LA To Become First In US To Install Subway Body Scanners (apnews.com)

Los Angeles officials announced Tuesday that the city's subway will become the first mass transit system in the U.S. to install body scanners that screen passengers for weapons and explosives. "The deployment of the portable scanners, which project waves to do full-body screenings of passengers walking through a station without slowing them down, will happen in the coming months, said Alex Wiggins, who runs the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's law enforcement division," reports the Associated Press reports: The machines scan for metallic and non-metallic objects on a person's body, can detect suspicious items from 30 feet (9 meters) away and have the capability of scanning more than 2,000 passengers per hour. On Tuesday, Pekoske and other officials demonstrated the new machines, which are being purchased from Thruvision, which is headquartered in the United Kingdom. In addition to the Thruvision scanners, the agency is also planning to purchase other body scanners -- which resemble white television cameras on tripods -- that have the ability to move around and hone in on specific people and angles, Wiggins said. Signs will be posted at stations warning passengers they are subject to body scanner screening. The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway.

Comments

voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fine, nobody rides the subway in LA anyway.

Re:voluntary

[thesupraman]

Just remember citizen, everything is voluntary, including the state allowing you to keep breathing.
Have a nice day.

Re:voluntary

[LynnwoodRooster]

It is voluntary. Like paying of taxes.

Re:voluntary

[quenda]

At this point I'd like to call for volunteers ... Anyone, it doesn't matter.

Ah Jeez - you you you just Cronenberged Los Angeles.
Or was it already like that?

Re:voluntary

[mukinrestak]

No, no, no, it's like taxes. Paying taxes is voluntary, but citizens who choose not to just won't be allowed to reside outside of a prison.

Re:voluntary

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed.

As as bad as the cognitive dissonance of voluntary compliance.

Huh? Is it voluntary or compulsive?

*facepalm*

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuck you say. I ride that shit to and from work and it gets pretty fucking packed.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

I said years ago that if you want to see the future, look at how an airport treats people. It seems to be coming true.

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying taxes isn't required in the US. I haven't had to pay for the last few years despite controlling several large property assets. Or more accurately, because I control several large property assets and exotic financial instruments.

If I sold them, and didn't do 1039s, and disbursed the funds from the organizational structure I might have to pay some capital gains, but as long as I just transfer them to a new shell company and sell a convertible interest in whole company, I'm gold.

When I need money, I take out another loan against assets. If i want to sell, I arrange to do so for the price I paid, leave it with noncollateralized debt equivalent to the market appreciation and walk away tax free.

Taxes are for liberals and suckers who vote for slogans that fit on hats.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the voters in LA had any say in this decision.

Re: voluntary

[backslashdot]

Congratulations! Youâ(TM)ve been chosen to be volunteer.

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you use a federal road in that time?

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying taxes isn't required in the US. I haven't had to pay for the last few years despite controlling several large property assets. Or more accurately, because I control several large property assets and exotic financial instruments. Taxes are for liberals and suckers who vote for slogans that fit on hats.

Good attempt at a Democratic troll. Unfortunately, as usually, you're trying to hide the ugly truth.

It is, after all, the Democrats, not the Republicans, that keep us from adopting a simple flat tax without exemptions. And the Democrats do that because their billionaire donors, doctors, and lawyers like the system the way it is: high taxes for regular employees, lots of loopholes for themselves.

Re:voluntary

[Evtim]

Ya know, everything under communism was also voluntary.

You could choose not to go to the official liberation day parade to wave the flag with the swastika, sorry the hammer and sickle...you could choose not to go every Saturday to work on digging trenches (that's true, they asked for one day per month voluntary labor for the state.....imagine a surgeon digging a trench and that does to his hands)...you could choose not to enter the Hitler youth, sorry the Komsomol....you could choose not to salute to the portrait of the fürer, sorry the dear leader...you could choose not to participate in the daily five minutes of hatred against the filthy Jews, gipsies, faggots, sorry filthy capitalist and imperialists....you could even choose not to show your papers...so how do you like them labor camps, sorry Gulags, hm?

Fascinating!

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Paying taxes is voluntary, but those who choose not to, won't be able to make money. Bums don't pay taxes, and are not imprisoned for that.

Re:voluntary

[DarkOx]

This definition of voluntary has bothered me for a long time. We have explicit constitutional rights. I am not even talking about the ones courts like to imagine here. A pretty plain read says we have the right to assemble and we have the right be secure against unreasonable search.

I also thinks its abundantly clear the frames never intended that exercise of one right might require one waive another right. It kind of goes against the definition of right it self. In order to assemble one must be able to go to where the assembly is taking place. As it stands today in America there is essentially no means of transportation where you are subject to "voluntary" search. Even driving your own car you might be stopped at a "random" checkpoint and search. In many cities even walking you could be subjected to "stop and frisk."

When there are no remaining options and I believe we are at the point point search is no longer "voluntary" by any definition. Obviously some types of travel pose risks that demand security and I don't know what all the answers are but if the present situation continues to be viewed as meeting the legal standard - our Constitution might as well be toilet paper.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

When does this becomes a search vs "a tool that assists cops in surviellance"?

Arguably, whenever you are using something other than the visible spectrum of light. As time goes on and resolutions improve, and little-mussolini's take their shot at impoverishing the public for profit and fail repeatedly, that will be the case.

It should be interesting to see what the Jury does with this. We are talking about public transit; people have an expectation their tax dollars will provide personal privacy. The police have to show this is something they won't use against dissident groups they don't like.

Re:voluntary

[SirSlud]

"The paying process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not pay won't be able to ride on the subway."

I mean, it's as voluntary as using the subway is in general - isn't that voluntary? I mean, I get why you wouldn't want this security theater to extend to subways, but I've no idea on what grounds you'd say this infringes on your freedom. You're already on camera in subways. This is just a more powerful camera.

Anyhow, the public keeps voting for weaker and weaker public institutions, so you get what you pay for.

Re: voluntary

[CoolDiscoRex]

Federal Taxes don't 'pay for stuff'. At least not directly. Federal Taxes props up our fiat currency by taking money out of circulation.

The Federal Government has the constitutional power to create its own currency. Why does it need yours?

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

A flat tax is insanely regressive. What we really need is a VAT on types of goods. You can hide income, you can't hide that Lear jet or Maybach that easily.

Re: voluntary

[kilfarsnar]

Good attempt at a Democratic troll. Unfortunately, as usually, you're trying to hide the ugly truth.

It is, after all, the Democrats, not the Republicans, that keep us from adopting a simple flat tax without exemptions. And the Democrats do that because their billionaire donors, doctors, and lawyers like the system the way it is: high taxes for regular employees, lots of loopholes for themselves.

The Republicans control all three branches of government right now. They just passed a big tax bill. And yet, they didn't implement a flat tax when they did so. How does that square with your analysis?

Re: voluntary

[kilfarsnar]

A flat tax is insanely regressive. What we really need is a VAT on types of goods. You can hide income, you can't hide that Lear jet or Maybach that easily.

Even VAT is regressive, though it may still be a good idea. The wealthy spend a much lower percentage of their income, and thus would have less of it subject to VAT.

Re:voluntary

[Spamalope]

I have a hard time doing that too because the difference is mostly terminology.

The trick I use to remember is that the Nazis didn't use starvation to kill as often, killed far fewer people and a few right wing nutjobs claim their Holocaust didn't happen whereas the Bolsheviks are beloved by the left 'I've seen the future and it works' and the Holodomor (and Gulag system) are denied by the left or dismissed with 'they didn't do it right' rhetoric.

Re:voluntary

[drinkypoo]

Huh? Is it voluntary or compulsive?

That depends on if you believe in free will or not.

Re:voluntary

[skam240]

Wow, you must have a hell of a time telling dogs and cats apart. I mean, they're both pets! They both eat from food dishes in the home! They both have hair! They both are color blind! They even both have two eyes!

How does anyone tell anything apart in this mad world of ours!?

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ya know, everything under fascism was also voluntary.

FTFY

captcha: scream

Re: voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans control all three branches of government right now. They just passed a big tax bill. And yet, they didn't implement a flat tax when they did so. How does that square with your analysis?

Or term limits or a balanced budget. I thought those where top Republican priorities.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

That which is not forbidden is mandatory, eh?

Re:voluntary

[surd1618]

I wish I had mod points. This is off-topic. You can make a bogeyman out of whatever you like, but I don't think the transit authority in LA are pinkos. This kind of talk has nothing to do w/ the topic at hand and nothing to do w/ tech; it's just baseless inflammatory statements about politics, of the sort which have been rearing up in /. more and more over the years, and it's fucking depressing to see. Take it to Reddit?

Re:voluntary

[crgrace]

The Nazis had an actual thought-out plan to use starvation to kill. Usually communists starved people due to incompetence (although not always, for example in Ukraine).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan/

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Because transportation is in inalienable right. The right to be left alone unless reasonable suspicion. The right to use a public facility unencumbered. We are entering hell, you had better figure that out now and fight before it is too late.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

With paranoia and hysteria? It seems in these times everybody is a criminal unless they prove otherwise.

Re: voluntary

[kenwd0elq]

The "Republican Party" is somewhat fractured, and isn't a single entity. There are the real conservatives, who are not the same as the "Tea Party Republicans", although they share many values. Then there are the "Rockefeller Republicans" who are not QUITE the same people as the "Country Club Republicans", sometimes called RINOs; "Republicans in Name Only". President Trump ran as a Republican, although he was a Democrat most of his career and is governing more as a Libertarian/Populist. Please note that the "Country Club Republicans" detest Trump, and always have. There is currently NO consistent theme or goal of the Republican Party, other than "Re-elect Me!".

Similarly, there is no longer a "Democrat Party", having been fractionalized into "Democratic Socialists", genuine Socialists, and a myriad of splinter interest group parties who don't agree on either goals nor methods. Finally, there is the rump core of the original Democrat party based on labor unions. Currently, the only consistent theme of the Democrat Party has been "Gimme Free Stuff!", such as free college, free health care, free everything else. Since there isn't any way to pay for free stuff, they're not making much progress.

This is why neither party has a coherent message or strategy, and elements of the various factions and temporary coalitions are constantly fighting each other.

Re:voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all bull shit. I don't agree with you on one thing: "Obviously some types of travel pose risks that demand security ". The necessity isn't obvious nor there. Flying is safer than driving so the argument we need security here is just a bull shit excuse to undermine our right to travel. The same thing goes with drivers licenses. Drivers licenses were created in response to bigotry against motor vehicle operators by the general population. It was never a safety thing either. It was later excused as a safety thing. The reality is many states didn't have any kind of driving tests and there were still states without driving tests until as late as the late 1960s. The question of whether drivers license makes anybody safer would require the look into why and how accidents occur. The reality is passing a driving test only demonstrates an ability to drive- not the willingness to drive safely. So the idea that a drivers licenses magically makes us safer is more or less an excuse to violate fundamental rights that for which without we don't have a legitimate democracy. And I'd argue we don't. You can't travel to many parts of the country without a drivers license. And what is a drivers license really. A permission slip from the government. When they don't like you they take it away. As millions can attest to who have has passports and drivers licenses taken away for non-safety reasons (and generally without a fair trial as our system is fucked).

Re:voluntary

[b0s0z0ku]

The "risks that demand security" thing is nonsense as regards public transportation. Most of the risks to public transport are external, not internal -- the LA "subway" is not a true subway. Most of the tracks run above ground, and it's impossible to secure them completely. Instead of spending money on scanners, LAPD should be spending money on having cameras monitor every foot of their aboveground track network.

Re:voluntary

[HeckRuler]

also thinks its abundantly clear the frames never intended that exercise of one right might require one waive another right.

Remember that the framers never intended to let non-land-owners have a vote in 1789. From 1792 to 1856 the property qualifications went away state by state. And even then you often still had to pay taxes.

I like the rule of law. I like our constitution, for the most part. But a lot of the nationalistic sort have some weird lofty ideals about what the Constitution entailed and the sort of society "the framers" envisioned. They certainly didn't all agree. There was compromise. Great compromise.

Re:voluntary

[philmarcracken]

Thats not communism, just a dictatorship. The fervor in which successful capitalists go to any length to pin failures on their greatest threat never fails to amuse. Better dead than red, right

Re:voluntary

[DarkOx]

never intended to let non-land-owners have a vote in 1789

Which was entirely sensible at the time. Land ownership meant you had skin in the game your interests where the countries interests.

I don't think that land ownership is necessarily a good model for today but we absolutely should have some bar to enfranchisement beyond mere citizenship. I would suggest for example "net tax payers" at whatever level the election is at be given the vote.

Re:voluntary

[DarkOx]

I was mainly speaking of things where the risks can be externalized / the transport be weaponized. Planes for example as we saw. Locked cockpit doors and no single man at a time rules are good security measures to address that for example.

Cars are also easily weaponized - which is why we license drivers and probably should put some rules in place the prevent the sale of cars to non-license holders.

Re:voluntary

[b0s0z0ku]

Banning sale of cars to non-license holders is idiotic. The license is a license to drive, not own a car. Probably quite a few rich people in NYC that don't drive, but own a limo and pay a driver to operate it.

Re:voluntary

[HeckRuler]

but we absolutely should have some bar to enfranchisement beyond mere citizenship.

Said the tyrant.

Seriously, every past example of this has been used and abused to just accumulate votes for the people in power choosing who gets to vote. Learn some history. Spot the trend.

I understand the desire. You'd prefer people stop leeching off society and living on the dole. If they get more than 50% of the vote, they'll just vote to increase the dole. It's an unworkable system. But we've been here before. Your idea doesn't work. It's been tried. You need to come up with something better.

Re:voluntary

[lsatenstein]

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

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Trump has convinced Americans to live in fear. What a shame.
Next, fingerprint readers. Obviously smartcard transport passes are not good as they may be passed to others who could get a free ride.

Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not a 4th Amendment Violation?

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I'm not a fan of these invasive searches but if that was the case wouldn't that apply to airports?

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[thesupraman]

I guess that depends if the subway counts as a government or private entity.
If it was a government one, then wouldn't the right to free movement be a stronger argument?
If it is private, then you are shit out of luck.

Of course these days they love to blur the lines... because representing the people is the LAST thing they want to do - where is the advantage in that (to themselves, of course..)

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Patent Lover]

Do people really want an airport experience to ride the subway to and from work every day? I think not.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[silverkniveshotmail.]

That's not the question, I don't think people want the airport experience at the airport.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[SirAstral]

When was the last time you saw anyone actually asking for representation?

Last time I checked the election was between R's and D's. Neither of which are for the little guy. Both are for big business, they just go about it in different ways so that people can use cheap excuses to say they are really different. There is a reason both parties are splintering. Both of their own recognize that they cannot get representation.

Bush a republican created this problem and Mr "we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America" Obama a democrat didn't change a single fucking thing... except the rhetoric.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[AHuxley]

The sign that tells people that if they keep walking into a 'station" that they will be scanned?
The person can then select not to go further. Not to get scanned by not using the service.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[b0s0z0ku]

And use the next nearby station or a different entrance, same as when NYPD roots through people's bags like spastic hogs.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not constitutional there either. Or at least it wouldn't be if the judges weren't developmentally delayed morons that couldn't grasp the consequences of any of their decisions.

If you need to get between two distant parts of the US the same day, you really don't have any other options than air travel. Refusing to visit a relative that's on their death bed because you don't want to be sexually assaulted by TSA agents engaged in illegal searches is not something that a reasonable person should consider voluntary. Likewise, business travelers shouldn't be considered to have consented to a search when they'd lose their jobs if they refused.

This whole business of considering it "voluntary" because there's a version of the thing that doesn't involve the illegal search is ridiculous. In most of the cases, that other option just is not viable for significant numbers of people. I'd love to have the time to take the train to distant parts of the country. I do not, however have so much vacation time that that's viable. Which is beside the point as they're trying to set the trains up with similar machines because clearly the terrorists will get on the train rather than doing something to the tracks to cause it to derail.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, and how do they get where they need to go? For most poor people, public transportation isn't optional. We don't all have huge sums of money and time to buy a car and wait in traffic.

I don't think a reasonable person would consider this voluntary if the alternative is being restricted to going places that you can walk.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[AHuxley]

That is the idea of why its been set that way and everyone is scanned. Random stops of people who are criminals are difficult to present as "random".
The need for some type of reasonable and articulable suspicion is removed when everyone is scanned.
Scan everyone and that later legal question is stopped. Its not the police selecting any random person. Everyone gets a scan thats equal before the law.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how that works. If that's how that worked, they'd just pull over every car on a given street at random to get to that one car they suspect is engaged in criminal conduct. The closest thing we have to that is DUI checkpoints and those are only legal because they're commonly advertised ahead of time.

What's more, it doesn't matter whether or not a stop is "random" it has to be based upon reasonable suspicion and entering the subway just does not meet that standard any more than driving a car does. These are both things that people commonly do and no reasonable person would conclude that there's a basis for a stop. But, unlike a traffic stop where somebody will make a mistake eventually that would lead to reasonable suspicion, there's no basis for assuming that anybody going into those stations is engaged in something that would allow a search.

Scanning everybody does remove the question about suspicion, but not in the way you think. By scanning everybody, they're clearly stepping into the realm of unconstitutional. They can sort of get away with that when it comes to court houses and airports, but not in other public places.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

OF COURSE people don't want it. The government wants it. As do the sellers of the scanners. They are more powerful than the people, so they get what they want.

Re: Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones the government want to protect are themselves. From us. These types of stories are just puzzle pieces falling into place.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

And whose fault will it be when in 10 years these scanners are found to create cancer when uses twice daily?

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

That will only happen if they are ever installed in California

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[easyTree]

We need to build a wall around the US and ban international travel for any US citizens to stop the infection from spreading.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[easyTree]

It's an "It's completely up to you" situation.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[easyTree]

There could be glzed truffle dinuts in those bags.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[easyTree]

It's a win for the 'healthcare' system.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[AHuxley]

AC the need to pass scanning will be presented well ahead of entering so the "they're commonly advertised ahead of time." is covered.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[BlueStrat]

It's not constitutional there either. Or at least it wouldn't be if the judges weren't developmentally delayed morons that couldn't grasp the consequences of any of their decisions.

Some are corrupt, some stupid, and many quietly taken aside when a key case/decision/precedent is in play for a meeting. Remember the "interview scene" from The Matrix when Agent Smith and Neo first meet?

Do you remember that huge binder of data Smith dropped on the desk, opened, and began to tell Neo all about the minute details of his life like the "neighbor lady" he takes the trash out for? Thanks to the US TLAs there are virtual 'binders' on everyone including judges and their family, friends, and associates. They might note that his kid/grandkid/spouse/loved-one/etc might be dabbling in something technically illegal and it would be tragic if police received an 'anonymous tip'. "Now wouldn't it, your Honor? I know you'll do the right thing. For your family's sake."

That's one of the great dangers of having an intelligence agency with data on everyone...it makes them the de facto leaders, not those elected by the people to lead, as those in charge of the intelligence agencies have the ability to destroy anyone (and/or their loved ones) they wish at any time for whatever reason they like.

Always treat government like fire. History teaches us that you are more likely by far to be unjustly killed or imprisoned at the hands of your own government than from the actions of any foreign nation or terrorist group, foreign or domestic.

Strat

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[kilfarsnar]

No, we simply need to execute all Democrats/Progressives.

Once that's done, you'll just find someone else to blame. You think the Republicans/Conservatives don't want to take away your rights? Some of them want to ban contraception FFS.

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're banking on the homeless refusing the search, or they're hoping to use the scans as an excuse to filter the homeless out of the subways. LA does not have a problem with assault rifles on the subways, but it does have a major problem with the homeless taking over the trains and platforms.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-homeless-20180406-htmlstory.html

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

there arent enough "republicans" doing policy in LA or all of California to even notice, much less make any policy difference. that's a lot worse than rhetoric failing, these are repressive policies created by and for "democrats" in the center of their strongest power centers

Re:Would this hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Always treat government like fire.

Dude, fire is one of the earliest discoveries that greatly helped advance civilization. Not sure if that's the analogy you want to make.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if staunch libertarians end up acting like pre-historic cavemen who don't even cook their food.

History teaches us that you are more likely by far to be unjustly killed or imprisoned at the hands of your own government than from the actions of any foreign nation or terrorist group, foreign or domestic.

Yeah, and history shows that in the US, you're more likely to be killed in a car accident, by a Christian (especially if they aren't white, non-whites are statistically more religious/Christian), than those other things.

When you're exposed to something (cars, Christians, your own government) a lot more everyday, of course the chance is higher for you to be harmed by it.

Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplanes.

[gavron]

Because it's "voluntary". You know, you don't HAVE to voluntarily submit to this [otherwise unlawful search and seizure].

Just don't ride the subway. Your rights are all protected. Except of course the ability to use the government provided mass transit system.

E

Another reason to love telecommuting

[Anonymous Coward]

No more subways, no more light rail, no more buses, no more sitting in traffic for hours, and now no getting body scanned for the slightest smallest odds that something bad might happen one day.

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[AHuxley]

Images of the front and back of every type of transport are kept.
Driver and passenger faces are kept as they enter a city and on the drive back after work.
All cell phone network use is detected and collected too.
Face, method transport and details on the type of in use communication.
Lots of CCTV in all city areas then fills in the gait and face. Daily movements to work and what is done while working in the city.
Domain Awareness System https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
History from the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[easyTree]

There should at least be the requirement that the police uniforms be switched for Gestapo uniforms, including jackboots.

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[Cederic]

The thing about a secret police is that they're not very secret if they wear a uniform.

Which'll be why the Gestapo didn't have one.

You want the police to go around in civilian clothing?

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[easyTree]

Why did the Gestapo use uniforms if they were a secret police?

The Nazi Gestapo were a “secret police” not in that their existence was a secret but in that they only reported to and took orders from party leadership. Their “work,” which was mostly persecuting Jews and political opponents of the Nazi regime, was not subject to limitations or review by courts. They were basically above the law.

 

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[Cederic]

Someone asking a stupid question isn't really a reference. The Gestapo had no uniform.

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[Plus1Entropy]

Yeah, I mean it's not like there's a very strong push from LEOs everywhere to end strong encryption or anything.

Re:Another reason to love telecommuting

[Plus1Entropy]

My Dad grew up in Egypt, a military dictatorship with a strong and well established police state.

He would tell you that even though the secret policemen would wear civilian clothing... you knew who they were. They want you to know. Secret police are about oppression, about knowing that you are being watched.

Re: Another reason to love telecommuting

[astrofurter]

New York already has a quite a few - thankfully not all of them, yet - cops who dress like Darth Vader who just returned from Afghanistan. Jackboots included.

I think the same is true in most American cities?

Re: Another reason to love telecommuting

[astrofurter]

When I was a kid we had a saying, used when people disagreed with each other: "do what you want, it's a free country."

Nowadays if someone says "it's a free country", people just wince and laugh nervously.

The terrorists won. And keep winning more & more with each new form of automated tyranny.

Back when airports used to have the monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

I would always make sure I had a stiffy before going in so the screener would see it

In the land of fruits and nuts..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. you have a government that goes bananas when taking away rights of its citizens.

Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The machines scan for metallic and non-metallic objects on a person's body, can detect suspicious items from 30 feet (9 meters) away

Let me guess, this thing is made by Theranos veterans.

I don't think that word means what you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm. voluntary means I can choose not to be scanned without negative consequences such as being denied a service. Mandatory means that if I want X I must do Y. scanning is thus mandatory for subway riders and people can voluntarily not take the subway.

Re:I don't think that word means what you think...

[Spamalope]

'Comply or lose the freedoms of citizenship' is coercive not free. I this case, the right to freely travel. Restricting the most commonly used method of private citizen travel in the area absolutely is a restriction, especially since it's a gov't 'for the people' utility.

I'd also like to see the FDA studies showing that the scanners are safe in this use. This is the same thing as the airport scanners where they're not and won't be tested isn't it? Somehow increasing cancer risk is a huge problem in CA unless the Gov't wants to increase the risk wholesale... (and if the scanners are safe, why act like they have something to hide?)

Such a sad commentary

[Fly Swatter]

On our 'society'.

Re:Such a sad commentary

[AmiMoJo]

Reminds me of China. They have metal detectors and x-ray scanners for bags.

Re:Such a sad commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

So California is now more intrusive than China? They really are progressive!

Re:Such a sad commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

And that it's important to "be the first" to do these sorts of things.

#americafirst

always more

[harvey the nerd]

California is always so revenue hunry, it's probably designed to sniff out $100 bills.

Re:always more

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard California had a balanced budget.

Can you say the same for, e.g., Kansas?

<cough>Brownback</cough>

Full cavity searches

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatâ(TM)s the eta on full body cavity searches to ride? At least then I get to take a bunch of laxatives and shit all over them

Re:Full cavity searches

[Joe_Dragon]

I want that camper torn apart, full cavity searches all around.

Re:Full cavity searches

[Anonymous Coward]

I want that camper torn apart, full cavity searches all around.

When you gotta find the X-5 unit, you gotta find the X-5 unit.

What's next?

[Wycliffe]

So subways are "voluntary", as is using the public libraries. Court houses need scanners for "safety". Walmart is "a private business". Oh, and interstates are also "voluntarily", you can take an alternate route (or walk).

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

So subways are "voluntary", as is using the public libraries. Court houses need scanners for "safety". Walmart is "a private business". Oh, and interstates are also "voluntarily", you can take an alternate route (or walk).

The US has no right to roam. Vagrancy is illegal in most places. Walking along highways and freeways is illegal. Railways too. Very, very little of the area within the US has any form of public transit.

Even the word "alternative" should remain in quotes.

Why do I need a body scan...

[Anonymous Coward]

...just to get a sandwich?

Re:Why do I need a body scan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jared's back. But don't worry, the scanners are only for 15 and unders.

You Are Now Entering A Safety Zone.

[Digital Avatar]

No Unauthorized Weapons Allowed Beyond This Point.

Re:You Are Now Entering A Safety Zone.

[rtb61]

Fine I will sew outlines of guns and bombs made alfoil and sue when you touch me, it's inner art and nothing illegal about a alfoil cutout of a handgun and it will be interesting for the corrupt to try to prove it illegal in court, it's art, it's self expression, their assault upon an innocent citizen is not and they should be sued and prosecuted, it's the LAW.

Re:You Are Now Entering A Safety Zone.

[b0s0z0ku]

With LAPD scum being what they are, there's a risk of them shooting first and asking questions later. However, any number of rude or insulting messages...

Re: You Are Now Entering A Safety Zone.

[astrofurter]

"try to prove it illegal in court"

Comrade, you misunderstand - this is Soviet America! You are presumed guilty, and must prove your innocence in a kangaroo kourt. (Hint: you can't. You will be made to confess.)

Re:You Are Now Entering A Safety Zone.

[Digital Avatar]

Not sure if trolling or just haven't seen Total Recall...

won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

This won't help for the guy who punched me in the face and ran, in broad daylight, at the busiest station in LA.

This won't help for the fact that even though he looked right into the camera, because I didn't write down what the exact car # it was (I still don't know where this number is supposedly posted), they couldn't pull the tape.

This won't help for the fact that the piggies suck at their job.

This won't help. But it will cost a lot of money and violate a lot of people's privacy. So good idea, eh?

Re:won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably won't help for anyone armed with plastic bags of sarin gas wrapped in newspaper. Which is, of course, something that actually happened in Tokyo.

Re:won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on a quick look on youtube the car number is (like most transit systems) posted inside each car on the end walls near the ceiling.

Can also be found on the outside of each car somewhere.

What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[careysub]

A fair number of people riding the Metro take auxiliary transportation modes with them - bikes, scooter (powered and unpowered), and skateboards all which are large metal containing objects, in addition to various other cargos. Subways aren't planes - people take them to go shopping, and there is no "cargo hold" or a place to "check baggage" - people carry everything they are taking on their person. Also people are often moving pretty fast to make it from one line to the next in their commute. What happens when one of these monitors triggers? Though they do have Metro Cops, they have never had enough to have them posted routinely at every Metro entrance or transfer point. How is this really going to work?

And does the "mass casualty" standard make any sense? Two of the worst mass shootings in the U.S. history - the Luby's (24 dead) and Virginia Tech (33 dead) massacres - were done with hand guns - both of them polymer frame Glocks that have less metal than standard handgun designs.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

Glocks are very, very easily detectable by metal detectors, xray machines, and the various other body scanners used today.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[mea2214]

How is this really going to work?

Here's an excerpt from TFA:

“I guess it is a good, precautionary thing,” Andrea Kirsh said, a 22-year-old student from Corvallis, Oregon, who was traveling through Los Angeles’ Union Station on Tuesday. “It makes me feel safe. As a civilian I think we often don’t know what to look for or what we would be looking for.”

It works because it makes Andrea feel safe. That's what security theater is all about.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly... trading liberty for security. A wise man once said that if you do this, in the end you will have neither. We have become a nation of cowards.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Jane Q. Public]

It works because it makes Andrea feel safe. That's what security theater is all about.

Not it isn't. That's only part of what it's about.

It's about making you feel safe and complacent as your rights are eroded right around you, largely unnoticed.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[dwillden]

Contrary to they Hype and fears when Glocks first came on the market, they have never been even remotely difficult for metal detectors and these scanners to detect. Low metal content is an issue for metal detectors anyway not these millimeter wave scanners. Any sufficiently solid object will trigger them. Not long ago I got sent through the scanner at the airport and my military issue plastic web belt with plastic buckle that I wore specifically to not have to take off, triggered the scanner. It was too dense, so I got the hands on molestation treatment.

A Glock has a great deal of polymer, but the barrel, chamber, magazine, trigger mechanism, springs and firing pin, as well as all the bullets are metal and will set off a metal detector, The polymer and all the metals make for a rather solid, gun shaped mass that the scanners will see.

They stick out quite clearly on the x-ray scanners your carry on items go through as well. In 2002 my Nat Guard unit was doing security at the Olympic village, working with Secret Service agents; during a slow time they showed us how effective the x-ray machines were, one of the SS agents put her firearm (a glock btw) through the scanner, there was no question there was a gun in that backpack she put it in to run it through the scanner. The shape was obvious as was the stack of bullets in the magazine and even the one in the chamber was visible (jacketed lead slugs tend to show up very well).

Even the current "undetectable" scare about 3-D printed firearms is bogus again because they have metal components and the ammo that will trigger a metal detector and the large mass of Gun shaped plastic will stand out on the scanners.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if they are concealed inside a thick, hollow metal bike frame?

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this really going to work?

It works by funneling tax money to the rich 0.01% that own the companies that make the scanners.
The fact that these scanners actually detect something is just a secondary feature.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget profit, someone's gotta build those scanners, someone's gotta provide training, someone's gotta provide data centers. Sweet, sweet tax payer money, the only bottomless purse.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[surd1618]

These machines hypothetically detect polymer-frame guns. It's quite hypothetical though, because they aren't going to be able to see e.g. a gun in a slim metal case between a laptop and a portfolio. But they aren't going to stop someone dressed in business casual. They're going to use this tech to find excuses to kick homeless and shabby-looking people out. Gentrify or GTFO

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[cjjjer]

What if the bike "is a gun"?

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[Anonymous Coward]

It works because it makes Andrea feel safe. That's what security theater is all about.

And, sadly, that is what America has become ... a bunch of simpering cowards willing to give up their freedom on the pretense that someone is doing it to keep them safe.

Oh, yes, please. violate my Constitutional rights to give me the illusion of safety is the new battle cry of cowardice.

And yet, Americans still somehow think they're in the land of the free and the home of the brave, when neither of those has been true in almost 17 years.

Not even 20 years ago this would have had people demonstrating in the streets. And the Republicans who always claim to be for smaller government will keep expanding anything in the name of security, and happily erode even more freedoms and spend crazy money on programs which have very little in the way of any proof they've ever stopped a terrorist attack.

Americans have become compliant and scared. All they have to do is fire off another amber alert, and everyone will fall over themselves to give up even more of their freedoms.

Re:What About Bikes, Scooters and Skateboards

[b0s0z0ku]

This has always been America. Why do you think the Klan was so successful at recruiting? "If you don't submit to the Klan, your daughter might meet a Black, or a Catholic..."

Re:You can thank a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

replace [muslim] with [people who think a hierarchy should control individual's lives] and you'll be much more accurate.

airports are government and they scan you!

[Joe_Dragon]

airports are government and they scan you!

Looks like a portable device...

[b0s0z0ku]

Looks like a portable device, either an IR camera or terahertz scanner, not fixed infrastructure like airport body scanners.

So it will likely be deployed at random entrances to the system. Time for a Twitter feed with locations where the LAPD is deploying the damned things, same as feeds of drunk-driving or immigration checkpoints. Be a good citizen, watch the cops like a hawk watching a tasty piglet.

Re:Looks like a portable device...

[AHuxley]

What was the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... work will now be part of entering any part of a transport network.
Less of the past "random" and more a part of using transport.

Re:Looks like a portable device...

[b0s0z0ku]

Fortunately, there's no money to staff every transport system entrance in the LA or any other major city. The trend is to cut staff and automate more.

Unstaffed scanners would essentially be useless since people bent on doing harm would just find a way around them.

Re:Looks like a portable device...

[AHuxley]

The "money to staff" will be found as security money is always great for contractors, over time, new support contracts. All the needed scanners. Keeping the scanners working. New software. The CCTV around the scanners to get gait, face. Any cell phone on the person?
A GUI and network to track a person all over a city.

Re:Looks like a portable device...

[Aighearach]

Well shit, with an explanation that good I'm sure they'll let you check all the couches for change to spend on it.

Re:Looks like a portable device...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would feel like that if you knew you were in the wrong and were gonna be next.

Re:You can thank a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not thank all of them. I'm sure it wasn't just one of them.

What is a weapon?

[Xoc-S]

If I buy a rack of kitchen knives, I can't take it home on the subway? What about knitting needles? I sometimes carry a pen knife. Scissors? Will the play-doh for the kids look like plastic explosives?

Re:What is a weapon?

[b0s0z0ku]

Just check the Twitter feed where deployments of those things will be identified and use a different subway entrance. All patriotic citizens who support the Constitution should do their duty and report those things to the public.

Re:What is a weapon?

[markdavis]

>"What is a weapon?"

I want to know what is wrong with a gun being that weapon? Is this system going to stop law-abiding, good, licensed people from being able to carry? How is THAT going to increase security? We are not talking about an occasional plane trip here, with at LEAST the possibility of checking such into baggage, we are talking about DAILY TRANSPORTATION for many people. This would effectively strip them of their self-protection the entire day, every day. Oh, but it won't stop fists or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, or any other weapon that bad people to use to attack their potentially weaker, or older victims.

Is this what terrorism hysteria and security theater has come to now?

Re:What is a weapon?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not, it does not, it did not.

Re:What is a weapon?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is LA. There are NO law-abiding, good, licensed people who are allowed to carry a firearm.
Only criminals and tyrants like Nancy Pelosi (who has a carry permit).

Re:What is a weapon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Law-abiding people can't carry on planes - they could hijack the plane and fly to Libya or IS territory
Law-abiding people can't carry on the subway - they could hijack the train and ride it to Libya. . .

Re:What is a weapon?

[Swave An deBwoner]

I've read that the focus on guns versus screwdrivers is that a malicious person can more quickly kill multiple people with a gun, especially an automatic gun, than with a screwdriver.

N.B.: I haven't actually verified that for myself so it's just hearsay at this point.

Re:What is a weapon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Automatic firearms do not make it easier to kill multiple people per unit time. Their only real use is to make people duck until the mag runs empty.

I am far more afraid of a 30-06 semiautomatic hunting rifle with a wood stock and an iron sight, than I am of an AR-15 with a red dot reticle and a gazillion accessories. The person perpetrating an attack with the former, is a shooter. The person choosing the AR-15, is a poseur who doesn't have a clue what they're doing.

Re:What is a weapon?

[Swave An deBwoner]

I'm certain that you know much more about firearms than I do, but the AR-15 nonetheless has been reportedly involved in numerous mass murders. So I'm fine with not permitting an AR-15 or a 30-06 semiautomatic hunting rifle on the subway. Or a handgun for that matter.

And probably it's easier to stealthily pack a bag containing an AR-15 with a collapsible stock than it is to surreptitiously carry a semiautomatic hunting rifle onto a subway platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[58][59][60] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[58] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[61] AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[62] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[65][66][67]

Following the use of a Colt AR-15 rifle in the Port Arthur massacre, the worst single-person shooting incident in Australian history, the country enacted the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles with a capacity of more than 5 rounds (Category D[68]).[69][70][71]

Re:What is a weapon?

[markdavis]

>"I've read that the focus on guns versus screwdrivers is that a malicious person can more quickly kill multiple people with a gun"

And now change the equation to a populous where all or almost all the good people are stripped of guns and yet the bad people still carry a bunch of "weapons" of any sort- often even including guns. Now those screwdrivers, keys, clubs, hammers, etc suddenly become a LOT more dangerous and threatening because there is little chance of meaningful resistance to them by the majority of people who are weaker. This is exactly what happened in London. So the list of things they will need to "ban" will ever grow and yet still not solve the problems.

We have seen the same fallacy over and over with so-called "gun free zones" which are NOT gun-free and NOT weapon-free. It is just the law-abiding people who are hurt the most and left as defenseless "prey." This is why almost all "mass shootings" occur in gun-free zones- there is zero deterrence because there is no resistance. Maximum killing zone is what they should be called.

The problems remain- even if it reduced violence ON THE SUBWAY, that violence will simply shift to right outside the subway while people are traveling to/from it, since they necessarily are defenseless with such new procedures. You can't effectively defend yourself or others (using a weapon), or even act as a deterrent, if ANY point along the way of your daily travel strips you of those rights. It would be like making shoes illegal in just 1% of your travel- if you have no way of storing those shoes and recovering them, then you have to walk barefoot the rest of the 99%, leaving you 100% of shoeless the entire time.

Re:What is a weapon?

[markdavis]

>"Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect."

Right there in your quote is the answer- copycat effect. At closer ranges, an AR-15 is not more effective a killing machine than any of a zillion models and brands of large capacity, full-sized handguns. It is being actively selected for other reasons- primary the "look". Banning it won't solve any problems, the focus will just shift to the next thing to "ban." The reason "mass shootings" occur will not disappear with the AR-15, but remain because of "gun free zones", allowing masses of good people to collect in a sensitive area with no way to defend themselves.

Re:You can thank a muslim

[SirAstral]

this is utter garbage.

We Americans are at fault for this, allowing a bunch of terrorists to scare ignorant people like you into allowing this tyranny.

Those who give up essential liberty for safety do not get either liberty or safety as well as no longer deserving liberty or safety.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[sdinfoserv]

Or 2nd amendment right. Washington State (Where I live), permits concealed carry. You can take your concealed loaded handgun on any public transportation, (except planes, because that's federally controlled. It is legal to bring a locked gun with you in an airplane, if you're legal to have the firearm in the leaving and destination locations and you declare it. That's US wide).
The difference in CA is that they've so removed gun ownership rights.

They'll also be the first

[Anonymous Coward]

to force ads into people's eyes a la Minority Report and likely to convert the city into a Blade Runneresque craphole infested with third-world castoffs.

Every time I visit LA, I'm reminded why I live in flyover country where the taxes are low, the houses are cheap, and people have freedoms like gun ownership without tyrannical governments deciding what I can and cannot own.

Sounds like Total Recall!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it show everyoneâ(TM)s skeleton as they walk through it? That would be awesome.

Re:Sounds like Total Recall!

[b0s0z0ku]

It's an IR camera, apparently ("Terahertz waves" is a fancy term for high-frequency IR), so no. Metal objects block IR radiation or radiate differently and thus are visible.

Re:Sounds like Total Recall!

[spaceman375]

Terahertz waves are LOWER frequency waves than IR.

Why trust anyone?

[Arzaboa]

Trust has been on the way out for a long time. Its a whole lot easier to put this sort of stuff in than to ever take it away. Under the guise of everyone possibly being the next terrorist, AI will be right around the corner.

--
"My son was one of a kind. You're the first of a kind." -- Professor Hobby

Re:Why trust anyone?

[b0s0z0ku]

Which is why the US needs a good, hard recession, if not an economic depression. Cut off the funds to the people developing and buying this garbage. Can't beat 'em, let 'em starve.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the spineless lawmakers who are above all of this need to rain hell down on tech companies and ask why they are turning this world into Blade Runner or Brazil.

Some of these companies are so big, they rule the roost. When Mark Zuckerberg went before the lawmakers, they threw him softballs. I would have sent in a team of forensic computer experts and did them in. They are evil, ditto most of the big tech firms. I use Fastmail, for example, because they are a small, non-evil firm that caters to their users. If they ever change, I will simply take my domain and go roll my own email solution, something I've been considering for many moons now anyway.

It's one of the reasons I'm likely leaving IT next year. I'm tired of where IT is going. Everything has gone to the "cloud" in one manner or another. Everything is now PaaS, SaaS, and now DaaS. Unless you are a developer or project manager, you are a glorified monkey anymore. I'm heading for doing Johnson Controls (cooling/heating) and using my years in IT to get there.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, Hillary Clinton had the right idea as far as running her own domain's email, though her IT people chose the wrong system (Exchange 2003).

There's another option other than SCADA/HVAC like Johnson Controls -- work supporting research or medical IT. There are a lot of legacy/specialized instruments that won't be in the "cloud" for the next 20 years. Too expensive to just replace and forget.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[PPH]

That's not how recessions/depressions work. The government always gets theirs first. Then, if there's enough left over, the people can have bread. If not, let them eat cake.

Government programs will be spun as economic stimulus. Until China steps out of line and we can get rolling on the next World War.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[Arzaboa]

I'm not sure a recession helps anyone. If its about teaching people lessons, that will hurt the surf's much harder than it will the nobility. People need to want change and need change, maybe it will happen?

--
When you give everyone a voice and give people power, the system usually ends up in a really good place. So, what we view our role as, is giving people that power. -- M. Zuckerberg

Re:Why trust anyone?

[b0s0z0ku]

Until the serfs revolt and end up setting up Madame Guillotine for the benefit of the former nobility...

Re:Why trust anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust has been on the way out for a long time.

Then US society is dead.

Trust is the cornerstone of any society, without it, society cannot function. Trust was also the reason money was invented: So if a person commited a crime, the state that backed them would pay restitution, and not leave the victims to their fate.

Without trust, it's only a matter of time before society fails.

Under the guise of everyone possibly being the next terrorist,

Because everyone is guilty by default in a society that distrusts everyone including themselves. Better not take any chances, hell why even bother with a trial? Accused of a crime? Automatic death penalty just to be sure no criminals are allowed to go free.

AI will be right around the corner.

Because an AI will be impartial... heh, I'm sure that's how it will be sold to the clueless masses during installation, but once it's installed they'll find out just how biased it really can be. Just ask PsychoPass, Person of Interest, Terminator, etc.

Hope you can't wait to see the hellhole that will be built on the ruins of US society, because your distrust will ensure it's construction.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Trump's trying with his tariffs, Obama helped with his debt buildup.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the President doesn't control the budget, congress does, and who controlled congress?

uh oh

[slashmydots]

It legit took me a bit to figure out they didn't mean subway restaurants but that's probably because in my area they lock up the garbage at the walgreens.

Safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is crazy. No long-term safety studies have been done on THz radiation. Some researchers believe most cancers from DNA damage take 10-years to develop. Does it impact the development of a fetus? Does it increase the rate of cataracts -- like the exposure to both radio and strong visible energy? What will repeated exposure do to testicles?

This really has to be studied properly...first.

Re:Safety?

[b0s0z0ku]

This is a passive camera that captures THz (IR) radiation emitted by human bodies. It doesn't produce any radiation, only captures it.

Re:Safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the 80' movie "The running man" With Schwatzenegger having to go through body scanners everywhere and facial recognition cameras in the street. Oh wait, this is Britan today.

Re:Safety?

[easyTree]

What better way to study the effects than to have a widespread deployment in public places. Cost effective compared to standard trials. God bless the freedom-loving ways of Nazi America.

Re:Safety?

[AHuxley]

AC its passive.

Re:Safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong movie. Try Total Recall

Re:Safety?

[spaceman375]

The human body does not emit terahertz waves in any detectable amount. And terahertz waves are NOT IR. That's like saying microwave ovens are FM radios.

Re:Safety?

[HeckRuler]

I hear if you stick a conical copper chamber on top of your microwave with a magical High-Q-value waffer on one end, you can launch a satellite into space.

(finger-guns and a solid "eeeyyy" to anyone getting that reference)

Re:Safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

The human body does not emit terahertz waves in any detectable amount. And terahertz waves are NOT IR. That's like saying microwave ovens are FM radios.

THz waves are not IR. However, a large portion of IR frequency falls within the THz range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

The larger point ...

[CaptainDork]

... is:

the new machines, which are being purchased from Thruvision, which is headquartered in the United Kingdom.

So, security and private shit is outsourced??

NSA will be hiring Thruvision for data.

Re:The larger point ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I find out the difference between wild bullshit and cultured honey?

Re:The larger point ...

[CaptainDork]

Look for a cattle rancher or a beekeeper.

Re:The larger point ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound bitter, sweet tits.

Re:The larger point ...

[CaptainDork]

... biggest looser ...

Re:The larger point ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your own spelling, Chris. Come on, you're known world-wide for creative grammar distortion and unique spelling for which other people find normal...

Besides, for a guy who just wrote "but I wonder about of value", you're in no position to criticize. But then again, how many positions can your 450 pound body get into?

So how old are you today, Chris? And what gender?

Re:The larger point ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creimer has moved on. Creimertards have moved on. But here you are pining away for creimer. Sad.

Re:The larger point ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Chris, what's up with you these days?

"Waves," huh?

[pots]

The Thruevision website says that it's a passive camera which operates in the 250 GHz range. That's infrared. No safety concerns, thankfully, and judging from the pictures no privacy concerns either. They're basically just like pictures from a visible-spectrum camera, only monochromatic and blurry. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be useful...

Does anyone know how this is supposed to work? Maybe a gun or a bomb or other large object would be colder than the rest of your body? So it would show up as a cold spot?

Re:"Waves," huh?

[b0s0z0ku]

It would probably be colder (or hotter, on a hot day), and different materials also radiate IR differently.

Re:"Waves," huh?

[b0s0z0ku]

Which brings to mind a countermeasure. A giant hand flipping the bird, made of tinfoil and glued to the inside of a shirt. Or the letters:
FUCK
YOU
SWINE

(more to the point)

Re:"Waves," huh?

[Drishmung]

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared says IR stops at 300Ghz, so 250Ghz is EHF, but close enough.

Of course, on a hot day, it would make sense to carry a cooler tote bag with some snacks. I wonder if they are 250GHz opaque?

Re:"Waves," huh?

[SvnLyrBrto]

I bet one could make a pretty penny in LA if you could work out a way to weave thin metal wire into shirt fabric such that its otherwise invisible but shows up as obscene text or images on these body scanners.

Only if it looks like the "Total Recall" scanners.

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

On the upside...

[PseudoThink]

...now there is more material for Cory Doctorow to use for another book in the Little Brother / Homeland / Walkaway series.

Re:On the upside...

[Bradmont]

Ooh, I wasn't aware there was a third in the series. Thanks!

Not feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

Not feasible in majority of states. Only in California and other states that forbid their residents from carrying a gun for self defense and preservation.

Re:Not feasible

[b0s0z0ku]

Concealed carry isn't actually illegal in CA -- rural counties give out permits like candy, and they've valid throughout the state. Which is probably why they claim they won't be looking for "small" weapons: quite a few people in CA are concealed-carrying, perfectly legally.

Re:Not feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as your domicile is in the rural area. You cannot live in Los Angeles and have a CCW permit from Lassen County.

Is this what voluntary means?

[Silent Node]

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

Yea, security screenings at airports are voluntary as well...but customers who choose not to be screened won't be allowed on flights.

Re:Is this what voluntary means?

[b0s0z0ku]

Do what people are doing with NYPD bag searches. See the sign, turn around and use a different station or a different entrance. The scanners are portable, so will likely be randomly deployed rather than being deployed at all entrances.

Fear 24/7/365

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists have officially won.

Re:Fear 24/7/365

[easyTree]

Newsflash, your own government is worse than the thing they're 'protecting you from.'

Re: Fear 24/7/365

[astrofurter]

We have become the Soviet Union.

Re:Fear 24/7/365

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah a second amendment supporter!

LA = LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to soviet Los Angeles...

hah it's only happening in Louisiana.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting on the beach in Los Angeles, good they should put all the body scanners in countries that are 10ft under sea level especially that frenchified LA and their newfangled Submarine system they installed. Hope they secede and join Canada too/two.

gated subways yes ungated rail no

[Joe_Dragon]

gated subways yes ungated rail will take a lot of work to rebuild station to channel people into paths (unless you want to pay to put rail on big overpasses in the middle of town)

Re:gated subways yes ungated rail no

[b0s0z0ku]

Even gated subways often have many entrances and many paths for people to travel. Rail, good luck. There's not even enough money to eliminate level crossings where trains can hit cars, let along putting everything on an overpass.

And that way, you never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, here in Germany, our public transport is so good, most people in cities do not even own cars anymore.

Re: And that way, you never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah fuck that if I go to Germany Iâ(TM)m not getting in any train- Iâ(TM)ve seen too many movies.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Meanwhile, here in Germany, our public transport is so good, most people in cities do not even own cars anymore.

Well, let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Percentage of households owning a car:

(1) USA: 88%
(2) Germany: 85%
(3) South Korea: 83%
(4) France: 83%

Household car ownership rates in the US and Germany are almost the same, filling out spots #1 and #2. Why can't we all be as perfect as the Germans? Oh, wait, we are!

Re:And that way, you never will.

[AlwinBarni]

Car ownership is one thing and public transport is another. I have a benefit of living in both countries for extended time and getting around in Germany using public transport is easy, pleasant and safe (at least used to be), I have not heard of public bus or tram robberies or groping (there are some incidents reported in news recently though). In general, if I had to compare:
- ownership of a car in Europe in general is much more expensive then in the US due to taxes
- getting around using public transportation in the US cities is not that bad either, just people usually drive

Most importantly to contribute to this discussion I have to say that vast majority of the critical opinions in the US about Europe is from people, who have never been there and vice-versa.

Re: And that way, you never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what percentage of German households own and operate 1 vehicle for each member who is of legal driving age or older?

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Most importantly to contribute to this discussion I have to say that vast majority of the critical opinions in the US about Europe is from people, who have never been there and vice-versa.

Most Americans couldn't care less about Europe because Europe is of little importance to them or the world. The people who still comment are emigres like myself, and we don't do it because we care about the future of Europe, but because we don't want more bad ideas to spill over from Europe to the US.

- getting around using public transportation in the US cities is not that bad either, just people usually drive

People drive in the US because it's fast, cheap, simple, and convenient. Why people drive less in Germany is no great mystery: on average, Germans are poorer and the government deliberate makes it expensive to drive. And the German government subsidizes the kind of transportation that the intellectual and political elite in Germany prefers, which is why public transit is excellent near political power centers and universities.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

Do.... people in Germany really care about how NewYorkers and Midwesterners get to work?

People drive in the US because it's fast, cheap, simple, and convenient.

People also use public transportation because it's... faster, cheaper, simpler, and more convenient. ...In big cities like NY.

Dear god, just PARKING in NY you have to pay out the ass. You're rich or dumb to own a car in a big city. And... I imagine the same is true for backwater Barvaria. Do they have subway systems through-out German farmland?

Europe has a better rail system. Many European cities have better mass transit. America has decent mass transit in the bigger cities. Atlanta and LA traffic can go fuck themselves. In a lot of not-major-cities, if you're poor, you take the bus and walk the last 5 blocks. I hear Europe's buses aren't quite as low-class.

the [german] government deliberate makes it expensive to drive. And the German government subsidizes the kind of transportation that the intellectual and political elite in Germany prefers, which is why public transit is excellent near political power centers and universities.

Right, and in the USA we subsidize the oil&gas corporations to the tune of $4.6 Billion/year because they have our economy by the balls. (And they would even if we did make our cities more mass-transity and make passenger-rail more viable, we're just more spread out. Cars and trucks are simply more viable here, fundamentally). Hence, average gas prices here are US$2.81/gal while it's US$5.57/gal in Frankfurt. For a fungible resource that gets shipped globally, there's obviously market-fuckery going on. But you don't see anyone in power, conservatives or libertarians (pft, as if libertarians got into power) alike ever crying about letting the free market decide. So the cost of road upkeep is socialized in the USA, while gas tax pays for the roads in Germany.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

That's deceptive at best, because this doesn't count the distance a given car is driven per year, or how many households own more than one car.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

That's deceptive at best, because this doesn't count the distance a given car is driven per year, or how many households own more than one car.

AC made a comment about car ownership, not about distance driven or cars per household. That's what I responded to.

Yes, Americans drive longer distances. I think it's great. Americans see a lot more of the world around them and are having a great deal of fun out in nature doing things they love.

Yes, Americans own more cars per household. I think it's great. Americans own nearly twice as many vehicles per capita as Germans, often owning a couple of small cars for commuting, a pickup truck for towing a boat/RV and home improvement, and an SUV for travel. Americans even have the space to park those vehicles.

The pattern of car ownership and use of public transit in the US and Europe tells you a lot about both countries, just not what you think it does.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Do.... people in Germany really care about how NewYorkers and Midwesterners get to work?

What they care about is portraying their country as a model, a country that strikes the perfect balance between rational policies, social responsibility, and freedom. And they want to spread that to the rest of the world. It's a cultural trait stemming from a deep insecurity and fear of inferiority, and it is independent of the form of government Germans happen to have at the time.

People also use public transportation because it's... faster, cheaper, simpler, and more convenient. ...In big cities like NY.

Yes, but like all public transit systems in the US, it's a cesspool of corruption and rent seeking that requires massive infusion of taxpayer dollars from taxpayers who will never see the benefits. Even if it was a good idea and we wanted to, the US cannot pull off even a public transit system like Germany has.

Europe has a better rail system.

Better in what sense? The US has a rail system that's bigger than the entire EU's combined, and the US rail system is utilized nearly 100%. It simply happens to be utilized what rail systems are really good for: freight. Europeans have turned their rail system into expensive leisure travel for the elites while European highways are clogged with dirty, dangerous trucks.

I hear Europe's buses aren't quite as low-class.

Not surprising. In the US, only the very poor have to take buses for financial reasons. In Europe, a car is a significant burden for even many people in the middle class.

Right, and in the USA we subsidize the oil&gas corporations to the tune of $4.6 Billion/year [cbo.gov]

Correct, and I think we should abolish that. But you need to see that in relation to the energy produced. Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $0.05/MMBtu, while solar is subsidized to the tune of $17.38/MMBtu. Abolishing fossil fuel subsidies would have no effect on the market, while abolishing subsidies for alternative energies would kill the alternative energy market.

because they have our economy by the balls.

No, it's because there is simply no economically feasible alternative, and there won't be for another 10-20 years. And "they" don't have anybody by the balls: there is a huge global market in fossil fuels.

So the cost of road upkeep is socialized in the USA, while gas tax pays for the roads in Germany.

Last I checked, federal gas taxes roughly cover federal highway maintenance, plus or minus a few billion.

In any case, the US built its inefficient, government-subsidized, environmentally harmful federal highway system following the example of German fascists. Maybe we should take a hint from history and stop copying what the Germans do rather than compounding one bad idea (the federal highway system) with yet another (massive gas taxes)? How about privatizing both federal highways and public transit?

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

Europe has a better rail system.

Better in what sense?

In the public transit sense. Our rail moves coal. Which has priority over Amtrak.

Europeans have turned their rail system into expensive leisure travel for the elites

Looks like US$32 from London to Paris. Paris to Stolkhom is US$112. That'd be a 20 hours drive, passing through 4 countries. ~1200 miles. Even with US prices, that'd be $134 in gas money alone.

Ok dude. You hate Europe and they can do nothing right. We get it.

Right, and in the USA we subsidize the oil&gas corporations to the tune of $4.6 Billion/year [cbo.gov]

Correct, and I think we should abolish that.

HURRZAH! Something we can unite behind. Let's whip out the victory parade and come together under a united banner and there can be peace in our ti....

But...

MOTHERFUCKER! COME ON!

"bu bu but Solar subsidies"!? Really? Developing new tech that saves the planet vs subsidizing ancient established oil barons and a product that might lead to a human extinction event....

Abolishing fossil fuel subsidies would have no effect on the market, while abolishing subsidies for alternative energies would kill the alternative energy market.

siiiiiiiiiiigh, you double-talking motherfucker. You had JUST AGREED we should get rid of oil subsidies. And then you say it would have no effect.

How about privatizing both federal highways and public transit?

No, fuck your toll roads. And I don't like my pavement suddenly turning to gravel.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Seeing the world? A joke. The average American worker has a week of vacation every year. More like longer commutes from the suburban hells where they can find room to park three cars.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

because we don't want more bad ideas to spill over from Europe to the US.

 
But it was okay when you did it.

This bullshit right here is why you're a deplorable piece of shit. Fuck you, got mine in the purest of forms. Go to hell.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

In the public transit sense. Our rail moves coal. Which has priority over Amtrak.

Good! That's the economically rational, environmentally friendly way of using the rail system.

Looks like US$32 from London to Paris. Paris to Stolkhom is US$112.

Yes, if you're the kind of privileged person who has need to travel from London to Paris, not only is it a nice train ride, it's heavily government subsidized by tax payers who never are going to enjoy that ride.

That'd be a 20 hours drive, passing through 4 countries. ~1200 miles. Even with US prices, that'd be $134 in gas money alone.

In the US, you'd fly.

"bu bu but Solar subsidies"!? Really? Developing new tech that saves the planet

If you want new tech that saves the planet, you shouldn't have the government subsidize it because that actually hurts, rather than helps, innovation.

vs subsidizing ancient established oil barons and a product that might lead to a human extinction event....

Yeah, the usual ridiculous, irrational beliefs and platitudes.

siiiiiiiiiiigh, you double-talking motherfucker. You had JUST AGREED we should get rid of oil subsidies. And then you say it would have no effect.

Where do you see the contradiction? Why wouldn't I agree to abolish a meaningless, insignificant subsidy?

No, fuck your toll roads. And I don't like my pavement suddenly turning to gravel.

Your capacity to hold contradictory beliefs in your head is just astounding. You complain that the cost of highways is socialist, that drivers don't pay their fair share, and that Americans drive too much; you want more solar and more public transportation; yet, the policies you want are not only massive subsidies for solar projects and public transit, but continuing subsidies of the highway system.

Ok dude. You hate Europe and they can do nothing right. We get it.

Oh, Europe does plenty of things right. On many measures of individual economic freedom, Europe actually does better than the US. There are many European policies the US should adopt, just not the ones that you and Bernie happen to like.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Where do you people get these bizarre ideas from? Average annual hours worked by Americans are just slightly above OECD average, behind many European nations. And since American employers are far more flexible in terms of working hours, that translates into even more vacation days than European countries working comparable numbers of hours.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Are we talking about nominal hours for the US or actual? US has a nasty way of not enforcing overtime -- many people are in the office 10-11 hours a day, but are "nominally" working 8 hour days and 40 hour weeks.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Electric trains for both passengers and freight are environmentally friendly, especially if powered by clean nuclear or hydro power. They can collect power directly, so no need for toxic, environmentally costly batteries like in electric cars, and no need to burn fossil fools like gas cars or aircraft. Europe could do better with carrying more freight by rail, but the US can do better with electric passenger rail in populated areas.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

In the public transit sense. Our rail moves coal. Which has priority over Amtrak.

Good! That's the economically rational, environmentally friendly way of using the rail system.

That'd be a 20 hours drive, passing through 4 countries. ~1200 miles. Even with US prices, that'd be $134 in gas money alone.

In the US, you'd fly.

Yaaaay all that economically rational and environmentally friendly use of jet fuel! From all those.... privileged few who ever have need of flying 1200 miles.... Because that's different than... riding an elitist euro trains... I guess... hmm.

Why wouldn't I agree to abolish a meaningless, insignificant subsidy [to the USA Oil&Gas companies]?

Well let's just focus on our shared goals and common ground shall we? Fuck giving the record-breaking-profit corporations free money.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Actual hours worked.

US has a nasty way of not enforcing overtime -- many people are in the office 10-11 hours a day,

Most people working in offices are exempt from overtime regulations. This gives people the flexibility of working "10-11 hours a day" and then taking Friday off. So, far from being "nasty", this is a good thing.

The "Fair Labor Standards Act" (and its European equivalents) is a nasty piece of legislation that hurts employees.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Yaaaay all that economically rational and environmentally friendly use of jet fuel!

For moving people? Most freight can be moved at low speeds, which is far more efficient. People's time is valuable and travel by rail is slow due to connections etc. And people need point-to-point connectivity between many places, something rail networks can't provide. Also the difference between trains and cars isn't all that large because trains need to move all their mass even if there are only a few passengers.

From all those.... privileged few who ever have need of flying 1200 miles.... Because that's different than... riding an elitist euro trains... I guess... hmm.

What makes the European train "elitists" is that the best connectivity for passenger trains is between the places where the wealthy and powerful congregate, just like in the US. But they are also simply expensive and slow, meaning you need both the money and the free time to take them:

LondonBerlin 9/10-9/12: Train: $199, 10h each way Ryanair: $39, 2h each way

LondonParis 9/10-9/12: Train: $157, 2:20h each way EasyJet: $81, 1:20h each way

Well let's just focus on our shared goals and common ground shall we? Fuck giving the record-breaking-profit corporations free money.

The energy sector has profit margins that tend to be about average; information technology and financial usually outperform it.

And you seem to believe that subsidies to oil/gas companies are simply taken as "free money" by those companies, but when you give subsidies to solar energy companies, they are supposedly used for innovation and to lower prices, a strange form of doublethink. In fact, subsidies, like taxes, are usually just passed on to consumers, so subsidies lower both gas prices (insignificantly because they are so small) and solar prices (massively).

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Electric trains for both passengers and freight are environmentally friendly

It is a dubious proposition that criss-crossing the country with rail lines is "environmentally friendly".

On top of that, passenger and freight trains are different systems. Freight trains travel at about 20 mph average; they can't be mixed with passenger compartments and don't coexist well on the same rail system. Going 20 mph on trains is also very efficient, compared to the 200 mph of high speed rail (=massive wind resistance, very expensive construction).

especially if powered by clean nuclear or hydro power.

If we had more nuclear or hydro power, the simplest way to take advantage of it would be to substitute it for existing fossil fuel use, not to build new rail lines.

Europe could do better with carrying more freight by rail, but the US can do better with electric passenger rail in populated areas.
      Flag as Inappropriate

When you're talking about "rail in populated areas", that means "light rail", a completely different system. Light rail has its own problems, separate from long distance rail. One big problem with light rail is that it uses tax payer money to encourage people to move further away from work than they otherwise might have. Light rail is a system by which you tax poor working class folks so that wealthy white collar workers get a nice commute from their cushy office jobs to condos in nice parts of the city or sprawling suburban homes.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Fortunately, rail lines can have more than one track. If you have three or four, you can separate passenger and freight trains on different tracks.

As far as efficiency, it's not everything. Ability to power 200 mph trains with nuclear power or hydro power is better than burning fossil fuel for a 500 mph airplane. Source of energy also matters.

As far as light rail, the workers will drive and sprawl to infinity anyway. See also, places like Dallas or Phoenix.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

In fact, subsidies, like taxes, are usually just passed on to consumers, so subsidies lower both gas prices (insignificantly because they are so small)

Aaaaaaand now he's done a full 180. Now $4.6 Billion/year is "too small" a subsidy to oil and gas companies to have an effect. But apparently all that money "just gets passed on to consumers" so hey I guess they're not that bad at all.

What a fucking crackpot.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

London-Paris on EasyJet flies out of Southend, not Heathrow, Gatwick, or City. Factor in the time/money getting there and back. Factor in the costs for carry-on bags. Factor in time getting through security (Eurostar x-rays bags, but it's easy compared to airport security). Cost for flight alone 100 pounds, or about $130. You're likely close to $200 and 4-5 hours of travel time with getting to Southend, carry-on fees, etc. Meanwhile, cheapest train fare is $130 round trip (not $157), and leaves you in the middle of both cities, close to available/cheap ground transportation, not in bumblefuck-elsewhere. Eurostar doesn't nick you for carry-on bags and other petty fees, either.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Aaaaaaand now he's done a full 180.

Show me where my statements contradict each other.

Now $4.6 Billion/year is "too small" a subsidy to oil and gas companies to have an effect.

I've consistently said that.

But apparently all that money "just gets passed on to consumers" so hey I guess they're not that bad at all.

As I have been saying, fossil fuel subsidies are insignificant. They amount to $0.05/MMBtu (or $0.15 / MWh). That amount gets passed on to consumers and it makes no difference whatsoever. It is you who clings to the absurd notion that fossil fuel subsidies somehow keep fossil fuels alive.

Solar is subsidized at $17.93/MMBtu (or $50/MWh), a huge subsidy. Removing that huge subsidy would have a huge effect on the market.

We should kill both subsidies. The effect on fossil fuel use would be nil. The effect on solar would be to stop subsidizing inefficient and costly solar technologies and encourage people to actually start innovating again. Right now, solar subsidies are hurting innovation.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Fortunately, rail lines can have more than one track. If you have three or four, you can separate passenger and freight trains on different tracks.

The land use and cost is pretty much proportional to the number of tracks, so you're pretty much asking for creating two separate rail networks that happen to be geographically close; an inefficient use.

As far as efficiency, it's not everything. Ability to power 200 mph trains with nuclear power or hydro power is better than burning fossil fuel for a 500 mph airplane. Source of energy also matters.

If we could produce that much hydropower and nuclear power, we'd already have eliminated most of US carbon emissions. We're burning coal precisely because we don't have that. So, that new passenger rail system you want to build would be powered by coal, just like electric cars are today.

As far as light rail, the workers will drive and sprawl to infinity anyway. See also, places like Dallas or Phoenix.

This has been studied extensively: workers pick where they live based on commute time. So, spending a lot of money on light rail doesn't actually improve commute times. Mostly what it does is increase economic inequality.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Factor in the costs for carry-on bags.

No cost for a standard carry-on.

Cost for flight alone 100 pounds, or about $130.

Can't you read? I just checked: $81.

Meanwhile, cheapest train fare is $130 round trip (not $157),

You can find special deals all the time, both on air and on train travel. I simply picked a date a month out and picked the prices from the main web sites. Furthermore, the trains are subsidized, so the true cost is actually much higher.

You're basically confabulating prices and charges in a vain attempt to justify an inefficient, heavily-subsidized transportation system: rail.

London-Paris on EasyJet flies out of Southend, not Heathrow, Gatwick, or City ... and leaves you in the middle of both cities, close to available/cheap ground transportation

I.e., it's perfect for wealthy elites who can afford housing close to the city centers and have business at upscale businesses and shops close to city centers, all massively subsidized by the vast majority of Brits and Frenchmen who never will get their money's worth. It's a giant rip-off. I'm glad Americans are smarter than to fall for that crap.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

(1) No. Certain fixed costs (i.e. engineering, etc) don't change much whether you have one track or three or four. A large proportion of the costs is in initial design, environmental studies, and engineering -- laying down steel or asphalt is cheap by comparison.

(2) If we're going to be building rail networks, we could also build nuclear power stations to power them. Even with fossil fuel stations, it's easier to control emissions from a few point sources than from millions of cars, trucks, and buses.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

I checked the prices for the same dates you did. Came up with 100 pounds ($125-$130) for the flights, $65 each way ($130) for rail, London-Paris. Seems like you're the one who's lying.

Blah, blah, blah, fun to watch you blabbering about the elites. At least if you end up in a city center, you can easily catch continuing transportation to where you're going. Or you can be picked up at an intermediate suburban station if you're interested, Eurostar has several.

Americans aren't smart at all ... their tax money is squandered on military and law enforcement and their contractor parasites. The only people who benefit are cops, military, and the wealthy contractors who supply them. Talking about trickle-up to the elites, there you have it.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

(1) No. Certain fixed costs (i.e. engineering, etc) don't change much whether you have one track or three or four. A large proportion of the costs is in initial design, environmental studies, and engineering -- laying down steel or asphalt is cheap by comparison.

Not even close. Look at California HSR or the German system.

(2) If we're going to be building rail networks, we could also build nuclear power stations to power them.

You still don't get it: if we could build nuclear power plants, we would already be doing it, because nuclear power plants address all the concerns environmentalists are trying to address.

Even with fossil fuel stations, it's easier to control emissions from a few point sources than from millions of cars, trucks, and buses.

Again, you need to do your homework.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

We're not building nuclear power plants for one reason -- ignorant cowards who don't want nukular radiashun in their backyards.

Then again, same applies to rail, even freight. People scream holy murder when infrastructure near them is expanded, and the court litigation process enables their obstructionism.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

I checked the prices for the same dates you did. Came up with 100 pounds ($125-$130) for the flights, $65 each way ($130) for rail,

I can't find a $130 round trip on rail, but you can easily find a $86 flight (the price has gone up $3 and the cheapest flights are now on easyJet, Google Flights). In any case, even your rail numbers, we have established that flying is substantially cheaper than taking the train, and that's not taking into account the massive subsidies for trains.

At least if you end up in a city center, you can easily catch continuing transportation to where you're going.

Yes, and you have to deal with congestion in the city. And London-Paris is one of the best-case situations for rail. For longer distances, rail becomes increasingly worse relative to flying.

Americans aren't smart at all ... their tax money is squandered on military and law enforcement and their contractor parasites.

Depends on what you mean by "their tax money". Unlike Europe, where taxes are broad based, in the US, the federal government is largely financed by the top 20% of income earners.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

We're not building nuclear power plants for one reason -- ignorant cowards who don't want nukular radiashun in their backyards.

Yes, largely the same "ignorant cowards" who want rail systems "like Hitler's" and who are afraid of the end of civilization because of "carbon pollushun". Things have a nice way of balancing out, don't they?

Then again, same applies to rail, even freight. People scream holy murder when infrastructure near them is expanded, and the court litigation process enables their obstructionism.

Yes, how odd that people don't want their neighborhoods cut in half, have noisy trains rumble through their back yards, and have lots of transient people go through their neighborhoods! How dare those peasants resist when rich people want to travel in style from city center to city center!

There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is mostly environmental regulations that are used to interfere with rail building. Unfortunately, the jackboot of government usually gets its way after years of litigation anyway.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

I found a $130 round trip (65/way) on Eurostar's site. Flying was the same price, except it was LONGER practically speaking due to security, airport access, etc. Break even would probably be at a 3 to 4 hour train trip.

As far as congestion in the city, you have a choice whether to get off in a city-center or a suburban station with Eurostar. Unlike flying, it's not only point A to point B.

Taxes in Europe are broad-based because services like good public health care and cheap public university education are broad-based.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, I'm all for ignorant global warming deniers like yourself getting a jackboot to the kisser and being ground into dust.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Yep, I'm all for ignorant global warming deniers like yourself getting a jackboot to the kisser and being ground into dust.

I don't "deny" global warming; it's clearly happening, I simply don't fear it.

But thanks for revealing your fascist tendencies anyway.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

I found a $130 round trip (65/way) on Eurostar's site. Flying was the same price

No, it wasn't.

Taxes in Europe are broad-based because services like good public health care and cheap public university education are broad-based.

Yeah, you and Bernie Sanders believe that crap. Put your fingers in your ear and deny both statistics and what a European tells you.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

I have family in Europe who had opportunity to come to the US. They chose not to. Easier to raise a family in a European city without worrying about things like the next health insurance plan and the college fund.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

If you don't fear something that can result in coastal areas being flooded, then you're just ignorant. We're not only talking about nice beaches, but about industrial plants laden with toxic chemicals.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

If you don't fear something that can result in coastal areas being flooded, then you're just ignorant. We're not only talking about nice beaches, but about industrial plants laden with toxic chemicals.

Sea level rise due to climate change is a few feet per century. Explain to me how that is something to be feared.

Note that the Netherlands seem to be doing just fine with 1/4 of their country and population below sea level.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

I have family in Europe who had opportunity to come to the US. They chose not to.

Of course not: they are Europeans. The thought of actually taking responsibility for their own lives scares them to death. That's why Europe is slowly spiraling down the drain.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

There are more productive things people can do with their lives than spending time on worrying about college funds, private schools, and health insurance plans. Part of the role of a government is to remove the need for worry about mundane shit for a fee amounting to a percentage of one's income.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

"A few feet", especially combined with more severe storms, is enough to flood industrial and former industrial areas and spread massive amounts of pollution. Think Hurricane Katrina times 100. But ignorami like yourself won't get it until it's too late.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

There are more productive things people can do with their lives than spending time on worrying about college funds, private schools, and health insurance plans.

There are indeed. Nobody likes dealing with that shit. Why not go a step further and hand over all financial management, tax accounting, home buying, etc. to government as well? Why not have the government pick your perfect marriage partner for you? After all, it's all a colossal waste of time!

In fact, the last couple of centuries of European history has shown that it's better for individual to deal with this shit themselves than to hand over responsibility for it to government.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Frankly, if I could just fill out a few lines on a tax return and sign on the line, I'd be happy to do so. It's a national shame how complicated the US government has made taxes. Financial management? Same. If I could enroll in a public pension plan that I didn't have to manage, I'd do so in a moment.

Home buying and partner are more personal choices, but I'm all for governments making the mundane crap that doesn't add anything good to life easier.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

"A few feet", especially combined with more severe storms, is enough to flood industrial and former industrial areas and spread massive amounts of pollution.

If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.

Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.

But ignorami like yourself

The irony of that statement is delicious.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Frankly, if I could just fill out a few lines on a tax return and sign on the line, I'd be happy to do so. It's a national shame how complicated the US government has made taxes.

The government saddles us with a complex, crony capitalist, special interest laden tax system and your response to it is "here, just take more of my money already and manage other parts of my life too"?

Financial management? Same. If I could enroll in a public pension plan that I didn't have to manage, I'd do so in a moment.

Why not enroll in a private pension plan that you don't have to manage? Many companies offer target retirement funds; all you need to do is pay in, they take care of the rest, efficiently and reliably.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

As far as a pension plan -- I trust an elected government more than a bunch of Wall Street hucksters. Public pension plans are a great thing, SocSec should be expanded.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

Problem is that it isn't just a matter of water slowly rising like in a bathtub. Rather, it's a matter of an increased risk of a storm causing a water incursion, so it will happen suddenly, as with Sandy and Katrina.

Also, I like my cold climate. A few degrees C of warming is the difference between being comfortable and feeling ill/sweating like a pig.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

That amount gets passed on to consumers

Oh you're adorable. What other sort of bedtime fairy-tales do you have in store for us?

It is you who clings to the absurd notion that fossil fuel subsidies somehow keep fossil fuels alive.

You're less adorable when you're shoveling shit I didn't say into my mouth.

No.

Oil and gas subsidies are simply making a few CEO's richer.

We should kill both subsidies.

I for one LIKE technological improvement. And hey, to be completely fair to the oil barons, they found out how to extract it in bulk from oil shale. I didn't see that coming. That's a good thing, overall, as long as all that extra CO2 doesn't disrupt economies or kill us all.

Right now, solar subsidies are hurting innovation.

Oh, the fairy-tales have boogiemen as well.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.

I think he's talking about "industrial areas" like old factories with polluted dirt, that would wash away and into places we don't want it. Nobody but nobody, not even super-fund money, is going to move all the polluted GROUND of all the old factories that would be at risk of flooding. But I have to agree, this would be a nuisance in the big scheme of things. It'd likely kill thousands to millions via cancer and such, but over hundreds of years that's just a nuisance. In 10, it's more severe.

The bigger problem is that we CAN'T simply move things like FORESTS. And now all of California is too damn dry to support the forests they have and they're all on fire. Same is happening to Colorado. We're going to have to live with perpetual "don't even fart in the forest" levels of fire-ban because it's way dryer than the ecosystem is expecting. We also can't simply insta-seed all those hills with the mudslides for the places that get more rainfall. Or the places that used to have forests securing their dirt to the floor. And we can't simply relocate all the flora and fauna that depend on their climate being stable decade to decade. We ARE in the middle of a mass extinction event. And we can't move cities. We just can't. It's too damn expensive. New Orleans has been underwater for years, but it's still "economically viable" to keep building there. If that changed, we'd be looking at a humanitarian crisis. Are you ready for American refugees? And the cost of "preparing" a city for climate change is astounding. Like Hurricanes in NY. They're constant routine affair for Tokyo and Miami. They've built to deal with it. But NY is boned. Likewise if Pheonix simply runs out of water.

Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.

Yep. There are some ludicrously expensive ideas, and some crack-pot ideas, but nothing really viable. The best advice they've got is to shoot ourselves in the foot a little less by restricting CO2 pollution. The thing that is currently driving the bulk of climate change. That'd be oil consumption.

What are you guys even still doing here? This isn't a debate anymore, no one else is watching. I doubt either of you two will change your minds on anything. So really, what's the point of all this?

Re:And that way, you never will.

[HeckRuler]

He's an ass, but he's got a point. Falling back to threats of violence really isn't helping.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Problem is that it isn't just a matter of water slowly rising like in a bathtub. Rather, it's a matter of an increased risk of a storm causing a water incursion, so it will happen suddenly, as with Sandy and Katrina.

That is true. Now you need to work out what the causes of that suddenness are, and you will discover that it's much simpler and cheaper to deal with them than limiting CO2 output.

Also, I like my cold climate. A few degrees C of warming is the difference between being comfortable and feeling ill/sweating like a pig.

And that's why we need to destroy the global economy and free markets!

Re:And that way, you never will.

[b0s0z0ku]

If the ecahhhhhhnammmmy is based on destroying the Earth and changing it to be more hostile to humans, let it burn to the ground.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Public pension plans are a great thing, SocSec should be expanded.

I can't tell whether you're trying to be funny or actually serious. Social security is unsustainable.

As far as a pension plan -- I trust an elected government more than a bunch of Wall Street hucksters.

You mean like Venezuela? Or 1933's Germany? They too promised government pension plans and free education.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

Oil and gas subsidies are simply making a few CEO's richer.

If they are not passed on to consumers, they primarily make share holders richers. You know, like everybody who has money in 401(k)'s.

I for one LIKE technological improvement

Then why do you try to put government in charge of innovation? Innovation courtesy of the government is a miserable failure, except perhaps for WMDs.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

The bigger problem is that we CAN'T simply move things like FORESTS. And now all of California is too damn dry to support the forests they have and they're all on fire.

Why would we have to move them? Climate change generally increases precipitation (due to increased evaporation) and it primarily increases temperatures at high latitudes. And California's destructive forest fires are the result of mismanagement, not climate change.

So really, what's the point of all this?

For me? I like to see what points people come up with, including people who are wildly wrong.

Re:And that way, you never will.

[ooloorie]

If the ecahhhhhhnammmmy is based on destroying the Earth and changing it to be more hostile to humans, let it burn to the ground.

Fortunately, it isn't. Free market capitalism has been the best economic system from the point of view of protecting the environment. The worst? Progressivism, fascism, and socialism.

Thank God for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

And by that I mean allah, of course. No country was ever improved by adding mohammedans to it.

Re:Thank God for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right, Just take a look at Sweden this week. Asshats burning cars and rioting. And Sweden has "no go" zones where the cops won't go for fear of offending the little muzzies. I'd round em up, put on a boat and dump them on the shores of the first muslim country going south. Minnesota is turning into the same crap with the somalis. The left has taken leave of its senses if it thinks these "people" will ever assimilate.

A couple of years ago up in Minnesota, they interviewed 3 thousand muslim teens in college. They asked if they preferred the US Constitution or Sharia law. The latter won by over 90%. We cannot have that here.

Re: Thank God for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that the lefties want them to assimilate?

They don't. They want nasty little ghettos full of tasty tasty votes.

To see how this works, look at the Congress party in India. They've spent decades building their mohammedan vote banks.

Huma Abedin's father was a professor in Aligarh Muslim University before he fed to Saudi. Her mother is Pakistani.

They know exactly how this works.

Re: Thank God for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. What "worries" me is Chelsea Clinton making a run for the WH with help from her parents. This means what it says. B&H would be straight back in power. If Chelsea were to pair up with someone like Elizabeth Warren or that socialist woman in NY, they would convince the people they were the right choice, even though America would largely be going backwards.

HA has been curiously silent since Weiner boy went down and HC got trounced. It makes you wonder what they are up to.

Re:Thank God for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank Allah for instilling such fear into your country, forcing you into doing this. No more land of the free!

Considering the limited locations where it is feas

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a huge waste of money that would be better spent on sheriffs deputies riding the lines and policing the stations.

Mass transit in L.A.? NOBODY WALKS IN L.A.!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look ahead as we pass, try and focus on it
I won't be fooled by a cheap cinematic trick
It must have been just a cardboard cut out of a man
Top-40 cast-off from a record stand
Walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., nobody walks in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., nobody walks in L.A.
I don't know could've been a lame jogger maybe
Or someone just about to do the freeway strangler baby
Shopping cart pusher or maybe someone groovie
One thing's for sure, he isn't starring in the movies.
'Cause he's walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., nobody walks in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., only a nobody walks in L.A.
Walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
You won't see a cop walkin' on the beat
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
You only see 'em drivin' cars out on the street
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
You won't see a kid walkin' home from school
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
Their mothers pick 'em up in a car pool
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
Walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., nobody walks in L.A.
Could it be that the smog's playing tricks on my eyes
Or is it a rollerskater in some kind of headphone disguise
Maybe somebody who just ran out of gas,
Making his way back to the pumps the best way he can.
Walkin' in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., nobody walks in L.A.
Walkin' in L.A., only a nobody walks in L.A.
Nobody's walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
kin' walkin' walkin' walkin'
Nobody walks in L.A.!

Re: always more debt in CA

[Anonymous Coward]

It owes north of a trillion and itâ(TM)s debt is growing.

THRU.L stock price

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a great investment.

https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart/THRU.L

Re:THRU.L stock price

[b0s0z0ku]

Hopefully, soon to be bankrupt...

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's "voluntary". You know, you don't HAVE to voluntarily submit to this [otherwise lawful act by the government that decided to revoke your rights].

Just don't $DO_TASK. Your rights are all protected. Except of course the ability to $DO_ANYTHING.

FTFY.

Everything is "voluntary" until it isn't. Just like how having a smart meter is "voluntary" until the utility company refuses to provide service until you install their remote monitoring equipment. Or how the internet itself was "voluntary" until businesses stopped accepting physical applications, governments demanded digital health records, most brick and mortar retailers went out of business, etc.

You can fully expect that if it allows power over others, it will become mandatory at some point. Especially in a police state.

Re:You can thank a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but the second amendment ? Wasn't that supposed to protect you from a tyrannical government ?

Jury Duty

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's "voluntary" to not go through screening at the courthouse either. But if I don't, then I can't report for the stupid jury summons they send. So my defense is that they denied me access to the courthouse.

Liquid Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest blowing Liquid Ass (www.liquidass.com) off in the subway in retaliation. Poorly ventilated space, high density...

Re:Liquid Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Between Defcon attendees desire to retaliate against Caesar Entertainment properties and things like this, I predict their revenue over at liquidass is going to skyrocket.

Token?

[Anonymous Coward]

... won't be able to ride on the subway.

Where do they get a refund for their subway token?

... process is voluntary ...

Breathing is voluntary but those refusing to breathe, won't be able to live.

kill everyone responsible for this

[Anonymous Coward]

before it's too late. death to all fascists.

Re: kill everyone responsible for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Slowly, painfully and make their family watch.

Hell, torture their family to death first, then the people responsible.

A scanner is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't tell a Meatball Marinara from an Italian B.M.T., frankly a scanner isn't really goig to help much.

Re: always more debt in CA

[alvinrod]

Balancing a budget would be the first step toward paying off their debts. You can't get out of debt if you don't quit running at a deficit first.

This is why we need 'diversity'...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if we had a homogenous, WHITE country, where everybody CHOSE to live with each other, rather than being forced to live with people they don't want to, there would be no 'terrorism', and thus no need for any of this nonsense.

Thanks, Jews!

Re: always more debt in CA

[Anonymous Coward]

California can't get out of debt even if they run a massive budget surplus. That's because California's debt is massive unfunded liabilities, not measly government debt.

Re:You can thank a muslim

[dwillden]

It is and does, but it's a last defense. We don't reach for the guns right off, we try to fight in in the courts and politically first and too many citizens are complacent and think this stuff makes us safer.

Tyranny is hardest to fight when it's imposed slowly and subtly and with the support of a large portion of the populace who thinks it makes them safer.

California voted for that

[Anonymous Coward]

California voted for unfettered immigration of each and everyone in their state and heavily subsidized all of them.

That sets incentives for bad people.

Peaceful multiculturalism has never existed for more than a few generations.

When a man lies through his teeth, you can't trust

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The screening process is mandatory, Wiggins said, as customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway.

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure these cameras will work as well as the WTC security cameras on 9/11 or London's "big brother" camera system on 7/7.

Re:You can thank a muslim

[Plus1Entropy]

Wow. They have completely got you. Like totally. The government has seized control of your mind and ravaged your critical thinking.

They are literally taking your freedom away right before your eyes and yet you are still taking the bait and blaming the scapegoat.

Creeping...

[jareth-0205]

So all those people who claim that air travel is not a necessity and that you should forgo long-distance travel for pleasure or work or family to stick it to the TSA, (and therefore implicitly blaming people who do fly for 'supporting' this regime), what now? What when it is your local only-viable transport system that's installed it? When does the myth of the effective boycot get exposed, and we have to admit that there is a problem that can't be fixed by the 'market', and actually have to fix with legislation?

Re:Creeping...

[DarkOx]

One could make the argument all those "collaborators" have enabled the expansion of the totalitarian regime to the point where your only-viable transport system now has this crap installed. Maybe had they resisted back when they should have we would not be here today.

Re:Creeping...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no legislation fix. The legislation is what caused all this crap. The only legislation fix is to open the books and put strikethroughs on damn near every effin law. This is the problem with calling congress critters "lawmakers". They all get into office and think they need to write a new law to fix everything when in reality they need to be taking a blowtorch to their predecessors "laws".

Re:Creeping...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next step: full comulsory public nudity!

Re:Creeping...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't fix it period. The only slim chance we have is the Free State Project and Shire Society which are migrations of people who value liberty and freedom coming together to challenge the state in one place. It's been quite successful in curtailing numerous abuses, but we certainly more people would have maximum effect. What people fail to realize is you don't need a majority. You just need a majority- but your minority does need to be the loudest voice in the room and that is why we see these migrations working already - to one degree or another anyway. We removed the authority in New Hampshire of the banking department to regulate crypto currency businesses for instance, we removed the authority of government to decide who could conceal carry (we already had open carry), we removed the authority of the government to enter homes on the basis of tax assessments that resulted from a bad supreme court decision (or otherwise be able to put million dollar valuation on shacks as a consequence to refusing entry), we decriminalized marijuana possession, and a heck of a lot more in the past handful of years.

Re:Creeping...

[b0s0z0ku]

As far as marijuana possession, it's interesting that NH didn't fully legalize it and spit in DC's face, like their neighbors (MA, ME, and VT) have done.

Mafia action on Alex Wiggins is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Chop his ass in to pieces and mail back to ThruVision HQ as a warning.

Make sure you use a dull rusty axe.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[skam240]

Virtually everyone in America believes that there are necessary limits to 2nd amendment rights. For instance, you can not own an anti aircraft gun in this country.

Given this, quite a lot of states have decided that having their citizenry living in perpetual fear that they could be shot over a stupid confrontation by a lunatic ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... ) is something that should not exist in a civilized society.

In California, I can speak my mind generally without fear of some one shooting me or at the least trying to intimidate me with their firearm.

This is quite a world we've created

[Lucas123]

Students who need to walk through metal detectors and have police posted in their buildings; airport customers treated like prison visitors -- trip a detector and get searched; police and fire stations where officers sit behind 3-inches of bullet proof glass. And now subway body scanners.

Believe it or not, when I was a kid, we never locked the front door. Yeah, it wasn't all that long ago.

How it was decided . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, the Subway planners were relaxing with some beer and watching the movie, "Total Recall". They must have liked what they saw when they watched Arnold S. try to get on the subway with a gun. Bet they especially liked the walk-through weapon detector they saw - but I doubt that model is available.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. I live in a state with very big 2A rights, where the NRA has single's nights at gun ranges. I have yet to see someone actually brandish a firearm, much less hear a shot fired in anger, and I live in a metropolitan area.

Florida is not how the rest of the US is. Someone tries using "stand your ground" over a parking space in other states, and the jury and judge will laugh at them as they do a life sentence for voluntary manslaughter. Those incidents are quite rare, outside of gang territory.

One stupid incident doesn't mean everyone is going to do a Wild West style showdown over any spat.

Somebody needs to be taken out and shot!

[gerald.edward.butler]

Fuck this! It's out of control. These fuckers need to be removed from society. Fastt! They are a danger to democracy. They are the problem.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[sdinfoserv]

Actually, it IS technically legal to own an anti-aircraft gun. Anything above .50 cal requires a special license as does a fully automatic machine gun. The problem comes with the ammunition, which is typically explosive rounds - that's different story.

And we PROMISE

[Anonymous Coward]

there will never ever, ever ever, never ever be any inappropriate use of these machines. Hold on while I san this beautiful, um, I mean suspicious-looking woman over here...

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[sdinfoserv]

In Seattle, when calling 911 takes 2 hours for police to show up, crime is going through the roof, homeless populations are spiking, and homeless encampments allow their destitute transients to rape and openly use drugs - you might rethink that not arming yourself plan...

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[skam240]

If you're going to argue in favor of mass gun ownership then at least put it context like protection from government (our own and others), the actual reason for the 2nd amendment, that is harder to argue against. Simply lifting your head up and looking at almost every other first world nation that has far stricter gun control laws then ours you'll see societies that are, if not massively safer, just as safe as ours.

Also, if you're going to site numbers try to make sure they are even close to correct so if some one checks them you don't look like a total idiot. Here are the actual average response tmes for priority calls in Seattle http://council.seattle.gov/201... . You're a little off to say the least.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[skam240]

Learn something new every day.

The complete banning of the amunition an arm needs to shoot is pretty much equivalent to banning the fire arm so my point still holds and if any one disagrees I'm pretty sure I kind find some sort of arms that are completely banned in the US which is all I need for my point to be correct.

If these become common

[laurencetux]

1 somebody is going to make a mint selling metallic leotards (blocks the scanner)

2 somebody is going to hack them to grab the images that are stored (and yes there will be stored images)

3 somebody will either attack the scanners or have a device that is triggered by these things do something NASTY

Re:If these become common

[b0s0z0ku]

3. That's why the scanners need to be manned by cops who guard them. Which has the advantageous effect of limiting their deployment -- paying a cop to stand there looking at a screen is expensive. As far as the scanners triggering something unpleasant, that's unlikely, since they're passive devices (receive only, not transmit).

There's an entire wing of the Ds

[rsilvergun]

for the little guy. They call themselves "Justice Democrats" and they refuse corporate & PAC money. Join the Democratic party and vote in their primary (if you're in a state where you have open primaries then you don't need to bother joining). They're the best hope the little guys has. We need to make denying corporate & PAC money the #1 litmus test for all politicians, and they're a good place to start.

Mandatory optional

[jason777]

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

Re:Mandatory optional

[b0s0z0ku]

Assuming it's before the fare gate (it likely is), a lot of people will just use another entrance or the next station on the line.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[sdinfoserv]

I'm not trying to say you're wrong. It's just that 2A makes it really difficult to ban any weapon. It's a right the founding fathers felt so important, they specifically wrote it into our Constitution. Additionally, so long as you're willing to go through the Federal tax stamp process and can pass a back ground check, there's not much you can't buy. You can get an FFL (Federal Firearms License) for $150 and be an arms dealer which gets you access to anything for the most part. Being a dealer can even skate you past many State regs as well.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[skam240]

Here we go, hand grenades :)

https://www.criminaldefenselaw...

Where do they find the money for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the only Subway system that recovers most of it's costs is the NYC subway, and they could be profitable if they just upgraded to the automated technology used by the Vancouver Skytrain Metro.

Saddling a metro system with body scanners is just going to bankrupt the metro operator. Either through having to pay the costs of operating it, and with transit revenue losses from people who don't want to deal with the fucking thing.

Re:Where do they find the money for this?

[b0s0z0ku]

Federal "security" funding, or maybe someone at Metro had a friend who knew someone at a company that sells and services the hardware.

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[HeckRuler]

Fireworks are still a thing. There has to be some sort of permission slip to launch explosive shells from a tube.

I kind find some sort of arms that are completely banned in the US which is all I need for my point to be correct.

I typically go with nukes when I'm making this sort of argument. If you're talking with a libertarian, even the crazy sort that thinks we should privatize the police force, you can typically get them to agree that we should stop arabs from bringing in fissionable material to the states. As long as you coach it like that even they can see reason.

#hashtags

[Anonymous Coward]

#JusticeDemocrats
#WOLF-PAC
#TYT
#AnnaKisFineAsFuck

Will be there any commuters left?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will be there any commuters left?

Re:Taking away rights because 17 years ago airplan

[sdinfoserv]

The incident I was referring to actually happened last month in Ballard, a North Seattle suburb. A woman trying to sell a mullion dollar house found squatters and camped in her back yard and when she called police it took 2 hours for them to arrive.
You can show what ever "self reported" stats you want. I have other friends who live in Snohomish County - North of Seattle - who have called 911 and it takes over 1/2 hour for the PD to arrive. Pull what you want from the "never wrong" interwebie, or, live here and know facts. https://omny.fm/shows/the-dori...

LA? They have a subway?

[persicom]

Ha ha. 2000 an hour. Go ahead. Put a few in the Times Square station in New York. Watch hilarity ensue.

Speciality sockpuppets for diabetic ulcers.

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly makes you think capt dork? Unless he is some sort of sleeper account it doesn't make much sense.
Look at the dates on his achievement list. They don't really add up on the christorical timeline.

Pretty sure he was using other sock puppets as primaries when he had days read in a row. Even though there is evidence he was somewhat active beforehand it was ages before he scored a 5+ comment. Even though chris's comments are generally low quality he goes well out of his way to make sure he posts jokes or generic attempts to suck up to the slashdot hivemind when he knows he's making one of the first comments on a story.

Could you explain what convinced you this is a genuine diabetic-sock puppet?

Re:Speciality sockpuppets for diabetic ulcers.

[Anonymous Coward]

The crammar, the subject matter, and the style.