[EL] The $45M Hiest from NYC ATMs

[wjk]

Recently a comment based completely on ignorance and fear appeared along with a news report in the Law-election Digest, Vol 25, Issue 10.  The news was,
“Feds in NYC say cyber gang stole $45M worldwide, hacked into
database of prepaid debit cards <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50079>
 
Posted on May 9, 2013 1:58 pm by Richard Pildes”  
 
The goofy comment was, 
“Next time someone asks you why we can't yet have secure enough electronic voting if we can have ATM machines, send them to this story.” 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/feds-in-nyc-say-cyber-gang-stole-45-million-by-hacking-into-database-of-prepaid-debit-cards/2013/05/09/8d20a2f2-b8c0-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html?hpid=z1http://
 
Of course, the Internet’s reputation for spreading misinformation like wild fire is well-deserved, as this incident shows. Twitter and blogs quickly spread the fear mongering far and wide.
 
The first problem is that neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times specified how the thieves were able to gain control of the program that sets limits on the pre-paid credit cards. The Times reported that “hackers infiltrated the system …”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-global-cyber-bank-thefts.html?hp&_r=1&
 
But readers are NOT told how the victim’s system was “infiltrated.” Was there an insider, like when the LA Times was “hacked” a few months ago? Did an official in the victim company click on a link in a spoofing email, as happened when the Chinese “hacked” Coca Cola?
 
The Washington Post used different metaphors; such as “hackers broke into computer networks,” and the hackers “breached an Indian firm,” and referred to “the networks that were penetrated by hackers.” 
 
Still, no specifics on how the infiltration/breach/breaking into/penetration was done.  But, who cares about such silly details?  Here is another opportunity to re-enforce the fears about Internet voting – so lets do it!
 
Internet voting servers are not connected to email systems, such as the Coke Company’s. Nor are Internet voting servers connected to far away or foreign servers, such as the “Indian firm” that set the limits on cards that could be used in New York ATMs. 
 
In other words, that financial crime has nothing to do with Internet voting security issues. To mush the two together is thoughtless fear mongering.  Anyone who wants to exercise their gift of Reason so as to clarify their understanding of Internet voting security issues would do well to read my paper on the matter, presented to the WPSA meeting in March, at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229557
 
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund 
Email: Internetvoting at gmail.com 
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All 
Twitter: wjkno1
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/pub/william-j-kelleher-ph-d/9/466/687/
 
Author of Internet Voting Now!  
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130512/7a173f3b/attachment.html>