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."

36 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 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  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 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.
  3. In other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Myth Confirmed.

  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.

  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 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

    2. 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

  7. 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."
  8. 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
  9. They busted yet another myth..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    freedom of speech.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. Want to really get em? by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make a note of this on their Wikipedia entry.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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"
  21. 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.