A Las Vegas Resort Using Microwaves to Keep Guns Out(wired.com)
wired.com
A Las Vegas Resort Using Microwaves to Keep Guns Out
https://www.wired.com/story/the-las-vegas-resort-using-microwaves-to-keep-guns-out-of-its-casino/
136 comments
This is terrifying to me, because the technology here is the same as the millimeter wave "naked scanners" used at the airport. I'm not convinced of their safety, they can easily be hidden behind a wall, and god knows who could be viewing your naked body at any time.
> This is terrifying to me
So don't go. It's not public property. Nobody is forcing you to gamble.
So don't go. It's not public property. Nobody is forcing you to gamble.
What does this have to do with gambling? Sure a casino is using it now, but who will use it next? A hotel, restaurant, bank...
How are you supposed to know if they have one?
Presume they all do and plan your trip accordingly.
I won't.
> god knows who could be viewing your naked body at any time
Personally, if this is the cost of keeping guns out of a hotel I'm staying at, I'm all for it. If this is a deal breaker for you, can't you just stay somewhere else?
Personally, if this is the cost of keeping guns out of a hotel I'm staying at, I'm all for it. If this is a deal breaker for you, can't you just stay somewhere else?
>If this is a deal breaker for you, can't you just stay somewhere else?
Gladly. I opt out of the scanners at the airport. However the scanners in the hotel are secret and hidden. How do I opt out now?
Gladly. I opt out of the scanners at the airport. However the scanners in the hotel are secret and hidden. How do I opt out now?
The solution is having a legal requirement for adequate notification to all consumers that such monitoring is happening.
Have guns in a hotel been a common problem for you? Can't you just stay somewhere else?
Agreed. My deep dive (reading the academic papers, etc.) trying to confirm that the TSA millimeter wave scanners are harmless came up with more questions than answers. If this tech uses the same spectrum then I'm giving casinos a +1 for potential cancer risk.
Admittedly, given every casino I've been in permits smoking, it's not like casinos were otherwise great on cancer-avoidance.
Can they see through leather?
Yes, yes they can.
What do you think they then do to your much thinner skin?
This isn't rocket science.
Yes, yes they can.
What do you think they then do to your much thinner skin?
This isn't rocket science.
Given that they can penetrate it, it's very possible that they do nothing to your skin.
You're right, this isn't rocket science - it's a blend of electrical engineering and biology.
You're right, this isn't rocket science - it's a blend of electrical engineering and biology.
The most obvious answer based on the previous observation is "see through your skin," not "cause cancer." I think we'll need more to go on than that.
Plus the consent issues are even worse here than the TSA.
Per the article these are hidden and used to secretly scan guests, so if there is any adverse effects you have no way of knowing what caused it, reporting it, and seeking corrective measures.
We also have to consider edge cases (pace makers, sensitive electronics, children, etc), and how they'll detect & correct when these devices malfunction.
Ultimately this is a medical device used in a non-medical way with non-medical oversight.
Per the article these are hidden and used to secretly scan guests, so if there is any adverse effects you have no way of knowing what caused it, reporting it, and seeking corrective measures.
We also have to consider edge cases (pace makers, sensitive electronics, children, etc), and how they'll detect & correct when these devices malfunction.
Ultimately this is a medical device used in a non-medical way with non-medical oversight.
Frankly, this is nothing to be terrified of:
- re viewing your naked body: this only gives blurry black and white reconstructions. Frankly, nothing to make a fuss about. I doubt anyone would even be recognizable on those images.
- re safety: this may be a valid concern, but if there is a health effect, it will be tiny, because we are already bathed in microwaves all day long.
- re viewing your naked body: this only gives blurry black and white reconstructions. Frankly, nothing to make a fuss about. I doubt anyone would even be recognizable on those images.
- re safety: this may be a valid concern, but if there is a health effect, it will be tiny, because we are already bathed in microwaves all day long.
You work in the field of Medical Image processing so its reasonable that your opinion is biased due to the effect on your livelihood.
An opinion is usually biased. There's a reason it is not a fact.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say. If you work in a liberal city, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are at a certain educational level, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are male/female, your opinion likely has a bias. If you were raised in a poor/rich family, your opinion likely has a bias. All your life experiences contribute to your opinion having a bias.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say. If you work in a liberal city, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are at a certain educational level, your opinion likely has a bias. If you are male/female, your opinion likely has a bias. If you were raised in a poor/rich family, your opinion likely has a bias. All your life experiences contribute to your opinion having a bias.
Well, if he works in the field, he has training, so it's more likely his opinion would be based upon Fact, rather than fear of some vague unknown like you tendered.
Or maybe they know what they are talking about?
Well knowing what you are talking about certainly introduces some bias.
/s
/s
[deleted]
EM Radiation with a frequency of 500MHz to 5Ghz has wavelengths in the tens of centimeters. It is completely harmless and utterly unusable for „viewing naked bodies“.
People have studied EM radiation for a very long time, and we know what‘s dangerous. Xray is dangerous, UV at high intensity is also dangerous, radio frequncy/micro wave is harmless (unless you go to really high intensities, but then you’d fry all electronics nearby)
Maybe check a physics textbook before you get all worked up.
Edit: Also, this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners.
People have studied EM radiation for a very long time, and we know what‘s dangerous. Xray is dangerous, UV at high intensity is also dangerous, radio frequncy/micro wave is harmless (unless you go to really high intensities, but then you’d fry all electronics nearby)
Maybe check a physics textbook before you get all worked up.
Edit: Also, this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners.
>this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners
Do you have a source? It's described as using an antenna and a receiver, which is exactly how the naked scanners at the airport work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Techni...
They may use different frequencies (airport scanners are in 24–30 GHz band) but it's the same technology.
Do you have a source? It's described as using an antenna and a receiver, which is exactly how the naked scanners at the airport work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Techni...
They may use different frequencies (airport scanners are in 24–30 GHz band) but it's the same technology.
Microwave radiation just isn‘t suitable for imaging people. Google for „diffraction limit“ to learn why.
That‘s why the devices in this article, unlike millimeter wave scanners, can‘t create an image of the scanned subjects. (and it’s also the reason why why millimeter wave scanners make very blurry images).
Instead, these detectors look for resonances in the emmitted spectrum.
The article was a bit light on details, but this description sounds very much like an old school metal detector, rather than an imaging device.
That‘s why the devices in this article, unlike millimeter wave scanners, can‘t create an image of the scanned subjects. (and it’s also the reason why why millimeter wave scanners make very blurry images).
Instead, these detectors look for resonances in the emmitted spectrum.
The article was a bit light on details, but this description sounds very much like an old school metal detector, rather than an imaging device.
What about pacemakers?
Depends on the intensity of the radiation.
Radio frequency and microwave band emissions are strictly regulated, so if they want to sell these devices, they need to keep emissions below a limit, just like Wifi routers and Microwave ovens.
Radio frequency and microwave band emissions are strictly regulated, so if they want to sell these devices, they need to keep emissions below a limit, just like Wifi routers and Microwave ovens.
There was a study from Johns Hopkins equating a millimeter wave scan to the amount of radiation received in a bad sunburn.
Backscatter X-ray is worse than millimeter wave and if the transmitter is further away they’d necessarily have to increase the power.
I’m not sure I’d ever willingly enter a place known to be using that technology.
I’m not sure I’d ever willingly enter a place known to be using that technology.
Unfortunately there are unmarked trucks with backscatter X-ray scanners inside them in major cities around the world, as well as fixed backscatter X-ray scanners in many places outside of airports.
If you want to know what the trucks look like, google "ZBV": https://www.google.com/search?q=ZBV&tbm=isch
If you want to know what the trucks look like, google "ZBV": https://www.google.com/search?q=ZBV&tbm=isch
Absolutely agree. Apart from the silliness of banning people that are less criminal than cops, its scary to be exposed to those type of waves.
I never go through those scanners for a reason.
I never go through those scanners for a reason.
Are firearms now not permitted inside Vegas hotels? I always bring, at the very least, a 9mm pistol with me every time I travel.
The buried lede, and unanswered question, is whether the legal status of firearms in hotels has suddenly changed.
The buried lede, and unanswered question, is whether the legal status of firearms in hotels has suddenly changed.
The status here (in Las Vegas) has always been up to what policy each company wishes to have. The casino/resort policies have always been pretty much universal that no unauthorized weapons are allowed anywhere on their private property. If they become aware of a weapon, they will ask you to take it to a vehicle outside, perhaps your room safe if you're a guest of that property, or for certain individuals will store it in the security office during the event that the person is attending (this probably will no longer happen with everyone more on edge now).
So if you don't tell anyone and nobody notices, you'll get away with having it on you or in your room. If they find out, you'll be asked to leave if you can't/don't wish to store it somewhere while on the property. Legally, I don't think there's any issue except that they would trespass you if necessary. I don't think there's any law that protects a right to carry on private property (but in public yes, with appropriate licensing for concealed).
So if you don't tell anyone and nobody notices, you'll get away with having it on you or in your room. If they find out, you'll be asked to leave if you can't/don't wish to store it somewhere while on the property. Legally, I don't think there's any issue except that they would trespass you if necessary. I don't think there's any law that protects a right to carry on private property (but in public yes, with appropriate licensing for concealed).
Vegas has become family friendly, so to speak. Who assumes liability for the images of children? What are the legal protections around the storage, retention, secure deletion, handling and viewing of the images?
Vegas (and all Nevada) casinos are like another planet from a legal sense. Once you're on their property, they can do pretty much anything they want to you. You consented to all of it by going there. Kids? Their parents consented to it by bringing them there in the first place.
It's not like being scanned at an airport, which is a quasi-public place. You're on private, highly regulated, surveilled, scanned, documented, recorded, profiled, archived property.
Where things get fuzzy is if you're in a Vegas hotel without a casino.
It's not like being scanned at an airport, which is a quasi-public place. You're on private, highly regulated, surveilled, scanned, documented, recorded, profiled, archived property.
Where things get fuzzy is if you're in a Vegas hotel without a casino.
Are there no state or federal laws that regulate the storage and dissemination of nude children? I did not realize casinos were that powerful.
If there were pictures of nude children involved. But that's not what's happening here. Your hysteria borders on strawman.
I didn't realize I was hysterical? Just asking a question based on the article and discussion in this thread. Do you have links to images from the scanner?
This scanner does not make images. It‘s a fancy metal detector with a 2m range.
It's not really that impressive. It can't image anything. Here are the demo videos.[1] This is a much simpler technology than millimeter wave imaging. It's one step up from metal detectors, but way down from Z-backscatter. Think of it as a metal detector with enough smarts to ignore coins, keys, and cell phones. It's probably going to detect a pair of pliers, but if you're bringing tools into a casino, the management is very interested.
[1] https://patriot1tech.com/news/videos/
[1] https://patriot1tech.com/news/videos/
What happens when it raises a flag? Will the person get a pat-down? This will disproportionately have negative impact on people with medical implants and whatnot.
« "The best analogy is antivirus software," says PatriotOne CEO Martin Cronin. » Given how bad AV software is, this is not a promising analogy.
« "The best analogy is antivirus software," says PatriotOne CEO Martin Cronin. » Given how bad AV software is, this is not a promising analogy.
The subject person will likely be discretely escorted to a quiet corner and be asked a few questions. Vegas security people have tons of experience in managing threats. Heck, the Bellagio's poker cage got robbed a couple of weeks ago and people gambling just feet away had no idea it was happening. The employees are highly trained in keeping things under control. It's not like the movies.
I will comment on the topic of the article, but first a point that will be relevant later:
"People come to Vegas because it's the fun capital of the world. They're there to let loose, rock and roll, and do things they'd never do..."
I have never been a fan of the idea of Vegas. I say the "idea" because I've never been. This quote above exactly describes my displeasure-- it is a hub for moral ambiguity. Letting "loose" is about letting go, for sure. Having a bit of fun is never a bad thing. But why does the common definition of fun as an adult most often include drinking in excess, sleeping with people one is barely acquainted with, and gambling? Why is fun equated with spending copious amounts of money on toxins and morally ambiguous pleasures? It's okay to drink and play games and sleep with people, but when a place like Vegas exists, and is so wealthy, I wonder. It's like a migratory ground, full of flashing lights, enticing pleasures, impulsive decisions and often regret. That, to me, is not "fun".
It is a fantasy world. Children have fun through fantasy, but their explorations often lead them to personal and insightful discoveries about themselves and the world. I feel as though many have lost this definition of fun. What to do with the imagination when castles and pirates no longer bring awe? Oh, binge drink and do stupid, possibly dangerous and financially damaging bullshit, of course!
We live in a culture where fantasy is the expected coping mechanism, except the fantasies we indulge in bring us false escape, rather than workable material for self-improvement. In this definition of fantasy we often come out guilty-- regretting the money we forked out, the people we spent time with, and the decisions we've made. It is not healthy. The following quote illustrates this in a way, and I will extrapolate that to the topic of the article, and make a point
"If they show up at their resort and they have to line up for metal detectors, or get wanded down, or walk through a gauntlet of security guards carrying rifles and pistols—that's not going make them feel comfortable. It's going to ruin their experience."
This is terrifying. The Vegas fantasy is about feeling okay with making choices one may never make in their day-to-life. There's a designated place for it in society, and one can designate a place for those decisions in their mind as well. "Haha, you know what they say, What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas!!". But we know it's dangerous, and the danger must be hidden to keep the fantasy alive. What else can we do in society that hides the danger from us? Well, it's sort of everywhere isn't it. Turning a blind eye when what you enjoy turns out to be made from the sweat of children (almost literally everything you and I are probably wearing now). Supporting shady companies by buying their products because we get something from it. It's a toxic sort of mindset that puts everything into the morally questionable category, or has the possibility to do so. It's escalating. Are we okay to let casinos scan us out-of-view, if that means we can successfully immerse ourselves into the comfort illusion? Are we okay with mass surveillance as long as it's out of sight? Are we okay to store questionable and uncomfortable things in the architecture of society to give an illusion of safety and freedom? That's all I see, it's everywhere. And I'm not okay with it.
"People come to Vegas because it's the fun capital of the world. They're there to let loose, rock and roll, and do things they'd never do..."
I have never been a fan of the idea of Vegas. I say the "idea" because I've never been. This quote above exactly describes my displeasure-- it is a hub for moral ambiguity. Letting "loose" is about letting go, for sure. Having a bit of fun is never a bad thing. But why does the common definition of fun as an adult most often include drinking in excess, sleeping with people one is barely acquainted with, and gambling? Why is fun equated with spending copious amounts of money on toxins and morally ambiguous pleasures? It's okay to drink and play games and sleep with people, but when a place like Vegas exists, and is so wealthy, I wonder. It's like a migratory ground, full of flashing lights, enticing pleasures, impulsive decisions and often regret. That, to me, is not "fun".
It is a fantasy world. Children have fun through fantasy, but their explorations often lead them to personal and insightful discoveries about themselves and the world. I feel as though many have lost this definition of fun. What to do with the imagination when castles and pirates no longer bring awe? Oh, binge drink and do stupid, possibly dangerous and financially damaging bullshit, of course!
We live in a culture where fantasy is the expected coping mechanism, except the fantasies we indulge in bring us false escape, rather than workable material for self-improvement. In this definition of fantasy we often come out guilty-- regretting the money we forked out, the people we spent time with, and the decisions we've made. It is not healthy. The following quote illustrates this in a way, and I will extrapolate that to the topic of the article, and make a point
"If they show up at their resort and they have to line up for metal detectors, or get wanded down, or walk through a gauntlet of security guards carrying rifles and pistols—that's not going make them feel comfortable. It's going to ruin their experience."
This is terrifying. The Vegas fantasy is about feeling okay with making choices one may never make in their day-to-life. There's a designated place for it in society, and one can designate a place for those decisions in their mind as well. "Haha, you know what they say, What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas!!". But we know it's dangerous, and the danger must be hidden to keep the fantasy alive. What else can we do in society that hides the danger from us? Well, it's sort of everywhere isn't it. Turning a blind eye when what you enjoy turns out to be made from the sweat of children (almost literally everything you and I are probably wearing now). Supporting shady companies by buying their products because we get something from it. It's a toxic sort of mindset that puts everything into the morally questionable category, or has the possibility to do so. It's escalating. Are we okay to let casinos scan us out-of-view, if that means we can successfully immerse ourselves into the comfort illusion? Are we okay with mass surveillance as long as it's out of sight? Are we okay to store questionable and uncomfortable things in the architecture of society to give an illusion of safety and freedom? That's all I see, it's everywhere. And I'm not okay with it.
It will be interesting to see how this works over the long run. Without doing anything else to detect guns, how are they training the learning? I assume they are doing that somewhere else and updating (like the antivirus analogy they mention) but still seems like it would be fraught with false positives and negatives for a while.
I suppose that's when you get quietly asked to participate in pat down or search. Traditional security scanners (and even "modern" airport fully body scanners) suffer the same flaw, requiring the person to be pulled aside and double checked.
It seems like this sort of system would be particularly susceptible to the type of spoofing that they've been able to do with image recognition. Images need to at least look unrecognizable to the human eye, which makes it a challenge to mask them for computer recognition. But with hidden physical objects, it seems that simple physical modifications would lead to unrecognized objects.
I agree it seems like they would be vulnerable to the same kind of obfuscation attacks as image recognition algorithms - however, I guess in this case they have the added benefit of determining that the object is a lump of metal (ceramics or 3d-printed exotics aside) - after all, very few objects with a comparable quantity of metal in them as a gun would routinely be carried into a casino.
> very few objects with a comparable quantity of metal in them as a gun would routinely be carried into a casino.
I'm not sure this is true at all. A backpack with a frame has more metal than my pocket pistol, as does my MacBook Pro.
Is this system capable of discriminating between various types of metal? I know many hobby metal detectors these days can give you an idea of the conductivity of a buried target, although that can vary wildly based on depth and orientation, and is limited to about a foot or so in soil.
I'm not sure this is true at all. A backpack with a frame has more metal than my pocket pistol, as does my MacBook Pro.
Is this system capable of discriminating between various types of metal? I know many hobby metal detectors these days can give you an idea of the conductivity of a buried target, although that can vary wildly based on depth and orientation, and is limited to about a foot or so in soil.
Modifications, or even just disassembling your weapon and distributing the parts among separate bags.
Why spoof? Isn't aluminum foil sufficient to block microwaves? Or you can spend the big bucks on a faraday bag: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HETGX00
They'll just pick you out for immediate inspection since your bag is a black box.
No one is watching the scanners with eyeballs, that's the point - they're using machine learning to pick these things out.
It shouldn't take much to add to a pistol, for instance, to make it unrecognizable to this. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it works well with small handguns today like the Ruger LCP or the Kel-Tec P-3AT.
It shouldn't take much to add to a pistol, for instance, to make it unrecognizable to this. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it works well with small handguns today like the Ruger LCP or the Kel-Tec P-3AT.
Train your system to flag a Faraday cage then. This system won't be perfect, but I'd is it better than nothing? (Maybe, if it's medically safe). Plus, I bet your typical psycho killer isn't going to jump through a lot of technical hoops.
I bet your typical psycho killer isn't going to jump through a lot of technical hoops
I beg to differ after examination of the details of the shooting here and the other places he scouted before it. Catching weapons in general is good for any property, but the purpose is particularly to prevent something large scale (the Westgate property in TFA is next door to the LV Convention Center, and at it's busiest will have many crowds coming and going at the beginning and end of each expo day).
I don't know if this tech is the answer. I suspect paying qualified people to do this type of surveillance with video would be more reliable (I've read places like Israel have been doing it for decades), but casinos won't pay up.
I beg to differ after examination of the details of the shooting here and the other places he scouted before it. Catching weapons in general is good for any property, but the purpose is particularly to prevent something large scale (the Westgate property in TFA is next door to the LV Convention Center, and at it's busiest will have many crowds coming and going at the beginning and end of each expo day).
I don't know if this tech is the answer. I suspect paying qualified people to do this type of surveillance with video would be more reliable (I've read places like Israel have been doing it for decades), but casinos won't pay up.
Considering how difficult it is to keep guns, phones, and other contraband, out of prisons, the biggest threat will become employees.
So I would probably task them to break it. Give them the full run through of how it works, where it is deployed, then deploy real and fake setups randomly. Encourage within limits employees to bring stuff into the facility given them by those managing the setup.
The public is easy to put off by just implying it with a few out in the open examples. However long term technology like this will be widespread and the real concern is who has access to the data and how long is it retained. Within the US the right to bear arms is sacred so tracking becomes a real concern. This is wholly different than the idea of tracking cars by license plates.
I love unobtrusive security and cannot wait to see airports move that way. I still imagine a Running Man security type wall where just walking past highlights for security objects of concern
So I would probably task them to break it. Give them the full run through of how it works, where it is deployed, then deploy real and fake setups randomly. Encourage within limits employees to bring stuff into the facility given them by those managing the setup.
The public is easy to put off by just implying it with a few out in the open examples. However long term technology like this will be widespread and the real concern is who has access to the data and how long is it retained. Within the US the right to bear arms is sacred so tracking becomes a real concern. This is wholly different than the idea of tracking cars by license plates.
I love unobtrusive security and cannot wait to see airports move that way. I still imagine a Running Man security type wall where just walking past highlights for security objects of concern
It'd be an entertaining piece of journalism to try a modern recreation of Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I can't imagine how you could get away with any of it today. And yet, I'm often amazed at what some people can get away with.
I doubt the casinos are going to care too much if you're bringing in recreational drugs.
They also had a handgun, a revolver, I believe.
I think these things are clever, but wonder about adversarial images aka, the turtle that registers as a gun
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai-image-...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai-image-...
Why is that a concern? Obviously you can fool the system into thinking you have a gun, but I don't think casino's will have any qualms in banning fake-guns.
Based on their description of the tech, you can trigger the system with something that doesn't look anything like a fake gun. It just has to have similar resonances.
The article mentions machine learning. So, it triggers, they search you, they find a thing that is not a weapon, they update their database and comp you something for disturbing you.
Of course, they could as tgb suggests just ban anything that triggers their limited tests but that would impact income once word got around
Of course, they could as tgb suggests just ban anything that triggers their limited tests but that would impact income once word got around
But until that happens, a casino is consistently getting false negatives. What happens when the trinket for sale as you're exiting Cirque du Soleil looks like a machine gun to the system? Suddenly, you've got dozens of people held up at the entrance. At best, that's a customer service annoyance; at worst, a bad actor could use this to their advantage.
Then they put a sign up saying "please remove trinket from pocket". This really doesn't seem like a huge problem.
Sure it does. Who's going to go because they constantly get stopped?
I think the false-negatives of such a system, which weren't entirely addressed ("will get better with machine learning"), would be worth more to look into than things not guns being seen as guns.
False negative and false positive rates are correlated, you can generally trade off one for the other - although I don't know how easy that is with machine learning. The false negative rate doesn't have to be perfect to be a deterrent - would you try to sneak a gun into a casino if you knew you had a 50/50 chance of being caught?
People sneak and accidentally take guns on a plane all the time and don't get caught, but I'm not sure what the 'catch-rate' is for that.
Well, that's a concern (for the profitability of the casino) but isn't what I was replying to. The parent post was suggesting that there could be objects designed to look like guns to this system. I have a hard time imagining why anyone would do that.
Which implies it shouldn't be too hard to sneak in a gun if it doesn't look like a gun to the scanner.
I'm far from an expert, but my understanding was that those kinds of adversarial attacks would be prohibitively difficult without full access to the learning system used by that product. If so, there's a vector if you can hack the company and train your own model to generate the adversarial examples to fool it, but it's not a trivial thing
I think the so-called carousel attack would apply.
Assuming the penalties for bringing in a gun are low, "oops, I forget, sorry," all you need to do is send in a train of people with different types of attacks and note which make it through.
Assuming the penalties for bringing in a gun are low, "oops, I forget, sorry," all you need to do is send in a train of people with different types of attacks and note which make it through.
> Assuming the penalties for bringing in a gun are low
A quick check (ETA: of Nevada law) shows that "gunbuster" signs don't have force of law. Assuming you leave if and when asked, there's absolutely no legal repercussion to ignoring them.
A quick check (ETA: of Nevada law) shows that "gunbuster" signs don't have force of law. Assuming you leave if and when asked, there's absolutely no legal repercussion to ignoring them.
This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It's a crime in Texas for a licensed concealed carrier to carry a gun onto property where there are signs prohibiting the carry of guns.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-06.html
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-06.html
Of course - I should have specified, I checked Nevada law.
That said, Texas law requires very, very specific signage. The last time I was in Austin I saw lots of them, but none that met the legal requirements.
That said, Texas law requires very, very specific signage. The last time I was in Austin I saw lots of them, but none that met the legal requirements.
> That said, Texas law requires very, very specific signage.
Exactly right. The amateur signs you see are almost a running joke, to intimidate new CCW permit holders. Here's the full description of what standards a sign must meet to be enforceable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#30.06_signag...
Bonus, you can carry without a permit, as long as you claim you were 'travelling', and the burden of proof is on the cops to dispute it: http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-concealed-gun-laws-... (this law may have changed by now, but it was widely known when I lived there).
Exactly right. The amateur signs you see are almost a running joke, to intimidate new CCW permit holders. Here's the full description of what standards a sign must meet to be enforceable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#30.06_signag...
Bonus, you can carry without a permit, as long as you claim you were 'travelling', and the burden of proof is on the cops to dispute it: http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-concealed-gun-laws-... (this law may have changed by now, but it was widely known when I lived there).
It's the same in Ohio. Most buildings that ban guns don't have the proper signage.
So, like the TSA, all they're going to catch is people that forget they have firearm on their person.
Considering people frequently drink in casinos, I'm ok with people being reminded that they have a gun on them.
Why would that be a bad thing?
Because those probably are not the ones who would shoot up the place.
You mean they're obviously not /planning/ to shoot up the place.
Your theory is someone accidentally brought their gun with them. So they figure: "I might as well just shoot up the place since I anyway have a gun?"
More like negligent discharges or crimes of passion by drunk gamblers.
No, those are the people the NRA claims will stop the bad guys.
CCW citizens are very often the people who take down such shooters. Your comment seems to imply otherwise.
A recent example is the Texas church shooting that happened recently, where an armed citizen with a non-concealed firearm in that case, wounded and then chased down the shooter, unfortunately after he had already killed multiple people. Sadly, nobody in the church was armed, as even CCW holders who frequently go armed will not think to do so at church.
A recent example is the Texas church shooting that happened recently, where an armed citizen with a non-concealed firearm in that case, wounded and then chased down the shooter, unfortunately after he had already killed multiple people. Sadly, nobody in the church was armed, as even CCW holders who frequently go armed will not think to do so at church.
So: Your one example of a CCW isn't actually a CCW?
A CCW applies to storing loaded firearms in a vehicle in a state that otherwise makes that illegal (California). His example does apply broadly (I don't know the specific Texas laws).
Umm, no.
A CCW lets you Carry a Concealed Weapon and has nothing to do with the storing of loaded firearms in vehicles. Though I suppose it would apply if you are in said vehicle and then 'storing' would become 'carrying'.
--edit--
But who knows about California in particular because their firearm laws are wacky. Back when I lived there the rule was "two steps" away from having a loaded firearm in your vehicle, ie: take the gun out of a case then load the magazine (IIRC of course, that was almost 20 years ago).
A CCW lets you Carry a Concealed Weapon and has nothing to do with the storing of loaded firearms in vehicles. Though I suppose it would apply if you are in said vehicle and then 'storing' would become 'carrying'.
--edit--
But who knows about California in particular because their firearm laws are wacky. Back when I lived there the rule was "two steps" away from having a loaded firearm in your vehicle, ie: take the gun out of a case then load the magazine (IIRC of course, that was almost 20 years ago).
It DOES pertain to car storage. In most states the CCW is defined as “on or about your person”. No difference between your hip and glovebox. Note there is also a distinction between CCW and CCH. A CCH does not get you out of transportation laws for long guns.
That's why I said broadly, as CCW rules differ everywhere. In CA, it is illegal to carry in public buildings, schools, etc, so they clearly outline and review (in person with a sheriff deputy) legal approval to store/keep a loaded gun in your car (out of site) for these types of scenarios.
My one example? Yes, I gave one example. You're a bit of an ass, aren't you? OK, here's 6 more from the top of Google.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/04/armed-citizen-p...
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/04/armed-citizen-p...
Yikes, please don't do personal attacks here regardless of how wrong, or provocative, someone else was. That's the downward spiral we all need the strength to pull out of.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Educate yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
The perfect crime. /s
Not until they’re on their sixth complimentary whiskey sour and someone bumps into them.
How often does that scenario happen?
My personal experience says that confrontations over minor shit happens at a non-trivial frequency where alcohol is served. Throw in poor alcohol-induced judgement with firearms, and someone’s going to feel compelled to settle it by waving a gun around. Odds are, no shots will be fired but accidents do happen when you’re drunk. Now, it’s not like this happens all the time, but I’ve seen it more than once with someone whipping out a firearm, and plenty of times over the decades where it ends up in a fight. Keep in mind this is all anecdotal, and somewhat specific to certain parts of the U. S.
I urge you to consider selection bias here. I suspect there isn't significant overlap in the following populations:
* people who submit to background checks, fees, and hassle to obtain a carry permit
* people who carry firearms while intoxicated
* people who are inclined to settle an argument with a firearm
* people who submit to background checks, fees, and hassle to obtain a carry permit
* people who carry firearms while intoxicated
* people who are inclined to settle an argument with a firearm
I urge you to consider selection bias here
Consider it? Hell, I openly admitted to it.
Consider it? Hell, I openly admitted to it.
Fair enough :)
My own biases include that I often hear people implying that someone with a carry permit is more likely to use a firearm in a crime than someone who does not. That saddens me, and I do my best to try and challenge that idea (gently, in a professional manner) whenever I can.
It looks like I jumped the gun a bit here :)
My own biases include that I often hear people implying that someone with a carry permit is more likely to use a firearm in a crime than someone who does not. That saddens me, and I do my best to try and challenge that idea (gently, in a professional manner) whenever I can.
It looks like I jumped the gun a bit here :)
I would expect that the majority of the latter two groups are also in the first one, and very close to 100% of the last group is in the second one. Do you not think so?
No, especially not the first and second. It's extremely uncommon for someone with a carry permit to consume alcohol at all while carrying, much less do so in public and to the point of intoxication.
You appear to be disagreeing with the opposite of what I said. The question isn't "What percentage of people with a carry permit would get drunk while carrying?" but "What percentage of people who go out drinking while carrying a gun have a carry permit?"
Those two answers can be completely different. For comparison, it is extremely uncommon for a human (group A) to be in my immediate family (group B), but everyone who is in my immediate family (group B) is a human (group A).
Those two answers can be completely different. For comparison, it is extremely uncommon for a human (group A) to be in my immediate family (group B), but everyone who is in my immediate family (group B) is a human (group A).
I would expect that you're right. Someone who is likely to do the second and third likely would not have the clean record needed for the first.
[deleted]
A person with a gun is statistically more likely to shoot up a place than a person without a gun.
A person with with a CCW permit is statistically less likely to commit a crime than a cop.
More then likely, that detector would be simple to defeat by wrapping a sheet of Eccosorb over you gun to de-Q it.
http://www.eccosorb.com/products-eccosorb-high-loss-absorber...
http://www.eccosorb.com/products-eccosorb-high-loss-absorber...
Reminds me of the x-ray machine chair in You Only Live Twice.
>Marketed by Canadian security outfit PatriotOne, the Patscan CMR combines short-range radar with machine learning algorithms to scan individual guests for guns, knives, and bombs in real time—without forcing them to line up and walk through metal detectors.
The ALCU is going to love this . Is this considered an invasion of privacy? I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
The ALCU is going to love this . Is this considered an invasion of privacy? I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
Casinos have been tracking you for a while now. Think of how many cameras are around you at any given moment.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/201...
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/just-how-smart-is-the-eye-in-t...
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/201...
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/just-how-smart-is-the-eye-in-t...
This has been the case for a long time. This is one my my favorite movie scenes about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH0VGDi_oIY
edit: I had too many this's
edit: I had too many this's
When the first casino in Atlantic City was built it came with the cameras shown in that video, in 1977-78 when it opened. I worked in that casino at that time and the cameras were common knowledge.
I believe they were already standard retrofit in Las Vegas years before that.
I think the movie is a great movie, and accurate in a certain way, but if you tried to timeline anything using that movie, it could get confusing.
I believe they were already standard retrofit in Las Vegas years before that.
I think the movie is a great movie, and accurate in a certain way, but if you tried to timeline anything using that movie, it could get confusing.
Why would the ACLU care? It's a private entity doing a private thing. It's not like it's the TSA, a government agency, gate keeping a public form of travel.
The line isn't as sharp as you might think.
Certain private spaces are considered "public" in some regards, such as right of access and some free speech rights (e.g. handing out pamphlets in malls).
Also some "public" spaces are privately owned (e.g. the park where Occupy Wall Street got its start was supposedly open to the public as a condition of getting some building permits, yet the landowner spent money evicting the occupiers).
The casino isn't free to bar people of certain races, and it may have other restrictions as well. Though spying is presumably unrestricted :-(.
Certain private spaces are considered "public" in some regards, such as right of access and some free speech rights (e.g. handing out pamphlets in malls).
Also some "public" spaces are privately owned (e.g. the park where Occupy Wall Street got its start was supposedly open to the public as a condition of getting some building permits, yet the landowner spent money evicting the occupiers).
The casino isn't free to bar people of certain races, and it may have other restrictions as well. Though spying is presumably unrestricted :-(.
The line is extremely sharp in this case.
None of the things you refer to has any meaning as it pertains to the private spaces within privately owned casinos. A casino lobby in Las Vegas is not considered a semi-public space like a mall. That was settled a long time ago (it's why the porn pamphlet people can't go inside the MGM and pass those pamphlets out in the lobby).
All the privately owned casinos in Las Vegas can legally do this. A challenge to it in court wouldn't get anywhere.
None of the things you refer to has any meaning as it pertains to the private spaces within privately owned casinos. A casino lobby in Las Vegas is not considered a semi-public space like a mall. That was settled a long time ago (it's why the porn pamphlet people can't go inside the MGM and pass those pamphlets out in the lobby).
All the privately owned casinos in Las Vegas can legally do this. A challenge to it in court wouldn't get anywhere.
They can't legally put hidden cameras in their toilet stalls or hotel rooms, why would they be able to legally put systems that can obtain a nude image of someone without their consent on the casino floor?
If the casino owner were going around the taking furtive pictures up girls' skirts, would you still think it was clearly on the up-and-up? The fact that it is private property doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do what you will to other people there, particularly without their consent.
I'm not sure the ACLU will have a problem with it. Private entities can have conditions for you entering their land. It only becomes a problem when the government does it.
> Is this considered an invasion of privacy?
No.
> I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
About as well as anti-theft gates at Macy's track you.
No.
> I wonder if they can track you with this tech.
About as well as anti-theft gates at Macy's track you.
> No.
Yes.
Yes.
FCC docs for this machine: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR
Photos:
* housing and antennas: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/External-Photos/External-Photos-35...
* internals: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Internal-Photos/Internal-Photos-35...
edit: I only really know about part 15 as it relates to amateur radio, but I am confused at how this device was certified. The device is noted as being licensed under part 15F, and 15F, § 15.521(b) clearly notes that § 15.203 applies to these devices. Relevant part of 15.203 below:
> An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section.
Clearly from the photos that isn't the case, those connectors are not special in any way and those antennas aren't permanently affixed.
I think that is why this document exists, where they try to say that they're an unintentional radiator: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Attestation-Statements/Part-15B-35...
Which is completely absurd at face value. They're obviously not unintentionally radiating (like a plasma TV, for example) and they're purposefully putting out the signals so that they can detect things, and the fccid site clearly says that they're licensed as a 15F device, not a 15B device.
Can someone explain?
Photos:
* housing and antennas: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/External-Photos/External-Photos-35...
* internals: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Internal-Photos/Internal-Photos-35...
edit: I only really know about part 15 as it relates to amateur radio, but I am confused at how this device was certified. The device is noted as being licensed under part 15F, and 15F, § 15.521(b) clearly notes that § 15.203 applies to these devices. Relevant part of 15.203 below:
> An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section.
Clearly from the photos that isn't the case, those connectors are not special in any way and those antennas aren't permanently affixed.
I think that is why this document exists, where they try to say that they're an unintentional radiator: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Attestation-Statements/Part-15B-35...
Which is completely absurd at face value. They're obviously not unintentionally radiating (like a plasma TV, for example) and they're purposefully putting out the signals so that they can detect things, and the fccid site clearly says that they're licensed as a 15F device, not a 15B device.
Can someone explain?
Interesting questions. Also interesting antenna design. Are the sawtooth-like gaps some kind of filter?
I hope they've done their testing well. Casinos don't get a lot of slack from the public. One single mom with a pacemaker and this could end badly.
If someone really wants to shoot someone else in said casino it's probably because they want to shoot their former boss or whoever got them fired. Being a former employee puts them in a great position to know via the grapevine what the edge cases for the system are. This system is mostly to reassure the overly-worried.
If someone really wants to shoot someone else in said casino it's probably because they want to shoot their former boss or whoever got them fired. Being a former employee puts them in a great position to know via the grapevine what the edge cases for the system are. This system is mostly to reassure the overly-worried.
> This system is mostly to reassure the overly-worried.
I was thinking it might be to lower the cost of their insurance.
I was thinking it might be to lower the cost of their insurance.
So anybody who wants to shoot up the place can be sure to avoid checking in with all their guns in their briefcase.
Can these detect disassembled guns? I doubt they can understand the signature of the sum of parts.
Can these detect disassembled guns? I doubt they can understand the signature of the sum of parts.
> So anybody who wants to shoot up the place can be sure to avoid checking in with all their guns in their briefcase
Yep, all these type of security measures do is harass law abiding people while doing nothing to stop the real threats.
Yep, all these type of security measures do is harass law abiding people while doing nothing to stop the real threats.
> Can these detect disassembled guns?
I was thinking about this - the only part of a gun that must be metal is the barrel and the brass cartridge casing. Those are the first things I'd look for, assuming the system is capable of resolving objects that small.
... and before someone asserts it, yes, there are guns in existence with ceramic barrels, and there are guns in existence that shoot caseless ammunition. Neither are obtainable, and they wouldn't work in combination as one of the primary benefits to using metallic cartridges is that they carry a large amount of the heat away from the barrel when ejected.
I was thinking about this - the only part of a gun that must be metal is the barrel and the brass cartridge casing. Those are the first things I'd look for, assuming the system is capable of resolving objects that small.
... and before someone asserts it, yes, there are guns in existence with ceramic barrels, and there are guns in existence that shoot caseless ammunition. Neither are obtainable, and they wouldn't work in combination as one of the primary benefits to using metallic cartridges is that they carry a large amount of the heat away from the barrel when ejected.
There are a few more parts that have to be made of metal depending on the type of action used by the firearm. At a minimum, you'd also need a metal bolt/breach face (the part that supports the rear of the cartridge) for any type of action. I'm also fairly confident that any springs used (the firing pin/striker/hammer needs one unless you want to fire it with a handheld mallet) in the design would have to be made of metal as well unless there are some composites I'm not aware of that match the properties of spring steel.
Adding that metal to a firearm doesn't add that much mass but those parts would increase the profile of the gun due to their size/shape/area covered in the eyes of a image sorting algorithm.
Adding that metal to a firearm doesn't add that much mass but those parts would increase the profile of the gun due to their size/shape/area covered in the eyes of a image sorting algorithm.
This honestly sounds like snake oil. It’s even got all the requisite buzzwords.