[Infowarrior] - London Olympics: Only using 'sponsored' security products

[Richard Forno]

(c/o Schneier's blog.   This is crazy.........rf)

No medals for UK Government over London Olympics security
Posted by Davey Winder at 11:16am, 26 Apr 2007
http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/editorial-blogs/davey-winder/195108/no-medals-f
or-uk-government-over-london-olympics-security.thtml

Giving an otherwise rather dull and predictable keynote speech at
Infosecurity Europe about the IT security demands of running the London
Olympics, Derek Wyatt MP has let it slip that UK Government hands are tied
when it comes to security technology. He also made it clear that he has no
idea where the security threat will come from stating ³who are the enemy? I
wish I knew² and ³don¹t ever underestimate the intelligence of the
opposition, whoever that is.² But the biggest concern I have over the
ramblings of the Right Honourable gentleman came when he started talking
about the problems faced in identity management and authentication not only
during the event but in the run up to it, with the construction of the
venue. Wyatt sound quite upbeat about the possibility of using the London
ŒOyster¹ card, used for public transport travel, which could be upgraded
fairly easily to incorporate  biometric data and turned into a mini-ID card.
He also sounded quite impressed with the idea of using the Nokia based
authentication system for mobile phones. Upbeat and impressed, and then he
dropped the bombshell, which I hope will not be a bad choice of words for
the future, when he casually revealed that because neither of these
companies was a Œmajor sponsor¹ of the Olympics their technology could not
be used.

Yes, you read that right, as far as the technology behind the security of
the London Olympic Games is concerned best of breed and suitability for
purpose do not come into, paying a large amount of money to the
International Olympic Committee does.

So who has bought their way into being the security experts of choice, and
with whom our security and that of the visiting millions will rest? Visa. Oh
whoopy-doo, I admit to feeling much more reassured now, after all these are
the same people who do not suffer from any problems with identity and
authentication and fraud and crime on a huge scale within their own business
sector after all. Not.

And in case you are wondering why anyone should get wound up by the
ramblings of some MP you have never heard of, the fact that he was speaking
in his official capacity as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Olympic
Group might just grab your attention as it did mine.

Even when questioned by a member of the British Computer Society Security
Group who was as shocked as I, and expressed total disbelief that
potentially far better technologies were to be overlooked simply because a
sponsor had to be used, Wyatt gave a half-hearted shrug of the shoulders
response along the lines of it is out of our hands.

Personally I find it beyond contempt that security decisions that will
impact upon the whole country, and the billions watching around the world,
come down to a money making opportunity for a sponsor rather than being a
Government controlled process.  Wyatt readily admits it is nothing to do
with him, his committee or indeed the Government as the deals arrangements
are between the IOC and their sponsors. He also readily admits he doesn¹t
see why the UK should have to foot the £1billion cost of security in that
case.

But again, he misses the point. Security in this case should not be about
money, or who foots the bill, but about preventing lives from being lost and
terror winning a gold medal on the world stage.

Visa have, as of yet, to reveal what plans it has for the gamesŠ