Slashdot Mirror


FEMA Phones Hacked, Calls Made To Mideast and Asia

purplehayes writes "A hacker broke into a Homeland Security Department telephone system over the weekend and racked up about $12,000 in calls to the Middle East and Asia. The hacker made more than 400 calls on a Federal Emergency Management Agency voicemail system in Emmitsburg, Md., on Saturday and Sunday, according to FEMA spokesman Tom Olshanski."

241 comments

  1. In FEMA's defense by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The hacker was in New Orleans. So they were obligated by official policy to ignore his calls.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:In FEMA's defense by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "The hacker was in New Orleans. So they were obligated by official policy to ignore his calls."

      Hey, it would be a little 'justice'...considering how badly FEMA screwed over many from the area.

      Just another example of the incompetence of this Federal government agency. From my experience with them, and most all other govt agencies that have to deal with large numbers of people...sadly, the incompetence, red tape, and waste of money is a common denominator.

      And now...we're wanting to put THEM in charge of our medical care? Scary.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:In FEMA's defense by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was actually only trying to call one person, but every time the caller ID came up as FEMA the guy panicked and wouldn't answer. When the authorities showed up at the poor guys house he was in a fetal position, rocking himself back and forth saying over and over again, "FEMA. Keeps Calling. Won't stop. FEMA!!!"

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:In FEMA's defense by AlterRNow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did anyone else "hear" that in Abe Simpsons voice?

      "Epa! Eeeepaaa!"

      --
      The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    4. Re:In FEMA's defense by jbezorg · · Score: 1
      "$12,000 in calls" Must have been one heck of a psychic.

      And now...we're wanting to put THEM in charge of our medical care? Scary.

      Just curious, would you advocate privately run police forces?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    5. Re:In FEMA's defense by apparently · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just curious, would you advocate privately run police forces?

      The DEA is already employing private security for their raids.

    6. Re:In FEMA's defense by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      They are still under the control of a public agency but pointing that out does not answer the question. Do you advocate privately run police forces?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    7. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, it would be a little 'justice'...considering how badly FEMA screwed over many from the area.

      Once upon a time, people believed these words: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" Though, I doubt you can figure out what I'm getting at.

    8. Re:In FEMA's defense by Dantu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...sadly, the incompetence, red tape, and waste of money is a common denominator.

      And now...we're wanting to put THEM in charge of our medical care? Scary.

      Well, as a Canadian I can tell you that you're right, health-care run but bureaucrats is a bit scary. But, there is a bit of a problem with the alternative: the nature of heath-care is such that unless you are VERY rich, you want insurance. The problem with insurance is that it's not their job to heal you, it's their job to make money - and they are very good at it.

      So, an incompetent bureaucrat managing my health care dollars is still much better than an insurance company.

      PS: This goes for car insurance to. British Columbia has mandatory crown insurance - the company makes money for the government and still has lower insurance rates than the privatized provinces (I now live in Ontario).

    9. Re:In FEMA's defense by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a little uncertain as to why you think private insurance provides more efficient health care? If anything, private insurance makes more profit by denying as much health care as possible.

    10. Re:In FEMA's defense by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i wouldn't mind living in a SR world.. would be kinda neet

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    11. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is the federal government accountable for New Orleans' piss poor planning and management?

      Other cities around the country have faced natural disaster and have by and large dealt with it on their own.

      Maybe if the city government weren't so corrupt and the state so inept things wouldn't have turned out as badly as they did.

      What bothers me about FEMA is that stupid move of basically handing out free money which of course was abused extensively.

    12. Re:In FEMA's defense by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arm everyone. Not just the criminals.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:In FEMA's defense by apparently · · Score: 1

      I'm not the GP, and no I don't advocate privately run police forces. Just pointing out that we've already got a little slice of that experience, and it's troubling to see.

    14. Re:In FEMA's defense by megaditto · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Ask not what your country can do for you[...]

      I recognize these words. I think these were uttered by JF Kennedy, the man who started the war in Vietnam, sent thousands of American conscripts to die there, all while snorting coke off Marilyn Monroe sweet butt (and while his brother the Attorney General Bobby Kennedy wiretapped Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders).
      No wonder that asshole didn't want us asking what our country could do for us.

      [...] but what you can do for your country!"

      You actually believe that shit? Talk about "useful idiots"...

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    15. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who lost his home in a flood that was caused by a screw up by the corp of engineers and who watch the govt just sit there while people suffered, I'd like to throttle you, you sanctimonious jerk. I can only hope whatever natural disaster the area in which you live is prone strikes your home and you get to enjoy the arrogant and pompous responses of idiots like yourself.

    16. Re:In FEMA's defense by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well,when YOU are sitting there in the path of a hurricane in waist deep water while the buses that could get you to safety are sitting there idle then you can say everyone should "do for themselves". besides I thought that was the whole POINT of having a government in the first place? There are some jobs like national defense and disaster relief that are simply too big to "do it yourself",therefor we pay taxes so that an organization with "supposedly" better resources can handle the big jobs.

      As someone in AR who went down and saw how the mobile homes sat here unused until they were sold off,the amount of mismanagement was just unbelievable to me. But of course anyone that dumps a million gallons of fresh water in the sewer has shown they are simply too incompetent to continue existing. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:In FEMA's defense by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, an incompetent bureaucrat managing my health care dollars is still much better than an insurance company.

      The big, really big, in fact just simply enormous problem with where the US healthcare system is heading is that you will have an incompetent bureaucracy subcontracting management to an insurance company. Worst of both worlds.

      If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we fix it! (attrib: somebody or other, use Google if you must know)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:In FEMA's defense by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      ...considering how badly Mayor Nagin screwed over many from the area.

      There, fixed it for you.

    19. Re:In FEMA's defense by pcolaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before you start acting like you know what you are talking about...nevermind, just don't speak. You are from AR, your experience with Hurricanes amounts to what leftovers you may get with a storm that passes through Mississippi. I went through Ivan, Dennis, parts of Katrina, etc etc. I live in Pensacola, which is right in the middle of Hurricane Alley. The problems with New Orleans were primarily the fault of the state of Louisiana and the city government, not the Federal Government and FEMA. Mayor Nagin advised people NOT to leave town and only gave the order to evac less than 24 hours before the storm hit. And the city and state misused Federal funds that were supposed to be used to shore up the levies. Let's not forget that Biloxi had far worse damage from Katrina, but was forgotten because NO had serious flooding damage from the levies collapsing, not from storm damage. Most of the damage occurred days after the Hurricane, not while it was passing through. And the US Army and US Navy were the first on the scene, but even they had to wait until the storm was out of the way. No use trying to rescue people if your helicopters are damaged beyond use because of storm damage. Oh yeah, while we're on this discussion, let's talk about the fact that people were basically handed free money in the form of Debit cards after Katrina, without any vetting process to determine who needed money. Everything from Girls Gone Wild to Sex change operations were purchased with said free Debit cards. What major aid was given to Biloxi, given that their wind damage was far worse than that of New Orleans? For that matter, other than blue tarps and MREs, people in Pensacola had to all but fend for themselves after Ivan, but we managed just fine. If you REALLY had experience with Hurricanes, you'd know that you are responsible for surviving on your own for a maximum of 5 days, as the state and federal government will tell you, because sometimes it's not possible for them to get to you immediately. It was a failure on the city and state's fault to not prepare their populace, and the stupidity of the people of New Orleans for living in a city below sea level. It was bound to happen eventually.

    20. Re:In FEMA's defense by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      This is why I think Jeb Bush should change his last name. He's unfortunately got no political future because of the bad press he'd get just for being GWB's brother, while he's infact a better disaster manager than his brother. The year that Ivan hit Florida, we actually had 4 separate category 4 or 5 storms to hit the state of Florida in the same 3-4 month period, and everything was handled very well by the state. The only black mark in the whole situation was insurance companies trying to take advantage of people, but that's insurance companies for you. And of course, as I stated in another post, Biloxi got hammered far far worse than New Orleans, but they have recovered far better than New Orleans with a lot less federal aid.

    21. Re:In FEMA's defense by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's wearing a Blackwater t-shirt. It doesn't mean he's actually a Blackwater contractor. I also don't see any reason for the DEA to hire Blackwater for something like this.

    22. Re:In FEMA's defense by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      I prefer to let the numbers speak for themselves - It would seem private insurance is just more expensive

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    23. Re:In FEMA's defense by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      >I'm not the GP, and no I don't advocate privately run police forces.

      You mean vote for an unknown dude with a winning smile as sheriff or something?

    24. Re:In FEMA's defense by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      What makes people think that bureaucracy does not exist within private insurance companies?

      Ever had to drive 100 miles round trip for a one minute procedure that checks LDH levels to measure progress on chemotherapy? Rather then go to the local Oncologist that I had been seeing because he was highly recommended and ten minutes away?

      I have because my insurance provider insisted and refused to cover the cost if I didn't.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    25. Re:In FEMA's defense by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      Just curious, would you advocate privately run police forces?

      I don't think anyone would, knowing that Liquid Ocelot could take control of all of them.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    26. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you choose to live in an area where it's just a matter of time until a major natural disaster, and don't have any way to rebuild after that, why is that my fault?

      It's the same thing with beachfront properties all over Florida. Insurance companies won't insure people there against flood or hurricanes because it's just a matter of time. I live in an area where tornados happen, but guess what? The insurance company will cover me. I don't live in a HIGHLY dangerous area.

      There is no RIGHT to have a home on the beach or in an area that is only tenuously reclaimed from the swamp. Your stupid, lazy ass depends on the damn government, and therefore my tax dollars. I'm paying for your idiocy, and I'm tired of it. I don't feel bad for you.

    27. Re:In FEMA's defense by jbezorg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for answering it allows me to make my point now that I can see where you stand.

      We accept public service in situations when speed of the response is more important than the choice of who is providing the service and since choice is not an option making the "who" publicly accountable is important.

      As US citizens for the most part we readily accept police, fire and rescue services run by or answerable to a government agency be it local, state or federal.

      My question is why do we suddenly not accept that system at the door to the hospital that may very well be privately owned and monopolize an area for the emergency services provided by police, fire and rescue?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    28. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, and people are stupid for living in California with its earthquakes and wildfires, and people are stupid for living in the midwest with the tornados, and people are stupid for living pretty much anywhere in the U.S. with the yellowstone caldera overdue to blow, and people are stupid for living . . .

      Pensacola has had the misfortune to be hit by several hurricanes. By your logic, you are a fool to still live there.

      And for all of the smug idiots who think they are paying for me to live in what should be a swamp, you don't think my tax dollars go to benefit you in any way? I pay my own way just like you do. I just expected the government to respond more effectively to a disaster that happened to hit my home. And I expected my homeowners insurance and my federal flood insurance, which I pay for every month, to actually pay out at a reasonable rate when my home gets wiped off the face of the earth without endless delays and bureaucratic crap.

      Enjoy your smug self-righteous attitude and hope that if anything ever happens to you the rest of us don't share your attitude.

    29. Re:In FEMA's defense by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Don't know anything about disasters in AR? hello,Tornadoes much? When Dumas got hit I went to check on some friends and you wouldn't have even known half the town had been there if it wasn't for the concrete slabs where houses used to be. The last bout that went through in the spring actually got close enough to my mother's place to pull the siding off the side of the house,so believe me we know all about how nasty mother nature can get here.

      And thank you for making my point for me about FEMA. Those debit cards were about the stupidest idea they could have come up with. Hmmm,passing out free credit cards without doing any kind of checking for need or follow up,what could go wrong? And I agree that there was plenty of incompetence to go around,from the mayor on up,be we as a nation can't tell the folks of NO to replace their mayor. Well we can,but that doesn't mean they'll listen. But what we CAN do is take badly run federal programs like FEMA and either overhaul them or fire the lot and start over. And while I agree NO being under sea level just invites trouble,I also think folks are crazy for living on a fault line in CA,doesn't mean we don't help them when an earthquake cause their buildings and bridges to collapse.

      We will always have natural disasters,it just comes with living on planet Earth. But we need to learn from our mistakes with agencies like FEMA,instead of doing the usual government response of "throw more money at it". If we learn anything from NO it should be that we need to spend wisely,not only on the aftermath but with as much preventative measures as we can in the hopes of minimizing destruction. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    30. Re:In FEMA's defense by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      I actually heard Bart's voice, "Can't sleep- clown'll eat me. Can't sleep- clown'll eat me..." but Abe's Eeeeepaaa is definitely more on point;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    31. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now...we're wanting to put THEM in charge of our medical care? Scary.

      What's scary is that the rest of the world seems to be able to have the government handle health care and they pay less for it than we do. Americans are just incompetent when it comes to keeping their government in line.

    32. Re:In FEMA's defense by 2names · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who is a little bit sick of hearing about the people in New Orleans that got caught in the hurricane?

      I mean, it's not like they didn't know it was coming. The residents of New Orleans should have started getting the heck out of there days before it hit, not sit around and wait for the Government to save them.

      I have heard and read many stories of people who said they couldn't get out of N.O. because they didn't have a car. What ever happened to WALKING. I swear, if I knew a hurricane was even a little bit likely to hit my town and I didn't have a car, I would start walking the hell out of there. I would fill the backpack with canned food and some bottled water and hit the damn bricks.

      Now, before you start to bash me, I am not talking about people who are disabled or had some other legitimate reason for not being able to leave (such as being hooked to life support, etc.), but there were literally thousands of able-bodied people who just stayed there when they could have walked far enough away in the 2 or 3 days before it hit that they would have been safe.

      The U.S. government can't even run an election without problems, what the heck did the residents of New Orleans think would happen when the govt tries to handle a real emergency?

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    33. Re:In FEMA's defense by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Ah, department of homeland stupidity.

      --
      +5, Truth
    34. Re:In FEMA's defense by mweather · · Score: 1

      People back then paid less than half the taxes we do. If you want to give me my money back, I'll stop asking you to do stuff for me.

    35. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the GP can claim the "useful" part. I'm not so sure in your case.

    36. Re:In FEMA's defense by randyest · · Score: 1

      And for all of the smug idiots who think they are paying for me to live in what should be a swamp, you don't think my tax dollars go to benefit you in any way? I pay my own way just like you do.

      Not really. Louisiana receives $1.78 in federal funds for every $1.00 collected in federal taxes So the other states are taking care of you. In fact, LA is the 4th most leechy state.

      Your expectations of FEMA were unreasonable. Maybe if you and your fellow citizens held your local and state goverment to higher standards you wouldn't have had a problem.

      --
      everything in moderation
    37. Re:In FEMA's defense by inerlogic · · Score: 3, Funny

      you're just jealous you didn't get to snort coke off marilyn's crack....

    38. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's wearing a Blackwater t-shirt. It doesn't mean he's actually a Blackwater contractor. I also don't see any reason for the DEA to hire Blackwater for something like this.

      I'm sure the DEA lets their employees wear Blackwater gear to work every day.

      You're a fucking moron.

    39. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are not welcome here. This is a place for irrational, emotional, government-suckling hippies.

      We do not appreciate your sense of responsibility and self-sufficiency.

      Please refrain from posting with content of this type in the future.

      For now, we'll just blame this on Bush and move on (badum-CHA).

      Mission accomplished.

    40. Re:In FEMA's defense by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Hurricanes and Tornadoes are the exact same thing. You do know that Hurricanes spawn tornadoes, right? Not to mention I don't remember Tornadoes causing tons of water damage.

    41. Re:In FEMA's defense by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      A Boing Boing comment:

      I'm willing to bet he's DEA. Blackwater probably wouldn't hire someone who looked that scuzzy, but DEA agents frequently look like dirtbags. Would YOU sell dope to someone who looked like a federal agent?

      This is probably true. Would it make sense for DEA agents to wear suits? Also, why wouldn't the DEA let you wear a Blackwater shirt? What's your reason for that?

      Anyway, I still don't understand why the DEA would contract Blackwater for this type of work. I doubt drug busts are their area of expertise.

    42. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the man who started the war in Vietnam, sent thousands of American conscripts to die there,

      He increased involvement from 800 to 16,300 after the Diem coup of 63 indicated things were getting right out of control on the ground there -- this is right after the Cuban Missile Crisis I might add; spreading Communism seemed a very active threat. McNamara and Johnson both stated Kennedy was also planning to pull out - the increase was a temporary measure to correct the Diem mess and make pull-out from Vietnam possible in 64. And he got shot during this formative stage, and McNamara and Johnson and others took involvment in another direction entirely.

      My question is how many of those 16,300 were conscripts? Conscription was a low-level thing in the US military until it was ramped up in 64, and the only stats I can find about service of conscripts in that war start with 64.

      It's an honest question; I'm not arguing with you -- I'm saying you should look into the mess even deeper than you are. And I am definitely not a Kennedy fan. He was quite the operator, and I always figured if he hadn't been shot he would have left office under a disgrace similar Clinton's cigar episode.

    43. Re:In FEMA's defense by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you were nice enough to Manson...

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    44. Re:In FEMA's defense by sgholt · · Score: 1

      The truth is in the words, not the speaker of the words.

      Something to think about in this election year.

    45. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thruth is in your deeds (or at least your intentions).

      Whether the guy is a good speaker or a nice person is besides the point. I hear Charlie Mason was a nice person.

    46. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded insightful? From someone that lives in Mobile, AL (formerly of Pensacola), that went through Ivan and Katrina, I find your comments both self-serving and wrong.

      "The problems with New Orleans were primarily the fault of the state of Louisiana and the city government, not the Federal Government and FEMA"
      Wrong. That "not" should be "as well as". The feds send in the Oklahoma National Guard to disarm the populace. (1) Why wasn't the guard delivering water or handing out tarps ?!

      "Debit cards after Katrina, without any vetting process to determine who needed money". The fact of the matter is each debit card was 2,000. Let's see. I just lost everything I own. The government's answer is to give me 2,000. I might get to go live in a trailer built by the lowest builder. In 2006, there was a Mobile man convicted on defrauding Katrina. So those who abused thesystem are being brought to Justice. Slowly. The snopes link (3) will serve to clear up the other bad information.

      "What major aid was given to Biloxi," The state of Mississippi took it. CNN(2)

      "For that matter, other than blue tarps and MREs, people in Pensacola had to all but fend for themselves after Ivan, but we managed just fine."
      Two things. First, that's like compare minor and major league baseball. Katrina and Ivan were different classes.
      Ivan was a class 3 direct hit to Gulf Shores, Alabama , 35 miles west of Pensacola(4). Katrina was a class 4 (5). The city of Pensacola is around 50,000 people and about 30 feet above sea level. Ivan was coming. That many people could have evacuated. Also, flooding is not that much of a concern in Pensacola. New Orleans had a pre-katrina population 9 times the size of Pensacola. Due to terrain, flooding would be a concern in New Orleans.

      Pensacolians didn't have to fend for themselves like those in New Orleans. One didn't have members of the Pensacola police department looting after Ivan. In New Orleans, there was looting going on, some cases by members of the NOPD. After Ivan passed through, I went over to Pensacola to help kinfolk. While there, Budweiser was giving away canned water. Budweiser beat the National Guard when it came to delivering relief supplies after Ivan.

      "the stupidity of the people of New Orleans for living in a city below sea level." Well, one of the nation's largest ports where the nation's rail lines intersect would need bodies to unload ships and trains. Not everyone can live in a retirement community that leeches off of their local naval base.

      I do agree with you that ultimately, one is responsible for one's well-being and safety. However, if you pay taxes with the expectation that those sworn to uphold the U.S Constitution will do so. By obeying the illegal orders, the Guard violated the 2nd and 4th amendment. Small wonder then why there's a distrust of the federal government.

      References:
      (1)ABC News report -National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8
      (2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/mississippi.katrina/index.html
      (3)http://www.snopes.com/katrina/charity/debitcard.asp
      (4)http://www4.ncsu.edu/~nwsfo/storage/cases/20040917/
      (5)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/katrina.html

    47. Re:In FEMA's defense by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Out of the total 58,193 dead (American forces), 17,672 were conscripted ( see http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#service )

      Since only a few hundred soldiers died before 1963-4, I assume LBJ must have sent a long more conscripts than either Kennedy or Nixon. I can't find the yearly starts for the conscripts though.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    48. Re:In FEMA's defense by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "What's scary is that the rest of the world seems to be able to have the government handle health care and they pay less for it than we do. "

      Yeah...and you end up paying like 60%+ or more in taxes on what you make? No thank you...I'd rather take my money and do it myself. I set up a HSA, max it out with money pre-tax, and pay as I go. I get discounts from physicans on office visits and tests when they find I'm paying for myself. I have a high ($1200) deductible account ONLY for disasterous emergency care if I need it....but, for the rest of the stuff...I like the way I have it. I can also take that HSA money, and invest it in the market.....what's left at retirement....is my retirement money too. In the long run, I can come put WAY ahead of anyone taxing my at such a high rate, or even paying for insurance that you pay higher premiums every month, and co-pays for ever visit...etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    49. Re:In FEMA's defense by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I mean, it's not like they didn't know it was coming. The residents of New Orleans should have started getting the heck out of there days before it hit, not sit around and wait for the Government to save them."

      Actually..that's not true.

      Friday night, I was drinking at a bar with friends, watching the tv...when I left about 8pm...Katrina was a little storm, maybe cat 1 predictions, traveling at that time up the west coast of FL.

      I got a call about 9am Saturday morning...wondering who the hell was calling me during possible hangover time...it was my Mom asking what I was gonna do..I asked "Do about what??". She said turn on the tv.

      I was shocked to see that Katrina had suddenly shifted in the night...coming straight at us as a possible Cat 5 storm. It caught all of us off guard.

      I packed that morning...helped get a girl that had just arrived in NOLA to start Tulane to find my house...and I drove us both to Slidell to meet with friends to evacuate. We saw the reports early Sunday morning....and left.s

      The roads were clogged behind us with people leaving...it just came at us suddenly.

      No matter where you live, you're gonna have idiots that won't heed the warnings...I don't have much pity for idiots, but, it did catch many off guard. And NOLA, really has ONLY 2 way out...I-10 E and W....not a good idea for people to try to walk on a major interstate, so if you don't have a car...you're kinda fucked.

      Anyway, there were lots of mistakes on many sides, but, I just wanted to help inform you on a couple of parts you stated.

      You never know until about a day before where a hurricane is gonna hit on the BEST of forecasts...and you just cannot order mass evacuations of the whole gulf coast on a whim....anywhere on the coast....just the way it works man.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    50. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shirley's more my type

    51. Re:In FEMA's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that FEMA is competent, then you are incompetent.

      TWO YEARS AFTER KATRINA

      A representative from the Federal Emergency Management Agency confirmed yesterday that the ice being held at AmeriCold Logistics on Rogers Street and 22 other facilities like it nationwide is being disposed of by melting it. The total cost of storing that ice since Katrina has been $12.5 million.

      http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_194224242.html

      TOXIC AND EXPLOSIVE TRAILERS

      The federal government has known there were toxic levels of formaldehyde in temporary trailers provided to people displaced by Hurricane Katrina at least as far back as April 2006.

      ...

      Last month, KNOE-TV in Monroe, La. investigated further, documenting a design flaw in FEMA's mobile homes that could lead to a buildup of potentially toxic mold levels. It also found that FEMA had been selling the flawed homes to the public in spite of the test results. One science building expert who examined the inside walls of two FEMA homes in Ouachita Parish, La. found one type of mold spore at up to 30,000 times the levels found outside, indicating a wall exposed to excessive moisture levels.

      ...

      An investigative report in New Orleans' latest Gambit Weekly newspaper found that trailer occupants face a high risk of injury or death due to fires and explosions that occur when gas fumes from propane burners build up inside the units and are accidentally ignited. The paper found that at least five Louisianans have been killed and nine injured by such incidents since January 2006. While trailer occupants are to blame for some of the fires, other incidents were caused by improper installation and maintenance by FEMA contractors

      http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/12/gulf-watch-trailer-troubles-mount-as.asp

      When you talk about how the people in New Orleans are "stupid", what you are really saying ist that they are black. So here's a question for you: do you prefer to wear you Klan robe loose, or do you like a tighter more sporty fit?

    52. Re:In FEMA's defense by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why was this modded insightful? From someone that lives in Mobile, AL (formerly of Pensacola), that went through Ivan and Katrina, I find your comments both self-serving and wrong.

      "The problems with New Orleans were primarily the fault of the state of Louisiana and the city government, not the Federal Government and FEMA" Wrong. That "not" should be "as well as". The feds send in the Oklahoma National Guard to disarm the populace.

      Ok you did a clever thing in your post. Use facts to cover up your faulty logic. First, the OK Nat'l Guard was sent in, to control the populace, because the state and local law enforcement could not do the job. One of the reasons you mention for me, which is because the city police were taking part in the looting. Also, the US Army and US Navy were actually first on scene, and the very first thing they did was to rescue as many people as they could, and get as many people as they could to safe areas. Something Nagin could've done by alerting people to evac 36-48 hours before the arrival, but he failed to do this.

      (1) Why wasn't the guard delivering water or handing out tarps ?!

      "Debit cards after Katrina, without any vetting process to determine who needed money". The fact of the matter is each debit card was 2,000. Let's see. I just lost everything I own. The government's answer is to give me 2,000. I might get to go live in a trailer built by the lowest builder.

      The debit cards were meant as immediate assistance, not total assistance. In other words, it was to cover immediate expenses such as food, hotel rooms, etc. The problem is not that they were given out. That was, in fact, a brilliant idea. Give the people some immediate assistance then follow up later with the real assistance. The problem is they gave them to whomever would stand in line, and many people got multiple cards by having more than one person in their family stand in line many times over. Like I said, there was no vetting process to determine need and if a card was already given. Nor was there any limit to what the cards could be used on, or in what purchase amounts. Making purchase amounts of around $200-400 (common limits for ATMs) per transaction or per day would've solved a lot of the "sex change operation" issues.

      In 2006, there was a Mobile man convicted on defrauding Katrina. So those who abused the system are being brought to Justice. Slowly.

      Yeah, and how many thousands upon thousands of people looted, defrauded, and murdered and got off scott free?

      The snopes link (3) will serve to clear up the other bad information.

      "What major aid was given to Biloxi," The state of Mississippi took it.

      And yet Biloxi recovered very well, compared to New Orleans. Their recovery effort depended a lot more on help from Casinos, but even with that a lot of it was done simply by the common people, as the Casinos were more concerned with getting their cash cows back into operation.

      "For that matter, other than blue tarps and MREs, people in Pensacola had to all but fend for themselves after Ivan, but we managed just fine." Two things. First, that's like compare minor and major league baseball. Katrina and Ivan were different classes.

      I'd have thought that as someone who lived in the Gulf Coast you'd know better than to make a comment like that. When both storms were brewing in the Gulf, Katrina hit Cat 5 and Ivan was also a Cat 5. When Katrina hit shore between LA and MS (meaning that the weak side of the storm, the side that caused less wind damage, hit New Orleans, not the stronger side that hit Biloxi, Gulfport, and Bay St. Louis), it was a Category 3. When Ivan hit between Gulf Shores and Pensacola (unlike how you claim it was a direct hit on Gulf Shores, the eye of the storm actually passed East of Gulf Shores and West of Pensacola, meaning that the harshest winds fell upon Pensacola, Pace, and

    53. Re:In FEMA's defense by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      What like the ones that patrol gated communities. Seems to work fine.

    54. Re:In FEMA's defense by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Houses in California are earthquake resistant, by law, and you're not *supposed* to be able to build in wildfire prone areas. You'll notice when they do come, very small numbers of properties are damaged compared to say a hurricane because they're mostly burning empty land.

      The fact that the only flood insurance available in NO is government subsidized should give you some indication of relative risk.

    55. Re:In FEMA's defense by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      I'm a little uncertain as to why you think private insurance provides more efficient health care? If anything, private insurance makes more profit by denying as much health care as possible.

      A little over-generalization there I think. Private insurance in the form of managed care such as HMO's certainly fits your categorization. When I had HMO coverage I spent more time convincing them (the insurance companies I had coverage with) to pay for care that was cleary covered by the policy than I ever did in actually receiving health care. IIRC, a few got in trouble years ago for having official policies of 'deny coverage of any claim' first, argue with the policyholder, and as a last resort grudgingly agree and pay the provider when it is covered by the policy.

      OTOH, Major Medical insurance not so high on the deny coverage for profits scale, but it depends on the provider since some are quite picky in what they cover while there are a few that have very little restrictions. I'm sure they may be a handful of other private insurance plans that aren't so bad, but I'm just guessing.

      Obviously, the most efficient health care is obtained by paying cash directly to the provider of said care (eg. your doctor). I suppose HSA's would really not be considered health insurance per se. I haven't looked at options lately, but I would suspect that the best solution for health care would be the combination of a major medical plan and an HSA.

      But then, I also tend to believe that the medical field has largely been corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, so what do I know?

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    56. Re:In FEMA's defense by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Would you want something like the one's that patrol gated communities have the authority to execute search warrants and what not? Then bill the individual for their services?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    57. Re:In FEMA's defense by 2names · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that it snuck up on people like that. The news I watched at the time was projecting landfall in the NOLA area 2 to 3 days ahead of time. Of course, it wasn't a 100% positive "it is going to hit New Orleans" type of prediction, but still, if there was even a 10% chance I know I would have beat feet out of town. I am just that way though, especially when it comes to storms. I go to the basement when the wind blows hard.

      Thank you for your enlightening post, though. Next time I will do more research before I shoot my mouth off.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  2. First reply by bikeidaho · · Score: 0

    More importantly how was this accomplished?

  3. Who hacks phones anymore? by ralf1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In an age of IP Telephony it seems kind of silly and ends up just being vandalism

    --
    "Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
    1. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      because phones, and more likely modems attached to stuff, still provide reliable ways to break into systems.

      You kids and your IP telephony. Get off my lawn!

    2. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw this on Yahoo news this morning (and submitted it, apparently my submission wasn't the first). It looked to me like the purpose of the hack was to discredit the DHS, which is FEMA's parent organization.

      Note that all the calls went to middle east countries, including Afghanistan and Yemen, both Taliban havens. IMO the hacker did the US a great service by exposing FEMA's incompetence. Katrina is fading in folks' memories and "Brownie", who took the fall for that cluster fuck, is long gone but the agency is still apparently still incredibly dysfunctional and run by incompetents.

      Excellence and failure both start at the top. When the head guy is incompetent, he will hire incompetents.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by seeker_1us · · Score: 3, Informative

      It should be pointed out that FEMA used to be a very competant organization before GWBush merged it into his Department of Fatherland Security and cut it's budget.

    4. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by megamerican · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Katrina is fading in folks' memories and "Brownie", who took the fall for that cluster fuck, is long gone but the agency is still apparently still incredibly dysfunctional and run by incompetents.

      Excellence and failure both start at the top. When the head guy is incompetent, he will hire incompetents.

      If you haven't noticed, the best way to get a bigger budget and more power is to be incompetent. That's the supposed reason why DHS was created in the first place.

      If you subsidize stupidity, that is all you'll ever get.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    5. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has ever HACKED a phone.

      It's called Phreaking. /Get off my lawn.

    6. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Katrina is fading in folks' memories and "Brownie", who took the fall for that cluster fuck, is long gone but the agency is still apparently still incredibly dysfunctional and run by incompetents.

      That's true of most of the government. All the more reason to reduce the government's role in our lives rather than expand it.

      Excellence and failure both start at the top. When the head guy is incompetent, he will hire incompetents.

      The truth is that the government will always be inept and inefficient regardless of who's at the top. But having someone at the top that you don't like makes you more prone to be more critical of the entire government apparatus even though the majority of the government apparatus does not change from administration to administration.

    7. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by photon317 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to offer a dissenting opinion on the FEMA issue in New Orleans. States are supposed to have some kind of emergency preparedness of their own. It's not enough to just fall apart and beg for FEMA to save you. FEMA's traditional role has been to show up late and provide sustaining support in the aftermath of an event, not to be the first responders at the moment of crisis. Many other states understand this. Texas (a nearby neighbor who ended up bearing the brunt of the NO disaster refugees) for example rarely needs FEMA - when hurricanes head for Texas, they deploy their local resources to remedy the immediate situation.

      The problem with the NO disaster was not FEMA. The problem was the bankrupt, ineffective, unprepared, and completely corrupt local and state governments in the area who had nothing to offer their citizens when disaster struck.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    8. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      including Afghanistan and Yemen, both Taliban havens.

      How's Yemen a "taliban haven"?

    9. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're kidding right? FEMA has never been a "Competent Organization", ask anyone who went through hurricane Andrew, way before GWB.

    10. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by sm62704 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      NO's problems stemmed from a combination of local, state, and federal government ineptness. When two tornados trashed my neighborhood in 2006, I was very impressed with the city government's response. Although there were few utility poles standing in my especially hard-hit neighborhood the next morning, as well as a lot of other neighborhoods, the city-owned utility had power back on to everyone within a week. It contrasted dramatically to another tornado that hit Cahokia, a hundred miles south (I grew up in Cahokia) three months later with far less damage and folks were without power for a month (corporate-owned Amerin).

      I was less impressed with the Illinois Emergency Management Authority. However, compared to FEMA's response to our tornado, the IEMA was stellar. FEMA is a joke under the Bush administration.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    11. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by dfetter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Katrina is fading in folks' memories and "Brownie", who took the fall for that cluster fuck, is long gone but the agency is still apparently still incredibly dysfunctional and run by incompetents.

      That's true of most of the government. All the more reason to reduce the government's role in our lives rather than expand it.

      This is the "piss on you an say it's raining" school of government indulged in by the Bushies and all their forbears back to Goldwater. When you deliberately place incompetents in government, you undermine it. There's nothing essential about incompetence anywhere, not even that giant bastion of incompetence, big business.

      Excellence and failure both start at the top. When the head guy is incompetent, he will hire incompetents.

      The truth is that the government will always be inept and inefficient regardless of who's at the top. But having someone at the top that you don't like makes you more prone to be more critical of the entire government apparatus even though the majority of the government apparatus does not change from administration to administration.

      There is much better evidence for incompetent (but nonetheless gigantically paid) CEOs than for incompetent public servants. Public servants are subject to sunshine laws that would make the aforementioned CEOs run away screaming in terror. Libertarian duckspeak like the above paragraph just looks more and more ridiculous each year.

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    12. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you pee telephony? i pee urine.

    13. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by CaptPungent · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      God don't get me started about Amerin. Ever since they bought up IL Power they've done a great job screwing everything up in the St L metro area. The ice storm that hit us had most of us without power for weeks.

      Combine that with the asinine amount they charge for gas and electric compared to what Missouri residents pay, and it was a no-brainer for me to just get the hell out of IL altogether and move to MO. Least over here they regularly smack Amerin across the face to keep them from overcharging.

      --
      C Pungent
    14. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan is part of Asia, not the Middle East. This is a common misconception though because religiously it falls more into line with the Middle East.

    15. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by pcolaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then how come the US Military was on the scene ready to help far before Nagin's people, and far better equipped to handle the situation? You are giving way too much credit to a city government that did absolutely dick shit to save their own people. This is why New Orleans is now a shell of its former self. Hell, they lost three quarters of their population in the form of anyone smart enough to realize they needed to get away from that hell hole.

    16. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I think people have this misconception that the Federal Government only became inept when Bush 43 came into office. Don't give him credit for what many fine congresses drove into the ground far before him.

    17. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Consider what social engineering you could pull off when any caller id system would show you as FEMA? Perhaps some attempts at scamming money from the recipients of the calls was involved in the fraud?

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    18. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You are giving way too much credit to a city government that did absolutely dick shit to save their own people.

      Did you actually READ the comment??? I said government ON ALL LEVELS broke down in New Orleans, unlike Springfield when we were hit by two tornados in one night. MY city government worked well.

      Must be my thick midwestern accent that threw you. =/

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    19. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      The entire Middle East is part of Asia. Unless you count Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria.

    20. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democratic Congress did that, not Bush. He fought the creation of DHS all the way.

      It's Congress that passes the funding, also, by the way.

    21. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      No, it was pretty much the state and local governments that broke down. Federal government did a hell of a lot more to help New Orleans than did the city of New Orleans or the state of Louisiana.

    22. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      The stopping point in the Eastern direction for the Middle East is often considered to be Iran.

    23. Re:Who hacks phones anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was plenty of blame to go around. fema took the blame for failings of other gov't organizations. However, fema probably got slightly less than it's fair share of the blame. There was no phase of that operation that did not have a catastrophic flaw. With the exception of USGS, the BLM, and the USCG [all three were amazing - the role of the usgs is one of the untold successes in the whole nightmare] everyone failed. federal, state, county, municipal, private citizens ...

  4. Hacker? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shouldn't this be 'phreaker'? The article even states the break-in was over their PBX (i.e. a convential phone system, not VoIP).

    1. Re:Hacker? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      He used a whistle found in a cereal box.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Hacker? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, he trained his dog to howl at 2600 hz.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Hacker? by volxdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the correct term is Phreaking, but come on, this is the AP....you expect them to get that right?

    4. Re:Hacker? by AP31R0N · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Alas, the ignorant shape the use of our language more than anyone. You're right about Phreaker, but who knows that term beyond geeks? The term hacker and pirate are completely corrupted from their rightful meanings (along with acronym, utilize and impact). Whenever i try to point out the correct use of words i'm met with apologists and insults.

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=650135&cid=24658053

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    5. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bet a dollar that there was some sort of default password left intact, so it was
      da fault of the installer. Thats the oldest school phreak in the book.
      I remember in the 80's when we used to wardial to find computers and PBX's,
      a friend and I discovered a DEC owned PBX with a dial in, input code, dial out line.
      The code was only 4 digits long so before we brute forced it with a sequential
      attempt, we kept trying to spell different 4 letter words. Lo and behold, the passcode was
      ROCK, typed on the touch tone keypad. Unlike these hackers, we didn't call the middle east
      and the PBX code stayed alive for our little group for over 6 years. That was way better than the Sprint, Metro, and MCI codes
      that were going around back then.

      Another of our members used a known exploit to completely take over a Nortel PBX, but
      thats a different story.

      Whats up 415 / 510 Scan club.

    6. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the majority of society has changed the meaning of some workds (hacker/pirate), then the meaning has changed for THE MAJORITY, which now makes you WRONG.

      For example - GAY used to mean happy. It doesn't, anymore... because the majority of people no longer think of it that way. Therefore, if you're GAY, you're homosexual, not happy.

      Same thing with Pirate/hacker.

      get a life, and move out of your mom's basement.

    7. Re:Hacker? by jeiler · · Score: 1

      Where's King Knut when we need him?

      Hacker and pirate are far from the only words to have shifted meaning since the advent of the Jargon File. This points to a larger issue: specialized language ("jargon") that has been assimilated by the mainstream will not maintain a consistent definition. Expecting it to do so--or actively attempting to make it do so--is futile.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    8. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually he is old school and trained himself to fart at 2600hz...

    9. Re:Hacker? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      Indeed, changing the masses and attempting to prevent ignorance is futile.

      I don't expect to have to do that where 'experts' are supposed to be 'editors'.

    10. Re:Hacker? by jeiler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Changes in language can be classified as "ignorance" only by the same logic that Iraq can be classified as "Successful." As has been said before: language changes. Dealing with that change, or ordering it back like Knut ordered back the tide, is entirely up to you.

      But please do not expect people to appreciate or respect you when you're being irrelevant.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    11. Re:Hacker? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I thought phreakers became extinct back in the 80s

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Hacker? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      As has been said before: language changes.

      And has also been said before: So what - that doesn't cause random errors made by uninformed ignoramuses to magically become correct usage.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Hacker? by Intron · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If the majority of society has changed the meaning of some workds (hacker/pirate), then the meaning has changed for THE MAJORITY, which now makes you WRONG."

      Please tell the biologists to stop misusing bisexual, then. Also tell physicists that quantum leap actually means a big change, not a small one.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    14. Re:Hacker? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      These words didn't change because of natural mutation, but because the media don't know what they're talking about. I expected more from /., that's all.

    15. Re:Hacker? by cparker15 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this is the AP....you expect them to get that right?

      No, but I do expect Slashdot to get it right.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    16. Re:Hacker? by AP31R0N · · Score: 3, Informative

      See? Apologism and insults.

      As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it. The majority can be wrong. Just because a use is accepted in everyday use, doesn't make it right. If you have to cite definition 3 to defend use of a word....

      It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
      - George Orwell

      http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

      'But languages change'

      There's evolution and there's corruption. By allowing the corruption of the word hacker, people who are hackers in the correct sense are lumped in with those in the incorrect sense. Now we have to come up with another word for those who are hackers in the original sense... when we already had words for both! By allowing copyright infringement to be called piracy, they are associating it with something far more sinister than kids swapping files. If some Germans were Nazis, it would be wrong to call all Germans Nazis, wouldn't it? Unless we water down what we originally meant by Nazi.

      We think in language. Propagandists use this against us all the time. "It's not murder... it's execution."

      Another clip from Orwell:

      Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

      While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

      ____

      An Anonymous Coward saying something silly throwing in some childish ad hominem passes for insightful?

      At least have the courage of your convictions. If you're you going to slam someone, don't hide behind anonymity where you can't be held accountable. You could try posting like an adult, and then you could make your point without cowering.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    17. Re:Hacker? by memojuez · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment!!

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    18. Re:Hacker? by dave562 · · Score: 2

      Hell, you think that's bad? Back in the day AT&T left a huge swath of their unallocated Divinity Audix systems open with the default mailbox setup on 200 with the password 200. They were also nice enough to leave them sitting all on an 800 number pool where you could just dial 800-##AUDIX. The ones at 800-AUDIX## were only slightly more secure. I miss those days of easy to find exploitable systems. Well, I guess those days are still here if you're dealing with the government.

    19. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So new school would be training your dog to fart at 2600hz...?

    20. Re:Hacker? by kwerle · · Score: 3, Funny

      this is the AP....you expect them to get that right?

      No, but I do expect Slashdot to get it right.

      I'd say "you're new here", but your id is low enough that I have to resort to "you should know better."

    21. Re:Hacker? by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      wow... just wow.. *claps*

    22. Re:Hacker? by lpevey · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

    23. Re:Hacker? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      >>this is the AP....you expect them to get that right?

      >No, but I do expect Slashdot to get it right.

      OMG. For real?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    24. Re:Hacker? by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

      As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it. The majority can be wrong. Just because a use is accepted in everyday use, doesn't make it right. If you have to cite definition 3 to defend use of a word....

      First, accepted common usage in everyday speech is pretty much the definition of what makes something right or wrong in language. Words are dropped, others are added, and some change meaning over time. The ONLY way for this to happen is through a natural process whereby a new word or usage may gain acceptance over time as more people begin to use it.

      Second, claiming that a definition of a word is not correct because it is the third on a list is just downright silly. Such lists of definitions are usually ordered by frequency of use and should not be used to suggest that a later definition is somehow invalid or incorrect.

      This is not to say that I don't agree on some of your points. However, I think such an orthodox view of how language should be used is ultimately futile and that going out of your way to correct everything you see as a misuse is somewhat pedantic.

    25. Re:Hacker? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      Back in the day AT&T left a huge swath of their unallocated Divinity Audix systems open with the default mailbox setup on 200 with the password 200.

      Wow, that takes me back. I remember around 89-91, post BBS era there was a huge voicemail scene where people would take over mailboxes, and fill the outgoing message
      with long lists of dial out codes, other hacked voicemails, modem dial-ins, and assorted nasties. Oh the things we did before the internet. I remember that Audix voice prompt
      lady's voice quite well....

      --
      music lover since 1969
    26. Re:Hacker? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know anything about that kind of stuff. ;) "Welcome to Audix. For help at any time, press Star H." *70. "Mailbox?"

    27. Re:Hacker? by Intron · · Score: 1

      First, accepted common usage in everyday speech is pretty much the definition of what makes something right or wrong in language.

      I disagree. It's right or wrong based on whether the listener understands it with the same meaning as the speaker. Some sort of statistical definition doesn't make sense. Language is a means to convey information. It's either successful at doing that or it isn't.

      By this definition, once a majority of people use a word or phrase in a new way, then the people who use it in the original sense are "wrong" when their intended meaning is not being conveyed correctly. Likewise when someone uses it in the new sense and the listener is hearing the old sense, then that's wrong as well. If there is no confusion, then it is right.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    28. Re:Hacker? by radish · · Score: 1

      As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it
      Rubbish. With something like a language, which exists soley for the purpose of communication, has evolved over time (and will continue to do so) with no central authority the only meaningful definition of "rightness" is commonality of acceptance. Unlike Perl or algebra there is no standard, no test, no unarguable definition of what's right or wrong. The dictionary does not define the language it describes it. The definition is done by it's speakers.

      As for your Orwell quote, my interpretation of his actual text is that he's against a decline in the quality of writing, and of expression, not the process of change within the language itself. He mentions bad metaphors, pretentious phrases, "uninspiring" writing. That, to me, is an entirely different issue to that of the evolution of meaning.

      There's evolution and there's corruption. By allowing the corruption of the word hacker, people who are hackers in the correct sense are lumped in with those in the incorrect sense. Now we have to come up with another word for those who are hackers in the original sense... when we already had words for both!

      Agreed, it's confusing. But it's also commonplace, English is rife with words with multiple meanings. For example: "Park", "Bank", "Letter", "Well", or "Grass". In some cases the correct meaning can be inferred from context ("I took my money to the bank" vs "We sat on the left bank of the river"), in some cases it cannot ("He burnt the grass"). Call it corruption or call it evolution, it's been happening for as long as the language has existed, will continue to happen for as long as people still speak it, and is generally accepted and understood. I hope you're not arguing that, for example, "Bank" should only have one meaning? If so, which one?

      By allowing copyright infringement to be called piracy, they are associating it with something far more sinister than kids swapping files.
      According to this page, that particular double meaning of "Pirate" has been in use since at least 1701. Isn't 300 years enough to consider something part of the language? I put it to you that your rejection of this usage of "pirate" is more to do with your personal beliefs on copyright than any consideration for the purity of the language. As for hacker, I think there's still time to correct the errant usage, but it's a battle we'll probably lose.

      Propagandists use this against us all the time. "It's not murder... it's execution."
      And they would be right. Murder has a very specific meaning - it doesn't just mean "kill" (after all, we already have a word for that!). I strongly disagree with the death penalty, and I think capital punishment is just "as bad" as murder, but that does not make them the same thing. To equate them is to confuse the matter.

      Oh and "Murder" is also a group of Crows. See how fun English is?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    29. Re:Hacker? by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your first paragraph, but my definition was not purely statistical. I assumed (though didn't state) that part of being 'accepted' is being understood by a sufficiently large portion of the population.

      As for the rest, I disagree that those who employ a new usage for a word are always the "wrong" ones in a case of miscommunication. If a majority of the population decides and accepts that a word has a particular meaning, anyone who doesn't accept that could be said to be the one who is "wrong."

      However, I don't feel that there is any real way to claim that one person is right and the other wrong in this case. The person speaking could make himself clearer by speaking unambiguously, but if most people understand what he means when he uses that word, he shouldn't be expected to go out of his way to clarify himself every time.

      Many times new uses of old words can end up leading to confusion, either because the new usage may be too similar to an old one, or too different. At a certain point in the evolution of the link between a word and a definition, when enough members of a given population understand what is meant when the word is used that way, there is a reasonable expectation of being understood when saying it.

      "Hopefully" has been adapted to mean "I am hopeful that..." in addition to "in a hopeful manner." This usage is technically incorrect given how the word is formed grammatically. But I feel that this usage of the word fills a void in English and enough people know what is meant when it's used that way that it can't be called "wrong" to use it.

    30. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although in theory I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of your post (Wait! It's not a "post." A post is part of a fence!), I think your idealized concept of language is completely impractical. There are hundreds of examples of internet jargon co-opting existing English vocabulary, and you can't just say society is corrupting the language when it does.

      "By allowing copyright infringement to be called piracy, they are associating it with something far more sinister than kids swapping files."

      Considering the "correct" (read: traditional) definition of piracy is so utterly anachronistic for everyone outside the Nigerian shipping industry, I fail to see its being co-opted (read: revitalized) into modern 21st century English vocabulary as a "corruption." Of course it's different from traditional piracy, but why do you think the new usage came into being in the first place? Because those who originally stole software and media felt the title bestowed upon them an air of the lawless independence that original sea pirates strove for.

      New concepts don't always lead to the creation of brand-new words. More often, it's the recycling of existing vocabulary into new usage.

      That's not good or bad. It just is.

      -Stephen (just so you don't bash my AC credentials)

    31. Re:Hacker? by Intron · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with filling voids in the English language with new usages. I also don't have a problem with words changing meanings as usage evolves.

      What I do have a problem with is deliberately using a word to mean something different than its former meaning in order to change the dialog: examples are "stealing" music, "liberal" to mean someone in favor of increased government (I would use authoritarian), or in this article "hacker" to refer to someone swiping phone service.

      Another problem I have is when people don't understand a term and just use it because it sounds smarter. Examples would be "fortuitous" for fortunate, or "comprised" for composed. I'm not being reactionary, I just think that the language is diminished by losing the original meanings.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    32. Re:Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So - approximately a dozen comments in, people are calling each other names, trying to one-up everyone and generally fighting among themselves. The original problem (hacking, phreaking, whatever) is forgotten. That's why government stays incompetent - we have the attention spans of fleas.

  5. Hee hee by sheepoo · · Score: 0

    ha ha ha

  6. Phone Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I never understood why someone would or could make exhorbatent amin long distance phone calls. The only thing I can figure out is that some nerd was busy talking to his girlfriend on vacation.
     
      While (Idiot.onphone) {
    "Hang up!"
    "You!"
    "No You!"
    "No You Hang up!"
    }

    1. Re:Phone Hacking by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only thing I can figure out is that some nerd was busy talking to his girlfriend on vacation.

      I'm sure there's a flaw in that theory, but I just can't put my finger on it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Who is valuing these minutes? by Sir_Real · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Twelve Grand?! Is this another indicator of inflation? Who is billing this out? For 12 grand the phone companies should give you a phone that will work for life, from anywhere, to anywhere. Are the same people responsible for claiming that a quarter of schwag has a "street value" of fifty grand?

    1. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twelve Grand?!... Who is billing this out?

      Most likely, Haliburton, or some other big Republican donor. Whoever it is I'm sure that they have the proper political views, as that seems an important part of gaining Bush government contracts or employment.

    2. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2, Informative

      Twelve Grand?! Is this another indicator of inflation? Who is billing this out? For 12 grand the phone companies should give you a phone that will work for life, from anywhere, to anywhere. Are the same people responsible for claiming that a quarter of schwag has a "street value" of fifty grand?

      Well look at it this way. $12,000 in calls divided by the 400+ calls would bring it to less than $30 per call. For anyone who has made calls to overseas knows that the rates are freakin expensive.

      For example from the FCC
      Here are sample costs for calls to France from the U.S. at basic and discounted rates:

      Basic Rate is $1.77-2.77 per minute

      Note: The actual rates and terms from companies you choose may be different than those shown.

    3. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's the rate charged for this. Seriously. This same thing happened at one of my previous jobs and it left us with a $20K+ bill that we disputed with the phone company over a period of weeks.

    4. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Thast not a lot. They probably dont have an international plan, so they were charged ala carte fees.

      For those of us used to VOIP, its crazy, but phone companies still charge out the wazoo for calls.

    5. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Tenrosei · · Score: 1

      "Most of the calls were about three minutes long, but some were as long as 10 minutes." FTA. so $30/3min is $10 a minute-ish since most were 3 minutes even if you go $30/5min its still 6 bucks a minute. The government needs a better phone company they are getting ripped off.

    6. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example from the FCC
      Here are sample costs for calls to France from the U.S. at basic and discounted rates:

      Basic Rate is $1.77-2.77 per minute

      Dude, I have a regular landline phone from a major north american phone company (not one of the super-compressed voip discounters), and often speak to my relatives in France. I can call a landline in France for 5 cents per minute. I can call a cell phone in France for 30 cents per minute.

      Someone is getting screwed (probably the taxpayer).

    7. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the same people responsible for claiming that a quarter of schwag has a "street value" of fifty grand?

      Personally I've always thought people stupid enough to call weed "schwag" would be stupid enough to pay 50 grand for a quarter of it.

    8. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by lufo · · Score: 1

      Well, not really. Here (Spain) we had an issue with a Vodafone 3G phone with the wrong rate plan for data roaming in Italy, and it was a 6.000 euro issue, and we're a not-so-big bussiness. OK, maybe there are less than 200 bussiness in Spain with accounts that big, but hey, it's still 200 and not 20.

    9. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      They're taking a cue from the RIAA who believe that illegally downloaded songs are worth 12,000 bucks each. Or maybe that other kid cracker who got into Air Force computers and was able to look up flight plans, then the Air Force tried to say that he cost thousands or millions in "damages"

      They should just call it the "You made us look stoopid" tax.

    10. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This is the real story. Not that the phreaker was able to make the calls using a FEMA PBX/voicemail system but that the phone company charged $12,000 for calls all made by ONE PERSON. That is absolutely ridiculous! Do you know how much those calls would cost if they used SIP Trunks instead? Nothing!

    11. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by e4g4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally I've always thought people stupid enough to call weed "schwag" would be stupid enough to pay 50 grand for a quarter of it.

      "Schwag" refers to the quality of the weed, like "middies", "kind" and "dank". "Schwag" refers to brownish, dry, shakey crap with seeds and stems (usually outdoor bud grown in Mexico). A quarter of schwag isn't worth much more than $20-$30 (at least on the east coast).

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    12. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quarter of schwag isn't worth much more than $20-$30 (at least on the east coast).

      Unless of course you happen to be on or near a college campus. The availability of idiot's with their parent's money drives the cost up to near $60 a quarter for middle of the road schwag.

    13. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Astadar · · Score: 1

      We need a "Way TOO Informative" mod... :)

      --
      --Coming up with something clever... please wait...
    14. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by shivamib · · Score: 0

      A quarter of schwag isn't worth much more than $20-$30 (at least on the east coast).

      Dude, from a Brazilian standpoint I must say, you guys sure pay a *lot* for bad pot.

    15. Re:Who is valuing these minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I've always thought people stupid enough to call weed "schwag" would be stupid enough to pay 50 grand for a quarter of it.

      "Schwag" refers to the quality of the weed, like "middies", "kind" and "dank". "Schwag" refers to brownish, dry, shakey crap with seeds and stems (usually outdoor bud grown in Mexico). A quarter of schwag isn't worth much more than $20-$30 (at least on the east coast).

      Also a quarter in this case refers to quarter of an ounce. Just for further clarification.

      Dime bags are little baggies that go for $10.00 maybe enough to roll a joint or two. More of a ghetto thing in the midwest.

      a QP refers to a quarter pound of herb, and an entire brick usually weighs in the region of 2 - 4 pounds.

  8. government waste or what? by Moblaster · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Apparently most calls were short, from 3 to 10 minutes. Assuming these calls were all longer, like the max of 10 minutes, then for 400 calls to total $12,000 the government must be paying a minimum $3 per minute for these calls.

    Either someone is massive exaggerating the scope of this theft or some idiot in procurement failed to put our national security infrastructure on the international calling plan.

    1. Re:government waste or what? by Trigun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 400 calls aren't necessarily consecutive.

      Many times these hacks are done to provide low cost calling to immigrants calling back home. $20 bucks can buy you almost unlimited phone time to talk to your entire village back home.

    2. Re:government waste or what? by zigmeister · · Score: 1

      Assuming the calls average out at 4 minutes (most were ~3 but some were ten) that's $7.50 a minute. Either way completely ridiculous.

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
  9. Verizon guy by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    He kept calling that damned annoying Verizon guy.

    "You're in Thailand now? Can you hear me now?"

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  10. Uh-Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sense a no call list in our future.

  11. cover up! by smallshot · · Score: 0, Interesting

    sounds like a cover up for a terrorist who has been working in Homeland Security for years and got caught making a phone call!

    that is, if you have an active imagination...

  12. Oldschool! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    Wow, this is oldschool stuff. Why is a PBX getting hacked news for nerds? It used to happen all the freaking time. And why would anyone bother these days? Phone calls are so cheap, especially international phone calls, especially international phone calls originating from America. Heck, international long distance used to be $2-5 per minute. That was why you owned PBXes and traded k0d3z. Otherwise, you could never call those cool Swedish BBS with the latest seven day warez.

    There used to be people standing beside pay phones in Chinatown, give them ten bucks and they'll give you a stolen calling card, with which you could make as long a call as you liked. Whole villages would line up and call home, 48-72 hour calls were not unheard of. But now? Skype, VOIP, and a whole forest of cheap calling cards.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Oldschool! by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Why is a PBX getting hacked news for nerds? It used to happen all the freaking time.

      I think you mean "...all the phreaking time."

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  13. No Skype? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    So he doesn't have a Skype account?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:No Skype? by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So he doesn't have a Skype account?

      Pfft! Who needs Skype when you have the FEMA Phone! Yes! With the FEMA Phone you can call anywhere in the World for FREE! And if you act now, you can get your own FEMA Trailer for Free!

      Subject to criminal prosecution and penalties. Offerer is not responsible for purchaser's stupidity.

    2. Re:No Skype? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      FEMA has access to your Infolink anyway. Remember, Walton Simons is still heading it and he's got newer firmware than you, Denton!

    3. Re:No Skype? by jaymzter · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's scary is that I read the disclaimer at 3x actual talking speed.

      --
      If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  14. Incompetence... by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DHS is like the laughing stock of government security. Being PBX Phreaked with a 15 year old hack is just bad... Hope the next administration isn't this incompetent.

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    1. Re:Incompetence... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hope the next administration isn't this incompetent.

      I'd say it wasn't possible to have a worse President, but I thought I'd never see a worse President than Carter, either. Bush proved me wrong on that one, now I worry and just keep my fingers crossed. I'm not too thrilled with either McCain or Obama, and will be voting against both of them.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Incompetence... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Really? And just who will you be voting for?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:Incompetence... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Governments that are incompetent are far less dangerous than competent ones.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    4. Re:Incompetence... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Either Libertarian candidate Bob Barr or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. It doesn't matter as both will lose, but I'll be casting a vote against Corporate Party candidates McCain and Obama.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Incompetence... by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Ah that's obvious, for the groove minister!

    6. Re:Incompetence... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I didn't think about ether of those. While I'm sure that both will lose compared to tweetledee and tweetledumbass but that might be just a damn good idea. I think there should be one more option on the ballot. A "none of the above" that expresses a no confidence in any of the candidates.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    7. Re:Incompetence... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      There's a fifth party as well, the Constitution party, but I'm not sure if they're on the ballot in Illinois. I'm fairly certain the Greens and Libbies are.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:Incompetence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA says the voicemail system was new so the type of PBX is likely irrelevant here. This is probably what happened and what you need to you need to know accomplish/prevent this hack (phreak). One would have thought this was well known by now but perhaps not widely enough...

      Most organizations have a number you can call from outside to check your voicemail (mailbox). In some systems, Nortel comes to mind, from your mailbox you can place a call, either by replying to a message or via a menu item eg. dial 0 then the number. Common sense says you should lock this down so calls can only be made 'on switch', or 'local' if local calls are free where you are. Not doing this leaves you open to hackers or just employees calling their mailbox local then making a long distance call on your bill. This is probably the advice that the article mentions DHS had themselves issued.

      Step 1: Find the access number - wardialling used to be common but if targeting a particular place just call the switchboard and ask. AKA social engineering.

      After calling the access number you will be prompted for your mailbox (internal extension).

      Step 2: Find the dial plan (list of valid numbers) - should be easy to guess but if you can get the internal phone list it may help with the next step.

      Step 3: You obviously now need the password - If this is a new system there is very often a common password x digits or x digits plus your extension or some such combo. It could be really weak like '1234' or you may have to call switchboard again and pretend you urgently need your new password. Remember, if the system is new then you just tricked them into giving you everybody's password. If that worked then hack a number of mailboxes in the hope they won't all be used by the legitimate owner right away. If this is not a new system you will have to try lots of mailboxes for weak passwords - the phone list may be handy here because some idiots are bound to use their name/date of birth etc.

      Step 4: Hmmm, profit - try to make a long distance/IDD call. If the installers didn't read the above warning about locking it down, which will be printed in the manual in big bold all caps at the begining of chapter 1, sell the access number/password to anyone who wants cheap calls.

    9. Re:Incompetence... by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Well if it is like our 20 year old system noone knows how to program it.

      Including the local Toshiba shop :(
      Even after i added phones with a display so you don't have to read binary from the blinky lights, lol.

      I just hope that isn't a default setting that can get back out....

    10. Re:Incompetence... by patches · · Score: 1

      Cynthia McKinney? Really Cynthia McKinney? is this the same arogant Cynthia McKinney from Georgia who failed to show Congressional ID and was appaled that the Capital Hill Police questioned her, and tried to make it into a race case?!?!?!

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    11. Re:Incompetence... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is, and I dislike her views as well as her arrogance, but she has zero chance of winning; a vote for her is a vote for "none of the above".

      I'm most likey voting for Barr, the Republican running under the Libertarian party.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  15. Default password? by bsaxberg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are the odds he/she used a default password to gain access? I mean this is the government we are talking about here.

    1. Re:Default password? by Gnorme · · Score: 1

      If not default, it is more then likely the same thing the DHS uses for their luggage.

    2. Re:Default password? by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      If not default, it is more then likely the same thing the DHS uses for their luggage.

      Would that happen to be 12345?

    3. Re:Default password? by Inglix+the+Mad · · Score: 1

      What are the odds he/she used a default password to gain access? I mean this is the government we are talking about here.

      Don't you mean this is a Bush appointee agency we're talking about? Valuing loyalty is understandable, even laudable in some ways. Putting people in agencies that they have no business running, or working in, is ridiculous and dangerous.

      The only administration I know of that took cronyism to an even higher level was U.S. Grant's.

      --
      People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
    4. Re:Default password? by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      If not default, it is more then likely the same thing the DHS uses for their luggage.

      Would that happen to be 12345?

      Oblig: That's the same password as my luggage!

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
  16. Terrorist? by EmperorKagato · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    From the article:

    Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Yemen are among the countries calls were made to, Olshanski said. Most of the calls were about three minutes long, but some were as long as 10 minutes.

    This phreaker could have been a terrorist attempting to make calls back to headquarters in the Middle East.

    "This illegal activity enables unauthorized individuals anywhere in the world to communicate via compromised U.S. phone systems in a way that is difficult to trace," according to a department information bulletin from June 3, 2003.

    Since 2003? FEMA really needs to tighten up!

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    1. Re:Terrorist? by flitty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahhahhahha. What terrorist is dumb enough to route the calls directly through the DHS and FEMA monitored lines! Somehow, i doubt it. This sounds like the "good" kind of hacking, showing a major security hole, doing a proof of the work, not destroying anything, but making the DHS look closer at their security. Poor Hacker though, I imagine he's in Guitmo already as an "enemy combatant".

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    2. Re:Terrorist? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, while illegally wiretapping citizen lines, the government *should* have been wiretapping itself...

  17. TFA isn't exactly technically savvy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Many companies are moving to a higher tech version, known as Voice Over Internet Telephony."

    Yes, I keep hearing about VoIT....

    1. Re:TFA isn't exactly technically savvy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here that alot around these parts, usually along the following lines "voit is that you are saying?"

  18. This can't be good by Erie+Ed · · Score: 1

    Man and I thought my iPhone bill was expensive...

  19. Government Accounting by lewko · · Score: 4, Funny

    400 calls totalling $12,000.

    That is, about $30 per call.

    And from the article: "Most of the calls were about three minutes long, but some were as long as 10 minutes."

    As long as 10 minutes? Not only did FEMA have a badly configured phone system, they must have had some of the crappiest call plans I could possibly imagine. I mean, where were the calls terminating? The moon?

    Your tax dollars at work.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    1. Re:Government Accounting by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      They probably had a no-bid phone contract from KBR shoved down their throats over at DHS. And since DHS workers aren't in the civil-service union, there's no whistleblower protection, so nobody squawked.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    2. Re:Government Accounting by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      Oops, knee jerked a little too fast. FEMA, dammit, not DHS. I hate it when screw-ups don't ratify my world-view.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    3. Re:Government Accounting by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      DHS is a superset of FEMA, now, so you're not wrong.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Government Accounting by znerk · · Score: 1

      I thought FEMA was part of DHS, no?

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    5. Re:Government Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and now they will spend million of dollar fixing the problem.

  20. Hackie, by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    You're doing a heck of a job.

  21. Re:An act that merits actual attention by querist · · Score: 1

    The $12,000 is not that hard to believe given the following:

    1. have you ever seen what the "regular" phone company charges for international calls? Why do you think that there is such a huge market for things like Skype and the "International Phone Cards" you see in every gas station here in SC?

    2. Many countries' phone companies add charges to the phone calls, and of course the phone companies pass those back to the customer. Why should it cost more to call Japan than to call China? It does, because the Japanese phone company charges extra fees, and it's worse if you call a Japanese mobile phone from the US. (It's funny, in many cases it's actually _cheaper_ to call a Chinese mobile phone than to call a Chinese land-line.)

    3. Time of the call - the charges discussed above vary based on the time of day. Usually, during "daylight" hours and "work days", calls are more expensive. Given the places called, you're pretty much hosed because unless you timed it carefully, you fit at least one of those conditions either at the origin or the destination.

    4. Connection charges. Come phone companies have a "connection" charge for making an international call - an up-front charge before they even start tallying minutes. (Also, most companies round up to the next whole minute, so if you talk for 1 min 1 sec, you're billed for 2 minutes.

    So, yes, $12,000 is quite believeable.

  22. Here it comes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    CNN had a front page article about how a cyber attack could do more damage than any other act of terrorism. Now this...

    Bye-bye internets...get ready for broadcast with tracked user clicks.

  23. What a surprise by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If anybody ever doubted that these clowns are better at sucking up tax dollars and destroying the US Constitution than providing security, look no further for the proof.

    Osama must be laughing his ass off.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:What a surprise by kalislashdot · · Score: 1

      Osama is long dead, so no he is not laughing.

    2. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except for that he is laughing while hiding in a cave, fearful for his life.

      it's along the lines of saying that hitler was laughing about horrors of death camps being uncovered by the allies as he was listening from his bunker to the sounds of the approaching soviets.

    3. Re:What a surprise by explodingspleen · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure people making unapproved long distance calls has been at the front of DHS's security concerns, and their failure to anticipate the situation clearly indicates their inability to function successfully in any other capacity.

      I have as many criticisms of the government as anyone else. But people who don't take the problems seriously are only half the issue. The other half is people like you who can relate a small technical problem which may not even be worth fixing (have you analyzed the cost to upgrade vs. the cost of the occasional prankster?) to every other criticism you have of the U.S. government.

      Those of us with real concerns about government failings then have to fight to be taken seriously.

    4. Re:What a surprise by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Baseline security is not a 'small technical problem'. All the easy stuff should be done, always. ESPECIALLY if you are under a branch with the word "security" in it. I wonder how many public exposed routers these clowns have running telnet. Probably with ssh alongside. WTF?

    5. Re:What a surprise by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saving me the problem of responding to somebody who just doesn't get it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:What a surprise by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Unless you know something the rest of us don't, he's still alive and kicking. Didn't John McCain promise to track him down "to the gates of hell" just a few days ago?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:What a surprise by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Well at least we know McCain will catch him soon.

    8. Re:What a surprise by rootooftheworld · · Score: 0

      Forget Osama, I'm laughing my ass off! Seriously, considering the of the country and the current definitions of terrorist, I support the guy! *ducks*

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  24. Calling caliphs and prophets hello hello by ilovesymbian · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was calling the middle east prophets to invoke another hurricane on New Orleans.

  25. Silly by X.25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hacking PBXes was ok 15 years ago.

    Hacking them now is pretty much guaranteed to get him caught.

    Oh well...

  26. But he assured the hole has since been closed... by s.d. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Olshanski did not know who the contractor was or what hole specifically was left open, but he assured the hole has since been closed.

    "I don't know who it was or what they did or didn't do, but I assure you they fixed it."

  27. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's funny is that no one noticed this until after the fact... did nobody notice the hack taking place? Was accounting out to lunch on this one? You'd think with an organization the size of DHS they'd be processing billing reports daily.

    It honestly makes me sad to see tax dollars spent this way and the person who did this if caught will probably end up spending 7 years in a federal prison and for what really, exposing government incompetence?

    I honestly wonder if DHS had their receptionist setup the PBX.

  28. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You're doing a heck of a job brownie..."

  29. Why the 'haha'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Richard Stallman's house gets burnt down, I'll go 'haha'.
    Because it's funny and exposes security weaknesses and we don't like the individual(s), yeah.

    1. Re:Why the 'haha'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there was absolutely no damage of any kind? Because claiming a 3 minute phone call is worth $10 is ludicrous? Because we think we should expect better from our government? And let me say again, because there was absolutely no damage of any kind? Certainly nothing caught fire. Shut up and grow a sense of proportion.

  30. Re:An act that merits actual attention by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Its quite possible the person who broke into the PBX also sold the information on how to make 'free' calls to wherever which would result in multiple people accessing it simultaneously thus making it possible to rack up $12,000+ in very short periods of time.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  31. Cracker, not hacker... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    I mean really, I know the /. janitors are determined to bring tabloid-standard reading levels in, but you'd think they'd at least get *that* bit right.

    1. Re:Cracker, not hacker... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think you meant "phreaker", not cracker.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    2. Re:Cracker, not hacker... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I think you meant "phreaker", not cracker.

      Well played...

  32. Expensive rate (was:Government Accounting) by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming the phone was "off the hook" for the entire 48 hours and only one call is placed at any given time, that's 2880 minutes, or $4.17 a minute. Any phone company charging that kind of rate per minute will get call into the capital by state utility commission (AT&T charges just over a buck a minute for cellphone roaming calls originating in Asia.)

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  33. what sort of crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What sort of crap is this story?

    With my long distance plan I pay $0.05 per minute anywhere in North America and ditto even into Australia.

    $0.05 * 60 * 24 = $72 per day.

    Saturday + Sunday = 2 days.

    What part of this story makes no sense?

    1. Re:what sort of crap? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Asia and Iraq, not North America... these can cost up to $5 or $7 per minute on some crappy phone plans.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  34. We had this happen a few years back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I noticed a weird account in our VM system; on investigation it was trying to call an overseas toll line repeatedly. Our phone vendor said that the hacker will do this to get a kickback on the charges. Luckily, we had overseas calls blocked by our provider, so we didn't have any real problems, but we're strict about everyone having passwords now.

  35. Yes, it does by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

    As has been said before: language changes

    And has also been said before: So what - that doesn't cause random errors made by uninformed ignoramuses to magically become correct usage.

    That's exactly the process by which language changes, dude. When people start using terms incorrectly and people don't understand what they mean, those people are wrong. When the incorrect usage overtakes the correct usage and more people will understand the "incorrect" usage, then it's no longer "incorrect." Use of the outdated form may in fact come to be incorrect later on.

    Language is about conveying meaning. Any language rules that exist, exist to standardize and facilitate communication. That means that what the most people understand something to mean is what it actually means. If you have to explain the terms you're using by using extra language, you're doing it wrong.

    It's entirely possible to have a niche vocabulary among nerds that holds the old usage of crackers, phreakers, and hackers. To expect an AP article to use those terms is stupid. The majority of people reading the article wouldn't understand what they mean, but they do in fact understand precisely what they meant by the word "hacker."

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Yes, it does by Skreems · · Score: 1

      It's way, way different than that. If you read any serious linguistic textbook, you'll see that it's not just a bunch of people hearing a word and misunderstanding it. What typically happens is a new generation of children will learn a word as meaning something different than the older generation thinks it means (usually in terms of grammatical application rather than a noun magically changing meanings). It's something to do with how the use of the word interacts with the human brain's innate language processing facilities. It is most emphatically NOT a bunch of adults hearing a word misused by some jackasses in the media and not bothering to educate themselves.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    2. Re:Yes, it does by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Language is about conveying meaning.

      Which it can't do if a subset of cretins say chair when they're referring to what others call a tomato.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Yes, it does by jeiler · · Score: 1

      Both you and GP are incorrect--well, somewhat. Yes, languages do change via erroneous re-definition ... but that is only one mechanism among many. You're quite correct that the situation is far more complex than GP states, but you drop the ball when you argue against the power of a definitional error that takes hold in the linguistic pool.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

  36. Terrible Example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Changes in language can be classified as "ignorance" only by the same logic that Iraq can be classified as "Successful." As has been said before: language changes.

    Having a little difficulty accepting the changing meaning of "successful" are we?

    1. Re:Terrible Example... by jeiler · · Score: 1

      Actually, no--I mean precisely what I said.

      Our exercise in Iraq was successful--in that it did effect regime change. It was not successful--in that it did not preserve governmental infrastructure (which was a goal at the time of invasion). And it's success is as yet undetermined--in that Iraq is not yet stable (and there is some doubts if it will be stable under the current regime).

      In language, context is important. Changes in language take place through many different mechanisms--erroneous re-definition is one of those mechanisms, and rarely a "popular" one. But it is a mechanism of language change ... and those who wish to pick a fight with the tide of language change would do well to remember Knut.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    2. Re:Terrible Example... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure. We all get the idea that after years of uncorrected usage a word as-good-as-means something else. And that we call that language and it's correct by definition because it works.

      But erroneous usage is, well, erroneous. And I'll thank you fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language while I apply a bandage in the form of correcting errors. If caught early we can remove the tumor, instead of hoping it grows into something useful.

      After all, there's another word for ongoing erroneous usage. "Wrong".

    3. Re:Terrible Example... by jeiler · · Score: 1

      But erroneous usage is, well, erroneous.

      That is, indeed, the crux of the issue: is the usage actually erroneous?

      Phreak (and its cognates) was used in the 1970s, of course, while the earliest I can trace "hacker" in the computer security sense is 1983. Which leads to several questions.
      1. When was "cracker" first used for someone who breaks into computer systems?
      2. Have the words "phreak" and "hacker" ever been legitimately used as synonyms? (Hint: yes.)
      3. Why was the word "cracker" developed? (Hint: it was to disassociate the word "hacker" from criminal activities.)
      4. If the word "hacker" is, indeed, the correct word for someone who breaks into systems (especially to find out how they work, whether or not they are trying to make a financial advantage), then why are you fussing?

      One more thing: if you want to object to the use of the word "hack" to indicate computer intrusion, you might want to start with "Emmanuel Goldstein" and 2600 magazine.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    4. Re:Terrible Example... by WNight · · Score: 1

      It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.

      I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage. I've heard it before about other words, such as decimate, where the usage is more obviously wrong. (Using it to mean totally destroyed.) Some amateur linguist steps in and argues that because language is evolving we should all stop trying to correct it because it's by definition correct. As if mutations are always beneficial, and as if we aren't the very forces that shape language.

    5. Re:Terrible Example... by jeiler · · Score: 1

      It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.

      Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on an incorrect premise: that "hacker" is incorrect usage. That dog won't hunt.

      I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage.

      Perhaps you would do better in offering counter-arguments if you actually read my argument.

      I do not state that "wrong usage is just future correct usage." A wrong usage that becomes the mainstream usage is one natural (and not uncommon) mechanism of language mutation: other examples of this type of mutation include the words "aspirin" and "xerox," where brand-names were wrongly generalized until they became generic.

      At what point does "wrong usage" that mutates the language become correct usage? Such a question is probably best suited for the professional philologist. In this case, however, the arguments provided above that "hacker does not mean someone who breaks into computers" fail in their premise: the usage is not "wrong," therefore the question of "When does a 'wrong usage' become 'correct usage'" is moot.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    6. Re:Terrible Example... by WNight · · Score: 1

      It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.

      Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on[...]

      No, my counter-argument isn't based on 'hacker'. That's what I meant, "wasn't actually".

      Your examples of generalized names, asprin for instance, aren't very wrong. Names are subtle things, and the people who refer to things the most do name them.

      Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.

      fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language

      Besides, even if you overlook my joking tone, my point is that our language isn't fixed in history, where today's usage is merely an example of how it got some other way. Today's usage is being used today and we have as much of a say over the rightness (or wrongness) of it as anyone else.

    7. Re:Terrible Example... by jeiler · · Score: 1

      Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.

      Even here, I have to disagree, but I honestly believe our disagreement is not one of definitions, but of context.

      The word decimate is clearly related to 1/10th, provided that you know where the word comes from. To say that a 10% tax "decimates" my paycheck is entirely correct. But the word has changed meaning since the time of the Romans. In common parlance (and in math and signals processing, incidentally), the word decimate simply stands for "drastic reduction."

      It's my assertion that this change may have started with an erroneous usage (I of course do not know the actual history), but that such usage is so widespread to no longer be erroneous--at least, in common parlance. Yes, if I'm speaking with precision (something I strive to do but don't always succeed in), it's at worst "wrong," and at best "imprecise," but when I speak "common English," it's correct to say "Uncle Sam decimated my paycheck," even if my tax rate differs from 10%.

      fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language

      Besides, even if you overlook my joking tone

      I occasionally suffer from acute pedantry.

      ...

      OK, it's more than "occasionally." :)

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    8. Re:Terrible Example... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that the metric system makes Latin prefixes more relevant.

      Decimate was a precise word, Murdelate (to coin an example) is not. If we "Murdelated the losing army" that could drift in percentage without problem. But decimate has a precise meaning which is merely not being used.

      At what point does referring to a hamburger as arachnophobia become right? If I use it myself? If I can teach it to a whole class of children? A whole nation? Only once used for a hundred years?

      But my overall point though, was that saying "language drift is natural and correct" is a linguistic thing to say, when looking at a language in a semi-historical context. But it's not relevant to the language at any given moment - right now, "irregardless" is an error. By taking a historical context to a living problem you negate the problem in the here and now by implying a future where the mistake has been patched over by the collective doublethink of generations.

      It's sort of like saying "War is natural". I mean, it is - if there's only food for one person, two or more will eventually come to blows. But there's a "let it be" feeling to the statement, like "they'll tire themselves out eventually", that isn't appropriate to the current (not historic) people caught in the events. To them, war is murder, yet to be writ large.

      So imho, decimate is wrong because I, a native speaker of English and user of the Metric system, feel that it is. Whereas if we were archaeologists a thousand years into the future it would be different - it already would have morphed - that war would have been fought and become history.

  37. Voice Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same passwords that allow one to make calls, could allow him to check voicemail. But thats ok, these FEMA guys are obviously too smart to leave sensitive information on voicemail.

  38. Easier than voting on a Diebold by zazenation · · Score: 1

    ...

    Note that all the calls went to middle east countries, including Afghanistan and Yemen, both Taliban havens.

    That's a mighty big assumption. How do you know they weren't trying to stuff the phone ballot boxes for "Afghani Idol" and "Yemeni Idol"?

  39. Misappropriation by dave562 · · Score: 1
    Once again the term hacker was misused. In this case the term for the criminal involved is phreaker. Hackers hack computers, phreakers hack phones.

    With that little bit of semantics out of the way, I wonder what system they were running. Audix perhaps?

  40. System 85 PBX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Years ago (late '80s) someone discovered a non-password protected user extension on our System 85 PBX, and used the standard Audix dial out request to make a bunch of calls to Central America. This was a common practice by phone thieves at the time. Find an unlocked Audix account on any corporate phone system and use it to call out to foreign phone numbers. The perpetrator would typically charge multiple users through the course of an evening to allow them to call home. Generally it would not be noticed by the victim until the monthly billing cycle, and in the case of our office, by the time internal billing passed that on to the individual at the departmental level, that was two months. At that point they would finally convince the end user to the importance of setting a user password. Duh.

    Internally, we used to search for open extensions internally and use it to change their greeting message or to pull some other sophomoric prank like reprogram all their speed dial buttons to the local 'psychic hotline' or the VP of the division.

  41. Re:An act that merits actual attention by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

    Also, in many hacking cases the quoted damages include the cost of hiring someone to patch the security vulnerability. I'm sure that in this situation that is also true; i.e., that $12,000 is a $500 phone bill and a $11,500 consultant fee.

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  42. Re:An act that merits actual attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    400 phone calls, mostly lasting about 3 minutes. Some lasting as long as 10 minutes. Let's say they averaged about 5 minutes per call. That would be 2000 minutes of calls.

    $12,000 / 2000 minutes = $6/minute

    It doesn't matter how many people were making the calls. That shouldn't change the billing rates. Clearly there are serious problems in this story. One of those problems is security. Another is the "truthiness" of the story line.

  43. Re:But he assured the hole has since been closed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation: "Nothing to see here, one day story, move along, kthxbye. [scrambles out through the press room door]"

  44. That's a bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think FEMA is actually looking pretty smart here. Clearly, they don't pay $5-10/minute for phone calls. So that $12,000 must include the cost to patch the security holes, hunt down lingering trojans, etc.

    That seems pretty cheap to me. They could have paid somebody $75,000 to design their system up front, and keep paying their salary to maintain the system.

    Or they could cross their fingers and hope nobody exploits their lack of design. If somebody does manage to find their weakness and exploit it, $12,000 in emergency response is a small fee to pay.

    It was a lot cheaper than paying for responsible design. They can afford six of these incidents each year and still save money.

  45. lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point it appears a "hole" was left open by the contractor when the voicemail system was being upgraded, Olshanski said. Olshanski did not know who the contractor was or what hole specifically was left open, but he assured the hole has since been closed.

    Un hunh.
    He doesn't know what happened but he knows what happened and it has been fixed...
    Some people just don't put the required effort into their lies.

  46. Emmittsburg? by weiserfireman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Emmittsburg, MD? There is only one major FEMA facility there, The US Fire Administration National Fire Academy. Happens I am going to be there for a week next month. Wonder if the phreaker will offer instructions so that I can call home free too. Beautiful campus btw, about 3 miles from Camp David

  47. oh come on... by Net_fiend · · Score: 2, Informative

    "This illegal activity enables unauthorized individuals anywhere in the world to communicate via compromised U.S. phone systems in a way that is difficult to trace," lol. Well of course its difficult to trace. Anyone with enough cajoles knows this. All you have to do is go to a phone box out in the middle of nowheresville and patch into it (illegal of course) and make calls. Its all untracable to the actual person who did it, but not untraceable to the poor schmuck who has to pay for the bill the calls were made from. Of course there are more ways to do this then the one described, but my point is it is completely feasible to do this so the person is completely untraceable. The fact that these are known issues in the PBX system and have been known for, oh 20yrs, is ridiculous that they're able to still occur. I've read many a story both online, in 2600, and when reading about Mitnick's escapades and those things usually happened back in the 80s. Hell, find a lineman's handset clip it to any phone line and viola free phone calls at least for you. Really....its not *that* hard.

    --
    "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    1. Re:oh come on... by citylivin · · Score: 1

      Im pretty sure that most telephone boxes around here (the big ones in the street) are individually alarmed. I have not tested this hypothesis but it seems likely they have some sort of intrusion switch.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    2. Re:oh come on... by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      Heh. I hadn't previously thought of this, but now that you mention it, that would make sense to do. I could see a silent alarm tripping at the phone company or auto magically alerting the po po. I'm sure our phreak friends out there can/have come up with around this. In the past I've had access to a lineman's handset (my dad used to install networks and telco equipment) but never used it. I wonder if he still has it...

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    3. Re:oh come on... by patches · · Score: 1

      A butt-set isn't a magical piece of equipment. commonly available.... can buy one *almost* anywhere.....

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
  48. Captain Crunch by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    ... This type of hacking is very low-tech and "old school," said John Jackson, a St. Louis-based security consultant. It was popular 10 to 15 years ago ...

    It was Captain Crunch

    Actually, this is /. I suppose I didn't really need that link did I?

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  49. what was the point? by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is this terrorism? or just plain old hacking?

    what's the point of breaking into a federal telephone system to call asia and the middle east?

    surely if you have the know-how to pull that off, you could have gotten the calls for free anyway?

    so what was the point? was it a diversion? or a lesson hack?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:what was the point? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 2, Informative

      Think of the possibilities... Call around to people unfriendly to the US. Mention that you are calling from FEMA, and that you've hacked their system. Mention that your services are available for hire, and that a simple message posted on some board somewhere and money placed into an account will activate said services. Now imagine who might be willing to pay money for access to FEMA or DHS?

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  50. bigger wall by berbo · · Score: 1

    Obviously we need a bigger Security Fence.

  51. $12,000 in a weekend? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I called China on Friday night and stayed on the phone solid 'til monday morning it wouldn't cost $12K, so how do you rack up that much in calls in a weekend?

  52. Wrong way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And now...we're wanting to put THEM in charge of our medical care? Scary.

    Hell no! That would be absurd. All people want is government-sponsored health insurance so that you don't go bankrupt from a lapse in insurance coverage.

    Government mandated health care is fraught with problems as you can see in Canada. Most countries in Europe manage just fine with a health insurance model, because it more naturally allows for competition while ensuring public access to treatment.

    That said, if we ever get it, it will probably be under constant attack from people trying to destroy it by privatizing it.

  53. the added small print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /teenytinyfont WARNING : Free FEMA Trailer contains Formaldehyde odor, arsenic-laced timbers, and lead-based paint from China. May cause dizziness, nausea, difficulty breathing, asphyxiation, and death. If you have any of these difficulties, please call 1-800-FEEMA, extension SUX, we will get back to you within sixteen to eighteen months.

    localhost: cat > loctxt
    reply to by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Thursday August 21, @09:53AM (#24688687)
    $slashdotusername
    ^D
    localhost: md5sum loctxt
    31c435d849a8dc7ae0d60d0576c16508 loctxt

  54. Re:But he assured the hole has since been closed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Olshanski did not know who the contractor was or what hole specifically was left open, but he assured the hole has since been closed.

    "I don't know who it was or what they did or didn't do, but I assure you they fixed it."

    Hey, I know Olshanski...

    He wouldn't know if HIS hole was left open. He thinks high-tech is a rotary-dial phone.