Slashdot Mirror


App Developer Says Stolen UDIDs Came From Them, Not FBI

pdabbadabba writes "A Florida iPhone and iPad app developer, Blue Toad, has come forward claiming that it is the source of the Apple UDIDs previously released by Anonymous. Their dataset, they say, is a 98% match for the one Anonymous hackers claim to have stolen from an FBI laptop. If so, this development would cast serious doubt on Anonymous' claims and, possibly, calm fears that this data is evidence of an ongoing FBI surveillance operation (a claim the FBI has also denied)."

180 comments

  1. Dont trust anonymous by Mr.+Kinky · · Score: 2

    This just shows that you cannot trust anonymous. but then again.. WOOHOO, EA SPORTS!!

    1. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or maybe that you just can't trust Blue Toad, who got paid behind the scenes to take the fall for this.

      Or maybe that was a double fake, and that this whole thing was set up as a distraction by Google to undermine iPhone.

      Or maybe it was actually stolen by the EFF, who then spoofed an FBI operation for Anonymous to find so that they could promote their agenda.

      (Or maybe you're completely right)

    2. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe that you just can't trust Blue Toad, who got paid behind the scenes to take the fall for this.

      Or maybe that was a double fake, and that this whole thing was set up as a distraction by Google to undermine iPhone.

      Or maybe it was actually stolen by the EFF, who then spoofed an FBI operation for Anonymous to find so that they could promote their agenda.

      (Or maybe you're completely right)

      Yeah because we all know how much corporations just HATE working with the government.. oh wait.

      Maybe they were promised retroactive immunity if they should ever need it?

    3. Re:Dont trust anonymous by hemo_jr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a true conspiracy nut, I would not put it past 1. the FBI to have gotten its data from Blue Toad or 2. Blue Toad covering up for the FBI.

    4. Re:Dont trust anonymous by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      or maybe it's a ploy by slashdot to fill up the page? very unlikely ... would be really bad sport if they did falsely accuse, i thought that was more from the government department. Total deniability on both sides. This puts the ball in anonymous camp then ... if at all ... loose collectives drawback, anyone can claim to be or do it in the name of. More proof would be nice

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    5. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a 98% match doesn't pass the 5 sigma test as matching 98% of coding DNA sequences of chimpanzee doesn't make them human. ;)

    6. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Likes+Microsoft · · Score: 2

      As a true conspiracy nut, I would not put it past 1. the FBI to have gotten its data from Blue Toad or 2. Blue Toad covering up for the FBI.

      Exactly. The FBI doesn't have to have gotten the data directly from Apple or NSA hackers or somesuch. However, you can't discount that the hackers might have been motivated to lie in order to smear the FBI, too.

      --
      -- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
    7. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Who says the FBI didn't steal it from blue toad, then anonymous stole it from the FBI?

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    8. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the FBI was investigating Blue Toad.

    9. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon! Everyone knows that Blue Toad is a front for the FBI. But insiders just call it "the company", except when in talks with the CIA...you know, to avoid confusion.

    10. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Or maybe that you just can't trust Blue Toad, who got paid behind the scenes to take the fall for this.

      Considering they had to be dragged out to admit they were responsible...

      Tracking Down the UDID Breach Source

      By the time I went to bed, I had identified nineteen different devices, each tied to BlueToad in some way. One, appearing four times, is twice named “Hutch” (their CIO), and twice named “Paul’s gift to Brad” (Paul being the first name of the CEO, and Brad being their Chief Creative Officer). I found iPhones and iPads belonging to their CEO, CIO, CCO, a customer service rep, the Director of Digital Services, the lead System Admin, and a Senior Developer.

      And he did that by typing stuff like "cat data | cut -c 2-7 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -r | head" IOW stuff all non-believers can do. Well, those that actually belong here.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    11. Re:Dont trust anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I caught a trout on a crawfish once. Do you think the FBI knows?

  2. And that company is... by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

    Flowers By Irene?

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:And that company is... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As phrased by an article at ZDNet, it's any company that allows this result:

      So there are two things we know: Apple and the FBI are back on the Christmas card lists of the general public, and hackers apparently lie.

      Apple and the FBI are good, and hackers are bad. Apparently that's the lesson to take away from this.

      According to their article in Wikipedia, it's also a company that lists the Department Of State and the Public Relations Society of America among their customers.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:And that company is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's "Glamor Shots By Deb".

    3. Re:And that company is... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      From Dodge City, no less

      Place the arrangement near your subject and tell him to be sure to speak slowly and distinctly

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:And that company is... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to their article in Wikipedia, it's also a company that lists the Department Of State and the Public Relations Society of America among their customers.

      As soon as I saw that, my thought was "so that's where the kid thought he was".

      I figure a script kiddie broke into the Blue Toad servers, found some documents talking about working with the government (perhaps the FBI in particular), then found the UDIDs, and jumped to the conclusion that they had broken into an FBI system involved in domestic surveillance. Then they release it as Anonymous in an act of misguided privacy activism, throwing in an agent's name (possibly even mentioned in the found files) for credibility.

      I'm jumping to conclusions myself, though, and assuming that there's some shred of truth to anybody's statements.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:And that company is... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...and it could just as easily be a case where the FBI requested this list from Blue Toad, or Blue Toad submitted this list as part of an investigation. All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

    6. Re:And that company is... by Infernal+Device · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...and it could just as easily be a case where the FBI requested this list from Blue Toad, or Blue Toad submitted this list as part of an investigation. All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

      It could also be that the developer got hacked w/o being involved with the FBI in any way, prior to the attack.

      Which, on the whole, is a lot simpler explanation than a conspiracy theory.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    7. Re:And that company is... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The developer got hacked prior to the attack? Do you mean that the attack was directly against Blue Toad? Or are you saying they got hacked, then they got attacked?

      I like my answer better: the data likely originated with them, and eventually got from there to AntiSec's computers, through some unknown path that they claim involved the FBI, and the FBI claims didn't. Everything else is pure guesswork.

    8. Re:And that company is... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, yes. The colloquializtion of Occam's Razor is "All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely."

      However, this neglects the little-known fact that William of Ockham was one of the founding members of the real Illuminati (and not the 18th-Century cover organization everyone knows about). He planted his philosophical disinformation into the intellectual culture specifically to cover the elaborate and long-running schemes he knew his secret society would enact over the coming centuries. By making us think that the simpler solution is the better one, he innoculated us against uncovering complex and insidious schemes, or believing them if they are uncovered. Fnord.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:And that company is... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

      Ah, yes. The colloquializtion of Occam's Razor is "All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely."

      The internetization of Occam's Razor is "If something could have happened by any wild stretch of the imagination, that's how it happened."

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    10. Re:And that company is... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      ...and it could just as easily be a case where the FBI requested this list from Blue Toad, or Blue Toad submitted this list as part of an investigation. All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

      It could also be that the developer got hacked w/o being involved with the FBI in any way, prior to the attack.

      Which, on the whole, is a lot simpler explanation than a conspiracy theory.

      Meh.. given the subject, both seem equally plausible to me. Not that it matters, who in their right mind would trust the FBI or anonymous?

    11. Re:And that company is... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

      How quickly people forget. The original slashdot story a comments were only a few days ago, and there were many people who were assuming that Apple willingly gave (or sold) it to the FBI.

      For sure they were idiots that like to seize any opportunity to call Apple evil. But no, everybody didn't assume this came from a 3rd party developer. Only the more intelligent people realised that.

    12. Re:And that company is... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

      How quickly people forget. The original slashdot story a comments were only a few days ago, and there were many people who were assuming that Apple willingly gave (or sold) it to the FBI.

      For sure they were idiots that like to seize any opportunity to call Apple evil. But no, everybody didn't assume this came from a 3rd party developer. Only the more intelligent people realised that.

      Sorry; I was filtering out the astroturfers, trolls, bots and flamebait when I said "everyone" :D

  3. Hm... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which side to believe when both sides are known liars?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Hm... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was just thinking the same: Anonymous have time and again lied about stuff, but so has the FBI and the FBI could just have paid Blue Toad to take the blame or made some other deal with them. Can't know, really, and with that in mind I'll just assume maliciousness from both parties.

    2. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume they are still both lying, and that the reality of the situation is a third (or in most real life cases, 75th) option.

      Remember, there are a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right, so just because one person is wrong that doesn't mean his opposition is right.

    3. Re:Hm... by Mr.+Kinky · · Score: 1

      What "Anonymous"? Wasn't the point of Anonymous that there is no Anonymous?

    4. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh this is getting funny.

      Ridiculously unlikely conspiracy theory get blown out of the water? Not a problem... just double-down on the crazy!

      Let's see if I've got this straight. So the FBI and Apple are secretly in collusion to provide LE with a database of increasingly-useless UUID's, and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop, the database was stolen from the FBI, but they somehow know the people that did it can't demonstrate that, so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit, knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.

      Have I got it?

    5. Re:Hm... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I don't trust the FBI at all, but WTF were they going to do with a patchy database of deprecated hardware IDs?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Hm... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're forgetting the fact that it was Obama's fault all along.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Anonymous the sociopolitic identity. This is Anonymous the cracking group, who named themselves after the concept.

      (And I'm Anonymous the guy who is too lazy to make an account)

    8. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh this is getting funny.

      Ridiculously unlikely conspiracy theory get blown out of the water? Not a problem... just double-down on the crazy!

      Let's see if I've got this straight. So the FBI and Apple are secretly in collusion to provide LE with a database of increasingly-useless UUID's, and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop, the database was stolen from the FBI, but they somehow know the people that did it can't demonstrate that, so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit, knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.

      Have I got it?

      Nailed it!
      It is amazing some of the things people will believe. But yes, you nailed it. Anyone still thinking this was some FBI operation is, well, a "bit out there". They probably hang out with moon landing deniers.

    9. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well and it would be a bit confusing, if true, because the FBI doesn't need much in the way of an excuse to have data from Apple, and Apple wouldn't much care.

      FBI: "Yes, we occasionally request device id's in the course of conducting investigations, just as we would request records from a phone company or ISP. The data was stolen from a careless [agent|contractor|x]. We are investigating the theft and intend to have the criminal locked up and butt raped by the end of October."

      Apple: "We provide data to law enforcement authorities in accordance with federal law. You're going to buy the iPhone 5 either way, so piss off."

    10. Re:Hm... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      > Have I got it?

      Almost, the story needs more explosions and a comic relief.
      Be sure to shoot the film in 3D.

    11. Re:Hm... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      When they tell you that anything you say can be used against you, they aren't lying. Everything else? eh... who knows?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With respect to the standard profile of a slashdot conspiracy theorist, I think it's far more likely to have been a major corporation, where Dick Cheney was once supreme chancellor, acting under the direct influence of Scientology Extremeists and backed with shady financial instruments sold by AIG.

    13. Re:Hm... by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

      ...and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop

      The operator of the laptop did that...

      ...so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit

      the same company who they are contracting with in regards to Public Relations

      ...knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.

      Isn't that the whole point to PR firms/departments/companies - to protect the organizations public perception?

      Regardless of far you want to twist/stretch things - I'm still defaulting to the bad guys at fault (ie: the Feds :-P )...

    14. Re:Hm... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Close... What you failed to catch was that this is an advertising stunt pulled by the '3rd party' to get free publicity for his company, which, like al qaeda and the NSA, doesn't exist.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if Anonymous wants to clear their name, why don't they hack into the financial system at Blue Toad, where no doubt, they'll find an entry that reads like:

      "Electronic Deposit from: Federal Government of the United States of America; Amount: $Eleventy Billion Dollars; Memo: Thanks for taking the fall!"

    16. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suggest casting Shia LeBoeuf in the role of plucky FBI agent who gets hacked, opposite Mila Kunis as the plucky but totally believable "Anonymous Hacker" who's taking on the government and the big corporations to save her dad (Christoper Walken) from being framed and sent to jail.

      Michael Bay directs.

      Line forms to the right, people.

    17. Re:Hm... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the Reverse Vampires.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    18. Re:Hm... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Which side to believe when both sides are known liars?

      I'd err on a developer (not necessarily this developer, but A developer), because 12 million device ID's for a collection of phones would be bizarre for the FBI. Why not just get all of them, or a more targeted subset. 12 million always seemed like it was everyone that downloaded some particular app or collection of apps, it's just not clear which one(s).

      Which doesn't negate the possibility of it being on a laptop in the FBI's possession either - I just don't see what could such a half assed effort at surveillance would do, so it's more likely to be pulled from some particular app for some particular purpose.

      Naturally, if the app is "how to identify soft targets" or "soft target photo sharing" you jump squarely into a more obvious why these particular apps. But who knows. Blue toad is a publishing support outfit it looks like, so this could be all of the devices that downloaded a book on a terrorist list* (and blue toad shows up because their devices download all of the books in their catalogue for example).

      *I use this as a non specific term to describe any sort of book/magazine etc. that the FBI decide it should follow, fairly or otherwise.

    19. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which side to believe when both sides are known liars?

      Simple. Ask them "What would the other guy say?"

    20. Re:Hm... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Of course the true power is coming from aliens who live in Roswell and control the conspiracy. They also forced NASA to fake the moon landing. The moon landing had to be faked because otherwise the NASA would have found the Nazis sitting on the moon and preparing for their return. OK, some conspiracy still missing? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:Hm... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      FBI could just have paid Blue Toad to take the blame

      That's assuming that Blue Toad isn't just a front-company for the FBI to start with. No payment necessary and is possibly how the FBI got the list in the first place. i.e. The normal way, through an undercover operation, disguised as an iPhone developer company.

    22. Re:Hm... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      Can't know, really [...]

      There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's case, your participation in the discussion really needs to start and stop right there. Too many people view their personal ignorance of a situation as a license to make shit up based on their world view rather than do any kind of research.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    23. Re:Hm... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      3D? That's how you know the studio is serious about the film!

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    24. Re:Hm... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Which side to believe when both sides are known liars?

      Oh come on. Do you really have to ask? Does scientific methodology go out the window whenever it's politically inconvenient?

      You can't prove a negative. The FBI cannot prove they're not the source of the leak. Therefore the burden of proof has to be upon Anonymous to prove that they got the files from the FBI.

    25. Re:Hm... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I personally think "Anonymous" is an entity created by the FBI to make "hackers" look bad, and to justify such things as spending money on "cybersecurity" and taking away people's privacy and freedom on the Internet.

    26. Re:Hm... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      the same company who they are contracting with in regards to Public Relations

      ... to distribute digital versions of their publications. Blue Toad is not a PR firm.

      Wait, what does Blue Toad do for the FBI again? Did you get that from the 3 TB of FBI data? It sure isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia page you linked to.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    27. Re:Hm... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      FBI could just have paid Blue Toad to take the blame

      That's assuming that Blue Toad isn't just a front-company for the FBI to start with. No payment necessary and is possibly how the FBI got the list in the first place. i.e. The normal way, through an undercover operation, disguised as an iPhone developer company.

      Good thing they don't make Android apps then. Ooops

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    28. Re:Hm... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Give Anonymous a break, it's an anarchist colective. Organization of message may not be their strong point. I'm more loath to trust the FBI. Largely because this scary shit could easily be tied to some good initiative but they remain oddly silent.

  4. Or the FBI by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    was given the data by an insider or hacked it themself first.

    1. Re:Or the FBI by CapuchinSeven · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot would this get modded as 5 interesting.

  5. The real question! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The next question: What was Blue Toad up to? Why did the FBI have a copy of their data? How many FBI back doors are their in Blue Toads apps?

    Lets run those apps under traffic analysis. The version that was live a week ago.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:The real question! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The next question: What was Blue Toad up to? Why did the FBI have a copy of their data? How many FBI back doors are their in Blue Toads apps?

      Read the story. The data was stolen off of Blue Toad's servers. The FBI wasn't part of this at all. Anonymous lied.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:The real question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You seem stuck on the premise that the data ever existed on an FBI computer. While that is possible, it is certainly no longer the simplest explanation.

    3. Re:The real question! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Right. You're a company which has data in the same class as anonymous claims to have stolen from the FBI. So naturally you get a copy and check if it's yours, then publicly claim it.

      Somebodies lying, that's for sure.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:The real question! by Desler · · Score: 2

      Because we all know companies routinely go around telling people they have been compromised and data stolen when it's all a lie. Uhhh, what?

    5. Re:The real question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they taking the blame, and the shitstorm of negative publicity linked to it? Not to mention making themselves a target for Apple/FBI lawsuits?

      Are they criminally stupid?

    6. Re:The real question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had you or anyone you know heard of Blue Toad before this? Exactly.

    7. Re:The real question! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's the key question. Why are they so quick to take the blame. It's not a 100% match. I'd think the lawyers would tell them just shut the fuck up even if it was their data stolen from them.

      On the other hand, if they have reason to help with a little disinformation, this is exactly what I'd expect.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:The real question! by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

      Or maybe you make a public announcements because you're afraid that security experts are going to figure out that it was your company's database that was compromised and would rather preempt it to try and control the message. You know, kind of like how David Schuetz, a third party, figured it out, and then Blue Toad decided to work with him to make the announcement themselves rather than have multiple security experts make announcements about it.

    9. Re:The real question! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It was never the simplest explanation.

    10. Re:The real question! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Had you or anyone you know heard of Blue Toad before this? Exactly.

      Nobody apart from their hundreds of customers - and that would not be the millions of people who downloaded their products (let alone those who get them mailed), who still don't know their name. And why would they? Subscribers of the "Florida Baptist Witness" don't know who made the Android app anymore than they know who prints the paper version.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  6. No tinfoil hats? by KhabaLox · · Score: 2, Funny

    4 comments and no one has yet claimed that Blue Toad is an obvious FBI front?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    1. Re:No tinfoil hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No tin-foil hat needed. Even their Wikipedia page admits that one of their biggest publishing partners is the U.S. Department of State. Nothing fishy about that at all, of course.

    2. Re:No tinfoil hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not, but that thought certainly occured to me.

    3. Re:No tinfoil hats? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      They both have the same data set?

    4. Re:No tinfoil hats? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      The lack of evidence alone is proof of a conspiracy!

    5. Re:No tinfoil hats? by computererds · · Score: 1

      Sorry I got a late start this morning. I swear it would have been in the first three comments if I had got to work on time. :)

    6. Re:No tinfoil hats? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      The lack of evidence is almost sufficient to found a religion.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    7. Re:No tinfoil hats? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      No tin-foil hat needed. Even their Wikipedia page admits that one of their biggest publishing partners is the U.S. Department of State. Nothing fishy about that at all, of course.

      Even if - the FBI belongs to the U.S. Department of Justice.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  7. Don't trust FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one thinking

    1. FBI may have sourced the file from Blur Toad
    2. Blue Toad may have been asked by FBI to say this
    3. Blue Toad may simply be a cover company

    I do not give more for FBI's and Blue Toad's word than for anonymous's word.

    Vajk

    1. Re:Don't trust FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not the only one thinking it, and making up batshit explanations to fit the data doesn't make you intelligent.

  8. Well yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surprise, surprise. Excuse me while I go back to read the pages of FBI-Apple conspiracy theories on the last related slashdot post, where this infinitely more likely possibility didn't appear until about the 3,000th post.

  9. woohoo by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

    the fbi check cleared... i did it

    1. Re:woohoo by zlives · · Score: 2

      uh oops, imean the fbi did not pay me.

    2. Re:woohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would believe Apple paid him before the FBI did.

  10. Yvan from NSMB Wii by tepples · · Score: 1

    4 comments and no one has yet claimed that Blue Toad is an obvious FBI front?

    So it's not Nintendo testing the waters before abandoning its 3DS-exclusive portable strategy?

  11. Now I'm so reassured by opus_magnum · · Score: 1

    that random developers have access to sensitive data and make a mess of it.
    But at least I'm not being tracked by the FBI!

    1. Re:Now I'm so reassured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Random developers have access to data users give them.

    2. Re:Now I'm so reassured by jittles · · Score: 1

      Not on iOS. Unless you jailbreak and use a tweak like "Protect My Privacy", you cannot tell when an iOS app asks for anything but your location. They can look at your photos, your contacts, your calendar, and your UDID without so much as the user having the slightest idea. They may even have accesses to your IMEI, I don't know. I've never tried to access that from an app.

    3. Re:Now I'm so reassured by Trolan · · Score: 1

      In iOS6 all of those requests now throw up a confirmation dialog. IMEI requires use of a private API, which would keep the app out of the store.

    4. Re:Now I'm so reassured by jittles · · Score: 1

      Ok so anyone with an iPhone 4/4S (maybe 3GS?), iPad 2 iPad3 and iPhone 5 can protect their UDID. There you go. And the IMEI is perfectly safe.

  12. Isn't that what you'd expect? by hawguy · · Score: 2

    If the FBI was caught doing something illicit or illegal, wouldn't you expect them to come up with an alternate source of the data to cover up their behavior?

    1. Re:Isn't that what you'd expect? by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      Oliver North called, looking for Blue Toad's address to gift them a barely-used sword to fall on.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re:Isn't that what you'd expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may be seeing a TLA turf war, antecedent to an Obama cybersec EO. Somebody at the State Dept, DHS, or the scattered remnants of the CIA, DOD, DNI, NSA, or any number of federal contractors or other Fusion Threats among Blue Toad's clientele could be looking to embarrass the Fibbies and/or known Fed tool Antisec, who apparently anybody can claim to be. Not that that would be hard to do, but I'm not not Eddie Coyle for nothing.

      50.56.218.11 knocking on my door, is that you? ;-)

      Why I host my own DNS et al. Godaddy just the registrar. Putting hardware hosts on an internal net now, just to be safe. Total Information Warfare, gotta love it.

  13. Surveillance by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Just because someone denies it's happening doesn't mean it isn't. And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens. History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy". Of course, in doing so, they trample the very protections meant to protect the innocent, and so many people are in jail simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had politically controversial views (as the FBI sees them, anyway).

    Whenever a law enforcement organization takes liberties with our liberties, it is to the detriment to us all. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is the traditional path by which democracy is destroyed.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Surveillance by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy".

      Just wait until they couple this with data from Facebook. Oh wait, what am I worried about? They're the good guys, right?! And this is a new age where shit like that could *never* happen. Yeah.

      Anyone here remember J. Edgar Hoover?

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  14. Anonymous=Al Qaeda by stevegee58 · · Score: 0

    The media speaks of "Anonymuos" as if it's a top-down organization with members, leadership and a charter. In reality it's nothing but a label that anyone with an agenda can adopt to advance their cause. It's not much different than what post-9/11 Al Qaeda became in that regard.

    1. Re:Anonymous=Al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is very much a top down organization with leadership. The ideal is very far from the reality friend.

    2. Re:Anonymous=Al Qaeda by harperska · · Score: 2

      About as wrong as is humanly possible. Certain sub-organizations that claim to be offshoots of Anonymous such as Lulzsec may have a top down leadership structure, but Anonymous as a whole is much more of an idea than an organization.

  15. So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between Apple, the FBI, or some development studio having the UDIDs? Doesn't it just prove the point that UDIDs are accessible...probably even moreso that there could literally be thousands of caches of UDIDs out there? If these could be use for some nefarious purposes then wouldn't it make sense to lock them down? Just sayin...

    1. Re:So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? by hsmith · · Score: 1

      UDID's are pretty useless on their own. Most devs collect them to uniquely identify devices. More nefarious use them for advertising

    2. Re:So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it just prove the point that UDIDs are accessible...

      They WERE widely accessible. Way back around the start of the year Apple started rejecting apps that collected them.

      They were also pointless to collect, as they revealed nothing about the user.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. It seems to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that if the info was taken from an FBI laptop, that there would be other information on that laptop to prove it was in use by an FBI agent. If Anonymous doesnt have such information, then it seems unlikely they got the information from an FBI used laptop.

  17. I RTFA by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Informative

    I RTFA to see why a company would voluntarily make such a claim ( unless they are an FBI front ;) ), and it seems the company were contacted by an outside researcher who suggested they were the "leak" (and perhaps would tell the world if they did not confess?). There are no further details that seemed interesting in case you were tempted to RTFA.

    But of course the whole case seems rather uninteresting to me. A list of UDIDs. Wow, if FBI has them, they might also know who owns the UDIDs and have a pretty good list of annoying consumers with which you can't have a rational discussion on the subject of electronic devices. So what?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:I RTFA by RaySnake · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take a look at the website of the researcher who did the legwork here. He even gives a detailed description of the advanced tools he used (cut and sort :-P) to elide the source. http://intrepidusgroup.com/insight/2012/09/tracking-udid-src/

    2. Re:I RTFA by RaySnake · · Score: 2

      Apparently I don't know what "elide" means, I meant to say "discover the source".

    3. Re:I RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it. Your slashdot account has hereby been revoked. No one reads the fine article here. It interfears with our fantasies and the ability to randomly believe whatever we want regardless of pesky facts.

  18. Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answer by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    How is Blue Toad a liar?

    They are admitting a serious breech which impacts goodwill at the company.

    Even at the time of the UDID release, I argued that the simplest explanation was simply that the list came from some app developer that had a server collecting some data. After all, if the data came from Apple OR the FBI, it should be WAY larger and the subset we saw should be WAY more complete, the only reason why such data would be sparse is that it was collected by an app that ran on a variety of devices with a variety of information provided by the users. There was also no reason WHY the FBI would even care about a UDID for a user since Apple had discontinued use months ago and there is really no way to use that data for anything useful.

    Now the Blue Toad admission verifies what was already by far the likely scenario. At this point to believe anything else is right up there at the three-tinfoil hat level.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. Am I the only one reacting to the fact that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...these guys have no iPhone applications out there warranting a 1m+ user base, especially of people who, judging from the names of the phones, seem to be teenagers?

    1. Re:Am I the only one reacting to the fact that... by milbournosphere · · Score: 1
      Read, my friend:

      Blue Toad is a little-known privately held company, but its technology touches millions of users around the world. It provides private-label digital edition and app-building services to 6,000 different publishers, and serves 100 million page views each month, DeHart said.

  20. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    The /. crowd would rather believe the FBI is lying. They will contort themselves to protect that belief. Just as with so many other issues discussed here, like Apple and Android.

    Goodbye karma. sigh.

  21. OH NO UDIDn't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fagets

  22. Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens.

    If you think that way about the FBI, then you know the list was not from the FBI.

    With a few hundred million iOS devices in the wild, an FBI list should have hundreds of millions of entries. AND it would be a hell of a lot more complete.

    It was always bullshit to think this list was from the FBI. It was painfully obvious the list was published by a group that hates the FBI as much as you and other Slashdot users do, just to discredit them.

    I don't care about the FBI myself one way or the other. But I do care about groups that are supposed to represent a kind of healthy counterpoint to the FBI, losing a lot of credibility by making stuff up just to attack enemies.

    You want a real conspiracy theory? How about the FBI was behind the original Anonymous post unveiling the UDID list, knowing the real holder would come forth and embarrass Anonymous... Anon, seems you have a mole.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive by Godin21 · · Score: 1

      I'm a fan of a good old fashioned Conspiracy. They are always entertaining! I have the most fun poking holes in the theory, and by the end, it sounds so ridiculous it is impossible to believe.

      Now I don't want to add any credence to this theory, but I wanted to point out a couple inconsistencies with your skepticism.

      First off, the FBI is a domestic agency. Their scope does not extend past the borders of the United States. To snoop in other countries, you need to go talk to other TLA's.

      Second, "a few hundred million iOS devices in the wild" describes the global saturation, not just the US. The US population is currently about 314 million. So unless you are suggesting that every man, woman and child in America owns an iDevice, that number is much lower. A quick Google search indicates about 37 million, so having a list of 12 million devices is not unreasonable. (Roughly 1/3. About the same ratio you suggested in your comment)

      That doesn't mean the list came from the FBI, just that the idea can't be dismissed based on the reasons you provided.

    2. Re:Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive by Sancho · · Score: 1

      With a few hundred million iOS devices in the wild, an FBI list should have hundreds of millions of entries. AND it would be a hell of a lot more complete.

      I have no reason to disbelieve the Blue Toad story, but your suggestion doesn't consider all of the quite reasonable possibilities.

      First of all, it assumes collusion between Apple and the FBI, which isn't a requirement for the FBI to have 12million UUIDs. Even with collusion, the FBI could have requested only certain UUIDs.

      More likely, the FBI has an app (Child ID.) The UUID database could have come from that. Or they could have other apps not branded with "FBI", or they could have colluded with an app developer.

      The size of the database really isn't a relevant.

      More to the point, though. is that the information in the leaked list isn't very useful. If they spent a lot of effort acquiring it, I feel like my tax dollars were wasted.

      Regardless, the simplest, most likely explanation is that the list was stolen from Blue Toad.

    3. Re:Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Your explanation is easily falsified by the fact that the list contains user info from around the world, not just Americans. So that isn't the explanation for the relatively small number of records.

  23. Why Why Why by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    FBI may have sourced the file from Blur Toad

    Then you must answer WHY they would do this.

    UDID's are totally useless to the FBI. WHY would they collect such a TINY list, such an incomplete list.

    It makes no sense to me why the FBI would want this list. It is pointless.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why Why Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone in the FBI just asked one of their friends "Hey, I'm working on a case and I need to know what an iPhone UDID looks like. You work in apps and stuff, can you send me the format for one?" and the friend responded "I don't know the exact format, but here's a list of a million UDIDs that we have in our database. Does that help?" to which the FBI agent said "Yeah, thanks. By the way, are we still on for cards at Tim's tonight?"

      (Assuming a lot of things, like that there's a link between FBI and Blue Toad, that the list really is from Blue Toad, that the list really was taken from an FBI agent, and so on and so on. You just asked the question of WHY this might happen, and this is an answer to that)

    2. Re:Why Why Why by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      Why would they not just send ONE UDID?

      It's totally illogical to presume an answer to that question would be to send a proprietary database with 12 million records!

      And then from there to have Anon stumble across this in an FBI laptop... COME ON.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Why Why Why by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      In fact, history shows that all of the three letter agencies gather information which has no apparent value or use and were just fishing expeditions. We also have no idea what other sources of UDIDs they may have which could have additional information that can be cross referenced to BlueToad app users, which depending on the material published might be of great interest to the FBI.

  24. 98% is not much of a match by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    2% different is alot of differences when your looking at a million entries. Of course the theives could of added bogus data to the list in order to hide its origens. Or appened one data set with another in order have over a million records.

    1. Re:98% is not much of a match by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      2% different is alot of differences when your looking at a million entries. Of course the theives could of added bogus data to the list in order to hide its origens. Or appened one data set with another in order have over a million records.

      Perhaps their database has changed since it was hacked?

    2. Re:98% is not much of a match by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Numerically, in comparison to the number 1, yes, 2% of 1,000,000 is a lot. However, when the list is a current list of known UDIDs, which you get from users who have installed your apps, and you're comparing a list that was leaked at some time in the past that was at least a week ago with your current list, a 2% change in the sets isn't that much.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  25. Possible that the FBI also hacked Blue Toad? by tipo159 · · Score: 1

    Isn't also possible that the FBI hacked Blue Toad and got the list and then the Anonymous guys hacked the FBI and got the list from them? There is about as much public evidence for that scenario as any other.

    Also, if the Anonymous guys supposedly got the list from Blue Toad, why is it 98% match for Blue Toad's and not a 100% match?

    1. Re:Possible that the FBI also hacked Blue Toad? by jittles · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, the UDID is not very useful to have. There are some apps that may use that as a security token (Such as WhatsApp apparently), but other than that, there isn't much use.

  26. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The original claim that the list came from the FBI is an amazing act of trolling. There are way too many people who not only believe that the instant they hear it, but will never let it drop, regardless of how much other evidence or pieces of the story come out.

  27. Why Why Why by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The data file is of no use to the FBI. It has way too little data compared to total number of devices. UDID's have been of no use to anyone since about the start of the year.

    The data file also had WAY too little information (too sparse) to be of much use in correlation. In short, there's no good reason why the FBI would care about a list of UDID's even if you tried to GIVE them to the FBI.

    There is no logical reason why the FBI would care at all about the data set shown; to my mind that's the most damning evidence against the FBI ever having had it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Re:bwKitch by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    first organization Reciprocating bad the Choosing watershed essay, to the transmission COMMUNITY AT beyond the scope of the channel to sign obsessives and the

    Woops. Forgot you took your Adderall this morning and doubled up on the dose? Shouldn't do that.

    Either that or look at the screen carefully when you're posting from your iPhone. That autocorrect is a bitch sometimes.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  29. FUD by detritus. · · Score: 1

    People are oblivious to the fact that the FBI and the intelligence community runs several shell companies. This proves nothing. I've never heard of this little company before, yet what are they doing with all that information? Yet, they provide ZERO proof.

    Also, Anonymous claims they only released 1 million out of a purported 15 million entries. I think it's time Anonymous dumped the entire database, fully unredacted to prove them wrong.

  30. Blue Toad under DOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone else reach http://www.bluetoad.com/

    Looks like Anon is getting back at them.

  31. Gogo CSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, it's claimed that this developer does work 4k "brands" and that they recieve 100k pageviews a month. The developer won't reveal a client list. Ok

    Work out which apps have updated in the last week
    Zoom and Enhance
    Ok, let's discount apps that don't have the same look and Feel (because develpers are lazy)
    Zoom and Enhance
    A ha... It's the Romney and Obama Apps.

    I knew I shouldn't have trusted politicians

    1. Re:Gogo CSI by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      hey, where did you think the $1.11 and $1.14 billion dollars was going to be spent? On the space program?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  32. Stupid to think data was from Apple by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    the FBI doesn't need much in the way of an excuse to have data from Apple

    Sure it does, but that's beside the point.

    If the data was from Apple, it would be complete. Apple knows the names attached to a UDID, no-one else has this complete list.

    Yes, we occasionally request device id's in the course of conducting investigations

    Except they wouldn't because it would be pointless. The UDID's are useless for that purpose, especially (again) a list of UDID's why so little other information besides the UDID itself - which is worthless.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. FBI doesn't do grunt collection - this ain't over by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Since possessing such info is usually against the law for the FBI to have, agencies like the FBI have private companies gather it up for them. Then the FBI, or the NSA, or the CIA, or whoever, just gets the data on request through the "legal" channel of the private company. This is standard procedure. This means that the story is not danrathered yet; we are perhaps splitting hairs. The question is: WHO were they gathering the information for? Anyone? Was that "anyone" any law or spook service that asked for it, and how could we ever tell? Possession of such information by a private company which has no need for it should be on-the-face-of-it evidence of intent to provide to those who can't get, or are not allowed to get, such private data.

  34. One would expect data set overlap by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Just because a specific developer has a data set that "mostly" overlaps the FBI laptop dataset does not mean they are the same.

    It's like saying a Maserati and a BMW SL are the same. They're both cars. They both have tires. They both go fast.

    But they're not the same.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:One would expect data set overlap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it'd be more like claiming that Samsung, if it made a device which was 98% the same as an iPad, wasn't infringing at all, or creating a knockoff of an iPad or an iPhone.

      Pro tip: they lost with a lot less than 98% similarity.

    2. Re:One would expect data set overlap by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You are confusing patent law with data set comparison.

      A two percent gap, if both lists are in sort order by Apple device ID, would "appear" similar, but would prove nothing.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:One would expect data set overlap by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      No, this is like saying you're reasonably sure you're looking at your list of customers because the list of potential customers is something like 100 million and the list of your customers is 1 million, and the list in question matches your current list to within 2%, and even an app that you linked directly or directly linked your app having such a similar list of 1% of iPhone owners is such a huge stretch that it's not even really an entertainable possibility.

      No car analogy necessary, it's pretty easy to understand, and the analogy is inaccurate anyway.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    4. Re:One would expect data set overlap by TyFoN · · Score: 1

      I agree. If the list came from the developers they would have matched 100% of the list in their database. They probably got paid to take the fall by someone.
      To bad most of the public are not proficient in math.

    5. Re:One would expect data set overlap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A two percent gap would be *trivially* explained by updates to the database records since the hack was performed. In other words, say my database looks like the following today, when you hack it:

      UDID String
      1111 Bob
      2222 Mary
      3333 Joe

      And now, two weeks after the hack, we go back and look at the data, and see:
      UDID String
      1111 Bob
      2222 Mary Jones
      3333 Joe
      4444 Mike's Sweet iPhone 5

      Wow, that data's no more than 75% similar, there's absolutely no possible way these records could have come from the same source. It's just UNPOSSIBLE!

      Conclusions:
      1) I wish I worked where you do, where your databases are static and never change; would make development and upgrades a hell of a lot easier;
      2) You're a fucking moron.

    6. Re:One would expect data set overlap by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      See the other reply to this thread.

      Wake me when you learn set theory.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:One would expect data set overlap by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I agree. If the list came from the developers they would have matched 100% of the list in their database.

      Good grief. Slashdot really ought to do an IQ check before they allow people on here. One second of thought for an averagely intelligent person would give them at least one reason what that's not true.

  35. related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Golden Gate bridge is up for TAX sale...

  36. Definition of religion. by Brannon · · Score: 2

    A very useful definition of religion is "the lack of falsifiability". If there is no evidence which would convince you that the FBI isn't a bad actor in this case then your claims are not falsifiable. Therefore, your belief that that "the evil government is out to get you" is a religion. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point most of Slashdot was swallowed up by this same "Church of the Tin Foil hat". It used to be funny, then it got scary, now it is just boring.

    Since this is your religion, there is nothing I can do to talk you out of it, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot:

    The government is not picking through your smartphone or tracking your location or reading your text messages. Of course they could, and would, but they aren't. Why? Because you don't matter.

    1. Re:Definition of religion. by Americano · · Score: 1

      It used to be funny, then it got scary, now it is just boring.

      No, it's still kind of scary. Consider: these are supposed to be the rational, intelligent, science-minded geeks, for whom logic and reason trump everything. Watching the de-evolution of ostensibly rational people from a fact- and logic-based worldview to one based on primitive superstition and fueled by paranoid delusion is disconcerting.

    2. Re:Definition of religion. by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right! The governement has no desire or plans to track every person in America. If they wanted to track every person in America, they'd just install/tap into a nationwide facial recognition network, which we know they'd never ... oh wait ...

      you mean they are installing a nationwide facial recognition system? Well, they'd never implement a nationwide database of every person's DNA they could get their hands on. What? Oh.

      Well at least they aren't compiling a list to track identities of every person in America. Say what?

      Um, oh, well nevermind.

    3. Re:Definition of religion. by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      One person's paranoid delusion is another person's rational conclusion based on the facts and evidence available.

      Fact, the Feds have build a huge database on every person in America.
      Fact, the Feds want to build a National Facial recognition system to track every citzen in America.
      Fact, the Feds have made wide indiscriminate tapping of inbound and outbound international phone calls in secret hidden and without reasonable suspicion.
      Fact, the Feds have a long history of lying to and deception of the public. Some of which is necessary in order to do their job.
      Need I go on?

      The fact these were UDIDs and other information was not either released with it or contained in the database, neither helps nor harms Anon's claim. While the UDIDs may not be much use alone, and the claim they came from a laptop was always suspect, it would not surprise me to see a Fed agent with such a list and not encrypted. Since the list could simply be a useful tool in the field which could be later tied in to a real and complete db. But that's pretty thin.

    4. Re:Definition of religion. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Need I go on?

      Fact, you're simply underscoring my point.
      Fact, the UDID's are useless for any sort of "tracking."
      Fact, you're taking a bunch of completely disparate individual points and trying to make a pattern out of them.
      Fact, the human brain is very good at this, which is why we often times fool ourselves into believing that we see deep patterns in fundamentally random data.
      Fact, you're doing it right now.

      So... No, you need not go on, unless you're prepared to provide a much stronger argument than "some unrelated feds have occasionally done unrelated bad things in the past, so any bizarre theory containing the word "Fed" in it will automatically be considered true, and diabolically evil."

    5. Re:Definition of religion. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      You forgot one that I would consider among the most important:

      FACT: The feds have been proven to have arrested, detained and tortured people who were, at the time of their abuse, known to be innocent of the crimes they were accused of. (Anyone who is not familiar with this, spend some time on Google. Khalid El-Masri is a good example, though hardly the only one)

    6. Re:Definition of religion. by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Actually, I consider my fact #2 to quite a strong argument, unless of course you see nothing wrong with a National infrastructure designed to be able to track any given individual and hence by definition *every single individual* in the US 24/7/365.25, to be nothing to worry about.

      I for one find it deeply disturbing that anyone in the US even thinks this is even remotely a good idea, and not at the least not in the top three most insidious ideas ever put forward. I can tell you one thing if it ever happens, I'm out of here. Now matter what the personal cost is to me and my family. I'd rather live in China, than a country tracking me everywhere I go. No matter how non-existent or insignificant a target I might be.

      And had you bothered to even read my coment, rather than knee-jerk rea-act because I dared attack a comment that was clearly as over-the-top as the tin-foil hat comments, that my arguemnt wasn't all about things happening in the past, but mostly things happening in the now and in planning/implementing stages.

      But apparently no argument short of a Stalin Death March proof will be strong enough for you. Hence you must be a troll or a fool who waits because first they came for the Free Press, but you weren't the Frees Press, then they came for the Socialists, but you weren't a Socialist, then they Democrats but you weren't a Democrat, then they came for the Catholics, but you weren't a Catholic, then they came for you type of person.

    7. Re:Definition of religion. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      One person's paranoid delusion is another person's rational conclusion based on the facts and evidence available. Fact, the Feds have build a huge database on every person in America. Fact, the Feds want to build a National Facial recognition system to track every citzen in America. Fact, the Feds have made wide indiscriminate tapping of inbound and outbound international phone calls in secret hidden and without reasonable suspicion. Fact, the Feds have a long history of lying to and deception of the public. Some of which is necessary in order to do their job. Need I go on?

      Fact: the FBI is in desperate need of a list of UDIDs of a tiny percentage of iOS devices sold, because - well because.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:Definition of religion. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You forgot one that I would consider among the most important:

      FACT: The feds have been proven to have arrested, detained and tortured people who were, at the time of their abuse, known to be innocent of the crimes they were accused of. (Anyone who is not familiar with this, spend some time on Google. Khalid El-Masri is a good example, though hardly the only one)

      Fact: you are mixing up the FBI with the CIA to "prove" that the FBI must have had a file that nobody has so far shown it would have a use for.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    9. Re:Definition of religion. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right! The governement has no desire or plans to track every person in America. If they wanted to track every person in America, they'd just install/tap into a nationwide facial recognition network, which we know they'd never ... oh wait ...

      If they wanted to track every person in America, they'd have a list of the UDIDs of iOS devices in America - and not just one of a tiny percentage of them.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re:Definition of religion. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Ah, here I was thinking I was discussing actions taken by our government in a discussion about why we may not be able to trust our government...

    11. Re:Definition of religion. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Actually, I consider my fact #2 to quite a strong argument,

      I consider it pretty irrelevant. UDIDs are useless for any "tracking" purpose - and even if they *were*... these UDID's were not taken from an FBI computer.

      So explain how any of your shouty mad paranoia has anything to do with this, won't you?

  37. The Real Story by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is the conspiracy theory guys are missing the most juicy conspiracy theory sitting right there in front of them.

    The list was super-obviously not from the FBI right? So why would Anonymous leak such a list, when it so obviously would come back and damage credibility?

    The answer s obvious. The FBI was in fact "Anonymous" that leaked the original list, known it would be disproved and make Anonymous look bad. The original leak was just credible enough that the real Anonymous would not speak out against it a snot coming from them, because it's a loose group and how would they really know if it was one of them that did it?

    Even now probably many Anonymous guys are here and elsewhere, defending the leak has having come from the FBI and making Anonymous look more and more clueless in the process...

    I give this FBI operation an A+ for effectiveness. They almost had me thinking Anon was the stupidest bunch of wankers to ever touch a keyboard until I figured it out.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  38. Riddle me this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this app developer has them, are their records secure from FBI interception?

    No.

    Are they saying that the FBI didn't get it through them?

    No.

    And if any old developer can get them, can anyone say why?

    No.

    And where did the other 2% come from?

  39. Then Anon get done up for putting lives at risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many people howl for WL blood because they gave out classified information from a government source?

    How many howl for Manning's head for giving out the data?

  40. The Answer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A UDID list with almost no user detail like this one had, is TOTALLY USELESS to the FBI.

    There's no reason the FBI would take such a list if you tried to give it to them; so why would they try to "intercept" it?

    Far more likely is that the original "leak" was not from Anon, but from the FBI trying to make Anon look bad.

    Mission accomplished.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  41. Does that really explain everything ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean what blue toad was doing with 12 million UID (or whatever millions) to begin with ?

  42. Tinfoil mode on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blue toad?? more like RED HERRING! doesn't the GOP have ties in florida?

  43. No need for conspiracy, when you can use Occam by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    The simplest answer is Blue Toad is doing outsourced work for the FBI or another agency. Or it's as the article says, they have those ids because the've sold stuff to 11 million unique iPxd devices. Or both. What better cover than start a legitimate company selling to Peter and Paul at the same time. It's possible the DOS/DOD/FBI has outsourced this for multiple reasons. Not the least of which *might* be deniability. UDID? Us? No way. Never. That would be our sub-contractor's job. The gov't routinely outsources work to properly screened clearance approved private companies. Considering Blue Toad had the data.

    The next question should be, "Why did Blue Toad have 11 miilion UDIDs from Apple and where did they get it from?"
    Not, "Oh well that's not the FBI, why did Anonymous lie?"
    Perhaps Anon knows that the FBI contacted Blue toad to get these ids, but can't say so, without risking exposing themselves?
    Nope, the whole thing stinks. I'm more inclined to believe Blue Toad is shovelling something, and it's not chocolate shavings from Willy Wonka's Chocolate Mountain.Their whole business model seems bizarre. But then, I'm not an iPad user, and never heard of Blue Toad before today.

    1. Re:No need for conspiracy, when you can use Occam by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The next question should be, "Why did Blue Toad have 11 miilion UDIDs from Apple and where did they get it from?"

      Because Blue Toad like many other Apple App developers used to have their iOS app send their servers the UUID and some personal information. It became against the rules some time ago, but this list dates from when it was still a common practice.

      The UUIDs and the info did not come from Apple.

      Several people pointed this out in the original story comments, but looney-tunes conspiracy nuts chose not to believe it.

  44. 98% of what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a partial list was published.. Less than 10% of wasnt it? How can they say 98% = 100% confidence in that case? I have a list of 5 devices. I could say 100% of my list matched. Any PR is good PR I guess.

  45. Larger number by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You have a good point about the hundreds of millions being global.

    But through the second quarter of this year, Apple has sold 86 million iPhones in the U.S., and 34 million iPads (again in the U.S.).

    That's still over 100 million devices, the 12 million number against that is not of a size that would match anything except what an app developer would be collecting (and keep in mind a lot of those UDID's are probably not from the U.S.).

    Again I must stress how useless it is to have a UDID for anything the FBI would want to do.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  46. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should get Rupert Murdoch's expert opinion? I recall his London staff has some expertise in mobile app security.

    Have some more tinfoil ;-)

  47. Who says the FBI know what to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. Given the often braindead way they collect information (and lose the interesting bits in the dogpile of dross), who says the FBI know what they can do with the data?

    If they have it and find out they can use it later, they have it. If they don't have it, they have to ask for it.

    SOP.

  48. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, if the data came from Apple OR the FBI, it should be WAY larger and the subset we saw should be WAY more complete

    There's no reason to assume why the origin of the illicitly copied data was complete in the first place, or if the transfer of data ever fully completed.....

  49. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    The /. crowd would rather believe the FBI is lying.

    And that Apple is evil, don't forget that bit of confirmation bias.

  50. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    I assure you they are not admitting a serious breech. Abe Lincoln rocked some serious birches in the vampire hunter movie, and I'm wearing some right now. But this has nothin to do with the FBI apple anonymous blue toad udid hacker thing.

  51. That's how conspiracy theorists work by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It isn't a matter of a legit theory, it is a matter of a belief they have which they'll try and find any evidence and force it to fit in to. It can get wilder and wilder the more their stuff gets shot down, but they never stop with it.

  52. Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is Blue Toad a liar?

    They are admitting a serious breech which impacts goodwill at the company.

    this, exactly this - why would a "self-respecting" company admit a breach like this? usually companies keep it quiet after any sort of breaches..

  53. Novel idea, Blue Toad mea culpa for money? by aisnota · · Score: 1

    Ok, say the FBI is the genuine source of the leak, hypothetically?

    Political cover may be synthesized vai a paid patsy for a new business model. Claim fault, get paid while government intrusion continues more easily sub rosa.

    Considering the salami slice of freedom taken way larger in the public mind set, Blue Toad steps up because they are a paid mea culpa.

    --
    http://www.aisnota.com/slashdot/ Welcome to Logic and the Future
  54. You are all missing it! This is the truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say it was Aliens.

    They have been planning this all along! They control the FBI and Apple. Blue toad is a front for both of these companies. What you all don't realize is that Anonymous are actually Thetans controlled by Xenu! The Grey's and Xenu are at war for our UDID's because they are actually the key to controlling the universe! The Grey's have to disperse these keys in order for their nefarious plans to come to fruition. Xenu needs that power to escape his prison!

    We are all just pawns in an intergalactic chess game!

    Weeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

    http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071124204126/uncyclopedia/images/b/bd/StraightJacket.jpg

  55. 98%? It's not them, Carrier IQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well he found a lot of Blue Toads and some of the names were also mentioned and worked as BlueToad so BlueToad's iPhones were using the app that was hacked which wasn't likely to be BlueToads.

    98% correlation is no correlation at all. Companies don't throw away data, he'd be able to find 100% as current or former users. With 12 million records that's a sizeable portion of the devices and with 1 million apps, they'd be a lot that have that level of correlation.

    The name on the spreadsheet is still a flag. Possibly a false flag.

    If Bluetoad look through their iPhones and see what they have in common, most likely they are using ONE TELCO on a company plan, that telco probably installed something like Carrier IQ, and that will be the likely source of this data.

  56. Still not a good argument for WHY by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    We also have no idea what other sources of UDIDs they may have which could have additional information

    They may have such a list. But that'e even MORE of a reason why they would not have the Blue Toad list - there is NOTHING in there really worth cross-referencing to, if they had such a list it would have as you said way more data.

    The Blue Toad list is worthless as something to corss-reference TO. The Blue Toad list is worthless as a list to cross reference FROM.

    Why can't you and others accept the by FAR simpler explanation that Blue Toad was hacked and this information gathered, instead of some vastly harder hack of an individual's FBI laptop that mysteriously contained data the FBI would find useless?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Still not a good argument for WHY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm sceptical of the FBI's involvement, it's not particularly mysterious. As he said, the various three-letter agencies tend to collect plenty of worthless tripe if they think it looks like it could be useful in the future. Agents can and will make mistakes about what is valuable information or not—they certainly have in the past and it's inevitable that'll happen again in the future—it's why you employ intelligence analysts after all: to sort the wheat from the chaff.

  57. The actual lesson here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the takeaway and discussion here should be is this:

    Have government agencies acted in such a way that they are above reproach?

    One has the hard issue of security and the other of the past conduct. What can be done to make sure events of the past don't happen again is the important conversation as someone might actualy have a workable idea.

  58. Scapegoat by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    The FBI obviously had something on Blue Toad and sent the black SUVs round to pay a visit.

    --
    No sig today...
  59. 2nd App Developer by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Two Guys From Quantico Pizza

  60. 98% != match by lpq · · Score: 1

    If both datasets measure or collect the same data, that they would have 98% of their data coincide is not that unlikely.

    Depending on the collection methods used, they might get a 100% match if the data was collected through some common data-access method at near the same point in time.

    I see this more as an attempt to discredit anonymous than anything else at this point -- which lends legitimacy to their claim of the FBI doing the monitoring.

    Note -- I find the above to be near equal likelihood of being true as the original stories' statements... I really don't know which is true and really don't "believe" either one of them. As belief, in absence of facts is no more than superstition or religion.