Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Brendan Koerner

Aired September 08, 2002 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CALLAWAY: Last year's terror attacks did have a devastating impact on many sectors of the U.S. economy, but some companies have actually made a profit: Those that provide goods or services related to homeland security. And the current issue of "Mother Jones" magazine looks at this development and the controversy that's surrounding it. And Brendan Koerner, who wrote the article, is joining us from New York this morning.
Good morning, Brendan.

BRENDAN KOERNER, MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE: Good morning.

CALLAWAY: Nice to have you with us. You know, you started your article off by pointing out an ad that we saw in a lot of magazines with Siebold Systems (ph). And I think we have a copy of that ad that said -- here we go, it says, "Who are the Mohammad Attas of tomorrow?"

Now your article points out that this company's actually trying to make a profit off of homeland security. You know, this Siebold (ph) is certainly not alone in their efforts, but you know, what's really wrong with that as far as the free enterprise system?

KOERNER: Well, there's nothing wrong with that. I think we're trying to take an old database system they have and kind of re-jigger it for a new application for security. I think the problem is that there's been no testing vetting of these new software systems or databases to see if they have any kind of effectiveness for security. So it's kind of a knee jerk reaction in terms of marketing on their part.

CALLAWAY: But isn't that a good thing, isn't it, that what we want, certainly we're in a different era now post 9/11. We're in a terrorism era. And we do need new technology. We need, you know, new databases and this type of thing to change with the rest of the world. So why not try these new things out?

KOERNER: Well, these aren't new databases. These are products that are basically taken from the old technology boom and burst, and you know, repackaged for the security market. And there's been absolutely no investigation of whether they could actually have helped last year, on September 11. And I think that actually Siebold (ph) made some claims, saying that in fact if their system had been in place on that date, the terrorists would not have boarded those planes. And that's a very dubious claim with no actual evidence to support it. CALLAWAY: No, but who's to say? I mean, we really don't know if some of the systems that we did have are prior to September 11, may have helped detect some of the things that did happen September 11. Who's to say that?

KOERNER: Well, that's the beauty of hindsight, isn't it, that you can't prove or disprove it.

CALLAWAY: Some of the other companies that have gotten in on this, besides technology companies, are the credit reporting bureaus, the drug companies who are pushing for a stockpile of vaccines. And even you mentioned in your article, even some architects are coming up with ideas.

KOERNER: Yes, and I think the credit bureau one is very interesting because credit companies have long fought against privacy laws because they prevent them from selling more credit reports.

And they've now banded together in some coalitions to say well, we want to help out against terrorism, but only if the federal government will first repeal some privacy laws. You see they're kind of manipulating the situation to push for some legislation they've long wanted in place.

CALLAWAY: Is your concern that we're losing some of our privacy?

KOERNER: That's a big concern. I'm also concerned that you see corporations are using the tragedy of last year to push forward programs that I think are going to be harmful to consumers and to civil liberties.

CALLAWAY: All right, you know when you say harmful, what could harmful about trying to find out things to provide homeland security?

KOERNER: Well, let me give you an example. I think that the drug companies, for example, you have used bioterrorism to push through programs that have nothing to do with terrorism. You saw on the last bioterrorism act, there was a stipulation that said now the majority of funds the FDA uses to review drug applications will now come from drug companies themselves. So it's kind of a way to fit in riders that otherwise would attract scrutiny. You put them in a terrorism package, and no one wants to object to it.

CALLAWAY: You know, I guess my concern about stopping some of the things that you're talking about are -- it's just that that's what this country was based on was free enterprise, a free market, you know, trying to make a buck, trying to provide something that the public, the private sector needs or wants.

KOERNER: But there's a public interest as well. And I think the FDA example is perfect. First of all, the program the drug companies pushed through, under the guise of anti-terrorism, has nothing to do with security. Second of all, I think the FDA and other federal agencies are there to protect the public interests, not to protect corporate interests. And I think that's falling by the wayside by politicians basically refuse to object to anything that has terrorism in the package.

CALLAWAY: All right, but some changes have to be made. I mean, you have to admit this is a different time, a different era.

KOERNER: Certainly, certainly. I think some of these devices do have a lot of merit. I think the problem is that we're rushing to approve funding for so many new technological devices so quickly without any kind of appropriate research. I think you looked at a bomb scanner at your airports. We're spending billions on these things. We put them in thousands of airports. And there's a lot of evidence actually don't work very well.

CALLAWAY: Well, you know, you got to try new things though. I mean, what I get a feeling from you is that you're a little bit reluctant to see some of these companies make these pitches. I know one of the comments in your article was that they get like 2800 pitches for something, you know, that homeland security's something like thousands of pitches, but isn't that their job to weed out some of the things that won't work, and try some of the things that will?

KOERNER: Well, that is, but really, it's not a level playing ground when it comes to these pitches. For example, there's only two companies that are federally approved to market bomb detectors to the government. Both of them have very powerful lobbies. And that's where they got that federal approval. So it's not just every businessman has an equal shot at selling their product. Lobbying has a huge impact on who gets the contract.

CALLAWAY: All right. Brendan Koerner, thank you very much for being with us with "Mother Jones."

KOERNER: Thanks for having me.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com