4 ms·
> 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 incredibl
by 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 agoyou'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 agoI'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 agoit 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.
- darawk 8y agoIt does if it scans them before they get on the subway.
- Retric 8y agoWell that and cancer, lot's and lot's of cancer.
- digikata 8y agoThat was my first thought too. But there is this quote: > The software can detect hidden objects using technology that examines the naturally occurring waves produced by a person’s body. The technology does not emit radiation, officials added.
- Jach 8y agoIn other words, people can still freak out over "cancer!" but it's just from the non-stop onslaught of harmless wifi and cell and radio and satellite frequencies that penetrate some and reflect some. Plus probably some infrared for the "emitted by the person" bit specifically. Passive signal analysis can be very revealing.
- mhb 8y agoIt's a passive system.
- exegete 8y agoI wonder if they could detect cancer with these scanners. Maybe have them automatically scan for it and send it to my doctor.
- zaroth 8y agoIt would be ideal if they were absolutely terrible at identifying people but particularly good at detecting suicide vests. They do seem to be fairly narrowly tailored for the task at hand. TFA says they can discern large arms and bombs but not small arms. Assume the technology can progress even further to identifying small arms and weapons but that it’s passed through an audited AI running on trusted compute whose only output is calling the police when a threat is detected. Even then I’m willing to guess it would be a colossal waste of money that could save more lives if spent more effectively. Because terrorists just aren’t that common around here and if you’re detecting them carrying a bomb into the subway you failed a long, long time ago.