Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 186 +-   Murdoch Paper Reporters Eavesdropped On Celebrities' Voicemail on Thursday July 09, @12:58PM

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 09, @12:58PM
from the have-a-whole-room-in-the-at&t-building-too dept.
themedia
communications
privacy
security
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.
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The media will do anything and everything to get a "story" from "celebrities." It is amazing though how much money they spend on such frivolous things, I guess it rakes in the revenue though.
    • Guess what the intended market for this [bhphotovideo.com] is.....and that is the used price.
        • Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jeffmeden (135043) on Thursday July 09, @01:41PM (#28640171) Homepage Journal
          Sports photographers, even for Soccer, use a 300mm to 400mm lens at most. A 1200mm lens would only be effective at taking pictures of things half a mile away or more (depending on the size of the thing, of course). The minimum focus distance for that bad boy is 46 feet, practical only if you're the poor photographer who is deprived of a sideline pass and are forced to take pictures from the nosebleeds. But then again, why would you spend $90,000 (the actual MSRP) on one if you were?
          • 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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09, @01:26PM (#28639915)

      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."

    • 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.

        • I was going to ask where do you want to gun sent, but that is probably what they call conspiracy.

  • Allegedly. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday July 09, @01:02PM (#28639503)

    One newspaper alleges that another did this. Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?

    • by SomeJoel (1061138) on Thursday July 09, @01:06PM (#28639595)
      Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"? People always assume that those accused are guilty. Look at COPS on TV. They have a disclaimer that says "all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty. Disclaimers are so common and superfluous* that nobody pays attention to them anymore.

      *: 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:Allegedly. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by chrb (1083577) on Thursday July 09, @02:30PM (#28640909)

        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:

        "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175
        newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered."

        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:Allegedly. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jhon (241832) on Thursday July 09, @04:13PM (#28642319) Homepage Journal

          Hacking? Really?

          The hacking of mobile phones was a simple trick known to many a tabloid reporter. (Call the mobile number, when it went to voicemail tap in the network default pin code. If the phone owner hadn't set a pin code you were in and could listen to voicemails.)

          Sigh.

  • by gigne (990887) on Thursday July 09, @01:02PM (#28639509) Homepage Journal

    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

  • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I see you left your window open, so I helped myself to the interior of your home.

      • More like... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by denzacar (181829) on Thursday July 09, @01:34PM (#28640051)

        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.

      • by Itninja (937614) on Thursday July 09, @01:39PM (#28640133) Homepage
        Not really a valid analogy since the voicemail messages are not being stolen, per se, just observed (or in this case listened to). I think a better one would be 'I see you left your door unlocked so I let myself in and read your diary'. Still not good, but also not theft.
    • Yup, pretty boring actually. Furthermore, all you've got to do is set a PIN number and this won't work anymore.

    • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday July 09, @01:24PM (#28639873)

      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?

    • by DigitAl56K (805623) * on Thursday July 09, @01:27PM (#28639937)

      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:3, Interesting)

        While I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, as you point out, locking accounts after X number of invalid PIN/password attempts leads to a very well known DoS attack. Best to just disable access for an hour or less after 3 bad PINs; requiring customer service intervention for something that happens all the time can get very expensive. I would also point out that most small company voice mail system don't have a customer service representative to redirect to (like the company I work for, for example. The best you
      • by Thaelon (250687) on Thursday July 09, @02:31PM (#28640927)

        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.

        • by DigitAl56K (805623) * on Thursday July 09, @03:01PM (#28641393)

          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: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.

  • I clicked on TFA to find out what BT is, but that sentence was just lifted from the link which also doesn't clarify.

    That's some nice summerizin'.
  • Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09, @01:15PM (#28639743)

    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)

    by bmsleight (710084) on Thursday July 09, @01:16PM (#28639759) Homepage
    This was originally a Guardian Story. It relates to mobile phones, not BT landline.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational [guardian.co.uk]
  • Be interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drsmithy (35869) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [yhtimsrd]> on Thursday July 09, @01:52PM (#28640327)
    To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.
      • 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.

  • by quarkoid (26884) on Thursday July 09, @02:09PM (#28640613) Homepage

    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.

  • Skipe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeanFox (729620) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [naed.xof]> on Friday July 10, @07:02AM (#28647921)

    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: (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 ;-)

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday July 09, @01:18PM (#28639787)
      According to the media, you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system. You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.

      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?
      • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday July 09, @02:39PM (#28641071)

        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: (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: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.
          • I believe this is a intellectual forum. A forum for intellectuals.

            Your arrival at this place of intellectual discourse must be relatively recent.

    • Re:Basic security (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Thursday July 09, @03:10PM (#28641517) Homepage Journal

      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 had written a fairly long post on how you were wrong, but the more I wrote, the more I realised that everything I believe is at fault.

        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!
Famous last words: