Met re-opens NoTW phone hack probe Scotland Yard has re-opened an investigation into phone hacking at News of the World – more than four years after closing the book of the case. The Met, which previously refused to reinvestigate the case, said that the move came in response to the receipt of "significant new information". This investigation will be led by …
That all sounds very clever. Didn't they just "guess" the PIN (starting with the default one)? Presumably they used a £15 throwaway PAYG to avoid being traced, they wouldn't be stupid enough to use their own phone to access someone else's voicemail - would they?
Matched only by the stupidity of the phone companies ("Its great, you can access your voicemail from any phone, just type 9999") and the slebs, politcos and senior plod ("Its great, I can access my voicemail from any phone, I just type 9999").
There are only clowns in this circus.
If these high profile folks had a numeric code for their front door, rather than a key, would they all leave the code at the manufacturer's default '0000'? And if they would, would they be surprised if they got robbed? And if they were robbed, how seriously would the police take it.
Another round of lawyers getting rich from celebs (the majority of whom are media whores who want to switch media attention on and off when it suits them) getting rich by being paid off by the media for being the "victim" of a crime they left themselves open to and, in almost all cases, suffered no loss, damage etc.
Trebles all round!
Surely it isn't the "phone" that's being hacked - the number of the phone plus a pin is being used to "hack" some kind of computer/storage system belonging to the phone company, to gain access to the messages.
So it is a computer, even if the "victim" has a really simple dumbphone*, as messages are stored remotely, not in the phone. CMA much easier to apply then.
* everything must have an opposite, even a smartphone.
For years, I've been telling clients that they need to place suitable warning messages (This is a private network - unauthorised use forbidden) on their network devices on the grounds that their absence might make it more difficult to prosecute an intruder (or internal abuse). I'm pretty sure that no such message is incorporated into voicemail retrieval systems - certainly not on the ones I use.
So my question is: has any crime (as opposed to an invasion of privacy civil offence) been committed? Would tapping 15 digits into my phone and then following voice instructions make me a criminal in a way that listening to someone's voicemail 'greeting' wouldn't? I'm sure what has been (allegedly) done is immoral, but is it criminal?
* Inspector Harry Callahan - 'The Enforcer'
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Unauthorised access to computer material
.(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—.
(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;.
(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and.
(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case..
(2)The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—.
(a)any particular program or data;.
(b)a program or data of any particular kind; or.
(c)a program or data held in any particular computer..
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—.
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;.
(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;.
(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.].
if somebody leaves the keys in a motor car, jumping in and driving away is still an offence, the same applies to the computerised equivlent, even if the police and CPS are normally to dumb to put together a coherent case.
and 1(c) is why there's a need for 'no unauthorised use' banners on computer systems. There's no comparison to 'taking and driving away' a vehicle - you're not depriving anyone of the use of the system.
I heard a clarification on the Beeb, which suggested that the Crown Prosecution Service had originally taken the view that listening to 'old' messages was NOT an offence (presumably because there is no change to the state of the system), whereas listening to 'new' messages was an offence. The CPS have announced that they have changed their view on this point, but it seems (to me at least) to remain unclear.
Well, maybe the Metropolitan Police officer in charge of the alleged investigation was getting ready to leave the Met and take up a career in journalism. At News International. Y'know, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. By coincidence, shortly after the investigation was 'concluded'.
By coincidence this officer has also been ACPO Ltd's counter-terrorism officer for a while (and the Met's anti-terrorism expert too). And various other interesting snippets, all independently verifiable, pre-collated for your convenience at:
http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Andy_Hayman
Read it and draw your own conclusions.
"An important item overlooked is why the GSM networks aren't deploying the latest encryption standards?"
There was a reply to Jaitch's similar post on this same subject over at the Guardian but it's been deleted because it mentioned a name that hasn't been allowed to be mentioned there for a week or more. It's worth repeating the gist of the deleted reply though. Here's what I remember.
Encryption and the like are important, but communications are only ever as secure as the weakest link.
When you are News International, with employees like Coulson, Brooks/Wade, the jailed "Royal Correspondents", not to mention subcontract workers like Mulcaire, and when you have the resources employ retired former senior police officers like [not permitted] and the resources to pay identified victims millions of pounds so they stay relatively quiet about being the victims of NI's crime, you don't necessarily have to bother about encryption, even when folk do have the common sense to not use default access codes.
All you need is an insider in the mobileco's call centres, and the will for two or more parties to disregard the law in return for money. If NotW don't already have an insider, it should be clear from NI's record (which Rebekah Wade/Brooks has admitted to the House of Commons includes paying *police* for information) that it would be a piece of cake for an outfit like the News of the World to get (or buy) an insider with the ability to arrange access to voicemail for folks other than the customer, especially given that call centre folks aren't known for being well paid.
Still at least the latest inquiry's going to clear all this up soon.
Andy Hayman is the missing name, anti-terrorism was his the game: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terrorist-Hunters-Andy-Hayman/dp/0593065867
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
