chertoff touts body scanners on tv while consulting for company that makes them

JuanValdez · Jan 7, 2010

It seems to me all his interests are aligned. Suppose he thinks the scanners will make the country safer (which I think he did when he was in office). So, he goes on TV to tell people they will make the country safer. And, he starts a company that consults for companies that produce these machines to make the country safer. And, he makes money when everyone agrees that they do make the country safer. So, the country becomes safer and he becomes more rich. All his interests are satisfied.

He'd have a conflict if he had a government job that required him to be a disinterested guardian of the public interest. But, he doesn't have that job.

He is capitalizing on the respect he gained by serving in public office. Everyone has done this. Cheney's criticisms of Obama are in the news twice a week because he used to be VP. If he was just a Halliburton exec, he wouldn't make any headlines. Former presidents make millions on speaking circuits and book publications because of their prior positions. Al Gore used his VP fame to promote environmentalism and to produce his big slideshow flick.

I can see it raising eyebrows. That's why CNN asked him about it and he disclosed it. That's why the Washington Post published an article on it. People should know that Chertoff is also self-interested. I don't see why, though, his self-interest would require him to avoid news shows.

jo mama · Jan 7, 2010

JuanValdez said:

It seems to me all his interests are aligned. Suppose he thinks the scanners will make the country safer (which I think he did when he was in office). So, he goes on TV to tell people they will make the country safer. And, he starts a company that consults for companies that produce these machines to make the country safer. And, he makes money when everyone agrees that they do make the country safer. So, the country becomes safer and he becomes more rich. All his interests are satisfied.
Click to expand...

and imo this is a textbook example of a conflict of interest. and yes, all chertoffs 'interests' are satisfied quite nicely.

JuanValdez said:

He'd have a conflict if he had a government job that required him to be a disinterested guardian of the public interest. But, he doesn't have that job.
Click to expand...

right...he used to have that job and when he did have said job he advocated for body scanners in our airports. then when he doesnt have that job anymore he starts a consulting company. one of his clients is the company which he, as dept. of fatherland security, bought the body scanners from. and now he is on tv, speaking as an authority due to his previous job, terrorizing the american public into accepting his clients product.

JuanValdez said:

Former presidents make millions on speaking circuits and book publications because of their prior positions. Al Gore used his VP fame to promote environmentalism and to produce his big slideshow flick.
Click to expand...

the difference is that the american people arent forced to pay for those speeches, book publications or movies. thats all done in the private sector. chertoff is trying to scare the american people into accepting their tax dollars being spent on this. there is nothing private sector about it - hes trying to suck off the government teet, and using fear to sell it.

bnb · Jan 7, 2010

It is a conflict of interest though JV if he's being touted as an 'expert in the field' in the dozens of news interviews without the full disclosure that he's a consultant for the vendor.

Doesn't mean he's not an expert, or that he shouldn't be doing the interviews, but the interviewers, and he, should absolutely be disclosing his connections to the company. It would be like interviewing a lawyer about a case without disclosing he was acting for the defendant. His objectivity may be compromised.

The whole issue of capitalizing on connections made while in the public service is another debate. Is he compromised if he has a government job that requires him to be a disinterested guardian of the public interest, but he's also well aware that once that gig's up he has a potential lucrative offer from one of the very interested parties affected by his decisions while in that public office? That's quite different then the speaking and book circuit where you're paid for your recollections and opinions rather then your potential to influence decisions. But -- different debate.

EDIT: jomama quicker on the trigger this morn....

jo mama · Jan 7, 2010

Shovel Face said:

I'd rather have body scanners at airports rather than the government controlled health records.
Click to expand...

id rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

JuanValdez · Jan 7, 2010

jo mama said:

right...he used to have that job and when he did have said job he advocated for body scanners in our airports. then when he doesnt have that job anymore he starts a consulting company. one of his clients is the company which he, as dept. of fatherland security, bought the body scanners from. and now he is on tv, speaking as an authority due to his previous job, terrorizing the american public into accepting his clients product.
Click to expand...

So, are you arguing that he shouldn't be allowed to consult for the security industry because of his previous public service? Like a non-compete clause? Are you assuming and implying that he got his consulting gig as a kickback for a previous government contract? Or, just that he shouldn't do the news circuit? I'm confused now on where you think he went wrong.

the difference is that the american people arent forced to pay for those speeches, book publications or movies. thats all done in the private sector. chertoff is trying to scare the american people into accepting their tax dollars being spent on this. there is nothing private sector about it - hes trying to suck off the government teet, and using fear to sell it.
Click to expand...

This is going a little far afield, but I don't think it's as different as you make out. Al Gore has major financial investments in environmental companies that will benefit from public policy that he advocates for. Chertoff is doing the exact same thing -- advocating what he believes in and then putting his money where his mouth is -- in his own area of specialization. Of course, Al Gore has had the same criticisms leveled at him that Chertoff is getting here. But, I think they are both in the right. They have something they believe in and they pursue it on fronts in both the private and the public sector. As for disclosure, see below.

bnb said:

It is a conflict of interest though JV if he's being touted as an 'expert in the field' in the dozens of news interviews without the full disclosure that he's a consultant for the vendor.

Doesn't mean he's not an expert, or that he shouldn't be doing the interviews, but the interviewers, and he, should absolutely be disclosing his connections to the company. It would be like interviewing a lawyer about a case without disclosing he was acting for the defendant. His objectivity may be compromised.
Click to expand...

As I've said, I think disclosure is proper. But, if he's on a news show, I think it is the responsibility of the news organization to disclose it. They are the ones presenting Chertoff as the guest expert. They are the ones who are supposed to be fair and balanced. I don't see why Chertoff has to put up a disclaimer every time he opens his mouth (I'm guessing Gore doesn't mention he'd make millions whenever he tells people that installing smart meters is a good idea). CNN did their job and disclosed it. So, we're cool. Maybe previous interviewers failed to mention it. Shame on them.

jo mama said:

id rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jo mama again.

bnb · Jan 7, 2010

JuanValdez said:

So, are you arguing that he shouldn't be allowed to consult for the security industry because of his previous public service? Like a non-compete clause? Are you assuming and implying that he got his consulting gig as a kickback for a previous government contract?
Click to expand...

Taking up this debate.....not assuming or implying anything improper -- just recognizing that the perception might exist because the potential is certainly there. Even if there is not explicit or even intended influence -- his decisions as the public guardian might be compromised if he stands to have personal gain from those decisions/contacts after office.

I think public auditors are restricted from taking jobs with their firm's clients for a period of time. And aren't there lobbying rules being implemented/debated to address this stuff?

The book and speaking circuit is quite different. I don't think anybody has suggested a president's or vp's decisions are influenced by the potential anecdotes that might stem from them.

jo mama · Jan 7, 2010

JuanValdez said:

So, are you arguing that he shouldn't be allowed to consult for the security industry because of his previous public service?
Click to expand...

did i say any such thing?

JuanValdez said:

Are you assuming and implying that he got his consulting gig as a kickback for a previous government contract?
Click to expand...

that is the most plausible explanation. it happens all the time.

JuanValdez said:

Or, just that he shouldn't do the news circuit?
Click to expand...

did i say any such thing?

JuanValdez said:

I'm confused now on where you think he went wrong.
Click to expand...

ive been pretty clear on where i think he went wrong - to rehash it again will just be repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time. if you want to say that you dont think its a conflict of interest that is fine...its your opinion. but i dont understand why you are having such a difficult time understanding why others see it as one.

JuanValdez said:

This is going a little far afield, but I don't think it's as different as you make out. Al Gore has major financial investments in environmental companies that will benefit from public policy that he advocates for. Chertoff is doing the exact same thing -- advocating what he believes in and then putting his money where his mouth is -- in his own area of specialization. Of course, Al Gore has had the same criticisms leveled at him that Chertoff is getting here. But, I think they are both in the right. They have something they believe in and they pursue it on fronts in both the private and the public sector. As for disclosure, see below.
Click to expand...

al gore is another example of someone who is one one hand, influencing government policy and at the same time attempting to benefit financially from those policies. its wrong too. especially in light of all the fraud surrounding the global warming advocates. but at least gore isnt trying to turn all airline passengers into criminals in order to make a buck.

JuanValdez · Jan 7, 2010

bnb said:

I think public auditors are restricted from taking jobs with their firm's clients for a period of time. And aren't there lobbying rules being implemented/debated to address this stuff?
Click to expand...

It would probably be a good idea to put a non-compete requirement on public officials that would keep them from consulting in industries that they were just interfacing with as a government official. That could eliminate some actual improprieties or the appearance of it. Chertoff obviously didn't have that in his contract so he is free to do consulting work. Maybe that's a lesson learned for what to do with the next guy.

I don't really see Chertoff's consulting as a kickback. I think he would have some very valuable insight for security companies trying to do business with the government and probably adds a lot of value for his clients going forward, regardless of any favors he might have performed in the past. But, from an appearance-of-impropriety point of view, banning public servants from the industry for a few years is probably a good idea for the sake of the public trust.

jo mama said:

ive been pretty clear on where i think he went wrong - to rehash it again will just be repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time. if you want to say that you dont think its a conflict of interest that is fine...its your opinion. but i dont understand why you are having such a difficult time understanding why others see it as one.
Click to expand...

I thought I did understand you until that last post seemed to broaden the criticism, and now I'm not sure on which part(s) you think his ethics have faltered. But, that's fine if you don't want to rehash.

Mrs. Valdez · Jan 7, 2010

Isn't there a difference between asking for "full disclosure" and claiming "conflict of interest?"

"Conflict of interests" comes up when one person is fulfilling two roles at the same time and acts in such a way that one of those roles is potentially comprimised. For example, serving on the board of companies A and B where A offers a contract to company B in a way that is advantagous to A and hurts B. For this reason there are laws concerning the level of involvement between the companies, depending on the level of involvement of the individual in question.

"Full disclosure" covers situations where an advocate is presented by the media as an expert recommending a product or service when it might not be clear that he is receiving renumeration by the industry.

"Non-compete" clauses cover cases where someone leaves company A and they don't want the expertise that they acquired to be used by company B to harm company A. For example, a marketing exec in a Real Estate company leaving that company to work for another Real Estate company and sharing all of the marketing strategic plans.

I'm not sure what applies here but I'm not sure any of these cases quite fit the bill. I think the problem is that you don't want to see a public servant leave his position and make money off of his experience. But he may be the person who could most benefit a particular industry and the general public. It is possible that in many cases forcing someone to wait a few years would make their knowledge base somewhat obsolete. And experience is something that is hard to lose and easy to capitalize on. In a sense, no matter what they do they will have benefited from the experience. It probably helped them get their position or sell their books if nothing else.

tomato · Jan 7, 2010

I've always wanted to see Chertoff with his shirt off

rhadamanthus · Aug 4, 2010

What a surprise - the money-wasting asshats with DHS and TSA lied!

link

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events."
Click to expand...

[giddyup]What are some other things from the 1790s which are set in stone?[/giddyup]

Invisible Fan · Aug 4, 2010

Chertoff is a good salesman.

I can't wait for costco to sell them to make things uhhh more secure

Ottomaton · Aug 4, 2010

It seems that this is the new business model on the right; get the rubes all lathered up, and then cash in on their fear/outrage/other emotions. It is the Glenn Beck business model. And there have been a ton of others on the right who have already chosen to emulate it.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-10-2009/beck---not-so-mellow-gold'>Beck - Not So Mellow Gold<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:257978' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party'>Tea Party</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

(spoilered for large JPEG)

CrazyDave · Aug 4, 2010

If he wanted to be taken seriously, he should not be consulting for the firm that produces these things.

Fear induced stealing of our liberties. In this case, I don't think it's illegal, but I do think it's unethical, and those that would put these systems into place should think twice before taking his word for it.

As for the gathering of the images and data, big shocker there. It's always "No no no, we wouldn't go THAT far to infringe on the rights of the people." then once the outrage and stopgaps are removed, it's time for a full throttling of the private citizenry. This is why you don't give an inch, as they always take mile after mile until you can't get it back.

Benjamin Franklin would be sickened.

thadeus · Aug 4, 2010

Capitalism is currently the biggest threat to democracy in existence.

Shroopy2 · Aug 5, 2010

While I dont like unregulated proliferation of surveillance technology and "social" technology that says "people validate it when they buy a lot of it", besides the nudeness how is it much more different than archived surveillance video? RFID is a little more worrisome than still images to me.

I guess people just have to get used to being naked on camera in front of everyone. What the cast of Big Brother does for free with no qualms. Worldwide nudist colony life.

Forums

chertoff touts body scanners on tv while consulting for company that makes them

JuanValdez Member

jo mama Member

bnb Member

jo mama Member

JuanValdez Member

bnb Member

jo mama Member

JuanValdez Member

Mrs. Valdez Member

tomato Member

rhadamanthus Member

Invisible Fan Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

CrazyDave Member

thadeus Member

Shroopy2 Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

chertoff touts body scanners on tv while consulting for company that makes them

JuanValdez Member

jo mama Member

bnb Member

jo mama Member

JuanValdez Member

bnb Member

jo mama Member

JuanValdez Member

Mrs. Valdez Member

tomato Member

rhadamanthus Member

Invisible Fan Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

CrazyDave Member

thadeus Member

Shroopy2 Member

Share This Page

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member