Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware Hacking Build

CC Companies Scotch Mythbusters Show On RFID Security 466

Posted by kdawson
from the next-comes-guns-and-money dept.
mathfeel passes along a video in which Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage recounts how credit card companies lawyered up to make sure the Discovery channel never, ever airs a segment on the flaws in RFID security. "Texas Instruments comes on [a scheduled conference call] along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else... They [Mythbusters producers] were way, way outgunned and they [lawyers] 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CC Companies Scotch Mythbusters Show On RFID Security

Comments Filter:
  • by Brad1138 (590148) * <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:40PM (#24813941)
    No disrespect to the MythBusters, but if they could figure it out, plenty of others will also.
    • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:43PM (#24813959)

      It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube.

      • by multisync (218450) * on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:52PM (#24814909) Journal

        It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube.

        On what grounds would it be pulled off of YouTube? This is the very essence of what YouTube committed to deliver: a medium for user-produced video content. I don't see how Adam Savage could complain - he was speaking to a room full of people, any of whom could have a cel phone, or a video camera, recording him. Same with the venue and event producer - they let him in with a camera. Unless the clip was posted by someone other than the copyright holder, I don't see any way it could be "legitimately" removed.

        As for illegitimate methods, is Visa, or any of the other cc companies, a big enough customer for Google that they would risk the possible backlash and negative publicity to pull it? Besides, it's been seen now by lot's of people. No way to undo that.

        I loved it when the guy in the audience said "you do have about 3000 people in the room are aren't under any such legal arrangements." That's the point, right there.

        Once again, the corporate culture uses lawyers to focus attention on themselves by trying to silence people who simply speak the truth. They make it so easy. It's like catching fish in a barrel.

        • by OECD (639690) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:08PM (#24815355) Journal

          On what grounds would it be pulled off of YouTube?

          Grounds? Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

          Safe legal ground, but they're starting to piss off a subset of their users who expect the creators of a community to put up a modicum of defense for said community.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bh_doc (930270)
            Rightly, that anger should be directed at the law (and lawmakers) that requires youtube to behave like that.
          • by multisync (218450) * on Sunday August 31, 2008 @12:21AM (#24816407) Journal

            Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

            YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice, and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice. I believe that is what happened when the IOC mistakenly filed a notice against some video footage titled "Olympic Opening Ceremony" or something, which turned out to be footage of people protesting outside the Chinese embassy in New York.

            They believed, due to the title, that it was their copyrighted material. When it turned out it was simply mislabeled, the footage was restored.

            Safe legal ground, but they're starting to piss off a subset of their users who expect the creators of a community to put up a modicum of defense for said community.

            Well, you said it yourself. If YouTube wants to remain within the safe harbour offered by the DMCA to online service providers, they pretty much have to follow that procedure. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in business very long.

            Besides, it's the users who would create any kind of "community" that would exist around YouTube, by creating and uploading original content, as the person who uploaded the video we are discussing did. If all you are doing is uploading copyright material that doesn't belong to you, there's not much YouTube can do to defend you.

            • by Alsee (515537) on Sunday August 31, 2008 @04:32AM (#24817717) Homepage

              YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice

              Incorrect.

              The DMCA says YouTube gets a free pass against any claims of infringement and any lawsuit from the party filing the DMCA notice.

              and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice.

              Incorrect.

              The DMCA says YouTube gets a free pass against any claims of harm or wrong doing in taking down the content.

              In practice virtually every company institutes automatic rules of obeying takedown notices and counter notices, no matter how blatantly bogus they may be. If the Olympic Committee, or Scientologists, or Barbra Streisand, or anyone else files DMCA notices demanding the takedown of content which is not in fact infringing, or for any other reason the service provider would not have been guilty under pre-DMCA law for leaving up, then that provider absolutely can choose to safely leave that content up. And equally, if under pre-DMCA law a company would not have been liable for taking certain content down, they can safely ignore a counter notice and can keep content down.

              One could, for example, send in a totally bogus takedown notice against a group organizing an event on a certain date, or against a business engaging in some time-critical dealings, or even against say a politician running for office. Virtually every internet business will follow a strict policy on taking down anything on a DMCA notice, no matter how blatantly bogus it is. The arrangement of law and business interests makes that almost almost impossible to escape. The DMCA makes it trivial to arbitrarily censor almost anything anyone dislikes and to bully people into submission, and to abusively achieve complete victory in any time-sensitive situation. I recall one case where stores were unhappy with their holiday sale prices being posted online. So they filed a totally bogus takedown notice claiming the sale prices as copyright infringement, and had the information taken down. And obviously a counter-notice to have that content restored several days later - after the holiday sale was over - would have been completely pointless. But imagine if one were to take advantage of this DMCA situation for political ends. A situation that is obviously quite date-critical and where counter-noticing a takedown does not solve or even diminish the damage caused by that takedown. One could anonymously send totally bogus takedown notices by e-mail or snail-mail screwing either candidate (even screwing both). Not only could you takedown selected videos from YouTube just before an election, not only can you have various crucial materials taken down from various websites, one could potentially even get a candidate's own website taken down.

              Maybe in the described political campaign situation a company might override the strict corporate rule to comply with all DMCA notices, however that is a total crap-shoot and the law makes it against the company's interest to do so. Legally, the corporate interest is to just obey the bogus notice.

              If all you are doing is uploading copyright material that doesn't belong to you, there's not much YouTube can do to defend you.

              If you are uploading legitimate material and someone is sending junk DMCA notices, YouTube could ignore the junk notices, could defend you, but legally it is powerfully against their interests to do so. Legally, it would be stupid for them to do so.

              -

          • by Atario (673917) on Sunday August 31, 2008 @12:42AM (#24816543) Homepage

            Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.

            Hmm, I wonder if YouTube would change their tune if they started receiving DMCA takedown notices on every video ever posted...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by WGFCrafty (1062506)
          For the Mythbusters it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.
      • by couchslug (175151) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:17PM (#24815401)

        "It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube."

        Save a copy to repost or post elsewhere.

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006 [mozilla.org]

    • by kestasjk (933987) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:15PM (#24814633) Homepage
      As I understand it they didn't really find anything out, they were just in the preliminary R&D stages, trying to talk to people in the know.
      It's not like they're covering up something big, they just want to ban talk about it altogether.

      ... Actually that's probably even worse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WgT2 (591074)

      Looks like it's time for a grassroots movement by us:

      • Finding out who these companies were that pressured them.
      • Write/call our local newscasters.
      • Write/call our local newspapers.
      • - Some journalist would love making/jump-starting/sustaining a career with this story.
      • Letting our friends/family/co-workers know about this.

      Perhaps, only perhaps, the hard part will be communicating this problem succinctly.

      • by jythie (914043) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @10:12PM (#24815689)

        Visa?

        Mastercard?

        Discover?

        These are companies that you can not avoid, and can not fight. No one who wants to function can boycott them, and without SERIOUS fallout no lawmaker can touch them.

        Not to mention the public is surprsingly accepting of 'it should be illegal to show how bad a product is!'

    • by hey! (33014) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:25PM (#24815435) Homepage Journal

      Probably have done. Probably were anticipated by the companies to be going to do.

      The thing about credit cards is that they have never been very secure. They just have a business model that can absorb a fairly substantial slice of fraud. True, the companies don't like fraud, and they take steps to reduce it, but they don't spend more than a dollar to save a dollar of fraud.

      Having a fraud tolerant business model is way more important than having a fraud tolerant credit card. The only thing is that credit card marketing is based on getting consumers to rely on their cards, to trust the cards and the company behind them.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:41PM (#24813947) Journal
    After hearing this news, I went to the Mythbusters site and entered in a bunch of old wives tales & myths passed onto me from my father and forefathers concerning lawyers. They are:
    • Lawyers possess a membrane of blood just below the skin so they appear to be human and bleed from things like paper cuts and scratches but if shot in the head or other vital organ, they will not bleed.
    • As long as they are given fresh videos of accidental injuries where a party is liable, lawyers can go weeks without food or water and still survive.
    • When dropped from 6 story (or higher) buildings, lawyers bounce.
    • Even when bound with twine and anchored, lawyers float.
    • If you cut a lawyer's head off, it will manage to sue you for days before it dies.
    • Lawyers emit an evil into the ether so powerful that when they are placed in a cage with a ravenous lion, the lion will cower and run.
    • Lawyers can smell profit and always pick the correct door in the Monty Hall situation when IEDs lay on the other side of two and $1,000 lays on the other side of one.
    • Lawyers can't feel pain.
    • Any lawyer can outrun a male grizzly bear in the middle of mating season.
    • Over the years, lawyers have built up a tolerance to lethal doses of iocane powder.

    I can't wait until they test my myths! Also, lawyers are the reason we no longer have habeas corpus, so the show should be filmed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

  • In other words: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:42PM (#24813955)
    Myth Confirmed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jd (1658)
      What about the myth that private sector TV stations (like Discovery) are more honest and open than Government-funded stations (like the BBC)? On that note, I would like to challenge anyone to build a machine that can steam-roller the named corporations purely from household kitchen and powered by an 8" elastic band. Oh, and it must also carry a raw egg.
  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:43PM (#24813957)
    Busting Security Through Obscurity!
  • by hpa (7948) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:46PM (#24813983) Homepage

    This isn't at all about the hackers ... this is about making the general public aware just how bad this is.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:32PM (#24814273) Journal

      This isn't at all about the hackers ... this is about making the general public aware just how bad this is.

      But as the reasoning goes...
      If the general public isn't aware of the problem...
      It isn't a problem.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:43PM (#24815531)

        Especially when it comes to things that might be used for criminal ends. Reason is, most criminals aren't all that smart. Especially small time criminals. To the extent there are smart criminals, they are usually the ones on top, the drug lords and such. The small time criminals usually aren't the sort of people who do research or think things through. You can see this in things like copper theft. This really is not a very profitable mode of operation. Even with the price having doubled, copper prices are still talked about in single digit dollars per POUND. That's also the price you'd pay on a mercantile exchange, not the price a scrap dealer gives you. Thus it is dangerous (both in terms of getting arrested and risking death if the wires happen to be live), a good bit of work, and probably doesn't pay any better than a job at McDonalds.

        The point I'm getting at is that the large amount of petty, opportunity type criminals go for things their attention has been brought to. Copper prices skyrocketing made news so their attention got brought to it. They didn't realize that while the prices did double that was from about $2/lb to $4/lb.

        Now as related to RFID, well Mythbusters certainly could lead to slightly more sophisticated petty criminals trying it. Right now, there's little information out there on it. So you'd be talking doing a good deal of research, perhaps some of it original, to build a device that could nab card numbers. This assumes that they've even had it brought to their attention that such a ting can be done. If they don't read a site like Slashdot, chances are they don't know it has security issues, and perhaps aren't even aware it exists at all.

        However if Mythbusters calls attention to it, and shows a basic guide of how to exploit it, well then they might start trying.

        Now I'm not saying that this means the problem shouldn't get fixed, or that it is Mythbusters job to keep it under wraps. I am saying that there really is some merit to the idea that if the public isn't aware of the problem it's not a problem. Sure there are people out there who are both aware it is a problem and know enough to exploit it. Perhaps you are one of them. However, are you going to actually do it? No? Then no problem.

        I'm not saying this is the right way to approach the security of this issue, I am just saying that there is real merit to the idea that if the public doesn't know then it's not a problem. You probably meant that it would be happening but they'd be kept in the dark about it. No, not at all. What I mean is that if the public doesn't know about it, people won't try to exploit it.

  • by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:47PM (#24813991)

    "So, if I Understand this correctly, you knew of these security holes back in 2008, and rather than fix them, you prevented the Mythbusters from talking about them."

    "Well, yes, Your Honor."

    "Give me another reason why I should listen to one word of your defense against this class action suit?"

    This will come back and bite them in the @$$. Hard.

  • Pass the buck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magus_melchior (262681) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:49PM (#24813999) Journal

    So, rather than face lawsuits over contractual obligations to build and maintain a secure system (hah), they litigate the party who exposes them for attempting fraud.

    Should it be surprising that in a culture that prizes profits and pride over progress, that litigation threats are used to squelch otherwise good feedback and information?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Personally I think that this kind of thing should be allowable, under one condition. Namely, that the credit card companies set about fixing this problem as quickly as possible, sparing no expense. If there is a big problem with these cards and they are willing to fix it now that someone has told them about it, I think it would only be reasonable to allow them to keep the information secret for a short time while they square things away.

      Now, of course, the odds that this is what they'll actually do are only

  • by Stanislav_J (947290) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:50PM (#24814001)

    Of course, now that the story is propagating all over the Net, pretty soon everyone will know about the alleged security flaws (if not the details), and the CC companies and their legal eagles will look quite villainous. When will they ever learn?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:50PM (#24814005)

    freedom of speech.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kestasjk (933987)
      Not really a freedom of speech thing; it's up to Discovery channel what it airs. As long as he can post his opinion on YouTube that's all that matters; no use martyring his show because Discovery bend to the people who pay them (advertisers).
  • Yeah, well... (Score:5, Informative)

    by VValdo (10446) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:50PM (#24814009)

    They weren't able to stop this one [pbs.org], which, if you haven't seen yet, is pretty amazing.

    • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:59PM (#24814049) Homepage

      Because PBS isn't advertiser funded, it gets its support from private individuals and (to a rather minor extent) the government. While corporations can (and do) donate, it isn't their lifeblood.

      I agree with you though. I've seen that episode and it's a fantastic rebuke of the credit card industry.

    • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cortesoft (1150075) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:59PM (#24814051)
      I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.
      • Not only that but (Score:5, Insightful)

        by beakerMeep (716990) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:10PM (#24814131)
        I truly see Frontline as one of the last and only truly investigative journalism programs on TV. It's the only show where I have found myself thinking "wow what they are reporting is interesting but it raises question A" and then as if by magic, the show continues: "we decided to further investigate and here's what we found about question A and this lead us to questions B, C and D"
      • PBS was fucked, too (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:59PM (#24814507)

        I remember bill moyers and his 'now' show. it was great, and he had this other guy (david b-something) as a second - and it did some good 'digging' on important stories.

        from what I understand, he got shot down and was forced to 'retire' because he asked too many hard questions and bothered too many powerful bigwigs.

        he did come back, but not on that show and he *was* put 'out of business' for about a year or two (iirc). ie, the chilling effect was done to PBS, which is a sacred cow, in US culture (more or less).

        if moyers can be silenced, its proof our whole system is broken. PBS was a final hold-out but even PBS was *heavily* edited by bush-co and their henchmen.

        TV is a wasteland; cable is mostly such; and even more and more of 'the net' is getting to be high in noise/signal ratio. the net is still mostly unregulated, but imagine the trend going from tv->cable->'teh internets'. we may see it in our lifetimes, too, if things don't get reversed soon.

      • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Blue Stone (582566) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:01PM (#24814523) Homepage Journal

        That's why you get programmes like Top Gear from the BBC. No commercial channel would dare upset the card manufacturers like it does.

      • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kestasjk (933987) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:24PM (#24814719) Homepage
        The BBC is excellent in this regard, by the way. If you read the news there it's crystal clear the government (nor the BBC higher ups) have any power over them. Even internal BBC scandals like Blue-Peter faking phone-in competitions are dutifully reported on.

        You'll feel sick reading/watching Fox, or even CNN etc, after reading/watching BBC.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by owlnation (858981)

        I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.

        That all sounds nice in theory. However, the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Br

        • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Sockatume (732728) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @11:25PM (#24816085)
          Product placement is absolutely and unequivocally banned from TV productions in the UK. And you're not exactly sailing in the ocean of facts by suggesting that the Beeb is a government tool, as even a cursory examination of their recent history would tell you. Stop bullshitting yourself.
  • corporate games (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sr8outtalotech (1167835) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:03PM (#24814079)
    It's a all about risk management for the companies involved. On one hand you have the Discovery Channel which depends on advertising revenues. On the other hand you have several large corporations that are using a flawed system. The question for the credit card companies is whether or not it's cheaper to use the system in place and pressure others not to disclose flaws or come up with something that works better. Sort of reminds me of Mitsubishi and the wheels flying off their heavy vehicles a few years ago. It was cheaper to payout settlements than recall and fix the vehicles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Vehicle_defect_cover-up [wikipedia.org]

    I know the management of these companies have obligations to the shareholders but isn't about time they started to exhibit an obligation to not make fraud so easy with the current system?
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:12PM (#24814149)

    ...for Slashdot to hammer the crap out of some corporate bullies, it sounds like this might be it. Could someone appropriately knowledgeable perhaps post a detailed account of how incredibly hackable RFID security is? A couple of URL's leading to websites with all the red meat would also be appropriate. PGP proves that once the genii is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in all that easily.

    Frankly, I'm sick and tired of all these corporate assholes and their attitude. You can bet your bottom dollar that they'll keep the current, flawed system as-is, and simply out-last any hacking victim who dares to challenge them in court. The best solution is to make sure everybody with even a grade school education and a card reader can screw them at will. Maybe then, they'll do something about fixing the problem.

  • Ignore Them (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ewhac (5844) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:16PM (#24814185) Homepage Journal
    Except where National Security(TM) is concerned, there is no valid argument in law to prevent Discovery/Mythbusters from airing facts about the lack of security surrounding RFID, and Discovery/Mythbusters are under no contractual obligation to keep such facts secret.

    An expensive lawsuit would almost certainly be filed after the fact, but it stands no chance of success. Discovery could counter-sue for barratry and violations of anti-SLAPP statutes.

    Schwab

    • Re:Ignore Them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anon E. Muss (808473) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:27PM (#24814249)

      ... there is no law to prevent Discovery from airing facts ...

      There is also no law that requires the credit card companies to spend their advertising dollars on the Discovery Channel, or any other media outlet owned by the same company. That's what this is all about.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by azakem (924479)

      Except where National Security(TM) is concerned, there is no valid argument in law to prevent Discovery/Mythbusters from airing facts about the lack of security surrounding RFID, and Discovery/Mythbusters are under no contractual obligation to keep such facts secret.

      Schwab

      There is more at work here than the law. The implicit (explicit?) threat is that if Discovery airs this show, the CC companies will cease advertising on the Discovery network.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Miseph (979059)

      You missed the valid argument of the CC companies paying the bills. The CC companies aren't forced to advertise on Discovery, but Discovery IS forced, by virtue of having bills to pay, to seek advertising revenue from the CC companies.
      This is one of the major flaws in most libertarian and anarchist theories: government has no monopoly on tyranny or injustice.

  • by Rod Beauvex (832040) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:32PM (#24814285)
    Make a note of this on their Wikipedia entry.
  • by kilodelta (843627) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:46PM (#24814373) Homepage
    The banking industry in general isn't the more secure place. While they'll spend money on intrusion detection systems etc, a simple low tech approach can defeat most bank security measures.

    There's a nice thought.
  • RFID info (Score:5, Informative)

    by sfm (195458) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:33PM (#24814787)
    For a good reference describing some of the problems with RFID technology, check out the book "Spy Chips" by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre http://www.amazon.com/Spychips-Major-Corporations-Government-Track/dp/1595550208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220142206&sr=8-1 [amazon.com] This has been our for over 2 years now, but the general public has no idea on the capabilities or consequences of RFID systems. Give it a look.
  • Good job (Score:3, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @08:16PM (#24815039) Homepage
    Discovery is doing the right thing.
    Just to be safe they should keep this episode locked away in a secure vault out in the middle of nowhere guarded by a lock which requires two RFID keys to open so that it will never see the light of day.
  • Ancient secrets. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ostracus (1354233) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:18PM (#24815405) Journal

    "Texas Instruments comes on [a scheduled conference call] along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else... "

    After discovering a flaw in one of Texas Instruments' RFID tags, researchers from RSA Labs and Johns Hopkins University say they plan to continue their testing with exploits against other RFID equipment. [cioinsight.com]

    Doesn't look like the secret everyone thinks it is. Note the date. And this just from a few seconds with Google.

  • Biometrics Epsiode (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jythie (914043) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @10:41PM (#24815829)

    I wonder how much of this is in response to that episode they did a while back on security systems and showed how easily they could be gotten around (most notably the trivial to subert finger print scanner).

    After making those companies look like liers and fools, I can imagine that the credit card companies would not want to risk the bad press too.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...