Adam Savage, of the excellent ‘Mythbusters’ programme(*) reports that they were going to do a segment on RFID chips only to have the lawyers descend from Visa, American Express etc.

Texas Instruments comes on along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else… They were way, way outgunned and they 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.

A great quote from the video:

You do have about 3000 people in the room who aren’t under such legal arrangements.

The full video is here, and starts with a great talk from Savage about his obsessions.

The point is that keeping the information ’secret’ does not stop the bad guys getting it - it stops the rest of us knowing that our information is insecure. If you’re reliant on security by obscurity you have no security at all. Given that RFID is a widely distributed technology, the RFID chips should be able to withstand full scrutiny if they’re to be trusted for the purpose.

They can’t withstand that scrutiny, as evidenced by the reaction of the lawyers, and by this video.

With a bigger antenna on this I can go into Starbucks and get the [details] of everyone there.

It’s a shame discovery didn’t feel able to nod at the lawyers, and then make the programme anyway - including the conversation with the legal people. Still, when you’re depending upon ad revenues, it’s not as easy as all that - at least in the short term. A good argument for the BBC TV Licence!

(*) Although the announcer in the UK does often mix concepts of mass, pressure, force etc. Not sure about the guy in the US - the people in the show sometimes do this too, but that comes across to me as more of a ’shorthand’ - as they obviously know the difference!

In case you hadn’t realised, there is a cloud over England’s test matches in NZ with “allegations of sexual assault and/or rape”.

Except that no formal complaint has been made, therefore, sensibly, the people at the receiving end have declined to be interviewed.

Understand this, I’m not blinded by being someone who watches the game whilst living in England. If the players have done this, then they deserve to have the full force of the law come into play - however, we must remember that they are also possible targets for warrantless claims. At this stage, none of us can know the truth, nor should we comment upon where the truth may lie.

Why am I posting? Well, I do find it odd to see statements like:

“We are desperate to clear the players’ names but we’re in a very strange situation - with no allegations, no complaint being made - as to exactly how the name of the players can be cleared.”

The names have not been published, not has a formal complaint been made. Surely the names remain clear - or has ‘innocent until proven guilty’ gone out of fashion in New Zealand too?

If a formal complaint or formal charge is made then there will be a name to clear - but until that point…

Via Hackaday.

A very interesting lecture, worth watching. Of course, in the UK the right to silence has gone, and failure to talk answer questions may be seen as incriminating.

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Here’s the police officer on the same topic:

I’ve been rather ill for a few days, but have been getting better. Today it’s been variable - ups and downs. I’m currently in an ‘up’ and decided to catch up on the world.

I stumbled upon this article which contains the lovely quote:

We have become overly focused on the fairness of what the government does to terrorists than the danger of what terrorists might do to us.

Hmm, rather missing the point of due process there. These people, as guilty as they may ultimately be, are still suspects - they have not been shown to be guilty. They have been locked up with the key thrown away without any recourse to law as we know it.

The article also says:

The government ought to conduct a triage and determine which detainees present no serious threat or are innocent of any charge

Yep. That’s going to happen. ‘Sorry we locked you up for more than seven years without trial, you’re totally innocent, off you go’.

For the US Government, that’s a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

No, what’ll happen is that people will be released in a drip-like fashion in such a way that the stain on their record isn’t removed - but just that there was ‘insufficient evidence to charge’. They’d be released on the understanding that their home countries monitor them, or take responsibility for them.

I’d be amazed if any of them ever got through US customs once released as a true innocent would (though I’d be even more amazed if they wanted to). In this way the US can save face: “We know they’re bad’uns” without ever having to test that accusation with evidence.

I am not suggesting for one minute that everyone in Guantanamo is innocent. Just as I’d hope that those with the “hang ‘em high” tendency would admit that not everyone in there is guilty just because they’re in there.

What I’m saying, and what the article is saying, is that whilst I don’t think the US will start putting its house in order anytime soon(*) natural justice demands that it does - that it takes the risks of lawsuits for wrongful incarcerations and undertakes due process. If it did wrong, as I’m sure it knows it has, then it needs to be a nice grown up superpower and put things right.

If the US is serious about reducing terrorism in the future, Guantanamo Bay should go, it’s a clarion call for Al Qaeda - just as internment was for the IRA.

(*) (though Bush could conceivably do this over the summer if it looks like a democrat might have to deal with the aftermath - cynical, moi?)

There is a story in icCoventry about a young woman called Claire Harrison. She is a lifelong supported of Coventry RFC and worked at a kit provider called Flash UK. In a dispute between the club and Flash UK, Claire was called as a witness. As such, she was under obligation to tell the truth as she understood it.

This must have posed a dilemma for her due to the conflict of interest between club and employer. She testified against the club.

A few days later, she received a letter banning her from the club ground. The club may well feel wronged (they lost the case) - but they were found to be wrong by the court (according to the story). It seems rather vindictive to target people called as witnesses.

As a result, a petition has started and people are boycotting the club.

There is a forum discussing the issue on the national league boards.

Claire Harrison quotes the letter:

Dear Miss Harrison,

Further to recent legal situation between flash uk limited and ourselves, in which you appeared on behalf against the club,I would like to state for the record that your actions have caused us surprise and confusion.

We understood you to be a loyal Coventry RFC fan who regularly supports the club and attend games, As you are aware, we took over the club last august and it was clear that there were a number of problems we had to retify for the future benefit of the club. However there are those who do not seem to want this to happen and we must seek to protect what is one of the oldest and most famous clubs in england.

With this in mind as a consequence of your recent actions, i feel unforunately i only have one course of action and that is from this date forward to request that until further notice you have no formal relationship with the club. I would ask that you refain from attending games, functions or meetings.

I am sorry the situation has to come to this:however i must protect the future of the club.

Yours sincerley

ANDREW GREEN

Online petition - Unfair banning from Coventry Rugby Club

Update: Coventry have responded to this story.