Los Angeles to Use Body Scanners at Transit Hubs | Hacker News Reader

Los Angeles to Use Body Scanners at Transit Hubs

nytimes.com

56 pointslazerpants83 comments

> “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.

> 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.

I don't see how that is relevant. If anything, handguns will typically fit more bullets within the same volume of magazine. A 100 round 9mm Glock magazine is smaller than a 60 round magazine for an AR-15. FWIW both are illegal in California.

Turns out the 'stopping power' of handguns is largely the same regardless of caliber. Larger caliber has a high chance of stopping someone, but there are fewer rounds in a magazine. So the statistics work out about the same for all handguns across each category (full-size, compact, subcompact)

I'm not sure about that one. Getting hit with a 45 cal. is going to do some serious damage compared to a 9mm.

While .45 ACP is higher grain, the velocity is lower and the rounds tend to "overpenetrate" (meaning, exit the body entirely). One of the reasons 9mm was widely adopted was the penetration properties - 9mm tends to stay in your body (making more of a mess). Even with these advantages, it is unlikely you will be killed by a single 9mm round to your torso.

But generally you are right - the larger rounds like 10mm and .500 will smash whatever they hit while .22 and other smaller calibers are likely to only make the intended target very angry.

But keep pulling the trigger on the 9mm. A similar sized pistol can hold many more rounds (15?) than the equivalent 45 (6)

This story is about California where mag capacity is limited to 10.

The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts

> This story is about California

The article mentions trials and future rollouts in a number of other places.

> where mag capacity is limited to 10

Isn't the whole idea behind these scanners to catch people who aren't following the law?

> The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts

You're right, the 1911 holds a whopping _seven_.

> Turns out the 'stopping power' of handguns is largely the same regardless of caliber

This is absolutely false. Compare a .22 round to 10mm. You can probably be shot by .22 ten times or more and walk away. A 10mm round will stop an elephant on bath salts. Both can be shot from handguns.

In California you will have the same number of rounds in your 9mm Glock 17 (10) as you will in your .45 ACP Glock 21 (10).

In any case you are only limited by how many rounds you can carry, modern semiautomatic pistols can be reloaded in two seconds.

Finish reading the statement? The 9mm pistol can hold more rounds (ok CA artificially reduces this but I don't live there). If you empty the magazine, the stats come out very similar

You can find extended mags at whatever capacity you want.

Has to fit in the pistol.

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."

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".

This is why "1%" bikers favor ball-peen hammers - they know they can always carry one legally.

A very common handgun might have a magazine capacity of almost 20 rounds.

Not in California (if its legal). Max is ten rounds.

This isn't correct. The real world accuracy record of people with handguns, even supposedly trained professionals like police, is pretty dismal. Sight radius is very significant, by something like a multiplier of several times. This is why all military organizations and all special police forces use long guns if they can.

Magazine capacity is significant, but slight by comparison to handgun vs. rifle, especially in the context of mass shooting and terrorism. Magazine capacity is most significant when it comes to gun vs. gun.

Correct. Even at close range, trained police officers are subject to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

"75-80% of rounds fired by trained police in lethal force encounters miss their intended target"

"Out of 16 rounds, expect 12-13 to miss"

The New York times is an integral part of the police state/big government propoganda machine

> “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?

> 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.

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

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.

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.

I wonder if they could detect cancer with these scanners. Maybe have them automatically scan for it and send it to my doctor.

It's a passive system.

you're not thinking like a terrorist when you imagine it being incredibly effective.

people on a subway are dense and easy targets, sure. but if you place a scanner before people get into the station, you've merely moved the place the terrorist will strike to directly outside the station, where the people getting on/off the train must traverse in similar density and identical numbers as when they are on the train.

so basically this technologies concedes privacy without improving genuine safety. economically wasteful, individually humiliating, and utterly theatrical for its intended purpose.

I'm a huge proponent of that argument. Airport scanners are incredibly stupid, and simply move the target. All that actually needed to be done was reinforcing the cockpit doors, so that the plane couldn't be comandeered and used as a missile. Blowing up a plane in the air is just one of the myriad ways to blow up a concentration of people, and shouldn't be given the special privilege that it does, with the exception of its utility as a missile, solved by the doors.

However, that's not what's being proposed here. The system proposed here does not create concentrations of people, because it is transparent to them, it just scans them as they walk through the place, so it doesn't have that flaw.

it still has the same flaw: think about how many people get off at a major stop on the subway. without the inclusion of any security apparatus whatsoever, there are still hundreds of people who are clumped up as they exit. the security apparatus doesn't prevent an attack.

It does if it scans them before they get on the subway.

It would be ideal if they were absolutely terrible at identifying people but particularly good at detecting suicide vests. They do seem to be fairly narrowly tailored for the task at hand.

TFA says they can discern large arms and bombs but not small arms.

Assume the technology can progress even further to identifying small arms and weapons but that it’s passed through an audited AI running on trusted compute whose only output is calling the police when a threat is detected.

Even then I’m willing to guess it would be a colossal waste of money that could save more lives if spent more effectively.

Because terrorists just aren’t that common around here and if you’re detecting them carrying a bomb into the subway you failed a long, long time ago.

For some reason it reminds me of the opening scene/level(?) in Half Life 2, when you finally get outside the compound and there are scanners/drones harassing you.

In other news, I wonder if this could be defeated by clothing with fine metal threads woven in.

Or the whole-hallway scanner in 'Total Recall (1990)':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c

Right idea, wrong scene, this is the one with an actual gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY

this is what I always envisioned progressing towards, a back scatter machine with computer interpretation of what is seen to protect the privacy of individuals while exposing concerns. probably one of the biggest failings of the TSA machines is that there was not enough computer enhancement of the images to remove what would be embarrassing to many.

the skeletal information presented would not even have to be accurate to get the job done. it could be a whimsical interpretation with all unidentified items highlighted

If the cops wore masks and beat people up slightly more often the opening scene of Half Life 2 would basically be a documentary about traveling into Boston via rail. The cameras, steel gates, cops standing around everywhere, "see something say something" messages on the PA, it's all there.

"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...

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...

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

That's never been the case. International airports have always been acknowledged as "U.S. soil" and the 4th amendment has always applied. However, the 4th amendment, but its terms, only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Searches incident to a border crossing, was always considered "reasonable," on the theory that nations have the inherent right to control and tax goods and contraband crossing their borders.

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.

They used to. And we did.

Inside of houses will be next at this rate.

We already have surveillance devices that we pay for ourselves (i.e., cell phones, etc.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-nyp...

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.

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).

A lazy search brought this, which may help/has more known sources linked: https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-...

Illusion of security.

"We did something".

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

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

Generally the public aren't involved in these decisions.

I sometimes wonder if I could sell Rhinoceros trampling preventative services to major US transit agencies...

> 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.

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.

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.

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

>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.

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.

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.

It’s an example of Hobson’s Choice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

That’s mandatory, not voluntary.

> “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

> 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.

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.

https://streamable.com/9rpkr

I think this is relevant from Snowden. Unfortunately I'm not sure what interview it comes from, someone sent me a .webm of it.

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.

But revolting/protesting is A Bad Thing™.

s/produce absolute security at any cost/produce the perception of absolute security at any cost/

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.

In California, armed security guards are required to have their gun holstered in a non-concealed manner. As terrible as the scanning is, a legit user of arms should be fine.

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

Those folks usually roll around in armored trucks, not the subway.

"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.

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

You'd be surprised. I've seen college girls carrying backpacks with 40k in cash to do a drop. They blend in.

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.

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

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.

Shoe bomber was a CIA asset, and a Congressperson (or their associates, maybe both, can't recall) was enriched by the first installment of TSA backscatter scanners...

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com