Slashdot Mirror


Obama's Mobile Phone Records Compromised, Shared

Tiger4 writes "Verizon has confirmed that some of its employees have accessed and perhaps shared calling records of President Elect Barack Obama (coverage at CNN, Reuters, AP). Verizon says the people involved have all been put on leave with pay as the investigation proceeds. Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes, but others may have been curiosity seekers and may have even shared the information around. The account was 'only' a phone, not a BlackBerry or similar device, and Verizon believes it was just calling records, not voicemail or email that was compromised. The articles do not mention the similarity to the warrantless wiretapping or hospital records compromises of recent months. But that immediately sprang to mind for me."

30 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Thats OK. by number17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oversight is OK though right? He has nothing to hide.

    If he stops the NSA from spying on domestics then I'll take back my comment.

    1. Re:Thats OK. by tritonman · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is something new, the citizens wiretapping and spying on the president. I guess we truly will see change with Obama.

    2. Re:Thats OK. by Panzor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have nothing to hide, but my conversations are my business. This is why I encrypt all my volumes and use OTR...

    3. Re:Thats OK. by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      never mind Obama, the people need to see Bush's call records, now that be interesting

    4. Re:Thats OK. by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget Bush's records how about President Cheney's records..

    5. Re:Thats OK. by sorak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or to put it another way...

      If you weren't buying illegal drugs, you would trust me with complete access to all your credit card information, right?

  2. What legitimate purpose? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes

    Like what?

    I doubt if Obama has any problem paying his phone bill.

    1. Re:What legitimate purpose? by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reverse traces.

      They were probably investigating a complaint from the Governor's residence in Alaska. All those mysterious calls that would just be insane, taunting laughter, then a hang-up.

      Probably just a wrong number, but still, you can never be too sure.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:What legitimate purpose? by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > > Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes
      > Like what?

      Well, that's presumably why they're investigating.

      There can be various technical reasons why a support tech or engineer or sysadmin or whoever looks at data that most people would think of as personal, but the engineer isn't seeing what other people are seeing. He's seeing technical stuff other people would never notice. I don't know a lot about phones, because I don't really support those, so I'll use email as an example instead. As a tech guy, I have on a number of occasions had reasons to look at a coworker's email (albeit, usually with their knowledge in my case), but if you'd asked me thirty seconds later who they'd received messages from or what they were about, I'd have had no idea. Maybe I was looking at whether messages were being retrieved from the server all the time in the background, or only when the inbox was open. Maybe I was looking at whether their outgoing messages were getting correct date headers and Message-IDs. Maybe I was sending a test message to myself to see how fast it went through, and the reply back. I'm sure there were other things, and I'm sure I don't remember every occasion, because it's not weird or unusual; it's a normal part of my job duties.

      If I *wanted* to surreptitiously read the actual content of my coworkers' email, I would certainly be technically capable of doing that, and could be fairly confident of not being detected. But in the first place that wouldn't be ethical, and in the second place very little is of less interest to me than the content of my coworkers' email messages.

      I am not saying the people who looked at Obama's calling records were doing so for legitimate reasons. I'm only saying that it's *plausible*, and the phone company is right to investigate _before_ taking any irrevocable action.

      Incidentally, some people may be thinking that paid leave is letting them off easy, but having been through a situation where my employer had someone on paid leave for a while, I can say that in some instances the reason for doing this is because it allows the employer to place some kinds of restrictions on the employee that they wouldn't be able to place on them if they weren't being paid. I don't know for certain that this is the phone company's reason in this case, but it potentially could be. (It could also be they just don't want to penalize them until they investigate and determine for sure whether they did anything wrong. That could also be valid, from a cover-your-legal-self-in-case-of-lawsuits perspective if nothing else.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  3. This happens often by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My brother worked at T-Mobile for many years. (since before they were T-Mobile). Most Hollywood stars have their agents get their phones for them. One day, something happened in the payment process, and Val Kilmer came into a store to make a payment on his phone, instead of his agent. Suddenly, his number was getting passed all over the company, and many employees (mostly young girls) actually called the number to talk to him. A ton of people were fired, and Val got a very nice check from T-Mobile.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  4. Interesting observation, IMHO by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the media (for example, NPR on the radio today) talks about "unauthorized access by employees", while /. entry is about "sharing" (which is more sinister).

    PS. That and unrelated modest and subdued coverage by CNN about yesterday's record Dow-Jones drop remind me of bias in the media.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  5. freedom of information act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While this is improper and wrong, I think that if the government is allowed to wiretap us, then the same laws should make it legal (Freedom of Information Act or something like that) for us to wiretap them. In fact, all government employees' and officials' calls should be recorded and made available for everyone's listening pleasure at a youtube-like site. Call it govtube. Because we are not subservient to the government; it is subservient to us. We put those people in office for our benefit, and so it is our collective right to know what they're doing over there.

  6. Why there are draconian rules at work. by xzvf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A situation like this is why there are so many stupid rules at work that make people less productive. Why USB ports are disabled, or you can't have an iPod, websites like gmail are blocked. The biggest danger of electronic crime and compromising of personal information come from people that work at the company. Same as most shoplifting is done by employees of the store. The solution is, ironically stolen from the government. In order to see personal data (classified information) an employee of the company must, not only have rights to see the information, but must also demonstrate a "need to know". That two factor authentication will eliminate many of the abuses by corporate and government employees (Joe the Plumber's info breach by the state) and clearly put the action into criminal field as apposed to looky loo.

  7. Kilmer who? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never heard of him. You talk as though he was some kind of Super Star like Rajnikant.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Transparency by xzvf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually you are strangely correct. We should have transcripts of every conversation with lobbyist, campaign contributors, and business relationships. A lack of vision into our corporate and political deal making has lead to many of the abuses over the last decade. If every non-personal conversation by corporate executives and government employees was recorded and made available to the public corruption and graft will be driven further underground.

    1. Re:Transparency by Kugala · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?

    2. Re:Transparency by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?

      Of course not. That's why we should get a law passed to make it mandatory. It'll be tough to pass, but I know a couple palms we could grease (off the record, of course)

  9. Constantly have these issues in health care by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a celebrity lands themselves in an ER (especially hospitals not accustomed VIPs) then we can expect several violations of HIPAA by unauthorized hospital staff.

    They just cannot resist no matter how many times they are warned about activity being logged and threats of dismissal upon violation.

  10. Re:What A Joke by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because they want to make sure not to punish any employees who were not acting unethically. Once they determine who did what, they'll probably fire the bad ones, and possibly take legal action against them..

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  11. Re:Data Theft by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really ? The people who illegaly obtained access to "Joe the plumber"'s records, and went on to check all sorts of things on him

    ["all sorts of things" means, specifically, his driver's record, and whether or not he owed child support]

    are still perfectly gainfully employed by the government

    And so are these people. Didn't you even read the summary??? Verizon says the people involved have all been put on leave with pay.

    "leave with pay" == "still employed." Sounds like a bonus, not a punishment!

    I guess it all depends what side you're on.

    Apparently not.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  12. Re:Data Theft by foo12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you think that the President Elect of the United States might have greater personal security concerns than McCain's version of a working class hero? This isn't a matter of "being critical of the president".

  13. Nice red herring by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The President-Elect has a modern day Praetorian Guard protecting him. It would take either a professional team of assassins, or a very, very lucky suicide bomber/shooter to get anywhere near him. Joe the Plumber? Not so much.

    Joe what's his name can't help the fact that McCain made him into a working class hero. He also can't help the fact that a number of people on the left wanted to destroy him for having the audacity to ask a hard, serious economic question of Obama that made Obama look bad. One radio host even called for him to be murdered.

    So yeah, I'd say that he had more practical security precautions than a man who had the Secret Service protecting him and his immediate family.

    1. Re:Nice red herring by taliesinangelus · · Score: 4, Informative
      Let's look at that "hard question":

      "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?"

      Obama's response:

      "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too"

      The "Obama is a socialist" bandwagon was hitched up to Joe Wurzelbacher based on this exchange. It wasn't really so much of a "hard, serious question" than a rhetorical device. If Wurzelbacher had wanted to be more serious about the question, he should have left it more open-ended. I hope that he does better with "Secure Our Dream."

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

    2. Re:Nice red herring by ApharmdB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why politics stays corrupt. Both the parent and grandparent of my post defend the inexcusable actions of others when those actions help their side and profess moral outrage when the other side does the same thing. And they both get modded insightful by people that are defending their side.

      Neither Joe the Plumber nor Barack Obama's records should have been compromised. To defend one instance while castigating the other is hypocritical.

      But it is the nature of human grouping. People form groups and then expect their group to defend them when they have done wrong. If the group didn't, the group would not stay a group for long.

      Personally I'm glad Obama's records were compromised because it might teach him the importance of taking privacy seriously. Hopefully then he will stop the warrantless wiretapping.

    3. Re:Nice red herring by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you seen the entire footage of the exchange between Joe and Barack? Obama took a great deal of time to explain specifically how his plan would affect Joe's desire to buy this company. Frankly Joe looked a little stunned.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    4. Re:Nice red herring by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't a hard question. It was just a question which Obama had a hard time answering due to he nature of his (polarizing) answer. A simple question which a simple person wanted clarification on. I highly doubt he intended for it to throw him into the national spotlight; he likely just wanted to know if he'd be financially hosed by the purchase, and whether he should go forward.

      The thing that makes it such a "hard" question is because Obama's answer was halting and not planned for - it was ad lib. He didn't have a script to read by, and the true nature of his policy had a little light shone on it.

      This is hardly the first or only example of how or why Obama is a socialist. There is hardly any evidence available to support that he isn't; he's been involved in far-left socialist - dare I say marxist? - agendas since he was a teenager, and his rhetoric reflects that.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  14. Re:Data Theft by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he's doing nothing wrong he's got nothing to worry about.

    Right?

    --
    No sig today...
  15. Joe? by kenp2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets see if they get the same slap on the wrist that government employees got for accessing Joe the Plumber's tax records, DMV records, medical records, and other supposedly private information.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  16. Re:Data Theft by Deitiker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just imagine the outrage if someone had broken into one of the candidate's personal email accounts, and posted pictures of their children and private conversations, or...uh...wait...

  17. Re:Data Theft by cromar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah I'm "a troll," and this dude is "insightful." If I have to hear "left-wing kook" or "right-wing Bible thumper" one more time, I'm gonna flip my fucking lid! There was a public outcry over the intrusion into Palin's email. And drop Ayers, Jesus! Start thinking critically and stop regurgitating what other people tell you. I could easily say similar things to some Liberals, but you are being a dumb ass right here, right now. I repeat: stop blaming "the Liberals" and 1. start having opinions that have critical thought put into them, and 2. start thinking of how you can help America not how everyone else is ruining it. That's just counterproductive self-pity.