Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Products Seek Antiterrorism Certification 290

Posted by simoniker from the look-for-the-special-logo dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Products Seek Antiterrorism Certification More

Products Seek Antiterrorism Certification

Comments Filter:

  • Useless & Opportunistic (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:47PM (#6927356)

    Producer/Director George Alexander brings you the best information available [amazon.com] on how you as an American citizen can prevent terrorism! Remember that acts of terrorism and the murder of innocent people are meant to demoralize a society and make it crumble. We cannot allow this to happen to our great society, our democratic form of government and the stability of the free world.

    On this video you will find out from terrorism experts the best things you can do to safeguard our nation and stop terrorists. Terrorism expert Robert Griswold discusses what you can do to prevent terrorism and how to prepare in case of an attack. This video answers many questions such as," What is suspicious behavior and who should I report it to?" Is ethnic profiling wrong? How can I best be prepared in case of a terrorist attack? What does a yellow alert mean and what should I do? What is the right gas mask? What is a Haz Mat Suit? When do I need one? Are Duct Tape & Plastic really necessary? What kind of Terrorist Act Could Be Next And Where? Everything you want to know and more!

  • Seal of Removel? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:50PM (#6927369)
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by enjo13 ( 444114 )
      I'm not intimately familiar with the specifics, but my former employer is pursuing this. I beleive it LIMITS liability, and doesn't eliminate it altogether.

    • Re:Seal of Removel? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:46PM (#6927675) Homepage
      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 [happyfunball.com] with the seal on it, run like hell.

  • Good Lord (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vokbain ( 657712 ) * on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:51PM (#6927376) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hott of the World ( 537284 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:13PM (#6927526) Homepage Journal
      Yes, I imagine that any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from an insane asylum.

    • Re:Good Lord (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:23PM (#6927570) Journal
      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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by isaac ( 2852 )
        Confidence comes from rational preparation.

        You really should look at David Dunning [cornell.edu]'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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:05AM (#6927755) Homepage Journal
        "...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 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by freeweed ( 309734 )
          Actually, the media went on and on and on and on about SARS, as if anyone who even thought about Toronto would keel over and die that second. If anything, I'd say they caused far more people to needlessly panic than belittle the situation.

          As for the harm? No, wearing masks isn't in itself harmful. Ignoring the much more likely causes of death life throws at us is, and 9 times out of 10 people put on a mask, figure "I'll live through today", and remain ignorant. Decimating the local economy (think tourism)

          • Re:Good Lord (Score:4, Insightful)

            by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @01:25AM (#6928139) Homepage
            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?
      • 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.

        This is why I have strapped an extremely low frequency sound generator to my head everytime I go outside (admittedly, not often).

        Try to intimidate me? Ha-ha! Take these imagined ghosts and feelings of sickness, you scum!
    • No, people are crazy.

  • hmmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rnd() ( 118781 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:51PM (#6927380) Homepage
    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.

  • Certificates... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lord_paladine ( 568885 ) <wdnm91q02@sneakemail.com> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:51PM (#6927381)
    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.

  • What exactly is the standard used? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by setzman ( 541053 ) * <stzman@stzmanple ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:52PM (#6927384) Journal
    What would be the standards used for this certification?

  • Getting worse? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheIzzy ( 615852 )
    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.


    • > 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.

      Yeah, but it's yet another convenient way the Bush Administration can exploit 9/11 as an excuse to hand out some more corporate welfare without raising too much of an outcry.

  • or will they just get it automatically for whatever products/services they want?

  • Ok now we need to stop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AvengerXP ( 660081 ) <jeanfrancois DOT ... mckesson DOT ca> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:53PM (#6927395)
    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.
    • You are only saying that because you "SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS!"

    • Fuck terror.

      /me throws away his condoms.
    • 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.

    • AvengerXP, why do you hate america? /facetious
    • All that is lost is the comforting life some ignorant masses could have enjoyed. Us anarchists and communists love the smell of fear and terror and revolution. >;)

      Wherever it may lead, it is change, and maybe in some ways even progress. I believe it will eventually lead to utopia. When people collectively figure out what they want out of life.

      Maybe one group of people will declare their way of life superior and commit mass genocide on the rest who can't agree. But in the end, when they are the onl

  • LZW (Score:2, Funny)

    by sirmalloc ( 648119 )
    i guess Unisys considers LZW an anti-terrorism compression algorithm....

  • Side Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by webword ( 82711 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:55PM (#6927407) Homepage
    "...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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) *
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by qtp ( 461286 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:31PM (#6927619) Journal
        "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 (Score:3, Informative)

          by freeweed ( 309734 )
          Except now we are at war with al Qaeda again, erm, I mean "We have always been at war with al Qaeda!"

          Odd, I'd swear we went to war with them after they KILLED 3000 CIVILIANS. It was almost 2 years ago, around September 11th or so.

          I've yet to hear a government official of any kind claim that 'we've always been at war with Al Qaeda'. Iraq, on the other hand, ever since.. wait for it.. they invaded Kuwait.

          See, in 1984, the government lied to its people about the past, and went so far as to remove evidence

          • Re:Side Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

            by DavittJPotter ( 160113 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @01:47AM (#6928244) Homepage Journal
            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.

          • See, in 1984, the government lied to its people about the past, and went so far as to remove evidence of the real past. Anyone can pick up a history book/surf the web/watch TV and learn what I've just said.

            But they [washingtonpost.com]
            don't do they?

            And from the look of this [cbsnews.com] Bin Laden has already won.
      • ...like the other side is any better. Some favorite vague fear-inducers, used to further their goals:

        "They're trying to steal your Medicare!"
        "Capitalism is destroying the environment!"
        "Homelessness is increasing!"
        "Your Social Security might get cut!"


        So, name your poison.

      • How true.

        From people on the street that I've talked to about this they don't ever seem to remember when the change took place, or if there was even a change. They just know we are at war with Iraq, and we have always been at war with Iraq (at least as long as their conditioned minds can remember).

        We must remember that most of what we see and hear from the media and or government is more than likely propaganda.
    • Don't forget about Star Wars...the Rebellion that everyone loves was merely a tool of the emperor. By creating a crisis, he precipitated his own powerbase.

  • PTO, the sequel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) * on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:56PM (#6927417)
    Why does this make me think that this is going to end up like the PTO's apparent inability to weed out the crap from the legitimate requests?

    Is it because the Department of Homeland Security isn't even remotely qualified for that task?

    Naw, couldn't be....

  • WindowsXP - US DOHS Seal of Approval! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:57PM (#6927426)
    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.
    • You're assuming that MS is liable for anything now. You did read all of that 20-page click-through license agreement when you installed Windows, didn't you?
      • well that's questionable because, at least without UCITA, there is no consideration for those additional terms which occurred after purchase. So they're invalid. I think two states have adopted UCITA, so there MS would arguably be off the hook. But everyplace that has not adopted UCITA could hold MS liable, as those additional terms are not binding. But if they get federal "anti-terror seal of approval" then it can be argued that any liability suits against them are pre-empted by federal law.

  • What Microsoft needs ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:59PM (#6927444) Homepage Journal
    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".

  • Slashdot Certification (Score:5, Funny)

    by R33MSpec ( 631206 ) * on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @10:59PM (#6927447) Homepage
    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.
    • Yeah, we really could use a (-1, Terrorist) mod around here, what with the goatse links and trolls. It would not suprise me a bit if some of those 'Anonymous Cowards' were trolling for a promised reward of 40 petrified Natalie Portmans in paradise. Too bad they're not 'suicide flamers'.

      Other possible mods: (-1, Thoughcrime) (+1, Patriot) (+2, Doubleplusgood Post) (+1, With Us) (-1, Against Us)

  • Problem approving services (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot@rzb x . o rg> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:00PM (#6927450) Homepage
    "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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by violet16 ( 700870 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:00PM (#6927451)
    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! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shivianzealot ( 621339 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:01PM (#6927455)

    "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!

  • Should've been September 11th.
  • Will this program apply to individual developers as well as products? I think I could qualify because many people have told me that I'm certifiable.

  • Does it then become a crime... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by setzman ( 541053 ) * <stzman@stzmanple ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:11PM (#6927518) Journal
    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?
  • ... until Smith & Wesson, Colt, Taurus, Glock, et. al file their applications?

  • I'll give you seal of approval... (Score:4, Funny)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:17PM (#6927540) Journal
    from the look-for-the-special-logo dept.

    Maybe we should give sites that survive the Slashdot effect our own seal of approval... in the form of a 1600x1200 TIFF...

    (Note: Yeah, I know: TIFFs don't work without a plugin. It's just funnier this way.)

  • Oh man thats fantasy (Score:3, Funny)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:19PM (#6927555)
    The products may or may not help against terrorists. But, there's no way some seal of approval from the executive branch is going to stop lawyers from suing. Terrorists are relatively reasonable people in comparison to lawyers.

  • Internet services? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by qtp ( 461286 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:23PM (#6927573) Journal
    An Internet trade group representing Verizon Communications and other companies wants its members' Internet services certified because they play a "unique and pivotal role as a conduit for deployment of antiterrorism technologies."

    My bet is that the certification requirement for internet services amounts to "We spy on our users."

  • This is a terrible idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SargeZT ( 609463 ) <pshanahan@mn.rr.com> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:29PM (#6927599) Homepage
    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.

  • Terrorism Sells (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Valen0 ( 325388 ) <michael AT elvenstar DOT tv> on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:36PM (#6927633)
    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.
  • This is really fucked up. A Nazi-esque "Homeland Security" dept (sorry about breaking into your house, tapping your phone, seizing your property, and arresting you without a warrant, but Bob's girlfriend's roommate's secretary said you were a terrorist) in the gov't now is going to help select companies with their marketing? What in the FUCK is going on in this country? This makes Nazi Germany seem sane by comparison. Let's throw these fuckers out of the White House next election and return to some kind
  • 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 ! ;-)
  • I wonder if these [garveyproducts.com] guys will?

  • Won't this be a magnet for hacking? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2003 @11:59PM (#6927726)
    If a company's software products were certified I bet everybody would be trying to prove the true weaknesses as fast as possible.

    Would this essentially make those who perform the certification the next laughing stock?

    Microsoft has shown us that declaring something secure doesn't mean that it actually is.

    I certainly hope the certifying individuals have more capacity upstairs than the US patent office when it comes to understanding technology.
  • Maybe I'm not reading this right, but the story says the products are immune from liability "when they are purchased by the 22 federal agencies under DHS" and some other branches of government. One of the people angling to get their product (a telecommunications system) sealed says they don't want to be held responsible for mass hysteria caused if the government makes a stupid announcement over their system.

    The article compares it to rules currently applying to defence contractors, which, as far as I can

  • REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Petronius ( 515525 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:04AM (#6927748)
    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.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:11AM (#6927781)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why all the trouble? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmv ( 93421 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:05AM (#6927753) Homepage
    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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:16AM (#6927797) Journal
    ... 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:23AM (#6927826) Journal
      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.
  • Ridiculed and double talked into retraction.

    But you have to laugh 'THIS PRODUCT WAS NOT MADE OR USED BY A TERRORIST!'

  • Because this shit really terrorizes the hell out of me.

    KFG

  • How soon before this gets abused? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Proof Anti-Terrorism required before purchase...

    Call it what you want, but the Department of Homeland Security is the infrastructure for the inevitable police state the US is becoming... not now - but say 40 years from now.

  • Remember McCarthy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nefarious Wheel ( 628136 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @04:29AM (#6928756) Journal
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close