Schneier on Security

jasmine • November 15, 2009 10:43 AM

The following document has been written in an attempt to avert a number of controversial papers and unwarranted advice over ‘warnings not to buy “Bogus” detection equipment.’

Although I would agree that in principal, advice of this nature should be given, I do disagree by which the methods used to discourage potential users in the effectiveness of ‘alternative’ methods of detection.
As early as 1993, an instrument appeared on the market making claims that it could detect, from a ‘Long-Range’, narcotic or explosive material using a method of detection known at that time as: ‘Molecular Location’. The company (Quadro) that was then based in South Carolina was indicted by a US Federal court and banned them from being able to sell their equipment. Further claims were made that the company had sold approximately 1,000 units before being served with an injunction in late 1996. One of the reasons too that the injunction was made was because: "The court finds that defendants do not know of any scientific principles which could make the devices operate." In other words, they too were baffled as to how it worked!
In a statement released it was said that; ‘They were assisted by an assistant U.S. Attorney from Houston, who bought into the scheme and paid $13,600 for the distribution rights in Four US States; then, he used his office to promote the device. He’s the only one to have gotten nailed for the scam so far (he resigned and paid a $5,000 fine); although the company was shut down by the court injunction in 1996, the three remaining Quadro employees charged with mail fraud were later acquitted by a jury in early 1997.’ The prosecutor in that case, baffled to be on the losing side, tried to explain: “We felt that we proved that this was a worthless device, but in fraud, you have to prove intent, and perhaps they did not see a clear intent to defraud.”
The fact was that, they were not prosecuted because it didn’t work, but that their claim as to HOW it worked was false. They claimed that the unit had an “electronic Chip” that enabled them to detect substances; but this was simply not true.
A short time later, in the UK, another company appeared on the Market promoting a device, very similar in design to the Quadro Tracker called, the “MOLE Programmable System”. However, unlike the claims made by the company producing the Quadro Tracker, the “Mole” (as it became commonly known), claimed to use a slightly different detection method, this time called: ‘Molecular Resonance’. However, in 2002, the Mole underwent a ‘Double-Blind Test’ conducted by a very reputable US Testing company called Sandia Laboratories, and found that under the conditions set by Sandia Labs, the Mole performed: “No better than random chance”. Although Sandia published a report of their findings, no further action was taken by them and it was left for potential users of such systems to ‘conclude their own findings’ and thoughts.
The impact that this report made on the Company promoting the Mole (Global Technical Ltd; based in Kent, UK) was such that, in the latter part of 2002, the company changed its product name and modified ‘slightly, its equipment hardware. It now refers to its ‘operational’ method as ‘dia / para magnetism’ and sells the unit under the new name: ‘GT200’. Although the company states that it the equipment is different……it’s method of operation is the same and their ‘sensor-cards’ supplied with the equipment are identical to the ones previously supplied under the Mole name.

Parallel to the events of 1997 & 2002, ATSC resurrected testing of its own device, launched under the name of Advanced Detection Equipment, (ADE650 and ADE651) and had its own theory of detection method known as Electro-Static (Ionic) Attraction. They had already done some research and development on the subject many years prior and had waited until they were certain that the launch of their new product would live up to the challenges (and controversy) it had to face.
In 2003 ~ 2004, two further companies appeared on the market with equipment called the “Sniffex” and the “Alpha 6” with each company making claim to its working technology as something different then that of the MOLE, GT200 & ADE.
The Alpha 6 claimed that its working principal was ‘Magnetic Molecular Resonance’, (similar to the Quatro Tracker and early days of the Mole), whilst the Sniffex claimed the technology for their instrument detects the “interfering frequency” via a frequency generator module, or as they put on their brochure; a “Bio Magnetic N02 Ion Sensor.”
So, do they really work?
The theories given above are all ‘technically’ possible and there is still a lot of conjecture as to how (or even if) they do work at all.
In a recent conversation I had with a Law Official, (if he is reading this he will know who he is), I was told something interesting; that was; “The Proof is in the Pudding”. In other words, seeing is believing and unless you are one of those people who believe in the Paranormal, Black-Magic or Extra-Terrestrial influences, then take a moment to look at the possible scientific explanations……..
In all of the above products mentioned, one common theme is present, that is that human intervention is necessary in order to use the equipment. With one exception, all of the above instruments makes claim that the ‘Power-Source’ of the instrument is made through the input of Static Electricity. In all cases, the units mentioned use an antenna as their ‘pointing’ method for the detection of, the presence of, the material being searched but, in each case, the detection method stated, is different. It is this that independent testing companies, like Sania Labs, have had a difficulty in understanding the concept and, why is it that no one has been willing to come forth and prove, ‘inequitably’ that, this type of detection method, really works! (But could Sandia actually know more about this than they are willing to share with us?)
Well Sandia, you may have a valid point but, let me try to explain, (in my limited experience), some truths on the subject:-
1. We all know that Static Electricity exists…..yes? OK, but what we generally fail to notice is that, each and EVERY one of us produces static electricity, all of the time. Not just during the winter months….but all of the time! On average, each of us produces approximately 2000 ~ 3000+ volts…….there is no (or very little) amperage, but pure volts. However, depending on our state of mind, our anxiety, our levels of testosterone, our wellbeing, etc; the amount of voltage we can produce can raise and in some instances, exceed over 20,000 or 30,000 volts! Now, although this sounds unbelievable, there are equipments on the market (Static Meters) that can effectively read the amount of volts a person can produce and by measuring oneself, you can easily train yourself to reduce the amount of volts you produce…..this is no ‘hidden karma’, it is a fact that if you are calm, you are likely to produce less voltage than if you are anxious. The reason for me to explain this will become more apparent later on but the important part to remember now is, the Static Voltage pays a very important part in this concept……….
2. Try the following experiment……many of you would have done this in Primary or Secondary school and it involves a simple method to show “Static” at work. Take a balloon and blow it up. Now, rub the balloon (quite rapidly) on either a nylon glove or other material, (like your shirt, trousers, etc), for about 5 seconds and place the balloon immediately onto a flat wall or white-board. Remove your hand and see what happens? If you’ve done this correctly, it will ‘stick’ to the wall (or board) as if stuck by glue….but what in fact has happened is that Static Electricity has played its part and effectively created a ‘mini-magnet’ attracting the balloon to the other surface. What is commonly referred to as ‘electrostatic magnetism’.
Now this is hardly ‘rocket-science’ but it is an import part of the principal behind which the equipments, (sometime referred to as Dowsers) do function. This “Static – Attraction” is why our method of detection is so called.
3. One very concerning element about these equipments is that, from some sources, claims are being made that these ‘companies’ are attempting to defraud ‘end-users’ and that the cost of such instruments is cause for concern and therefore should be avoided. However, the cost of the equipments are relatively low in real-terms…..it is the Research & Development as well as the Marketing costs that have driven these equipments to the values being asked. Although testing companies play an important role in making ‘users’ aware of the varying differences and effectiveness of such instruments, their negative publicity have only placed additional doubt in the minds of potential users, so much so that, in the majority of situations, demonstrations of the equipment have had to be carried out not once, but sometimes two, three, four or more times before getting to a stage whereby the potential client then wants to have a unit “on-Trail”. This can add anything up to couple or few months prior to making their final conclusions and all this ‘testing awareness’ effectively pushes up the prices even further. This then increases the cost for research and further development and with the then lack of funds being allocated from potential real sales, hinders further development and……the cycle goes on……. So, if the price appears high, you know the reason why and who to blame.
4. The real cost of the equipment (apart from the marketing) is the research, development and current Intellectual Properties of what currently exists today. As has been stated, each of the above mentioned products claim to have a different method of detection and it is this that serious research and development money should be spent. None of these products, (including my own) could be considered a 100% solution to the problems that exist in our society today and I would be foolish to say that none of the other equipments mentioned do not work…because I have seen and know that they do but, each have their own limitations and in the majority of situations, (from my experience) this has been attributed to the quality of training given and not just the manufacture of the equipment that is offered.
5. Statements made by those Authorities warning what to be dubious about when looking at “New Technologies” making claims of requiring ‘no power’ to operate, long (or large) detection ranges and any device using a ‘swinging rod’, should be aware and should note that; “None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests.” In fact, all testing of these products have only concluded that; ‘these devices to perform no better than random chance’. I believe that part of this statement to be true based on the circumstances that, in a ‘controlled Double-Blind test’, they have previously failed in their attempt to successfully and consistently conclusively find the presence of any explosive or narcotic material…..but this is where there is a serious flaw in the conducted test……Since the last of those “Double-Blind” tests in 2002, new research has found out that the reason why they have all failed was because of another ‘unknown’, (at that time), called ‘fingerprinting’…..
The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by the20th century forensic scientist, Edmond Locard.
Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France and Locard's exchange principle (as it became known) stated that; "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1997).
Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so he will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene. Every contact leaves a trace.


Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibres from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, and it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.
- Professor Edmond Locard

6. This ‘fingerprinting’ goes beyond Locard’s theory by concluding that, even if an object or substance was sealed in a container, away from direct contact with another object or substance; (i.e. Say a sample of TNT placed in a jar and then that jar placed in a box), the box would still become ‘contaminated’, momentarily, with the substance and therefore, in the ‘Double-Blind test’ scenario, a ‘first’ reading maybe possible to identify the presence of a substance but that when that substance was subsequently removed, the box it was contained in, left sufficient trace for such detectors to pick up an ‘unwanted’ signal and thus, giving the impression that the substance was still contained within.
7. Such is the sensitivity of these instruments that they can identify in the pico-gram range, the presence of substances that current IMS or electronic sample trap devises cannot detect. Additionally, as the ‘fingerprint’ is only temporary, any delay in taking sample readings immediately, will only show a negative result. Therefore, it would have been necessary for the box (in the “Double-Blind Test”) to either be changed or allowed to ‘clean’ in the open-air so as to eliminate the unwanted signals.
8. Voltage. As discussed previously, this has a factor in any conducted tests as the higher the voltage being generated, the greater the sensitivity of the instrument. Therefore, the statements made by manufacturers that the ‘long-range’ distances of detection are possible, are due in part to the amount of voltage the operating person is generating at that time. It is therefore also possible that using the very same instrument, one operator could obtain ‘longer-range’ of detection than another person and again, this is purely down to the voltage being generated by that person at that time. Furthermore, it is also possible that, in controlled testing, an operator could become anxious or nervous, sufficiently enough so as to increase the Static-Voltage that he or she produces and consequently increase the overall sensitivity of the instrument producing additional unwanted signals.
9. The IP, or Intellectual Properties, of the all of the equipments are what principally operate or control how the instruments function. In perhaps all instances, companies and individuals are reluctant to let know how their instrument works or make claims that they “do not know” how it works, so as to detract any potential clients (or Testing laboratories) from knowing his (or her) secrets……..as I mentioned earlier, this is not Rocket Science but it does take away the efforts, time consumed and support those companies have shown and if, at the end of the day, someone comes in and makes a ‘mockery’ of their efforts, then you end up having to defend yourself against unfounded criticism …….It maybe a harsh truth to say that, in the early years, many companies were perhaps attempting to make a ‘killing’ on their product by offering it at extortionate prices. This was also perhaps their attempt at trying to recover their costs in as short a time as possible but all, that this controversy has achieved is increased the spending of more time, effort and travel as well as trying to correct comments and unfounded statements on what principally has been available to clients for a great many years……….however, what the differences between these product are, can only be explained like the difference between a Mini and Ferrari……they will still get you from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ but it is the driver that can make the real difference. OK, so you may say yes but, the principal of cars is fully understood and this ‘concept’ is not….and you’d be right, but if you were to look at the early days of what we now commonly refer to as DNA, the ‘concept’ of this was known, decades before an acceptable theory was proven.
10. The user can ‘make-or-break’ the effect use of these equipments and NO, they do not need to have “mind-control” for them to work….anyone and everyone can use them, it is simply down to constructive and efficient training. Another comment that has been posted, quotes: “Statements that the device requires extensive training by the factory, the device is difficult to use, and not everyone can use the device, are often made to allow the manufacturer a way of blaming the operator for the device’s failure to work”. This statement is totally unfounded as ALL of these devices DO need training. It is not because the device is difficult to use and it is not that ‘only certain people’ can operate the equipment…it is because there is a ‘technique’ in using the device and without the proper training, it would be like giving a set of keys to ride an expensive motorcycle…….you may be able to get going, but when you get to the first bend or try to stop, you could fall off. OK, maybe you don’t need that much training, but then take an aeroplane and the training required becomes more intensive. Now this does not mean that you need to be as intelligent as a potential pilot, but it is important that training, in the use of the equipment, is made as it is necessary to understand why you received a signal, not just the ability to get that signal in the first place. Therefore the training required is to teach you about the readings you obtain, and what to look out for, rather than the ability to just operate the equipment. For example; if I go through a Metal Detector at an airport and get an ‘audible’ alarm; does not mean that I am carrying a Gun? No!…it simply means there is a problem and it is then necessary for someone to check to ascertain the reason why…….likewise, the fact that these devices receive an ‘indication’ that there is sometime it has found, does not mean it is a potentially illegal substance or an immediate threat….it means there is a problem……..therefore, it is perfectly possible to detect a person indicating for say, marijuana or cannabis but, when he (or she) is searched, no substances are found……..this does not mean the equipment failed but that ‘potentially’, the person it has detected could possibly be a ‘user’…….it is the tetrahydrocannabinol, (or THC for short), it would have detected and this substance, in a regular user, could stay in the persons body for anything up to a month or even more! Therefore yes, training will form a very important part in the effectiveness of any equipment purchased and this is why that one particular unit appears to be consistent in the market more than the other…………..the ADE.
11. Research and Development have been an important part of the work that ATSC have done over the past few year and further to the original writing of this document, additional tests were currently under investigation, looking at the ELF (extremely low frequency) capabilities and properties of all elements It is reckoned that substances such as Narcotics or Explosives, ‘emit’ a radio-wave-signal in the frequency band 1~8 Hertz and it is this ELF that makes the basis of our product being able to detect these very low frequencies. This would then answer some of the questions raised as to the reason why it is possible for these ‘signals’ to penetrate various obstacles such as, concrete walls, containers, water and even soil. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and many of these are still being studied but, the fact remains that the ADE does work and it is the combination of the VERY high voltage (not amperage) that makes it possible for the ‘direction’ indicator to point, to the substance being search. The real (IP) Intellectual Property however, is the card….this card has been developed by the company so as to create the ‘receiver’ channel of the object, )or substance), being searched. It is also why the Training is an essential factor in the equipment package and it is because of the lack of proper training that other ‘similar’ devices have failed.
To date, there are over 500 ADE’s world-wide and although it is not the answer to everyone’s requirements, it does fit into the current market we pose today. Used correctly, it will effectively prove a valuable, first-line, detection tool.