Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.)
Could I get certification for my gun? Nothing stops a terrorist faster, and not having to worry about all those pesky liabilities sure would put my trigger finger at ease.
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.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
What would be the standards used for this certification?
:-)
Did the check clear?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Microsoft needs to apply for a pro-terrorism certification. "This product meets or exceeds terrorist requirements for simple security loopholes: buffer overflows, insecure defaults, and more".
I for one would like to see Slashdot get certified as an anti-terrorist product.
Any 'pro-terrorist' website would be rendered useless after an article posting on the front page.
Heheh... just imagine "Counterstrike: Condition Zero" with "Department of Homeland Security Approved!" on the box... Hahah...
Yes, I imagine that any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from an insane asylum.
| - | - |
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I think its funny how our culture has so rapidly changed in the last few years. Since the 2001 attack, you can practically get away with selling anything if you claim it makes you "safe" from "terrorism". Even the Bush Administration has used this war to repeatedly justify its misguided "War on Terror" campaigns and ominous "Homeland Security Department".
I personally think it is sad that America has let the terrorist win. Thanks to media and government hysteria, terrorists have become the "boogie man" that everyone seems to fear. In sustaining this hysteria, the US Government has created an environment where they can do practically anything as long as it is keeping the country "safe" from "terrorism".
The good news is that this environment is starting to slowly change. Some of the government's massive corruption is starting to get questioned by members of Congress. I think this marks the first steps in stopping the legacy of tyranny the Bush Administration has caused and restoring the values on which America was founded on.
-Valen
"...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.
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.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear