“you seem to think that we might censor a student’s thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest ï¬nds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar’s, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to ï¬nd and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent.”
Finally, a shining beacon of free thought
The entire letter is the most refreshing thing I’ve read in years. It is a shining beacon for the standards of academic integrity that all universities should aspire to. I sincerely hope that Canadian academics read it and take it to heart, not only in publishing, but in research funding decisions, in teaching decisions, in accepting corporate donations, and in acting as an independent and authoritative voice in all matters.
Well Done
As the saying goes, “Stick it to the man”.
A bright start to the year.
Congratulations on standing up for ‘the little guy’, integrity is still alive and kicking in the world after all.
On a side note to the credit company, if you had said nothing this would have remained far below the radar rather than on the front page. Another lesson for the over eager corporate desk jockeys.
The is two separate, but related issues here.
The first issue is that of Cambridge standing up to the Bank Card Association’s request to take down the offending material. This I can support.
The other issue, on the other hand, is the posting on the internet by the student in the first place. I’ve looked at what he posted, and while I was incorrect yesterday in saying that he posted information which can be used to skim a card, he has posted on the internet the design and software for a device which he himself practically admits can be used for fraud (albeit a slightly modified version, of which he has put a link onto his website to a document describing what would needed to be done… see page 50 of the thesis PDF… that he told the shopkeeper after performing the No PIN attack is beside the point). So, while he may have the legal RIGHT to post this, I have to ask if this was the proper thing to do (for instance, as opposed to posting his thesis online without making available online the plans and source… just giving those to his thesis advisors).
My concern here is that by putting the plans and source online he may end up, unwittingly, increasing the amount of fraud that occurs. At the very least I would tend to question his judgment if I were interviewing him for a job.
As for third-party meddling in the affairs of university students, Jolly should be glad he is not enrolled in a Canadian Ph.D. program, e.g., at Ryerson U. There he might be turned back after having successfully defended his dissertation by a risk-averse staffer trying to implement the vague and confusing copyright-permission requirements of both Ryerson and Library and Archives Canada: http://www.ryerson.ca/graduate/policies/documents/SGS_Thesis_Regulations_000.pdf : definitely not the university of Erasmus, Newton, and Darwin.
Lawful?
According to the Cambridge comment his Thesis is lawful and as such should be supported by the university as free speech. If this is a flaw in the company’s security don’t think that this student is the only one who can find it. It is the company’s responsibility to secure their product, they should consider hiring this fellow or their competitor’s should.
There is no such thing as ‘controlling the flow’ of information anymore. Everyone is going to need to adjust to this new reality as it’s not going to go away. It is (has) certainly changed our society with such things as Wikileaks. People are going to have to behave better or be prepared to be more transparent. Good and bad will come of this, but it’s here so deal with it.
disdain
The disdain in Prof. Ross Anderson’s response (the PDF) was palpable.
Anon-K: you might enjoy reading the articles and pdf before concluding.
3 rules
1:you’re for or against us (this issue)
2:it’s complusory or forbidden ( monsanto’s seed sorters getting charged with ‘making the means to commit a crime available)
3: you’re guilty, guilty guilty! (all admin law)
for me, freedom of speech trumps libel, the loyal but treason ish opposition AND copyright concerns.
this is an example of corporate homicidal hypocrisy. Or prehaps a need to kill off dinosaurs.
packrat
What would Michael do?
“The University of Cambridge is a self-governing community
of scholars rather than a corporate hierarchy.” so the docision was his,
rather than that of the domain contact.
If “self-governing communities” have special legal status than I’d be interested in seeing them help keep the Internet “a community”, rather than a corporate asset.
An unfortunate riposte
I have read both the initial request by BankCard and University’s response. Although I am a firm believer in academic freedom, it is unfortunate that the Cambridge repost exudes arrogance like a muculent odour.
And on the topic of information take downs …
Or putting it up for that matter …
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-ranks-last-in-freedom-of-information-study/article1863083/
Sad.
Infringement of Freedom
THIS IS THE FIRST BLOW TO THE FREEDOM OF RIGHTS AS BIG BUSINESS STEPS IN TO CONTROL HUMANITY FROM DOING WHAT THEY WISH WITH MOVIES PURCHASED AND THEN SHARED WITH THE REST OF HUMANITY. NEXT YOU CANT INVITE FRIENDS OVER TO WATCH A MOVIE YOU HAVE OR TV WITHOUT HAVING THEM PAY FIRST…..THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE WAS OBVIOUSLY PURCHASED BY BIG BUSINESS AS WE HAVE SEEN THIS IN THE PAST (THE PURCHASE OF JUDGES-MP-POLICE IS COMMON THROUGH OUT THE WORLD) WE SHOULD USE THIS VERY SYSTEM TO UNITE AGAISNT THE INFRINGEMENT OF OR RIGHTS AND FREEDOM
@Rupert
I did. The thesis. The articles. And the stuff that he posted on the SCD, including downloading the source for the SCD. Note that I am not asking the university to censor the student, I am saying the student should have self-censored by asking himself what are the repercussions of his actions on himself and the population in general. That is why I have concerns about his judgment.
Did you read my whole comment?
@Pat Donovan: In Canada we have freedom of speech, but it is limited. That is why we have libel and hate speech laws.
pin and chip is what we have in Canada
Think a moment. This is the same technology that we have in Canada. Therefore the same problem exists in our system as in the Brits.
Secrets never help
Anon-K: Secrets never help. The proper response from the company would be to apologise, come up with a fix ASAP, and eliminate the problem. Too much is kept from the public with the excuse that the greater good needs it. The greater good requires the truth to be open and free, and for involved parties to take responsible actions to resolve any issues. It may be hard to fix this, it may take time fix this, and there may be some personal cost for having this information out there on the internet while they are fixing it, but history has show us that unless this stuff is thrown in the face of business/governments/other organizations, they much prefer to leave it buried. What no one knows can’t hurt them, right?
NIKE AIR FOAMPOSITE ONE
I really love your website, it’s so useful