Slashdot Log In
2012 Olympics Security to be Chosen by Sponsorship
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 01, 2007 09:41 AM
from the bribery-it's-everywhere-you-want-to-be dept.
from the bribery-it's-everywhere-you-want-to-be dept.
denebian devil writes "In an Editorial/Blog at ITPRO, Davey Winder writes of a keynote speech at Infosecurity Europe by Member of Parliament Derek Wyatt. In this speech, which was about the IT security demands of running the 2012 London Olympics, Derek Wyatt MP dropped the bombshell that IT Security at the Olympics will hinge not on which companies show themselves to be the best in their field or to have the technology that best meets the needs of the Olympics, but rather on whether or not the companies were a 'major sponsor' of the Olympics. So who has bought their way into being the security experts of choice, and with whom our security and that of the visiting millions will rest? Visa."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: China Censoring Flickr 218 comments
An anonymous reader writes "It would appear that the Chinese government is currently censoring all photos on the site Flickr. A notice has been posted in a Flickr help forum about this, but the service currently doesn't have a fix for this. It would appear that China has turned on their Golden Shield Project to censor the site. 'Jain Hua Li, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he hadn't heard of Flickr until told about it in a conversation with a Chronicle reporter, and then suggested that the blocking may be because Chinese authorities are trying to protect children from racy images. Lucie Morillon, the U.S. representative for Reporters Without Borders, a French group that promotes free expression, said that the Beijing government often censors Web sites under the guise of protecting children or national security. She called the blocking of Flickr "one more blow against the free flow of information online by Chinese authorities" and added that it is particularly lamentable in light of promises by China to loosen restrictions before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.' Thomas Hawk has a well-considered opinion to offer on this issue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Diebold Olympics (Score:2, Funny)
Millions of infections (Score:2)
Re:Millions of infections (Score:4, Insightful)
We always hear about the big hacks, we don't hear about the countless failed attempts though. Give credit where credit is due. (and make sure it's Visa©, as it's everywhere you want to be!)
Parent
Most to lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
While there may not be a provable causative link, I think that the past few decades have demonstrated empirically that huge corporations seem to do crummily at the whole security thing.
Re:Millions of infections (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also show that government beauracracies do just as poorly or even worse. So what is one to do? At least the corporations seem to waste a little bit less money doing security poorly.
Parent
Re:Millions of infections (Score:5, Informative)
A decade ago, Mastercard came up with the Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) protocol. This protocol cryptographically ensured the security of credit card data, and was designed to be implemented in hardware at the retailers. Each one of those PIN pads is capable of participating in the SET protocol.
Visa killed it, because it rendered them irrelevant.
Visa itself isn't a credit lender. Visa is a commercialized industry group, very similar to the RIAA, providing a common badge to paste on the front of thousands of banks, and a common mode of operation for those banks. When you get a Visa card, it looks and acts like any credit card from any of the member banks. That's important because you (and the merchants you shop at) trust that if your card has a Visa logo that it will be honored. Back in the late 70s, that was vitally important because most credit commerce was conducted off-line. But now that we have ubiquitous electronic networks and everyone authorizes credit cards before accepting them, that logo means almost nothing. Now, it's a question of "does the merchant trust that they'll get paid?" The Visa logo lets the cashier know that his store does (or does not) trust the bank on the other end of the transaction. It assures the merchant that yes, this Visa member bank will pay them. But with a fully online transaction, the payment could happen automatically and securely. The merchant wouldn't care where the card came from, since the authorization went directly to the customer's bank, and their bank transferred their money instantly before the customer even walked out the door. There would be no need for intermediaries to skim their transaction fees for operating a special bank-only network, as the secured transactions themselves could take place over any public network.
This would have killed Visa. Instead, they swept SET under the rug and we've been dealing with phony cards and ID theft ever since. Now, they have a program called PCI-CISP, and it's used by Visa to deflect the blame to the merchants for leaking stolen data.
Parent
This should be good (Score:5, Funny)
This should not be a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This should not be a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft said they will be issuing a patch next tuesday to fix the problem.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's right.
But the problem is not business.. its that they are allowed to incorporate in the first place. What that does it creates a "legal fiction" called a corporation and in essence this is protection for the people that run it.
"Its not *my* fault.. its the fictitious corporation persons fault."
I'm very pro business but governments have created special laws for rich people so that they can engage in questionable business practices.. and its wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This should not be a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we arrest the pope for illegal activity done by a priest?
Should we arrest you for the illegal activity done by your mayor?
Should we arrest all members of a political party because some are involved in corruption?
Limits to liability are not unique to corporations. They exist for nearly any large collective of people. When I can sue you for violating my constitutional rights when you vote for censorship, or gun control, or the patriot act, or for being a member of a church that engaged in brutal crusades in the middle ages (or have you charged criminally), then that is the day you can sue me for owning a handful of shares of microsoft.
Parent
Duh, it's the olympics. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh, it's the olympics. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are going to have this stupid over-blown sportsfest, then why don't they just build a permanent facility, say, in Greece (that funny place where it actually began) and then fire every one of those corrupt, worthless bastards in the IOC.
Parent
Re:Duh, it's the olympics. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They were relocalised to a sunny vacation spot. Nothing else happened to them, the fact that the local schools was sold some very cheap steak around that time is completely coincidental.
Now stop asking questions about it or you will wake up with a goat head in your bed. (The mafia outsourced the h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duh, it's the olympics. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
why is this on slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
This suprises anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
The British Government makes a shady tech sourcing decision?
There have already been a bunch - for example, Accenture acts as a 'Premium Partner' supporting the London bid [sportsaid.org.uk] then lands a contract for the back office systems [silicon.com].
The 2012 Olympic Games... (Score:4, Funny)
...brought to you by Nissan... VISA... JP Morgan Chase... Al Qaeada...
Re: (Score:2)
Visa are extremely qualified for the job (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Your headline says "2012 Olympics Security to be Chosen by Sponsorship" and with security such an issue of course the reader will at first believe that it is PHYSICAL security in question.
You know damn well this is not the case. I am just one of the many who want you to start showing a little class and write headlines that accurately reflect the story, not the inflammatory fiction that you would prefer.
This is a technology site and this is a technology story. To fancy that it is anything else is an extravagance on your part, unprofessional and in the end, juvenile.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because it's not like this is some sort of tech or IT news on IT.Slashdot.org
Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course HP is not going to stop selling printers. But why let that stop him from writing a headline to make the story seem far more significant than it really is? Instead of letting the story stand on its own merit he needs to cook it.
And no, I'm not going to filter out his stories because I reserve the right to challenge him every time he does it, watering down one of my favorite websites with his bungled content.
Parent
Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect headlines that aren't outright falsehoods, which a large number have been recently. Sometimes they just repeat falsehoods in the linked stories ("hot ice burns!") but they are often the pure fabrication of
One of the things that distinguishes nerds from normal people is that nerds have a low tolerance for falsehood. This is why we don't have any friends. The technology we work with every day has no sense of humour. The system of 19 coupled differential equations I am banging my head against right now doesn't care how I feel or what I think: the only thing that matters is that my code--and my math--is exactly right.
This is the way nerds approach the world, and we have nothing but pity for people who are so stupid as to put anything ahead of truth, because we know that the truth is what moves the world. Everything else--however deadly or destructive it sometimes can be--is just the transient flailing of sad little people who want to put their fantasies in place of reality.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Ah, Smell that? (Score:2)
Re:Ah, Smell that? (Score:4, Insightful)
No its not, its Corruption.
Corporations are an affront to the free market. Governments have allowed rich people to create legal fiction to protect themselves if there business were to do something questionable. Laws allowing people to incorporate and receive such special protection are wrong and not part of pure Capitalism.
What if something does happen.. So you think the "security company" will be head accountable for providing poor security? Unlikely.. maybe the CEO will retire with a large payout.. err.. I mean "step down"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that rant -- its nice to know at least two of us believe people ought to be held accountable for their own actions.
PS to everyone -- your work place is not the military. You are not taking orders. You are a human being. If you think what you're asked to do is wrong or stupid, say so, fix it, come out in public, do something, don't just let Bob (random dude -- no offense to Bobs of the world) do it instead.
Re:Ah, Smell that? (Score:4, Informative)
Let's say Joe from IT uses his access to the business systems to get the backup encryption key and then steals one of the archived DB backup tapes. When he gets home he extracts a list of credit card numbers and sells or uses them. In this scenario the business policy provided reasonable protection of the credit card numbers -- the business systems were secured from general access and the tapes were encrypted. But Joe used the access he was necessarily granted to do his job to violate the trust of his employer and steal credit card numbers. Why should the CEO be personally liable?
Or for a small-business example try this one: you and your partner start a business. You hire skilled and reliable workers, you do good work, and your customers love you. Everything is going great and you land a big contract. Then your partner takes all of your liquid assets including the contract payment and skips town. Your business now has no cash to complete the contract or issue a refund, and you didn't do anything wrong, other than trust your partner -- should you lose your home because your business partner turned out to be a thief?
There are scenarios where the directors or owners should be held accountable; any time that the management of a company makes decisions that hurt people though direct action or negligence they should be held accountable. And contrary to your apparent belief it is possible to sue the directors and owners of a company personally in any case where they were actually at fault. It's just not possible to sue them personally in cases where they were not at fault, and there are socially valid reasons for making that distinction.
Parent
Can't Wait (Score:4, Funny)
You couldn't buy that kind of comedy...Oh, wait; nevermind.
Why is this a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
That they succeeded in the banking business obviously means they know to strike a good balance between security and costs. And that's exactly what the olympics is looking for.
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
In the context of the Olympics, you can have perfect Olympic security by simply not having any Olympics. Otherwise there is always a risk of either electronic or physical intrusions. Somebody has to evaluate the risks and the damage they could cause, evaluate to what extent a given security plan mitigates that risk, and decide if the expected damage reduction is worth the cost of the security.
For example, consider the possibility that somebody is able to hijack the Olympics home page, and it takes an hour to fix the problem. Such a defacement is clearly not "acceptable", but what is it worth? Would they pay $1 to prevent it? Almost certainly. Would they pay $1,000,000,000 to prevent it? Probably not.
Parent
General Olympics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overblown (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just business kids, get over it.
I just wonder (Score:2)
Commercialization (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds like (Score:2)
A Sponsorships Is OK, Just Not This Way (Score:3, Interesting)
Visa isn't tied in so much in this way, because their bijillion ads won't specify that they're handling security. Also, if they got this by favoritism based on advertising sponsorship, and not based on competitive bids, then the Olympics is probably paying them too much for what they're getting.
wow (Score:2)
You may well have missed the World Cup last year (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons Paraphrase (Score:2)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Laissez-faire capitalism simply does not work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Utter rubbish (Score:2)
The writer says that the Member of Parliament who broke the news (that International Olympic Committee chose VISA for IT security) doesn't see why the British Government should pay one billion pounds for security. Presumably because they didn't select the contractor. I don't see where you get the idea that Visa is paying for security - they are profiting from their investment in sponsoring the games by being paid to handle IT security.
I don't know if Visa is quali