Teen Phone Phreak Targeted by the FBI

Wired has an interesting editorial on the latest resurgence of the old days of phone phreaking and the latest phreak that is rising into the FBI crosshairs. The most recent hoax, "swatting", involves malicious pranksters calling police with reports of fake murders, hostage crises, or the like and spoofing the call to appear as though it was from another location. "Now the FBI thinks it has identified the culprit in the Colorado swatting as a 17-year-old East Boston phone phreak known as "Li'l Hacker." Because he's underage, Wired.com is not reporting Li'l Hacker's last name. His first name is Matthew, and he poses a unique challenge to the federal justice system, because he is blind from birth. If he's guilty, the attack is at once the least sophisticated and most malicious of a string of capers linked to Matt, who stumbled into the lingering remains of the decades-old subculture of phone phreaking when he was 14, and quickly rose to become one of the most skilled active phreakers alive."

Comments

phreaker isn't only one liable.

[JetScootr]

I've felt for a long time (since I began to understand Windows security issues) that whenever a teenager is caught for hacking/phreaking/whathavu, that TWO entities should be prosecuted:
1> the teenybopper;
2> The company that designed a digital infrastructure so insecure that a teenybopper could hack in and cause those zillions of dollars damage they always claim at trial.

Re:What's the problem?

[Itninja]

I think you are mistaking SWAT Teams with bounty hunters. The latter can (and have according to Law & Order) slaughter an entire family by mistake and get community service.

Re:Cops always think that way...

[remahl]

Of course you would blame the electricity company. Worst analogy ever.

Re:So...No

[JetScootr]

I didn't say company should be prosecuted for imperfect security, but for security SO VERY FAULTY that even teenagers could break it. Companies like the phone company and Microsoft make big claims about security, or at least saying that they 'care' about security; I don't brag about having an unbreachable front door.
Monopolies' products don't just affect their own customers, but all customers in their marketplace. This is especially true when the gov't is a big customer. These companies SHOULD be held to a higher standard; if not in their products, at least in the claims they make about their products.
Why should it be ok to break in to a computer
I really don't know where you got that. I didn't say it. I did say the company whose system is so insecure should ALSO be prosecuted. (OT, but I also think people's houses should also be harder to break into.)
Like the other poster said, "If you store top secret files in a cheap file cabinet," This logic is only applicable if NON-cheap file cabinets are available in the marketplace. The phone companies, tho no longer a monopoly, might as well be, because most of them act the same within a narrow range of 'innovations'.

Re:At least...

[Jaysyn]

And on top of that, you can't fucking count.

Search Results

These 14 results represent
The state of: All
For the year: 2007
And the following type of incident: Raid on an innocent suspect

I hope this happens to you and you can watch your fucking house burn to the ground with your pet in it because the SWAT team raided you looking for your neighbors dime-bag of pot. But that's ok right? Cause they didn't kill you or accidentally put a bullet thru your 11 year old son's head.

You're an unempathetic, subhuman piece of shit.

Re:Challenge? Why

[someone1234]

You know what? I don't care. If a toddler calls police repeatedly onto innocent people, i don't mind if that toddler is shot.
Along with its parents.
You can also apply the reverse of this argument up to an age of 100 years (where they are usually the same responsible as a toddler).
So what?