©
By Austin Wright
NORFOLK
Homeland Security cameras at Norfolk International Airport haven't been working since a recent storm and won't be back in operation until the end of the year, a federal official said Wednesday.
However, the airport's own surveillance system, which has more than 100 cameras and covers a broader area of the airport, continues to operate, said airport spokesman Wayne Shank.
The federal camera system mainly monitors activities at the two security checkpoints where passengers walk through metal detectors.
The airport's camera system monitors all of the airport's public areas, Shank said.
He said there's likely overlap between the two systems, but he does not know the exact areas that the federal agency's cameras monitor.
The agency does not provide specific details about its surveillance system, said Lauren Wolf, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The camera shutdown is not cause for concern, she said.
"Closed-circuit television plays a piece, but it certainly isn't the entire security process," Wolf said. "It's one of about 20 layers of security."
TSA's closed-circuit television system likely won't be fixed until the end of the year when the federal agency is expected to start using an upgraded camera system in Norfolk, Wolf said.
Austin Wright, (757) 446-2667, austin.wright@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Freedom
Freedom is stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But who defends those rights from enemy nations? Do you honestly think Hitler would have let our Constitution remain had Germany conquered the world? Do you think the Emporer of Japan would have adopted our Bill of Rights had Japan been successful in WWII? Who stopped them? The military. And again, you're welcome.
thank you for your service, but
"it’s the military that has given you the freedoms to post your opinions. I’m proud to serve."
I thought that freedom came from the Constitution/Bill of Rights
Thanks
I wish they would tell us EXACTLY where the cameras are and more importantly where they AREN'T. Why must we even know any of this anyway. Can't we make it a little bit of a challenge for our enemy?
To Patriot
You probably won't get an answer any time soon. I noted my previous note was "truncated" at a very convenient spot. It began with "Second guessing such decisions are usually made after the fact by those that really don’t know the truth or rely o". The rest that was to follow was "...those taht really don't know the truth or rely on the press for accurace (re: the headline of this article)." Funny thing - the headline has now been changed and the ending that originally said "...won't be fixed" is now gone.
Human vs. Truth
My opinion is shared by many, including the 9/11 Commission. Bush’s blame on the intelligence community was directed at the CIA, not the military. I’m an active duty officer with 28 years experience, much of it in intelligence – nothing alleged about it. And you’re welcome – it’s the military that has given you the freedoms to post your opinions. I’m proud to serve.
Every president to date has been human. No human is without flaw. Have you aced every single test you’ve taken in school? No? But you were given all of the necessary information, so why would you have missed even one question? This is a very elementary example of just how things go wrong, no matter how much information you’re given. Ultimately the decision is made by a human based on the information available at that time. Second guessing such decisions are usually made after the fact by those that really don’t know the truth or rely o
censorship by those who push for freedom of speech and the press
I am still waiting for an answer as to why my comments have to wait hours for staff approval before being posted.
More and more curious
Your dubious claim that 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had done "his job" is really nothing more than an opinion. And your implication that your alleged role in military intelligence somehow makes that opinion more valid is pretty ironic.
bush, after all, originally blamed his failure to respond on the intelligence community.
Nevertheless, your posts are all about giving bush a pass and deflecting blame on Clinton.
Given your logic, if a terrorist attack occurs within the first six months of Obama's presidency, it will be bush's fault. Because if Bush does his job, no attack on American soil will be possible in the future, according to your logic.
God save us from that sort of military intelligence. Let's hope Obama remembers where the buck stops. This president and his apologists seem to have forgotten.
AL Sifr.
We were warned long ago by a man named Oliver North and that tree hugging, private jet flying, inventing the internet moron laughed at him. I blame all of them equally but the fact he was offered to us under Clinton's watch is a little worse. It really does not matter because Islam is winning as they have planned by using our own rules and left wing ignorance against us. Laugh all you will many of you but just open your eyes and look a little deeper into the woods or will it take the renaming to Londonbad, capitol of Anglostan to wake you up! Do not blow it off like many did Hitler and the Nazi party.
Such Curious Illogic
I never once said Bush was off the hook. However, had Clinton done his job, it's likely 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I wont say it's all Clinton's fault, nor will I say it's all Bush's fault. It's so easy for people such as you to play arm-chair quarterback and make leaps of illogic based on what you hear in the press. I worked in military intelligence and understand just how much information is gathered about "potential terrorists threats". More threats are eliminated long before the plans are carried out, but that's rarely reported to the press. Why? Because in doing so would reveal our intelligence collection methods. It's so easy to blame someone for a something like 9/11 when dozens of other equally destructive plans are eliminated quietly.
Such curious logic
Planning for 9/11 started sometime during the Clinton administration and that takes bush off the hook!?!?
Why is that? Is it because he was too busy? Did he have more important things to worry about than warnings about an attack on U.S. soil?
Was he incompetent? Was he incapable of responding to the threat? (There's certainly evidence for the incompetence defense.)
Or did he just not take it seriously?
You can't absolve bush for his failures by claiming others failed as well, not matter how hard you try. It's a child's argument.
Had the bush administration responded to the warnings, the alleged planning during the Clinton administration would have been irrelevant.
Unless you believe this country is helpless to defend itself against a terrorist attack once the planning has begun?