Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adam Savage Revises Claim of Lawyer-Bullying On RFID Show

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the but-that's-what-they-want-him-to-say dept.

Privacy 301

Nick writes "A few weeks ago a video of a talk given by Adam Savage of the television show MythBusters spread across the internet (including a mention on Slashdot.) On the video, Savage stated that the show was unable to produce an episode about previously known RFID vulnerabilities due to a conference call to Texas Instruments that unexpectedly included several credit card companies' legal counsel. TI (via a spokesperson talking with cnet.com) stated that only one lawyer was on the call and that the majority of the people on the call were product managers from the Smart Card Alliance (SCA) invited by TI to speak. Then Savage (via a Discovery Communications statement) reaffirmed that he was not on the call himself and that the decision was not made by Discovery or their advertising sales department but rather MythBuster's production company, Beyond Productions."

cancel ×

301 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so (5, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | about 6 years ago | (#24878741)

Ok, so they told him to revise his story to make them seem nicer or get the boot?

Methinks this is likely.

Re:so (4, Informative)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 6 years ago | (#24878809)

Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.

Re:so (1)

s1lhouette (1319369) | about 6 years ago | (#24878995)

compared to dirty jobs, toug

Re:so (5, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | about 6 years ago | (#24879007)

Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.

True, but not so popular that they wouldn't just kill it and run re-runs while they scrambled for a replacement.

When the entire network is at stake, NO ONE is THAT irreplaceable.

Re:so (2, Insightful)

jayhawk88 (160512) | about 6 years ago | (#24879051)

When the entire network is at stake, NO ONE is THAT irreplaceable.

Good point. Can you imagine what the Discovery suits did when AmEx, Visa, Discover, etc said to them "Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores". Probably it never came to this exactly but I'm sure the message was clear: You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Re:so (2, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 6 years ago | (#24879181)

"Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores".

Wouldn't Discovery have an excellent basis for a lawsuit here? I imagine that pulling someone's merchant account just because you don't like what they said wouldn't be allowed, but then again, IANAL.

Re:so (3, Funny)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | about 6 years ago | (#24879229)

Actually, I'd say those merchant accounts improve the standing of the CC companies.

"The ToS you signed clearly says you won't try to circumvent the security features on the Credit Card systems we let you use, and you're making a FREAKING TELEVISION SHOW about it?"

Re:so (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 6 years ago | (#24879303)

It's totally allowed, unfortunately. Media companies have been dealing with this crap for centuries. Its why there is usually a degree of separation between the content producers, and the advertising people, something I guess Discovery doesn't have.

Re:so (0)

jmo_jon (253460) | about 6 years ago | (#24879613)

It's totally allowed, unfortunately. Media companies have been dealing with this crap for centuries.

Welcome back from the future. Can you also tell us about what the automobile industry has been doing for centuries?

Re:so (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | about 6 years ago | (#24879587)

I don't think pulling the merchant account is even an issue. It's more along the lines of 'We pay for advertising. We don't have to. Don't fuck with us'

You don't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879489)

The hand that feeds you is the hand that enslaves you.

Bite it hard!

Re:You don't? (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | about 6 years ago | (#24879611)

Yeah, because all those pirate TV stations without advertisers are doing Sooooooo well.

Re:so (1)

Turken (139591) | about 6 years ago | (#24879623)

Does Discovery even have any retail stores left open? I though they closed them all last year. Not that I really care since they spent the last few years shifting their product selection towards becoming just another brookstone/sharper-image clone anyway.

Re:so (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#24879625)

Maybe they could get the poor bastards who took over The Man Show after Adam Corolla and Jimmy Kimmel got the boot. They're the Coy and Vance of cable television.

Re:so (2, Insightful)

s1lhouette (1319369) | about 6 years ago | (#24879057)

compared to dirty jobs, tougher in Alaska, ice road truckers, ax men, and deadliest catch, Mythbusters is a show for the gods.

Re:so (2, Funny)

Trespass (225077) | about 6 years ago | (#24879405)

compared to dirty jobs, tougher in Alaska, ice road truckers, ax men, and deadliest catch, Mythbusters is a show for the gods.

Compared to being shot or stabbed, a toothache feels great as well.

Re:so (2, Interesting)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | about 6 years ago | (#24879095)

Tell him to go on "Penn and Tellers' Bullshit" where they bring to light all types of issues. For anyone who loves Mythbusters, I also recommend that show.

In fact, I hope that would be their next episode (or possibly already is, since I'm only halfway through season 2)

Re:so (1)

flitty (981864) | about 6 years ago | (#24879163)

So, it's a chain of command issue they have with Adam's description of the issue?

CC Company: Discovery channel, you can't show this show.
Discovery Channel: You're right. Mythbuster's guys, you can't show this, or else we pull the plug.
Mythbusters: Um. Ok.
Instead of....
CC Company: Discovery Channel, you can't show this show.
Discovery Channel: Um. Ok.

Re:so (1)

iron-kurton (891451) | about 6 years ago | (#24879349)

Please. I watched an episode the other day about world peace, where they stipulated that world peace is driven by money. If it was satire, then the delivery wasn't very good. If it wasn't, then it's just bullshit.

The show is entertaining, but I walked away from it without a single useful fact.

Oh well, I won't threadjack, but this whole incident does sound like bullshit too. There's only a few months till Shmoocon, and I wonder if CC RFID is going to be a topic...

Re:so (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 years ago | (#24879211)

Any replacement just wouldn't work well. There is a particular chemistry between Adam and Jamie (in a non gay way) that makes the show interesting. Jamie alone would just be to intimating of a character, too overbearing. Just as Adam alone the show would be to chaotic and wild. Both together really help moderate both. Taking Jamie's edge off, and actually making Adam seem like he knows what he is doing.
While the 3 stooges Karie, Grant and Tory, can probably pull it off but they are not really known for the big builds.

Re:so (5, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | about 6 years ago | (#24879317)

I'm imagining Karie pulling it off.

I'll be in my bunk if anyone needs me.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | about 6 years ago | (#24879243)

Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.

Right. And no network would dare cancel a show that people around here like. That's why shows like Firefly, Emeril Live and Stargate SG-1, to say nothing of Jericho, Babylon 5, Futurama, Family Guy, and The Office, have been airing non-stop on their original networks for years.

And let's not even mention how Star Trek is still on the air fourty years later.

Re:so (1)

Now.Imperfect (917684) | about 6 years ago | (#24879647)

someone please mod parent so I know if he's being funny or redundant...

Re:so (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | about 6 years ago | (#24879619)

thats kind of funny. I would be more inclined to watch MythBusters if Adam Savage wasn't on it... To each his own I guess.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 years ago | (#24878821)

Very possible that it got enough public traction and that's exactly what happened. Now they're hoping it'll quietly slip under the radar, which it'll probably do.

I distrust lawyers, and I don't trust TV shows or their hosts. So is it fair to be at odds with the entire thing still? Yep. Is it more fair to believe that security through obscurity is fair? Probably.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 years ago | (#24878889)

Is it more fair to believe that security through obscurity is fair?

Security through obscurity is nothing new to Mythbusters. How many times have we seen them censor themselves when talking about explosives or chemicals when you can easily obtain the censored information in all of 30 seconds with a Google search?

My guess is that it's something the lawyers make them do.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | about 6 years ago | (#24879015)

I agree. Whatever they may say, there most important people are the sponsors, not the viewers.

One episode in particular was where they were not allowed to say 'sperm'. They had to replace a prefectly fine medical term with 'genetic material'.

It is a science show for pete's sake!

Re:so (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 6 years ago | (#24879315)

Cite?

Re:so (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 6 years ago | (#24879657)

Sorry, unable to cite. I somehow got "genetic material" all over my keyboard and now I can't type.

I make a game of it! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 6 years ago | (#24879119)

I try to guess what the explosives / secret chemicals are and then search on Google at the end of the show to see if I was right. I'm pretty good at it. It adds some more fun to the show :)

Re:so (1)

TheGeniusIsOut (1282110) | about 6 years ago | (#24879167)

Another example would be the "Brown Note" episode where they skipped the frequency range in which the human abdominal cavity resonates, 15-18Hz...

Re:so (1)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24879567)

It is probably something that their insurance company makes them do.

Re:so (5, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | about 6 years ago | (#24878913)

Savage's original claim ("Texas Instruments comes on along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else...") is preposterous on its face. You might get those guys to show up for the finalization of a merger, but not for a meeting between some TI engineers and a TV producer.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 years ago | (#24879089)

As a programmer, I've been on calls that were supposed to be technical, but due to miscommunications or management concerns managers and even the CEO was on the call. Having legal council there to hear the proposal from the Discovery team seems possible to me.

Re:so (5, Funny)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | about 6 years ago | (#24879215)

seems possible to me.

In this context, you'd need to use the word 'plausible.'

Re:so (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#24879417)

And the GGP needed "bupkis" actually.

Re:so (1)

johannesg (664142) | about 6 years ago | (#24879641)

We need to set up an experiment to see if we can confirm or deny this... story.

Can someone call the TI and ask about doing a similar experiment?

legal counsel = cancer - they show up everywhere (4, Informative)

olddotter (638430) | about 6 years ago | (#24879103)

Dude, have you worked with the legal department for a fortune 500 company? Our company policy is that if something is to be recorded, it must be scripted and the script approved by the legal department first.

Re:legal counsel = cancer - they show up everywher (2, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | about 6 years ago | (#24879213)

Counsel, absolutely. Chief counsel? Of all those companies? Unlikely.

Re:so (4, Insightful)

mugnyte (203225) | about 6 years ago | (#24879257)

  Regardless of who was in on the meeting and how it happened - it was political, not scientific. This leaves standing the elephant in the room: RFID is simplistic to mimic.

  If one understands the radio wave effects (backscatter or modulation), one could use a scanner to capture all the RFID's within a zone.

  Then, essentially building a device tuned to emit an identical signal (for passive, this is secretive but not impossible as Adam alludes to), (for active, I'm unsure how difficult this is) and then this clone can be used in lieu of the original tag.

  This means for RFID-cards using passive technology, cloning them is allegedly a education measure, not a true security measure. Like unlocking cell phones and other corner-store concepts, one could imagine RFID signatures built-to-order based on scanner values (one need not have the original RFID, just a response from it).

Re:so (2, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about 6 years ago | (#24879459)

I doubt it. RFIDs that need to be secure (credit card, not product tag) can easily incorporate some sort of cryptographic mechanism to prevent cloning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID#Security_concerns [wikipedia.org] , third paragraph. Of course, that paragraph lacks a reference. Trust at your own risk.

Re:so (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | about 6 years ago | (#24879375)

You might get those guys to show up for the finalization of a merger ...or juicy lawsuit with large television company that has a significant budget to suck dry. Remember, these are IP lawyers we're talking about.

Re:so (2)

BobMcD (601576) | about 6 years ago | (#24879401)

The entire telling was hyperbole, and his tone of voice labeled it as such. The details weren't meant to be a factual recap. When he talks about how white the staffer gets retelling the story, that's a big clue.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879421)

Ok, so they told him to revise his story to make them seem nicer or get the boot?

Methinks this is likely.

I don't think so.

It's well known that Adam runs off at the mouth, that's part of the entertainment.

So when he talked about all the credit card companies lawyering-up, it's easy to imagine it as pure Adam Savage hyperbole.

Now that it's hit the fan, he's busy trying to pull his foot out of his mouth, but that's part of the entertainment too.

Whoops! (0, Redundant)

DamonHD (794830) | about 6 years ago | (#24878773)

So, a retraction?

Stand down all the lawyer-hating "it's security through obscurity" flames?

Never!!!!

Rgds

Damon

Re:Whoops! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24878867)

Disclaimer: I am the submitter of the article.

Please excuse the vitriol. I tend to foam at the mouth after snorting a few gagger rails of COCAINE, which I d-did before sum-sun-submitting the article and might I add that THEY WERE THE SHIZZZZZNITTTO-BANG SNIP-SNAP WOWEEEEE!

I reject your reality and substitute my own! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24878785)

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Translation (5, Insightful)

jayhawk88 (160512) | about 6 years ago | (#24878787)

"I really, really like my job."

Re:Translation (1)

svnt (697929) | about 6 years ago | (#24878927)

What we need is a podcast/youtube version of the show with all the cheap myths that are too boring/nerdy/short/offensive to corporations to make it on cable. Like this myth.

I'd watch it.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24878967)

That's great. Who will pay for it? I am not about to invest the >20 hours to put together a show for you.

Re:Translation (1)

Cecil (37810) | about 6 years ago | (#24879027)

I guarantee there are people out there who are, in fact, willing to spend significantly more time than that on it. There are a lot of people who will do anything for their 5 minutes of fame.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879033)

That's because you're an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Translation (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#24879555)

A boring show with no production budget. Sounds like a winner.

Re:Translation (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 years ago | (#24878983)

Actually he could fairly easily start his own show on another channel. He has the following.

Everyone say it together, now... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24878795)

SmartCard Bullying myth...

BUSTED!

That said, I'm amused that all it took was one lawyer and a bunch of product managers (no bias here, right?) to cow a production company into submission.

Re:Everyone say it together, now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24878965)

As a cow, I object to the use of the word "cow" to refer to the object of "bull"ying. Sheep are far more submissive than we cows, couldn't we say that the production company was 'sheeped' into submission?

I smell lawyers... (2, Insightful)

Coraon (1080675) | about 6 years ago | (#24878799)

This sounds like the kind of statement someone was forced to read to avoid a PR problem, usually this occurs because a lawyer told him "you can't say that we will get in trouble!" to be honest I'm more likely to believe his first statement.

Re:I smell lawyers... (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 6 years ago | (#24879601)

It's more like, "I can't believe you said that. If you don't retract it immediately, don't bother showing up tomorrow." In this case, they probably threatened not to renew the contract fir another season of Mythbusters, or outright cancel the contract here and now and pay whatever for violating it. I'm sure a lot of networks would love to pick Mythbusters up.

That having been said, considering all this supposedly took place in a room full of hostile lawyers, he might have been forced to retract the statement or face slander charges, whether his statements were truth or not.

So what has changed is... nothing (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 years ago | (#24878801)

It sounds like the blame has shifted, but the point is still the same: they would like to do a show on RFID, but they were politically motivated not to.

If Mythbusters wants to continue, they'll have to (3, Funny)

TenBrothers (995309) | about 6 years ago | (#24878803)

become a cartoon. Maybe like Rocky & Bullwinkle. "Hey Jamie! Watch me pull our show's credibility out of a hat!"

Re Rocky & Bullwinkle (1)

Migraineman (632203) | about 6 years ago | (#24879239)

"Again? That trick never works."

Retraction? heh (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | about 6 years ago | (#24878815)

"the decision was not made by Discovery or their advertising sales department but rather MythBuster's production company, Beyond Productions."

Riiiiiiiight..... **rolling eyes**

Re:Retraction? heh (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 6 years ago | (#24879047)

No, no, that's probably true! Discovery didn't make the decision, they just presented the choice to the production company to either not produce the show, or take a long walk off a short pier.

Beyond Productions made the decision of which option to take entirely on their own.

Re:Retraction? heh (3, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 years ago | (#24879537)

>Discovery didn't make the decision, they just presented the choice to the production company to either not produce the show, or take a long walk off a short pier.

Beyond Productions is an independent Australian company and sells sometimes different versions to the UK and other countries (which also don't have the 'don't try this at home' stuff and where you can say things like 'sperm' on TV), they could very well do it in this case as well.
Different network, same torrent.

MythBusting? (0, Redundant)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | about 6 years ago | (#24878851)

Sounds like MythBusters needs to bust or prove this "Myth". Maybe they need to do a whole show on it.

Re:MythBusting? (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | about 6 years ago | (#24879161)

MythTV is pants.

=Smidge=

hmmm (5, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | about 6 years ago | (#24878883)

I think it's safe to say that if he didn't have an intimidating phone call with a bunch of lawyers before, he HAS now. :)

Myth Busted! (1, Funny)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | about 6 years ago | (#24878909)

And that's all I have to say about that!

In other words (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 years ago | (#24878981)

TI is obviously hoping that by quibbling over details, people will manage not to notice that the core of the story hasn't changed.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879329)

TI is obviously hoping that by quibbling over details, people will manage not to notice that the core of the story hasn't changed.

No, what they're really hoping is that the maximum number of people will watch the video or read about Savage's original claim.

Other than That (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 6 years ago | (#24879063)

...the story was accurate.

of course it did (0, Troll)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | about 6 years ago | (#24879069)

...included credit card company's legal council

Ladies and gentlemen, the TRUE Evil in our Country: Credit Cards - Visa, Mastercard, American Express and their subsequent host banks - which is all the banks because it's such easy money.

Don't use them you say?

Try it. No, go ahead and try to live in this day and age without a CC card. It's not all about "easy credit and instant gratification", it's the fact that MANY businesses exist and depend on credit cards and God forbid if you don't have one. Really? Yes really. Travel, for one.

We've grown so accustomed to these little evil pieces of plastic.

Consumer protection you say? HA! I say! All a merchant has to do is spell out exactly (even if it's in mice type that you can't read) what their policies are and when you the consumer goes and tries to dispute the charges, all the merchant has to say to the CC bank is that "it's spelled out clearly here" and BINGO, you're screwed!

Credit cards and especially Debit cards are an evil thrust upon us by Amex, Discover, Mastercard and Visa.

CONSUMER DEBT IS A RIP-OFF! NO EXCEPTIONS!

Re:of course it did (2, Funny)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 6 years ago | (#24879289)

How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that debit cards are somehow more evil than credit cards?

Re:of course it did (1)

Trespass (225077) | about 6 years ago | (#24879609)

How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that debit cards are somehow more evil than credit cards?

I'm guessing the brain tumor had something to do with it.

Re:of course it did (0, Offtopic)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 6 years ago | (#24879363)

You know, I've heard that Muslims consider charging interest to be a sin.

Are you perchance a Muslim?

Also, are you perchance Barack Obama?

Re:of course it did (1, Offtopic)

k1e0x (1040314) | about 6 years ago | (#24879483)

It's actually the entire system of money that we have. Fractional reserve lending allows these banks to lend money they do not have.

Ever wonder how it is possible that everyone, you, your folks, your friends, small business, the government, corporations, ALL can be in debt at the same time to the same people?? How can there be that much money? Well it is simple.. there isn't. The true answer is the system is rigged, the game is fixed, and it's not a question of "if this money system will eventually fail", its a matter of when.

CC companies has no respect (wa:of course it did) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879585)

Keep in mind these are the ASSH_LES that call financially responsible persons that pay off their entire balance every month "deadbeats."

Why? (2, Interesting)

Armakuni (1091299) | about 6 years ago | (#24879071)

Why was there even a single lawyer in on such an innocent call?

Sooo ... (2, Interesting)

MattGS (898687) | about 6 years ago | (#24879079)

... the lawyers put the thumbscrews on the production company and not on Discovery then? Wow, what a difference that makes. Boy, I feel the sudden urge to get an RFID implant.

Give'em the finger (1)

Net_fiend (811742) | about 6 years ago | (#24879115)

Perhaps slashdotters should write to the production company and tell them to give the finger to TI and to the other companies involved in the conference do the show and just fuzzy out the names in the show when it airs.

Here's the deal, they've already got a case (to help back them up in case of a lawsuit) that has been proven that such information is legal to release. (MBTA smack down [eff.org] ) They don't even have to do it step by step. I remember an episode where they skipped some steps when making "laughing" gas.

Seems to me people should know about this and possible false advertising or instilling a false sense of security that can come out of using these cards. Although I could see the Feds stepping in seeing as the National ID is supposed to have RFID (I think).

Re:Give'em the finger (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 6 years ago | (#24879629)

The problem isn't legal, it's financial. If they piss off the credit card companies, the credit card companies stop sponsoring the show. And they lose money. There's nothing we can do, short of perhaps a massive donation, that can fix that. Yes, it's perfectly legal for them to air the show. And it's perfectly legal for Visa, Mastercard, etc to stop running commercials on Discovery.

Its not the first time... (5, Informative)

Quantus347 (1220456) | about 6 years ago | (#24879121)

Its not the first time that Mythbuster's has had obviously politically motivated skews on their production and/or results.

Like the time they were testing all the various myths involved in beating alcohol tests (Breathalyzer, etc) and were very careful to word their statements to say that no one method managed to beat all the different tests, and never specifying which methods beat which tests. Or the time they tested the fuel efficiency of drafting behind a big rig truck and spent most of the episode hamming up the potential dangers of tailgating.

To be fair though, in those cases it was more about Safety (translate Liability) as they could heavily damage road safety and Law Enforcement's ability to police it. Its like how in most fiction Ive seen, they always misquote the proportions of charcoal, sulfur, and salt peter that go into gunpowder, so the young and/or stupid won't go out and blow off fingers.

Mythbusters brand Blur (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | about 6 years ago | (#24879235)

To be fair though, in those cases it was more about Safety (translate Liability) as they could heavily damage road safety and Law Enforcement's ability to police it. Its like how in most fiction Ive seen, they always misquote the proportions of charcoal, sulfur, and salt peter that go into gunpowder, so the young and/or stupid won't go out and blow off fingers.

I've seen variations on that a number of times, like when they've made carefully obscured the key ingredients for making nitrocellulose. Sometimes they make a joke of it: "Mythbusters brand Blur!", other times they just don't talk about it.

The one I've always wondered about was when they cracked the thumbprint lock. They carefully mentioned that they had omitted one crucial step. I wonder who was responsible for that?

...laura

Re:Mythbusters brand Blur (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | about 6 years ago | (#24879443)

That crucial step was to reverse the image...since a photocopy is reversed...wow...big secret :)

Would not be interesting for the general audience (1)

dacut (243842) | about 6 years ago | (#24879189)

I'm guessing this was scrapped mainly because it's not an easy story to make it interesting for the mainstream audience. It's one thing to show engines on fire, chemicals blowing up, and people getting zapped by high voltage; quite another to show Grant fiddling with a hex editor.

Their previous security exploits (for example, hijacking the fingerprint reader) were still very tangible hacks (wax impressions, photocopied prints, etc.). I'm guessing 99.9% of /. readers thinks this is worthwhile and 99.9% watch Mythbusters; however, this does not comprise 99.9% of Mythbuster's audience (or even a majority, I'd bet).

OK, we get it (3, Informative)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about 6 years ago | (#24879197)

The decision was made by the Mythbuster staff in much the same way a man with a gun directed at him volunteers.

Anyone see "Wrong Trousers?" Gromit puts down the bat when feathers points the gun.

(Instant karma for using Wallace & Gromit!)

 

Incromprehensible summary (1)

drakono (1339167) | about 6 years ago | (#24879207)

I know I'll be labeled pedantic, but that summary was just incomprehensible. Several grammar errors, unclear phrasing...I had to go watch the video to understand what the hell this item is all about.

Re:Incromprehensible summary (1)

Aaricia (1023589) | about 6 years ago | (#24879533)

Amen, not to mention excessive use of parenthesis.

Oh hey (1)

kjzk (1097265) | about 6 years ago | (#24879225)

This is disgusting. The Bush administration and other corrupt politicans keep pushing for RFID chips in IDs that can be easily read by a home-made device. Even stores can build hidden RFID receivers to detect who and when is entering their stores. Corporations and criminals can easily develop profiles for targeted advertisment and ID theft. Not only that but if enough buildings have these receivers, anyone with enough access can track your every step and profile your life. What's scary is that the supporting politicians refuse to admit their wrong doing and continue to rally behind this insecure mode of identification and not to mention, an invasion of privacy.

Regarding THAT VIDEO (1)

JoshDM (741866) | about 6 years ago | (#24879279)

You can mod it off-topic if you like, but I prefer discussion here than YouTube. So, HOLY CRAP what the heck was up with that crazy ranting New York pizza lady they cut off at the end of that clip? Man, ask a question and sit down.

Re:Regarding THAT VIDEO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879659)

what the heck was up with that crazy ranting New York pizza lady they cut off at the end of that clip? Man, ask a question and sit down.

The clip is one part in twelve. The end of the question is on the clip right after. She was asking about product comparisons. That said, she really DID go on for a long time about the way she liked her pizza.

myth: plausible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879311)

ok, adam was really testing the myth that if you work for corporate america and speak out at defcon, a conference of random geeks, that you will terrify the corporate powers to be, causing them to twist your arm and issue denials of anything you've said, no matter how lame, or crazy.

While Adam didn't actually blow up anything like a true myth episode, I think we have to say "plausible" for the myth. We didn't get a photo of adam in the armlock, so we can't say "confirmed".

Afterwords (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 years ago | (#24879313)

the SCA beat him up with rattan swords.

Gutless (0)

labnet (457441) | about 6 years ago | (#24879327)

Most /. USA readers probably don't realise that Mythbusters was conceived and is produced by an Australian company Beyond Productions, who among many other shows used to produce a geek show Beyond 2000, (which was spun out of an ABC program towards 2000)
Don't expect Mythbusters to tackle anything controversial. They claim on their website to wipe anything from their message board to do with 9-11. A shame because there are a few things I'd love them to test like
- Making multi minute phone calls from 30k ft with 2001 phone tech and no onboard plane phones (I already know its not possible, but would love to see them try)
- Getting a 767 sim and attempt to fly the same path as pentagon plane (Including being in ground effect for 1km before hitting the building), but only having light plane real world experience. (Note NTSB has a video of the flight data recorder (which strangely has a different approach path to the physical evidence.. maybe they could try both))

But don't hold your breath.

They may as well let them do the show (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | about 6 years ago | (#24879361)

The net result of all this furor over this subject: Solidly reinforces my initial aversion towards so-called "smart" credit cards/payment devices, to the point where I will never consider using one. If they were smart about it, they'd not only let them do the show, but learn from what they discovered in the process and fix the damned technology!

Doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879383)

I worked in the smartcard industry 9-15 years ago. Any technology that uses the terms "we can't tell you how we implement 3DES in our cards for obvious reasons" has a lot to hide.

Anyone seen editor recently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24879425)

(S)he seems to be missing, I can't find any other explanation for "the show was unable to produce s show about previously know RFID vulnerabilities"...

mmm.. paranoia (0, Troll)

jythie (914043) | about 6 years ago | (#24879451)

While it is hard to say what the full story is, is it THAT hard to believe that Adam (who, let us face it, can be kinda flakey) simply got his story wrong or got wrapped up in the story-telling?

Forget the vulenerabilities (1)

syousef (465911) | about 6 years ago | (#24879565)

How about instead of looking into the vulnerabilities they have a show on blowing RFID tags up. Or dropping them from a crane. Or perhaps strapping lots of them to a plane and taxiing around while "testing" their effects on the instruments?

No on second thoughts lets just stick with blowing them up! That's what Mythbusters do best.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?