Merged [Ed] Get involved detecting the ade 651 detector / Jim McCormick arrested

[Techowiz]

Looks like the Iraqis have given up on their magic wands a.k.a. the ridiculous ADE651, they are buying dogs as quick as the US can train them. See the link for the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...raqdogs_05int.ART.State.Edition1.4bc0eab.html

Something about the ADE651 being unreliable
regards

 

[AvalonXQ]

Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

 

[Brown]

I suspect that one reason these, er, "devices" became so popular is that dogs are very unpopular in that part of the world. Canines are unclean, you know.

My suspicions have been confirmed by the Associated Press.

Apparently some Iraqis really don't like dogs, but they like being blown up even less. The USA is rushing a bunch of the bomb-sniffing dogs to Iraq, and the Iraqis are actually REQUESTING them. From today's Toronto Star (AP):

The worries over security are strong enough to overcome reluctance among Iraqi forces to use canines because of Islamic religious taboos that consider dogs unclean animals. While U.S. troops and foreign private security firms often used sniffing dogs, Iraqis relied on them far less--both because troops didn't like them and Iraqi citizens didn't like being searched by them.

According to the story, this new-found respect for canine capabilities comes "after accusations that widely used mechanical devices are ineffective to pinpoint explosives...."

The bad guys exploited this security weakness, killing hundreds in August with a series of major bombings, according to the report.

 

[Brown]

From today's Toronto Star (AP)....

The Toronto Star's version of the story was an abbreviated version of the story linked by Techowiz.

The report indicates that religious (or as some prefer, cultural) feelings may create a flaw in the canine program:

Because of the sensitivities, the job of dog handler is volunteer only, and dogs will be used to search cars, buildings and other areas – not people, unless they are suspected of being a bomber, Hajea said.

The notion of "walking bombs," with explosives being attached to individuals bent upon mass murder, is certainly known. But such individuals will not be given the canine once-over unless they are "suspected" of being bombers, whatever that means.

As a result, it is at least foreseeable that some bombers will not be stopped by the canines, and this foolish lapse in security will cost the lives of many more innocents.

 

[jadebox]

But such individuals will not be given the canine once-over unless they are "suspected" of being bombers, whatever that means.

It means they've been spotted by someone using an ADE651.

-- Roger

 

[AvalonXQ]

Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

 

[Brian-M]

Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

Frequently, but they don't always pass.

Here's one amusing failure:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/1979089,slovakia-security-explosives-resignation-010710.article

A policeman slipped plastic explosives into a passenger’s luggage at a Slovak airport Saturday in a sniffing dog test. Instead of being detected, the small package ended up on a flight to Dublin.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

David Vollmar of Unival, which sells the HEDD1, which he describes as the fourth generation of Sniffex, is online defending his product and claiming it is nothing like the ADE651 or GT200.

The website defpro.com seems to have given Vollmar a pedestal to tout his claims, sadly without asking for proof of his claims of effectiveness.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/492/

After comments listing some of the blogs critical of these scams, it appears Mr. Vollmar posted a comment of his own.

The mentioned blogspots unfortunately refuse to look at this issue with the necessary elaborateness and remain at their one-sided and unobjective behaviour. As a German company with very strict liability standards, we will not claim anything that we cannot fulfill! It is my understanding of intelligent assessment procedures that you create your opinion after serious data collection and serious testing. This is what all our clients have done so far, prior to any decision making. The last 4 years we have been working very hard to improve the technology and related working scenarios in order to make it the most reliable device that we can produce at this moment. So I can say with best conscience that we have a genuine device that is currently unique with its capabilities for real-time and covert detection of explosives! Presentation and testing of HEDD1® takes place under real-life scenarios with blind-tests that are set-up from our clients. In this set-up we clearly define what we can achieve and what we cannot achieve. It is then up to every potential client to decide whether these capabilities can create improved security standards or not. We train our clients within pre-defined scenarios and clearly limit the use of the device to these scenarios. I would like to remind you that only a couple of days ago Munich airport was closed due to a false alarm from a trace detector creating enormous economical damage (similar things happened in the US recently). Up to today there is no perfect explosive detection technology available and it is therefore widely accepted that a good security standard can only be achieved with multi-level system of complementary technologies. HEDD1® is a tool that needs to be used in line with complementary technologies. There is a big project being funded from EU that is now working with the same technological approach, so these are facts that you have to consider, if you want to address things on a correct way.
Created: 2010-01-26 17:03:31

I love the fact he says they train their clients within predefined scenarios and limit the use of the device to those scenarios. When Randi challenged Sniffex to win the Million Dollar Challenge, he said they could even use the protocol listed IN THEIR OWN TRAINING MANUAL!! If they claim a user should be trained to find a sample within one of several identical boxes, why don't they accept the challenge? That is exactly what they claim their device can do!

Techowiz - You did a great job helping the BBC gain interest in these devices. Do you know anyone at Der Spiegel?

 

[Techowiz]

This will be the same David Vollmar that sent an email to DD stating he was going to take the MDC with the ridiculous Sniffex Plus, funny how he never got round to it. Biff, someone on the link you posted took Vollmar to task rather well so it wasn't all one way. Working on Gary Bolton now with his fraudulent GT200.
The fight goes on till all the scammers are arrested and sent for a long stretch in Jail for the suffering and pain they have caused with their scam devices.
regards

 

[Techowiz]

Now the turn of the ridiculous GT200 for exposure on the BBC, check the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQEkXkSVd0

See the youtube of the BBC newsnight programme, the same people that gave slim Jim McCormick his tv debut.
Well done to DD for getting his letter from the MOD mentioned, great work my friend.
regards

 

[Techowiz]

Now the turn of the GT200

Duplicate post. Sorry.

 

[rjh01]

The thread on the GT200 story is here Thai Government finds GT200 bomb detector to be useless

 

[Ladewig]

Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

I saw a documentary about bomb-sniffing dogs in some European country and how they had to not only go through a very rigorous certification process and but also be re-certified every few years. I guess the standards vary a great deal from country to country.

 

[dudalb]

As ex US Army, I think that Any Military officer who approved the purchase and use of this device needs to have his butt Court Martialed for either bribery or incompetence, like yesterday.

 

[Techowiz]

CNN have now joined in with further exposure of the ridiculous GT200, see the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w6VGE-TYS0

regards

 

[rjh01]

If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?

 

[Ladewig]

If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that showing criminal negligence would be relatively easy in this case. I have no idea how far a step it is from that threshold to murder or to manslaughter. I also suspect that it varies a great deal from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I would love to see him do some hard time in an Iraqi or Thai prison. That'd be so cool.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?

In U.S. law, I'd say no.
Fraud, yes.
Criminal negligence, maybe.
Negligent homicide (manslaughter), probably not.
Intentional homicide (murder), almost certainly not.

Supplying a faulty crime-detection tool doesn't suddenly make you responsible for crimes that the tool fails to detect. The fact is that there are actual, real killers here. They are the ones who committed murder. Establishing proximite cause between selling a tool that doesn't detect explosives, and people being killed by a terrorist setting off those explosives, is probably not going to fly.
Of course, defrauding the Iraqi and Thai governments will probably get you bad enough punishments under their laws without having to bring specific deaths into it at all.

 

[Ladewig]

In U.S. law, I'd say no.
Fraud, yes.
Criminal negligence, maybe.
Negligent homicide (manslaughter), probably not.
Intentional homicide (murder), almost certainly not.

Supplying a faulty crime-detection

It is not a faulty detection tool. It is an empty box! The makers knew people would die trying to use this device and sold it anyway. There was a certainty that deaths would occur if this device were used often enough. There was a 0.000000% chance that the device would work as advertised. How can you describe this as "probably not" a case of negligent homicide?

If you sell bullet-proof vests made out of tissue paper to police and then claim "it was the criminal's bullet that killed the cop, not our inadequate vests," then prosecutors will still hold you responsible. Especially if you, like these people did, staged a fake demonstration showing the effectiveness of a product that was, in reality, inherently incapable of working.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you sell bullet-proof vests made out of tissue paper to police and then claim "it was the criminal's bullet that killed the cop, not our inadequate vests," then prosecutors will still hold you responsible.

Not of negligent homicide, no. Of product liability, definitely, of fraud, yes. Those who died might even make successful wrongful deaths suits against the manufacturers. But you're not going to get negligent homicide. Not for failing to prevent a murder by someone else. If you disagree, feel free to walk us through the elements with relevant case law.