Slashdot Mirror
News Corp. Hacking Scandal Spreads To Government
wiredmikey writes "The scandal revolving around the News Corporation's now defunct British tabloid, News of the World, has entered a new phase with news that the hacking extended into areas of national security, as detectives working for the Murdoch media empire may have hacked into the computer of a government minister responsible for Northern Ireland. Scary stuff, yet the enterprise security community seems strangely quiet on the topic, aside from showing other journalists how easy it is to do. Potentially, if you know the correct mobile number and you can guess four digits, you too can be listening to your elected leaders' personal messages. The chances are pretty good that it could be their birthday."
>if you know the correct mobile number and you can guess 4 Digits
Would that be any 4 digits, or some particular ones?
Will a contrite Rupert Murdoch make a tearful visit to No. 10? MI5?
Really not surprised, when the people in News International (NI) were going for a story they let nothing get in their way. And the juicier the story, the more Big White Letters on the cover of NotW or Sun. Drunk with it, they were, the idea of digging where they should not and getting away with it.
Another round of review for suitability of the Murdoch Clan by stock holders? Might just be enough to dislodge the old goat and his son.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Alastair Campbell - (Press Secretary for Tony Blair) not someone who I would normally believe on anything. Wrote a pretty comprehensive witness statement outlining how far the problems goes and how much it affects the running of the country and to be fair he understands the media more than most. It is worth a read - http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alastair-Campbell.pdf
If this were really happening, what would you think?
About 6 years ago when this all originally flared up, it became clear people were simply not changing their default voicemail pin-codes from the network supplied default. All you needed to do was call the mobile number, listen for which operator it was that was which was responsible for the voicemail, then punch in the default pin-code for that network operator.
At the time, this caused a few MNOs to change their systems so that you could not use remote voicemail until the user had set a new pin-code other than the default. In fact, its sad that operators were not somehow made partially liable for all this in the first place!
They'll can some middle and upper middle management types, but Murdock and his cronies that created and encouraged a corporate culture of amoral lawbreakers will continue to walk off, rich and happy, after a few carefully crafted statements full of empty sentiment, and dropping more guilt on top of the scapegoats of the day.
Of course, if there was less government regulation, the field would be level, and countless competitors would exist to force Murdock's News Corp to actually be honest and... aww, damn it, I can't keep a straight face and finish that crap.
Watching the Leveson inquiry over the last couple of weeks has been one of the most depressing things I've ever done; the lowlight was probably former NOTW journalist Paul McMullen saying the following on the subject of privacy:
In 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never actually come across anyone who's been doing any good. Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in.
Privacy is evil; it brings out the worst qualities in people.
Privacy is for paedos; fundamentally nobody else needs it.
Basically the papers are full of amoral arseholes (Not just NI papers either, it's clear that the Daily Mail and others have been up to it as well), the Police and the ICO have been shamefully complicit and the government didn't want to look into it in case it upset Murdoch and he told his papers not to support them any more.
Makes you proud to be British really...
Does anyone believe that journalists are the only ones hacking phones? Why so much attention to the tabloids?
Social Engineering.
I hate to be the bearer of obvious news, but the DEFAULT password on everyones voicemail is usually 1234, 1111 or something. Every place I worked it was the same. Every cell carrier, landline and VoIP... they use the same default password, not random ones.
Plus there are people who have the voicemail password programmed into their cell phone. That sets the stage for hacking the voicemail without doing much at all. Just call in via a landline and try the defaults first, then try their birthday and family birthdays. You'll get most peoples PIN's this way.
The only reason there isn't large amounts of chip+pin/ATM pin fraud is because ATM's eat cards after 3 wrong answers, but if you have access to a POS system to keep trying, keep trying PIN's. Keep buying sticks of gum from gas stations and 711's until you guess the pin.
In voicemail systems, the voicemail retrieval number is easily found, and everyone STUPIDLY puts their full name in the voicemail greeting. NEVER DO THIS. Your voicemail message should not be in your voice, and should not have your full name in it. Better yet, only list the extension. The reason is that you make yourself a voicemail hacking target for social engineering by having your name on the voicemail.
Say I'm a hacker wanting to get the PIN to someone elses voicemail. I keep trying voicemail boxes until I find someone with a name that works their. Next thing I do is get ahold of the technical service desk and ask for them to reset the voicemail PIN and say I'm the person on the voicemail greeting. Oversimplified (if they're doing their job they'll ask for the employee badge number, but oh, that can be socially engineered too.)
When I worked for (CELL PHONE CARRIER), it's easy to reset passwords, just call in, verify the SSN and the password will be reset. Such horrible abuse of personal information.
When I worked for (INTERNET SERVICES), someone tried to social engineer me using the voicemail. Fortunately my name isn't easy to spell. Someone went through the phone directory and left messages asking to be called back to deal with their account. As the customer was in the US and I was not handling US customers it raised a red flag right away.
"The chances are pretty good that it could be their birthday."
Is that the so-called 'birthday attack' ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Check your premises.
The government hacks people all the time, but I rarely see outrage about it. It's always unethical, so why not protest the far more dangerous government hacking with the same or more energy?
That strawman had it coming.
Are there some instances where it is okay?
Perhaps if a journalist was investigating something that really mattered. Do they do that?
Quick guide:
Grieving mother - very little chance it really matters.
Government official with multi-million dollar art in their home - a possibility that it matters. Not that I know anything about this particular minister.
Look, it's bad enough that Fox News is owned by a man who allegedly changed his nationality to get around foreign ownership laws of media outlets (how come the Aussies and Brits don't have those laws? That way he'd only influence ONE country's media).
But aren't there laws in the U.S. against the blatant use of the public airwaves to push a particular viewpoint or even "hatemongering" (just as one example: look at the number of times Fox accidentally spelled "Obama", "Osama" and mentioned his middle name "Hussein")? For a detailed look at this bias watch the documentary "Outfoxed".
Even if you were to claim that this is protected free speech (yes but not using public spectrum! Use a satellite like Howard Stern!) couldn't there be a case made for shutting the network down for the public interest? Several recent studies have shown that Fox viewers are not only less informed than viewers of other network/media, but they are less informed than people who WATCHED NOTHING AT ALL (don't know exactly the comparisons, google it).
Until then I didn't know that ignorance could be a negative value. Wow.
Of course, if there is any proof to the allegations that his company spied on Americans, perhaps some form of justice will be done.
The thing people keep ignoring in this ongoing story is how most of the "hacking" happened with the assistance of one or more people working for the government: police officers (some of them have already been nabbed for this) and political appointees, along with the standard-issue public employee bureaucrats.
The official who had his computer "hacked?" BS. He sold the information to someone, and when he got caught, he lied.
That's what happens when you give bureaucrats the power to tap phones and other private communications: they sell it to people who would get arrested for doing it, or who are too dumb to do it themselves.
It's not just NewsCorp, too - half of the tabloids in the UK have been caught in this affair.
At least a decade ago you didn't have it, and I doubt it has changed. All you need is to change your caller id to that of the phone (easy to do), then the voicemail system doesn't ask for your password. It is why you can always check your voicemail from your own phone without entering the password.
Please?
Granted that the US and Britain are mostly allies, but secrets *are* secrets. When agents of a foreign power take information from you, that's generally called spying. And if there are people helping out foreign powers, well, we've seen how they get dealt with. Why should Murdoch be treated any differently?
It's 0666
Be seeing you...
.... fair and unbiased :P
just sayin'
Thanks for not thoroughly trashing me. I didnt realize they weren't on public airwaves. I got confused when I saw the local Fox affiliate (which IS broadcast I think) and thought it was tied to the Fox cable news network (it isn't is it?).
Anyway, my only excuse is I've been out of the country for 5 years and I'm at my uncle's place. He's got his A/V setup as a mishmash of satellite, cable (and terrestrial?) and I'm not sure where I'm getting ech feed from.
Definitely the restrictions on what he has to say are much less if he's on satellite/cable. Sorry to all of you right-wingers out there! In this case I'M the one who's definitely less informed! ;)
I randomly generate all of my passwords. http://www.xkcd.com/221/
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Many countries frown upon spying on government officials, even to the extent of imposing life imprisonment or execution.
Given corporations' statuses as people, it would seem logical to try them based on the laws of the country in which they operate.
I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, so would instead ask that News Corp, if/when found guilty, simply be locked up for life, just as any other "person" would be.
I defy anyone to challenge that logical conclusion.
Public airwaves vs cable is irrelevant when talking about speech content, for the most part - everything adheres to the broadcast standards (except premium pay channels), since they're expecting to be delivered somewhere that the FCC might have jurisdiction. The FCC (the US's version of Ofcom) really can only regulate obscenity in terms of content - they really don't even get to determine "offensive" speech. Basically, the only parts of broadcasts that the FCC has the power to regulate are nudity and swearing. That's it. Everything else is acceptable, from the FCC's standpoint. Broadcasts of course are subject to libel laws, but the fact is that the USA doesn't have anything like the preventative measures (i.e. prior restraint) on content that the UK allows.
Fox is a broadcast network, so Fox's news program definitely has to adhere to FCC standards. However, the confusion comes in where over 2/3 of all US homes get their TV via a cable system, NOT broadcast. It's still the Fox channel with identical content, regardless of whether it comes in over broadcast, cable, or satellite. There is also a separate channel called "Fox News", but that is broadcast over satellite and cable, though it adheres to FCC regulations, too.
The bottom line is that the USA has virtually no restrictions whatsoever on pure speech; you're only remedy is a slander suit. There's no pre-filtering done by any agency other than the broadcast company itself (which, frankly, can be significant, as those companies definitely censor content provided to them by advertisers and show-producers, according to whatever bent that media company has).
Right, there IS a FOX channel which is broadcast in most areas, but it is entirely distinct (in terms of content, anyways) from the Fox News channel, which is essentially the "right wing CNN".
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
There is no problem that can not be fixed with an adequate amount of high explosives. If you still have the problem after you've applied and detonated explosives, you simply weren't using enough of them.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Even-so, while broadcast news may generally be biased one way or the other, in my experience they are much more fair than Fox News.
If there is no law forcing them to do so, I'm not sure why exactly that is. I expect it is because they fear that if they cross the line too far that there will be repercussions. The Supreme Court did rule, after all, that the Fairness Doctrine was Constitutional.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Why is there no discussion of requiring the network operators to improve security?
After all, it's fairly easy for them to know who is placing a call, and to bill the right user: I can't spoof someone else's phone and make them get the bill for my call. So why can't the carriers lock voicemail to the device by default?
I don't want the hassle of using a PIN every time I dial my voicemail, but I am quite happy for my cellphone with my SIM to be the trusted token. Yes, if I'm unlucky enough to have my phone stolen, my voicemail security will be compromised, but otherwise, the voicemail should, in principle, be as secure as the degree to which I protect my phone. So, why is this not true in practice?
You all don't like Murdoch's papers hacking phones and paying government officials to get information and publish it in his papers.
But you laud that weird rapist guy Julian Assange for doing the same thing, promising low level (gay) Army soldiers like Bradley Manning fame and fortune to get all sorts of classified cables, and publishing them, that got people killed, fired, in fear of their lives. For example, confidential informants to the US in Pakistan. Or those who informed on the Taliban killing schoolgirls in Afghanistan.
Why is it "OK" for Assange to do this, and make a very nice living out of it, but not Murdoch? Oh, you don't like the politics of Murdoch, but you like the politics of Assange. That's a flimsy reed. I like the politics of Murdoch and don't like them of Assange. If its your way, that's just because you're stronger now than my group politically. I'll remember that when my group is stronger than yours.
The Guardian hacks people the same way, and its a far-leftist whacko paper that is the left of Pravda (and has less truth in it).
Murdoch hasn't been accused of running anything untrue, just stuff people would prefer to keep quiet (like the latest dump on the Global Warming crowd's e-mails showing they made the whole stuff up and tried to silence critics).
Face it, computers plus cell phones = no privacy. For anyone. You can "criminalize" it all you like but all you'll get it is seeing your Julian Assange with one on the other side of politics. If you think trying to claim Murdoch's scalp will change anything, you're delusional. Assange showed the way, just don't rape women in Sweden. All your information, in Facebook, Twitter, this site, your Iphone, all of it is just one hack away from being out there for everyone to see. There is no privacy, for anyone, anywhere, anytime, unless you live in an Afghan cave or the Sahara Desert.
Which means the side that depends on keeping icky secrets the least has the advantage. Not necessarily the one that will win, but the one with the advantage. The hacking and convenient dumping of info will always happen because there will always be people prepared to pay to find the icky dirt on the powerful or famous or even junk celebrities. Not to mention political enemies. And that cuts both ways my friends.
Every phone call and text message I make are monitored and recorded. The websites I visit are recorded. My emails are read. My posted packages and letters are opened and read. My car number plate is recorded as I move across the country. My credit card transactions are watched, and the movements I make on public transport with my oyster card is recorded and logged. My medical records are routineley examined, as are records of any dealings I may have had with the police. This is done without my knowlege or conset - as it is to every other UK citizen. It is done by an organisation that claims it is only violating my rights to go about my business in private because it is in the public good. That same organisation who are now trying to destroy a newspaper group because THEIR rights were violated!
The newspapers didn't take anyone's information that wasn't already logged and recorded by other organisations, they just made the information public. Any charges the newspapers or reporters are found guilty of should be made against people working for Whitehall and associated companies.
Some Fox News radio programs are syndicated in some markets.
I did not speak incorrectly. Broadcast, as we were talking about it, refers specifically to public airwaves. They used to have somewhat special regulations in terms of news broadcasting, since the public broadcast spectrum is inherently bandwidth limited. Of course that's less of an issue now with digital broadcasting, but yeah.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
You're a fucking idiot.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+AM+radio