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.
Allegedly. (Score:4, Insightful)
One newspaper alleges that another did this. Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?
Re:Allegedly. (Score:1, Insightful)
Is it because slashdot is so fair and balanced?
Re:Not much news here (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't lock the door then we can steal everything in your house.
Re:calling voicemail is "hacking" (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 ;-)
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:2, Insightful)
I see you left your window open, so I helped myself to the interior of your home.
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:Not much news here (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.
Re:FTFA - default passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
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:FTFA - default passwords (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.
Re:Allegedly. (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.
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: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.
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: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:They will get away with this. (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:Huh? Interesting why? (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.
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.