Flimflam Casts Negative Light On Technology

Aug 1, 2004 12:00 PM, LARRY ANDERSON, Editor

A company in Newark, N.J., makes a security device that looks like a yellow-colored file cabinet with a siren and red flashing light on top of it. According to a press release, it can protect people against chemical and biological attacks.

I should say the company used to make such a device, or at least made a prototype, and it wasn't really the company, but rather a set of husband-and-wife entrepreneurs.

Although entrepreneurs might not be exactly the right word. More like they're husband-and-wife criminals — allegedly.

Here's the problem: The security device that looks like a yellow file cabinet with a siren and a red flashing light on top was, in fact, exactly what it looked like. According to federal authorities, the product was promoted to allow the couple to sell their company stock at inflated prices — a tidy little flimflam that involved some $400,000 in ill-gotten gain.

What we have here is a rather extreme example of the fact that security technology isn't always what it seems. Whether new products perform as promised is a nagging issue in our technology-driven industry, where innovation is rampant, product cycles are compressed, and users can't possibly keep up with all the new products — or evaluate the veracity of their claims. Even the most wary buyers can run the risk of ending up with a gadget that doesn't perform as promised.

The good news is that the vast majority of supplier companies in the security market are reputable and trustworthy; their products have real value, and product claims are credible. It's a shame that a tiny percentage of miscreants can cast a negative shadow on product claims and add to the anxiety of users who put their careers on the line every time they decide what technology to buy.

It might be easy to spot a bogus “Chemical and Biological Alarm and Neutralization Defense System” — especially if it looks like a big yellow file cabinet.

Spotting a fake facial identification system — like the one promoted by a Sacramento man accused of bilking investors out of more than $1.2 million — might be a little harder. The phony facial identification system was billed as a way to protect against terror attacks. Its “inventor” faces up to 25 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $500,000.

Perhaps real security technology will keep him securely behind bars.

I like to think that investors were targeted in both of these schemes because security professionals would never have been fooled.

YOUR THOUGHTS

We are looking for reader feedback. E-mail landerson@primediabusiness.com and tell us what you think!

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue