The Bomb detector that does not detect bombs

[William F. Owen]

This story from the BBC, plus the associated links and google searches may be of interest to some here.
I have to say nothing in this story surprises me sadly!

[davidbfpo]

Wilf and others,

Alas this trickery has happened before and I recall an example with the ANP in 2005. See: http://findarticles.com/p/news-artic.../ai_n37611165/

I wonder if the US authorities have detected such fraud(s) and prosecuted anyone? Perhaps others, especially JMM can answer that.

[Tracker275]

This story from the BBC, plus the associated links and google searches may be of interest to some here.
I have to say nothing in this story surprises me sadly!

Yeah, definitely not surprising for sure. However, it annoys us to no end that they still use the stupid things. You know, it doesn't matter how many times we tell them that they have to actually use their eyes to find things, they insist on using it. Needless to say, we let them use it ONLY on their check points.

Frankly, it is pretty typical of this country, because they are the worlds best at looking for the easiest way to do everything.

[Schmedlap]

I wonder if the US authorities have detected such fraud(s) and prosecuted anyone?

I don't think we're big on prosecuting frauds. We just declare them too big to fail.

Somewhat seriously, the inability to account for billions of dollars in cash and property dwarfs the antics of d-bags like this guy. We've also got issues of our own that we can't address, like faulty electronic components and faulty computer chips (or versions made to very low specifications) being installed in our high-tech, super-expensive systems.

Issues like this seem like they are more effectively addressed at the user level. Reminds me of the Warlock system that we used. While that was not ineffective due to malice, it was nevertheless ineffective. After repeatedly hitting IEDs with it on and while using it as directed and after having it inspected twice, we finally reached the conclusion that they weren't worth the interference with our radios (which they weren't supposed to interfere with). Rather than haggling with the manufacturer, we just stopped using them.

[Tracker275]

I don't think we're big on prosecuting frauds. We just declare them too big to fail.

Somewhat seriously, the inability to account for billions of dollars in cash and property dwarfs the antics of d-bags like this guy. We've also got issues of our own that we can't address, like faulty electronic components and faulty computer chips (or versions made to very low specifications) being installed in our high-tech, super-expensive systems.

Issues like this seem like they are more effectively addressed at the user level. Reminds me of the Warlock system that we used. While that was not ineffective due to malice, it was nevertheless ineffective. After repeatedly hitting IEDs with it on and while using it as directed and after having it inspected twice, we finally reached the conclusion that they weren't worth the interference with our radios (which they weren't supposed to interfere with). Rather than haggling with the manufacturer, we just stopped using them.

I can't help but agree with you on the numerous companies try to exploit and get away with junk products that end up being used in environments that will get someone hurt or killed.

I don't want to hijack the thread here, because the Warlock system is not a bomb detector, but I'd like to tell you in a PM some of the things that you were dealing with regarding the system. The system worked, it is just you had other variables involved. I can explain better in a PM if you like. The worst thing you could have done is turn it off. The system works, because if it didn't, your commo would have worked fine. You only just validated that. Remember, that only protects you against RCIED's, not those that are command wire, PIR, etc. You can also have an RCIED with a command wire too, but I won't go into that here.