Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#131

Post by [deleted] »

mrandish wrote: post #111
lupusreal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get more bodies per minute into the venue at lower cost while appearing to conduct security checks sufficiently 'real' enough to act as a deterrent Or they just need to convince most of their customers it will be safe to attend, while covering their ass by following "best practices" if something slips through, people get hurt and they get sued.

> convince most of their customers it will be safe to attend Apparently, you've never met my Aunt Sue. She has a graduate degree in innumeracy with a minor in illiteracy and a specialization in worrying about whatever the media tells her to worry about. However, she always votes. More seriously, it's not cost-effective to "convince most customers it will be safe enough to attend." The game theory around fallacious pu…

[deleted]

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#132

Post by lupusreal »

mrandish wrote: post #111
lupusreal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get more bodies per minute into the venue at lower cost while appearing to conduct security checks sufficiently 'real' enough to act as a deterrent Or they just need to convince most of their customers it will be safe to attend, while covering their ass by following "best practices" if something slips through, people get hurt and they get sued.

> convince most of their customers it will be safe to attend Apparently, you've never met my Aunt Sue. She has a graduate degree in innumeracy with a minor in illiteracy and a specialization in worrying about whatever the media tells her to worry about. However, she always votes. More seriously, it's not cost-effective to "convince most customers it will be safe enough to attend." The game theory around fallacious pu…

They don't need to convince most of the public, just enough so they can fill up their venue. There are some Aunt Sues who are too afraid to go to concerts, but concert venues are still able to fill up when they have a popular act so it stands to reason that they're managing public perception of the risk well enough for their own needs.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#133

Post by lesuorac »

ggreer wrote: post #87
too_pricey wrote: post #82

Multiple concert venues in my city use these, so I interact with them all the time. They have replaced standard metal detectors, bag searches, and manual patdowns w/ hands and/or metal-detecting wands. Security checkpoints are the primary point of delay for getting into venues, and places that have rolled these out process people through about 95% faster. It's a huge difference. If it does trigger, you just get the m…

An acceptable false negative rate really depends on the consequences of getting caught. If someone's nefarious plan depends on smuggling a gun in, they want to be confident they won't be arrested or shot at the entrance. Even failing to detect 20% of firearms means there's an 80% chance they'll be caught before they can do whatever it is they plan on doing. This is also why it's important to have armed guards alongsi…

Failing to detect 20% of firearms is probably a really deal. I would bet the majority of findings are just ordinary people who forgot to leave their gun in the car (akin to how TSA used to take grandma's knitting needles away every flight).

So, if your process really only detects people not trying to bypass it and people not even in the wrong then it's a problem.

Although I mean with the long lines at security you might as well just gun everybody down outside the stadium in that nice open area they are all packed into ...

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#134

Post by Zak »

abduhl wrote: post #125
potato3732842 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it can easily be overridden with statute "business owners meeting definition X are only liable in conditions Y"

This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.” No shit.

I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses.

Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to call the police if someone has "too much" luggage. That's paranoid, an invasion of privacy, and unlikely to prevent a future mass murder.

I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything, and I hope that's not a fringe position.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#135

Post by abduhl »

Zak wrote: post #134
abduhl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.” No shit.

I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses. Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to cal…

I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute.

If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post.

And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't have to submit to a search to go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING then you hold a fringe position.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#136

Post by Zak »

abduhl wrote: post #135
Zak wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses. Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to cal…

I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute. If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post. And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't hav…

My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never.

It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; under 8% use metal detectors[0]. That certainly does not mean they're allowed to bring guns, just that they probably won't be discovered if they do.

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#137

Post by giantg2 »

gruez wrote: post #119
giantg2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like maybe the stats were added later in an edit, as I didn't see them. Comparing stats from separate countries is terrible . This has no control for any of the other possible factors associated. Those aren't studies, but just random stats. I at least offered a study. I didn't offer any "flak", but a starting point for you with a source.

>Comparing stats from separate countries is terrible. This has no control for any of the other possible factors associated. Those aren't studies, but just random stats. I at least offered a study. Comparing between countries is "terrible" because "there's no control for any of the other possible factors associated", but the study you offered which also seemingly has no controls is fine... because "starting point"?

You only looked at the abstract. Go look at the study instead of making up claims about lack of controls.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#138

Post by abduhl »

Zak wrote: post #136
abduhl wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute. If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post. And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't hav…

My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never. It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; u…

No, your position is: "I think it would be a good idea to create an explicit carve out in the law saying that there is no premise liability for a property owner or event organizer due to a third party committing a crime." and "I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything."

This means that nobody should be searched when they go anywhere or do anything, and if they aren't and someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever. Searches will not be rare in practice, they will not occur. Airports? Never. Concerts? Never. Hotel rooms? Never. Schools? Never.

And hence we've already established the problem with your position and why it's fringe. Not even you can realistically argue for your own positions without caveats. This is a great example of a motte and bailey fallacy.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#139

Post by Zak »

abduhl wrote: post #138
Zak wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never. It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; u…

No, your position is: "I think it would be a good idea to create an explicit carve out in the law saying that there is no premise liability for a property owner or event organizer due to a third party committing a crime." and "I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything." This means that nobody should be searched when they go anywhere or do anything, and if they aren't and so…

I see the miscommunication now. It's possible to interpret what I wrote as "no places/activities should require searches", but what I meant was "not all places/activities should require searches". That's a bit hyperbolic of course since the resources don't exist to search everyone, everywhere, all the time. There has been an increase in recent years, and I would like it reversed.

I am opposed to premises liability being a motivation for anyone to conduct searches. Liability isn't the reason searches are conducted at airports or courthouses to give a couple examples, so eliminating it would not eliminate those searches. Businesses also might have other motivations, such as making their customers feel safer; if that outweighs customers finding it annoying or offensive, some of those would likely continue.

> someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever.

This does correctly state my position.

Re: FTC orders 'gun detection' tech maker Evolv to stop overstating effectiveness

#140

Post by staticautomatic »

Zak wrote: post #134
abduhl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.” No shit.

I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses. Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to cal…

You say that as if statues are any less ambiguous.
Post reply on HN