Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Bookdrunk is exercised about the Olympics security.
So, both during the event and during the construction phase, the technology used to secure identities, for example, will not be chosen merely because it is the most suitable or the most fit for purpose—regardless of who manufactures it. It'll be whatever Visa, the lead sponsor, decides to create.

Hmmmm...

Now, which would you choose? A private company that processes, securely, thousands of transactions a day or the government which is responsible for such wonderfully secure projects as the MTAS website? Fuck me, but it's a difficult choice, eh?

6 comments:

bookdrunk said...

True - but I wasn't arguing in favour of government control.

The point here is that Visa weren't selected over another private company because they had the best solution, but apparently because they had stumped up a nice pile of sponsorship cash.

Vicola said...

Well let's hope that during the construction phase the security is slightly tighter than that used for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. My brother was at uni at that time and took a summer job with Showsec, the people in charge of security. He became a security guard for the construction site. What did he do all day? Sleep, smoke, watch porn. Nice work if you can get it. Still, as he pointed out, his section was secure because "There were no terrorist incidents at the bowling green". Quite.

Roger Thornhill said...

Your post reminded me I had not laid out my thoughts on ID Cards in general. I believe companies like VISA could have a large part to play.

Devil's Kitchen said...

BD,

"The point here is that Visa weren't selected over another private company because they had the best solution, but apparently because they had stumped up a nice pile of sponsorship cash."

Absolutely, and the last thing that they are going to want is to have their name associated with a terrorist outrage. Thus, even if they don't handle the security themselves, they will hire a company under a decent contract in the way in which a government wouldn't.

The fact that they have stumped up large amounts of cash ensures that they will do their best with the security systems. They have an incentive, y'see.

DK

bookdrunk said...

if they don't handle the security themselves, they will hire a company under a decent contract in the way in which a government wouldn't.

To which we add, we hope. Here's hoping the fear of being shown to be incompetent is stronger than the desire to save money (which is also, y'see, an incentive).

james higham said...

A private company that processes, securely, thousands of transactions a day ...

Like Connex, Barings Bank or Blackwater, eh?