2012 Olympics Security to be Chosen by Sponsorship

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."

This should not be a surprise

[rbanzai]

Business goes to those who spend the most money. It is not based on ability. Why? Because there is no accountability on either end of the process. Unless a company is threatened with the possibility of personal punishment for corporate stupidity then there are only rewards for this kind of system. If a business suffers or fails due to this kind of dumbness those responsible will just get a job somewhere else and leave the mess to someone else.

Re:Millions of infections

[numbski]

Well, in an attempt to NOT be cynical...at least Visa would have plenty of experience on the topic. Just because they are a huge, near-monopolistic entity doesn't mean they would be inept at choosing security. Granted, it's a pretty lame way to choose, but you have to admit, if anyone has experience on the subject...

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!) ;)

Duh, it's the olympics.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

This should surprise nobody, as the olympics themselves are typically given to the city that spends the most $$ and bribes the most IOC officials.

This suprises anyone?

[henele]

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].

Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[rbanzai]

Zonk, your persistent use of misleading headlines to stir up the posters is unprofessional. This is only the latest in a long string.

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.

Most to lose

[CustomDesigned]

The policy is not completely loony. The biggest sponsors have the most to lose monetarily from a serious problem. The problem is that when corporations get too big, they seem no longer capable of acting rationally in their own financial best interest (e.g. Sony, Microsoft long term), so the profit motive loses effectiveness.

Why is this a problem

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Have you checked what industry visa is in ? Obviously they know a thing or two about both physical and electronic security.

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.

Overblown

[Moggyboy]

I'm utterly amazed that any of you are surprised or outraged by this. With an Olympic Games staging costing host cities billions of dollars, it's a no-brainer that they'll pander to the whims of any company willing to subsidize this cost, and thus reduce the organising committee from having to pull all of the funding out of taxpayers dollars.

It's just business kids, get over it.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[MightyMartian]

Why anyone bothers with this nationalistic jingoistic drug-fest is quite beyond me. There bringing the whole show to Vancouver in 2010, and we the local taxpayers are on the hook for all the cost overruns. Most of us won't be attending anyways, so the whole thing is a real joke on the unlucky souls who get to foot the bill.

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.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[k1e0x]

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" .. In a pure capitalism society that man would be liable not the fictions corporation.

Commercialization

[ZeroConcept]

Modern Olympics are a distant image from the virtuous competition they once were, commercialization has saturated any space it had for admiration. To the athletes kudos for enduring this, to the management shame on their lack of ethics.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[polar red]

Well, why shouldn't you be responsible for your deeds ? I'll make an analogy: If the company kills someone, then you could only sue the company, and not the person behind it ... this creates LAWLESSNESS.

They'll subcontract out what they don't know

[davidwr]

Visa will be the general contractor. They'll do what they know how to do and farm out the rest.

Re:Why is this a problem

[PTBarnum]

I'm not sure what your point is. All security involves balancing risk and cost; spending too much on security is no better than spending too little on security. If I spend $10 to prevent $5 in losses, I'm being foolish.

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.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[RexRhino]

Well, why shouldn't you be responsible for your deeds ? I'll make an analogy: If the company kills someone, then you could only sue the company, and not the person behind it ... this creates LAWLESSNESS.

The problem is not unique to corporations... the same thing exists with governments, churches, political parties, etc.

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.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[radtea]

Eh, c'mon, this is Slashdot, what do you expect? First-class journalism? Pfft.

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 /. editors, who apparently believe that "news for nerds" means, "headlines that lie".

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.