Phone Hacking Journalists

wgwarburton

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

... its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

Hmm, more like realising that people are not changing the default combinations on their briefcases and riffling through them for information.
That the security is weak isn't really the issue- the 'phone companies don't have the same duty of care as a safe-seller or bank would have. The fact that the "hack" is so easy a tabloid journalist can use it doesn't make it OK to do so.

Script-kiddies aren't hackers in the eyes of hackers... the same laws apply to using/abusing the knowledge, though, whether you worked it out yourself or copied it from the 'net....

Cheers,
W.

Kieran_Burns

WGWarburton wrote:

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

... its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

Hmm, more like realising that people are not changing the default combinations on their briefcases and riffling through them for information.
That the security is weak isn't really the issue- the 'phone companies don't have the same duty of care as a safe-seller or bank would have. The fact that the "hack" is so easy a tabloid journalist can use it doesn't make it OK to do so.

Script-kiddies aren't hackers in the eyes of hackers... the same laws apply to using/abusing the knowledge, though, whether you worked it out yourself or copied it from the 'net....

Cheers,
W.

To say it's not hacking is like saying leaving your front door unlocked and then have someone come in and empty your house is not theft.

wgwarburton

Kieran_Burns wrote:

...To say it's not hacking is like saying leaving your front door unlocked and then have someone come in and empty your house is not theft.

Indeed. I can understand that it might be irritating to have the press report this as cat-burglary, though, especially if you hold a sneaking respect for the cat-burglars art...

Cheers,
W.

PS Is cat-burglary a sport? It carries an element of risk, needs special shoes, some level of physical co-ordination and can't be done with a pint in your hand...

sketchley

WGWarburton wrote:

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

... its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

Hmm, more like realising that people are not changing the default combinations on their briefcases and riffling through them for information.
That the security is weak isn't really the issue- the 'phone companies don't have the same duty of care as a safe-seller or bank would have. The fact that the "hack" is so easy a tabloid journalist can use it doesn't make it OK to do so.

Script-kiddies aren't hackers in the eyes of hackers... the same laws apply to using/abusing the knowledge, though, whether you worked it out yourself or copied it from the 'net....

Cheers,
W.

While I agree as they are not regulated by FSA and banks are, the data protection act would apply in the same way. By not ensuring security on the system the mobile phone companies could be viewed as recklessly allowing the release of personal data without the data controllers permission which is an offence under the DPA.

Good link just found BTW http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /62805.htm this does say DPA of little use but that in so much as chasing the journalists, it could be used against the mobile phone companies.

To put this in to perspective back in 2002 and following reports in the IT media all our company mobile phone users were made to change their default pin numbers. Most of this hacking took place in 2004 onwards.

EKE_38BPM

WGWarburton wrote:

PS Is cat-burglary a sport? It carries an element of risk, needs special shoes, some level of physical co-ordination and can't be done with a pint in your hand...

Nice one, Buns.

bails87

Where do you buy cat burglarising shoes? Or do you steal them?!

walkingbootweather

bails87 wrote:

Where do you buy cat burglarising shoes? Or do you steal them?!

Puma?

EKE_38BPM

walkingbootweather wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Where do you buy cat burglarising shoes? Or do you steal them?!

Puma?

Nice one. I think you need an abbreviation for your name though.
I.T. Boffin is ITB
Lost In Thought is LiT
DonDaddyD is scared of mice

I dub thee WbW

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Where do you buy cat burglarising shoes? Or do you steal them?!

Puma?

Nice one. I think you need an abbreviation for your name though.
I.T. Boffin is ITB
Lost In Thought is LiT
DonDaddyD is scared of mice

I dub thee WbW

Pfft. Next you'll be calling me arsey... :P

dhope

Kieran_Burns wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

... its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

Hmm, more like realising that people are not changing the default combinations on their briefcases and riffling through them for information.
That the security is weak isn't really the issue- the 'phone companies don't have the same duty of care as a safe-seller or bank would have. The fact that the "hack" is so easy a tabloid journalist can use it doesn't make it OK to do so.

Script-kiddies aren't hackers in the eyes of hackers... the same laws apply to using/abusing the knowledge, though, whether you worked it out yourself or copied it from the 'net....

Cheers,
W.

To say it's not hacking is like saying leaving your front door unlocked and then have someone come in and empty your house is not theft.

It wasn't hacking, but it was still illegal.

Hacking has become as a term to refer to illegal activity but the term has existed for a while longer, and was actually originally more of a compliment or a nod to some knowledge of or ability to manipulate a system (not necessarily illegally).

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Where do you buy cat burglarising shoes? Or do you steal them?!

Puma?

Nice one. I think you need an abbreviation for your name though.
I.T. Boffin is ITB
Lost In Thought is LiT
DonDaddyD is scared of mice

I dub thee WbW

Pfft. Next you'll be calling me arsey... :P

Nah, I'll call you Rick, even though your name isn't Rick.

WalkingbootWeather is too long to write so needs to be abbreviated, hence WbW.

cee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

... its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

Hmm, more like realising that people are not changing the default combinations on their briefcases and riffling through them for information.
That the security is weak isn't really the issue- the 'phone companies don't have the same duty of care as a safe-seller or bank would have. The fact that the "hack" is so easy a tabloid journalist can use it doesn't make it OK to do so.

Script-kiddies aren't hackers in the eyes of hackers... the same laws apply to using/abusing the knowledge, though, whether you worked it out yourself or copied it from the 'net....

Cheers,
W.

To say it's not hacking is like saying leaving your front door unlocked and then have someone come in and empty your house is not theft.

I believe there is a distinction between what is termed a break in (by forcible means) and a slip-in, where the door was unlocked (hence my safe cracking analogy). as already said....still illegal....but the term hacking credits them with some technical ability and is used to mong fear that anyones phone can be hacked, by almost anyone, at almost any time, which of course..is simply not true.

richk

My surname is very similar to the previous local MP (with same initial).

During a similarly high profile case - I had several people ring up purporting to be the father of the victim.

Only, I'd seen him (victims father) on the telly & was most definitely Irish... peeps on phone weren't.

I always thought they were probably jounos looking for a quote.

I presume the MP was ex-directory (& probably didnt live in his constituency) and my name was the nearest match directory enquiries had.

PBo

Not going to quote huge blocks of text.....

just need to chime in and give W1 the thumbs down as well........totally spurious argument.

prj45

Sketchley wrote:

While a don't think this is right at all. Some blame must be levelled at the network operators and phone user themselves. To call this hacking is a bit of an exaggeration. while this doesn't happen any more a few years ago the voice mail on a mobile phone had a default pin number for external access normally "1234" or "1111" or "0000", all you had to do was phone the phone, get voice mail, press # and enter the default pin and you could listen to any saved or new messages. You can still do this except now when you set up voice mail you have to provide a pin to allow external access so there is no longer a simple default. Those of you who have had their phone a while and not changed provider might want to check they don't have default pin set.

As I said calling this hacking implies some computer boffin running secret hacking software, the reality is all the mobile phone providers went to market with a very insecure system. If a bank had done that, they would have been fined a lot of money by the FSA for breach of data protection act.

It was hacking, one method they used was to pay people in phone companies to reset people's PINs and then accessed them externally, they also used bills etc.. collected from dustbins.

Dictionary definition of hacking, as opposed to cracking which is what you're talking about.

jimmypippa

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'll bite.

OK, I would speculate that it is not standard practice for the general populous to have their phones hacked.

In the scenario you described there would likely need to be (and I could be wrong) legal justification for your phone to be hacked - an investigation by those charged by the Government to seek out terrorism and for whatever reason you were being monitored.

Sewinman is referring to the press generally hacking the mobile phones of the unsuspecting public. The question is whether general phone hacking i.e. one party hacking another person's phone is illegal. Is it?

You are right, it is not black and white. However, the context of why hacking took place will determine if it is justified. In your scenario it is, in Sewinman's I don't think it is. (which is your point).

My understanding is that the press or private investigator has no right to hack a phone. The police acting in the interest of protecting the nation has every right.

We discussed this at work and someone mentioned that before this came out, some NI journalist was on any questions and complained that his(?) colleagues were "being sent to prison simply for telling the truth".

My colleague wasn't impressed and pointed out that the police need a warrant to hack phones, and need evidence of suspected criminal activity.


There is scope for a "public interest" defence, which politically does hold clout - I am not sure of the legal status. Tabloids seem to claim that "in the public interest" means the public might be interested even if it is really not their business.

jimmypippa

Didn't the NoTW (quite rightly in that case) say that executives are ultimately responsible (in the baby P case)?

I'm sure that the then Editor of News of the World, knew nothing about a practice that was so widespread in her paper.

pdw

Sketchley wrote:

To put this in to perspective back in 2002 and following reports in the IT media all our company mobile phone users were made to change their default pin numbers. Most of this hacking took place in 2004 onwards.

Quite - I find the media's total lack of coverage of the negligence of the phone companies very irritating. It doesn't make the "hacking" any less wrong, but the phone companies should be hauled over the coals for their part in this.

jimmypippa

Tomorrow's Independent front page - "Brooks contacted Dowler private detective herself"

http://twitpic.com/5lq1db

Kieran_Burns

Of course it's Hacking

Low level journalists are also called hacks, therefore anything they do is hacking.

8)

W1

dhope wrote:

No. I'm fairly certain that Sewinman was saying that invasion of privacy, common decency and good taste should not be used to limit freedom of the press.
.

But what he actually said was that censorship should only be used in circumstances of inciting hatred or national security. Subsequently (and, hilariously bearing in mind his deliberately provocative view as to what is acceptable to publish and his naiive stance on editorial responsibility) he's decided to include "information gained illegally" to his list of exceptions (although he's notably dodged Spen's points). He's fine to change his view, but to get all sweary and hand-baggy when someone challenges his quoted stance rather proves that he shouldn't be so dismissive of others' better considered views in the first place. It's also indicative of his ignorance of this topic that he "took it as given" that injunctions weren't used to prevent the distribution of material gained illicitly.

To those who don't understand the connection between freedom to publish and the type of behaviour the NOTW is accused of, I can't help you to understand any more clearly than to say that if you limit what newspapers can do with information (i.e. they can't make any money from it) you're more likely to limit the behaviour they utilise in order to get such information. Those who think some criminal sanctions (which rely on getting caught and, in this instance, were swept under the carpet for years) put more faith in the criminal justice systm than perhaps is due. Newspaper editors care little if one of their scribes gets sent down - they care a lot if they are sent to prison for breaching an injunction.

The Rookie

pdw wrote:

Quite - I find the media's total lack of coverage of the negligence of the phone companies very irritating. It doesn't make the "hacking" any less wrong, but the phone companies should be hauled over the coals for their part in this.

I think this a an unrealistic line, the phone companies adopt a single pin so they can put it in the instruction manuals, adding individual pins would add significant cost which have to be born by the end user, if YOU want your voicemanils to be secure YOU change your pin, it's not rocket science.

Simon

wgwarburton

The Beginner wrote:

pdw wrote:

Quite - I find the media's total lack of coverage of the negligence of the phone companies very irritating. It doesn't make the "hacking" any less wrong, but the phone companies should be hauled over the coals for their part in this.

I think this a an unrealistic line, the phone companies adopt a single pin so they can put it in the instruction manuals, adding individual pins would add significant cost which have to be born by the end user, if YOU want your voicemanils to be secure YOU change your pin, it's not rocket science.

Simon

Indeed- think of it as a combination lock. If you really don't care who looks in your briefcase or locker then you don't need to bother changing the combination.

If someone helps themselves to the contents, it's still theft. Your insurance company would probably reject a claim but you won't be suing the padlock seller :-) .

Cheers,
W.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

dhope wrote:

No. I'm fairly certain that Sewinman was saying that invasion of privacy, common decency and good taste should not be used to limit freedom of the press.
.

But what he actually said was that censorship should only be used in circumstances of inciting hatred or national security. Subsequently (and, hilariously bearing in mind his deliberately provocative view as to what is acceptable to publish and his naiive stance on editorial responsibility) he's decided to include "information gained illegally" to his list of exceptions (although he's notably dodged Spen's points). He's fine to change his view, but to get all sweary and hand-baggy when someone challenges his quoted stance rather proves that he shouldn't be so dismissive of others' better considered views in the first place. It's also indicative of his ignorance of this topic that he "took it as given" that injunctions weren't used to prevent the distribution of material gained illicitly.

To those who don't understand the connection between freedom to publish and the type of behaviour the NOTW is accused of, I can't help you to understand any more clearly than to say that if you limit what newspapers can do with information (i.e. they can't make any money from it) you're more likely to limit the behaviour they utilise in order to get such information. Those who think some criminal sanctions (which rely on getting caught and, in this instance, were swept under the carpet for years) put more faith in the criminal justice systm than perhaps is due. Newspaper editors care little if one of their scribes gets sent down - they care a lot if they are sent to prison for breaching an injunction.

a) I am not sure why you find it 'hilarious' that I had assumed that people would not think I was advocating routinely breaking the law for journalistic info.

b) The discussion we were having was regarding injunctions on the grounds of privacy - Ryan Giggs et al, not injunctions to prevent illegally obtained info being published.

So once again, my quotes are out of context and irrelevant to this thread. I was angry that you declared I would be in support of hacking a dead teenage girls' phone, which is clearly illegal and very clearly repugnant....I think most people would understand my annoyance in the circumstances.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

dhope wrote:

No. I'm fairly certain that Sewinman was saying that invasion of privacy, common decency and good taste should not be used to limit freedom of the press.
.

But what he actually said was that censorship should only be used in circumstances of inciting hatred or national security. Subsequently (and, hilariously bearing in mind his deliberately provocative view as to what is acceptable to publish and his naiive stance on editorial responsibility) he's decided to include "information gained illegally" to his list of exceptions (although he's notably dodged Spen's points). He's fine to change his view, but to get all sweary and hand-baggy when someone challenges his quoted stance rather proves that he shouldn't be so dismissive of others' better considered views in the first place. It's also indicative of his ignorance of this topic that he "took it as given" that injunctions weren't used to prevent the distribution of material gained illicitly.

To those who don't understand the connection between freedom to publish and the type of behaviour the NOTW is accused of, I can't help you to understand any more clearly than to say that if you limit what newspapers can do with information (i.e. they can't make any money from it) you're more likely to limit the behaviour they utilise in order to get such information. Those who think some criminal sanctions (which rely on getting caught and, in this instance, were swept under the carpet for years) put more faith in the criminal justice systm than perhaps is due. Newspaper editors care little if one of their scribes gets sent down - they care a lot if they are sent to prison for breaching an injunction.

A prohibition on publication of certain types of information - which incidentally would be very difficult to define in legal terms - is fundamentally no different from a prohibition on certain ways of obtaining said information. There would still be cases where something was published, and then a court case arising from the legality of such a publication being challenged. The editor would claim that they believed the publication to fall outside whatever legal limitations had been put in place by statute, and the prosecution would attempt to show that it did not.

estampida

its getting worse and worse

So police have been getting paymenst from papers £100K at a time, any copper with that sort of money in the bank is a BENT copper, he has no interest in protection only profit. There will also be a huge legal enquiry as these coppers have given evidence in court, and are in the pockets of papers, convictions are not safe.

The news group is going to be sold, the red tops were biggest 20yrs ago, and now they are full of illigally gained lies. And this is only the UK, SKY is global how many other countries have this problem.

Murdoch will jump before he is pushed (thats how you stay super rich), but I hope I see him pushed by the courts / govenment, he has escaped any mud for a long time.

bails87

So...let's review the general press situation....

Last week the Daily Mail blamed striking teachers for the tragic death of a girl in a freak accident.

At the start of the week the Mirror and Sun began a court hearing for contempt of court during a murder investigation, where they are alleged to have published incredibly damaging (to the legal process) stories about a totally innocent man. This is after numerous papers paid substantial damages to the man in question.

And then the NOTW.....hacking into/gaining unauthorised access to (for the pedants!) voicemails, after doing it to countless celebrities and politicians, they've done it to a murdered schoolgirl, deleting messages so giving her family hope she was still alive. The woman in charge of the paper at the time has been put in charge of the internal investigation. So Rebekah Brooks has got to tell Rebekah Brooks whether or not Rebekah Brooks knew about the hacking. Channel 4 news claim that the Met challenegd Brooks about phone hacking back in 2002 when it became apparent that police officers were being targetted for hacking by NOTW staff/investigators, so she's known about it for at least 9 years. Her deputy at the time, Coulson, was hired by the PM, who defended him (after allegedly stepping in to save Brooks' job from uncle Rupert's axe) during the initial hacking row.
It now appears that Coulson personally authorised/knew about payments made to police officers to pass on details of ongoing investigations, despite saying on numerous occasion he knew nothing. The Manuel excuse is wearing thin for Coulson and Brooks. Maybe Coulson is the sacrificial lamb being offered up by NI to take the fall on their behalf.
Labour MPs stood up in Parliament yesterday to support a call for a public inquiry, gov't troops stayed seated. Can't upset Rupert now, can we.
The police have investigated this already and either found nothing when there was substantial evidence, or ignored what they've found. The toothless PCC chief has admitted they were lied to and there was nothing they could do.
The Sun, which is part of News International/News Corp has failed to cover this properly, which has got to call into question News Corps ability to run a national news broadcaster with any semblance of impartiality, but Jeremy Cu...Hunt has said it will have no impact on the BSkyB takeover.

What a mess.

sketchley

WGWarburton wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

pdw wrote:

Quite - I find the media's total lack of coverage of the negligence of the phone companies very irritating. It doesn't make the "hacking" any less wrong, but the phone companies should be hauled over the coals for their part in this.

I think this a an unrealistic line, the phone companies adopt a single pin so they can put it in the instruction manuals, adding individual pins would add significant cost which have to be born by the end user, if YOU want your voicemanils to be secure YOU change your pin, it's not rocket science.

Simon

Indeed- think of it as a combination lock. If you really don't care who looks in your briefcase or locker then you don't need to bother changing the combination.

If someone helps themselves to the contents, it's still theft. Your insurance company would probably reject a claim but you won't be suing the padlock seller :-) .

Cheers,
W.

Except that around 3 or 4 years ago they all changed their systems so now you have to set up voice mail and enter a pin or you don't get external access. e.g. They admitted the problem and fixed it!

notsoblue

Looks like some people are taking action against NOTW (and it appears to be having a degree of success)

Today, as a campaign for a public inquiry kick-starts, we are launching a joint campaign across blogs and Facebook (a dedicated website is also coming) to target NotW advertisers.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/07/06 ... -can-help/

mossychops

I posted this in a different thread, I also thought they might be guessing the PIN number for voicemail but it turns out it's a bit more devious and a lot more effort than that:


If you ring your voicemail number from a landline it asks for your phone number and pin code, if you ring from your mobile phone, the voicemail knows who you are so it puts you straight through to your voicemial without asking who you are or your pin.

The hack actually works by "spoofing" the caller ID of the hackers phone. If you have your own phone system (Asterisk is a free PC based one available on the net) and a SIP supplier that doesn't make you prove you own the number before you use it, you can set the outgoing caller ID as someone else mobile phone from your extension (companies do this legitamately all the time so that peoples direct dial or 0845 number is shown on caller ID). If you then ring (for instance) Orange voicemail on 07973100150 and spoof an Orange mobile phone numberm you get straight through to the messages, no pin required.

Very devious and deliberate and dispicable.

*No I don't work for the News Of The World*