Old school airport screening is probably best, put the stuff on a belt and walk thru standard metal detector and pick up the stuff on the other side.
Students Protest Long Evolv Lines After Stabbing
Published Mar 18, 2024 14:24 PM
While Evolv sold schools on "long lines" being eliminated, one Evolv school customer is facing controversy amidst protests over long lines.
This underscores a critical problem for Evolv as the company struggles to deliver both the security and the convenience it sold these school customers.
In particular, knives are a growing problem for Evolv:
- How Evolv Can Stop Missing Knives
- Evolv "Not The Correct Solution For Schools" Says Superintendent After Stabbing
- Sued Over Student Stabbing: Evolv, Integrator, and School
- Integrator Blames Stabbing Victim and Evolv In School Lawsuit
This note explains what is happening at this school and why this reveals a critical growing problem for Evolv and its customers.
Long ***** ** ** **********
*********** **** ***** *** **** ******* to *****'* *********, ************ ************ *** *******. *** ********, *****'******* ****** **** **** **** ********:
***** ******* ****************® ***not ***** *********, students do *** **** to break their stride or stand ** **** ***** due to false alarms that lead to unnecessary bag checks. [emphasis added]
******, **** *****, ***** ** ********* the *** *** ************* **,***** ********** ***** ******* *** ******** ****** ** long *****:
***** ***** ****** "*** *** ********," *********** *** ******** "** ******... need ** ***** ** **** *****":
Students ******* ***** ***** *********** ******* ********
******** ** ******** **** ******* (***) are ******* *****-******* ******** **** **** lines ********* ** *** ********'* ******** to ***** *** ***** *********' ***********,********* ** ***** ********* **.
*** ********** *** ********** ********, "*** make ** ****; *** **** ** late!" *** ****** "***** **** *******, phone ********, *** *********" *** ******* false ******:
****** ********* ***** ****** **** ***** ** *** ** class:
*** ********, **, ***************** $* ********* ***** ********* ** ******** ****. The ********* *****,* ******* *** ********* * *** ******, ****** *********** never ********* *** *** ***** ******* the ******.
District ***** "****** *******" ********
********** ** ****, *** ******** ******* to *** **** *********** ******* ** uses *** ****** ******. ******* ***** problems **** **** *****, *** **** us ** "**** *** **** *** challenges":
*** ********'* ****** *** ******** ****** does *** **** *** ********** **** the ******; **'* ********** *** *******: detecting *******. ** *** **** ******* questions ***** *** ******, *** ****** contact *****.
******** ******* **** *** ******* *** ******, "* ****** ******* ** ** blame *** *** *****" ** **** Evolv ********* "**** ******* **** **** they ******."
****** **** ***** ***** ****** ***** at ******* *, ***** ** *** of *** **** ********* *** *****, ranging **** * (*****) ** * (most *********). *******, ** ******* **** is *** *******, ** *****'* **** interface ******* ********** *********** ******** **** year. **** ******* **** ***** ** now ***** **** **** ********* * or* ********, ********** **** ********* *****.
***** *** ******** ******** "***** *** not * ******** ******** **** ********" the *********** ********, **** ***** ****** weapons ** ***** *********** ******** ** becoming **** ****** ********** ******* ******* **************** *** *********.
*** ***** *** ******** ** ***, the ******** *** ** ****** ** able ** ******* ***** ** ***** sensitivity ******* ***** ******* ** ********* prioritizing ******* *********** **** ********* ******. Another ***** ****** ******** ******** ** being**** ** * ******* *** *** stabbed** * ***** **** **** **********.
School ***** ******* ********* *.*. ********** ********
*** **** ***** ** *** ****** the ********* *** ***** **** ********* cannot ****** ******* ******* **** ***** knives.** ***** ****** ****, *** ****** ** ************* ********** to ****** ***** ****** ** *********** settings **** **** ***** ****** *** common ****** ** *******—********** *********** ** detect **** ******* ** ***** ********** and **** *****, ** ** ********.
*** ******* *** ***** ** **** erodes *** ***** *********** ***** *** ******* ***** ********, ********* *** ******** "************" ********** that ********* *** *****-******* ****** *********. Unless *******, ********, *** ***** ******* will ****** ******* *******, ** ****** questions ***** *** ******* ***** ***** or **** ***** *****.
Freshman *******/****** ** ***** ****** ******** **** *****
***** *** ******** ** *** **** been ********** *****, ********** ** "***** half * ***** ********" ** ******** below, *** ******* ******* **** *** spoken ************ ** *** ***** ** the *****.
****** *********, * **** ****** ********, expressed *********** **** "******* ***" ** education **** * ******** ******* **** she ******* "****** ***'* ***** ****." She **** **** *** ** *****, classes *** "*********** *****" **** ***** is ********* ** *****, *** ***** the ******** ** "**** ***** ****."
* ********** **** ** ********* ** be ******, ****** ********* ** **, and **’** ******* *** ** ** because ** *** ******** ******* ****’* meant ** **** **, *** ** really ***’* ***** **** *** **...** the **** *** *** **** **** classroom, ***’** ****** ** **** *** it’s *********** *****, ** ***’** **** and **’* ***** ****** *****, ******* there *** ***** ****** ****** *** trying ** *** **** *** ********. When * ***** ** * *** around ** ******* *******, *** ***** was ***** ***** **** ***** **** came ***** **...**’** ****** *** ******** to * ***** **** ***** **** and **** *** **** ** **** a ****** ***. ** ***** ** making ** ********** *****, *** ******** and ***********, **’* ****** **** ******* us.
*** ******, ****** *********, *** ****** the ******** *** ****** ******* **** Evolv ** ******** ******** * ******** risk ******* ** *** **** *****:
****** *** *** ******** **** *******, they’re *********** *******, *** ** ** the *** ** ***** ******** *******, you *** ****** ******* **** ** a ***** ***** **** ***’* ******* themselves.
***** ********* **** ****"****-****** *****" ****** ********* "**** *******"*** ****"*** ****** ******* **** *** ********** they *** ******** ** * **** outside *** ******** *********."
*******, **** ****** ************ * ********* facing *****. ** ** ********* *** sensitivity ** ****** ******* ***** *******, it ********** *** **** ***** **** it *** **** *******, *** ** it **** *** ******** ***********, *** risk ** ***** ******* ******* **** schools *****, *** *** ****** ** stabbing, ********, ** *****.
Comments (9)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Mar 18, 2024UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Mar 18, 2024I think some of the reporting from this article brings into focus the most important part of the discussion around Evolv, namely the cost/benefits it might provide over a metal detector.
Evolv does a poor job with marketing and executive statements, but at least from the integrator side, they communicate their limitations quite clearly.
It's clear enough that for a customer looking to mainly catch the types of firearms involved in a mass shooting, I could see a throughput benefit that might justify the cost.
When talking about some of the smaller firearms and knives however it's immediately clear to me Evolv provides little benefit over that of a metal detector using a similar setting. Both of those will have a larger amount of false positives as well as require some kind of divestment and screening strategy as pertains to backpacks and other bags.
CH
Conor Healy
Mar 18, 2024It's clear enough that for a customer looking to mainly catch the types of firearms involved in a mass shooting, I could see a throughput benefit that might justify the cost.
Like an AR-15 that a student is hiding under their trenchcoat? What firearms are you referring to?
With larger firearms, you typically don't need a detector because 1) they are brandishing them and 2) the shooter typically starts shooting right when they walk in, at least in highly publicised cases. The detector is neither helping nor deterring in those situations.
Ethan Crumbley did commit a shooting after already entering school, but it was with a 9mm handgun.
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Mar 18, 2024Conor, the most commonly used firearm in mass shootings is a semi-automatic handgun. The Crumbley shooting is a perfect example of something that might have been prevented by weapon screening.
Just like anywhere in security, there's no one magic solution. You need a set of layers and as you point out, you need a different solution to mitigate the long gun shooter vs someone looking to smuggle a gun into the school. A proper risk driven strategy is going to have multiple layers including some that have nothing to do with detection or response, because as our friends at the K-12 shooter database have pointed out, most events actually happen outside of the school where there is no screening.
My original point though, was if a school was only looking to screen for the types of guns commonly used in mass shootings, Evolv might have the throughput and features that can justify spending on that technology vs a traditional metal detector.
If the school really wanted to catch knives or other weapons (which many do), I would recommend a traditional metal detector as I think any possible advantage Evolv has pretty much evaporates.
CH
Conor Healy
Mar 18, 2024We can disagree about how much value Evolv offers here but, as you said in your other comment, since Evolv withholds specifics and refuses 3rd party testing it is difficult to quantify these things and we might not get much further.
But I'm interested in hearing more about your perspective on this point:
Just like anywhere in security, there's no one magic solution. You need a set of layers and as you point out, you need a different solution to mitigate the long gun shooter vs someone looking to smuggle a gun into the school. A proper risk driven strategy is going to have multiple layers including some that have nothing to do with detection or response, because as our friends at the K-12 shooter database have pointed out, most events actually happen outside of the school where there is no screening.
I hear this argument about layered solutions a lot, in particular from Evolv. I suppose it's obviously true that your security plan should rely on more than one strategy, but why is that relevant? It seems like it is typically deployed in a "hand-wavy" way to avoid straightforward discussion of whether something works or not, and often seems irrelevant. It reminds me a lot of how alternative medicine sellers respond when asked difficult questions about how exactly their remedies work/help. Any thoughts on this?
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Mar 19, 2024Conor,
If by discussion of whether something works or not, you mean from a functionality standpoint, then yes it's straightforward. Any mention of layered security shouldn't factor into that discussion, as the product either works as described or doesn't.
It's up to whoever is responsible for designing the security strategy to assess whether additional layers or components are needed based on the specific risks and threats that the site might see.
Going back to my response, in my case I was referring to layered security with the idea that in addition to weapons screening, the school would put in place a program to observe anyone approaching an entrance with the goal of detecting a visible weapon. These two layers complement each other rather than compensate for any functional failures they might have.
JH
John Honovich
Mar 18, 2024It's clear enough that for a customer looking to mainly catch the types of firearms involved in a mass shooting, I could see a throughput benefit that might justify the cost.
Worth emphasizing here: we bought and tested commonly used metal detectors and found that they could deliver similar performance to Evolv at 90% lower cost, by adjusting the sensitivity levels of metal detectors.
See: How Metal Detectors Can Perform Like Evolv At 90% Lower Price and Tuning and Optimizing CEIA and Garrett Metal Detectors Tested
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Mar 18, 2024John,
Having read/watched those reports in the past, I'm aware that metal detectors can be tuned to reduce false positives.
However the reasons I added "might justify the cost" are:
1. As your article mentions, Evolv does provide images approximating where on the person the detected item might be located, like the gumby person you get when you go through a TSA scanner. It can be argued that this will speed up the secondary screening process since the security officers know where to look.
2. I would argue that while your testing demonstrates that metal detectors could be tuned to reduce their false positive rate. Unfortunately, as your article points out, without access to an Evolv system you only have previous reporting on "trouble objects" from a given point in time. As such the conclusions from that reporting represents more of an educated guess than anything concrete.
Also, while understanding the false positive rate is important, ultimately it is the effective throughput that is the most important metric for a customer, as that determines if you're going to get a line or not.
Ultimately, we're going to be debating this until Evolv allows one of its units to be a part of an unimpeachable 3rd party test where metrics like false positive, throughput and staffing levels are a part of the numbers generated. Absent that, it's nearly impossible for a customer to perform an objective cost-benefit analysis to justify the deployment of Evolv.
U
Undisclosed #3
Mar 19, 2024The protestors are reportedly chanting, "You make us wait; you make us late!"
rhyming group chants are the lowest form of human communication.
I would have much more respect for them in they chanted in haiku:
emperors new clothes
security theater
zero real value