Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Denies It Held iPhone UDIDs Stolen By AntiSec

Posted by Unknown on from the it-was-actually-the-nsa dept.

judgecorp writes "The FBI has denied the UDID codes released yesterday came from an agent's laptop, as claimed by the AntiSec hacker group. The FBI says it does not hold such data, and the attack never happened. However, the agent named by AntiSec is real, and some of the published UDID codes have been found to be genuine. So where did they come from?"

14 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. So where did they come from? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI... What, does anybody expect them to admit it?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:So where did they come from? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be nice to think the FBI would ever release a press release with the header "Yes, We Screwed-Up and Yes, We're Illegally Spying on You." But inevitably, that's the kind of admission that only comes out decades after the fact. It's not like if you had asked J. Edgar Hoover "Hey are you spying on Martin Luther King with illegal wiretaps and recording devices?" back in the 60's he would have replied "Oh yeah, we're doing that."

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:So where did they come from? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they could have hacked some small developer who wasn't overly careful with his records and AntiSec ended up with a few real UDIDs.
      Then blamed it on the FBI.

      Or they could have hacked an FBI laptop, just the one that had Apple UDIDs on it.

      I have no idea, but I have heard of Occam's Razor.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:So where did they come from? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a few agent business cards in my desk at home. I could claim any one of them gave me a receipt that proves Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. I could show you a receipt dated November 22, 1963. The agent I name could deny it, of course, but then his denial could just as easily be dismissed as "protecting his job" or some other obvious ploy.

      Anon has shown only that they:

      1. have UDIDs, some of which are valid
      2. have the name of an FBI agent

      There is no evidence that the UDIDs actually came from the FBI. There is no evidence that Special Agent Stangl is related to the case in anything but name, and any statement from him must be considered questionable, just as any statement from Anonymous must also be questionable.

      As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is very little actual proof available... just names and numbers mentioned in close proximity.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:So where did they come from? by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do they need to waste time getting a "credible source" to deny not very credible accusations? If I gave a list of accusations for 100 agents right now, should the FBI take those 100 agents off of whatever they're doing to give a press report?

      Really, who cares?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:So where did they come from? by crakbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only problem is that Anon has a better record of telling the truth.

    6. Re:So where did they come from? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only problem is that Anon has a better record of telling the truth.

      A nameless, faceless, identity that anyone can assume at any time, by definition, does not have a record .

  2. Possibilities... by Severus+Snape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. AntiSec is lying.
    2. FBI is lying.
    3. AntiSec is telling the truth and the FBI's methods of obtaining the UDID codes means they can't admit to it.

    1. Re:Possibilities... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another option, AntiSec hacked someone pretending to be an FBI agent. I have run across people like this, who are trying to con you or just getting their jollies.

  3. Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: "At this time there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data"

    Saying there's no evidence isn't the same as saying it didn't happen.

    1. Re:Misleading headline. by crazyjj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, anytime you're dealing with a government press release or statement you have to CAREFULLY parse the language. These things are carefully crafted to imply things they don't actually say. "I personally have no knowledge of such an event happening" is NOT the same as saying "This event didn't happen." There are a million ways to imply things without saying them, and a dumb and gullible press will usually swallow them hook-line-and-sinker 99% of the time.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  4. Re:Which is more likely by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Laptops are being lost all the god damn time and Anon is a very, very large group of people -- I'd say the chances are actually darn good. Also, I'd say the chances are darn good for FBI to lie whenever something like this happens, just for the sake of looking good in the eyes of the general public and for painting anyone who disagrees in bad light.

    As for unverifiability: apparently some of those UDIDs have already been verified.

  5. I hate to be the one to say this... by tekrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I trust the hacker group more than I trust the FBI.

    It's more likely the FBI is lying to cover up something. I mean, we're talking about the *government* -- not exactly our best and brightest, but definitely good at the "cover your ass" game.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:I hate to be the one to say this... by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Anonymous and Antisec have seemingly been completely honest in the past, when it comes to claiming responsibility for hacks. The FBI is known to lie and cover up. Given past experience, Antisec is more likely to be telling the truth.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...