6 ms·

> “Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned, so there’s no risk of them missing their train service on a daily basis,” he said. This technology has be

by zaroth 8y ago

> “Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned, so there’s no risk of them missing their train service on a daily basis,” he said. This technology has been in development for 15 years, and the latest and greatest is point and shoot scanning as people walk by. So in 10-20 years, are these built into the wall at the top of the escalator leading into every major metro station in the world? Plugged into an AI for analysis? Dispatching drones to contain perceived threats? I think this is one of the absolute least effective ways to be spending public safety dollars, is it not?

craftyguy 8y ago
For some reason it reminds me of the opening scene/level(?) in Half Life 2, when you finally get outside the compound and there are scanners/drones harassing you. In other news, I wonder if this could be defeated by clothing with fine metal threads woven in.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Or the whole-hallway scanner in 'Total Recall (1990)': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    this is what I always envisioned progressing towards, a back scatter machine with computer interpretation of what is seen to protect the privacy of individuals while exposing concerns. probably one of the biggest failings of the TSA machines is that there was not enough computer enhancement of the images to remove what would be embarrassing to many. the skeletal information presented would not even have to be accurate to get the job done. it could be a whimsical interpretation with all unidentified items highlighted
  - jaclaz 8y ago
    Right idea, wrong scene, this is the one with an actual gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  If the cops wore masks and beat people up slightly more often the opening scene of Half Life 2 would basically be a documentary about traveling into Boston via rail. The cameras, steel gates, cops standing around everywhere, "see something say something" messages on the PA, it's all there.
darawk 8y ago
> I think this is one of the absolute least effective ways to be spending public safety dollars, is it not? The scenario you described sounds like an incredibly effective and efficient way to spend public safety dollars, given two things: 1. The technology works. 2. You don't care about privacy.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  you're not thinking like a terrorist when you imagine it being incredibly effective. people on a subway are dense and easy targets, sure. but if you place a scanner before people get into the station, you've merely moved the place the terrorist will strike to directly outside the station, where the people getting on/off the train must traverse in similar density and identical numbers as when they are on the train. so basically this technologies concedes privacy without improving genuine safety. economically wasteful, individually humiliating, and utterly theatrical for its intended purpose.
  - darawk 8y ago
    I'm a huge proponent of that argument. Airport scanners are incredibly stupid, and simply move the target. All that actually needed to be done was reinforcing the cockpit doors, so that the plane couldn't be comandeered and used as a missile. Blowing up a plane in the air is just one of the myriad ways to blow up a concentration of people, and shouldn't be given the special privilege that it does, with the exception of its utility as a missile, solved by the doors. However, that's not what's being proposed here. The system proposed here does not create concentrations of people, because it is transparent to them, it just scans them as they walk through the place, so it doesn't have that flaw.
    - cryoshon 8y ago
      it still has the same flaw: think about how many people get off at a major stop on the subway. without the inclusion of any security apparatus whatsoever, there are still hundreds of people who are clumped up as they exit. the security apparatus doesn't prevent an attack.

by zaroth 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago

For some reason it reminds me of the opening scene/level(?) in Half Life 2, when you finally get outside the compound and there are scanners/drones harassing you. In other news, I wonder if this could be defeated by clothing with fine metal threads woven in.

gojomo 8y ago
Or the whole-hallway scanner in 'Total Recall (1990)': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c
- Shivetya 8y ago
  this is what I always envisioned progressing towards, a back scatter machine with computer interpretation of what is seen to protect the privacy of individuals while exposing concerns. probably one of the biggest failings of the TSA machines is that there was not enough computer enhancement of the images to remove what would be embarrassing to many. the skeletal information presented would not even have to be accurate to get the job done. it could be a whimsical interpretation with all unidentified items highlighted
- jaclaz 8y ago
  Right idea, wrong scene, this is the one with an actual gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
If the cops wore masks and beat people up slightly more often the opening scene of Half Life 2 would basically be a documentary about traveling into Boston via rail. The cameras, steel gates, cops standing around everywhere, "see something say something" messages on the PA, it's all there.

darawk 8y ago

> I think this is one of the absolute least effective ways to be spending public safety dollars, is it not? The scenario you described sounds like an incredibly effective and efficient way to spend public safety dollars, given two things: 1. The technology works. 2. You don't care about privacy.

cryoshon 8y ago
you're not thinking like a terrorist when you imagine it being incredibly effective. people on a subway are dense and easy targets, sure. but if you place a scanner before people get into the station, you've merely moved the place the terrorist will strike to directly outside the station, where the people getting on/off the train must traverse in similar density and identical numbers as when they are on the train. so basically this technologies concedes privacy without improving genuine safety. economically wasteful, individually humiliating, and utterly theatrical for its intended purpose.
- darawk 8y ago
  I'm a huge proponent of that argument. Airport scanners are incredibly stupid, and simply move the target. All that actually needed to be done was reinforcing the cockpit doors, so that the plane couldn't be comandeered and used as a missile. Blowing up a plane in the air is just one of the myriad ways to blow up a concentration of people, and shouldn't be given the special privilege that it does, with the exception of its utility as a missile, solved by the doors. However, that's not what's being proposed here. The system proposed here does not create concentrations of people, because it is transparent to them, it just scans them as they walk through the place, so it doesn't have that flaw.
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    it still has the same flaw: think about how many people get off at a major stop on the subway. without the inclusion of any security apparatus whatsoever, there are still hundreds of people who are clumped up as they exit. the security apparatus doesn't prevent an attack.