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."

Comments

The Diebold Olympics

[LiquidCoooled]

Who will win the Pyrite medal?

Millions of infections

[packetmon]

Oh the drones of people who will get infected via XSS attacks. Nice to see there will be money to be made via this stupid mechanism for choosing IT security... It wasn't too long ago (April fools this year) where Cisco via an XSS attack posted something funny... Can you imagine the wet dreams malware authors, virus creators, and XSS injectors are having right now.

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!) ;)

Re:Millions of infections

[Kadin2048]

Just because they are a huge, near-monopolistic entity doesn't mean they would be inept at choosing security.

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

[magarity]

the past few decades have demonstrated empirically that huge corporations seem to do crummily at the whole security thing
 
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.

Re:Millions of infections

[plover]

I still maintain that Visa is responsible for killing advances in credit security, rather than their current wrong-headed PCI approach to "enhance" them.

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.

Re:Millions of infections

[MrBugSentry]

I read it as "security determined by sponsorship" as "security will be handled by whoever does it for free."

Re:Millions of infections

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else have to reread the first few paragraphs after misreading the first sentance as:
I still maintain that Vista is responsible... ?

Re:Millions of infections

[digitig]

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 works the other way too -- it lets the customer know that the establishment trusts the bank on the other end of the transaction. I wouldn't like to order and eat a meal in a fancy restaurant and only discover when the time came to pay whether the establishment would accept my credit card!

Re:Millions of infections

[Old Benjamin]

Yes. Twice.

Re:Millions of infections

[plover]

With a strong encryption standard, any restaurant could take any card -- assuming your available balance was high enough, of course. We could easily get to the point where "which card" is always only a matter of personal choice, since every restaurant would take every card.

What's worse, though, is Visa could certainly have implemented SET and remained relevant through continued aggressive marketing. As consumers, we collectively are pretty damn stupid. Sponsor the OoOoOlympics every few years and people will line up to eat out of your hands no matter what you're selling.

Re:Millions of infections

[digitig]

With a strong encryption standard, any restaurant could take any card -- assuming your available balance was high enough, of course. We could easily get to the point where "which card" is always only a matter of personal choice, since every restaurant would take every card, so they don't think it's worth mentioning.

That seems to be pretty much the case in Zurich -- when I was there I didn't see any of the lists of acceptable cards in shop and restaurant windows, because, as it turns out, pretty much everyone takes pretty much any card.

But it isn't only the customer's credit standing that matters; I know lots of smaller traders who struggle to negotiate with the card issuers to be allowed to accept their cards (and to negotiate acceptable rates, which vary trader by trader). Visa does at least act as a central point for being able to accept a vast number of cards internationally, whereas if the trader had to negotiate with each card issuer then all but the huge international companies would probably only bother accepting a few local cards.

This should be good

[Hoi Polloi]

I look forward to seeing guards dressed as Ronald McDonald and Mayor McCheese handing out the medals.

Re:This should be good

[timeOday]

But seriously, what guards? This is just about IT security, right? So there is nothing particularly at stake, no more so than any other e-commerce site on the web, or bricks-and-mortar store with a merchant CC account. Or do I misunderstand?

Re:This should be good

[Hoi Polloi]

Joking aside, from what I read in the article it looks like they are talking about security control systems (ID card systems, etc) not internet sites.

Re:This should be good

[Pollardito]

as long as they can keep me safe from the Hamburglar who am i to argue?

Re:This should be good

[tqft]

But they will all be safe with Jackie Chan protecting them (at the basketball at least).

If you haven't seen the ad this won't make sense.

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:This should not be a surprise

[Lumpy]

In the news tonight the Microsoft security teams missed a bomber at the Olympics village that killed 32 olympians.

Microsoft said they will be issuing a patch next tuesday to fix the problem.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[k1e0x]

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:This should not be a surprise

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that if you try to go without corporations, then who in their right mind would put themselves at risk of running a large corporation. Who's fault is it when something goes wrong. If I own a company, and all the risk is placed on my own personal assets, what happens when a patent lawsuit is brought up against the company and they have to liquidate all their assets? I surely wouldn't want that kind of risk, knowing I could lose everything. It gets even more complicated, when you have a publicly traded company. What happens when the company has to liquidate their assets? If the shareholders are the owners, then do they have to liquidate all their assets as well?

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.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[arivanov]

You have been watching the Wrong channel(TM).

Instead of watching Comedy Central you should actually watch the news.

And on the news Ivan Slavkov has been completely exonerated and reinstated as a member of the International Olympic Comitee. After all his behaviour strictly adheres to the standards of this venerable institution and he is a shining example of how this institution functions and how the decisions in it have always been taken, are taken and will be taken for the forseable future.

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:This should not be a surprise

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that if an employee of the company kills someone, and the company gets sued, then the owner of the company would be the own losing out. The reason corporations exist is because if you are the owner of the company, you can't really control everything that happens with the company. If you own a car company, you can't oversee every design aspect that goes into each car. Therefore, while you can do your best to try to stop bad things from happening, you don't have complete god-like control over the entire corporation. How would the stock market work if there was no corporations? Buying stock is buying part of a company, if companies cease to exist, then so does the stockmarket. And as for the employees of a company being unable to lose anything from their mis-deeds, you might want to read about Jeffrey Skilling.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[malsdavis]

"If the company kills someone, then you could only sue the company, and not the person behind it"
It depends entirely on the jurisdiction.

Most countries do have laws which allow employees/managers/bosses/executives etc. to be criminally tried for negligent actions carried out by their company.

Of course the USA doesn't (although a couple of individual states do to some extent) because as everyone knows, Capitol Hill works for - and is funded by - big business. Big business is hardly going to allow them (read: give campaign money) to introduce a law which would see their bosses get prosecuted.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[dwandy]

Should we arrest the pope for illegal activity done by a priest?

If the priests actions are part of church business, or at the behest of the church then, yes. If they are extracurricular activities like speeding, molesting children or robbing banks, then no. (This doesn't mean that if/when the pope finds out about illegal ventures of the priest they have any protection either....)

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?

Similar, but slightly different: Public officials are different in that they represent the public. The public can not punish itself ... well, maybe we can vote in the same goof-ball over and over again... but that's another story. In short: no. You can not hold citizens responsible for the illegal actions because there are two choices: the public wanted this, in which case it shouldn't be illegal, or the public didn't want this, in which case it's an extracurricular activity for which the 'shareholders' are not responsible.

Your examples are confusing individuals actions with those that they make for their organisation. I don't expect you to pay part of Steve Jobs speeding ticket. What Steve does on his own time is his business. What he does on Apple's time is the shareholders business.
Furthermore, churches, cities and corporations have different goals: corporations DO NO behave ethically when there is the option of PROFIT. The advent of the limited liability corporation has granted people a mechanism by which they can do reprehensible things to their fellow man and bear none of the responsibility.
We have granted all the benefits of commerce, without demanding that those who engage in it accept the consequences of their actions. It is benefit without accountability.

Yes, I think as a shareholder you too should be responsible for the actions of the corporation in which you hold ownership. Just as your capital risk is limited by your investment, so too would your personal liability be limited. The threat of a couple hours/days in jail as a result of something *your* company did would make people much more interested in how the company did business in general, not just the financials from this past quarter.

Re:This should not be a surprise

[RexRhino]

Yes, I think as a shareholder you too should be responsible for the actions of the corporation in which you hold ownership. Just as your capital risk is limited by your investment, so too would your personal liability be limited. The threat of a couple hours/days in jail as a result of something *your* company did would make people much more interested in how the company did business in general, not just the financials from this past quarter. Actually, I would just invest in a country that didn't have such retarded laws, and watch the economy of the U.S. disapear in a puff of smoke (or whatever country stupid enough to do such a thing).

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.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Apparently slashdot has some IOC members as mods. Regardless, the Salt Lake City olympics were largely "bought," as well as numerous other games over the years.

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:Duh, it's the olympics.

[eln]

That's a little unfair. Hosting the Olympics can totally transform a city's economy. After all, look at what's happened to Sarajevo since it hosted the Olympics in 1984!

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[superpulpsicle]

Don't blame the olympics. Blame the media for putting up the lamest events on tv. There are so many, like shooting and fencing that are rarely aired. I don't know about Canada but we (US) like to only show events where we have a good chance for gold.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does change local economy. The poor, rundown shithole (Leyton) that the Olympics is being built next too has had house prices go through the roof, and land that should have been used for affordable housing has been sold for crap loads of money.

So all the poor people can be kicked out. Woo Hoo!

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[CastrTroy]

I was under the impress that the olympics made money for the cities, even including the cost of building venues. Although I think that Atlanta was the first city to make money. From my understanding, it's quite easy to make money once you sell it as a big ad-fest.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[eln]

Salt Lake City cleared all of the homeless out of their downtown area prior to the Olympics, and they still haven't returned in the numbers they were in before. I don't know what they did with all of them, but I was in SLC in 2000, and again in 2003, and there were far more homeless people the first time. It was really nice being able to go into one of the downtown malls without being hassled by a homeless guy, but you do sort of wonder where they all went.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Rasit]

Salt Lake City cleared all of the homeless out of their downtown area prior to the Olympics, and they still haven't returned in the numbers they were in before. I don't know what they did with all of them,[...]

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 horse head department to Sony)

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Anonymous Coward]

The missing homeless? Sold them off to gay mormons in rural areas for use as extra "wives".

Hey, don't complain to me. Taking aliens living among you to be slaves is right there in the Bible.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Uthic]

Well your point aside, there was a major conflict in that region, if I recall Sarajevo saw some action (how I learned of the place as a kid actually :P)

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[martinmarv]

The 2010 Olympics is a "Winter Olympics". Good luck holding one of those in Greece!

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the local schools were sold very cheap pork (with "the other, other white meat" on the label).

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[eln]

Yah, I got that joke from the Simpsons.

Kent Brockman on the Olympics at Springfield: Springfield is expecting an economic boom from the Olympics like the one Sarajevo experienced after the '84 Olympics

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Bazman]

Plenty of shooting on US tv. Its called 'The News'.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Bogtha]

Why anyone bothers with this nationalistic jingoistic drug-fest is quite beyond me.

Money. All those tourists coming to watch the Olympics spend money on hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions, souveniers, etc. Everything a hundred thousand foreigners spend during a couple of weeks now belongs to the host country, and what's more, they'll go back home and tell their friends what a nice city you have, and maybe come back again themselves as well. The four billion people watching on television might be tempted too.

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.

Yes, but most of the money that is spent remains in the local economy, so even though the taxpayer might lose out superficially, the country as a whole profits.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[MightyMartian]

This is precisely the bizarro economics used to justify these nationalistic monstrosities; trickle-down economics at its worst. When the taxpayer sees vast amounts borrowed in his and/or her name, the interest from that very likely disappearing into the balance sheet of some of the uber-banks, the notion that some small part of it might stay in the local economy just doesn't seem to cut it. Worse, for those people living in the state/province/country but not in the immediate jurisdiction, the benefits are even less, other than a bit of a payoff pot to keep people from marching up and burning their legislators alive for getting them involved. My taxes go up for an even that's taking place about three hundred miles away and across the Strait of Georgia. Other than some regional "development" money to try to make it look like the Olympics have anything at all to do with areas outside of Vancouver, there's not a lot to say for it. As was demonstrated by Expo 86, these international "events" are big holes in which money is thrown, and which areas more than about fifty miles outside of the hosting city never see any economic activity increases.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[sconeu]

Yo, Mr. IOC. We think you should ban all sports where them there furriners do better than us red-blooded Americans! Or you should change the rules so that us 'Mericans can beat them lousy furriners!

Why, we have to come up with more inspirational stories about a brave American who overcame a hangnail to fill time, when we can't show an American winning a gold medal!
</NBC;>

This is solely my opinion of NBC's coverage.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[sconeu]

I was under the impress that the olympics made money for the cities, even including the cost of building venues. Although I think that Atlanta was the first city to make money

Los Angeles, 1984. L.A. got it pretty much by default -- nobody else wanted it after the Montreal debacle. The LAOOC were the ones who kicked off the corporatization. IIRC, decathlete gold medalist Daley Thomson wore a T-shirt at the closing ceremonies complaining about the advertising.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[DrKyle]

I'm pretty sure I heard about them taking busloads of homeless people down to Las Vegas and then hauling back busloads of hookers for all the foreign visitors.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[sconeu]

Damn. I need to learn how to use preview :-)

I was under the impress that the olympics made money for the cities, even including the cost of building venues.

Montreal lost somewhere in the vicinity of $1Billion (whether US or Canadian, I don't know).

Although I think that Atlanta was the first city to make money

Los Angeles, 1984. L.A. got it pretty much by default -- nobody else wanted it after the Montreal debacle. The LAOOC were the ones who kicked off the corporatization. IIRC, decathlete gold medalist Daley Thomson wore a T-shirt at the closing ceremonies complaining about the advertising.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[TobascoKid]

But the souvenirs are made in China and some of the hotels use Indian call centres to take reservations. And where does the money made by the people-traffickers smuggling in sex-slaves go?

I'm not convinced that the amount of money brought in by tourism is greater than the amount of money being spent. I doubt it's anywhere near what they're spending. It's not like London was that short of tourists before the Olympics. If London is the 6th wealthiest city on the planet, does it really need that much of an injection anyway?

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Bogtha]

This is precisely the bizarro economics used to justify these nationalistic monstrosities; trickle-down economics at its worst.

This isn't "bizarro economics", this is perfectly reasonable. Lots of people coming into your country from elsewhere and spending their money on local goods and services increases the amount of money a country has. Spending lots of taxpayers' money on local goods and services does not decrease the amount of money a country has. Doing the latter to encourage the former is a profitable activity for a country.

Worse, for those people living in the state/province/country but not in the immediate jurisdiction, the benefits are even less

You are arguing against the position that this kind of deal would be uniformly good for all taxpayers. I never said that. Your original statement was "Why anyone bothers with this nationalistic jingoistic drug-fest is quite beyond me." I explained how the country as a whole can profit from a major international tourist attraction.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[TobascoKid]

Spending lots of taxpayers' money on local goods and services does not decrease the amount of money a country has.

But it is decreasing the amount of money I, as a taxpayer, have with no near or even long term benefit to me. If there was some form of "tourist tax", where the proceeds went straight back to those of us who are paying the extra taxes then maybe it could be viewed as some form of investment - but seeing as tourists don't even have to pay VAT I doubt there's going to be some special tax for them.

Britain has no manufacturing industry to speak of, so all those "local goods" are actually imports and most of the services are performed by cheaper, foreign workers and therefore the money's going to foreign countries - either directly in the case of foreign call centres or indirectly in the form of migrant workers.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

'hassled by a homeless guy' Nice way of putting "asked for any change". You have no idea why some of those people are there, they aren't all drug addicts and such, give them a break for at least trying to survive rather than sit and rot in a door way as they starve to death.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[eln]

I'm not a fan of begging. I support charities that help the homeless, but I don't and will not give change to people begging on the street. If they need money, they can work for it. If they are unable to work, they can go to the variety of charities set up specifically to help them, and I will continue to give my money to those charities.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

You do understand charities often have to turn people away because they lack the space and funds to help everyone right?

I find it funny how people are so black and white with homeless people yet never grasp that one day they could be in that position with everyone refusing to give them anything to even survive.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[Miseph]

Yeah, and unlike those pussies in the Olympics, OUR top shooters are so good they can hold the gun sideways and ignore the sights. Only losers aim, or shoot at things more than 15' away.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[pbhj]

One word (or maybe two?) "backfill".

I mean you've got people / bodies you don't want, there's lots of cement around ... you do the math[s].

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[checkyoulater]

here 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.

I take it you aren't a skier then? The upgrades done to the Sea-to-Sky highway up to Whistler are amazing. I realize that most highways in the GVA are somewhat of a joke, but what they've done up there is, as I said, amazing. I'm pretty sure that the BC government wouldn't have spent that money if it weren't for the Olympics. I suppose I can see the argument that this only benefits skiers, but they do have golf, biking, hiking, and pretty much anything else you can think of up there. And the new highway upgrades make it all even more accessible.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[MrCrassic]

While all of them are most certainly NOT drug dealers, users, or the like, how can we know how many are just homeless because of their bad habits?

When I give change to a homeless person, it's very difficult to assess whether that person was there because he or she had unfortunate life events or whether he or she is just getting by through his or her own satisfaction. When I give or deny change, it's really a choice between thinking all homeless people are just trying to survive or all homeless people are just bumming around.

To make it easier, I say that if the person is just holding a cup out WAITING for change, then that person is probably not going to struggle to get their life back together, so I need not help them.

As an aside, I have NEVER seen a homeless person wear decent, or even wearable, footwear.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics.

[slyxter]

I believe the Coquihalla Highway is more than 50 miles from Vancouver and has been of enormous benefit since 86.

why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

This impacts none of you nerds. Everyone here has asthma.

Re:why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have asthma. I have also won two national cross country championships.

Re:why is this on slashdot?

[false_cause]

Maybe you should try giving your sense of humor a workout.

Re:why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which nation? Luxembourg?

Re:why is this on slashdot?

[lhorn]

-- and with Beijing's rumored levels of air pollution will be able to compete in the Olympics, the regular athletes will not extert themselves for fear of permanent damage --

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 then lands a contract for the back office systems.

The 2012 Olympic Games...

[Billosaur]

...brought to you by Nissan... VISA... JP Morgan Chase... Al Qaeada...

Re:The 2012 Olympic Games...

[Hoi Polloi]

I look forward to following the athletic exploits of our beloved corporate representatives...I mean our American atheletes.

Visa are extremely qualified for the job

[malsdavis]

Visa are of course an extremely qualified company to look after the IT security of the games however. Regardless of anything else they would be amongst the top couple of contenders anyway.

Re:Visa are extremely qualified for the job

[Moofie]

What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:Visa are extremely qualified for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, it's a bit grey as I look out of my Paddington Office ....

Oooh, what a giveaway...!!!

Re:Visa are extremely qualified for the job

[malsdavis]

It's a blue sky today here on Earth. What about your planet?

i do not see the problem with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong getting services from one of your
major sponsors?

Do you really think the security company is
any different then the rest? They all know how
to lock down a windows or a unix box. They all
know how to audit code for possible problems.

Lets ask the slashdot fanboys if they think this
site, slashdot.org is secure? Did it take a rocket
scientist to get it that way?

the editors sure want to make it seem like security
is a tough thing to get a handle on. computers are
so blaise now days.

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.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Anonymous Coward]

unprofessional and in the end, juvenile

Ah, yes, that's pretty much sums up most of slashdot, doesn't it.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Fifty Points]

the reader will at first believe that it is PHYSICAL security in question.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution to the zonk crap. Just remove all his posts from your preferences. Once enough people do it, he'll either grow up or get the boot.

But then who would post the daily anti sony "articles"?

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[rbanzai]

It does not free him from the responsibility of writing an accurate headline instead of one he has written to deliberately misrepresent the content, his frequent approach. For a recent example check out this whopper: "HP Stops Selling Printers, Starts Selling Prints." (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/19/16920 8)

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.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Sherloqq]

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

Besides, even techies look for a little sensationalism in their headlines. They have to deal with boring IT stuff on a regular basis, fer cryin' out loud. A catchy headline makes their pulse quicken. And in a lot of cases, that's the most exercise their cardiovascular systems get all day. You could say, Zonk's doing their health a favor.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say this used to be a primary tech site. Now... oh it's still a tech site only money is now a bigger priority.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[ceroklis]

Zonk, your persistent use of misleading headlines to stir up the posters is unprofessional.

On the contrary, he is very professional. His job is to optimize ad impressions by attracting as many readers and posters as possible, not to engage in accurate reporting. He is therefore doing his job, and does it well.

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.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Sherloqq]

I apologize. I included a "sarcasm" tag in my response, but that got filtered out and I submitted without previewing. My post was not to be taken seriously, at least not by the serious people like yourself :) It was supposed to be thought-provoking, flamebait even, but to the "other" side. And, BTW, I'm on your side on this one. It's just that sometimes I get fed up and feel like sarcasm is the only way to get people's attention.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Turn-X Alphonse]

If you watch the games section you'll notice he posts a lot of worthless shit there including his own little soap box reviews.

As I recall his excuse is "I work the late shift when stories are slow and I have to use what I have", which is clearly bullshit since it is now 8pm GMT and he's posting in pretty much prime time with the same junk.

Maybe we should all change our sigs to "Zonk belongs on Digg, not /." and e-mail Taco about it every day until he gets the hint.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Fifty Points]

But we're not talking about printers or straw men, are we? The point is it's not Zonk's fault that you misread a headline that clearly states:

IT: 2012 Olympics Security to be Chosen by Sponsorship

Zonk isn't reading this aloud over a loudspeaker, its typed text. That means you have to use the reading comprehension I know you possess instead of glancing momentarily and pretending it's the editor's fault.

Re:Zonk, please stop misrepresenting via headline

[Kuvter]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but don't you realize you're being a little brash and tactless?

To be blunt I think your own comment lacks the class and professionalism you're trying to impose upon others.

Ah, Smell that?

[AltGrendel]

That's Capitalism, bucko!

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.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[MikeBabcock]

People who'd have to take responsibility for their actions? OMG, say it ain't so.

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?

[mangastudent]

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.

Corporations allow people rich and poor to invest in an enterprise without putting their entire net and future worth on the line. They may not be your idea of "pure Capitalism", but I think they are an acceptable imperfect solution to a real problem. And the non-rich have a lot of money invested in corporations, at least in the US (e.g. through defined contribution retirement plans).

Get rid of corporations? Get rid of most of the investments in businesses. Experience shows that this will reduce them to family run companies that only trust blood relatives to run them, since there is so much on the line (and will often buy protection from the government for the same reason).

The traditional Chinese company and its manifest limitations show the problems with this approach. For one thing, in this business model you can't hire outsiders who have domain knowledge in a area none of your family members have acquired. Look at Wang after the father put one of his sons in charge of R and D; I had a friend working in that part of Wang in 1980 or so, and knew they were doomed back then....

Sorry, but I'll take widely distributed wealth imperfectly but legally gained over the poverty and whatever benefits you imagine are gained by your "pure Capitalism"....

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[k1e0x]

I don't claim to have an answer to the problem. The system we have is so backwards from what it should be.. I'm not really sure a fix is possible.

I never said we should "Get rid of corporations?". Destroying all corporations would never work. I like large corporations for the most part.. but issues like "MySpace China" With there "report disruption of social unity" reporting tools is not surprising because large corporations don't have home nations, they exist in the nations they conduct business. We should try to find some way to make them more liable however.. this will likely involve removing laws and not adding them.

There may be some sort of "natural limit" as to how large a company can become.. It *is* larger than a "family business" though. There are many private companies that have billions in revenue.

I think people invest so that they can try to save there money.. the reason they just can't put it in a bank is because reckless government spending is causing practically a 10% inflation rate.. so you invest to beat that. More people are investing today than ever before and.. oddly enough government spending is at an all time high. I don't know how long it will be before that system breaks but it will break some day, and those investments will disapear for a lot of people..

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[Valar]

If your theory on inflation and interest rates were true, then risk free interest rates would be 10%. However, inflation is not 10%. Instead, inflation-- depending on how you measure it-- is closer to 2.8% The market rate for fed funds is hovering a little under the target of 5.25% at about 5.2%. Similarly, the yield on treasuries is about 5%.

No, the reason people invest is because they have a time preference of money: businesses or governments need money now to finance expansion, people want more money later when they need it to retire/buy a house/whatever. It is better to have money now rather than later (if you were to be given $1,000 you would rather have it today than in a year), so this puts a premium on current dollars. Pure and simple economics 101.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[profplump]

Apparently you've never employed anyone, or been a member of a partnership. Employees and partners aren't slaves or children, and their boss can't control all their actions. Therefore their boss should not be held accountable for all their actions.

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.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[k1e0x]

Actually, I do run my own business.

I am quite aware of how the current laws and legal system make it dangerous NOT to incorporate. That's something we need to change.. the thief is liable.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[remmelt]

Don't turn it around: There are scenarios where the business owner can NOT be held accountable, but the rule is that he can be, because it's his business.

I know for a fact that a business can be held accountable for theft using means provided by the business (think employees taking ladders from your house painting firm and using them to burgle houses at night) under Dutch law. Of course, IANAL etc, but I did study law.

There is way too much weaseling out done by business owners, especially in the upper segment of the market. I include politicians in business owners, by the way, since that is pretty much the same thing these days. You have the perks, you take on the job, it's your choice. It comes with pros, it comes with cons. This is one of them. Your business loses a bunch of personal data because of lax security? It falls to you. Questions need to be asked: why did this one employee have access to so much data? How was it so easily transported to the outside world? Did you do a background check on him? Etc. Don't give me this clean hands crap about how you aren't accountable because it makes you sound like a whiner.

Sony installs rootkits all over the world, their response: "people don't even know what a rootkit is." Did anyone take the fall? No. Did anyone profit? Sure did.

If you stand to profit from your enterprise, you stand to take the fall when something goes wrong. It is part of the deal. If you don't like it, become a dish washer.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[profplump]

Both your "lax security" and your "Sony rootkit" examples are instances of business actions not employee malfeasance. In any case where the business takes official action, or fails to take reasonable precautions, both the business and its directors *are* accountable under current law, should anyone choose to sue them. I'm not saying it would be easy or cheap to win such a case, but the law allows you to sue both the business as a whole and it directors personally for anything the business chooses to do.

Even in the case of employee malfeasance, or other non-official action, you can sue the company itself. But there are important protections for business directors against things like employee malfeasance. Both the thief and the business may be held accountable, but the directors cannot be held *personally* accountable for all the actions of their employees.

I never said the companies shouldn't be held accountable for actions or even for the actions of their employees, or that the directors of companies shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions. I only said that *personal* protection of business directors afforded by incorporation is socially valuable because they are not able to control the actions of their employees.

Talk to me about "whining" when your locked car gets stolen, used in the commission of a crime, and then you get sued by the victims because of your "involvement" in the crime.

Re:Ah, Smell that?

[remmelt]

Sorry! I didn't want to offend. I'm just sick of people who can't be held accountable for anything, yet take positions that are based on accountability.

> but the directors cannot be held *personally* accountable for all the actions of their employees
I agree that there should be a line where personal accountability is concerned. I was just pointing out that the default mode would be that the employer IS accountable. Why shouldn't he be? It's his business after all. Look at it from another side: let's say I tell a software company to make an HR database for me. I deal with the director of this company, he signs the contract, etc. In the course of programming the db, one of the software company's employees takes off with the personal data of my company's employees. Let's say for simplicity's sake that I am not to blame (see what I did there? ;)
I don't care who the programmer is that took my data. I don't care if it was the janitor. I am going to hold the director accountable, and I am going to hold him personally accountable. That's what a business is: the boss is the guy that takes the fall. He's the guy that takes the gold as well, if all goes OK, so it's really only fair. Now, how he deals with his troubles is not interesting to me. He can sue his employee for all I care.

> Talk to me about "whining" when your locked car gets stolen, used in the commission of a crime, and then you get sued by the victims because of your "involvement" in the crime.
No prior cont(r)act between the car thieves and me. If there would be, who knows? Say it's your kid that steals the car. You're accountable! Say it's your employee who steals your car. We'll see you in court! (Meaning: I don't know)

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.

Re:Most to lose

[sexyrexy]

That's not necessarily always true - companies larger than Sony or Microsoft, such as GE, continually make incredible strides in short-term and long-term profitability.

Can't Wait

[styryx]

I hope there's going to be some funny messages popping up on the screens on live TV.

You couldn't buy that kind of comedy...Oh, wait; nevermind.

Re:Can't Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

if you can't buy it - wouldn't it be...priceless?

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.

Re:Why is this a problem

[YrWrstNtmr]

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

No, Visa has decided that 'some' breakins are OK, as long as it doesn't rise to the point of impacting profits. At the Olympics, having 'some' breakins, physical or other, is not acceptable.

Re:Why is this a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Visa choose to accept some aspects of the risk related to the misuse of their infrastructure, but that's because it makes economic sense for them (changing their entire infrastructure would be too costly, so they prefer to assume the risk of fraud up to a point). Nothing indicates that the same calculation would be made in the context of the olympics.

Re:Why is this a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That they succeeded in the banking business obviously means they know to strike a good balance between security and costs.

Costs? They don't bear any of the cost of their insecurity. If someone obtains a card fraudulently or steals a card number or just gets buyer's remorse, they simply take the money back from the hapless merchants.

With a credit card company in charge of (IT) security, I fully expect to see something go completely and horribly wrong, and then Visa just expecting everyone else to foot the bill for fixing it.

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:Why is this a problem

[toomz]

Visa has decided that 'some' security failures are OK due to the nature of the business they're in. They're trying to deliver a relatively secure service to billions of people who do stupid things like drop their credit cards, write PIN numbers on post-it notes, naively enter personal information into phishing sites, and so on. If they were to adopt a fail proof security system if such a thing were even indeed possible, credit cards would likely be so inconvenient as to be rejected by the majority of consumers.

The olympic IT system I suspect consists of a substantially lower number of accounts.

I also fail to see how having 'some' breakins is not acceptable. There is *always* the possibility of a security breech, no matter who designs the system. What does the IT system at the olympics have which is so much more important to protect than mountains of consumer debt? Gymnastics scores? Visa can't prevent those from being grossly manipulated anyway... Or maybe the results of the 100m. I can hear the announcement now... Ladies and gentlemen, despite what all of you just witnessed, our computers say the lead runner actually took longer to finish the race, so we'll be awarding the medal to the second guy to cross the finish line.

Re:Why is this a problem

[TheZax]

In the context of the Olympics, you can have perfect Olympic security by simply not having any Olympics.

That is the equivalent of a Denial Of Service Attack. Destroying something is not the same as securing it. And definitely not the definition of securing it perfectly. Find a different analogy, that one doesn't work here.

I won't even touch the "spending too much on security is no better than spending too little on security" part...

Revealing admission

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really important story IMHO. It reveals what we have known for years, that the entire "security culture" and the "war on terror" is a sham.
The Olympics are a genuine major target for any evil groups with a grudge, it's global publicity for them to mount an attack and IT security as a vital part of an overall defence. What we see here is proof beyond any doubt that governments are playing on our fears to feed privileged security contractors who have sprung up since 9/11 and continue to milk the public. This is outrageous and shamelessly corrupt behaviour. Hopefully nothing bad will happen, but if it does I hope everyone remembers that security was chosen by nepotistic back rubbing, that a record of the culprits is kept and they go to jail for negligence.

Um, that actually makes sense.

[kabocox]

Come on that actually makes some sort of sense. Let the folks that are already paying for the Olympics be incharge of the security. Visa sounds like a good choice. After actually reading the article, I was surprised. They article writer wants the UK government to pay a billion or so for the Olympic security. Hmm, which would you rather have, your tax payer money going for the Olympics security, (which you may or may not actually care about), or a known sponser for the Olympics paying the bill?

Come on this guy lists two possible techs and then mentions that it's an existing Olympic rule that sponsers only need apply, which sounds like if they want their products in then they need to sponser the Olympics.

I'm sorry, but Visa is one of the few companies that I'd actually be willing to trust on security. Would you want Nokia or the London Public Transient Authority responsible for your security?

General Olympics

[Fastball]

The Olympics lost their way when NBC (owned by General Electric) and Dick Ebersol "monetized" them. Now, they're all about lining up sponsors and corporate sponsorships. The television audience gets more athletes' backstories that they can have a cry over than compelling competitions. That's how it is. Money and mediocrity are always seeking an equilibrium with each other.

Re:General Olympics

[i.r.id10t]

But some good comes of it... in fact, my Grandma and Uncle had Coke convert a couple hundred hours worth of home video footage from whatever camera Grandma and Grandpa had to VHS for the '84 Olympics... of course, they wanted her personally taken footage of the '32 Olympics opening ceremonies (Grandma was secretary to the GM of the '32 Olympics), but we weren't quite sure which reel they were on. So Coke converted all of it for us. Way cool.

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:Overblown

[nasch]

they'll pander to the whims of any company willing to subsidize this cost

I didn't see anything about Visa subsidizing the costs in the article. It said the UK govt is paying a billion dollars for security, but I don't remember any mention of Visa chipping in. Did I miss it?

Visa...

[spammeister]

It's everywhere your security wants to be.

Re:Visa...

[Mantaman]

Ticket for Olympics for 2012 £1500. Over priced food £200 for a hot dog. Getting nuked in the arena because there isnt any security .. PRICELESS :)

I just wonder

[zappepcs]

how much sponsorship Diebold has put out toward the Olympic Games?

Re:I just wonder

[sconeu]

In other news, The USOC has pushed the IOC to Diebold to do all the voting machines for the judged sports...

Well.

[ccarter]

Well I don't like the potential precedence this sets but atleast some one competent won out. If you've ever had to work with Visa (I have) then you know they are the most positively anal retentive group about security on the planet.

More Money = Better

[ColeonyxOnline]

Common knowledge says, if a person (or a company) has a lot of money, they are better than the ones what don't have as much money. If you agree with it or not, doesn't matter, that's how it works.

Look at the news, some dumb smuck that can make million of dollars is treated like king, with people (paparatises) following them around taking pictures of everything they do.

Does it matter the person that person is an ass 90% of the time? nope. Does it matter the person the person can barely speak in public? Not in the least. Does it matter she was a whore, died in car crash because her and everyone inside the car were drunk? Nahhh, she was princess.

To me, the article doesn't show anything new...

Re:More Money = Better

[Anonymous Coward]

--- the short bus went thataway. If you run fast you can still catch it.

Re:More Money = Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Whore = someone who takes money for sex

Slut = someone who simply sleeps around with people that you don't approve of

What a horrible idea

[joeszilagyi]

I mean, honestly. This is like society endorsing Halliburton-style shenanigans.

Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The Olympics is about making money, not doing what is "best." A big part of making money is making the sponsors happy. I have intimate knowledge of the sports timing (photo-finish) market. The "official timer" of the Olympics (either Omega or Seiko) provides the photo-finish equipment rather than the company with the best product for the job. Why they think a company that makes watches knows anything about high speed line scan photography is beyond me.

Re:Not Surprised

[westlake]

Why they think a company that makes watches knows anything about high speed line scan photography is beyond me.

Seiko Watch. Seiko Clock. Seiko Time Systems. Seiko Precision. Seiko Optical Products. Ohara {optical glass and ceramics]...

Seiko has been in the business of time-keeping and precision manufacturing since 1924.

Re:Not Surprised

[Fritz T. Coyote]

Don't forget Seiko Detonators... for torpedoes that WORK.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Seiko has been in the business of time-keeping and precision manufacturing since 1924.

I'm not disputing that. But what makes you think they make a good photo-timing camera?

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:Commercialization

[foniksonik]

Please... you think those Greeks weren't milking their Olympic games events for every penny nail they could get donated? A lot has changed since the Greeks were the shiznit but some things never change... manpower is still manpower and it still costs resources.. if you can get it for the price of sponsorship rather than grain or timber... hell yeah, you can't trade status very often anyways... it's only valuable to the first person who gets it... nobody likes sloppy seconds.

sounds like

[Himring]

Sounds like putting a band together based on how it looks....

Even if it IS the military

[Anonymous Coward]

you should not undertake illegal action.

Re:Even if it IS the military

[Anonymous Coward]

Poppycock. Once the legal system itself is corrupted (e.g. by the introduction of artificial "legal persons"), illegal action is required.

A Sponsorships Is OK, Just Not This Way

[Phat_Tony]

Evaluating security products effectively can be very difficult and expensive. I have no problem with them doing this by sponsorship. But they shouldn't just hand over technical security to whoever happens to be the biggest advertising sponsor, even if it's McDonalds or Microsoft or someone else who doesn't know anything about it. They should solicit bids for a security sponsor. That is, companies place bids separately to run the security services for the Olympics. These bids could be positive (they pay the Olympics) or negative (how much the Olympics has to pay them), along with a proposal explaining what they will do to keep things secure and their experience in the field, etc. They also get a certain amount of advertising on things, "Olympic IT Security Provided by Whoever." If the ads say "Olympic Security Provided by Symantec," and the headlines are "Olympic Security in Shambles; website defaced, credit card numbers stolen, official Olympic records changed," this isn't so good for the company. Realizing this potential ahead of time, in placing bids, security companies will have a very strong incentive to submit competent proposals.

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.

Coulda been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coulda added a 't' to visa.

yeah. yeah I went there.

Is this a social project test?

[Anonymous Coward]

A commercial venture going for the highest bidder? Notice how the submitted text is slanted towards: of course the Right thing to do it to hire the best company for the job!

Instead, the text could have read: Visa won bidding-round for securing the IT infrastructure during the Olympics, but then again, it would not be news.

So next time you read ANY news article, ask yourself: What is the bias here? You will always find some prejudice and some bias, that many people actually physically involved will just shake their head and state something along the lines of: newspapers never cover the actual happenings, but just scandals and crisis.

Spirituality will always lift up people.

wow

[Bandman]

Glad I don't have tickets to that.

You may well have missed the World Cup last year

[simong]

Mastercard were the official credit card and tickets and souvenirs from official shops and sites could only be bought with Mastercard. Just wait until McDonalds twig to that one...

Obligatory Simpsons Paraphrase

[Paulrothrock]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Laissez-faire capitalism simply does not work.

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Paraphrase

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would like to welcome our uber-wealthy security overlords.

Utter rubbish

[Calibax]

You really need to read the article again.

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 qualified or not. They certainly have made some less than stellar business choices in allowing a certain level of fraud in their normal business so long it doesn't impact profits unduly.

But that's not the point. The Olympic Games are a significant terrorist target, and the business of protecting them should be awarded on the basis of best and most suitable technology. The article points out a couple of technologies that might be useful but were not considered because they are marketed by companies who are not sponsors. That is flat wrong.

Re:Utter rubbish

[kabocox]

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've been trying to re-read the article, but now its a register to read. From what I recall on my first read through though, the UK government wasn't paying any, but the security was going to cost billion. It did sound like Visa was paying that and the writer was wanting the UK to pay it. If it did say that the UK government was paying, then it wasn't very clear on that.

Sorry, but it said that Visa the sponser was providing security. That generally would mean that Visa were paying for said security. How I read it, was that the MP was complaining because the UK wasn't paying the billion for security and wasn't in charge of said security and was seriously pissed at that. I just kinda of blinked that the UK MP wanted to take on the cost and burden myself.

Re:Utter rubbish

[TobascoKid]

I just read the article, and all I could get from it is that identity management and authentication systems (so, I'm assuming both electronic and physical - probably mostly physical from the mentioning of "biometric" versions of the oyster card) have to come from a "major sponsor" of the Olympics and that that major sponsor is Visa. There's no discussion of how much it costs, or whose paying, just that the government don't have any choice in who they select|what technologies are used.

Easy to avoid

[markov_chain]

If you see a flashing red laser dot on the ground, run!

Oh the irony ...

[Ravensfire]

And during the Atlanta Summer games, and the Salt Lake City Winter games, the US was berated for "excessive sponsorship" and being "too commercial".

-- Ravensfire

Re:Oh the irony ...

[TobascoKid]

There have been more and more calls to get the 2012 Olympics as privately funded as possible(here for example). It's starting to make life hard for charities and organizations that actually help people. Those charities and organizations that provide what is essentially entertainment (ie, sport) are doing rather well though.

I really don't think the government thought they had the slightest chance of getting the Olympics, so they never bothered to work out how much it would really cost and now everybody's paying for this government's self indulgence. And that they knew that they wouldn't be in power when 2012 comes means that they probably didn't care how much it would all cost anyway.

There should have been more debate about the whole thing before a bid was even launched. Instead, there was no debate, the state media kept going on about how wonderful it would all be and how anyone who against the bid was either mad, silly or unpatriotic, and actual, real world costs were never worked out. I was against the bid, I know plenty of other people who were against it and anybody I knew who said they were for it also said that we wouldn't get it so "what was there to worry about?".

So now that we have an expensive government blunder, the government are going to try and get as much commercial interests in the games as possible so that they won't have to pay for it. Perhaps they'll try it with their other famous, expensive blunder as well - this war was brought to you by McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Visa and Nike.

Just an FYI.

[AltGrendel]

I was trying to be sarcastic.

I actually agree with you.

MOD PARENT UP

[rockout]

I, for one, get Slashdot stories via an RSS live bookmark on Firefox, and I don't know that the headline refers to a story at it.slashdot.org - I have to agree that Zonk's headline is extremely misleading, as when I see "Olympics" and "security" I immediately assume the headline refers to physical security.

As long as it isn't...

[nusuni]

Heck, as long as the sponsor isn't HP everything will work fine. Last thing we need is for them to spy on everyone...

Happening Closer to Home...

[esobofh]

The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver had a very similar situation (probably more than one). TELUS, the major telco in BC/Alberta is a founding sponsor of the olympics, providing massive amounts of support, arranging charity events and driving the process to get the olympics to BC. In the end though.. a non local company with more $$$ (Bell) took the win with more advertising $$ pledged.

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.

They're in California [Love]

[mobby_6kl]

California...
Is nice to the homeless.
California-nya-nya, super cool to the homeless.

In the city!!
City of Santa Monica.
Lots of Rich people, giving change to the homeless.

In the city!!
City of Brentwood, they take really good care,
Of all their homeless.

In the city!!
Marina Del Ray. They're so nice to the homeless. Built the port-a-potties!

...and Have Your Tech Stolen

[N8F8]

I doubt the big players want to handle this. Who wants all your security hardware, software and setup techniques stolen?

Oh I don't know.

[goldcd]

This seems like a fine idea.
If you're a large international you don't want to fail in public.
If you are going to fail in public, then you really don't want to do it on possibly the largest platform on the planet - especially after you've paid for the privilege of climbing onto it.
Don't think of it as sponsorship, think of it as a gigantic security deposit paid upfront.

IT security at the Olympics?

[amigabill]

What does that mean really? Protecting spectators and participants from what? Do I need to enter my social security number into a database in order to enter the stadium? What should I be afraid of which I need the Olympics people to protect me from? I don't get it. I imagine I'd be more afraid of terrorist bombers going after the Olympics than a computer virus. I can comprehend security in that context, but I have no clue what this is supposed to be for. No, I didn't RTFA to find out.

no different than spam lovers

[epine]

The antics and corruption of the IOC is well publicized for anyone who cares to familiarize themselves with the situation, and the antics will continue as long as the money continues to flow. Where does the money come from? The people who watch and attend the Olympics, or endorse the companies who sponsor the Olympics by consuming those brands. It's no different than spam lovers. Spam only exists because there is a segment of the population who choose to consume the services that spam offers, to buy the products, and otherwise provide the spammers with a lucrative income stream. No only is the IOC corrupt, it also protects trademarks it never should have been entitled to in the first place by abusive practices. The five rings they can keep. The term "Olympics" itself has been in the public domain for several thousand years as far as I'm concerned. The people who support the Olympics financially are no better than the people who buy products from spam kings and perpetuate the dubious business practices in that domain. I wouldn't want to enter into a significant wager about the ethics level of the average IOC member against the ethics level of the average spam king.

I recommend filtering him

[hellfire]

Almost every slashdot editor does this. If you have a particular beef with an editor, your best bet to make them change is to Filter them, and encourage others to do so.

Slashdot runs like every other website, hits on their pages, and hits on their ads. This translates to eyeballs generating revenue. Remove the eyeballs, and Slashdot gets hurt, and they begin to learn their lesson. By posting comments you are only doing exactly what the editors want, which is to stir things up and get eyeballs on the articles, which have ads.

I filtered JonKatz a long time ago for similar reasons. I didn't start a protest, but I constantly saw replies to his posts that basically did call for a "boycott" and so that's what I did. His posts sucked horribly (admittedly they sucked ten times worse than this one) and gave me no information or enjoyment to read.

So IBM

[setrops]

IBM mainframes with RACF. Sure I can dig that :-p

Read that as "then set fire to every one..."

[Anonymous Coward]

That, I'd pay to see.

"Octogenarian Fascist bastard Juan Antonio Samaranch will attempt to set a world record in the long jump, in this, his final jump. But first, race officials will soak his shorts in gasoline and set his ass on fire.

There he goes!

Wow, Bob! Juan was really moving when he landed in the sand pit and began rolling to put out the flames! I bet he never moved that fast in his life! Even with a million-dollar bribe at stake!"

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

[Telepathetic Man]

Am I wrong, or does this sound too much like a bribe for the right provide the services?

I think the change pretty much makes it illegal for any firm with a presence in the U.S. to get the contract due to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Re:Duh, it's the olympics .. any change?!

[pbhj]

I have a hard-and-fast rule on the "any change" scenario.

If the guy has better footware than me he doesn't get any change - and I tend to prefer to buy food.

Now it's possible that someone donated some £40+ trainers to him instead of feeding him for a month ... but no measure of poverty is going to be 100% useful.

Also if he says 50p for a coffee he's already nearly lost me, where can you buy coffee for 50p! If he said £1 he'd stand a better chance.

Its all a commercial scam

[nurb432]

It ceased to be a display of talent and achievement generations ago and was turned into a media/business circus.

Sad really, is there anything left that greed hasn't yet corrupted?

Medals

[jmv]

In an other announcement, the IOC said that for the 2016 olympics, medalists will also be Chosen by Sponsorship. Ronald McDonals is expected to win a record of 10 gold medals.

Olympics and IT

[ijdod]

The article still has me wondering what kind of security they're on about. I'd assume physical security, as I would suspect IT security to fall under the contract the IOC signed with Atos Origin, which includes the games in 2012. Atos Origin does work together with other partners in this, but knowing Atos Origin, it's doubtful they'd let partners take the spotlight without getting their name in.

Phew...

[Half a dent]

...calm down people, the article said VISA not VISTA.