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

[thesupraman]

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

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

[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: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..)

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: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: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: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