4 ms·

The GAO wrote a report on fraud, waste, and abuse potential of Energy Star in 2010. They were able to get a gas-powered alarm clock (and 14 other fake products)

The GAO wrote a report on fraud, waste, and abuse potential of Energy Star in 2010. They were able to get a gas-powered alarm clock (and 14 other fake products) marked as Energy Star compliant. Worth a read/laugh. https://www.gao.gov/assets/files.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-470.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/files.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-470.p...

defrost 1y ago
It's a trite trueism that all systems are vulnerable to fraud and abuse and it's no suprise the GAO was able to demonstrate the potential for abuse fourteen years ago. What would be more interesting would be a historic examination on the amount of fraud and abuse that actually takes place in the Energy Star program and whether the various decade plus old recommendations: We briefed program officials with the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EPA OIG as well as attorneys with the Consumer Protection division of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on the results of our work, and incorporated their comments concerning controls in place to protect the Energy Star label from fraud and abuse. proved useful in finding such fraud or in decreasing any occurance.
- cjpearson 1y ago
  Every couple days I get a pretty blatant spam email in my inbox. It's frustrating that gmail's spam filter doesn't catch these, especially since I recall it working better in the past. But I'm not going to turn off the filter because it still catches dozens of spam emails a day. Showing that a system has flaws doesn't necessarily prove that a system is useless. You have to look at the overall impact. In cases where you have an imperfect but useful system (such as most government regulation and enforcement) finding vulnerabilities is an important part of improving the system. A police department which only catches some murderers should work on catching more criminals rather than deciding it's hopeless and we might as well make homicide legal.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  Overall levels of fraud are almost by definition hard to measure precisely. Demanding precision is simply a way to duck the issue. It's easier to precisely measure red teaming efforts, because then you know the denominator. There is no incentive to run these programmes well and no downside to failing so you should assume fraud is rampant. When the GAO got a gas-powered alarm clock approved, who in the department lost their jobs? Did the head of the EPA get fired? Did they all lose their bonuses? No, they held a meeting where they claimed it didn't matter because the industry self-polices.
Auracle 1y ago
[flagged]
- hotpotatoe 1y ago
  You should really look up how much the program costs vs how much it saves consumers each year.
- intermerda 1y ago
  If you assume nothing has changed since 2010 then, sure. In reality, the Energy Star program changed their certification process that went into effect the following year - https://www.energystar.go.jp/news/news2010/pdf/etv_faq_201102101710.pdf https://www.energystar.go.jp/news/news2010/pdf/etv_faq_20110.... A subsequent GAO report commended the pace of progress in implementing these changes. There have been many several changes to the program including a certification for new homes and apartments that was launched last year. But of course, there is always a chance that this program was sunset to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse since the current head of the executive branch is notoriously anti-fraud.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago
  You read one comment on Hacker News about a potential flaw in the system and that changed your mind? It doesn’t seem like you really gave it much thought before or thought about the other effects. Many comments on Hacker News don’t strictly adhere to the rules and aren’t removed. Should they just shut down all of the moderation?
  - Auracle 1y ago
    No, I read an article in a comment in Hacker News about how the program was potentially theoretically worthless until at least 2010. If the companies themselves are self-certifying I don't understand where any amount of money went - hopefully at least spot checks to keep them honest.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  You can't base your opinions on 1 or 2 instances of failure.You have to look at the statistics. Most corps aren't out to fool the system. Most will abide by energy star guidelines. That's much better than cancelling the whole program. Instances like this show where it can be approved, and not that "we should throw out the baby with the bathwater"
486sx33 1y ago
[dead]

defrost 1y ago

It's a trite trueism that all systems are vulnerable to fraud and abuse and it's no suprise the GAO was able to demonstrate the potential for abuse fourteen years ago. What would be more interesting would be a historic examination on the amount of fraud and abuse that actually takes place in the Energy Star program and whether the various decade plus old recommendations: We briefed program officials with the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EPA OIG as well as attorneys with the Consumer Protection division of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on the results of our work, and incorporated their comments concerning controls in place to protect the Energy Star label from fraud and abuse. proved useful in finding such fraud or in decreasing any occurance.

cjpearson 1y ago
Every couple days I get a pretty blatant spam email in my inbox. It's frustrating that gmail's spam filter doesn't catch these, especially since I recall it working better in the past. But I'm not going to turn off the filter because it still catches dozens of spam emails a day. Showing that a system has flaws doesn't necessarily prove that a system is useless. You have to look at the overall impact. In cases where you have an imperfect but useful system (such as most government regulation and enforcement) finding vulnerabilities is an important part of improving the system. A police department which only catches some murderers should work on catching more criminals rather than deciding it's hopeless and we might as well make homicide legal.
mike_hearn 1y ago
Overall levels of fraud are almost by definition hard to measure precisely. Demanding precision is simply a way to duck the issue. It's easier to precisely measure red teaming efforts, because then you know the denominator. There is no incentive to run these programmes well and no downside to failing so you should assume fraud is rampant. When the GAO got a gas-powered alarm clock approved, who in the department lost their jobs? Did the head of the EPA get fired? Did they all lose their bonuses? No, they held a meeting where they claimed it didn't matter because the industry self-polices.

Auracle 1y ago

[flagged]

hotpotatoe 1y ago
You should really look up how much the program costs vs how much it saves consumers each year.
intermerda 1y ago
If you assume nothing has changed since 2010 then, sure. In reality, the Energy Star program changed their certification process that went into effect the following year - https://www.energystar.go.jp/news/news2010/pdf/etv_faq_201102101710.pdf https://www.energystar.go.jp/news/news2010/pdf/etv_faq_20110.... A subsequent GAO report commended the pace of progress in implementing these changes. There have been many several changes to the program including a certification for new homes and apartments that was launched last year. But of course, there is always a chance that this program was sunset to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse since the current head of the executive branch is notoriously anti-fraud.
LeafItAlone 1y ago
You read one comment on Hacker News about a potential flaw in the system and that changed your mind? It doesn’t seem like you really gave it much thought before or thought about the other effects. Many comments on Hacker News don’t strictly adhere to the rules and aren’t removed. Should they just shut down all of the moderation?
- Auracle 1y ago
  No, I read an article in a comment in Hacker News about how the program was potentially theoretically worthless until at least 2010. If the companies themselves are self-certifying I don't understand where any amount of money went - hopefully at least spot checks to keep them honest.
EasyMark 1y ago
You can't base your opinions on 1 or 2 instances of failure.You have to look at the statistics. Most corps aren't out to fool the system. Most will abide by energy star guidelines. That's much better than cancelling the whole program. Instances like this show where it can be approved, and not that "we should throw out the baby with the bathwater"

486sx33 1y ago

[dead]