FBI Denies It Held iPhone UDIDs Stolen By AntiSec

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?"

Comments

So where did they come from?

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:So where did they come from?

[crazyjj]

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."

Re:So where did they come from?

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:So where did they come from?

[crakbone]

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

Re:So where did they come from?

[zzsmirkzz]

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 .

Misleading headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Which is more likely

[Gaygirlie]

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.

Re:I hate to be the one to say this...

[PRMan]

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.