Slashdot Mirror
Murdoch Paper Reporters Eavesdropped On Celebrities' Voicemail
Michael_Curator writes "Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up. How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on? Voicemail." The New York Times says a preliminary investigation's been ordered, but the BBC's coverage indicates that a large-scale inquiry is unlikely.
It's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes (eg. 0000 or 1234) to listen to the conversations.
There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"? People always assume that those accused are guilty. Look at COPS on TV. They have a disclaimer that says "all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty. Disclaimers are so common and superfluous* that nobody pays attention to them anymore.
*: Not all disclaimers are superfluous
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
If I would have to guess, Btitish Telecom? (Since they are talking about the BBC)
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications (by way of PHORM) nothing is done, but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.
either intercepting peoples communication (of any kind) is illegal or its not, and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ?
my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its "different"
after all they keep telling us if you have nothing to hide....
This was originally a Guardian Story. It relates to mobile phones, not BT landline.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational
According to the media, you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system. You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.
The media has no clue about hackers. The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about "cool new software" to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009. Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password?
Palm trees and 8
They weren't doing that. RTFA, they'd call the number and then dial the default PIN to try to access the voicemail. If the PIN hadn't been changed from the default, they'd be able to listen to all the messages.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Celebrity 1: "Hey dude"
Celebrity 2: "Hey dude"
Celebrity 1: "What's up?"
Celebrity 2: "Nothing"
Celebrity 1: "Wanna party?"
Celebrity 2: "That would be totally awesome"
Celebrity 1: "OK, see ya soon. Save Tibet and all that shit."
Celebrity 2: "And the whales too man."
If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.
Sports photographers, even for Soccer, use a 300mm to 400mm lens at most. A 1200mm lens would only be effective at taking pictures of things half a mile away or more (depending on the size of the thing, of course). The minimum focus distance for that bad boy is 46 feet, practical only if you're the poor photographer who is deprived of a sideline pass and are forced to take pictures from the nosebleeds. But then again, why would you spend $90,000 (the actual MSRP) on one if you were?
To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.
You young whippersnappers! In my days, BT meant "big tits"! And that is how it should always be!
Now get off my lawn!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Or maybe it's because an editor and a private investigator have already been jailed for their part in the hacking?
Or maybe because News International has already paid out over £1 million to settle court cases brought by some of the people they listened in on, on the condition that they can't say anything about the case or settlement to anybody else, ever? And News International has not denied any of the allegations?
The fact that a single, unelected individual can become as powerful as Murdoch is worrying in this day and age. After Tony Blair flew out to Australia to breakfast with Murdoch, the British tabloids switched overnight and Blair won the next election. According to the Independent, Murdoch is "so powerful that no politician dare take him on." According to Business Week:
So Murdoch owns many of the most influential TV stations and newspapers in the UK and US, and yet he pays almost no tax, only 6%. Murdoch even had a special tax credit for himself written into a US bill during the Clinton era. In the UK it was revealed that News International pays only 1.2% tax, and the governing Labour party refused to say anything on the issue.
It is worrying that, in a democratic society, any single individual can influence public opinion so convincingly that even the governing left-leaning politicians, who would be his traditional enemies, must do underhand deals in order to gain his support and stay in power.
Not only that, they will get away with it too.
A police inquiry has already been ruled out. The Crown Prosecution Service "review", will amount to just that. Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted, and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory's PR man Andy Coulson (Former News of the World Editor) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor's PR man Damian McBride. Those bugged will be paid off(some already have been) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch's News International's $21 billion chest. The press complaints commission is the industry's "self regulation" body, paid for by the newspapers themselves.
They will get away with this.
This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out; hacking, wire fraud, misrepresentation, etc, has been going on for at least a decade. One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone. Victims include TV celebrities, Royal family members, CEOs and members of parliament. These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex. They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day. There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.
They will get away with this.
The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom, but it is by no means confined to that place. It's pervasive throughout Murdoch's publications, and probably beyond. News International papers, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the list goes on. Steve Whittamore's(the private investigator) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists. And this is all from only one such man. Who knows how many other investigators exist, an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.
They will get away with this. The culture runs too deep, and is too established. Too many newspapers are in on it. Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty. Nothing is sacred, no one is safe, and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them. What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, Your Fourth Estate.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, they share no blame at all. They are victims, lets not blame them.
Lets not buy into the shared fault crap that was started by the insurance companies so they wouldn't ahve to pay out on car insurance claims.
Be default we should be able yo leave our doors unlocks, the keys in our car, our windows open, and not ahve to worry about being a victim of a crime.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hacking? Really?
Sigh.