Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday August 16 2018, @07:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the opt-out-of-your-commute-and-job dept.

Submitted via IRC for Fnord666

LA to become the first city to use body scanners in rail transit systems

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority just announced its plans to become the first city to use portable body scanners in its subway and light-rail systems to help detect the presence of explosive devices.

"We're dealing with persistent threats to our transportation systems in our country," TSA administrator David Pekoske in a statement. "Our job is to ensure security in the transportation systems so that a terrorist incident does not happen on our watch."

The portable scanners will begin rolling out in a few months, the executive director of security for the LA Metro Alex Wiggins said yesterday. According to the AP, the scanners will be able to conduct full-body scans from 30 feet away and are capable of scanning more than 2,000 passengers per hour.

[...] The city is one of several in which the TSA has piloted these new body scanners, although LA will be the first to fully adopt them. The agency has also worked with public transit officials from San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit, New Jersey's transit system, as well as Amtrak stations at New York's Penn Station and DC's Union Station. Wiggins assured passengers that screenings in the LA Metro would be well-marked and that those choosing to opt out could do so by leaving the station.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:19PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:19PM (#722475)

    Tax-funded operations are fundamentally non-capitalist.

    The problem is not capitalism, but rather government; it is not the case that capitalists corrupt government, but rather it is the case that government corrupts capitalists.

    If your income depends on taking resources from people at the point of a gun (e.g., taxation), then you are NOT a capitalist.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Redundant=2, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:51PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:51PM (#722506)

    "Tax-funded operations are fundamentally non-capitalist."
    Bullshit. It does not matter where the money comes from.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @09:14PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @09:14PM (#722515)

      Capitalism is the philosophy that every disputed resource should be assigned a well-defined owner (so as end disputes); when a resource has an owner, then that resource is considered the owner's "capital", and ownership must change only according to voluntary agreement.

      If you can point a gun at someone and then just decree that a resource is now yours, then that means there is actually no such thing as ownership; capitalism doesn't allow for taxation—capitalism doesn't allow for a government, and requires "do as we previously agreed" cooperation rather than "do as I say" coercion.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @12:09AM (#722608)
        And once you have somehow gotten ownership of something, who the hell is going to ENFORCE your ownership of the said thing? Who the hell is going to force anyone to abide by the terms of ANY "voluntary agreement"? If I have bigger guns than you, I am just going to laugh and then blow your brains out when you come by to tell me to "do as we previously agreed". I will do whatever advances MY interests, and if there is nothing to stop me from using any means necessary to do so, then I can enforce "do as I say" coercion whether you like it or not! Don't like it? Eat a bullet! The only way ownership of any disputed resource can be indisputably assigned a well-defined owner is by the barrel of a gun. Now, would you rather have that gun in the hands of a well-defined entity somewhat answerable to those under it (i.e. a government), or dispersed here and there and everywhere? There are ongoing experiments in the latter in various places around the world. Please move to Mogadishu if you feel that is preferable.
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @12:26AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @12:26AM (#722613)
          • Capitalism is a philosophy; you can look at an aspect of society and say whether or not it adheres to capitalism—government doesn't adhere, and thus proponents of capitalism are compelled to look for alternatives to government.

          • Clearly, there's a market for enforcement.

            It is in the interest of a capitalist to fund some means of enforcement, but why should there be a monopoly on enforcement? Indeed, the most robust separation of powers is competition among service providers.

          • Queen Elizabeth I didn't want to assassinate Mary (Queen of Scots), because it would set a precedent for monarchs assassinating each other and thereby undermine her own monarchy.

            Similarly, it is naturally in the interest of a capitalist to abide by agreements, because to breach an agreement is to undermine one's own property rights.

            Furthermore, the best kind of contract is one that specifies the rules for [practically] every case; under such a contract, it is not possible to breach it, because each case (and the subsequent enforcement interactions that it compels) have been agreed upon.

          • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:33AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:33AM (#722655)

            It is in the interest of a capitalist to fund some means of enforcement, but why should there be a monopoly on enforcement? Indeed, the most robust separation of powers is competition among service providers.

            You know that very idea is being tried as we speak in a place on the horn of Africa called Somalia. I wonder how well that "robust separation of powers" is working out for them.

            And again, what are these "property rights" of which you speak? Property rights are completely unnatural, and can only exist if there is force imposed to enforce them. Again, if I have bigger guns than you, I'll just blow your brains out and take what you thought of as your "property". I can breach any agreement I like if I have enough force at my disposal, and how on earth would that undermine my "property rights"? It would rather strengthen them, because I gain access to more resources and get stronger that way!

            Any contract can be breached by guns. The one case that your contract can never cover is what happens when I put a bullet in your brain.

            • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:43AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:43AM (#722660)

              Furthermore, the warlords that emerged from the already authoritarian culture are just forms of government—they are certainly not adherents of Capitalism.

              That being said, it is competition among those warlords that has kept them in check, and the collapse of the communist State has given way to the rise of old systems of quasi-capitalist trade, the results of which have been an astonishing improvement in the quality of life, even compared to the situations in neighboring countries where there have been more "stable" States.