New rules shield makers of antiterror gear

[Nottingham]

New rules shield makers of antiterror gear


By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/11/2003 6:39 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, July 11 (UPI) -- The Department of Homeland Security issued regulations Friday protecting firms that make or sell anti-terror equipment from lawsuits.

The regulations implement the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies -- or SAFETY -- act, part of the massive Homeland Security law passed by congress last year.

The SAFETY act aims to "encourage the development (of) anti-terrorism technologies by providing manufacturers or sellers with limited liability risks," the department said in a statement Friday, "without the act, many companies may not invest in potential life-saving technologies."

The act defines anti-terrorism products very broadly as any product, equipment, service or device "designed, developed, modified or procured for the specific purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the harm such acts might otherwise cause."
The act provides a variety of protections for companies whose products are designated by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.


more....


I have to say Liberman was on this! A Point for him! Tom Ridge can approve products now! WOW! Homeland Security has taken on a New Power! :bounce: OMG!!

[this_side_up]

1. uh huh. Those

wonderful new airport scanners that zap ya and show
everything in very clear detail.

I'm curious what their safety testing shows.

fluctuation in radiation beyond any safe limit??
cancer-inducing?
aggravates previous condition?


Does anyone know where to find the test results on
these things? Or are they not available to the public?

[NYC]

2. I haven't seen the test results, but I doubt they could be safe.

They say something about the radiation being "deflected" by the skin. How nice.

X-ray machines used by doctors can vary greatly in the amount of radiaion received by the patient. Maintenance is exremely important.

Once again, the corporation is protected, and the consumer be damned.

Edit: My point about maintenance is that even if the current test results show them to be safe, will they remain safe without proper maintenance? I doubt it.

[teryang]

3. link?

.

[Nottingham]

4. Heres the link guys sorry

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030711-063737-4939r

[teryang]

5. Thanks

Another usurpation of individual rights and state prerogatives under the cover of "homeland security."

[trapper914]

6. I wonder...

...if Eli Lilly is somehow protected?

[I AM SPARTACUS]

7. wait...I thought that the MARKET would take care of the corpoRATs?

[NYC]

8. This also lowers the incentive for quality control.

.