- Jul 19, 2006
- 1,151
- 0
- 0
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...vent-terrorist-attack/
Lol. I hope they aren't talking about mass communication blocking, but due to them talking about a terrorist attack, I am inclined to think so (as they might not know the scope of where they all are). How does that even make any sense? There terrorists are attacking! Quick cut of all communication, except police!
"Hello, 911? I just saw a terrorist at... <gets jammed>"
"911, help! All hell is breaking loose, people are looting at...<jammed>"
IMO One of the worst ideas they could of come up with. Can't wait to see the mass crowding for the land line phones. (Which will probably end up as targets as people abandoning their own land lines.) This will likely change nothing for the terrorists, just for everyone else. If the police get some kind of work around for this, you can bet any ill-intentioned 'terrorist' will as well. Did they not think any of this out? I am sure there are more problems with this, but those are the main things that come to mind.
The New York Police Department is looking for ways to disrupt cell phone calls and other forms of electronic communication among terrorists in the event of another terror attack in New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly says.
The need to disrupt communications is one of several conclusions that the NYPD has drawn from studying the November attack in Mumbai, India, a three-day rampage by machine gun and grenade-wielding Islamic militants in which at least 165 people were killed and 304 were wounded.
Kelly is scheduled to discuss this and other "lessons learned" in testimony Thursday before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. A draft copy of his statement was shared with FOX News in advance of his appearance.
Kelly stressed the need for law enforcement to be able to disrupt cell phone calls and other communications during an attack, pointing to threats posed by the media when they disclose law enforcement tactics during live coverage that can get passed back to the attackers.
Kelly says that in the Mumbai attack, the terrorists' handlers used cell phones and other portable communications devices to order the killing of hostages and to adjust other tactics while the attacks were underway.
It's not clear from his testimony whether the NYPD has the means to disrupt electronic communications for a small group of terrorists without shutting down cell phone service to a large part of Manhattan.
The NYPD has also been at odds with the Justice Department over its attempt to get the federal government to loosen up a law governing electronic surveillance. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrants must be obtained to begin electronic monitoring of terror suspects, and the requests go through a multi-layered vetting process by the FBI and the Justice Department. Kelly is asking for these agencies to expedite NYPD's requests to be able to combat fast-moving terror situations.
...
Lol. I hope they aren't talking about mass communication blocking, but due to them talking about a terrorist attack, I am inclined to think so (as they might not know the scope of where they all are). How does that even make any sense? There terrorists are attacking! Quick cut of all communication, except police!
"Hello, 911? I just saw a terrorist at... <gets jammed>"
"911, help! All hell is breaking loose, people are looting at...<jammed>"
IMO One of the worst ideas they could of come up with. Can't wait to see the mass crowding for the land line phones. (Which will probably end up as targets as people abandoning their own land lines.) This will likely change nothing for the terrorists, just for everyone else. If the police get some kind of work around for this, you can bet any ill-intentioned 'terrorist' will as well. Did they not think any of this out? I am sure there are more problems with this, but those are the main things that come to mind.