4 ms·
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 sc
by 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 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.