×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous To Release Sun, News of the World Emails

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-a-look-at-this dept.

Security 363

siliconbits writes "After having hacked Rupert Murdoch's flagship news website, thesun.co.uk, and redirecting its readers to a spoof front page and pilfering its email servers, Anonymous' unofficial mouthpiece, Sabu, has revealed that the group is 'sitting on [the sun's & NOTW's] emails' with a press release from Anonymous & possibly more coming in a few hours. While that website has already been taken down, the email bounty is likely to be potentially more damaging with Sabu releasing details of two of the Sun's top three employees, Rebekah Wade and Bill Akass, the former editors of the Sun and News of the World respectively as well as Lee Wells & Danny Rogers, Editorial Support Manager at News International and Sun Online Editorial Manager respectively, as a taster of what's coming next."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

363 comments

I love this (4, Funny)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812478)

This scandal keeps getting worse; it's like the "penis pump" scene from Austin Powers....

Re:I love this (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812584)

It's good to see them getting a taste of their own medicine.

Re:I love this (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812970)

And payback will be a bitch.
There is a problem with this eye for an eye mentality. It will come back to bite you back.

Fine the CIA and FBI cannot find the people.... But a team of unethical reporters I am surprised they haven't knocked on the guys door yet to give him a well edited interview.

Re:I love this (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813118)

"How to Tap Voicemail Accounts for Fun and Profit" by Rupert Murdoch

It's not mine, I swear!

Sea Monster Spotted in Alaska (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812484)

Alaska may have its own version of the Loch Ness monster, according to prominent cryptozoologists who say a video shows a mysterious marine animal, which they believe is a Cadborosaurus.

Meaning "reptile" or "lizard" from Cadboro Bay, Cadborosaurus willsi is an alleged sea serpent from the North Pacific and possibly other regions. Accounts generally describe it as having a long neck, a horse-like head, large eyes, and back bumps that stick out of the water.

The footage, shot by Alaskan fishermen in 2009, will make its public debut on "Hillstranded," a new Discovery Channel special that will air Tuesday evening at 9 p.m. E/P.

"I am quite impressed with the video," Paul LeBlond, former head of the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of British Columbia, told Discovery News. "Although it was shot under rainy circumstances in a bouncy ship, it's very genuine."

LeBlond, co-author of the book "Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep," said the animal is "the least unlike a plesiosaur," referring to carnivorous marine reptiles thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period.

Sightings of Cadborosaurus have been reported for ages. In 1937, a supposed body of the animal was found in the stomach of a whale captured by the Naden Harbour whaling station in the Queen Charlotte Islands, a British Columbia archipelago. Samples of the animal were brought to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, where curator Francis Kermode concluded they belonged to a fetal baleen whale.

The animal's remains, however, later disappeared. James Wakelun, a worker at the whaling station, last year said that he saw the creature's body and "it wasn't an unborn whale."

Like other cryptids — animals whose existence is suggested but not yet recognized by scientific consensus — Cadborosaurus has otherwise existed only in grainy photographs and eyewitness accounts. The 2009 video, therefore, "adds to its authentication," LeBlond said.

John Kirk, president of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, agrees. In an issued statement, Kirk described the video as being "important. They (the fishermen) simply don't know what they have got in terms of the creatures in this video."

While many have speculated that Cadborosaurus is actually a frill shark, a large eel, or some kind of fish, LeBlond counters that it cannot be a fish due to the way Cadborosaurus moves.

"It must be a mammal or a reptile, since it oscillates up and down in a vertical plain, which eliminates sideways-oscillating fish," he explained.

A possible new believer in Cadborosaurus is Andy Hillstrand of "Deadliest Catch" television show fame. He told Discovery News that he might have seen the enigmatic animal while filming "Hillstranded," a new Discovery Channel special debuting tonight that features the 2009 footage.

Hillstrand and his brother Johnathan traveled to sites in Alaska where Cadborosaurus has been spotted. Referring to one location, he said, "We saw a big, long white thing moving in the water. We chased it for about 20 minutes."

"Spray came out of its head," he continued. "It was definitely not a shark. A giant eel may be possible, but eels don't have humps that all move in unison. I've never seen anything like it before."

Hillstrand speculates that whales, following salmon, might be pushing the animals closer to shores and in the view of humans.

While he understands the controversy and skepticism over such sightings and claims, Hillstrand believes the many fishermen who have reported seeing the animal "are not a bunch of fruitcakes. These are people who are familiar with the local marine life."

In order for a cryptid to gain scientific credibility, more physical evidence must be obtained. LeBlond said, "We cannot go out in the ocean poking everywhere, but we are always on the lookout for new accounts."

Hillstrand, on the other hand, isn't ruling out another Cadborosaurus-related trip.

"We live in Alaska, so we might investigate Cadborosaurus again in future," he said. "We are always up for an adventure."

Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812492)

How could they do such a cruel thing to the good people at News of the World?!?!?

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812574)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

zenjah (989288) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812630)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

kcbnac (854015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812900)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is often crucified.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813182)

Blind Crucifier: Let me just put a nail through your hand here...ok, did I get it?
One-eyed Victim: [with nail between two fingers] Yeah...err...ouch!
Blind Crucifier: And the other hand...did I get that one?
One-eyed Victim: Yeah...boy, that stings.
Blind Crucifier: And now onto the feet.
One-eyed Victim: But your partner already did them.
Blind Crucifier: But he didn't tell me.
One-eyed Victim: I'm looking right at them...I think I'd know if I had nails through my feet.
Blind Crucifier: Okay...well, let that be a lesson to you.
One-eyed Victim: Yeah...I've learned a lot [walks away]

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (5, Insightful)

hansraj (458504) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812926)

At the end of the game, The king and the pawn go back in the same box.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Alyred (667815) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813184)

And... uh... a king is just two pawns stacked on top of each other. ...wait.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (5, Insightful)

Senes (928228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812708)

A kind word for an eye will leave you blind and your attackers unharmed. Some people just deserve having their asses kicked.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813000)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Not unless the last guy is willing to put his own eye out. He should be able to evade 6 Billion blind people, right?

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (4, Insightful)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813008)

What you have stated above is the philosophy of the coward (perhaps an anonymous one like yourself?) and the slave - yielding to evil without resistance and considering it a virtue.
A world that is blind is still better than a world where only the wrongdoers keep their eyes, after all.
As a wise man has said, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813272)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

That sounds great until a dude takes over the world with a pointy stick.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (4, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812642)

I wonder if Anon and Lulzlzlz (what the fuck ever) realize that they are and have been doing the very same thing they are pissed at The Sun for doing. They just have different targets that in their minds, deserve it.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812732)

Sometimes the best way to show someone that something is wrong is to have it happen to them. Perspective, now they has it.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (-1, Flamebait)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812840)

Are they pissed at the Sun? Perhaps they are just doing it for you know the Lulz? or because given all the flap about this they think it would be funny?

Personally I don't have a problem with Lulz or Newscorps phone hacking. Obtaining and publishing information is what News agencies you know do. I think the bigger problem with our society is people record to much, and are careless about how they protect and dispose of it.

The phone hackers destroyed no property, deprived no owners of any of its use. I don't think there is any real harm here. As far the policing thinking that little girl might still have been alive, come on if she was dialing into her voice mail they should be all over the phone records to find out where from, the real story there is BAD POLICE work. Information wants to be free any secret you keep you have to work against entropy to keep that information concentrated with you otherwise it will diffuse. If you don't put energy into doing that then it will diffuse. IMHO its not News of the Worlds fault people selected weak voice mail PINs, its their fault.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812964)

The phone hackers destroyed no property, deprived no owners of any of its use. I don't think there is any real harm here. As far the policing thinking that little girl might still have been alive, come on if she was dialing into her voice mail they should be all over the phone records to find out where from, the real story there is BAD POLICE work. Information wants to be free any secret you keep you have to work against entropy to keep that information concentrated with you otherwise it will diffuse. If you don't put energy into doing that then it will diffuse. IMHO its not News of the Worlds fault people selected weak voice mail PINs, its their fault.

More like evidence was tampered.

First, listening to voicemail often clears the "new voicemail" flag, and unless you're really anal, no one listens to every voice mail they have daily.

Perhaps the bigger crime is the fact they destroyed evidence - the voice mailbox was full. They deleted voicemails to make room for more. Sure we can hope the reporters deleted the unimportant ones, but can you really be sure?

Lulzsec at least isn't tampering with these things - these emails exist, and they're releasing it. They haven't come in, deleted emails or read unread email (and fail to reset them so the recipient never notices they haven't actually read the email yet).

Yes, there were mistakes on all sides. But leaving my front door unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to enter my house, and especially not to go through my computer reading my email, answering machine/voice mail

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812992)

The phone hackers interfred with a search for a missing child. By deleting her voice mails it was assumed that she was still alive days later when the police checked.

Forget the royal family parts they directly interefered and hampered the search for a missing child.

For that alone they deserve everything they are getting.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813042)

Okay. You tell me how you're going to stop someone from brute forcing your voice mail PIN, because there are all of ten thousand combinations. There are, naturally, going to be some combinations that are more easily obtained than others, but someone with a little patience can get through fairly quickly. And if they think your phone is interesting enough, they'll certainly be going about that.

And by the way, deleting voice mails? Perhaps not illegal, but unethical as fuck. IMHO it's not the victims' fault that you're a bloody ignorant git, if's yours.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (5, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813068)

What about:
1) Hacking the phones of the police officers investigating the phone hacking case?
2) Bribing police officers for information on those same officers.
3) Blackmailing some of those officers with information obtained by 1) and 2).
4) Bribing the officers they couldn't blackmail in 3 to drop the case.
5) Hacking the phones of politicians.
6) Bribing police (and doctors?) for information on politicians.
7) Using the information gained in 5) and 6) to dictate favorable legislation.
8) Using his control of diverse news media to interfere with elections.
9) Using the threat of interference to influence politicians

There's a lot more to this case than just the phone hacking. Picking on "regular people" is what outraged a lot of people, but now they might actually pay attention to the other, more important, stuff.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (0)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813250)

Personally I don't have a problem with Lulz or Newscorps phone hacking because I am naive and foolish.

Fixed that for you. Now please quit voting, consuming, and also communicating your worthless thoughts to people.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813262)

they are and have been doing the very same thing they are pissed at The Sun for doing. They just have different targets that in their minds, deserve it.

Gossips and whistleblowers are not the same thing.

They are (in this case, at least) attacking a corporation which has been suspected of illegal activities.

They are pissed at the Sun for violating the privacy of people who are not suspected of illegal activities, and for no other reason than the pursuit of profit.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813286)

Maybe. I do think that in a technical sense you're totally right. But in a political sense, releasing these emails is perhaps more akin to releasing the state dept cables. This release is going to change the way the police and politicians are able to cover this whole thing up. It's going to open the door on far more scrutiny from "legitimate press and blog" investigators, who may be able to hold wrongdoers in the emails to account publicly and therefore eventually legally.

Hacking celebrities and royal family members to sell papers is somewhat different to releasing the Pentagon papers, state dept cables or these emails, I think. Even though the technical crime part might be the same..

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813308)

One group did it for tabloid headlines and profit, the other did it to expose the truth and corruption in government. What they are doing seems quite a bit different to me.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812666)

Funny but doesn't Anonymous do that exact same thing? I mean dumping users email addresses and password hashes hurts the users as well as the companies.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (3, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812736)

Yep - releasing userid/passwords is the same thing as hacking into dead childern's voicemails for scoops.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813044)

Exactly - think of the children!

Oh, wait, did you attempt to justify a morally ambiguous action by invoking the natural human instinct to protect and shelter children? I thought only dumb politicians were allowed to do that.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813122)

Nope. I am just playing the same trick that has been played a lot by politicians, media and corporations. What's wrong using the same logic now to differentiate and highlight the bigotry? Oh I see - you don't like it when it's against your argument.

If you live by flawed logic, you die by flawed logic.

Re:Hacking innocent people's email accounts?!?!? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812762)

Corporate addresses & passwords, big difference, my corporate email is actually not my own per company policy, so I don't have anything remotely personal it, most users are the same as me around here, some notably are not, oh well, read the employee handbook.

Also, not sure why people are expecting these people to be pure white hat and benevolent. In comparison most computer break ins occur on non-targeted systems that happen to run a certain version of x software while the attacker is looking for x version of that software to fire off a vulnerability exploit.

Compromising the investigation (4, Insightful)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812498)

While I'm quite enjoying what Anonymous/Lulzsec are doing, I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations that are to follow.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812552)

This could absolutely compromise the investigations. If the emails are leaked the defense could possibly get them suppressed and made unusable in court.

Re:Compromising the investigation (2)

adamchou (993073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812596)

Under what law/rule would the defense be able to get them suppressed and made unusable in court?

Re:Compromising the investigation (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812648)

Jurors who have been previously exposed to evidence, and who have encountered it in a context that isn't up to the non-prejudicial standards of the court, wouldn't be considered reasonably neutral. If certain messages are widely spread around in the public because Anonymous thinks their priorities and standards are more important than the prosecutors', then that could indeed make such evidence essentially unusable in court.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812756)

they were able to find jurors for the casey anthony case even though the case was so widely publicized. i'm sure they can find one for this case too, if need be.

Re:Compromising the investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812810)

The Casey Anthony case was widely publicized after it started.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812862)

The search for her daughter was already national news, but not the details of the case - That's true.

But think back a few years. How many people on the jury selected back in '95 were asking, "Wait... OJ who?

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812940)

You're still missing the point. It's not about how many people knew or didn't know about Simpson, or even about the murders. It's about how much of the specific, detailed evidence in the case was hacked off of servers and made public by an agenda-driven group before a trial even started. Apples and oranges, here, conceptually.

Re:Compromising the investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813256)

Specific details biasing the case? Who didn't know that Simpson was the guy in the white Bronco seen running from police just after his wife was murdered? Only people living under rocks. Who won't know the details of these hacked e-mails? The people who have no idea WTF lulzsec or Anonymous are - In other words, a lot. Public info or not, finding a jury pool ignorant of these details should be easy. To avoid tainting the case, you don't have to show that nobody knew about these or had access to them, only that some people are not exposed and biased.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812818)

I think that applies only to evidence obtained by the court. Not criminals turning evidence in against other criminals. e.g. Paedophile jailed after burglars with a conscience tip off police about child abuse pictures on stolen laptop [dailymail.co.uk] ( new window )

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812912)

I'm not sure how your example applies. Did the burglars make all of that information widely public before the creepy guy was prosecuted? Because that's the issue, here.

Re:Compromising the investigation (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812910)

You're mixing the issues here. The fact that a jury pool has been tainted does not in any way affect the admissability of evidence.

Whether or not the evidence is tainted depends on a few factors. First off, if the evidence is illegally obtained by a third party not under the influence of the authorities, the evidence is not automatically tainted. Chain of custody becomes an important issue, however, since the prosecution would have to pretty much prove that the evidence was not altered by the third party. However, the most important one to this example, I think, would be the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Namely, whether the authorities would have inevitably discovered these documents in the course of their investigations (assuming full compliance with warrant issued by the court). I don't think there is any way the authoities would NOT serve a warrant for those emails.

There are of course other factors involved in whether the evidence is admissable. But a third party acting completely independently from the authorities acquiring evidence illegally does not make that evidence inadmissable, no matter whether or not it taints the jury pool.[1]

And for what it's worth... without public outcry, it's quite possible that the alleged guilty parties at NOTW would enter a plea bargain and have the evidence suppressed (legally or extra-legally, they have a ton of influence). It's why this is such a big scandal... that's exactly what they've been doing for years. Public access to the information is the foundation of the only weapons we have against the government-corporate-media complex[2] that subverts the US democracy.

[1] IANAL. If you want a real legal analysis, consult a real lawyer. YMMV. Half of what I know about law I learned from Perry Mason, Colombo, and Law and Order. The other half comes from researching topics relevant to slashdot discussion on the internet. Do not use my post as legal advice. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

[2] I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much that line makes me sound like one. It's obvious to me that US Legislators are far more beholden to the companies that pay their election bills and hire them once they are out of office than they are to the public; especially so for media companies, who by-and-large control what information the public has.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812616)

Who cares? The courts have already proven that they have no teeth against corporations. Hopefully this will hit them where it really hurts by demonstrating what a heap of shitheels these people are and they lose massive business which will impair their ability to buy political power in the future.

Re:Compromising the investigation (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812658)

That's not how it works in the US, I dunno about the UK (I assume you're from the US due to your spelling of defense).

If the authorities made no effort to induce the illegal acquisition of the evidence, then it would still be admissable in US court AFAIK. The evidence if only tainted if the authorities, or someone acting at their behest (not a third-party with no link to the authorities), performs an illegal source. Chain of custody would be an issue, I would think, because it would have to be proven (more or less) that the emails were not altered after being lifted from NOTW's servers.

*I know this from watching Perry Mason, Columbo, and Law & Order reruns; IANAL; YMMV; if you want legal advice consult a real lawyer; Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re:Compromising the investigation (2)

Anonymous Crobar (1143477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812858)

That's a more or less correct reading, based upon your exposure. However, there would be no chain of custody here because it went from the defendants, to a third party (Lulzsec) and then (presumably) to the authorities. (Proper chain of custody would be something like: scene of the crime -> lab technician -> detective -> prosecutor.) Instead, a prosecutor can take these emails along with additional evidence to get a warrant for the originals, thereby getting a "clean" set of evidence. The clean set would be admissible and likely devastating at trial.

Re:Compromising the investigation (0)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812892)

I'm pretty sure you don't need to disclaim expertise that you don't have.

Or maybe that should be that you don't need to argue your own ignorance.

Or something.

Mostly, I think real actual lawyers gain a lot more from distancing their lawyer selves from comments than fake internet lawyers do by pointing out that they are only internet lawyers.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812966)

Well, I'm pretty sure my analysis is correct... but not 100% certain... so I put the disclaimer there to draw attention to the fact that I might very well be wrong, and to entice responses from people who could correct me if I am indeed wrong.

Re:Compromising the investigation (0)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813014)

Sure. I'm just sick of seeing it, mostly because I think a lot of people think they gain something by doing it.

Re:Compromising the investigation (3, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813012)

Good point, that's how Batman is able help win legit convictions: he's not acting on authorization of the police, so when he leaves the criminals at the crime scene bundled up with the evidence, Gotham City can use all they found in court.

I mean, if all that happened in real life.

Re:Compromising the investigation (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812572)

I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations

You mean the investigations that Scotland Yard has already swept under the rug and tried to kill several times? Yeah, we wouldn't want to compromise those thorough investigations by competent, unbiased police officers. Shit, I heard they're going to put Sherlock Holmes on it, just the make sure that Scotland Yard's unblemished reputation in this matter is upheld.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813106)

you do realise that the running joke of Sherlock Holmes is that he's an private citizen that constantly put's scotland yard to shame.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813128)

According to this article [macleans.ca] at least part of the reason Scotland Yard has tried to sweep this under the rug is due to the bribes and blackmail from News Corp.

Re:Compromising the investigation (2)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812610)

I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations that are to follow

You mean, these [cnet.com] investigations?

Re:Compromising the investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812710)

There will be no investigation. Can't you people understand that Murdoch is in bed with politicians and senior law officials all over the world to forward their agenda? There were a few heads rolling for some staff, who will soon be given jobs within Murdoch's propaganda machine elsewhere, and that will be it.

His sleaze and lying rags have been doing the bidding or police to avoid corruption issues since the 80s in my lifetime and there's probably history before that.

If you want to see someone squirm, go after Piers Morgan and put him on the spot. He was part of the deceit machine at one point, peddling BS and govt spin.

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812902)

"Can't you people understand that Murdoch is in bed with politicians and senior law officials all over the world to forward their agenda?"

I would very much like to disagree. It is my view that politicians and senior law officials have been running scared of Murdoch for years/decades and have been forced pretty much into forwarding HIS agenda on the rest of us. In the UK at least the country has been pretty much run according to what the Sun / the NotW (/the Daily Mail) have been demanding (though not the Express as try as hard as they might they aren't going to get Diana back).
Now that the bully's power has been removed everyone wants a piece of payback

Re:Compromising the investigation (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813264)

I am much more interested in seeing LulzSec become bedfellows with the government. Also, wikileaks. Once they start using information from these sources, the establishment must admit they do society some good. Both organizations while operating illegally are operating on moral grounds: that truth and fairness prevail. Meanwhile we have the legitimate government continually hiding information that is "not in the best interest" (according to them) for people to know. Who is worse? Well absent perfectly transparent government (you'll never get it) I believe we need both. Checks and Balances... The government to keep lulzsec/anon/wikileaks etc "in line" (roughly, if they get too heavy handed they get targeted by the feds) and lulzsec/anon/wikileaks etc to keep the government/corporations honest.

In a perfect world we'd need neither, but we're not in a perfect world...

frosty piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812504)

mmmmm

Noooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812520)

This is a stunningly bad idea. It may prejudice any subsequent criminal proceedings against NI and thus let them off the hook. Please don't.

Actually, no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812528)

Uh, the newspaper is called the "The Sun" and not "Sun". You are going to confuse people who are not thinking about the newspaper.

This is terribly bad idea (1)

danielrendall (521737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812608)

This won't help things, and is quite likely to make taking any sort of legal action against NI through the proper channels difficult or impossible. (in interests of transparency and honesty, I posted the "Noooo!" comment above while not logged in...)

Re:This is terribly bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812734)

If the courts of the world had any ability to actually deliver justice, groups like Anon wouldn't need to be doing what they are doing. Sidestep the courts, get the truth out and do more damage than a "slap on the wrist" fine could ever accomplish.

Re:This is terribly bad idea (1)

danielrendall (521737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812806)

I don't think fighting lawlessness with lawlessness brings any great moral credit to anyone. The British courts are perfectly capable of delivering justice, but reckless twits on the Internet seem to be happy to jeopardise this prospect. I repeat - this isn't going to help.

Re:This is terribly bad idea (1)

gfreeman (456642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813090)

Yes it will. If the emails are copied and made available to the public, the police have "probable cause" to look at the originals within NI. From there it's a short step to the DPP, but if history shows us anything it will not go anywhere, though not because of the Anon/Lolz actions.

I can't see why this would make it harder to take legal action.

Re:This is terribly bad idea (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813030)

it's the "fine" i have a problem with - people need to be responsible for their actions.. even if they are working under the orders of others in their job.. if they break the law they need to go to jail

i know there is problem under the military chain of command for this - but when it comes to corporations there should be zero questions.

Re:This is terribly bad idea (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813190)

If that's the case, then the U.K. needs legal reform. After all, you shouldn't be able to escape the repercussions of your actions by pretending to be someone else and talking about them. That'd be a huge legal loophole.

Pay back is a bitch (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812622)

Pay back is a bitch. As others have mentioned this may not be the best thing for the criminal investigations, but it will be interesting to see how News Corps responds to this since it was apparently ok for them (a private entity) to tap other private entities' phones and e-mails.

Re:Pay back is a bitch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812888)

I don't get it. Everyone complains that the big corporations step all over human rights, they are evil, etc. Then, this hacker organization comes into being, whose only purpose is to violate the privacy of others, yet they are lauded by the very people who despise the SAME behavior in corporations. Perhaps people forgive the hackers because they are not motivated by money like the corporations. I think that's a weak excuse. Another argument might be they are only hurting people who have already crossed the line - that's BS, the collateral damage from these attacks is not negligible. If these guys focused on outing corruption, it would be different, but that isn't how they operate. They're no different from looters in a riot.

Re:Pay back is a bitch (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812944)

I am not saying that this was a good thing, just that "it couldn't have happened to a nicer company". Personally I hope it affect the prosecution of these cases as it would be nice to see a perp walk for some executives for once who are actively trying to screw people.

Re:Pay back is a bitch (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812976)

Considering the irrational hate and fear, is now up to physical attacks against Murdoch. I'm sure that people are a-okay with things like this too.

Yep and good job people. You want to suck up to a partisan ideology. That's fine. You want to take your partisan ideology to the next step? Well that's okay too. You want to keep going and physically assault people because you don't like their business? You're just as fucked up as the person you claim to be railing against.

Okay, so . . . (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812698)

When is Anonymous going to hack Wikileaks as payback for Wikileaks hacking people to get stuff to report?

Re:Okay, so . . . (2)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812754)

When you can prove that wikileaks 'hacked' people. Publishing information from insiders is not same hacking. Try logic 101.

Re:Okay, so . . . (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813312)

Yea I'm sure the Wiki-leaks information just magically appeared. People have been referring this latest episode as "phone hacking" which is bullshit and anyone who considers this "hacking" should turn in their geek card in immediately. People just didn't change their default voicemail passwords and got owned. This is also pretty common on luggage locks so you better get to changing them in case the someone short stops your baggage looking for juicy info to post on the front page. This type of illegal access falls into the same category as someone with a security clearance downloading gigs of classified data to a USB and walking out the door with it and sending it to Wiki-leaks during in the midst of a mental meltdown. In both cases the law was broken so you can't defend one and support the other and expect anyone to take you seriously. Selective outrage and glaring hypocrisy is what drives today's society not any search for truth and justice. And payback can be a bitch however the moron script kiddie avengers may find the consequences of their actions more than they bargained for.

Anonymous, go away. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812744)

We don't need your stuff. Your ways and the closed journalist are too similar. I hate illegal and unethic beavior where I found it.

Re:Anonymous, go away. (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812824)

ohkay buddy. put down the booze or the pills or whatever.. gonzo journalism is separated from Newscorp's by _intent_. Are you here for the truth, or do you have the "truth" and merely need to make some facts up to support it? Think newscorp would publish something that didn't corroborate their pre-established position? Even wikileaks's publishing included the fact the the gov. wasn't all guns and evil, they merely published not editorialized, and that's a difference.

Working... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812748)

Why is there a Wokring... thingie at the bottom of every Slashdot article? What exactly is the spinning wheel working on? Thanks!

Re:Working... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812988)

It's sending copies of a photo of, shall we say, a rather flexible gentleman, to everyone in your email contact list.

Re:Working... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813054)

Why is there a Wokring... thingie at the bottom of every Slashdot article?

Some of us enjoy a good stir-fry. You should try following random jumps in the wokring; there are interesting and tasty results to be found.

Excellent ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812766)

If this is real then this could prove to the public there are positive ways of hacking.

yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812772)

zzzZZZ hackers are so boring. Talk about passive aggressive. Weak, fat, undersexed and not even prolly of legal age to vote.

Murdoch - perjurious? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812848)

From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rupert-murdoch-denies-911-victims-212945

"Rupert Murdoch said he had had no evidence whatever that any phone-hacking of 9/11 victims was carried out by any News Corporation staff, and said he thought it was “unbelievable” that it could have been carried out by anyone in the US."

From http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/07/despite-calling-it-the-most-humble-day-of-my-life-media-mogul-rupert-murdoch-flatly-denied-bearing-any-responsibility.html

"Instead, he pointed to “the people I employed or perhaps the people they employed” as being to blame for what appears to be the systemic use of phone hacking and payments to police."

This is in contrast to what is described here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/sep/06/pressandpublishing.uknews

which depicts Rupert Murdoch as a micromanagement guy, repeatedly terrorizing editors if they did not obey his private follies.

"Sam Kiley, who resigned last month as the Times's Middle East correspondent, claimed yesterday that his reports were regularly censored by editors living in "terror" of irritating Mr Murdoch."

Ask Sam Kiley, he could probably inform the investigators in London a lot about Murdoch's behavior, and likely, to what extent he ordered the buggings of 9/11 victims. And, follow the entire chain of editors, and the people Rupert and James Murdoch employed as well as the people they employed in turn.

So, is Murdoch perjurious? Probably no, as the hearing is no court... How convenient.

Bring the Murdochs to court!

a little advice, Mr Murdoch... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813006)

Don't embarq on any sea voyages, or you might get what Robert Maxwell got.
On second thought, go right ahead...

Anonymous cannot be trusted (1, Interesting)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812918)

If your breaking the law by hacking them, whose to say that what you released is even real? Whenever you commit the same crime to expose a crime you lose all credibility. Fighting ethical misconduct by committing your own misconduct gains nothing! You end up being as big a piece of excrement as the people you say your trying to expose. Looking forward to hearing about more arrests. At News Corp International and members of Anonymous! Knock ! Knock!

Re:Anonymous cannot be trusted (2)

kelleher (29528) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813084)

I agree with your post, but I have to admit that Anonymous is providing some guilt free schadenfreude....

Re:Anonymous cannot be trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813096)

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? If so, how can anyone ever trust you again?

Re:Anonymous cannot be trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813166)

Not quite.

Example: had Anon not exposed HB Gary Federal and their nefarious plan, nobody would be wiser. Result plan was ditched. Justice would never have been served. I see the outcome as an acceptable compromise.

Since both cases invlove the state legal aperatus (and establishment in general), and both have demonstrated bias, I think what LulzSec are doing is fair.

The game thus far has become unplayable. LulzSec/Anon are adapting to the circumstances by changing the modus operandi of combat; asymetrical if you will.

Re:Anonymous cannot be trusted (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813270)

Civil Rights protesters can't be trusted -- If they're breaking the law by riding in the front of buses or participating in illegal protests speaking out the very laws that make such things illegal, or performing their "duty as a statesman" to overthrow an oppressive government (as mentioned in their original Declaration of Independence), then they can clearly NEVER be Trusted!

Are you now or have you ever been in violation of any law? Aha! Your vehicle exceeded the mandated speed limit! Your words are meaningless to me now!

Also: I do not abide by laws that are unjust, or logic that is flawed. Nor do I wait idly for the next blow from my assailant's fist.

Haaaaax! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812996)

Oh, I just love hearing about this on TV, everyone is crying HAX HAX JHAX!!11!1

STFU noobs, nobody is hacking, you just suck.

>You have been kicked from the server and your IP banned - REASON: quit whining about hax noobs

no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813092)

this group will release something that gets someone killed. It's just a shame that none of the hackers will be on the death toll list.

Something Fishy (1)

Zamphatta (1760346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813104)

Is it just me, or is it all too easy to hack companies & governments nowadays? That's very very strange. - SONY didn't have proper security anywhere in its worldview. - The US military just had 24,000 files stolen. - The Sun just had its email hacked. - etc, etc, etc. I'm not a security expert, but I know enough about it to find it harder & harder to actually believe that these places with highly sensitive material, are being hacked without much of a problem.

Not too bright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36813224)

By hacking into those servers, Murdoch's lawyers can easily claim any evidence was planted. Good going guys.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...