> The laboratory found that the card contained only a standard radio frequency ID tag of the type used in stores to prevent shoplifting. According to the laboratory's Dr. Markus Kuhn, it was "impossible" for the card to detect anything and it had "absolutely nothing to do with the detection of TNT". The card could not be programmed, had no memory, no microprocessor and no form of information could be stored on it. Despite the high cost of the devices, the cards were worth only about two to three pence (3–5¢) each. Kuhn commented: "These are the cheapest bit of electronics that you can get that look vaguely electronic and are sufficiently flat to fit inside a card." The "card reader" was found to be an empty plastic box.
> He told The Times that ATSC had been dealing with doubters for ten years and that the device was merely being criticised because of its "primitive" appearance. He said: "We are working on a new model that has flashing lights".
Damn, why am I not a scam artist? This worked so well for so long. If he put $20 of random electronics and tiny glass tubes of chemicals in there I think he could've gotten away with it.
> Promotional material issued by ATSC claimed that the ADE 651 could detect such item as guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies, contraband ivory and bank notes at distances of up to 1 kilometre (0.62 mi), underground, through walls, underwater or even from aircraft at an altitude of up to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
Could they have at least tried to make their lies believable?
I assume it's like Nigerian Prince emails - if they were believable, they might have appealed to buyers who would have done something like purchasing one and testing it, instead of spending millions of dollars on garbage.
This is it exactly. All of the serious people left before they finished the sales pitch. If they had sold one to someone competent that would be grounds for a lawsuit or fraud charges. They had to filter out the customer base to just two kinds of buyers:
1. The people who fail to realize that it's a big scam and will be fat dumb and happy forever.
2. The people who don't want something functional, they want a "probable cause" generator they can pull out when there isn't any evidence to go on.
Sounds like they're basically making minimally plausible props for customers more focused on security theater performances than any actual security.
It's scummy and dumb but legally the only real problem I see is lying and collecting money under false pretenses making it fraud. Alternatively, they could have chosen to market these products confidentially as essentially security placebos. There's a market for things like fake security cameras, which arguably have some value for deterrence and reassurance. I suspect many of their current customers would probably have been just as happy buying these products knowing they didn't work.
I don't think it's quite as innocent as security theater. I think these are more for generating probable cause when they need to shake down someone who isn't doing anything illegal.
