Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
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
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..)
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?
That's not the question, I don't think people want the airport experience at the airport.
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.
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.
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.
>"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?
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.
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.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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?
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.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth