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

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by idontwantthis »

Aeolun wrote: post #88
idontwantthis wrote: post #20

Clark County School District recently signed a $5 million contract with a different AI “Weapon Detection System”. There is no way any of them are real is there? Edit: CCSD uses Remark. Maybe their AI actually knows what a person walking with a gun somewhere on their body looks like in all situations and for all skin colors.

There’s definitely some form of filtering you can apply to metal detector results to make a relatively good guess on whether it’s a false positive or not. Just need to train it with a variety of hidden and unhidden items. I kinda like the idea of a team of test people hiding their weapons everywhere and then taking multiple trips through the thing just to teach it.

It’s not a metal detector it’s optical. What does a person with a pistol strapped to their inner thigh walk like? Or a knife? There is no possible way to detect that visually.

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

#92

Post by mlyle »

mrandish wrote: post #89
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…

> 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. I assume expediting peak crowd throughput at low labor cost is the primary, if not entire, value of the device. I hate that it's being marketed dishonestly but I also assume most concert venue buyers know (or suspect) it probably doesn't…

I don't know anything about the devices that are being sold, but it doesn't seem impossible to me that with better signal processing from a metal detector, you could reduce false positives a bit while maintaining or slightly improving the false negative rate.

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

#93

Post by lupusreal »

mrandish wrote: post #89
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…

> 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. I assume expediting peak crowd throughput at low labor cost is the primary, if not entire, value of the device. I hate that it's being marketed dishonestly but I also assume most concert venue buyers know (or suspect) it probably doesn't…

> 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.

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

#94

Post by mrandish »

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…

The TSA's own security tests clearly show a significant percentage of guns, knives and explosives regularly get through. This is further confirmed by the number of travelers who, after arriving, discover the handgun they accidentally left in some pouch in their suitcase that was never detected.

> There doesn't seem to be the equivalent of Consumer Reports or Underwriters Labs for scanners. My guess is that the numbers must be pretty bad if companies aren't willing to go through public 3rd party testing.

Of course they are but the main reason there's no publicly available objective testing isn't only that sellers don't want it. In reality, no stakeholder in the security market wants it. The vast majority of high-volume public security like airports, concerts and sporting events is largely unnecessary and mostly ineffective but our current political/media environment requires appearing to "do something" to "make it safe". The Vice-President of "Make it (Seem) Safe" knows that their shareholders, politicians and the public aren't willing to pay more or be even more inconvenienced than they already are for 800% better "Make it (Seem) Safe"-ness.

Metaphorically speaking, the tiger repellent is working just fine, thank you. Those truly worried about tiger attacks feel safer and those being well-paid for preventing tiger attacks can claim virtually 100% effectiveness. So, if you start the world's best Tiger Repellent Testing Laboratory, you'll find a shocking lack of interest in buying your test data from both sellers and buyers in this brisk, profitable and growing market. Much like the lack of interest in objective testing data for lie detectors, astrology readings and placebo pills. The smaller minority of customers actually willing to pay more for improved detection (like Tel Aviv airport), do their own in-context performance testing anyway. In fact, a good proxy for doing your own effectiveness testing is available for free. Just look at what those under constant active threat with real consequences actually pay for and do.

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

#95

Post by LordDragonfang »

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…

>TSA isn't great on their false positive rate, does more intense screening, and isn't being staffed by hungover 20-somethings. So maybe the false negative rate didn't actually increase by much?

TSA is abysmal on the false negative rate for things that actually matter. The FNR for actual weapons and explosives is somewhere between 80 and 95%[1]. It's because they waste all of their attention looking for nail clippers and water bottles.

Even an FNR of 50% would be a massive improvement.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...

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

#96

Post by dawnerd »

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…

Theme parks are switching to these too and it's oh so much nicer to just walk through and if you're unlucky having your bag searched.

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

#98

Post by Zak »

mrandish wrote: post #89
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…

> 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. I assume expediting peak crowd throughput at low labor cost is the primary, if not entire, value of the device. I hate that it's being marketed dishonestly but I also assume most concert venue buyers know (or suspect) it probably doesn't…

> The only hard and fast requirement is meeting the contractual security requirements of the venue and promoter's insurance carriers

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.

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

#99

Post by yonaguska »

mrandish wrote: post #94
ggreer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The TSA's own security tests clearly show a significant percentage of guns, knives and explosives regularly get through. This is further confirmed by the number of travelers who, after arriving, discover the handgun they accidentally left in some pouch in their suitcase that was never detected. > There doesn't seem to be the equivalent of Consumer Reports or Underwriters Labs for scanners. My guess is that the number…

I unknowingly transported ammo both to and from Mexico. I used an old backpack that I had previously used as a range bag from years ago. I ended up finding several 223 rounds in Mexico, then when I got back, even more 22lr.

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

#100

Post by roamerz »

SoftTalker wrote: post #67
ceejayoz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting#Timelin... 11:30am: First 911 call. 11:31am: Officer arrives at school. One minute police response time, by your metric. ~80 minutes later, the ~400 very well armed cops on scene managed to finally go in.

Well the "good guy with a gun" argument presumes the good guy is willing to use his gun and probably risk his own life doing it. This would happen more easily if he's already inside and under direct threat by the bad guy(s). A cop outside is not obligated or expected to put his own life at risk. He's expected to show up for work tomorrow.

Yup agree 100% with the first statement.

I do not agree with the second at all. Law Enforcement are both obligated and expected to put their own life at risk protecting the public. That said they are also expected to show up for work tomorrow! It’s a sad day when they don’t.

Post reply on HN