
Los Angeles to Use Body Scanners at Transit Hubs - lazerpants
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/us/los-angeles-metro-body-scanners.html
======
flyingfences
> “We’re looking for explosive vests, we’re looking for assault rifles. We’re
> not necessarily looking for smaller weapons that don’t have the ability to
> inflict mass casualties.”

What, like a handgun? Size doesn't matter. Plus, you don't really need an
x-ray machine to see if somebody's carrying a rifle.

> “Any surveillance we can get these days is better than none,”

I think that's a really dangerous mindset. I'm disappointed, but not
surprised, to be hearing it from so many people these days.

On top of that, I'm really peeved about the quotes and anecdotes that they
included in their article. Every single "average joe" who they chose to quote
in this article is in support of the scanners. They barely mention the privacy
concerns except when the folks involved are making empty promises that we have
nothing to be concerned about. Again, disappointed but not surprised to see
this sort of "journalism" in the mainstream.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _What, like a handgun? Size doesn 't matter._

No, but magazine capacity tends to.

edit: my point is that you can do a lot more damage with a rifle with a big
magazine than you can with a handgun. I can't tell if I'm confused reading the
replies, or replies are confused reading my comment.

~~~
DisruptiveDave
What about knives? Vehicles? Rocks? This is a slippery ass slope. I'm not a
gun guy, but I am wise enough to know that there is ZERO logic behind
believing "they'll only regulate this, not that."

~~~
pavel_lishin
You bring up valid concerns, but knives are already effectively illegal - the
police in New York have _a lot_ of leeway in deciding what constitutes a
"gravity knife".

------
zaroth
> _“Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned, so there’s no risk of
> them missing their train service on a daily basis,” he said._

This technology has been in development for 15 years, and the latest and
greatest is point and shoot scanning as people walk by.

So in 10-20 years, are these built into the wall at the top of the escalator
leading into every major metro station in the world? Plugged into an AI for
analysis? Dispatching drones to contain perceived threats?

I think this is one of the absolute least effective ways to be spending public
safety dollars, is it not?

~~~
darawk
> I think this is one of the absolute least effective ways to be spending
> public safety dollars, is it not?

The scenario you described sounds like an _incredibly_ effective and efficient
way to spend public safety dollars, given two things:

1\. The technology works.

2\. You don't care about privacy.

~~~
Retric
Well that and cancer, lot's and lot's of cancer.

~~~
digikata
That was my first thought too. But there is this quote:

> The software can detect hidden objects using technology that examines the
> naturally occurring waves produced by a person’s body. The technology does
> not emit radiation, officials added.

~~~
Jach
In other words, people can still freak out over "cancer!" but it's just from
the non-stop onslaught of harmless wifi and cell and radio and satellite
frequencies that penetrate some and reflect some. Plus probably some infrared
for the "emitted by the person" bit specifically. Passive signal analysis can
be very revealing.

------
JoshMnem
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
r00fus
Typically international airports were considered to be "4A-free zones" because
they weren't considered "US Soil".

Then it started happening for domestic flights (Surveillance state thanks you,
9/11 terrorists!), and now bus/train stations.

Boiling the frog...

~~~
exegete
Devil's advocate: You are being searched/scanned before you get on someone
else's property (i.e., an airplane). I understand that the government is
running this (TSA), but I imagine if the airports/airlines were running it we
would think about it differently.

~~~
acct1771
They used to. And we did.

------
duxup
I don't understand what the point of continuing to escalate this is....

People are just driving cars and trucks into crowds. Shooting up random
places. They're not wearing explosive vests.

~~~
exegete
I'm wondering how much the companies who make these things lobby/donate to
Congress. I think these scanner technologies are good for two applications:
medicine and surveillance. I imagine the medical field is already saturated,
but if you get governments to mandate them you are opening up new markets to
sell your technology.

But to play devil's advocate, people are wearing bomb vests. See the attempted
bombing underground at the subway/Port Authority bus terminal in NYC last
December (it's mentioned in the article).

~~~
acct1771
A lazy search brought this, which may help/has more known sources linked:
[https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-...](https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-getting-
rich-from-the-tsa-naked-body-scanners)

------
appleflaxen
The public is too willing to give up freedom when threats to safety are
invented, and then "prevented".

~~~
prolikewh0a
Bill Burr says the easiest way to get Americans to give up their rights is
through fear or free t-shirts.

------
chx
> can detect suspicious items from 30 feet away and can scan more than 2,000
> passengers per hour.

wait, what? 2000 passengers? That's it? This is either useless or very heavy
racial profiling can be expected or both.

------
_zachs
Enjoy your big government people. The best part is, your hard-earned tax
dollars go towards these transit hubs that you now can no longer use if you
don't review to give up your Constitutional rights.

------
jakelarkin
wearing a stiff jacket or carrying a backpack full of groceries on public
transit? ...

prepare to add 30 minutes each way as you're flagged for "secondary screening"

driving your 300hp, 3 ton SUV with 70 cubic feet cargo space full of whatever?
...

all good. free parking at your destination.

------
dmitrygr
The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not
to be screened won’t be able to ride on the subway.

~~~
jaclaz
>The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose
not to be screened won’t be able to ride on the subway.

Which, roughly, is not very different from saying:

Ticket payment is voluntary but customers who choose not to pay the ticket
won’t be able to ride on the subway.

~~~
yock
It's altogether worse than that because at the very least most city dwellers
are being taxed to support these transit services. They can't exactly opt out
of supporting it.

~~~
jklein11
Not to mention that someone who does not want to be screened is more than
welcome to buy a ticket, but then not be able to use the ticket unless they
"volunteer" to be screened.

------
forapurpose
> “Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned, so there’s no risk of
> them missing their train service on a daily basis,” Dave Sotero, a spokesman
> for the L.A. Metro, said.

> “Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned ..."

> “Someone has to intervene, stop that person and check out what’s going on
> ... That causes delay, and it also causes a sense of invasiveness among the
> passengers.”

The problems with searching random people, including large numbers of them, is
not the delay or "sense of invasiveness", but the article doesn't address
privacy issues. It presents only one side and that is based on quotes from
random pedestrians, not evidence or serious analysis.

It also accepts without question statements such as the following, which are
worthless assurances. Even if accurate, they can change their practices at any
time.

> “We’re looking for explosive vests, we’re looking for assault rifles. We’re
> not necessarily looking for smaller weapons that don’t have the ability to
> inflict mass casualties.”

Finally, the article uses many statements that sound like they were written by
the PR team (as do the quotes from bystanders):

> They use technology that examines the naturally occurring waves produced by
> a person’s body

> the devices themselves resemble the sort of black laminate cases that
> musicians lug around on tour, not upright metal detectors

------
pavel_lishin
> _They use technology that examines the naturally occurring waves produced by
> a person’s body. The technology, manufactured by Thruvision, does not emit
> radiation, officials added._

The second most interesting thing this article could cover, and they barely
give it a paragraph lifted from a sales brochure.

------
DanielBMarkham
We used to have clear guardrails in the U.S. where the government and others
could not go. They couldn't decide to use your house for soldier's quarters,
they couldn't rifle through your private papers, they couldn't hold you
without charges, and so on.

Now there are so many "well, unless you're talking about this other stuff"
exceptions that I am unclear: just how much invasion of privacy is enough to
ensure the public safety? Random strip searches okay? Maybe we could tap into
the cameras and listening devices we've already convinced people to install in
their houses. After all, why not? Privacy is dead, right?

My point is that I don't understand where any of this stops, if ever. I am not
an unintelligent person, and it looks to me like the world governments are in
this to produce absolute security at any cost, hell with consent of the
governed. When I grew up, I used to know that the cops couldn't do certain
things to you (Well, legally anyway). I have no idea what any of those things
are any more.

The country can't function like this. It's not a matter of civil libertarians
or any of that. Governments structured like this simply cannot continue to
rule over a long period of time. You can dial up the security as high as you
want over a generation or two, but long-term it doesn't work. You end up
putting the people running the security state in charge of everybody else --
and they're not so stupid they don't eventually figure that out.

~~~
rootusrootus
Problem is, they _do_ have consent of the governed. That's the problem. We
could collectively put an end to this madness if we wanted.

~~~
acct1771
But revolting/protesting is A Bad Thing™.

------
dsfyu404ed
I'm sure this will devolve into trolling for petty crime and dragnet
surveillance. The dude who carries a gun because he has to carry a ton of cash
to fill up ATMs (edit: we're talking about the ATM at the hole in the wall
convenience store, or the smoke shop, not the bank) will be arrested (I'm sure
they'll take the cash too) but no terrorists will be caught. Unless they've
got detection, assessment and response down to a few minutes or less this
wouldn't even stop a suicide bomber or gunman unless they can't be bothered to
take an uber to their target, that's assuming the system detects most threats
in the first place. I don't see how this defends against bombs in luggage or
rolling toolboxes/cases.

~~~
s73v3r_
"The dude who carries a gun because he has to carry a ton of cash to fill up
ATMs will be arrested"

Those people don't take the subway. They drive in armored cars.

~~~
jdavis703
They do. Since recreational weed was legalized I've seen a lot of off-duty
armed security using public transit.

------
cryoshon
nobody asked for this. nobody wanted this. there has not been a specific
threat against their transit system. people don't consent to these searches.

one more step along the road of having no rights when participating in public
life. we are far, far down that road already. now, you wont even have the
right to protection from unreasonable searches. the fourth amendment has been
moribund for a while now.

this is totalitarianism.

~~~
drharby
And i wonder who owns equity in the vendors providing these solutions hehehe

~~~
acct1771
Or maybe it was the underwear bomber. Not sure. Point stands regardless which
one, and I'm on mobile. You'll find it, if you're interested and look.

------
alejohausner
AFAIK, the scanners are passive. They use an IR camera, and combine the image
with a visual-light camera. It doesn't sound too invasive.

------
kevin_b_er
Under what terms does the government get to decide to deliberately strike me
with ionizing radiation while I'm making use of my fundamental right to
travel?

~~~
namibj
At what point did they imply ionizing radiation? This is THz scanning, e.g.
very-far IR camera(s) just looking and using the fact that humans are lights
at these wavelengths.

