Government Security News July 2016 Digital Edition

are planned years in advance, the
misuse of funds to purchase noncompliant
equipment results in a
facility going for years without
the necessary security equipment
or until further funds
can be allocated to purchase
qualified equipment.
This concept of cheap is
actually expensive when
a buyer needs to purchase
equipment twice to
achieve the required
security function.
To help combat
this plague of filing false compliance
certificates or producing brochures
about fictional equipment in
the under vehicle inspection business,
Gatekeeper set up a competition
mid 2014 with a USD100,000
prize. Under the competition, system
manufacturers that claim they
can provide all the same features
and have the same environmental
certifications as Gatekeeper equipment
get a chance to prove it and if
successful collect USD100,000 from
Gatekeeper. To date not one manufacturer
has come forward, however
Gatekeeper is in possession of numerous
compliance certificates and
a brochure collected over the same
period where “alternative technologies”
(other under vehicle inspection
systems) have under seal and
ED BY
T OF DEFENSE
signature vowed
they provide the
same, and often better
specifications
to Gatekeeper. Perhaps
it is because
they make so much
money from selling
non-compliant
equipment to naive
end users and/or integrators they
don’t need to come and collect the
easy USD100,000 from Gatekeeper.
To provide a snap shot of how
serious this situation has become,
over the last year Gatekeeper has
been provided with the following
amazing claims – in some cases we
were able to convince the end user
to test the claims as they were so
outrageous:
• Running video systems claiming
they can perform automatic
foreign object detection
• Line scanners claiming they
are not affected when a vehicle
is scanned at different speeds or
stops on top of the scanner
• Single 90⁰ view running video
and line scanners providing two
views at 60⁰
• A line scanning company
claiming they have an area scan
system identical to Gatekeeper
and produced a brochure to support
their claim however when
33
the end user called the company
about the technology, was told
they do not have such a system.
• A Singapore company, when
bidding on a transaction in Indonesia,
claimed they manufactured
their systems in the US,
as this was a requirement of the
tender, could not produce the address
of their manufacturing facility
in the US when challenged.
• On a tender in Kenya, one US
running video system manufacturer
made a series of impossible
performance claims, only to have
7 of their 10 claimed performances
proven not to be true after the
end user insisted on testing.
The list goes on and unfortunately
the damage that is caused by such
fraudulent behavior may result in
the loss of lives and property. The
answer is very simple: test all security
equipment before purchase.