LV Hotel plans to scan all guests for weapons

[bignflnut]

This Patscan CMR Microwave Scanning tool scans hotel guest without their knowledge at the time of check-in or anywhere in the hotels using radar in the form microwaves.

The first hotel that is going to be using this technology is The Westgate Las Vegas Resort and Casino. The Westgate opted for this technology because they can scan their customers discreetly without their knowledge. This evasive secret scan isn't an accident, or an overlooked sign in the hotel. According to the Westgate, they want to be able to scan their customers their customers without their consent.

SNIP

The scanning devices are so small that they can be installed at the front check-in desk, in elevators, in walls, or even the doors to the guest rooms. The Patscan CMR devices use the same technology that cars use for parking assistance, but in this case, it is used to violate the privacy of the hotel customers.

One of the selling points that PatriotOne touts is that hotels do not have to ask for consent or even let the hotel guest know that they are being scanned for firearms avoiding issues with a guest who does not want their luggage or person to be examined by the hotel. PatriotOne claims that no ones rights are being violated.

SNIP

PatriotOne Technologies touts the fact that they believe privacy is not an issue since the device will only alert on a possible match. According to PatriotOne Technologies own data, there is a 6.2% false positive rate. This rate might not seem like a lot, but it does lead to privacy concerns for the guest that is taken into custody at gunpoint for a false positive.

According to Mark Waltrip, who is the Chief Operating Officer of Westgate Las Vegas Resort and Casino, the hotel will have a 100% scan rate for all guest at the Westgate. Waltrip states that guest knowing the hotel scans them will take away from the fun of Las Vegas so they will conceal the devices.

Waltrip, who is a concealed weapons holder, claims he supports the second amendment, but at the same time, he told Wired magazine, “I have a concealed carry permit myself. But, you know, on our properties, we want to maintain a safe environment, and we don't need guests bringing weapons on site. We really don't want that kind of surprise.”

I have a permit, BUT, we don't trust our paying guests...or believe that an armed society is safer...so we're going to create a CPZ...encouraging others in our industry to follow suit...

[WY_Not]

Everything before but is BS.

Waltrip, who is a concealed weapons holder, claims he supports the second amendment, but at the same time, he told Wired magazine, “I have a concealed carry permit myself. But, you know, on our properties, we want to maintain a safe environment, and we don't need guests bringing weapons on site. We really don't want that kind of surprise.”

[bignflnut]

From the Wired article...

Creepy? Sure. But a system like PatriotOne's could be the ideal security solution for a destination like Las Vegas, where resorts find themselves in the unenviable position of ensuring the safety of their guests, while also stoking an ambiance of freedom, excess, and—as the city so famously advertises—unaccountability.

"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," Waltrip says. "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." From an atmospheric standpoint, an overt security presence is the opposite of excitement, impunity, and dubious deeds. It's a 10 o'clock curfew. It's the chaperones at prom.

That's not to say venues in Vegas don't take safety seriously. On the contrary, most have no qualms prioritizing it over local laws. Nevada is an open-carry state, and with a permit it's perfectly legal to hide a weapon on or near your person. Yet most resorts don't allow guns on their premises. "I believe in people's right to bear arms," Waltrip says. "I have a concealed carry permit myself. But,...

Here we go again with a property owner attempting to chill an unalienable right. Negative rights are not contradictory. The property owner philosophically cannot restrict the possession of property on a person. He would then claim a positive right requiring individuals to disarm while on his property.

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.

But when the conceptual perversion known as positive rights becomes the guiding principle of a polity, the state cannot govern by anything like the consistent standards that emerge from the theory of negative rights. The alleged positive rights of the citizenry must clash constantly. To the extent one person is conscripted to serve another, he can no longer serve his own purposes, nor, indeed, even the purposes of many others, given the scarcity of the time and skills to which others are supposedly naturally entitled. There is no principle implicit in the doctrine of positive rights that can resolve the conflicts. But positive rights conflict most of all with our basic negative rights to life, liberty, and property.

Guided by such a doctrine, governments cannot merely protect our rights. They must positively pit some rights against others. Instead of simply “securing these rights,” they must scrounge for some additional standard to tell which and whose rights should get protection. Since no intelligible such standard is available, the situation collapses into one of rule not by objective law but by subjective men—men who will decide which rights need protection, and which do not, on a shifting case-by-case basis. Perhaps the ascendant pressure group of the moment will carry the day, or perhaps the latest opinion polls. In practice, the working principle is: “You have a right to whatever you can get away with,” the same consideration governing any plain criminal.

[djthomas]

Yeah. Sure. I want to walk around and sleep in a place that is continually irradiating my junk with microwave signals at unannounced points. Xrays at the doctors office and airport scanners are "safe" because the exposure time is so limited.

At the police station we had to slap an OSHA approved FCC warning sticker on the door to the room where the radio equipment is housed. With the new MARCS system it's just 700 MHz UHF and never putting out more than five watts. The antenna is up on the roof but the room is too dangerous to be occupied for any length of time.

However in a hotel it's apparently perfectly safe to install this in a guest room door using far more dangerous microwave signals. The good news is nobody will stab me in the hotel with their pocket knife. But I might get shot on the sidewalk out front and/or get cancer and/or have reproductive issues down the line. GT*O.

[WY_Not]

Wow, what a load of BS. Property owner has every right to determine how his property will be used and what the conditions must be met before others use his property. Doesn't mean I agree with his choice of terms but I am free to accept or reject those terms. I'm even free to try and negotiate alternate terms. As for the Westgate property owner not telling guests about the scans, that should be considered an invasion of privacy and an assault.

[bignflnut]

Wow, what a load of BS. Property owner has every right to determine how his property will be used and what the conditions must be met before others use his property. Doesn't mean I agree with his choice of terms but I am free to accept or reject those terms. I'm even free to try and negotiate alternate terms. As for the Westgate property owner not telling guests about the scans, that should be considered an invasion of privacy and an assault.

Why is the Right to Privacy retained by the patrons or potential patrons? Why is said Right to Privacy > RKBA in this instance? Are they not co-equal at least (RKBA being spelled out in 2nd Amendment, Privacy not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution at all)?

According to your thinking, what restricts the property owner from determining "how his property will be used and what the conditions must be met before others use his property. ", regarding Privacy (or assault, for that matter)?

Of course you're correct to say that the Right to Privacy is important and should not be violated, even by a property owner, on his own property. But RKBA seems to be the part you're calling BS.

Stated differently, if property owners can nullify RKBA on their property, why can they not similarly nullify any Right to Privacy
Thank you for clarifying.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Yeah. Sure. I want to walk around and sleep in a place that is continually irradiating my junk with microwave signals at unannounced points. Xrays at the doctors office and airport scanners are "safe" because the exposure time is so limited.

Think about the front desk employees' exposure risk. Hotels that use this are going to get clobbered with lawsuits down the road.

[djthomas]

Think about the front desk employees' exposure risk.

There's a reason my hygienist steps out of the room when she takes my yearly dental x-rays. And, no, it's not because the cord will reach and she wants to BS with the girl one room over.

Hotels that use this are going to get clobbered with lawsuits down the road.

But, but, the vendor assured us it was safe! Sue them too! Oh, we tried, but they got bought out by some Chinese concern five years ago. They have no assets in the US to speak of.

[WY_Not]

No, I'm saying that the patron's rights are violated by not being given a chance to either consent to the search and be granted entrance/use of the private property or refuse consent and go elsewhere. But then I'm pretty sure you knew the answer before you asked.

Wow, what a load of BS. Property owner has every right to determine how his property will be used and what the conditions must be met before others use his property. Doesn't mean I agree with his choice of terms but I am free to accept or reject those terms. I'm even free to try and negotiate alternate terms. As for the Westgate property owner not telling guests about the scans, that should be considered an invasion of privacy and an assault.

Why is the Right to Privacy retained by the patrons or potential patrons? Why is said Right to Privacy > RKBA in this instance? Are they not co-equal at least (RKBA being spelled out in 2nd Amendment, Privacy not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution at all)?

According to your thinking, what restricts the property owner from determining "how his property will be used and what the conditions must be met before others use his property. ", regarding Privacy (or assault, for that matter)?

Of course you're correct to say that the Right to Privacy is important and should not be violated, even by a property owner, on his own property. But RKBA seems to be the part you're calling BS.

Stated differently, if property owners can nullify RKBA on their property, why can they not similarly nullify any Right to Privacy
Thank you for clarifying.

[bignflnut]

No, I'm saying that the patron's rights are violated by not being given a chance to either consent to the search and be granted entrance/use of the private property or refuse consent and go elsewhere.

So he didn't put a sign on the door indicating that the Right to Privacy was going to be violated if the person entered the property, but if a sign was posted, it would be palatable?

There's an opportunity for the budding graphic artist: Create a Right to Privacy Buster Sign! (Maybe a spyglass?)

[JediSkipdogg]

No, I'm saying that the patron's rights are violated by not being given a chance to either consent to the search and be granted entrance/use of the private property or refuse consent and go elsewhere.

So he didn't put a sign on the door indicating that the Right to Privacy was going to be violated if the person entered the property, but if a sign was posted, it would be palatable?

There's an opportunity for the budding graphic artist: Create a Right to Privacy Buster Sign! (Maybe a spyglass?)

I'm sure it will be in the rules of conduct. Ever seen those posted in a casino? Nope, neither have I but they are held pretty high and followed by hotel staff and police when needed and hold their weight.

[TJW815]

I swear they must have been using something like this at the Wright State University Nutter Center. We went to see monster jam, as we approached the entrance a OSHP trooper was waiting for me and asked me to check my psocket knife.

It wasn’t visible and I certainly wasn’t printing. He knew I had it long before I made it to the door. Freaked me out a bit.

[WY_Not]

It would be palatable with respect that a person has the right to go elsewhere before being assaulted/irradiated.

No, I'm saying that the patron's rights are violated by not being given a chance to either consent to the search and be granted entrance/use of the private property or refuse consent and go elsewhere.

So he didn't put a sign on the door indicating that the Right to Privacy was going to be violated if the person entered the property, but if a sign was posted, it would be palatable?

There's an opportunity for the budding graphic artist: Create a Right to Privacy Buster Sign! (Maybe a spyglass?)