Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect Could Be A Game Changer For Homeland Security

Since its debut a few short weeks ago, Microsoft Corp.’s new Xbox One gaming console has jumped off store shelves at the rate of more than 100,000 per day. The pace of adoption has led to shortages in all of the 13 launch markets. And now, less than two weeks before Christmas, there’s one more market that may be trying to get its hands on the new Xbox — the homeland security market.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
yewles11796d ago

Is this REALLY trying to put a positive spin on crap like what happened last week?

mikeslemonade1796d ago

First they say Zombie Stats, and now they claim they got Zombie Features.

ZodTheRipper1796d ago

This is going way too far ...I'm not a Microsoff fan but the NSA is worse than MS could ever be. Soon you can't feel safe anywhere because everything is under surveillance by someone.

gamesR4fun1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

if you can tell where ms ends and the nsa begins then maybe you can do the same for google and the cia...

FRAKISTAN1796d ago

Homeland security really does needs to die along with NSA, keeping americans in a constant air of fear 24/7

KonsoruMasuta1796d ago

They don't need to die. They just need to rethink some of their tactics. A country would not survive without some form of security.

rdgneoz31796d ago

"A country would not survive without some form of security" against its own law abiding citizens?

SilentNegotiator1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )


Konsoru didn't say that they should spy on law abiding citizens and is in fact for Homeland security seeing changes. Context, man, context.

The idea of Homeland Security is to protect from both foreign and native threats to security, which yes, sometimes includes (law non-abiding) citizens.

Omegasyde1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

I am not defending all of the NSA policies but there is a need for some sort of NSA surveillance.

Look at the US - It has two Oceans on each coast, with no barricades or mines to deter a large invasion force. Hell, Cubans are arriving everyday. A small motor boat could arrive on the coast of California full of spys/terrorists/etc, and people would not even give a second glance.

You can't rely on others either:

Look at the the Drug Wars - We have Cartels, whom extort and murder to run their drug empires. Who is to say one day, that a cartel is hired by a bunch of Muslim extremist? There are miles of tunnels from Mexico to the US. (medal of valor likely scenario!)

Lastly, the best example of surveillance is for Amber Alerts where pedophiles kidnap children off the street in broad daylight. If you had a family member kidnapped, would you want all resources available towards finding the scumbag?

I draw the line at home monitoring. What happens in my house, stays in my house.

Kryptix1796d ago


What you're saying doesn't really give a valid reason for the NSA to invade people's privacy. That's in a different section where better border patrol or closing up the southern border would really benefit from by keeping all those possible threats away or making them harder to cross the line. Also increasing how many people patrol the borders would increase jobs but there's a reason why that's no happening, the CIA works with drug dealers. Letting them in on purpose not only to generate more money but to track down the root of the drug dealers.

If what you're saying is true, then that would mean that they have to keep everybody in check because we wouldn't know where those threats live after crossing over.

I do agree with some NSA tactics like you said, only for kidnappings for example or finding computers filled with child pornography and illegal things like that. But to search every single computer, electronic device for information is crossing the line. That's like throwing a rock in the ocean and hoping that the type of fish you want to hit is the right one.

The main problem is that they have their focus in the wrong areas. Video games do not train kids to become terrorists because our school and parents teach right from wrong, what the consequences of such acts in the country would be. If the NSA really want to catch potential threats, they need to spend our tax dollars elsewhere. Better border security would be a great start and then better researching word tracking. It looks like the system they have right now would mean to go through all your files because you visited a certain website or watched a certain video and I'm very much against that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1796d ago
nutcase131796d ago

Good thing I live in the UK, where much less of this BS goes on

GutZ311796d ago Show
SilentNegotiator1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

Yep, just one CCTV camera per 14 people.

Good thing I live in the US, where much less of that BS goes on.

iamnsuperman1796d ago

You know our GCHQ is doing similar stuff to what the Americans are doing and we have tons of CCTV cameras. The difference between us and the Americans is the Americas are really annoyed (infringing on their rights.....) about it while the general consensus in the UK is this isn't right but at the same time we kind of knew this was happening so it kind of blew over quickly

TheSaint1796d ago

Are you kidding? CCTV cameras on every street corner, we have the highest density of cameras in the world.

valet_Smerdyakov1796d ago

The UK where you are prohibited to carry a pepper spray for self defence? Probably the most idiotic country in the world... :-D

Hellsvacancy1796d ago

Your kinda right, if I hurt myself though I can just go to the hospital and they'll fix me up, I don't need to worry about medical bills, so I guess it's not the "most idiotic country in the world" that would be a country that charges you to call out an ambulance, that's VERY idiotic

Kryptix1796d ago


lol I live in the US and I agree with you on how our medical structure works, it's broken and our tax dollars aren't going to the right places.

Still, at least here you can carry around equipment for self defense. Especially since there's gangs robbing stores and many accounts of people being jumped and stabbed on the street for jewelry and the latest smart phones on the market.

They're both idiotic in my opinion, but at the same time, no country has it's flaws. At least support against surveillance and privacy monitoring is starting to increase and I'm glad about that. Soon hopefully, there will be some technology that combats it like the Tor browser for example.

iamnsuperman1796d ago

Quick query at you Kryptix but should you feel the need to defend one self in the country you live in. To say it is idiotic that you can't carry weapons to defend your self is ignoring a larger issue of why the hell do you feel the need to defend yourself with weapons. Anyway things like pepper spray could aggravate a situation

Kryptix1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )


"To say it is idiotic that you can't carry weapons to defend your self is ignoring a larger issue of why the hell do you feel the need to defend yourself with weapons."

I just did some research and I will agree with you only for the UK since I wasn't aware that there's less violent people in the UK than in the US.

But where I stand is that, just like a country needs to equip themselves to protect itself from hostile territories in the same continent, an individual needs the right to carry a weapon (doesn't need to be a gun) to protect themselves from different people invading their space.

I will only find it idiotic if you live in a neighborhood with agressive people and you don't carry a weapon. It's not smart to walk in a war without a weapon and expect to have a higher survival chance, am I right?

I'll retract the statement, the UK aren't idiotic, but I think there should be laws for certain, more dangerous regions. Like over here where I live, I live in a gang infested neighborhood and it will be wise to carry a knife or stun gun but laws in my city don't even permit that...and that explains the 500+ murders a year in my city.

I believe it all depends on territory, poorer areas should have the right for self defense since there's a higher likelyhood of getting robbed than in richer, calmer areas.

You probably live in a calm neighborhood, so most likely you're going to have a different stance than mine. I live in a neighborhood where violent people with no morals reside so I need my right to be able to protect myself from them when I walk on the streets.

Like, my brother was a victim from being jumped on the side of the street and was left to die but thankfully, he lived, making it through critical condition. So my views are different than yours because it's experience that thought me.

But I understand your views now, it's all good.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1796d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1796d ago
jackanderson19851796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

except you know the kinect isn't mandatory anymore... so if there happened to be any threats or whatever i doubt the terrorists would be sitting around a camera saying "oh yeah let's bomb this place"

using it for the medicine field would be good.. would be pretty genius if they could get it working that way

KonsoruMasuta1796d ago

You didn't even read the article, I bet. This has nothing to do with Kinect being mandatory PR required.

It's talking about alternative uses the tech within can bring. Scanning for survivors after a disaster, detecting a weapon in the dark,and monitoring illegal border crossings. These are the things mentioned in the article.

jackanderson19851796d ago

first part of my comment was from around the 4th paragraph where they specifically mentioned the words "threats" and "explosive devices" coupled with the recent NSA scandal the comment makes perfect sense

second part of my comment was from around the 6th paragraph where they mentioned a doctor using it to manipulate xrays once they had been sterilised

it's almost as if you didn't even read my full comment but stopped once u saw the first sentence

KonsoruMasuta1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

Then explain the "kinect isn't mandatory anymore" part of your comment. Be honest, you read the title and thought they were implying a bunch of terrorist would be sitting around and XboxOne readied to be spied on. That part of your comment did not make "perfect sense". In fact, it has nothing to do with the article. Nobody here said or implied it was mandatory. That's how I know you had no idea what you were talking about.

I read your full comment and that's exactly why I replied the way I replied.

Grimhammer001796d ago

You realize most people aren't educated on the xbone 180

They just assume hook it up.

Show all comments (28)