Slashdot Mirror


CC Companies Scotch Mythbusters Show On RFID Security

mathfeel passes along a video in which Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage recounts how credit card companies lawyered up to make sure the Discovery channel never, ever airs a segment on the flaws in RFID security. "Texas Instruments comes on [a scheduled conference call] along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else... They [Mythbusters producers] were way, way outgunned and they [lawyers] absolutely made it really clear to Discovery that they were not going to air this episode talking about how hackable this stuff was, and Discovery backed way down being a large corporation that depends upon the revenue of the advertisers. Now it's on Discovery's radar and they won't let us go near it."

124 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. Delaying the inevitable by Brad1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No disrespect to the MythBusters, but if they could figure it out, plenty of others will also.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube.

    2. Re:Delaying the inevitable by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I understand it they didn't really find anything out, they were just in the preliminary R&D stages, trying to talk to people in the know.
      It's not like they're covering up something big, they just want to ban talk about it altogether.

      ... Actually that's probably even worse.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Delaying the inevitable by multisync · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube.

      On what grounds would it be pulled off of YouTube? This is the very essence of what YouTube committed to deliver: a medium for user-produced video content. I don't see how Adam Savage could complain - he was speaking to a room full of people, any of whom could have a cel phone, or a video camera, recording him. Same with the venue and event producer - they let him in with a camera. Unless the clip was posted by someone other than the copyright holder, I don't see any way it could be "legitimately" removed.

      As for illegitimate methods, is Visa, or any of the other cc companies, a big enough customer for Google that they would risk the possible backlash and negative publicity to pull it? Besides, it's been seen now by lot's of people. No way to undo that.

      I loved it when the guy in the audience said "you do have about 3000 people in the room are aren't under any such legal arrangements." That's the point, right there.

      Once again, the corporate culture uses lawyers to focus attention on themselves by trying to silence people who simply speak the truth. They make it so easy. It's like catching fish in a barrel.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    4. Re:Delaying the inevitable by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realize that that very clip was in TFA? Not even linked, but embedded so all you had to do was click on play?

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    5. Re:Delaying the inevitable by OECD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On what grounds would it be pulled off of YouTube?

      Grounds? Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

      Safe legal ground, but they're starting to piss off a subset of their users who expect the creators of a community to put up a modicum of defense for said community.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    6. Re:Delaying the inevitable by couchslug · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube."

      Save a copy to repost or post elsewhere.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Delaying the inevitable by WgT2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like it's time for a grassroots movement by us:

      • Finding out who these companies were that pressured them.
      • Write/call our local newscasters.
      • Write/call our local newspapers.
      • - Some journalist would love making/jump-starting/sustaining a career with this story.
      • Letting our friends/family/co-workers know about this.

      Perhaps, only perhaps, the hard part will be communicating this problem succinctly.

    8. Re:Delaying the inevitable by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably have done. Probably were anticipated by the companies to be going to do.

      The thing about credit cards is that they have never been very secure. They just have a business model that can absorb a fairly substantial slice of fraud. True, the companies don't like fraud, and they take steps to reduce it, but they don't spend more than a dollar to save a dollar of fraud.

      Having a fraud tolerant business model is way more important than having a fraud tolerant credit card. The only thing is that credit card marketing is based on getting consumers to rely on their cards, to trust the cards and the company behind them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Delaying the inevitable by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Visa?

      Mastercard?

      Discover?

      These are companies that you can not avoid, and can not fight. No one who wants to function can boycott them, and without SERIOUS fallout no lawmaker can touch them.

      Not to mention the public is surprsingly accepting of 'it should be illegal to show how bad a product is!'

    10. Re:Delaying the inevitable by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      The signature is not a security feature. Unless you want to train tens of millions of clerks in precision handwriting analysis techniques.

      It's merely a token of accession to contract terms. Having people write, "yes" would be just as effective.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Delaying the inevitable by cjb658 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, we all know how well censorship works on the internet.

    12. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Funny

      But who would see it?

      Its better to post links here than in the article no one reads.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    13. Re:Delaying the inevitable by bh_doc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rightly, that anger should be directed at the law (and lawmakers) that requires youtube to behave like that.

    14. Re:Delaying the inevitable by multisync · · Score: 4, Informative

      Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

      YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice, and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice. I believe that is what happened when the IOC mistakenly filed a notice against some video footage titled "Olympic Opening Ceremony" or something, which turned out to be footage of people protesting outside the Chinese embassy in New York.

      They believed, due to the title, that it was their copyrighted material. When it turned out it was simply mislabeled, the footage was restored.

      Safe legal ground, but they're starting to piss off a subset of their users who expect the creators of a community to put up a modicum of defense for said community.

      Well, you said it yourself. If YouTube wants to remain within the safe harbour offered by the DMCA to online service providers, they pretty much have to follow that procedure. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in business very long.

      Besides, it's the users who would create any kind of "community" that would exist around YouTube, by creating and uploading original content, as the person who uploaded the video we are discussing did. If all you are doing is uploading copyright material that doesn't belong to you, there's not much YouTube can do to defend you.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    15. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Dmala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The signature is not a security feature. Unless you want to train tens of millions of clerks in precision handwriting analysis techniques. It's merely a token of accession to contract terms. Having people write, "yes" would be just as effective.

      It's funny, though, because at one time it was at least sort of presented that way. When I worked horrible retail jobs 10-15 years ago, we were always instructed to hold the card and compare the signatures. Never once was I told what to look for to match the signatures, nor was I told what to do in the event that the signatures didn't match, but we were always told to look anyway. It seems like they've finally given that up, though. 99% of the time now, I have the card back before I even sign anything, if I have to sign at all.

      Does anyone else feel vaguely uneasy making no-signature CC purchases? I understand that the signature is mostly useless anyway, but it always makes me feel like I forgot something, as if I walked out of the bathroom without flushing or something.

    16. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Atario · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

      Hmm, I wonder if YouTube would change their tune if they started receiving DMCA takedown notices on every video ever posted...

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    17. Re:Delaying the inevitable by DittoBox · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had a friend once that put "I'm not tipping you" on his. If a clerk doesn't mention it, they don't get anything written on the tip line of the receipt.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    18. Re:Delaying the inevitable by StormyWeather · · Score: 2, Funny

      I draw smiley faces or less G rated things on the digital signature pads in stores :).

    19. Re:Delaying the inevitable by WGFCrafty · · Score: 3, Funny

      For the Mythbusters it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.

    20. Re:Delaying the inevitable by quanticle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice, and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice. I believe that is what happened when the IOC mistakenly filed a notice against some video footage titled "Olympic Opening Ceremony" or something, which turned out to be footage of people protesting outside the Chinese embassy in New York.

      While that may be the case, you do realize that this is the same YouTube who pulled videos in response to a 15 year old Australian Boy, right? I mean, if some kid in Australia can gin up a convincing DMCA takedown, how difficult will it be for a proper lawyer associated with Discovery or one of the CC companies to find a provision that conceivably supports their case and fire a barrage of takedown notices?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    21. Re:Delaying the inevitable by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      But who would see it?

      Its better to post links here than in the article no one reads.

      Great. Now we're gonna have WTFV.

    22. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Threat of legal action - groundless or not - can always be used to try to cap the information.

      I would say that if this is considered easy by the Mythbuster gang the whole RFID business are on a loose soil. And even disclosing the fact that it's possible even without showing how could be a cause for the lawyers to go for a hunt.

      I sure hope that this won't have an impact on the show. It's a credible show even if they do take a few shortcuts sometimes. This also means that any statement like this is going to be taken seriously by the audience and we will see a lot of RFID hacks soon. Cucumbers listed as birth control at the counter would be the least of our problems.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    23. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Nathrael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if, there are other means of spreading around videos. Just use your favorite P2P method. Upload a torrent file on TPB, and the whole thing will simply take care of it's own.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    24. Re:Delaying the inevitable by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny

      if some kid in Australia can gin up a convincing DMCA takedown

      ... then there's trouble brewing :)

    25. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice

      Incorrect.

      The DMCA says YouTube gets a free pass against any claims of infringement and any lawsuit from the party filing the DMCA notice.

      and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice.

      Incorrect.

      The DMCA says YouTube gets a free pass against any claims of harm or wrong doing in taking down the content.

      In practice virtually every company institutes automatic rules of obeying takedown notices and counter notices, no matter how blatantly bogus they may be. If the Olympic Committee, or Scientologists, or Barbra Streisand, or anyone else files DMCA notices demanding the takedown of content which is not in fact infringing, or for any other reason the service provider would not have been guilty under pre-DMCA law for leaving up, then that provider absolutely can choose to safely leave that content up. And equally, if under pre-DMCA law a company would not have been liable for taking certain content down, they can safely ignore a counter notice and can keep content down.

      One could, for example, send in a totally bogus takedown notice against a group organizing an event on a certain date, or against a business engaging in some time-critical dealings, or even against say a politician running for office. Virtually every internet business will follow a strict policy on taking down anything on a DMCA notice, no matter how blatantly bogus it is. The arrangement of law and business interests makes that almost almost impossible to escape. The DMCA makes it trivial to arbitrarily censor almost anything anyone dislikes and to bully people into submission, and to abusively achieve complete victory in any time-sensitive situation. I recall one case where stores were unhappy with their holiday sale prices being posted online. So they filed a totally bogus takedown notice claiming the sale prices as copyright infringement, and had the information taken down. And obviously a counter-notice to have that content restored several days later - after the holiday sale was over - would have been completely pointless. But imagine if one were to take advantage of this DMCA situation for political ends. A situation that is obviously quite date-critical and where counter-noticing a takedown does not solve or even diminish the damage caused by that takedown. One could anonymously send totally bogus takedown notices by e-mail or snail-mail screwing either candidate (even screwing both). Not only could you takedown selected videos from YouTube just before an election, not only can you have various crucial materials taken down from various websites, one could potentially even get a candidate's own website taken down.

      Maybe in the described political campaign situation a company might override the strict corporate rule to comply with all DMCA notices, however that is a total crap-shoot and the law makes it against the company's interest to do so. Legally, the corporate interest is to just obey the bogus notice.

      If all you are doing is uploading copyright material that doesn't belong to you, there's not much YouTube can do to defend you.

      If you are uploading legitimate material and someone is sending junk DMCA notices, YouTube could ignore the junk notices, could defend you, but legally it is powerfully against their interests to do so. Legally, it would be stupid for them to do so.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cucumbers listed as birth control at the counter would be the least of our problems.

      It sounds like a kinky, but certainly effective, form of birth control to me.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    27. Re:Delaying the inevitable by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So after youtube puts it back up they send another DMCA takedown notice and it goes down for another 14 days, it gets put back up, they get another takedown notice,

      Takedown and counter takedown notices are ment to be "one shot deals". If the second notice originated from the same entity you could probably sue Youtube for failing to follow the law if they didn't ignore it.

    28. Re:Delaying the inevitable by WK2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You just pointed out one of the serious flaws with the DMCA, that any company, or any person, can file a barrage of illegitimate takedown notices with little or no consequence. Which still does not represent a flaw with Google, but rather with with the law.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    29. Re:Delaying the inevitable by WgT2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You bring it to their attention for the sake of revealing the problems with RFIDs; that RFIDs can be avoided, not the companies pushing them.

      Besides, I have recently found out that it is illegal for companies to change more for their products when the purchaser is using a credit card. I find this absolutely ridiculous and law that protects the credit card companies and not the consumer (well, at least not the retailers).

      These kinds of laws end up forcing retailers to charge consumers prices with the expectation that EVERYONE is going to pay with a credit/debit card. Which in turn means they have to tack on an extra 2%-4% to each item so that the card processing companies can get their cut.

  2. Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny
    After hearing this news, I went to the Mythbusters site and entered in a bunch of old wives tales & myths passed onto me from my father and forefathers concerning lawyers. They are:
    • Lawyers possess a membrane of blood just below the skin so they appear to be human and bleed from things like paper cuts and scratches but if shot in the head or other vital organ, they will not bleed.
    • As long as they are given fresh videos of accidental injuries where a party is liable, lawyers can go weeks without food or water and still survive.
    • When dropped from 6 story (or higher) buildings, lawyers bounce.
    • Even when bound with twine and anchored, lawyers float.
    • If you cut a lawyer's head off, it will manage to sue you for days before it dies.
    • Lawyers emit an evil into the ether so powerful that when they are placed in a cage with a ravenous lion, the lion will cower and run.
    • Lawyers can smell profit and always pick the correct door in the Monty Hall situation when IEDs lay on the other side of two and $1,000 lays on the other side of one.
    • Lawyers can't feel pain.
    • Any lawyer can outrun a male grizzly bear in the middle of mating season.
    • Over the years, lawyers have built up a tolerance to lethal doses of iocane powder.

    I can't wait until they test my myths! Also, lawyers are the reason we no longer have habeas corpus, so the show should be filmed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this would be a good time to point out that Barack Obama and his running mate are lawyers.

    2. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by prestomation · · Score: 5, Funny

      I like how this is modded informative..

    3. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lawyers can smell profit and always pick the correct door in the Monty Hall situation when IEDs lay on the other side of two and $1,000 lays on the other side of one.

      The correct door is of course one with an IED behind, they can sue for waaay more than $1000 for the trauma of getting blown up.

    4. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lawyers can smell profit and always pick the correct door in the Monty Hall situation when IEDs lay on the other side of two and $1,000 lays on the other side of one.

      The correct door is of course one with an IED behind, they can sue for waaay more than $1000 for the trauma of getting blown up.

      That's lawyer talk! You're one of them!

      GET HIM!

      --
      My work here is dung.
    5. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by azakem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, lawyers are the reason we no longer have habeas corpus, so the show should be filmed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

      Lawyers are also the only reason you ever had habeas corpus in the first place, and the only chance you have of ever getting it back.

      Lawyers are like nuclear tech, they can be used for good or evil.

    6. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not all lawyers are inherently evil, even Gandhi was a lawyer.>

      Would that be Mohandas "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife" Gandhi you are referring to?

    7. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by corgan517 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any lawyer can outrun a male grizzly bear in the middle of mating season.

      I didn't know lawyers had a mating season! I guess I always assumed they were created in liquid-filled vats somewhere in Canada...

      Also... what do the lawyers do when the catch up to the bear?

    8. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you were alive during the days that they just burned scientists and heretics at the stake, I am impressed. Perhaps you just mean that you yearn for the days? (this is probably a pretty narrow style issue, but whatever)

      If you really care, stop doing business with them. Stop doing business with the various financial companies because they would manipulate what is presented to you. Stop doing business with Discovery because they put profit before whatever-it-is. Stop doing business with people who do business with them. I mean, you don't actually have to sit through the bullshit if you don't want to, but damn if it isn't easier.

      What it comes down to is that if you don't stand up for a principle, you don't really have much business expecting anybody else to...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by zblack_eagle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lawyers are like geeks, except they hack laws instead of code

    10. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, we should sue eachother more. You see, lawyers tend to become politicians, therefore there's enormous societal value in keeping lawyers busy suing people.

      It keeps evil out of politics.

      So sue eachother ! Sue me ! Maybe Barack, Biden, McCain and Palin will go back to thinking there's more money in lawyering.

      It's a feeble, fleeting hope, but what other hope is there ?

    11. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thinks this would be a good time to point out that more than half the U.S. Presidents were lawyers. Some of them were among the best regarded presidents, some among the worst.

    12. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a difference between "someone with a law degree" and "a lawyer".

      The fact is that the law is sufficiently complicated that a law degree is of substantial benefit to people who don't actively practice law. I won't take a position on whether this is a result of the inherent complexity in high-stakes rules, or whether it is deliberate obfuscation by lawyers.

      Additionally, there's a difference between types of lawyers. The lawyers that people generally look down on (and are probably most common) are defense lawyers (because most of their clients are less than wonderful people), personal-injury lawyers (because ambulance chasers and frivolous suits give the decent ones a bad name), and corporate lawyers (because they sit around all day). Both Obama and Biden are/were constitutional lawyers (in ranking lawyer sub-specialties, this is perhaps the least odious). They were also primarily non-tenure-track law professors.

    13. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Slashdot Moderation System working at its finest. Truly, a day to be proud, CmdrTaco.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    14. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not been lost? Tell it to those in Guantanamo Bay, or those held without legal consul, notification to their families, or admissions of their presence in this and similar facilities. Since their names are secret, and even admitting that you know the names can get you thrown in jail as a security risk, that's about as serious a violation of habeas corpus as you can commit. It's also a major violation of the Geneva Convention.

      So the principal is, in fact, in danger.

    15. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by NotAgent86 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Without the restraint that it must be syntactically correct and compile! The fact that it doesn't 'compile' can generate work for another lawyer who discovers the errors.

    16. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating. If you don't do business with the banks that use RFID bank cards, you might not have any bank at all in many areas of the country. Without a credit card or bank account you will find your options for owning a house or a car reduced to nil. In Canada, you cannot pay your taxes in cash. You cannot get an iPhone with cash. And yes, it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases.

      The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality. Perhaps you could lead a bank and credit card free life dealing only in Ithica Hours. But freedom from the financial corporate overlords is rare and hard won. Those overlords like RFID, so you will have RFID.

      --
      We are all just people.
    17. Re:Upcoming Mythbusters Special! by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it might take a while for the guilty parties to be held responsible. Eventually the law will catch up with them.

      The article you link to describes how "Months or years of continued litigation may lie ahead, unless the Bush administration, or the administration that follows it, reverses course and closes the prison at GuantÃnamo Bay, which now holds 270 detainees."

      No mention of guilty parties being held responsible. You really think that's going to happen?!

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  3. In other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Myth Confirmed.

    1. Re:In other words: by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about the myth that private sector TV stations (like Discovery) are more honest and open than Government-funded stations (like the BBC)? On that note, I would like to challenge anyone to build a machine that can steam-roller the named corporations purely from household kitchen and powered by an 8" elastic band. Oh, and it must also carry a raw egg.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. Next on Mythbusters... by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Busting Security Through Obscurity!

  5. This isn't about the hackers... by hpa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't at all about the hackers ... this is about making the general public aware just how bad this is.

    1. Re:This isn't about the hackers... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't at all about the hackers ... this is about making the general public aware just how bad this is.

      But as the reasoning goes...
      If the general public isn't aware of the problem...
      It isn't a problem.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  6. I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "So, if I Understand this correctly, you knew of these security holes back in 2008, and rather than fix them, you prevented the Mythbusters from talking about them."

    "Well, yes, Your Honor."

    "Give me another reason why I should listen to one word of your defense against this class action suit?"

    This will come back and bite them in the @$$. Hard.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by mrmeval · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judges are lawyers and that is forced by law. You can't be one without being a lawyer.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    2. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      it works like this:

      Your honour we are rich smooth talking businessmen, the claimants are poor people, the defence rests.

      Judge: I rule in favour of the defence.

    3. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This reminds me of something...

      Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?
      Prosecutor: 'Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo.
      [crowd boos]
      Prosecutor: I know! And I'm all, 'you've gotta be shittin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like
      [bangs fist on table]
      Prosecutor: 'guilty!' Peace.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Give me another reason why I should listen to one word of your defense against this class action suit?"

      "Well, Your Honor, all of the persons the plaintiff has named as members of the class are invalid. All our cardmembers, as a provision of the cardmember agreement, must refer to independent Binding Arbitration, and expressly waive their right to participate in a class action. And all those that remain have no standing to file this action."

      When you enter a courtroom, you enter another world where such flagrant absurdities are taken seriously. Read your cardmember agreement. Then read Kafka.

      Schwab

    5. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by gbh1935 · · Score: 5, Informative

      not true... You are not required to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court of the united states

    6. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by rm999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you know the credit card companies aren't trying to fix the issue? And why not also blame the Discovery Channel, who didn't even try to put up a defense?

      I think this comes down to "we advertise on your network and don't want you making us look bad" instead of "we are trying to keep this flaw a secret, even though it is already common knowledge."
      http://www.rfid-cusp.org/blog/blog-23-10-2006.html

    7. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not true... mostly. You are not required to be a lawyer in most (all?) jurisdictions of the United States. Judges are appointed and in many cases elected. I'm not aware that many jurisdictions require judges to be jurisdoctors (that is, earned a law degree.) Lawyers on the other hand must have earned a law degree and passed the legal bar examination of the state where they practice.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know the credit card companies aren't trying to fix the issue?

      Because they continue to deploy RFID tech that is known to have security flaws.

      And why not also blame the Discovery Channel, who didn't even try to put up a defense?

      Because Discovery is first & foremost a business and without their advertisers, they are nothing.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by marvinglenn · · Score: 2, Informative

      [...] All our cardmembers, as a provision of the cardmember agreement, must refer to independent Binding Arbitration, and expressly waive their right to participate in a class action.

      I believe that a fairly recent ruling against a cell phone company would invalidate this clause of the contract by the precedence it set. I don't fully recall the details (and please, someone post links if you have them), but one of the large cell phone companies got the "binding arbitration" clause of their contract struck down. Their contract was judged to be a "contract of adhesion". Partly because of such, the consumer could not be forced to give up rights to seek legal redress.

      --
      The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
    10. Re:I can just see the courtroom in 2010 by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      requiring binding arbitration as part of a "take it or leave it" agreement has already been ruled unconscionable.

      Sorry, but the credit card companies won't escape on that one assuming the plaintiffs have any competence at all.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  7. You have alot of faith in judges. by FatSean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't. They tend to be old, out of touch with modern technology. I think enough BS by CC lawyers would confound them and justice would not be served.

    But I'm told I'm a cynic :)

    --
    Blar.
  8. Pass the buck by magus_melchior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, rather than face lawsuits over contractual obligations to build and maintain a secure system (hah), they litigate the party who exposes them for attempting fraud.

    Should it be surprising that in a culture that prizes profits and pride over progress, that litigation threats are used to squelch otherwise good feedback and information?

    --
    "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    1. Re:Pass the buck by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I think that this kind of thing should be allowable, under one condition. Namely, that the credit card companies set about fixing this problem as quickly as possible, sparing no expense. If there is a big problem with these cards and they are willing to fix it now that someone has told them about it, I think it would only be reasonable to allow them to keep the information secret for a short time while they square things away.

      Now, of course, the odds that this is what they'll actually do are only slightly better than my odds of scoring with a pair of Japanese twins tonight. But it is a scenario I could imagine where this might be justified.

      Of course if this were the rule, and they claimed this in order to shut something down and then didn't actually do what they said they would do, they ought to be liable for triple damages to the defendant.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  9. I smell a Streisand Effect coming... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, now that the story is propagating all over the Net, pretty soon everyone will know about the alleged security flaws (if not the details), and the CC companies and their legal eagles will look quite villainous. When will they ever learn?

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    1. Re:I smell a Streisand Effect coming... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because the show hasn't aired doesn't mean it's not being talked about. The fact that such an investigation was undertaken, and the results so bad that the CC folks are so desperate to keep it under wraps, makes the issue now not merely the insecure nature of the system, but also the deception/concealment of those flaws from the general public and (most importantly) their cardholders. No matter how bad the results of the Mythbusters investigation, it will seem doubly bad if the results are kept secret and imaginations run wild. If they simply bit the bullet, let it be aired, acknowledged the flaws, and vowed to work on the problems, it would be far less damaging in the long run. Nothing stays secret for long in today's world -- the sooner you own up to it, the better the outcome. Nothing is so bad that it can't be made worse by trying to cover it up. (Think of Tricky Dicky...)

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  10. They busted yet another myth..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    freedom of speech.

    1. Re:They busted yet another myth..... by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really a freedom of speech thing; it's up to Discovery channel what it airs. As long as he can post his opinion on YouTube that's all that matters; no use martyring his show because Discovery bend to the people who pay them (advertisers).

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:They busted yet another myth..... by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right to free speech doesn't mean forcing businesses to do things which aren't profitable. If I have some controversial show I want aired on Discovery do I have a "right" to have it aired, even if Discovery will lose out? Of course not.

      It kind of dilutes the right of free speech when it is used where it doesn't apply.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  11. News from the future! by symbolset · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wildly popular Mythbusters television star Adam Savage resigned suddenly from his position as cohost of Discovery TV's Mythbusters. Said Mr. Savage: "I just want to take a little personal time with my family. I'll be taking some time out for a year or four in Belize."

    Mr. Savage has not been seen since, and our repeated calls to his agent go unanswered.

    The Discovery Channel has announced through media representative Linsay Patter "We'll miss him and wish him the best. His loss means we won't be able to continue with the show." Discovery will be filling the space with Annie Parkinson's "Crafts for Children".

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:News from the future! by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, *somebody* has to think of the children.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  12. Yeah, well... by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative

    They weren't able to stop this one, which, if you haven't seen yet, is pretty amazing.

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Yeah, well... by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because PBS isn't advertiser funded, it gets its support from private individuals and (to a rather minor extent) the government. While corporations can (and do) donate, it isn't their lifeblood.

      I agree with you though. I've seen that episode and it's a fantastic rebuke of the credit card industry.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:Yeah, well... by cortesoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.

    3. Re:Yeah, well... by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The average public couldn't spell PBS...

    4. Re:Yeah, well... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why you get programmes like Top Gear from the BBC. No commercial channel would dare upset the card manufacturers like it does.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:Yeah, well... by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The BBC is excellent in this regard, by the way. If you read the news there it's crystal clear the government (nor the BBC higher ups) have any power over them. Even internal BBC scandals like Blue-Peter faking phone-in competitions are dutifully reported on.

      You'll feel sick reading/watching Fox, or even CNN etc, after reading/watching BBC.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Yeah, well... by owlnation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.

      That all sounds nice in theory. However, the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain has the BBC -- it's funded through a license fee, and has a very strict code preventing it from carrying advertising.

      It's mostly a government propaganda tool and it carries large amounts of viral marketing and product placement every single day. It appears to be wholly corrupt. It is in NO WAY an organ of truth nor democracy. It is very much a tool of plutocracy. And yet it remains, misguidedly, a respected and popular organization.

      At least Fox News is fairly honest about its bias, the BBC is much more clandestine about its.

    7. Re:Yeah, well... by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Product placement is absolutely and unequivocally banned from TV productions in the UK. And you're not exactly sailing in the ocean of facts by suggesting that the Beeb is a government tool, as even a cursory examination of their recent history would tell you. Stop bullshitting yourself.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Yeah, well... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine what could be done if the USA had a similar arrangement to the BBC license fee for PBS.

      The BBC is funded by a compulsory license fee, which you must pay if you have a device capable of receiving it's broadcasts. For television, it's less than £12 (less than $22) per month. From this, and from licensing of their content worldwide, they maintain

      • 8 national TV channels
      • 10 national radio channels
      • Local radio covering most of the UK
      • The BBC World Service
      • The BBC Website
        • Including the excellent BBC News web
      • They produce many original programmes, like ;
        • The flabberghastingly beautiful Planet Earth
        • The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
      • And buy in the best of foreign content
      • All without commercials

      The beauty of media, as many Slashdotters will have noted already, is that the more you spread it around, the greater it's total value is.

      The USA has a far greater population than the UK, so they could either pay about £5 a month ($9) for the same level of service (I'm assuming that infrastructure costs do not diminish but content is a fixed cost in this estimate), or pay about the same, and get much more excellent, commercial-free content.

      Another enormous benefit of the BBC is that the commercial channels here are forced to raise their game. We have on average (and enforced by regulation), only 7 minutes of commercials per hour (about 12 minutes at peaks times), instead of the more customary 18 in the states. USA networks frequently cut old Trek by 9 minutes to fit it in because in the 60s you had half the commercials.

      Television is by far the most powerful influencer, informer and educator of the masses and to leave it solely in the hands of the corporations is to invite facism.

      Given a free reign or even a mandate to "inform, educate and entertain", public broadcasting can elevate an entire nation.

  13. 99% chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That this clip is leaked to the Internet where it explodes in popularity.

    1. Re:99% chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That this clip is leaked to the Internet where it explodes in popularity.

      The Discovery Channel should make sure that the media the episode is stored on is secured by means of RFID security devices to ensure that it is not stolen and leaked.

  14. corporate games by sr8outtalotech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a all about risk management for the companies involved. On one hand you have the Discovery Channel which depends on advertising revenues. On the other hand you have several large corporations that are using a flawed system. The question for the credit card companies is whether or not it's cheaper to use the system in place and pressure others not to disclose flaws or come up with something that works better. Sort of reminds me of Mitsubishi and the wheels flying off their heavy vehicles a few years ago. It was cheaper to payout settlements than recall and fix the vehicles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Vehicle_defect_cover-up

    I know the management of these companies have obligations to the shareholders but isn't about time they started to exhibit an obligation to not make fraud so easy with the current system?

  15. Not only that but by beakerMeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I truly see Frontline as one of the last and only truly investigative journalism programs on TV. It's the only show where I have found myself thinking "wow what they are reporting is interesting but it raises question A" and then as if by magic, the show continues: "we decided to further investigate and here's what we found about question A and this lead us to questions B, C and D"

    --
    meep
  16. If ever there was a time... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...for Slashdot to hammer the crap out of some corporate bullies, it sounds like this might be it. Could someone appropriately knowledgeable perhaps post a detailed account of how incredibly hackable RFID security is? A couple of URL's leading to websites with all the red meat would also be appropriate. PGP proves that once the genii is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in all that easily.

    Frankly, I'm sick and tired of all these corporate assholes and their attitude. You can bet your bottom dollar that they'll keep the current, flawed system as-is, and simply out-last any hacking victim who dares to challenge them in court. The best solution is to make sure everybody with even a grade school education and a card reader can screw them at will. Maybe then, they'll do something about fixing the problem.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  17. Re:Sometimes it neccesary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bad analogy time:

    It's like a ship with holes in it. If the ship is already at sea, you shut up and man the pumps. But if the ship is in the dock, you yell "Look, hole!" and hopefully you wont have to pump quite as much later on.

  18. With the accompanying /. title: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    "CC Companies Irish Mythbusters Show On Security"

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:With the accompanying /. title: by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny

      Better that than "CC Companies French Mythbusters Show On Security".

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  19. Ignore Them by ewhac · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Except where National Security(TM) is concerned, there is no valid argument in law to prevent Discovery/Mythbusters from airing facts about the lack of security surrounding RFID, and Discovery/Mythbusters are under no contractual obligation to keep such facts secret.

    An expensive lawsuit would almost certainly be filed after the fact, but it stands no chance of success. Discovery could counter-sue for barratry and violations of anti-SLAPP statutes.

    Schwab

    1. Re:Ignore Them by Anon+E.+Muss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... there is no law to prevent Discovery from airing facts ...

      There is also no law that requires the credit card companies to spend their advertising dollars on the Discovery Channel, or any other media outlet owned by the same company. That's what this is all about.

      --
      The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
    2. Re:Ignore Them by azakem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except where National Security(TM) is concerned, there is no valid argument in law to prevent Discovery/Mythbusters from airing facts about the lack of security surrounding RFID, and Discovery/Mythbusters are under no contractual obligation to keep such facts secret.

      Schwab

      There is more at work here than the law. The implicit (explicit?) threat is that if Discovery airs this show, the CC companies will cease advertising on the Discovery network.

    3. Re:Ignore Them by Miseph · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed the valid argument of the CC companies paying the bills. The CC companies aren't forced to advertise on Discovery, but Discovery IS forced, by virtue of having bills to pay, to seek advertising revenue from the CC companies.
      This is one of the major flaws in most libertarian and anarchist theories: government has no monopoly on tyranny or injustice.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  20. Re:Sometimes it neccesary by RelaxedTension · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...and I have decided to keep those revelations to myself so that it is not exploited by every script kiddie and wannabe hackers to try."

    And you are the only person that will figure that method out, I guess. Hopefully, you are the smartest person alive, and the problem so difficult no one else can possibly figure it out too, and abuse it.

    The way we move forward as a race is that we share information, both about what works and helps, and more importantly about what doesn't work or causes harm. If the people affected the most by the flaw that has been discovered do nothing about it, then disclosure is the way. That way everyone else is informed and warned, as they should be.

  21. Where does "law" fit into this? by CyrusOmega · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alright, showing my ignorance of our legal system here, but where does law fit in here? I don't see how the DC could get sued over this info. I *do* see the issue of ticking off their sponsors, but why are the lawyers involved?

    Let's hope they don't run a segment on how bad fast food is for you any time soon...

    1. Re:Where does "law" fit into this? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's correct. Corporations have done this to neighborhood associations to wear tenants down and free up neighborhoods for development, and it was successfully carried by the cult of Scientology to destroy the Cult Awareness Network. It's a fascinating case history of harassment and destruction by a demonstrably criminal organization against a citizen watch group. It's also done by regulatory agencies against criminal organizations: remember that Al Capone was not finally brought into court for murder and racketeereing, but for income tax evasion.

  22. Want to really get em? by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make a note of this on their Wikipedia entry.

    1. Re:Want to really get em? by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Want to really get em? by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here, I added to the Mythbusters page as well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythbusters

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  23. Likely MIFARE? by eddy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I assume they were going to demonstrate a MIFARE classic attack, on which papers are plentiful.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  24. The jokes are funny. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We have to remember that the Credit Card Companies lawyers were working for the CC corps. They were acting on the behest of those organizations. The real evil are the CC companies. They are the ones who lobbied for the new draconian bankruptcy laws that will, in the long run, stifle economic growth in this country.

    Today, I've been seeing some jack-boot operations by the St. Paul police on some folks who didn't mean anyone any harm. The cops arrested lawyers and reporters, too. There are some lawyers who are going to make those cops and their puppet masters pay big. And I'm glad that their is financial incentive for folks to go after Government when it so egregiously violates people's rights and makes a mockery of our Constitution that those disgraces to the name of police made in St. Paul.

    The St. Paul and Denver police departments are a disgrace. I hope some lawyers representing their clients (some are veterans) get rich while punishing those imbeciles. And I really hope some of those cops go to jail themselves.

  25. It isn't just credit cards by kilodelta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The banking industry in general isn't the more secure place. While they'll spend money on intrusion detection systems etc, a simple low tech approach can defeat most bank security measures.

    There's a nice thought.

  26. Or DTS by eddy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or given that TI is mentioned, maybe it's more likely to be about Rubin et.al's attack on TI's Digital Signature Transponder. See Security Analysis of a Cryptographically-Enabled RFID Device (paper) and/or article.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  27. PBS was fucked, too by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember bill moyers and his 'now' show. it was great, and he had this other guy (david b-something) as a second - and it did some good 'digging' on important stories.

    from what I understand, he got shot down and was forced to 'retire' because he asked too many hard questions and bothered too many powerful bigwigs.

    he did come back, but not on that show and he *was* put 'out of business' for about a year or two (iirc). ie, the chilling effect was done to PBS, which is a sacred cow, in US culture (more or less).

    if moyers can be silenced, its proof our whole system is broken. PBS was a final hold-out but even PBS was *heavily* edited by bush-co and their henchmen.

    TV is a wasteland; cable is mostly such; and even more and more of 'the net' is getting to be high in noise/signal ratio. the net is still mostly unregulated, but imagine the trend going from tv->cable->'teh internets'. we may see it in our lifetimes, too, if things don't get reversed soon.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  28. Re:Sometimes it neccesary by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But if no one ever shouts "Look, hole" even when at sea, no one ever man's the pumps or patches the holes.

  29. a little braggin by cypherwise · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Last HOPE was awesome. Adam gave a really fun talk and was really good from the front row! And when he came out with this information it was especially fun and really said something to the open flow of ideas at the conference. Hopefully, Discovery or any of the other companies don't give him any crap for it. Cheers. Some Last HOPE vids are available: http://hopetracker.donthax.me/

    1. Re:a little braggin by Maxmin · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  30. Feeding time by daemonburrito · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're either misguided or disingenuous.

    That wing of the party left with George Wallace after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Nixon was only too happy to pick up the so-called "States' Rights" voters, and pander to racists with his "the first civil right is safety [from black people]" rhetoric. Kennedy and Johnson's bravery in abandoning that voting block to the Republicans was heroic, and the South is majority Republican to this day.

    Your assertion that the Democratic party is the party of racists is moronic. You should listen to less opinion radio.

  31. RFID info by sfm · · Score: 5, Informative

    For a good reference describing some of the problems with RFID technology, check out the book "Spy Chips" by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre http://www.amazon.com/Spychips-Major-Corporations-Government-Track/dp/1595550208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220142206&sr=8-1 This has been our for over 2 years now, but the general public has no idea on the capabilities or consequences of RFID systems. Give it a look.

  32. Good job by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Discovery is doing the right thing.
    Just to be safe they should keep this episode locked away in a secure vault out in the middle of nowhere guarded by a lock which requires two RFID keys to open so that it will never see the light of day.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  33. Re:mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there weren't any lawyers, you wouldn't have any stuff in the first place because someone would have already ganged up and kicked the shit out of you.

    Only the biggest, fastest, and strongest is free in a lawless environment. Corporations don't need the law to collect power, but individuals do to fight it.

  34. Re:Not a problem! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is no need. A few detailed videos, posted on PirateBay and Wikileaks by people who can do a decent job from a country where the DMCA does not apply, would do quite well to publish. Why spend all the money?

    We already saw this with US passports, where the details on how to read the RFID tag is already available with a bit of Google searching. It's happening with subway passes in US cities such as Boston, which tried to prevent some hackers from presenting their paper at Defcon.

  35. Ancient secrets. by Ostracus · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Texas Instruments comes on [a scheduled conference call] along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else... "

    After discovering a flaw in one of Texas Instruments' RFID tags, researchers from RSA Labs and Johns Hopkins University say they plan to continue their testing with exploits against other RFID equipment.

    Doesn't look like the secret everyone thinks it is. Note the date. And this just from a few seconds with Google.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  36. Unfortunately, it's true to a point by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Especially when it comes to things that might be used for criminal ends. Reason is, most criminals aren't all that smart. Especially small time criminals. To the extent there are smart criminals, they are usually the ones on top, the drug lords and such. The small time criminals usually aren't the sort of people who do research or think things through. You can see this in things like copper theft. This really is not a very profitable mode of operation. Even with the price having doubled, copper prices are still talked about in single digit dollars per POUND. That's also the price you'd pay on a mercantile exchange, not the price a scrap dealer gives you. Thus it is dangerous (both in terms of getting arrested and risking death if the wires happen to be live), a good bit of work, and probably doesn't pay any better than a job at McDonalds.

    The point I'm getting at is that the large amount of petty, opportunity type criminals go for things their attention has been brought to. Copper prices skyrocketing made news so their attention got brought to it. They didn't realize that while the prices did double that was from about $2/lb to $4/lb.

    Now as related to RFID, well Mythbusters certainly could lead to slightly more sophisticated petty criminals trying it. Right now, there's little information out there on it. So you'd be talking doing a good deal of research, perhaps some of it original, to build a device that could nab card numbers. This assumes that they've even had it brought to their attention that such a ting can be done. If they don't read a site like Slashdot, chances are they don't know it has security issues, and perhaps aren't even aware it exists at all.

    However if Mythbusters calls attention to it, and shows a basic guide of how to exploit it, well then they might start trying.

    Now I'm not saying that this means the problem shouldn't get fixed, or that it is Mythbusters job to keep it under wraps. I am saying that there really is some merit to the idea that if the public isn't aware of the problem it's not a problem. Sure there are people out there who are both aware it is a problem and know enough to exploit it. Perhaps you are one of them. However, are you going to actually do it? No? Then no problem.

    I'm not saying this is the right way to approach the security of this issue, I am just saying that there is real merit to the idea that if the public doesn't know then it's not a problem. You probably meant that it would be happening but they'd be kept in the dark about it. No, not at all. What I mean is that if the public doesn't know about it, people won't try to exploit it.

  37. Re:mod parent down by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Except lawyers *usually* can be counted on to turn on other lawyers and devour them, just like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

  38. Biometrics Epsiode by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how much of this is in response to that episode they did a while back on security systems and showed how easily they could be gotten around (most notably the trivial to subert finger print scanner).

    After making those companies look like liers and fools, I can imagine that the credit card companies would not want to risk the bad press too.

  39. Re:Maybe the law should be open source by cjb658 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

  40. Re:Already done by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few inches? I was hoping to see Adam and Jamie with a parabolic antenna reading people's CC tokens from a couple of blocks. No, seriously. RFID security ranks right up there with Congressional oversight in the list of the top oxymorons of all time... okay, not all RFID hardware---some actually do use crypto in the right way---but a large enough percentage that my level of trust for RFID CCs is somewhere between zero and negative infinity.

    I kind of wish someone would record (and post on YouTube et al) a MythBusters parody in which they act like Adam and Jamie et al and do an RFID shootout to see who can assemble the best RFID remote reader rig. Score the contest on accuracy, on ability to distinguish multiple cards, on range, and if they are really feeling lucky, on whether they were able to successfully make a purchase using the skimmed data with the opponent's credit card.... :-)

    I doubt I'm going to see that any time soon, but it would be fun to watch the inevitable train wreck in a couple of CC companies' stock as they scrambled to dismantle those systems and come up with a more secure means of payment....

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  41. Credit by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating."

    The only thing a credit rating is good for is getting into debt.

    "it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases."

    But it is illegal to them to refuse cash in repayment for a debt.

    "The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order."

    That's a load of nonsense. Many people pay their rent with cash. You can buy a house and a car with cash, if you have the cash. You can immediately cash you paycheck and never use a bank account.

  42. Re:Sometimes it neccesary by kenj0418 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must be new.

    In this country, we paint the hole to look like a window, then have anyone who calls it a hole walk the plank.

  43. Torrent of full video by zoeblade · · Score: 2

    In case anyone wants to watch it in context, here's a torrent of the whole keynote speech he made at The Last HOPE. He talks about the censorship of RFID hacking 45 minutes into it.

  44. the sad thing is that companies by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2, Insightful
    can shut people up if they can prove that their product is flawed. But it is very hard to shut up a large company. Could you imagine giving a phone call to the television station saying that one of the companies that advertises on their station has a crappy product. They'd say sorry but they pay our bills.

    Worse, the companies will be continuing to claim how great the new security system is, even as they furiously try to shut up anyone that has a counter claim.