Products Seek Antiterrorism Certification

Makarand writes "According to ABCNews/Forbes, businesses with antiterrorism products for which they are unable to find insurers to provide liability coverage are lining up to seek the Homeland Security Department's seal of approval. Products certified as antiterrorism products enjoy some protection from liability suits and an official 'seal of approval', making them easier to sell. The Department has started accepting applications for certification, many likely to come from technology companies such as Qualcomm, Unisys, and others, starting Sept. 1."

Comments

Seal of Removel?

[Gr33nNight]

So, if an app has the Holy Seal, it is trustworthy? Going to have interesting repercussions if said software gets hacked into, or a major exploit is found...or will they label that as an act of terrorism (since with The Seal, the software can not be liable.)

Re:Seal of Removel?

[Jeremi]

So, if an app has the Holy Seal, it is trustworthy?

Quite the opposite, I would think. If the product has the Holy Seal, that means the vendor knew the product has potential to cause major harm and took steps to cover itself from liability suits. Therefore, if you see a product with the seal on it, run like hell.

Good Lord

[Vokbain]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Americans are crazy. Reminds me of when people were buying parachutes in case they had to jump out of office towers. The chances of anything happening to 99.99% of the American population is 0. Not a bad scam though.

Re:Good Lord

[GigsVT]

There's a difference between crazy and prepared though.

It's easy to make fun of some of the more extreme stuff, but I wonder how much of it comes from the need to rationalize a total lack of preparation for anything bad, because preparation means you have to admit to yourself that something could happen, rather than living in ignorant denial.

The "terrorist threat" has been used by lots of people with lots of agendas. Fear is a good way to control people. At the same time, the interesting dynamic comes from the fact that the ones who fear the most, are usually the most ill-prepared for realistic threats to safety. Their fear runs so deep that they can't admit to themselves that there really may be a threat. Confidence comes from rational preparation.

The chances of any one particular thing happening to one particular person is pretty low. There's an interesting statistical game here though. It's similar to the birthday problem. Basically, though the chance of any particular thing happening to you is miniscule, the chance of something happening to you is high, because there are so many weird things that can happen to you.

Tornados, hurricanes, flash floods, earthquakes, acts of terror, random criminal acts, terminal communicable diseases... There are many freak things that can happen to a person, and at some point, one of the "rare" things will probably happen to you. The chance of each is slight, but one can't ignore them.

Luckily the way to prepare for many of them is the same. Extra food, water, personal defense, a shelter or at least a reinforced area. It's more irrational not to do basic things to prepare, than to do them.

On the other hand, most of the things needed to prepare are basic, not fancy gizmos. Security and preparation doesn't have to constantly have the word "terrorism" after it to justify it.

Don't be afraid, be prepared.

Re:Good Lord

[isaac]

Confidence comes from rational preparation.

You really should look at David Dunning's research at Cornell, which suggests the opposite may be true in most cases. His study on showing that people who are least competent are most unaware of their own incompetence was widely reported a few years back.

-Isaac

Re:Good Lord

[ergo98]

"...but I wonder how much of it comes from the need to rationalize a total lack of preparation for anything bad"

Right on the money. When I was a teen I worked in a factory during the summer, and my job was putting fiberglass inserts into some automotive part and then pressing some steel parts together using a huge, very loud press. The company, by law, offered air filters and ear plugs but literally no-one used them. Not being a follower, I opted to avoid lung cancer and hearing loss and used both. What I discovered was that taking precautions like these was actually scorned and belittled for taking these precautions, and the natural conclusions is that my self-preservation made real the vulnerabilities of others, and in a classic case of denial, they'd rather pretend that the threat didn't exist than deal with it, and somehow my reminding them of their frailties made it somehow more real.

Very similar to that happened in the recent Toronto SARS scare: The media and the general public actually scorned people who took to wearing masks -- Big bloody deal! So people wore a mask -- how does this make other people less healthy? If anything, the masks could help reduce the transmissions of regular ailments like the flu and the cold, so they're almost doing a public service, but you wouldn't think that hearing the way the media and public belittled those who took to pursuing that precaution.

Re:Good Lord

[B3ryllium]

Someone else on Slashdot once pointed out similar ignorance on the part of the media when anything radioactive is concerned.

I mean, when was the last time you heard of something radioactive, with a definitive number attached to it? How do media reports skew the public and instill fear by simply leaving out the true numbers and lumping everything under the single term "radioactive"?

How often to people ask their dentist how much radiation they are exposed to during X-Rays?

hmmmmm

[rnd()]

Only one comment after the privileged Slashdot Subscribers have had their say? That tells me that there are about 3 subscribers!

Anyway... as a libertarian, I prefer certification to licensure. Certification toward the goal of anti-terrorism will likely help some software companies sell software to the government. It also may shed light on some requirements that woudln't necessarily be obvious were they not outlined in the cert requirements.

What exactly is the standard used?

[setzman]

What would be the standards used for this certification?

Getting worse?

[TheIzzy]

Makes me wonder what sort of "protection from liability suits" these seals will get exactly. It may just be me, but I don't think antiterrorism products need this sort of freedom.

Ok now we need to stop

[AvengerXP]

By letting ourselves drown in fear, we give the terrorists exactly what they want. To scare us. Stop talking about terrorists, stop saying everything is because of them, showing their faces. Do not live in terror, because then all is lost.

Re:Ok now we need to stop

[aSiTiC]

Have you watched Bowling for Columbine? Terrorists and Governments beget each other, without terror the citizens wouldn't need someone to protect them.

As if that's the only reason for a government, your statement simplifies the reality in almost the same ridiculous (as much as it may resonate with some) way as Moore's movie does.

Side Effect

[webword]

"...businesses with antiterrorism products for which they are unable to find insurers to provide liability coverage are lining up to seek the Homeland Security Department's seal of approval."

One important side effect of this activity is that it legitimizes the Homeland Security Department. Any time faith and/or judgment are derived from an organization, it makes that organization more real, and more powerful. This is very similar to the idea of demonizing an enemy. If your enemy is vague and hard to define and hard to describe (Al Queda), then you need to find a figurehead to present to the people. It is hard to teach people to hate something vague, but it is much easier to hate a single person, e.g., Bin Laden or Sadam. (It is also very easy to talk about how certain types of people are evil, but I'm getting too far off topic with that.) In any event, as more companies and people talk about the homeland security department, the more power it will have, and the more money it will get.

Re:Side Effect

[mrpuffypants]

In the last few years Emmanuel Goldstein has become a growing analogy for me in policy debates. The Parent post sums it up nicely; an undefined "boogeyman" is great to launch a war against. It's also a lot easier to flip-flop and change your mind when the enemy is "everywhere"

"We are at war with East Eurasia!" becomes "We are at war with Oceania!"
and
"We are at war against al Qaeda!" becomes "We are at war with Iraq!"

Re:Side Effect

[qtp]

"We are at war against al Qaeda!" becomes "We are at war with Iraq!"

Except now we are at war with al Qaeda again, erm, I mean "We have always been at war with al Qaeda!"

It's nice to see a 1984 reference from a poster who actually read the damn book.

Re:Side Effect

[DavittJPotter]

Odd, I'd swear that there was no hard evidence that al Qaeda actually committed the WTC attack. The day after 9/11, we bombed Afghanistan. Al Qaeda put out a statement that said, in effect, "We did not do this. We applaud those who did, but we did not do this"(As reported on MSNBC on 9/12/2001). Strange, for a terrorist group usually gladly claims an attack as part of their glorious / "shocking and awesome" strike against their enemies.

So, let's look at this: the CIA trained and set up Bin Laden, downplayed their knowledge of the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center, created somewhat tenous connections between al-Qaeda (whatever spelling, fuck it) and Hussein. We can't find any WMD's, so we begin to hunt for al-Qaeda again. Oh, and by the way, while we're at this, we're going to really fuck up overtime laws, but remember, You're Fighting Terrorism! The Department of Homeland Security (DepLuv) will let you know when it's safe to come out from under your bed.

Yeah, that's completely different from 1984's premise.

WindowsXP - US DOHS Seal of Approval!

[kaltkalt]

Who wants to bet me that MS gets this lame ass seal of approval on all their insecure, dangerous-to-national-security products? And of course, they won't be liable (federal pre-emption) for any damage their software actually causes. How clever.

Problem approving services

[rzbx]

"Consider the marketing angle. "It will make it easier to sell," says Bryan Ware, chief executive of Digital Sandbox of Reston, Va., which has sold its terrorism risk-assessment software to the U.S. Department of Justice, among others."

This is one thing I find strange, and

"...wants its members' Internet services certified..."

I'm not so sure how this can be done. Software, interenet services, and telecommunications are all services that behave very differently from products. A company must continually stay on top of everything to provide reliable, safe, and er, I guess anti-terroristic (?) services. Sure, they could have some experts go through everything and put down a seal of approval, but if the company cuts back a little here and a little there, they could fall behind. I guess they want to push it for insurance purposes. Am I missing something here? Please correct me if I misread.

Caveat emptor

[violet16]

So look out for that seal, kids: it's your guarantee the product is so dangerous the manufacturer couldn't get product liability insurance!

I love it!

[shivianzealot]

"Certified to fight terrorism."

The way the word it, it sounds to me like those Tom Ridge puppeteers want to issue some letters of marques and reprisal is in THIS century!

Re:Useless & Opportunistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any of the suggestions on preventing terrorism include the suggestion to "stop pissing off Arabs and/or Muslims"?

Does it then become a crime...

[setzman]

To use software and services that don't have the seal? Wouldn't you be supporting terrorism if you didn't use products the government approved?

Re:Certificates...

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S.A. population needs more Boy Scout-style "Be prepared" training. Personally, I'd feel more secure if pocket knives were allowed on planes. I'd much rather be surrounded by knife toting fellow Americans should a thug or two be on the flight, than surrounded by a bunch of defenseless cellphone and credit card toting hippies. If every American learned basic survival skills nearing Osama Bin Ladin's proficiency, there would be little fear of terrorism.

This is a terrible idea

[SargeZT]

Consumers will soon start seeing "Homeland Security Department Recommended!" Stickers on products, and immediatly flock to those items. And, the Homeland Security Department won't be likely to issue more than one to similar products. This will result in decreased business for non certified companies, and result in a monopoly in anti-terrorist provisions.

My 2 Cents.

Well... I guess Bush needed this...

[Serapth]

Seeing as that moron needs to come up with the 82 billion for his re-election campaign... errrr... I mean, war on terrorism. Now all they need to do is sell certification at a million dollars a piece to 82,000 companies!

Sorry for the flamebait... this stuff, Bush at the top of the list, just get me pissed! If your a democrate... you may atleast find the idea funny ! ;-)

REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME

[Petronius]

One day, squirrels will come flying out of my ass. They too will be fighting terrorism.

Seriously, it's OK to sell crap, as long as you're fighting terrorism. It's OK to lockup innocents as long as you're fighting terrorism, it's OK to bomb Iraq as long as you're fighting terrorism. It's OK to bankrupt the economy as long as you're fighting terrorism. Next we should lock up 12-year olds to help with the fight on file sharers. They could also be terrorists.

The McCarthy era is back, in full force.

Go ahead fuckers, mod me down.

Re:REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME

[HBI]

Actually this is the reason why I decided today that I am voting Democrat next year.

I am a registered Republican, and have voted that way since 1993.

This administration is way out of control. It's too machiavellian for my tastes. If my freedoms are going to get eroded, I would prefer they do smarter stuff like close the borders or whatever. This administration is so milquetoast that I can't even see a marginal benefit to the crap they are doing.

I'll even vote for Dean if he is the Dem nominee. They lost my vote with this porn = file sharing shit, truth be told. But the stuff you cite above isn't helping.

Fucking losers.

Why all the trouble?

[jmv]

Why does Bush go through all that trouble of voting these laws (anti-terrorism certification, regulation changes, ...) and everything. Why not just take 20% of the US taxes and give divide it among the thousands of companies that gave the most money to his campaign. I mean, it would be much simpler, much more transparent and he could have more vacation...

Is it just me...

[dolo666]

... or do some of you see that there is a real problem with this "Unkie Sam label of acceptance".

A) Governments say which products are "ok". (this kinda made me cringe when I first considered it... because it could so be exploited.)
B) Consumers live with a false sense of security.
C) Terrorists attack the "safe" products first and leave the other ones alone.
D) Businesses that "pay up" get the seal, and those who don't... are considered second rate.
E) Products without the seal can use that as a defence against *any* form of liability. (ie: Caveat Emptor)
F) The seal idea indicates that the companies are currently not doing their best to protect us.
G) With a little tampering, the seal could be applied to any product as a fake.

Re:Is it just me...

[swordgeek]

Hmmm. Yep, that covers most of the salient points. However...

With regards to (E), there will be no defense. If your product isn't on "the list," then it'll be fair game for anyone to sue. They'll say, "We're not on the list, we never promised anything!" and the plaintifs will say, "You're not on the list--we're going to take you down!" Who has the deeper pockets?

Also, items (A) through (E) are SO large, that (F) and (G) are msotly irrelevant. It won't matter if the seal is fake or not, because the seal won't matter. At all.

It's pathetic. Anti-capitalist, anti-competitive, doesn't provide any security at all, creates an entirely false sense of security in the population, and promotes special interest groups.

Good to see that things are going according to plan under Bush.

Re:Truly Useless and Quite Opportunistic

[micromoog]

Homeland Security couldn't even say what caused the blackout in New York except that it wasn't terrorism.

Don't forget that they were saying that only a couple of hours after the blackouts started. They didn't even start to have a meaningful explanation of what did cause the problem until the next day, but somehow they were so sure after 2 hours that it wasn't terrorism?

The DepHomSec constantly needs to justify its exististence. "See, no terrorism! We're doin' our job right good!"

Remember McCarthy?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Is this equivalent to "certifiably Communist-free", or "certifiably Jew-free"?

Jeez, people, do we have to repeat the whole 20th century again?

It seems to me that good-sounding policies underpinned by vague premises, broad (though justifiable) fear are symptomatic of a trend toward heavy, popular repression of some single group of people, chosen because they're an easy scapegoat. The next logical step would be global-scale ethnic cleansing, wouldn't it?

I have no interest in supporting terrorism in any form, but I worry that we'll embrace a cure worse than the disease by painting a people with too broad a brush.

Terrorists are animals, but let's not turn the tag into an easy way to lump a whole people into an easy-to-nuke corral.

Treating any group of people as objects is the first step toward the new Auschwitz.