Murdoch Paper Reporters Eavesdropped On Celebrities' Voicemail 186
Michael_Curator writes "Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up. How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on? Voicemail." The New York Times says a preliminary investigation's been ordered, but the BBC's coverage indicates that a large-scale inquiry is unlikely.
Surprised? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
why would you spend $90,000 (the actual MSRP) on one if you were?
because those 1200mm, $90,000 lenses are all hand made by Canon. Sports Illustrated owns one, for example. If you do any wildlife photography it's pretty damn hard to get close to many animal in their natural habitat. it's not too hard to see how 1200mm [juzaphoto.com] focal length has uses. Like most other lenses, there's a niche in which it thrives in, and it just doesn't happen to be in the small, man-made stadiums you're used to.
I doubt the lens that has held the "Longest Prime" title for over 15 years was designed
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about photojournalists in warzones.
I also imagine it's useful (to people with a lot of money) doing extreme versions of the "person standing on a building/mountain/hill in front of a giant full moon" shot.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Funny)
Celebrity 1: "Hey dude"
Celebrity 2: "Hey dude"
Celebrity 1: "What's up?"
Celebrity 2: "Nothing"
Celebrity 1: "Wanna party?"
Celebrity 2: "That would be totally awesome"
Celebrity 1: "OK, see ya soon. Save Tibet and all that shit."
Celebrity 2: "And the whales too man."
They will get away with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, they will get away with it too.
A police inquiry has already been ruled out. The Crown Prosecution Service "review", will amount to just that. Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted, and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory's PR man Andy Coulson (Former News of the World Editor) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor's PR man Damian McBride. Those bugged will be paid off(some already have been) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch's News International's $21 billion chest. The press complaints commission is the industry's "self regulation" body, paid for by the newspapers themselves.
They will get away with this.
This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out; hacking, wire fraud, misrepresentation, etc, has been going on for at least a decade. One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone. Victims include TV celebrities, Royal family members, CEOs and members of parliament. These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex. They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day. There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.
They will get away with this.
The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom, but it is by no means confined to that place. It's pervasive throughout Murdoch's publications, and probably beyond. News International papers, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the list goes on. Steve Whittamore's(the private investigator) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists. And this is all from only one such man. Who knows how many other investigators exist, an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.
They will get away with this. The culture runs too deep, and is too established. Too many newspapers are in on it. Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty. Nothing is sacred, no one is safe, and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them. What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, Your Fourth Estate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, instead of trying to resolve things the LEGAL way, which obviously is not working, how about we take out Mr. Murdoch? (mm straight to his head.
Give me the gun, I'll fucking do it myself. That will send a MAJOR message across the globe to anybody else that would want to fuck with our privacy.
Martyrdom isn't that bad if done for a just cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, it wouldn't be you who'd end up the martyr.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was going to ask where do you want to gun sent, but that is probably what they call conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex.
Nope, they paid someone to wear a camera into one of Max Mosley's spanking sessions; no sex involved. Then they only paid her half of what they promised and printed a bunch of BS about it being Nazi-themed that was entirely untrue (but was what they wanted the story to be). Finally, they tried to blackmail the other women involved into giving their stories by threatening to splash their names, photos and other personal information across the front page if they didn't. Quite impressive, though since the pres
Allegedly. (Score:4, Insightful)
One newspaper alleges that another did this. Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?
Re:Allegedly. (Score:5, Funny)
*: Not all disclaimers are superfluous
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.
No, the content of the show is evidence that most, not all, are guilty of at least one crime...evading police or resisting arrest. When you're getting arrested and you fight with the police you're committing a crime regardless if you committed the one they were arresting you for.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know how it is in third world countries. But here in Germany, if you leave the "allegedly" away, even in the headline of a tabloid newspaper, you will get sued and your business may get closed down if you do not immediately rectify the statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask: Is your disclaimer that "Not all disclaimers are superfluous" superfluous?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it did. Two people have even been sent to prison for it after they tried it on a member of the royal family.
Re:Allegedly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe it's because an editor and a private investigator have already been jailed for their part in the hacking?
Or maybe because News International has already paid out over £1 million to settle court cases brought by some of the people they listened in on, on the condition that they can't say anything about the case or settlement to anybody else, ever? And News International has not denied any of the allegations?
The fact that a single, unelected individual can become as powerful as Murdoch is worrying in this day and age. After Tony Blair flew out to Australia to breakfast with Murdoch, the British tabloids switched overnight and Blair won the next election. According to the Independent, Murdoch is "so powerful that no politician dare take him on." [independent.co.uk] According to Business Week:
So Murdoch owns many of the most influential TV stations and newspapers in the UK and US, and yet he pays almost no tax, [bbc.co.uk] only 6% [bbc.co.uk]. Murdoch even had a special tax credit for himself written into a US bill during the Clinton era [independent.co.uk]. In the UK it was revealed that News International pays only 1.2% tax, and the governing Labour party refused to say anything on the issue. [independent.co.uk]
It is worrying that, in a democratic society, any single individual can influence public opinion so convincingly that even the governing left-leaning politicians, who would be his traditional enemies, must do underhand deals in order to gain his support and stay in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and did I mention that Murdoch stopped broadcasting BBC News, which relied on a Newscorp satellite in China, because they refused to take part in the Tiananmen Square cover-up? [independent.co.uk]
And how come it's taken almost 20 years of monopolisation of the UK pay-TV market before any government organisation has said anything? (Ofcom just announced results of its investigation [ofcom.org.uk])
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Allegedly. (Score:5, Informative)
Hacking? Really?
Sigh.
Police: No new enquiry (Score:4, Informative)
Police say no new evidence means no enquiry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm [bbc.co.uk]
One to keep a critical eye on
Re: (Score:2)
There's no new evidence because the police have been sitting on it all since 2005.
A mountain of gossip and scandal has been illegally amassed for over 10 years by these people. CEOs, MPs and even the royal family have been bugged. Do you honestly think that Police commissioners have escaped with their secrets intact?
FTFA - default passwords (Score:5, Informative)
It's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes (eg. 0000 or 1234) to listen to the conversations.
There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see you left your window open, so I helped myself to the interior of your home.
More like... (Score:4, Interesting)
I see you left your window open, so I used my sound recording device to make some recordings of your conversations and daily routine.
Illegal on my part, but completely your fault for allowing to happen. Your phone operator is free and clear.
Re: (Score:2)
If those sounds go outside my window and you record them, then so be it. Legality will vary from state to state.
If the phone operator made it reasonably clear on how to change the codes, then yeah, it's not their fault.
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, pretty boring actually. Furthermore, all you've got to do is set a PIN number and this won't work anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
PIN number
You mean a personal information number number?
Must be from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sort of... like the ACT test, WWW web sites, HTML language, FTP protocol (I could go on...)
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Interesting)
So why didn't the police notify the general public that reporters were using this trick, and advise all cell phone users to set their PINs properly? I mean, aren't the police there to "protect and serve?"
Or, are the police using this trick, as well, and didn't want to go public with a method that they are using to snoop on people, without any tap warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
The police use their own voicemail password. In North America, it's usually 7782.
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Informative)
The police use their own voicemail password. In North America, it's usually 7782.
I don't care about North American police. We here on slashdot use 1337!
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:5, Interesting)
The carriers voicemail system should do four things:
1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so
2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)
3. Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers. When you enter your PIN successfully it should say, "Thanks! You last logged in x ago", and if appropriate "Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in".
4. If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.
Items #1&2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.
I don't buy into the "there is not much you can do about it line" since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security. I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
There are three other things, two of which I've had done for ATM cards.
First, based on the how voicemail works, you need a PIN only when calling from a different number. This feature could be off by default, and require you to call in and activate it. This is based on the way computers allow remote users (off by default).
When you acquire a phone, it could force you to type a PIN into a pad (taken from how some ATM card distributors work).
Lastly, mail a randomly selected PIN to a customer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally you have two thresholds, first may trigger a temporary lockout as you mention, but the second should still lock the voice mail. There are only 10K possible combinations for voicemail, and I bet many fewer common combinations based on patters or number/character equivalent sequences. Another enhancement would be to automatically send someone a text message after either threshold is met. At least it promotes awareness.
To clarify #3 users who are dialing in from their own phone number should still be t
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be annoying as hell.
How about they leave the system as is, and let users too careless to change their passwords suffer the consequences instead of making everyone pay for their shortcomings?
People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Informative)
Me:
Items #1&2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.
You:
That would be annoying as hell.
Which part would be "annoying" - i.e. something you would have to do more than once ever (like setting your PIN), or something you would have to do anyway (i.e. entering it from another number)?
People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.
To the contrary, it is people like you who make a poorly considered knee-jerk reaction to well considered discussions , speaking very loudly and making stupid accusations while doing so, that cause the very laws you're speaking of.
The overall impact of everything I suggested? For 99.9% of people all it would mean that after buying a new phone you were forced to set a PIN.
Feeding the trolls, I know..
Re: (Score:2)
How about the admins do their job and use unique defaults instead of 1234? It really is incredible how lazy people are with passwords. Id rather assign you 84833 as your VM password than have you leave it 12345.
Re: (Score:2)
The Telco I work for does it the smart way. Your default pin # is the last 6 digits of your account number. So assuming you have an account with us, and a bill you know your pin. The system WILL NOT under any circumstances allow you to use your default pin for anything other then initial login.
The first login forces you to change your pin to something else before you are allowed to listen to your messages.
The other problem becomes the user setting the pin to the # on the front of their house, birthdays or p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yea... from the article... "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on"
My take: By preying on even more technologically challenged victims. Celebrities that are too stupid to change their default pin or have their "handlers" do it for them.
I sense a feeding frenzy here. You don't have to be smart, just smarter than your victims.
BT? (Score:2)
That's some nice summerizin'.
Re:BT? (Score:5, Informative)
If I would have to guess, Btitish Telecom? (Since they are talking about the BBC)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly they were referring to BT [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Back in my day, BT = British Telecom.
I would assume that that's what they mean by BT.
Re:BT? (Score:5, Funny)
You young whippersnappers! In my days, BT meant "big tits"! And that is how it should always be!
Now get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
British Telephone or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications (by way of PHORM) nothing is done [theregister.co.uk], but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.
either intercepting peoples communication (of any kind) is illegal or its not, and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ?
my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its "different"
after all they keep telling us if you have nothing to hide....
Guardian Story (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational [guardian.co.uk]
Be interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? Interesting why? (Score:2)
I fail to understand your point?
If I find a random, unprotected WAP and decide to make use of it, I'm simply getting on the Internet without paying to do so. I have no knowledge of WHY the person providing the connection is doing so - but could reasonably assume they INTENDED to make it freely accessible. (After all, many people do this for the sake of providing their community with a public service. You can find web sites dedicated to it, with tips on the best antennas to place outdoors so people get th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I fail to understand your point?
In both cases, you are accessing someone else's "property" without explicit invitation or permission, simply because you can.
Re: (Score:2)
I interpret their SSID broadcast and lack of encryption to be an invitation. If they had the SSID broadcast turned off, or if they had encryption turned on (and didn't deliberately make the key available to me, e.g. by putting it in the SSID, or posting it on the wall) then I would assume I wasn't invited. Gaining access by monitoring encrypted traffic and doing a brute-force crack on the encryption key would be impolite.
It's not hacking and PINs won't help. (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK mobile network voicemail systems are very very insecure.
Fake your caller ID (very easily done if you have half a clue) and dial into the message centre for whichever network the mobile number's on.
That's it. Simple. We've been doing this since 2004 to enable our customers to retrieve voicemail from their desktops.
It doesn't matter whether there's a PIN on the voicemail or not - none of the networks prompt for PINs if the caller ID is one of theirs.
And, to answer the question, "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on?"
1 - It wasn't the reporters who did it, it wasy the PIs they hired
2 - What have BT got to do with it?
Nick.
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't the PIs ahve there license revoked, or fined or something?
Being a PI doesn't mean you can violate other peoples right, and break the law. I don't care what you saw on the TV.
Time to spring Murdoch... (Score:2)
I can't be the only one who read this headline and thought, "What, Howling Mad Murdoch runs a newspaper? I thought he was too busy being crazy and flying the A-Team around?"
Skipe (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdock. Rupert Murdock? Wasn't Skype taken over by Rupert Murdoch? Skipe having backdoors that allow undetected eavesdropping? I always wondered what he wanted with Skipe. Now I see the whatever billions he paid for Skipe turning out to be just an old man with a toy.
Re:Not much news here (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't lock the door then we can steal everything in your house.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more like complaining that somebody went through your luggage when you never changed the code on the lock from the default 1234.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a bit more like complaining that somebody went through your luggage when you never changed the code on the lock from the default 1234.
The fact that person A was stupid and made it easy for person B doesn't make person B any less a scumbag who should be taken out back and shot.
What happened to "eye for an eye"? (Score:2)
should be taken out back and shot.
If I were the said "scumbag", I sure as hell wouldn't like you anywhere near my "legal procedure".
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I don't think it's appropriate to shoot people for rifling through your luggage, but your point is otherwise well taken. Yeah, it's wrong for people to violate your basic privacy rights, but assuming they won't is rather silly because you should have the sense to know that plenty enough people would. That's why we have passwords for our e-mail, PIN codes for our debit cards, and combination locks on our luggage in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 10,000 4 digit PINs.
The only thing that should be "wrong" about spying or peeping is when the government does it or an individual violates private property rights to do it. If your phone isn't secured, it should get "hacked". If we create a law to somehow prevent this, then we will live in a society relying on morals instead of true security.
Frankly, the wireless carriers should not allow 5 consecutive PIN failures. If government steps in and punishes the spies, then we effectively get nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop using that example, it is false and not even close to the same thing.
Just say:
Just bacause someone uses the default passwords doesn't mean they should loose any rights of privacy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not much news here (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.
Re: (Score:2)
That open door is on your private property. That poorly secured voicemail is on a system that is legally accessible to all of the provider's customers. "Your" voicemail is NOT your property. This is an issue between the provider, the "hacker", their contract (if there is one), and the property/contract rights enforcer (government). It should have nothing to do with the celebrity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
calling voicemail "hacking" is about as much as my flatulence is "rocket propulsion"
You are correct. It is Scrip Kiddie level Phreaking ;-)
According to the media... (Score:5, Insightful)
The media has no clue about hackers. The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about "cool new software" to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009. Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password?
Re: (Score:2)
You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.
"News for hackers. Stuff that matters." At least it's closer to the old definition of "hacker" (someone who can write quick and dirty code that actually runs).
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to the (alleged) North Korean computer attacks on US and South Korean servers... I watched an NBC report where they first used the word "hacked", shortly followed by "cracked", and then after those loaded words finally explained that the attacks were denial of service. I guess it's as stupid as equating virus/worm/trojan/spyware.
Re:According to the media... (Score:4, Interesting)
The media has no clue about hackers.
Add that to the list if there's room. I know they're likewise clueless about basic biology, let alone stem cells, genetics, evolutionary theory, or microbiology. A friend of mine who is an ordained priest once pointed out to me that they're usually off on religious issues as well. General news services aren't really good at anything it seems besides celebrity gossip. Of course, it's a reflection of society's ignorance, which is even more depressing. Ask some guy off a street what a hacker is, I bet you'd be dissapointed. Hell, you'd probably be dissapointed in MY answer as to what a hacker is.
For both our sakes, I won't answer, nor will I start quizing you about biology.
Re:caller id spoofing != hacking (Score:5, Informative)
They weren't doing that. RTFA, they'd call the number and then dial the default PIN to try to access the voicemail. If the PIN hadn't been changed from the default, they'd be able to listen to all the messages.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI. The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol & is inserted by the phone company at the switch & can't normally be changed (it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that Sprint does this, but from what I had read it seemed to be an aberration not the norm. If it's the norm, then the carriers they buy numbers from need to start enforcing their rules.
Hmm, time to warm up the Asterisk server for more than incoming business calls. Might cycle through some outgoing providers & chart who does & who doesn't let you do that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Might as well burn a couple books, as well. And while we're at it, we should round up teachers, doctors, artists, the intellectuals and re-educate them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I expected this typical regurgitation from those not used to thinking.
If you don't do something different you will continue to get the same results.
If you don't want the same results, do something different.
If you don't trump their power, they will continue as usual.
If you continue to spew mantra, you will eventually obscure the problem.
Then you are part of the problem.
If you like taking it up the ass from the media, by all means bend over and grease up.
Don't expect everyone to join you just because you hav
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, so your alternative is to assault the local news guy reporting on the new kitchen being opened up on the corner of broadway and 2nd?
I believe this is a intellectual forum. A forum for intellectuals. Maybe this isn't the best place for you to hang out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I believe this is a intellectual forum. A forum for intellectuals.
Your arrival at this place of intellectual discourse must be relatively recent.
Re: (Score:2)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a 5-digit account number?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to enter my PIN even calling from my own phone.
Re:Basic security (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they share no blame at all. They are victims, lets not blame them.
Lets not buy into the shared fault crap that was started by the insurance companies so they wouldn't ahve to pay out on car insurance claims.
Be default we should be able yo leave our doors unlocks, the keys in our car, our windows open, and not ahve to worry about being a victim of a crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I lock my car because I expect it to be stolen if left unlocked, and I expect the insurance company to not pay out for the theft because I left it unlocked. Why is this? I should expect the insurance company to pay out for my loss in any eventuality for which I am insured! That's the purpose of insurance!
Re: (Score:2)