Hacker News Reader

Comment by sky_rw | Hacker News Reader

Let's remember that is has been < 12 months since the Vegas shooting, and the biggest question people have been asking (aside from motive) is how a man managed to bring that much firepower into his hotel room and keep it there for so long. Now you have a large and diverse group of counter-culture oriented people bringing large padlocked hard cases to their rooms and declining maid service for days at a time. What did they expect? Of course hotel security is going to be all over that. Its a destination resort for gambling and drinking, have some perspective.

View on HN

> is has been < 12 months since

For clarification, do you mean that after more time

- the hotel will forget about the shooting,

- shootings will become less likely, or

- secret privacy invasions that people were never meant to know about will stop being such good PR.

I think maybe closest to the first? That we should be understanding in the short term around overreaction because those businesses have suffered trauma and just need time to get back to a normal state of mind.

Of those three reasons I have the most sympathy for the second, though still not a lot. Perhaps all of them can be phrased more even-handedly, though, and maybe there are better reasons why the passage of time might matter. I'm happy to listen.

> What did they expect?

I think they expected respect, privacy and professionalism from their hotel at their conference. They wanted to feel safe, not invaded and bullied.

This kind of thing will drive more people to Airbnb -- security is worse, but trust is higher.

I'm sure Caesars Palace is far less concerned about driving a few people to Airbnb than the lawsuits/fallout from another mass casualty incident. It's in their best interest to be overly careful here, even if it does strike us as invasive and paranoid.

To me it seems moronic to have a procedure to prevent a rare incident, AFTER one has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Just like checking shoes before boarding a plane after 1 shoe bomber...

Or are they afraid of copycats?

Honestly they should just invest in a bit more tech. How about modifying their lifts to detect large amounts of metals, or explosives? (Well, there's your next security technology goldmine). But of course hiring muscles is cheaper, never mind that maybe party goers will stop coming to Vegas if they get harassed.

Your technocentrism approach to security is contradictory. On the one hand you say shoes shouldn't be checked with tech (even though there were many AQ/ISIS bomb makers trying to use the technique) and then you say modify lifts (at enourmous cost and dubious enhanced security - what about stairs? etc) to detect explosives.

Reality is that the searches of peoples stuff was a heavy handed and unclear policy that the hotels didn't make clear to the customer so that they could have an informed choice. However a Mark 1 eyeball is in this case probably the most effective choice for a security mitigation.

The slight difference is that a tech solution in the lift would actually apply to everybody. "Mark 1 eyeballs" very likely have a big bias regarding who needs checking.

It seems pretty rational (even if quite cynical) to me. The covering your ass liability for a similar repeat of a black swan event must be way higher than it was the first time around.

You can't claim surprise or lack of precedent for the second time, and it really does look like negligence to the circling lawyers if you didn't react to it.

In risk management terms, the likelihood of a repeat might not have changed, but the consequence of a repeat sure has.

> how a man managed to bring that much firepower into his hotel room and keep it there for so long.

Which is completely irrelevant. He could have done the same thing with a single suitcase containing one rifle and a bunch of magazines. The whole 20+ (I don't know the exact figure) guns thing was not in any way necessary for what he did. Do people think he was some kind of eight armed octopus firing umpteen guns at the same time?

Barrels overheat. The number of guns he brought probably was excessive, but he did shoot 1,100 rounds over a period of about 10 minutes.

>>people have been asking (aside from motive) is how a man managed to bring that much firepower into his hotel room and keep it there for so long

I don't understand - have those "people" never been to a hotel? Or do they visit hotels where luggage searches are somehow normal/acceptable? What do they want? Airport-style luggage searches for people who stay at hotels?

"Luggage searches" is a strawman description

That being said, if your things are being actually rummaged through and arbitrarily confiscated, I'm completely in disagreement with it. Especially being done by "security people" with no ID.

Ok, ok I get it, Vegas hotels probably have to deal with way more crap from guests than your average hotel, still, this is uncalled for.

Still, hotel rooms are serviced, nobody should be going through regular suitcases, it's a different thing to turn away room service for days at a time and have big boxes and crates that don't look like something ordinary

> have those "people" never been to a hotel?

I have. Hotels are not rentals. A degree of privacy is expected, surely, but it's not "free for all"

What they want is for dangerous criminals to be found out before they kill people. This is complex because of competing wants (like not wanting to subject oneself to airport-like security at a hotel).

This is just the nature of public discourse. The newreading public is not going to withold forming an opinion, tweet or somesuch until they've thought through all implications. They are going to have general, simplified opinions. This is normal. It is kind of disingenuous taking this to mean "people want __insert totalitarian implications__.

Hote security want similar things. They have a more nuanced understanding, being professionals after all. They particularly don't want to be blamed after-the-fact for having overlooked (in retrospect) danger signs. The type of people with the kind of stuff that go to to defco probably alert all sorts of "common sense" danger signs.

Lisbeth Salander walks through the lobby towing a 150kg box....

> What they want is for dangerous criminals to be found out before they kill people.

Typically a mass shooter is not a criminal until he starts shooting people. Correct me if I’m wrong but what you sound like you are saying people want “pre-crime.”

I don’t want to live in a place where I might be arrested for something someone guesses I might do.

No sorry, that's an apologist position. Six months ago the shooting was an even fresher memory. Did the hotel work with Defcon to communicate their concerns? Did the hotel implement procedures that minimise the risk while respecting customers? Were Defcon guests informed that cancelling servicing would trigger ad-hoc searches? Did the hotel do anything that suggests they care at all? No.

"What did they expect?"

To have privacy in their hotel rooms; to not have their lock picks stolen by hotel staff; to have some way of distinguishing these "security" guards from random strangers trying to take advantage of the situation; to tell the staff "not now" and have them listen; etc.

None of that is unreasonable. I would have canceled the remainder of my reservation if a hotel treated me like that, and I would not bother going to conferences held at those properties.

The idea that the only way to be 'safe' is to break into people's room and go through their stuff is setting up a false choice.

This kind of 'emotional' logic is dangerous and can be used to justify a police state and tyranny.

It's quite possible to ensure security without being a tyrant, and setting up processes upfront and being transparent about it. This is sinister, more associated with a police state.

As a thought experiment think of the Chinese security services doing this at an international security conference and it becomes clear why this kind of apologism doesn't work, no one would justify that.

Someone explain to a non-American here; given the second amendment, would/does the hotel actually have a policy against guns in rooms?

> large and diverse group of counter-culture oriented people

Ironically this is the exact opposite of the mass shooter "profile".

Yes. The Constitution primarily limits the powers of state/federal government (in a few narrow cases it can apply to private entities as well). A hotel would be able to set whatever restrictions it wants on guns and not be hindered by the second amendment.

Rules related to Firearms on private property vary state to state. In Nevada and Las Vegas explicitly, 'Gun Free' zones on private property are not legally enforced. Casinos do not allow you to carry firearms openly or concealed on their property and while it's not illegal to do so, they can/will ask you to leave. If you don't then it's trespassing.

They do allow you to have firearms in your hotel room, but request that they are kept secured in locked containers. Many firearms industry trade events take place in Las Vegas, including Shot Show. I have personally been in hotel suites during that show that had several dozens of firearms on display.

From what I understand the big change to security now at vegas hotels is an increased awareness of people who refuse maid service for days at a time, as this specifically allowed the mass shooter to prepare his room without alerting anybody.

As a non-American, I find the idea that the right to bring weapons to a hotel room trumps your privacy within that room a very counter-intuitive proposition.

Who said that was the case? This hasn't gone to court yet.

Well it's private property so it's kind of up to the owner to decide that.

Nevada is a weird place, it sort of balances the near libertarian natives with the demands/requirements of the casinos that keep the money flowing.

I mean in general, that the very fact that you can carry weapons at all (subject to local regulations) implies a system whereby guards can ransack your room for fear that you might actually use your guns. Pretty much everywhere else on the planet carrying around weapons designed to kill are simply illegal, and therefore there isn't the worry that they might be used. Simply having weapons would get you locked up.

I know this is a right dear to many Americans -- certainly not all though -- but hn is a global forum and I'm giving an outsider's perspective. Wouldn't have thought that'd merit downvotes?

nb: that was a reply to vageli, but there wasn't a reply button yet.

Guns aren't as illegal and uncommon "in the rest of the world" as people think.

Both are important.

Britain didn't know to be on the extreme lookout for any signs of armed rebellion in the 13 Colonies; by the time they positively knew what was going on, their best hope was to try to take the militia's arms.

As such, the Founding Fathers didn't learn first-hand the value of privacy in quite the same way as they learned the value of arms-bearing.

Concealed means concealed. I have never seen a casino in Vegas signed in a way that bans concealed carry is off limits, either in a legally binding way or not.

Since signs are not legally enforceable in Nevada they don't plaster the doors with them, but trust me, Casinos explicitly ban concealed carry and if they see you printing they will escort you out.

If there's no signs, no notice to guests, and no obvious policy a random person coming off the street would see, I'm not sure that counts as "explicitly banned"

Some states have gone so far as to limit this right, but typically you have the right to declare that you won't allow guns on your property and enforce such a rule

> What dis they expect?

Well for one thing they likely expected that the hotel change their policies to reflect that they are going to go through guests luggage, and to clearly state that security guards are going to go through their rooms.

The outrage isn’t that hey are doing this, it’s that they are doing so without proper information and without following their own policy.

> What did they expect?

Maybe such simple things as having identity verification in place for their security people?!

If they were just entering the rooms, or even entering and rifling through their stuff, maybe, but what does Steven Paddock have to do with confiscating lock picks?

That’s a pretty sad excuse.

Even after 9/11, I didn’t have goons busting into my N.Y. hotel rooms just in case I had lockpicks in my luggage.

If these people are a security threat, call the real cops. The only time I’ve seen this sort of behavior is in circumstances when rent-a-cops are given police/peace officer status.

9/11 wasn't caused by lockpicks in luggage. The Vegas shooting had guns in luggage as a key factor.

So why are you allowed to enter the hotel with luggage?

Most big hotels provide a vault or will hold luggage locked in a secure area as well. They won't open it for insurance/liability purposes and do not require access to the contents. A person could trivially store contraband in the hotel's direct custody and not throw a red flag by keeping the cleaning lady out.

This is just security bozos throwing their weight around.

It’s ironic that the ability to enjoy your freedom to gamble and drink is being ‘secured’ by heavily breaching your privacy.

I dunno, I don't think a cursory search of your room at a hotel is a "[heavy] breach of privacy". I'd be more concerned with them being followed and their data searched.

Do you really think someone going through all your bags and then confiscating things they find objectionable is a "cursory" search, or did you just not read the article?

It's bizarre that the right to bear arms (important to some), means many other people will have to give up some privacy.

Let's remember that DEFCON has been happening there for quite a few years, so the hotel should know what to expect, and what the customers expect, and either decline the business or accept that they're going to have a large and diverse group of counter-culture oriented people bringing large padlocked hard cases to their rooms and declining maid service for days at a time while expecting privacy.

The big piece you have to add to that is that MGM is being sued for billions of dollars when you put together the 1,000+ lawsuits against them for "failing to keep guests safe".

It's not just the memory, but a direct consquence of our insurance and civil litigation norms.

This isn’t happening specially for Defcon, it’s been standard practice for a while.

So in other words, this is a government initiative. Maybe run through the police, maybe run directly through the government itself.

That would explain "incredibly unprofessional and heavy handed about security".

That's not "in other words". That's an ocean away jump to a conclusion.

Turns out it's not just the government who have an anti-tragedy agenda.

If you want to be cynical about it you could say it's bad PR for the hotel. But really, the people making these decisions are actually human beings who don't want their fellow human beings to be murdered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com