





    See Schneier's (a computer security expert) thoughts:

    1

    2





    I'd prefer no security, but it's too politically dangerous to do nothing. People are clammoring for protecting New Orleans against the once-a-century storms. I wonder if California or Tokyo (which are both close to their once-a-century earthquakes) are willing to take the expense. I know that I wouldn't pay for that, or monitoring our subways either. I guess I'm the devil that way?

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com