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.
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!>
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....
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
The carriers voicemail system should do four things:
1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so
2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)
3. Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers. When you enter your PIN successfully it should say, "Thanks! You last logged in x ago", and if appropriate "Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in".
4. If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.
Items #1&2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.
I don't buy into the "there is not much you can do about it line" since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security. I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds.
So we all agree it isn't theft. Its obviously copyright infringement! The penalties in the US would mark it as 100,000$ per voicemail track downloaded.
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.