A Las Vegas Resort Using Microwaves to Keep Guns Out
wired.com
wired.com
Photos:
* housing and antennas: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/External-Photos/External-Photos-35...
* internals: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Internal-Photos/Internal-Photos-35...
edit: I only really know about part 15 as it relates to amateur radio, but I am confused at how this device was certified. The device is noted as being licensed under part 15F, and 15F, § 15.521(b) clearly notes that § 15.203 applies to these devices. Relevant part of 15.203 below:
> An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section.
Clearly from the photos that isn't the case, those connectors are not special in any way and those antennas aren't permanently affixed.
I think that is why this document exists, where they try to say that they're an unintentional radiator: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Attestation-Statements/Part-15B-35...
Which is completely absurd at face value. They're obviously not unintentionally radiating (like a plasma TV, for example) and they're purposefully putting out the signals so that they can detect things, and the fccid site clearly says that they're licensed as a 15F device, not a 15B device.
Can someone explain?
Per the article these are hidden and used to secretly scan guests, so if there is any adverse effects you have no way of knowing what caused it, reporting it, and seeking corrective measures.
We also have to consider edge cases (pace makers, sensitive electronics, children, etc), and how they'll detect & correct when these devices malfunction.
Ultimately this is a medical device used in a non-medical way with non-medical oversight.
People have studied EM radiation for a very long time, and we know what‘s dangerous. Xray is dangerous, UV at high intensity is also dangerous, radio frequncy/micro wave is harmless (unless you go to really high intensities, but then you’d fry all electronics nearby)
Maybe check a physics textbook before you get all worked up.
Edit: Also, this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners.
Do you have a source? It's described as using an antenna and a receiver, which is exactly how the naked scanners at the airport work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Techni...
They may use different frequencies (airport scanners are in 24–30 GHz band) but it's the same technology.
That‘s why the devices in this article, unlike millimeter wave scanners, can‘t create an image of the scanned subjects. (and it’s also the reason why why millimeter wave scanners make very blurry images).
Instead, these detectors look for resonances in the emmitted spectrum.
The article was a bit light on details, but this description sounds very much like an old school metal detector, rather than an imaging device.
Radio frequency and microwave band emissions are strictly regulated, so if they want to sell these devices, they need to keep emissions below a limit, just like Wifi routers and Microwave ovens.
Yes, yes they can.
What do you think they then do to your much thinner skin?
This isn't rocket science.
You're right, this isn't rocket science - it's a blend of electrical engineering and biology.
- re viewing your naked body: this only gives blurry black and white reconstructions. Frankly, nothing to make a fuss about. I doubt anyone would even be recognizable on those images.
- re safety: this may be a valid concern, but if there is a health effect, it will be tiny, because we are already bathed in microwaves all day long.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say. If you work in a liberal city, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are at a certain educational level, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are male/female, your opinion likely has a bias. If you were raised in a poor/rich family, your opinion likely has a bias. All your life experiences contribute to your opinion having a bias.
/s
I’m not sure I’d ever willingly enter a place known to be using that technology.
If you want to know what the trucks look like, google "ZBV": https://www.google.com/search?q=ZBV&tbm=isch
So don't go. It's not public property. Nobody is forcing you to gamble.
I never go through those scanners for a reason.
Personally, if this is the cost of keeping guns out of a hotel I'm staying at, I'm all for it. If this is a deal breaker for you, can't you just stay somewhere else?
Gladly. I opt out of the scanners at the airport. However the scanners in the hotel are secret and hidden. How do I opt out now?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai-image-...
Of course, they could as tgb suggests just ban anything that triggers their limited tests but that would impact income once word got around
Assuming the penalties for bringing in a gun are low, "oops, I forget, sorry," all you need to do is send in a train of people with different types of attacks and note which make it through.
A quick check (ETA: of Nevada law) shows that "gunbuster" signs don't have force of law. Assuming you leave if and when asked, there's absolutely no legal repercussion to ignoring them.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-06.html
That said, Texas law requires very, very specific signage. The last time I was in Austin I saw lots of them, but none that met the legal requirements.
Exactly right. The amateur signs you see are almost a running joke, to intimidate new CCW permit holders. Here's the full description of what standards a sign must meet to be enforceable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#30.06_signag...
Bonus, you can carry without a permit, as long as you claim you were 'travelling', and the burden of proof is on the cops to dispute it: http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-concealed-gun-laws-... (this law may have changed by now, but it was widely known when I lived there).
So I would probably task them to break it. Give them the full run through of how it works, where it is deployed, then deploy real and fake setups randomly. Encourage within limits employees to bring stuff into the facility given them by those managing the setup.
The public is easy to put off by just implying it with a few out in the open examples. However long term technology like this will be widespread and the real concern is who has access to the data and how long is it retained. Within the US the right to bear arms is sacred so tracking becomes a real concern. This is wholly different than the idea of tracking cars by license plates.
I love unobtrusive security and cannot wait to see airports move that way. I still imagine a Running Man security type wall where just walking past highlights for security objects of concern
I'm not sure this is true at all. A backpack with a frame has more metal than my pocket pistol, as does my MacBook Pro.
Is this system capable of discriminating between various types of metal? I know many hobby metal detectors these days can give you an idea of the conductivity of a buried target, although that can vary wildly based on depth and orientation, and is limited to about a foot or so in soil.
It shouldn't take much to add to a pistol, for instance, to make it unrecognizable to this. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it works well with small handguns today like the Ruger LCP or the Kel-Tec P-3AT.
I beg to differ after examination of the details of the shooting here and the other places he scouted before it. Catching weapons in general is good for any property, but the purpose is particularly to prevent something large scale (the Westgate property in TFA is next door to the LV Convention Center, and at it's busiest will have many crowds coming and going at the beginning and end of each expo day).
I don't know if this tech is the answer. I suspect paying qualified people to do this type of surveillance with video would be more reliable (I've read places like Israel have been doing it for decades), but casinos won't pay up.
The ALCU is going to love this . Is this considered an invasion of privacy? I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/201...
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/just-how-smart-is-the-eye-in-t...
edit: I had too many this's
I believe they were already standard retrofit in Las Vegas years before that.
I think the movie is a great movie, and accurate in a certain way, but if you tried to timeline anything using that movie, it could get confusing.
Certain private spaces are considered "public" in some regards, such as right of access and some free speech rights (e.g. handing out pamphlets in malls).
Also some "public" spaces are privately owned (e.g. the park where Occupy Wall Street got its start was supposedly open to the public as a condition of getting some building permits, yet the landowner spent money evicting the occupiers).
The casino isn't free to bar people of certain races, and it may have other restrictions as well. Though spying is presumably unrestricted :-(.
None of the things you refer to has any meaning as it pertains to the private spaces within privately owned casinos. A casino lobby in Las Vegas is not considered a semi-public space like a mall. That was settled a long time ago (it's why the porn pamphlet people can't go inside the MGM and pass those pamphlets out in the lobby).
All the privately owned casinos in Las Vegas can legally do this. A challenge to it in court wouldn't get anywhere.
No.
> I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
About as well as anti-theft gates at Macy's track you.
anti-theft gates don't have imaging capabilities.
Yes.
http://www.eccosorb.com/products-eccosorb-high-loss-absorber...
The buried lede, and unanswered question, is whether the legal status of firearms in hotels has suddenly changed.
So if you don't tell anyone and nobody notices, you'll get away with having it on you or in your room. If they find out, you'll be asked to leave if you can't/don't wish to store it somewhere while on the property. Legally, I don't think there's any issue except that they would trespass you if necessary. I don't think there's any law that protects a right to carry on private property (but in public yes, with appropriate licensing for concealed).
It's not like being scanned at an airport, which is a quasi-public place. You're on private, highly regulated, surveilled, scanned, documented, recorded, profiled, archived property.
Where things get fuzzy is if you're in a Vegas hotel without a casino.
If someone really wants to shoot someone else in said casino it's probably because they want to shoot their former boss or whoever got them fired. Being a former employee puts them in a great position to know via the grapevine what the edge cases for the system are. This system is mostly to reassure the overly-worried.
I was thinking it might be to lower the cost of their insurance.
Can these detect disassembled guns? I doubt they can understand the signature of the sum of parts.
Yep, all these type of security measures do is harass law abiding people while doing nothing to stop the real threats.
I was thinking about this - the only part of a gun that must be metal is the barrel and the brass cartridge casing. Those are the first things I'd look for, assuming the system is capable of resolving objects that small.
... and before someone asserts it, yes, there are guns in existence with ceramic barrels, and there are guns in existence that shoot caseless ammunition. Neither are obtainable, and they wouldn't work in combination as one of the primary benefits to using metallic cartridges is that they carry a large amount of the heat away from the barrel when ejected.
Adding that metal to a firearm doesn't add that much mass but those parts would increase the profile of the gun due to their size/shape/area covered in the eyes of a image sorting algorithm.
« "The best analogy is antivirus software," says PatriotOne CEO Martin Cronin. » Given how bad AV software is, this is not a promising analogy.
Or you could avoid punchlines based on stereotype that don't actually fit the context.
* people who submit to background checks, fees, and hassle to obtain a carry permit
* people who carry firearms while intoxicated
* people who are inclined to settle an argument with a firearm
Consider it? Hell, I openly admitted to it.
My own biases include that I often hear people implying that someone with a carry permit is more likely to use a firearm in a crime than someone who does not. That saddens me, and I do my best to try and challenge that idea (gently, in a professional manner) whenever I can.
It looks like I jumped the gun a bit here :)
Those two answers can be completely different. For comparison, it is extremely uncommon for a human (group A) to be in my immediate family (group B), but everyone who is in my immediate family (group B) is a human (group A).
A recent example is the Texas church shooting that happened recently, where an armed citizen with a non-concealed firearm in that case, wounded and then chased down the shooter, unfortunately after he had already killed multiple people. Sadly, nobody in the church was armed, as even CCW holders who frequently go armed will not think to do so at church.
A CCW lets you Carry a Concealed Weapon and has nothing to do with the storing of loaded firearms in vehicles. Though I suppose it would apply if you are in said vehicle and then 'storing' would become 'carrying'.
--edit--
But who knows about California in particular because their firearm laws are wacky. Back when I lived there the rule was "two steps" away from having a loaded firearm in your vehicle, ie: take the gun out of a case then load the magazine (IIRC of course, that was almost 20 years ago).
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/04/armed-citizen-p...
"People come to Vegas because it's the fun capital of the world. They're there to let loose, rock and roll, and do things they'd never do..."
I have never been a fan of the idea of Vegas. I say the "idea" because I've never been. This quote above exactly describes my displeasure-- it is a hub for moral ambiguity. Letting "loose" is about letting go, for sure. Having a bit of fun is never a bad thing. But why does the common definition of fun as an adult most often include drinking in excess, sleeping with people one is barely acquainted with, and gambling? Why is fun equated with spending copious amounts of money on toxins and morally ambiguous pleasures? It's okay to drink and play games and sleep with people, but when a place like Vegas exists, and is so wealthy, I wonder. It's like a migratory ground, full of flashing lights, enticing pleasures, impulsive decisions and often regret. That, to me, is not "fun".
It is a fantasy world. Children have fun through fantasy, but their explorations often lead them to personal and insightful discoveries about themselves and the world. I feel as though many have lost this definition of fun. What to do with the imagination when castles and pirates no longer bring awe? Oh, binge drink and do stupid, possibly dangerous and financially damaging bullshit, of course!
We live in a culture where fantasy is the expected coping mechanism, except the fantasies we indulge in bring us false escape, rather than workable material for self-improvement. In this definition of fantasy we often come out guilty-- regretting the money we forked out, the people we spent time with, and the decisions we've made. It is not healthy. The following quote illustrates this in a way, and I will extrapolate that to the topic of the article, and make a point
"If they show up at their resort and they have to line up for metal detectors, or get wanded down, or walk through a gauntlet of security guards carrying rifles and pistols—that's not going make them feel comfortable. It's going to ruin their experience."
This is terrifying. The Vegas fantasy is about feeling okay with making choices one may never make in their day-to-life. There's a designated place for it in society, and one can designate a place for those decisions in their mind as well. "Haha, you know what they say, What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas!!". But we know it's dangerous, and the danger must be hidden to keep the fantasy alive. What else can we do in society that hides the danger from us? Well, it's sort of everywhere isn't it. Turning a blind eye when what you enjoy turns out to be made from the sweat of children (almost literally everything you and I are probably wearing now). Supporting shady companies by buying their products because we get something from it. It's a toxic sort of mindset that puts everything into the morally questionable category, or has the possibility to do so. It's escalating. Are we okay to let casinos scan us out-of-view, if that means we can successfully immerse ourselves into the comfort illusion? Are we okay with mass surveillance as long as it's out of sight? Are we okay to store questionable and uncomfortable things in the architecture of society to give an illusion of safety and freedom? That's all I see, it's everywhere. And I'm not okay with it.