Mythbusters Censored by Credit Card Companies

The above screencap comes from an Engadget.com post which you can find here: http://www.engadget.com/…company-l/ and it reports on Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage's admission that the Discovery Channel caved under pressure from the credit card companies not to air an episode profiling the extreme hackability of RFID chips that are now appearing in credit cards.

The story originally comes from a video posted on Wired.com here: http://blog.wired.com/…ch-my.html which was previously posted on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-St_ltH90Oc, which you can watch to the left.

So, now the truth is effectively been banned. This kind of thing pisses me off to no end--as the Engadget post points out, rather than spend money on finding a more secure solution to RFID's problems, these companies would rather spend money on lawyers to stop people from talking about RFID's problems.

In other words, rather than keeping our money safe, they'd rather be able to advertise the latest bell and whistle to get more customers.

This is why I don't have a credit card. This is why I wish I could function without a bank account--because banks aren't keeping my money secure. Remember that company that made a bunch of electronic balloting machines that were super easy to hack? They used to be called "Diebold" and guess what other kind of machine they make: Automated Teller Machines. Yep, the company that couldn't prove they could count our votes we're trusting to count our money.

Meanwhile, banks think RFID is the wave of the future. However, it's anything but. While the credit card companies won't let Discovery Channel show that Mythbusters episode (or let them even MAKE the episode), Engadget.com previously posted a video that details how easy it is to hack RFID. I reposted it here: http://thepete.com/…vulnerable

I'm all for technology (DUH!), but anyone who thinks that technology can be trusted not to fail hasn't used technology enough to know what they're talking about.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

UPDATE 20080905: I just came across a CNET article reporting on how Savage had to clarify what he meant when speaking at the convention. It seems that the real story is convoluted and bizarre but that generally what he said was accurate--aside from the fact that it wasn't Discovery Channel who shelved the episode idea, but the show's production company.

Either way, it still sounds like lawyers got involved and freaked producers out a bit--not that I blame them.

RFID Proved to Be Entirely Vulnerable

The above screencap comes from a March 13, 2008 Engadget post post (here: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/13/one-billion-rfid-cards-vulnerable-to-hacks/ )

It's so funny to me how people tend to think technology is so great. Now, speaking as a man with three laptops, three iPods, two cell phones, and a handful of other gadgets, it may seem odd for me to be critical of the very genre of objects I clearly love so much. The thing is, nothing is perfect and "security" is something technology just doesn't do well.

Whether it's electronic voting machines or DVD encryption, one thing you can guarantee about anything digital, is that eventually someone will hack it. The more high-profile the tech is, the faster it will get it's ass hacked. RFID is a great example of a technology widely regarded as a brilliant, despite it being electronic and therefore hackable.

Radio Frequency IDentification chips were originally lauded as a great solution to all sorts of problems. From inventory tracking, to speedy payment for items in stores, to accessing medical records, RFID, to those in denial, is the technology of the gods.

For those of us willing to see the big picture, RFID is still digital.

The above screencap of a March 13, 2008 Engadget post reports that RFID chips are indeed hackable--easily so. Which is really frightening based on a March 14, 2008 Engadget post (here: http://www.engadget.com/…stems-too/ ). It reports that: "Sure, it's fun to say that one billion RFID cards are now at risk due to the Mifare Classic's broken encryption, but it's another thing to comprehend how widespread the fallout could potentially be -- the London Underground's Oyster Card is based on the chip, for example."

They go on to explain that the encryption can be beat using a PC. The post also includes a list over ten cities that use "the Mifare Classic for access control and / or mass transit ticketing" including London, Boston and Hong Kong.

If memory serves, RFID chips are also used in some credit cards and new US passports.

WHOOPS!

The video attached to this post was snagged from YouTube here: http://snipurl.com/21slz and demonstrates precisely how hacking RFID can be done. It's incredibly easy.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

ALL ABOUT RFID CHIPS

Back on September 9, 2007, I stumbled across a post at Engadget.com (here: http://urltea.com/1hpx) that reports on those fun little things called "RFID chips." What are "RFID chips"? Well, they are Radio Frequence IDentification chips and they allow all sorts of stuff to be tracked wirelessly. Companies put them in their products to help track inventory. As I understand it, RFID chips are used in those "Fast Pass" gas-paying key chains some gas companies offer so you can pump your gas and not have to "bother" with swiping your credit card. Some want RFID chips implanted into people as a way to replace Social Security cards, driver's licenses, credit cards and medical records. In theory all of this information (and more) could be stored in one of those tiny little chips.

This would allow people implanted with them to walk into a supermarket and roll out a cart-full of groceries without having to stand in line to pay. The RFID chips in the products you bought would let sensors in the door know what you have and the RFID chip in your ass would tell those same sensors what bank account to take the money out of.

Sounds neat, sure--but machines make mistakes. Register scanners make mistakes already (always check your receipts!!). And what happens if you buy something, like a pack of gum and you go back inside the store later? Wouldn't the store charge you twice? Also, someone with a fairly inexpensive RFID chip reader could walk around outside your home and pick up the signals those little RFID chips give off and, in theory, compile a complete list of the items in your home. That way he'd know whether your home would be worth breaking into or not.

I won't even go into how the RFID chip in your ass could be scanned and copied. The point here is that the there are as many reasons not to embrace RFID technology as there are to embrace it. In fact, there's one more in the "cons" column as reported on in that Engadget post I mentioned earlier--cancer.

Yep, the C-word of diseases is apparently a side effect of implanting RFID chips into your flesh. Here's a cutting from that post:

a number of studies over the past decade have amassed which link the chips to malignant tumors in animal tests. Besides the potential foul play going on at the FDA and VeriChip Corp. that got the chips approved for human use in 2004, studies showing as little as 1% cancer rates in lab animals led researchers to note that the aggressive tumors which immediately encased RFID implants with cancerous cells were "clearly due to the implanted microchips", and not random occurrences.

WHOOPS! Well, 1 percent isn't too bad, is it?

Unless, you're the one percent.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST

Recently, a Palm Beach, Florida company announced that it has developed a small chip to be implanted in a person that could use Global Positioning Satellite technology to track the person. The obvious use of such an item would be to track small children should they get lost or be abducted. A less obvious use for such a device would be to monitor heart patients' heart in case of an attack. Both of those uses are reasonable, but imagine what law enforcement would do with this technology. If strict laws (as well as strict enforcement of said laws) were in place things MIGHT not be bad - but without super-strict laws governing why this device is used, cops could use the device to track people who they think might be criminals. Not to sound paranoid, but it really would be like the view screens in 1984 only more efficient. The models that exist now can monitor heart rate and location, what's next? Brain waves? Blood pressure? Blood alcohol level? Stomach contents? Big Brother will be INSIDE us. Even if Big Brother were to be a good guy in the real world, some hacker guy could just wander in and steal all of your personal and private information. Personally, I don't worry about security on the Internet, because I know that there is no such thing as privacy on the 'net. I know that anything I put out there could possibly end up on someone else's computer - that person could be someone I don't know or worse, someone I don't trust. But this implanted chip would be too much, I think that is pretty obvious.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST

Recently, a Palm Beach, Florida company announced that it has developed a small chip to be implanted in a person that could use Global Positioning Satellite technology to track the person. The obvious use of such an item would be to track small children should they get lost or be abducted. A less obvious use for such a device would be to monitor heart patients’ heart in case of an attack. Both of those uses are reasonable, but imagine what law enforcement would do with this technology.

If strict laws (as well as strict enforcement of said laws) were in place things MIGHT not be bad - but without super-strict laws governing why this device is used, cops could use the device to track people who they think might be criminals.

Not to sound paranoid, but it really would be like the view screens in 1984 only more efficient. The models that exist now can monitor heart rate and location, what’s next? Brain waves? Blood pressure? Blood alcohol level? Stomach contents?

Big Brother will be INSIDE us.

Even if Big Brother were to be a good guy in the real world, some hacker guy could just wander in and steal all of your personal and private information. Personally, I don’t worry about security on the Internet, because I know that there is no such thing as privacy on the ‘net. I know that anything I put out there could possibly end up on someone else’s computer - that person could be someone I don’t know or worse, someone I don’t trust. But this implanted chip would be too much, I think that is pretty obvious.