Beta
×

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!

App Developer Says Stolen UDIDs Came From Them, Not FBI

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Apple 180

pdabbadabba writes "A Florida iPhone and iPad app developer, Blue Toad, has come forward claiming that it is the source of the Apple UDIDs previously released by Anonymous. Their dataset, they say, is a 98% match for the one Anonymous hackers claim to have stolen from an FBI laptop. If so, this development would cast serious doubt on Anonymous' claims and, possibly, calm fears that this data is evidence of an ongoing FBI surveillance operation (a claim the FBI has also denied)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dont trust anonymous (2)

Mr. Kinky (2726685) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290319)

This just shows that you cannot trust anonymous. but then again.. WOOHOO, EA SPORTS [youtube.com] !!

Re:Dont trust anonymous (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290561)

Or maybe that you just can't trust Blue Toad, who got paid behind the scenes to take the fall for this.

Or maybe that was a double fake, and that this whole thing was set up as a distraction by Google to undermine iPhone.

Or maybe it was actually stolen by the EFF, who then spoofed an FBI operation for Anonymous to find so that they could promote their agenda.

(Or maybe you're completely right)

Re:Dont trust anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291273)

Or maybe that you just can't trust Blue Toad, who got paid behind the scenes to take the fall for this.

Or maybe that was a double fake, and that this whole thing was set up as a distraction by Google to undermine iPhone.

Or maybe it was actually stolen by the EFF, who then spoofed an FBI operation for Anonymous to find so that they could promote their agenda.

(Or maybe you're completely right)

Yeah because we all know how much corporations just HATE working with the government.. oh wait.

Maybe they were promised retroactive immunity if they should ever need it?

Re:Dont trust anonymous (4, Insightful)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291639)

As a true conspiracy nut, I would not put it past 1. the FBI to have gotten its data from Blue Toad or 2. Blue Toad covering up for the FBI.

And that company is... (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290337)

Flowers By Irene?

Re:And that company is... (4, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290513)

As phrased by an article at ZDNet, it's any company that allows this result:

So there are two things we know: Apple and the FBI are back on the Christmas card lists of the general public, and hackers apparently lie.

Apple and the FBI are good, and hackers are bad. Apparently that's the lesson to take away from this.

According to their article in Wikipedia, it's also a company that lists the Department Of State and the Public Relations Society of America among their customers.

Re:And that company is... (4, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290773)

According to their article in Wikipedia, it's also a company that lists the Department Of State and the Public Relations Society of America among their customers.

As soon as I saw that, my thought was "so that's where the kid thought he was".

I figure a script kiddie broke into the Blue Toad servers, found some documents talking about working with the government (perhaps the FBI in particular), then found the UDIDs, and jumped to the conclusion that they had broken into an FBI system involved in domestic surveillance. Then they release it as Anonymous in an act of misguided privacy activism, throwing in an agent's name (possibly even mentioned in the found files) for credibility.

I'm jumping to conclusions myself, though, and assuming that there's some shred of truth to anybody's statements.

Re:And that company is... (1, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291029)

...and it could just as easily be a case where the FBI requested this list from Blue Toad, or Blue Toad submitted this list as part of an investigation. All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

Re:And that company is... (5, Interesting)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291175)

...and it could just as easily be a case where the FBI requested this list from Blue Toad, or Blue Toad submitted this list as part of an investigation. All we know now is where the data likely originated -- which is precisely where everyone assumed it originated anyway (a single developer list).

It could also be that the developer got hacked w/o being involved with the FBI in any way, prior to the attack.

Which, on the whole, is a lot simpler explanation than a conspiracy theory.

Re:And that company is... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291715)

The developer got hacked prior to the attack? Do you mean that the attack was directly against Blue Toad? Or are you saying they got hacked, then they got attacked?

I like my answer better: the data likely originated with them, and eventually got from there to AntiSec's computers, through some unknown path that they claim involved the FBI, and the FBI claims didn't. Everything else is pure guesswork.

Re:And that company is... (4, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291781)

Ah, yes. The colloquializtion of Occam's Razor is "All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely."

However, this neglects the little-known fact that William of Ockham was one of the founding members of the real Illuminati (and not the 18th-Century cover organization everyone knows about). He planted his philosophical disinformation into the intellectual culture specifically to cover the elaborate and long-running schemes he knew his secret society would enact over the coming centuries. By making us think that the simpler solution is the better one, he innoculated us against uncovering complex and insidious schemes, or believing them if they are uncovered. Fnord.

Re:And that company is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290515)

No, it's "Glamor Shots By Deb".

Re:And that company is... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290527)

From Dodge City, no less [flowersbyirene.com]

Place the arrangement near your subject and tell him to be sure to speak slowly and distinctly

Hm... (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290357)

Which side to believe when both sides are known liars?

Re:Hm... (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290415)

I was just thinking the same: Anonymous have time and again lied about stuff, but so has the FBI and the FBI could just have paid Blue Toad to take the blame or made some other deal with them. Can't know, really, and with that in mind I'll just assume maliciousness from both parties.

Re:Hm... (1)

Mr. Kinky (2726685) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290439)

What "Anonymous"? Wasn't the point of Anonymous that there is no Anonymous?

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291011)

That's Anonymous the sociopolitic identity. This is Anonymous the cracking group, who named themselves after the concept.

(And I'm Anonymous the guy who is too lazy to make an account)

Re:Hm... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290677)

Oh this is getting funny.

Ridiculously unlikely conspiracy theory get blown out of the water? Not a problem... just double-down on the crazy!

Let's see if I've got this straight. So the FBI and Apple are secretly in collusion to provide LE with a database of increasingly-useless UUID's, and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop, the database was stolen from the FBI, but they somehow know the people that did it can't demonstrate that, so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit, knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.

Have I got it?

Re:Hm... (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290927)

You're forgetting the fact that it was Obama's fault all along.

Re:Hm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291711)

With respect to the standard profile of a slashdot conspiracy theorist, I think it's far more likely to have been a major corporation, where Dick Cheney was once supreme chancellor, acting under the direct influence of Scientology Extremeists and backed with shady financial instruments sold by AIG.

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291013)

Oh this is getting funny.

Ridiculously unlikely conspiracy theory get blown out of the water? Not a problem... just double-down on the crazy!

Let's see if I've got this straight. So the FBI and Apple are secretly in collusion to provide LE with a database of increasingly-useless UUID's, and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop, the database was stolen from the FBI, but they somehow know the people that did it can't demonstrate that, so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit, knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.

Have I got it?

Nailed it!
It is amazing some of the things people will believe. But yes, you nailed it. Anyone still thinking this was some FBI operation is, well, a "bit out there". They probably hang out with moon landing deniers.

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291019)

Well and it would be a bit confusing, if true, because the FBI doesn't need much in the way of an excuse to have data from Apple, and Apple wouldn't much care.

FBI: "Yes, we occasionally request device id's in the course of conducting investigations, just as we would request records from a phone company or ISP. The data was stolen from a careless [agent|contractor|x]. We are investigating the theft and intend to have the criminal locked up and butt raped by the end of October."

Apple: "We provide data to law enforcement authorities in accordance with federal law. You're going to buy the iPhone 5 either way, so piss off."

Stupid to think data was from Apple (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291259)

the FBI doesn't need much in the way of an excuse to have data from Apple

Sure it does, but that's beside the point.

If the data was from Apple, it would be complete. Apple knows the names attached to a UDID, no-one else has this complete list.

Yes, we occasionally request device id's in the course of conducting investigations

Except they wouldn't because it would be pointless. The UDID's are useless for that purpose, especially (again) a list of UDID's why so little other information besides the UDID itself - which is worthless.

Re:Hm... (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291207)

> Have I got it?

Almost, the story needs more explosions and a comic relief.
Be sure to shoot the film in 3D.

The Real Story (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291353)

The funny thing is the conspiracy theory guys are missing the most juicy conspiracy theory sitting right there in front of them.

The list was super-obviously not from the FBI right? So why would Anonymous leak such a list, when it so obviously would come back and damage credibility?

The answer s obvious. The FBI was in fact "Anonymous" that leaked the original list, known it would be disproved and make Anonymous look bad. The original leak was just credible enough that the real Anonymous would not speak out against it a snot coming from them, because it's a loose group and how would they really know if it was one of them that did it?

Even now probably many Anonymous guys are here and elsewhere, defending the leak has having come from the FBI and making Anonymous look more and more clueless in the process...

I give this FBI operation an A+ for effectiveness. They almost had me thinking Anon was the stupidest bunch of wankers to ever touch a keyboard until I figured it out.

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290431)

You assume they are still both lying, and that the reality of the situation is a third (or in most real life cases, 75th) option.

Remember, there are a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right, so just because one person is wrong that doesn't mean his opposition is right.

Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answer (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290717)

How is Blue Toad a liar?

They are admitting a serious breech which impacts goodwill at the company.

Even at the time of the UDID release, I argued that the simplest explanation was simply that the list came from some app developer that had a server collecting some data. After all, if the data came from Apple OR the FBI, it should be WAY larger and the subset we saw should be WAY more complete, the only reason why such data would be sparse is that it was collected by an app that ran on a variety of devices with a variety of information provided by the users. There was also no reason WHY the FBI would even care about a UDID for a user since Apple had discontinued use months ago and there is really no way to use that data for anything useful.

Now the Blue Toad admission verifies what was already by far the likely scenario. At this point to believe anything else is right up there at the three-tinfoil hat level.

Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe (1)

MikeMo (521697) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290767)

The /. crowd would rather believe the FBI is lying. They will contort themselves to protect that belief. Just as with so many other issues discussed here, like Apple and Android.

Goodbye karma. sigh.

Re:Blue Toad is a liar? Believe the SIMPLEST answe (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290993)

The original claim that the list came from the FBI is an amazing act of trolling. There are way too many people who not only believe that the instant they hear it, but will never let it drop, regardless of how much other evidence or pieces of the story come out.

Re:Hm... (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290829)

I don't trust the FBI at all, but WTF were they going to do with a patchy database of deprecated hardware IDs?

Re:Hm... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291583)

When they tell you that anything you say can be used against you, they aren't lying. Everything else? eh... who knows?

Or the FBI (3, Interesting)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290365)

was given the data by an insider or hacked it themself first.

Why Why Why (1, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290995)

The data file is of no use to the FBI. It has way too little data compared to total number of devices. UDID's have been of no use to anyone since about the start of the year.

The data file also had WAY too little information (too sparse) to be of much use in correlation. In short, there's no good reason why the FBI would care about a list of UDID's even if you tried to GIVE them to the FBI.

There is no logical reason why the FBI would care at all about the data set shown; to my mind that's the most damning evidence against the FBI ever having had it.

Re:Or the FBI (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291317)

Only on Slashdot would this get modded as 5 interesting.

The real question! (4, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290379)

The next question: What was Blue Toad up to? Why did the FBI have a copy of their data? How many FBI back doors are their in Blue Toads apps?

Lets run those apps under traffic analysis. The version that was live a week ago.

Re:The real question! (1, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290607)

The next question: What was Blue Toad up to? Why did the FBI have a copy of their data? How many FBI back doors are their in Blue Toads apps?

Read the story. The data was stolen off of Blue Toad's servers. The FBI wasn't part of this at all. Anonymous lied.

Re:The real question! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290859)

Right. You're a company which has data in the same class as anonymous claims to have stolen from the FBI. So naturally you get a copy and check if it's yours, then publicly claim it.

Somebodies lying, that's for sure.

Re:The real question! (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290945)

Because we all know companies routinely go around telling people they have been compromised and data stolen when it's all a lie. Uhhh, what?

Re:The real question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291337)

Had you or anyone you know heard of Blue Toad before this? Exactly.

Re:The real question! (2)

Koreantoast (527520) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291783)

Or maybe you make a public announcements because you're afraid that security experts are going to figure out that it was your company's database that was compromised and would rather preempt it to try and control the message. You know, kind of like how David Schuetz, a third party, figured it out, and then Blue Toad decided to work with him to make the announcement themselves rather than have multiple security experts make announcements about it.

Re:The real question! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290673)

You seem stuck on the premise that the data ever existed on an FBI computer. While that is possible, it is certainly no longer the simplest explanation.

Re:The real question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291015)

Why are they taking the blame, and the shitstorm of negative publicity linked to it? Not to mention making themselves a target for Apple/FBI lawsuits?

Are they criminally stupid?

Re:The real question! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291649)

That's the key question. Why are they so quick to take the blame. It's not a 100% match. I'd think the lawyers would tell them just shut the fuck up even if it was their data stolen from them.

On the other hand, if they have reason to help with a little disinformation, this is exactly what I'd expect.

No tinfoil hats? (2, Funny)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290383)

4 comments and no one has yet claimed that Blue Toad is an obvious FBI front?

Yvan from NSMB Wii (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290443)

4 comments and no one has yet claimed that Blue Toad is an obvious FBI front?

So it's not Nintendo [mariowiki.com] testing the waters before abandoning its 3DS-exclusive portable strategy?

Re:No tinfoil hats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290589)

No tin-foil hat needed. Even their Wikipedia page admits that one of their biggest publishing partners is the U.S. Department of State. Nothing fishy about that at all, of course.

Re:No tinfoil hats? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291101)

The lack of evidence alone is proof of a conspiracy!

Re:No tinfoil hats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291023)

Maybe not, but that thought certainly occured to me.

Re:No tinfoil hats? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291067)

They both have the same data set?

Don't trust FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290387)

Am I the only one thinking

1. FBI may have sourced the file from Blur Toad
2. Blue Toad may have been asked by FBI to say this
3. Blue Toad may simply be a cover company

I do not give more for FBI's and Blue Toad's word than for anonymous's word.

Vajk

Re:Don't trust FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290725)

You're not the only one thinking it, and making up batshit explanations to fit the data doesn't make you intelligent.

Why Why Why (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290867)

FBI may have sourced the file from Blur Toad

Then you must answer WHY they would do this.

UDID's are totally useless to the FBI. WHY would they collect such a TINY list, such an incomplete list.

It makes no sense to me why the FBI would want this list. It is pointless.

Re:Why Why Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291081)

Maybe someone in the FBI just asked one of their friends "Hey, I'm working on a case and I need to know what an iPhone UDID looks like. You work in apps and stuff, can you send me the format for one?" and the friend responded "I don't know the exact format, but here's a list of a million UDIDs that we have in our database. Does that help?" to which the FBI agent said "Yeah, thanks. By the way, are we still on for cards at Tim's tonight?"

(Assuming a lot of things, like that there's a link between FBI and Blue Toad, that the list really is from Blue Toad, that the list really was taken from an FBI agent, and so on and so on. You just asked the question of WHY this might happen, and this is an answer to that)

Re:Why Why Why (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291637)

Why would they not just send ONE UDID?

It's totally illogical to presume an answer to that question would be to send a proprietary database with 12 million records!

And then from there to have Anon stumble across this in an FBI laptop... COME ON.

Well yeah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290393)

Surprise, surprise. Excuse me while I go back to read the pages of FBI-Apple conspiracy theories on the last related slashdot post, where this infinitely more likely possibility didn't appear until about the 3,000th post.

woohoo (3, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290397)

the fbi check cleared... i did it

Re:woohoo (2)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290411)

uh oops, imean the fbi did not pay me.

Re:woohoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290821)

I would believe Apple paid him before the FBI did.

Now I'm so reassured (1)

opus_magnum (1688810) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290447)

that random developers have access to sensitive data and make a mess of it.
But at least I'm not being tracked by the FBI!

Re:Now I'm so reassured (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290505)

Random developers have access to data users give them.

Re:Now I'm so reassured (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291201)

Not on iOS. Unless you jailbreak and use a tweak like "Protect My Privacy", you cannot tell when an iOS app asks for anything but your location. They can look at your photos, your contacts, your calendar, and your UDID without so much as the user having the slightest idea. They may even have accesses to your IMEI, I don't know. I've never tried to access that from an app.

Re:Now I'm so reassured (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291613)

In iOS6 all of those requests now throw up a confirmation dialog. IMEI requires use of a private API, which would keep the app out of the store.

Isn't that what you'd expect? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290459)

If the FBI was caught doing something illicit or illegal, wouldn't you expect them to come up with an alternate source of the data to cover up their behavior?

Re:Isn't that what you'd expect? (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290791)

Oliver North called, looking for Blue Toad's address to gift them a barely-used sword to fall on.

Definition of religion. (2)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291319)

A very useful definition of religion is "the lack of falsifiability". If there is no evidence which would convince you that the FBI isn't a bad actor in this case then your claims are not falsifiable. Therefore, your belief that that "the evil government is out to get you" is a religion. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point most of Slashdot was swallowed up by this same "Church of the Tin Foil hat". It used to be funny, then it got scary, now it is just boring.

Since this is your religion, there is nothing I can do to talk you out of it, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot:

The government is not picking through your smartphone or tracking your location or reading your text messages. Of course they could, and would, but they aren't. Why? Because you don't matter.

Surveillance (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290497)

Just because someone denies it's happening doesn't mean it isn't. And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens. History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy". Of course, in doing so, they trample the very protections meant to protect the innocent, and so many people are in jail simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had politically controversial views (as the FBI sees them, anyway).

Whenever a law enforcement organization takes liberties with our liberties, it is to the detriment to us all. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is the traditional path by which democracy is destroyed.

Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive (2, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290827)

And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens.

If you think that way about the FBI, then you know the list was not from the FBI.

With a few hundred million iOS devices in the wild, an FBI list should have hundreds of millions of entries. AND it would be a hell of a lot more complete.

It was always bullshit to think this list was from the FBI. It was painfully obvious the list was published by a group that hates the FBI as much as you and other Slashdot users do, just to discredit them.

I don't care about the FBI myself one way or the other. But I do care about groups that are supposed to represent a kind of healthy counterpoint to the FBI, losing a lot of credibility by making stuff up just to attack enemies.

You want a real conspiracy theory? How about the FBI was behind the original Anonymous post unveiling the UDID list, knowing the real holder would come forth and embarrass Anonymous... Anon, seems you have a mole.

Re:Why the list was not from FBI: NOT massive (1)

Godin21 (623535) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291667)

I'm a fan of a good old fashioned Conspiracy. They are always entertaining! I have the most fun poking holes in the theory, and by the end, it sounds so ridiculous it is impossible to believe.

Now I don't want to add any credence to this theory, but I wanted to point out a couple inconsistencies with your skepticism.

First off, the FBI is a domestic agency. Their scope does not extend past the borders of the United States. To snoop in other countries, you need to go talk to other TLA's.

Second, "a few hundred million iOS devices in the wild" describes the global saturation, not just the US. The US population is currently about 314 million. So unless you are suggesting that every man, woman and child in America owns an iDevice, that number is much lower. A quick Google search indicates about 37 million, so having a list of 12 million devices is not unreasonable. (Roughly 1/3. About the same ratio you suggested in your comment)

That doesn't mean the list came from the FBI, just that the idea can't be dismissed based on the reasons you provided.

Re:Surveillance (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291195)

History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy".

Just wait until they couple this [extremetech.com] with data from Facebook. Oh wait, what am I worried about? They're the good guys, right?! And this is a new age where shit like that could *never* happen. Yeah.

Anyone here remember J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org] ?

Anonymous=Al Qaeda (0)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290507)

The media speaks of "Anonymuos" as if it's a top-down organization with members, leadership and a charter. In reality it's nothing but a label that anyone with an agenda can adopt to advance their cause. It's not much different than what post-9/11 Al Qaeda became in that regard.

Re:Anonymous=Al Qaeda (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290709)

Anonymous is very much a top down organization with leadership. The ideal is very far from the reality friend.

Re:Anonymous=Al Qaeda (2)

harperska (1376103) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291041)

About as wrong as is humanly possible. Certain sub-organizations that claim to be offshoots of Anonymous such as Lulzsec may have a top down leadership structure, but Anonymous as a whole is much more of an idea than an organization.

So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290529)

What's the difference between Apple, the FBI, or some development studio having the UDIDs? Doesn't it just prove the point that UDIDs are accessible...probably even moreso that there could literally be thousands of caches of UDIDs out there? If these could be use for some nefarious purposes then wouldn't it make sense to lock them down? Just sayin...

Re:So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290743)

UDID's are pretty useless on their own. Most devs collect them to uniquely identify devices. More nefarious use them for advertising

Re:So App Developers have access to those UDIDs? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291663)

Doesn't it just prove the point that UDIDs are accessible...

They WERE widely accessible. Way back around the start of the year Apple started rejecting apps that collected them.

They were also pointless to collect, as they revealed nothing about the user.

It seems to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290549)

that if the info was taken from an FBI laptop, that there would be other information on that laptop to prove it was in use by an FBI agent. If Anonymous doesnt have such information, then it seems unlikely they got the information from an FBI used laptop.

Then Anon get done up for putting lives at risk. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291533)

How many people howl for WL blood because they gave out classified information from a government source?

How many howl for Manning's head for giving out the data?

I RTFA (3, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290579)

I RTFA to see why a company would voluntarily make such a claim ( unless they are an FBI front ;) ), and it seems the company were contacted by an outside researcher who suggested they were the "leak" (and perhaps would tell the world if they did not confess?). There are no further details that seemed interesting in case you were tempted to RTFA.

But of course the whole case seems rather uninteresting to me. A list of UDIDs. Wow, if FBI has them, they might also know who owns the UDIDs and have a pretty good list of annoying consumers with which you can't have a rational discussion on the subject of electronic devices. So what?

Re:I RTFA (5, Informative)

RaySnake (607687) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290721)

Take a look at the website of the researcher who did the legwork here. He even gives a detailed description of the advanced tools he used (cut and sort :-P) to elide the source. http://intrepidusgroup.com/insight/2012/09/tracking-udid-src/ [intrepidusgroup.com]

Re:I RTFA (2)

RaySnake (607687) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290775)

Apparently I don't know what "elide" means, I meant to say "discover the source".

Re:I RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291591)

That's it. Your slashdot account has hereby been revoked. No one reads the fine article here. It interfears with our fantasies and the ability to randomly believe whatever we want regardless of pesky facts.

Am I the only one reacting to the fact that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290733)

...these guys have no iPhone applications out there warranting a 1m+ user base, especially of people who, judging from the names of the phones, seem to be teenagers?

Re:Am I the only one reacting to the fact that... (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291161)

Read, my friend:

Blue Toad is a little-known privately held company, but its technology touches millions of users around the world. It provides private-label digital edition and app-building services to 6,000 different publishers, and serves 100 million page views each month, DeHart said.

OH NO UDIDn't! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290799)

fagets

bwKitch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290849)

first organization Reciprocating bad the Choosing watershed essay, to the transmission COMMUNITY AT beyond the scope of the channel to sign obsessives and the

Re:bwKitch (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291035)

first organization Reciprocating bad the Choosing watershed essay, to the transmission COMMUNITY AT beyond the scope of the channel to sign obsessives and the

Woops. Forgot you took your Adderall this morning and doubled up on the dose? Shouldn't do that.

Either that or look at the screen carefully when you're posting from your iPhone. That autocorrect is a bitch sometimes.

98% is not much of a match (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290871)

2% different is alot of differences when your looking at a million entries. Of course the theives could of added bogus data to the list in order to hide its origens. Or appened one data set with another in order have over a million records.

Re:98% is not much of a match (2)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291407)

2% different is alot of differences when your looking at a million entries. Of course the theives could of added bogus data to the list in order to hide its origens. Or appened one data set with another in order have over a million records.

Perhaps their database has changed since it was hacked?

Possible that the FBI also hacked Blue Toad? (1)

tipo159 (1151047) | more than 2 years ago | (#41290949)

Isn't also possible that the FBI hacked Blue Toad and got the list and then the Anonymous guys hacked the FBI and got the list from them? There is about as much public evidence for that scenario as any other.

Also, if the Anonymous guys supposedly got the list from Blue Toad, why is it 98% match for Blue Toad's and not a 100% match?

Re:Possible that the FBI also hacked Blue Toad? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291293)

As others have pointed out, the UDID is not very useful to have. There are some apps that may use that as a security token (Such as WhatsApp apparently), but other than that, there isn't much use.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41290983)

a super-organised of various BSD Wi7h THOUSANDS of These challenges more. If you feel

FUD (1)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291179)

People are oblivious to the fact that the FBI and the intelligence community runs several shell companies. This proves nothing. I've never heard of this little company before, yet what are they doing with all that information? Yet, they provide ZERO proof.

Also, Anonymous claims they only released 1 million out of a purported 15 million entries. I think it's time Anonymous dumped the entire database, fully unredacted to prove them wrong.

Blue Toad under DOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291181)

Can anyone else reach http://www.bluetoad.com/

Looks like Anon is getting back at them.

Gogo CSI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291217)

So, it's claimed that this developer does work 4k "brands" and that they recieve 100k pageviews a month. The developer won't reveal a client list. Ok

Work out which apps have updated in the last week
Zoom and Enhance
Ok, let's discount apps that don't have the same look and Feel (because develpers are lazy)
Zoom and Enhance
A ha... It's the Romney and Obama Apps.

I knew I shouldn't have trusted politicians

Re:Gogo CSI (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291323)

hey, where did you think the $1.11 and $1.14 billion dollars was going to be spent? On the space program?

FBI doesn't do grunt collection - this ain't over (1)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291291)

Since possessing such info is usually against the law for the FBI to have, agencies like the FBI have private companies gather it up for them. Then the FBI, or the NSA, or the CIA, or whoever, just gets the data on request through the "legal" channel of the private company. This is standard procedure. This means that the story is not danrathered yet; we are perhaps splitting hairs. The question is: WHO were they gathering the information for? Anyone? Was that "anyone" any law or spook service that asked for it, and how could we ever tell? Possession of such information by a private company which has no need for it should be on-the-face-of-it evidence of intent to provide to those who can't get, or are not allowed to get, such private data.

One would expect data set overlap (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291309)

Just because a specific developer has a data set that "mostly" overlaps the FBI laptop dataset does not mean they are the same.

It's like saying a Maserati and a BMW SL are the same. They're both cars. They both have tires. They both go fast.

But they're not the same.

related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291313)

The Golden Gate bridge is up for TAX sale...

Riddle me this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41291453)

If this app developer has them, are their records secure from FBI interception?

No.

Are they saying that the FBI didn't get it through them?

No.

And if any old developer can get them, can anyone say why?

No.

And where did the other 2% come from?

The Answer (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41291717)

A UDID list with almost no user detail like this one had, is TOTALLY USELESS to the FBI.

There's no reason the FBI would take such a list if you tried to give it to them; so why would they try to "intercept" it?

Far more likely is that the original "leak" was not from Anon, but from the FBI trying to make Anon look bad.

Mission accomplished.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?