> “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,” Dave Sotero, a spokesman for the

> “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,” Dave Sotero, a spokesman for the L.A. Metro, said. > “Most people won’t even know they’re being scanned ..." > “Someone has to intervene, stop that person and check out what’s going on ... That causes delay, and it also causes a sense of invasiveness among the passengers.” The problems with searching random people, including large numbers of them, is not the delay or "sense of invasiveness", but the article doesn't address privacy issues. It presents only one side and that is based on quotes from random pedestrians, not evidence or serious analysis. It also accepts without question statements such as the following, which are worthless assurances. Even if accurate, they can change their practices at any time. > “We’re looking for explosive vests, we’re looking for assault rifles. We’re not necessarily looking for smaller weapons that don’t have the ability to inflict mass casualties.” Finally, the article uses many statements that sound like they were written by the PR team (as do the quotes from bystanders): > They use technology that examines the naturally occurring waves produced by a person’s body > the devices themselves resemble the sort of black laminate cases that musicians lug around on tour, not upright metal detectors