security cameras on airplanes. I thought of this four years ago!

I came up with this idea four years ago. I thought it would be a great idea to have cameras on board planes with the video beamed to security centers on the ground. That way, instead of shooting down an innocent airplane that wanders into restricted areas, someone can know exactly what's going on in the cabins. Is that possible? I don't see why not, but anyone with more knowledge than me, please discuss!

Anywhoo, here's the press release that triggered my thought:

-----------------
FAA Proposes Security Cameras on Aircraft - Global ePoint's Aviation Division Airworks is Well Positioned to Meet Pending Upcoming Regulations

CITY OF INDUSTRY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 21, 2005--Global ePoint, Inc. (Nasdaq: GEPT), a leading manufacturer of security technologies for the aviation, law enforcement, industrial and commercial markets, commented today on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) proposal, announced last night, to require the installation of security cameras on board commercial airlines. Members of both the Pilots Union and Flight Attendant union have also been quoted as supporting the use of cameras on board aircraft to monitor passenger activity.

The FAA was quoted yesterday in an Associated Press story as stating, "the purpose of monitoring is to identify anyone requesting entry to flight deck and to detect suspicious behavior." A link to the story follows. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/...anes_cameras_3

Global AirWorks released its Cockpit Door Surveillance System (CDSS) shortly after September 11th with installations on board Lufthansa Airlines shortly after the ICAO released in its security and safety annex, requiring that "either pilot must have the ability to monitor for entry into the cockpit and for detecting suspicious behavior." The System has already been overwhelmingly adopted by airlines in Germany, as AirWorks has 88% of the market. Currently, the CDSS is installed on over 800 aircraft flying worldwide on major international airlines and domestic carriers.

The AirWorks System provides up to 16 cameras within the cabin and cargo area of the aircraft. One camera is mounted just outside of the cockpit door, with two cameras in the forward galley and passenger loading area directly outside of the cockpit. Cockpit components are 2 LCD screens one located on each pilots position within the cockpit.

AirWorks holds Supplemental Type Certificates for each Airbus and Boeing Model aircraft flying within the United States from the Federal Aviation Administration. The CDSS is already fully approved on all Boeing and Airbus Aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration

"We are excited that the FAA has taken this action," stated Ricky Frick, President of AirWorks. "We have been preparing for this event since September 11th, and as the leader in providing aviation surveillance security systems worldwide, we expect to benefit from this development, in an even greater way than we did in Germany when the ICAO annex and several foreign regulatory agencies enacted standards. We offer the unique combination of a complete turnkey, approved system, worldwide installation teams, and we meet each and every element of the requirement that will ensure that we provide the level of service to our US customers that they have come to expect from AirWorks, as we have been successful in installing the system worldwide without ever taking the aircraft out of revenue service, thus decreasing the cost to US airlines and the loss of revenue during the installation."

About Global ePoint's Aviation Division

The Company's Aviation division contains Global AirWorks, whose primary communications and security products include the Cockpit Door Surveillance System (CDSS), a digital electronic "flight bag" of all flight and on-board manuals and records for pilots and a Laptop Computer Power System for passengers and flight crews. AirWorks customers include airline major OEMs, such as AT&T Aviation, BAE Systems, In-flight Phone, L3 Communications, and Rockwell Collins; all major U.S. airlines; and all major international carriers, including ATA, Air China, Bombardier, Finnair, Varig, KLM, Lufthansa, and Cathay Pacific. AirWorks holds more than 40 supplemental type certificates (STC) certifying AirWorks as a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved manufacturer and installer for a range of interior equipment and systems for a variety of commercial aircraft flying worldwide.

About Global ePoint, Inc.

Global ePoint's growth catalyst, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is the design, manufacturing, sales and distribution of digital video surveillance systems for the law enforcement, military, aviation and homeland security markets. On the cutting edge of digital technology and seeking to expand its product line, Global ePoint is developing new compression technologies and next-generation, secure network digital video systems and servers for a wide range of new markets, concentrating primarily on security and homeland defense applications. As a solid recurring revenue stream, the Company also manufactures customized computing systems for industrial, business and consumer markets, as well as other specialized electronic products and systems. Complete vertical integration -- from design and manufacturing to sales and distribution -- allows the Company to capture efficiencies and maintain cost advantages in these growing markets, particularly homeland security. For more information, please visit www.globalepoint.com .

This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and actual circumstances, events or results may differ materially from those projected in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to differences include, but are not limited to, risks related to the integration of the Company's recently acquired operations; market acceptance of the Company's products; delays in the introduction of new products; production and/or quality control problems; further approvals of regulatory authorities and the denial, suspension or revocation of certifications and licenses by governmental authorities; and the Company's ability to obtain capital as and when needed. For a discussion of these and other factors which may cause actual events or results to differ from those projected, please refer to the Company's most recent annual report on Form 10-KSB and quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB, as well as other subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company cautions readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake, and specifically disclaims any obligation, to update or revise such statements to reflect new circumstances or unanticipated events as they occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

I came up with this idea four years ago. I thought it would be a great idea to have cameras on board planes with the video beamed to security centers on the ground. That way, instead of shooting down an innocent airplane that wanders into restricted areas, someone can know exactly what's going on in the cabins. Is that possible? I don't see why not, but anyone with more knowledge than me, please discuss!

Anywhoo, here's the press release that triggered my thought:

---

No, no, no!!!!

Or, just like in Orwell's "1984", we can place cameras everywhere and protect people at every point in time regardless of where they might be. The ultimate security. Better yet, let's also reduce the number of words in the English language to a minimum so there is no way for people to form complex thoughts that might lead to violence.

This type of thinking is just so dangerous. The government can't protect you regardless of how many cameras they have everywhere. Just today, the British, overwhelmed with cameras, spotted the subway bombers practicing a week before the terrorist strike. Exactly what good does that do? The only thing more and more heavy-handed surveillance does is to increase the power of government and take away our freedoms little piece by little piece. It is false security.

I'm much more frightened of the massively growing government intrusion into my life than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack. The odds are much more in favor of the former rather than the latter. We don't need outside terrorism to bring down the US, just a frightened public to do the job for them.

Hmm. I see your point and I agree with you mostly, but I guess I think in a few cases it's a good idea to have cameras. For instance, in a private industry (as airlines are), where innocent people are at risk of getting shot down by their government's military because of unknown behavior by the pilot. I'd think it's better to know what exactly is going on before taking such action.

I have to go now but I'd like to come back and discuss further. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Hmm. I see your point and I agree with you mostly, but I guess I think in a few cases it's a good idea to have cameras. For instance, in a private industry (as airlines are), where innocent people are at risk of getting shot down by their government's military because of unknown behavior by the pilot. I'd think it's better to know what exactly is going on before taking such action.

I have to go now but I'd like to come back and discuss further. :)

---

Pilots are required by law to know where restricted zones are. If they wander in and refuse to turn around or land, they should be shot down. You can't save the stupid and incompetent!

But you could tell if there is a problem on the plane, like it is being hijacked etc, maybe from streaming video. Also with the problems lately of planes going down due to cabin pressure problems, gas released and people going to sleep etc, it might be a good idea to see what happened as well.

Really not to be rude Michael, but this sort of thinking really is from Paranoid people that think everyone is against them. I personally see no problem with monitoring the door way into the pilot area at all. Safety should always be the first and foremost issue with air travel, not the privacy of passengers, especially after September 11th.

As for the London Bombers and their trial run. They discovered used travel tickets with dates on them that eluded to the police that they travelled on that date. The the went back and checked the tapes on that day and discovered they actually did maybe do a trial run or maybe that was the day they were going to do it and changed their minds, who knows they are dead. Maybe from those tapes they might have discovered other people involved in the bombings that are still around. Don't you think that might have been a good thing, if they did.

No you can't really stop this from happening, but being able to maybe discover information that might be helpful in stoping further disasters might actually be a good thing.

This world has changed and people need to realise that and move on. The more protection and proactive endeavours there are, the more lives there might be saved.

We might not all agree with what is happening in the world around us, but we sure as hell should be backing up the resources being used to try and make it a safer place to live in. Thank God I live in Australia.

Kelly's suggestion, probably one shared by many, is hardly proof that we're moving in the direction of a George Orwell novel, but rather the realistic evolution of Western society in the age of terrorism.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube (to use the more milder of the two expressions)... ;)

In much of the US, from the moment we walk out our front doors, we already live in a world where we are being watched in many public and private places. And depending on your outlook, you can choose to believe this is all being orchestrated by groups of controlling, paranoid, power-hungry police state thugs in secret "monitoring rooms" determined to use and abuse this information against in any any every way possible.

I've never seen it that way. I've always felt that security cameras were not watching ME, but rather rather watching for someone that might try to do something TO me, and in a lot of places I feel safer because they're there...

When you consider the real possibility of thousands of Americans (or most any nationality, for that matter) being killed in a single day (as we saw on 9/11), to me the tradeoff of public safety over certain personal freedoms is a no-brainer.

These are simply rational security measures in high risk environments. IMO, privacy on public carrier transportation is not an unalienable right (except, perhaps, in the restrooms, heh heh). Not when a person's actions can affect the lives of so many.

Are we offended by security cameras in convenience stores? Or at ATMs? Or parking garages? Or elevators? Or any of the hundreds of other places that already have them?

I'm certainly not. And I doubt the victims of violent crimes at any of these locations are either. To me, security cameras are only a bad thing for people DOING bad things.

Cameras on commercial airlines would be no different. And their presence alone would most likely alter the behavior of certain passengers, including the current epidemic of drunk and belligerent ones.

These measures are a far cry from a true "Big Brother" senario. After all, we're not talking about the inside of our churches or our bedrooms, or our minds. And personally, I'm more concerned about the proliferation of tiny consumer cameras in cell phones and such being used without my knowledge (IMO, a much more abusive invasion of privacy) than I am about security surveillance in high-risk public areas.

Anyway, as long as I can sit in peace on that plane flight, or in that train station, or even on the steps of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and be allowed to read whatever I want, write whatever I want, and express my beliefs and opinions in a non-violent way, I'll feel my freedoms as an American are being protected.

I certainly agree that handing over our freedoms in the name of "safety" is a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad thing.

But I don't think we have too many "freedoms" to hand over on a commercial airline flight. We're already told when to stand up or sit down. We're told when to eat and drink, what kinds of electronic devices to use or not use, whether to smoke or not (and be prosecuted for), not to tamper with our surroundings, what kind of conduct will be tolerated, and what kinds of items we can or cannot bring aboard. And in return, we put our complete and total trust in those who are running the show.

If you don't want to do that, there is no reason why you have to fly at all. Drive your own car to your destination, or sail your own boat, and you'll be free from such "controls".

I agree that the majority cannot dictate the minority, or the more powerful dictate the lowly. That's an abuse of rights. But in a private enterprise, one in which everyone has the freedom to choose whether or not to participate, certain restrictions in the course of business with an interest towards the safety of its charges is not at all an abuse of power, or a squelching of rights. It's common sense. It's more like OSHA than Orwell.

I hardly find myself paranoid but I think it is a slippery sloap and we are slipping down that sloap rather quickly lately.

Just out of curiosity but who here thinks the United States will last forever?

EDIT: Here is what is happening in England via slashdot:

""The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...575411,00.html

Yep, "for my own safety." Thank goodness the government is there to keep me so safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Soapbox on.

Quote:

---

I've never seen it that way. I've always felt that security cameras were not watching ME, but rather rather watching for someone that might try to do something TO me, and in a lot of places I feel safer because they're there...

---

That is a really dangerous way of thinking. Look at how many files on innocent people the FBI kept (still keeping?) on people it just didn't like or considered a danger to their own power. Look at the way the government is extending radical Patriot Act provisions to criminals who have nothing to do with terrorism. Look at how everything you read at the library or buy at the bookstore is open to government snooping. Look at how new technology gets around search warrants by using high tech sensors that can see you through walls (also used by soldiers in Israel).

Power is used, always has been. With power comes the desire for more power, has always been true. Little by little, people are told "this is for your own good, your own safety." People want safety, right? It's a good thing, right?

Nixon (if you are old enough!) wanted to do many of the things that Bush is now doing. Nixon didn't have the technology or the "reason" to get very far. Bush does. Bush has increased the power of the federal government more than all other presidents combined.

Quote:

---

But I don't think we have too many "freedoms" to hand over on a commercial airline flight. We're already told when to stand up or sit down. We're told when to eat and drink, what kinds of electronic devices to use or not use, whether to smoke or not (and be prosecuted for), not to tamper with our surroundings, what kind of conduct will be tolerated, and what kinds of items we can or cannot bring aboard.

---

Standing up and sitting down has a direct relationship to physical safety, direct and to the point, not imagined or "just in case." You can drink anything you want, they just might not serve it. Getting drunk is a direct threat to safety on the airplane, not imagined or "just in case." Electronic devices are being allowed more and more now because many people complained about a silly rule that no one had proven was danerous. Smoking can't be controlled anywhere. If you want to smoke fine but I should not be forced to indulge as well. Tampering with the surroundings is a direct threat to safety on the airplane, not imagined or "just in case." Bad conduct, uncontrolled or threatening, is a direct threat to safety on the airplane, not imagined or "just in case." Limiting items has gotten out of control. Yeah, no guns on board is a good idea as it is a direct threat to safety on the airplane, not imagined or "just in case." Banning nail clippers is stupid and a wild panic response to terrorism.

Quote:

---

If you don't want to do that, there is no reason why you have to fly at all. Drive your own car to your destination, or sail your own boat, and you'll be free from such "controls".

---

This is a typical cry of the power hungry. If you don't like it, don't do it. Maybe we should have lots of road blocks on highways to look for terrorists. If you don't like that, don't drive. Perhaps we should have strip searches of hikers looking for bombs in their packs or strapped to their bodies. If you don't like it, stay at home.

Quote:

---

But in a private enterprise, one in which everyone has the freedom to choose whether or not to participate, certain restrictions in the course of business with an interest towards the safety of its charges is not at all an abuse of power, or a squelching of rights. It's common sense.

---

Common sense has nothing to do with this. Let's say you see on an airplane monitor that a terrorist has taken control. Do you then shoot the plane down? Another poster called me paranoid and thinking everyone is against me for suggesting something much less than this. Exactly what do you do with the information provided by the cameras? And how much does it cost to hire the huge numbers of people required to watch these cameras? After the fact doesn't save anyone.

Quote:

---

When you consider the real possibility of thousands of Americans (or most any nationality, for that matter) being killed in a single day (as we saw on 9/11), to me the tradeoff of public safety over certain personal freedoms is a no-brainer.

---

Cameras in planes provide no safety. How about large trucks and tankers? Do we install cameras on those and constant monitoring to make sure no one has created a large truck bomb? How about cameras aimed at individuals just in case they are suicide bombers in a NYC subway during rush hour? Where does the nonsense stop?

Franklin said "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Smart guy! That was true back then and even truer today.

Soapbox off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berrywise

Just out of curiosity but who here thinks the United States will last forever?

---

The zenith of the US occurred after WW I and lasted through most of the 1950s in spite of Korea. Accelerating the war in Vietnam was the start of our downward trend. No country lasts forever, we have had the longest run in modern history and should be proud of that.

The US is falling behind in education, R&D, technology, science, literature, healthcare, etc. There is a huge amount of inertia that will last for a long while. But inertia can't last another 100 years. It will be interesting to see what the world looks like in my next life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Fanelli

The US is falling behind in education, R&D, technology, science, literature, healthcare, etc. There is a huge amount of inertia that will last for a long while. But inertia can't last another 100 years. It will be interesting to see what the world looks like in my next life!

---

Who d'ya think will be the next superpower? China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Who d'ya think will be the next superpower? China?

---

I'm not sure we will have any more superpowers in the way the US was. China is powerful, that's for sure. But they have a long history for ups and downs and are still trying to move into the 21st century. I think the EU will have a growing economic interest.

A lot has to do with what happens to the US. If we have another civil war, the country might just split up into small inward-seeking countries opening the way for others.

I try not to predict the details of the future, that I leave to the people populating late night talk radio! Besides, I'll be dead and, in my new life, won't notice that anything is amiss anyway!

Unless you plan to die fairly soon, I personally wouldn't be 100% certain there couldn't be civil war erupting sooner than you may think. Unlikely, true, but IMO, the deep division between "Libs" and Conservatives, fueled by both religious and anti-religious fervor, and the all-too-common "knee-jerk reaction" and entitlement many Americans seem to feel, and with perhaps a catalyst of economic hardship and government incompetence (read: people losing what they have) ...

Just speculating. I have no experience in civil wars, but I don't think they start in an orderly fashion along a planned timeline. They can erupt along a deeply emotional divide. Do we have that yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Unless you plan to die fairly soon, I personally wouldn't be 100% certain there couldn't be civil war erupting sooner than you may think. Unlikely, true, but IMO, the deep division between "Libs" and Conservatives, fueled by both religious and anti-religious fervor, and the all-too-common "knee-jerk reaction" and entitlement many Americans seem to feel, and with perhaps a catalyst of economic hardship and government incompetence (read: people losing what they have) ...

Just speculating. I have no experience in civil wars, but I don't think they start in an orderly fashion along a planned timeline. They can erupt along a deeply emotional divide. Do we have that yet?

---

The label between liberals and conservatives really don't mean very much. The Republican party hasn't been even close to conservative for a very long time. Democrats have, for the most part, moved towards the middle.

If any civil war erupts, my guess is that it would be based on religion. Yeah, that's almost always the way wars start so it's not much of a prediction. The Christian Right in the country is very strong, having a solid goal of changing our Republic into a hardcore Theocracy. The anti-radical Christian forces are mired neck deep in silly trivial matters trying to eliminate the display or mention of any religion by anyone at all. Those in the middle? Who knows. With the wide and easy availablility of guns, war is so much simpler to start.

Believe me, I'm already old! Who knows if I'll even get to the Mayan End of the World in 2012?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berrywise

I hardly find myself paranoid but I think it is a slippery sloap and we are slipping down that sloap rather quickly lately.

Just out of curiosity but who here thinks the United States will last forever?

---

The way things are going we'll have another civil war in the next 5-10 years.... sooner if gas companies keep screwing us.

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Unless you plan to die fairly soon, I personally wouldn't be 100% certain there couldn't be civil war erupting sooner than you may think. Unlikely, true, but IMO, the deep division between "Libs" and Conservatives, fueled by both religious and anti-religious fervor, and the all-too-common "knee-jerk reaction" and entitlement many Americans seem to feel, and with perhaps a catalyst of economic hardship and government incompetence (read: people losing what they have) ...

Just speculating. I have no experience in civil wars, but I don't think they start in an orderly fashion along a planned timeline. They can erupt along a deeply emotional divide. Do we have that yet?

---

if we do have another civil war it will be due to
1: gas
2: race

JS