Sniffex
{{Short description|Fraudulent explosive-detection systems}}
Sniffex and Sniffex Plus are fraudulent{{cite magazine|url=http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/bomb-sniffing-s.html |title=Bomb Sniffing Scam Exposed |magazine=Wired|author=Michael Grabell |date= July 17, 2008 |access-date=March 14, 2012}}{{Citation |url=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23365128/Test-Report-The-Detection-Capability-of-the-Sniffex-Handheld-Explosives-Detector |title=Test Report: The Detection Capability of the Sniffex Handheld Explosives Detector |last=Banks |first=Gordon |publisher=US Navy Sea Systems Command: Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division |year=2005 |quote=The SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector does not work. The vendor failed to make good on any guarantee of the device's performance and provided no possible reason as to why the SNIFFEX was unable to perform as marketed.}} Also available [http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/NavyReport.pdf here]. explosive detection systems produced by Homeland Safety International.
Performance
An article in The Dallas Morning News in April 2007 describes Sniffex is a "divining rod" and states that "In a test by the U.S. Navy, Sniffex didn't register when two trucks passed within 20 feet, hauling a half ton of explosives."[http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/sniffex.html Irving-based firm's device, stock trades under scrutiny] Dallas Morning News, Monday, April 16, 2007 The Navy's counterterrorism technology task force tested Sniffex and concluded "The Sniffex handheld explosives detector does not work." Despite this, the US military bought eight for $50,000.
Although high performance is claimed in advertising for Sniffex, such claims have not been verified by objective double blind testing.[http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/ Sniffex fails a double blind test at a public demonstration (includes video clips)] During tests conducted at a public meeting by the president of the company,[http://www.anaheimoc.org/press/pressNews.asp?id=50 Seventh Annual Tourism Safety & Security Conference, Anaheim, CA, April 2006] Sniffex did not detect test explosives when the user did not know in advance where they were located. Additionally, James Randi publicly called into question the validity of Sniffex and exchanged correspondence with the CEO offering one million dollars if Sniffex can do what the press releases claim.{{cite news|url=http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/022307sniffex.html#i1 |title=Sniffex Report |work=James Randi Educational Foundation |author=James Randi |date= February 23, 2007 |access-date=August 9, 2008}}
The Sniffex device should not be confused with SniffEx, a prize-winning chemical vapor sensor developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL).[http://www.physorg.com/news344.html ORNL inventions win three 'Research and Development 100s] That sensor was originally called "Sniffex" until Homeland Safety International enforced its trademark and asked ORNL to stop using the name.
SEC lawsuits
In July 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed lawsuits against six company officers for driving "the share price from 80 cents to about $6 by issuing 33 news releases that contained mostly false information about the product and the company's financial situation to earn a combined $32 million in illegal profits."{{cite news|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/071608dnbussec.40f111b.html |title=SEC settles two lawsuits against Coppell man |newspaper=Dallas Morning News|author=Michael Grabell |date= July 15, 2008 |access-date=August 9, 2008}} In mid-July one suit was settled. In addition, the SEC charged Homeland Safety International, promoters of Sniffex, "of being little more than the front for a $32 million stock fraud scheme that enriched insiders at the expense of unsuspecting investors".{{cite news|url=https://www.propublica.org/feature/sec-bomb-detector-bought-by-military-was-front-for-scam-717/ |title=SEC: Bomb Detector—Bought by Military—Was Front for Scam |work=ProPublica|date= July 17, 2008 |access-date=August 9, 2008}} The SEC complaint said the company "installed a figurehead CEO, named Paul B. Johnson, to hide the involvement of two Bulgarian residents who actually controlled the company" and "then issued a series of what the SEC alleges were false press releases." One of the press releases included a claim of "'impressive'" results from tests conducted by the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. In reality, the tests were conducted by Johnson himself and the results were inconclusive". While the stocks rose the insiders sold, and the stock was trading at one tenth of a penny as of July 17, 2008. In July Mark B. Lindberg settled with SEC and a week later pleaded guilty to wire fraud.{{cite news|url=http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1780635/|title=Coppell man pleads guilty in wire fraud |work=TradingMarkets.com |date= July 24, 2008 |access-date=August 9, 2008}}
The HEDD1,{{cite web |url=http://www.hedd1.com/ |title=HEDD®1 - Handheld Explosive Detection Device |publisher=Unival Group}} Also: {{cite web |url=http://www.hazard-detection.com/ |title=Hazard Detection Group Explosives Detection Device HEDD1 |access-date=January 21, 2010}} reportedly a "Sniffex with a battery stuck on it",{{cite web |url=http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-newer-than-ade-651-gt200-and-h3.html |title=What Is Newer Than ADE 651 GT200 And H3 Tec? Is it HEDD1? |date=January 14, 2010 |publisher=Sniffexquestions Blog}} is marketed by the same company that markets Sniffex in Europe.{{cite web |url=http://www.sniffex-eu.com/index.html |title=Sniffex Europe |publisher=Unival Group |access-date=December 12, 2011}}
See also
References
{{reflist|2}}
External links
- {{Official website|https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20892.htm|Securities and Exchange Commission official website}}
- [http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/ Questions about Sniffex], an informative blog
- [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/03/the_doghouse_sn.html Discussion with Bruce Schneier, security analyst]
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2012}}