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."

38 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Well, well.. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Well, well.. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a British cultural problem, not a Murdoch problem.

      Don't know where you live, mate, but Murdoch's (Rupert and Prince James, the News International heir apparent) have control over London Times, The Sun and News Of The World (now defunct) and wrote the cheques and managed the managers who made all this possible.

      Any editor worth his pay packet, when presented with an astounding story, based upon what appears to be inside information, has to ask, "Where did you get this information?" When you are in James' place, overseeing the British arm of News International (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above) you have to do more than gaze in wonder at what a talented and resourceful lot you have under you. You should be paying the occasional visit to your managing editors and ask, "Where are we getting this?"

      There has always been the ability of the government to enquire, which they've done a poor job of, just how the news knows some things. Dave's doing his best CYA, but it keeps going along. What are you going to do about foreign ownership of a large part of your media, Dave? Learning anything important, Dave?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Well, well.. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To treat him exactly as any other criminal would be necessary, sufficient and unlikely.

    3. Re:Well, well.. by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could certainly argue that this is a problem with the culture and practices of the press and not one specifically with Murdoch. That said, when a significant portion of the popular press is in fact owned by Murdoch the distinction seems moot.

      I heard this on the radio yesterday and it seems pertinent: Charlotte Church (a singer - just think 'Bieber' but with classical training and a proper excuse for looking like a girl) was asked to perform at a Murdoch birthday party. She was told that if she waived her usual fee she would be treated "favourably" in News Int. papers. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical but that sounds rather a lot like extortion. It's even worse when you bear in mind we're talking about a girl who was in her early teens at the time.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    4. Re:Well, well.. by similar_name · · Score: 2

      overseeing the British arm of News International (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above)

      News International is the British arm of News Corp.

      From Wikipedia

      News International Ltd is the United Kingdom newspaper publishing division of News Corporation.

    5. Re:Well, well.. by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not convinced that Britain has anything to do with it, besides merely being where the story was first exposed. Do you suppose the Italian press (mostly owned by their soon-to-be-ex-leader) has never hacked into the phones of people Berscolini wanted discredited? Perhaps you imagine Fox News and TMZ are wholly innocent of any kind of malpractice in the United States? Clear Channel Radio is, of course, wholly innocent of any wrongdoing, right?

      It seems to me that most nations have press scandals that they've either successfully suppressed or don't need to suppress because they own all the media that matters.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Well, well.. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes; those damn brits who insist on making their police actually investigate corporate crimes. If this was a proper civilised country the corporations would be allowed control the media for political benefit and nobody would lift a finger. Look at how the FBI have managed to make accusations of hacking 9/11 victims completely disappear for example*. That's a proper example of a police system that knows that it's job is controlling the people.

      * we'll leave Australians for a while; there has been some uncivilised muttering about news international corruption, but it's quite possible that nothing will be done..

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Well, well.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above) "

      There is a lot of that. The Murdoch Empire (probably the most correct name possible) moved quickly to attach the stigma of "hacking" to those few select managers at one specific newspaper, then closed that one newspaper. The naive are supposed to conclude that those few select managers were rogues, and that they were punished by the Murdoch Empire. And, the naive have mostly come to that conclusion. Amazing, that Rupert is so good at manipulating the gullible masses.

      One thing that can't be dismissed, is that Rupert personally paid multiple settlements, out of pocket, long before the scandal really broke. Many people overlook it, but no one can dismiss that fact. Rupert Murdoch was intimately familiar with the details of this hacking operation. Rupert Murdoch personally approved of the operations, or they would have been shut down to prevent the necessity of paying out more settlements.

      I can't fault you for naming names in the manner you used. But, I insist that "Murdoch Empire" is most appropriate, and that the Emperor is entirely responsible for all misconduct. This particular emperor seems to hate delegating any authority, to anyone.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Well, well.. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> You really think Murdoch babysits any of these people?

      No, but do you think it's unlikely that get-the-story-no-matter-what directives came from the top? Also, it was not just one case, they were doing this for long, and doing it systematically, and doing it with no regards to moral, ethical or legal aspects. I am not sure all this went on without it being the culture from top to bottom.

    9. Re:Well, well.. by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      I can think of only one difference between Britain and the US in this regard: we don't have O'Reillys, Colberts or Mahers. The only analogue I can think of is Jeremy Paxman but he's not even close; we just don't celebrate(?) political commentators to the same degree.

      I can't speak Italian so I won't comment on their media but I will say this: it seems as though Berlusconi got away with much worse than defamation or phone hacking. Ultimately though, I'm only really concerned with how my own country's media operates, parochial as that may be.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    10. Re:Well, well.. by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      We don't celebrate the same sort of commentary. From "That Was The Week That Was" (TW3) to "Spitting Image" to "The Mary Whitehouse Experience", we've had apolitical satire (ie: everyone's fair game, and like most game it's apparently best served plucked and roasted). Politically-inspired satirists (Ben Elton, Alexi Sayle, etc) also exist. However, they're nowhere near as nasty, cruel or mass-marketed. They're humourists who present the warts-and-all view of contemporary life, including politics, in a way that might provoke a little thought here and there ("Bumbledown: Life and Times of Ronald Reagan" is a great example) but isn't intended to be the mouthpiece of some specific segment of society. There wasn't the mean-spirited attitude there.

      Paxman - psssh! He interviews political figures and is nasty to some of them, but David Frost was both a stronger interviewer and a more respectful one at the same time. Being unpleasent isn't necessary or useful in political commentary.

      Indeed, I'll argue that that that is really the underlying difference there. Us Brits can get nasty - In Scotland, never, ever try and put ginger ale in a single malt Scotch if you value your life - but it's just not in the same way. We save our violent rhetoric for where it belongs, the football terraces^W^H^WLongship Burnings and the LARP SummerFest.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Well, well.. by smellotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Drunk with it, they were, the idea of digging where they should not and getting away with it.

      I've always wanted to hear Yoda's take on the Mines of Moria. Thank you.

    12. Re:Well, well.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Paxman - psssh! He interviews political figures and is nasty to some of them, but David Frost was both a stronger interviewer and a more respectful one at the same time. Being unpleasent isn't necessary or useful in political commentary.

      Paxman only cares about one thing: getting an answer to his question. He won't tolerate the typical politician's response of ignoring the interviewer and answering their own question ("Well, I think the real question is..."), and will push it until they either respond or look like the devious bastards that they are.

      Around the early part of the 2000s politicians stopped agreeing to be interviewed with their opposition. You would get a Labour MP and a Troy MP come on to be interviewed, sitting right opposite each other, but the interviewer would speak to them one at a time with no debate between them. As such the interviewers had to start asking much more aggressive and difficult questions on behalf of each participant since they could no longer speak to the other person. Things have started to get better now but aggressive questioning is apparently here to stay, and it wasn't Paxman who started it.

      Watch him carefully. If he gets annoyed it is because people are bullshitting him. That should be the normal reaction, not the extremely mild response that Frost normally provides.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Standards couldn't be much worse by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:Standards couldn't be much worse by The+Askylist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bear in mind when reading Campbell's statement that this is the man who brought us the dodgy dossier and the 45 minutes to WMD claims. He's a master of selective statement and a propagandist worthy of Goebbels himself.

    2. Re:Standards couldn't be much worse by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But yet, he researched his statement and provided several references for each assertion, exactly what is missing from journalism. Like I said, I wouldn't usually take his word for much. But I did read the entire statement and have to say that there is many a good point.

      Bear in mind, he knows more than almost everyone about the relationship between the press and the government. For better or worse.
      He didn't call for regulation by government but concluded that self paid regulation was pointless and self serving. Which I think is fair.

      If I am honest I think it has given me a small amount of new found respect for the man who sold the world a terrible war.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    3. Re:Standards couldn't be much worse by The+Askylist · · Score: 5, Interesting
      He circulated his statement around various friends and ex-colleagues before publication, so I doubt whether all of the references were his. One copy found its way to the Guido Fawkes website on Sunday, which caused Leveson to issue instructions on Monday that evidence to the inquiry was not to be circulated beforehand. Leveson was threatening to force the owner of the site to give evidence tomorrow on how he came to be in possession of Campbell's statement, but backed down this afternoon when it became clear that Campbell had circulated it widely.

      .

      Be very careful how much respect you gain for both Campbell and Leveson - the inquiry has one aim and one aim only, and that is to come up with a framework for press and internet reporting restrictions. Campbell is only one of the chosen witnesses whose statements will be used to this end.

  3. Even Easier than Guessing a Birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Even Easier than Guessing a Birthday by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While its good you are up on the Phone Hacking. This is about hacking a server... I don't know everything about servers, but I don't think you call many of them and retreive voicemail on them with a PIN. This was about going in and learning things of a highly sensitive nature. Documents. Names. Etc.

      We'd probably applaud Wikileaks for publishing some of this stuff. But since it's the weasels at News International (NotW, Sun) you should wonder what they're doing this for.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. And nothing will effectively change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:And nothing will effectively change by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing how less regulation and lower taxes are always the answer to any problem, isn't it?

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:And nothing will effectively change by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amazing how less regulation and lower taxes are always the answer to any problem, isn't it?

      UK has a concept of Fit and Proper, which could be applied to management of News International, forcing them to divest of certain properties if the government deems the Murdochs as unfit or improper. Could you imagine that in the USA? Not I.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:And nothing will effectively change by bberens · · Score: 2

      I support less regulation. Deregulate unions. Remove regulations for statutory maximum civil suit liability. While you're at it, tell the TSA to stop groping my grandma at the airport.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  5. Leveson by Spad · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Leveson by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I was wondering if anyone would point out that this scandal isn't just the Rupert Murdoch papers. The others have done it as well, there just isn't as much effort to get to the bottom of those stories.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Leveson by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      I wonder if he would say those things if someone were spying on *HIS* wife or kid.

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

      Makes you proud to be British really...

      But now McMullen and all his awful associates have been dragged out into the daylight and they can't hide anymore. Yes, it is ugly. Yes, it is depressing. But. It will eventually get better. First, there must be the full investigation. Second, there must be the corrective measures. Hopefully they don't wedge a new government agency into the pressroom. For all the rot, there has been some good and press need ability to hold government to account, something which would be difficult if the government vetted news.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Leveson by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's a British tabloid journalist. He's probably already spying on his wife and child and selling it on the internet.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  6. Pin based Social Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Qestion by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would that be any 4 digits, or some particular ones?

    Any of these particular digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  8. Re:What about government hacking? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The government hacks people all the time, but I rarely see outrage about it.

    Cite or STFU. That is all.

    Actually, no it isn't. The government - or more correctly the police - are quite capable of getting their hands on your data easily, without resorting to "hacking" if they get a court order. They don't need to hack anything.

    Besides that, Britain isn't some tin pot dictatorship (yet) where the police are basically there to do what politicians say: ministers have been tried, convicted and sentenced for a number of crimes, so they patently aren't above the law. I've no doubt, however, that they still get away with the same kinds of financial shenanigans that any rich banker or company executive does.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  9. Why isn't FOX News shut down in the U.S.? by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Government Bribery, more probably by cirby · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Why would you need to guess the 4 digit code? by Gnaget · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. Re:Qestion by zonky · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't need to guess any digits. You spoof the caller id to be the cell phones number. Most people don't bother with a PIN if they call voicemail from their own phone.

  13. Re:Qestion by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    1 2 3 4

  14. Obligatory by bberens · · Score: 2

    I randomly generate all of my passwords. http://www.xkcd.com/221/

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  15. People who do this are guilty of espionage... by Exoman · · Score: 2
    It is called *espionage*.

    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.