[heyitsstanley]

"the shooting excuse" implies that the hotels have some ulterior motive for wanting to enter rooms at least once per 24 hours?

what motive would they have that is so important that they insist on spending money on low skill headcount to enter thousands of rooms per day?

honestly i'm struggling to sort out what scheme they're running that makes this headcount investment worthwhile.

[ryandrake]

> what motive would they have that is so important that they insist on spending money on low skill headcount to enter thousands of rooms per day?

The motivation could merely be a desire to capriciously wield power over others. You see this in physical security careers from mall security up to actual law enforcement. Plenty of people get into these security-related roles simply for the ability to unaccountably bully and intimidate others, and will eagerly do so if given the chance, regardless of monetary cost or reward. I wouldn't be surprised if a hotel security apparatus were in favor of being allowed to enter rooms at will just because they want to.

[wkat4242]

> what motive would they have that is so important that they insist on spending money on low skill headcount to enter thousands of rooms per day?

95% of these rooms are being cleaned anyway by low-wage staff. The added 5% is such a small percentage.

But the shooting excuse is an excuse because they're not even liable for this. Any idiot can do the same from their private apartment. A mass shooter has no survival expectancy anyway. They can just rent a private flat and do it. Or they can just rent a room, bring their guns in and start shooting during the first day. It doesn't actually solve the problem at all. Only 24/7 video surveillance would do that which is obviously untenable in a hotel. Or strict gun controls which is why this isn't a problem in Europe but the US just can't get that into their heads.

The other reason I consider it an excuse is that in this case they are not causing hassle about firearms but about technical devices. Nothing to do with shootings at all. If the motive was purely looking for guns they wouldn't be harrassing unarmed defcon visitors.

I don't think they actually care about shootings but that it's dumb security theater to make customers feel safer which they probably see as a monetary benefit.

Knowing this now I definitely will refuse to visit Vegas even if my company tries to send me there on a business trip. Although to be fair I kinda have this policy already for the entire US because I'm not willing to give up my devices or my social media accounts to border patrol either.

[lotsofpulp]

> But the shooting excuse is an excuse because they're not even liable for this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/court-approves-800m-set...

> A court on Wednesday approved a settlement totaling $800 million from casino company MGM Resorts International and its insurers to more than 4,400 relatives and victims of the Las Vegas Strip shooting that was the deadliest in recent U.S. history.

[wkat4242]

A settlement is not admission of liability. It's done to avoid a determination on this. But I think it's ridiculous that they even tried to sue the venue.

[lotsofpulp]

Some knowledgeable lawyers must have concluded that there is a likelihood of some liability (whether rightly or wrongly) to result in willingly parting with $800M. So in practice, there is liability.

[tbrownaw]

Or that the court case would end up costing that much, or that staying in the news because of the court case would end up costing that much. There's plenty of costs besides just what the actual judgement might end up being.

[lotsofpulp]

In the context of this discussion, there is no reason to distinguish liability from the judgment itself, or liability from legal costs of preventing the judgement.

The liability in this context is money leaving the business’s pocket due to performing or not performing X action, regardless of who the money goes to.

[m4rtink]

Finding dirt for blackmail ? :)