Hacking scandal just keeps giving

[0a]

I hear on Radio 4 that Alastair Campbell will claim The Mirror hacked Cherie Blair’s voicemail in the enquiry this week, according to Guido:

http://order-order.com/2011/11/27/exclusive-alasta...

[CommanderJameson]

As the kids say, "st just got real".

Hain's computer may have been hacked.

>please let it be true<

One can imagine the conversation, held in hushed tones, between the NI journo and his PI source:

"Yeah, that Hain. I'm going to hack his computer."

"Righty ho. After all, what could possibly go wrong with hacking the Northern Ireland Secretary's computer?"

[Derek Smith]

CommanderJameson said:

As the kids say, "st just got real".

Hain's computer may have been hacked.

Just when the inquiry was being dragged down by so many self absorbed celebrities, this more than compensates.

Now into the big league. Did the police know about this when they sleeved the investigation? Surely not. But then you never know. Quite a shock.

What were the security services doing in allowing him to use, or perhaps issuing, computers that are hackable by, er, hacks?

The SoS for NI! That's aiming high, even if it was only Hain.

[Marf]

Derek Smith said:

What were the security services doing in allowing him to use, or perhaps issuing, computers that are hackable by, er, hacks?

Is that a serious question? Anything is hackable if you have the right tools or the "social engineering" abilities needed to con information out of someone.

A system is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Derek Smith]

Marf said:

Derek Smith said:

What were the security services doing in allowing him to use, or perhaps issuing, computers that are hackable by, er, hacks?

Is that a serious question? Anything is hackable if you have the right tools or the "social engineering" abilities needed to con information out of someone.

A system is only as strong as its weakest link.

The weakest link being hain I suppose.

These are hacks those, hardly the highest trained in the IT world. They would be told what to do and they would do it without any comprehension of the finer details. I would have thought that at least the HO would require systems where it took people of average intelligence or above to hank into them.

[Marf]

Generally yes, the user will be the weakest link, but equally OS and program vulnerabilities can gift hackers access to systems, as can insecure machines on a "secure" network.

I'm sure there are methods by which average or less than averagely intelligent "hackers" can gain access to systems, but these will likely be well publicised back doors which by rights should have been plugged by a given organisations network security teams.

I think more likely is the social engineering aspect, tricking someone into allowing access, or pretending to offer IT support and then installing key loggers, that kinda stuff.

Whilst these methods are no doubt "clever" they're not really in the same league as real hackers who actually discover and exploit points of entry into systems.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 29th November 12:55

[CommanderJameson]

Marf said:

Generally yes, the user will be the weakest link, but equally OS and program vulnerabilities can gift hackers access to systems, as can insecure machines on a "secure" network.

I'm sure there are methods by which average or less than averagely intelligent "hackers" can gain access to systems, but these will likely be well publicised back doors which by rights should have been plugged by a given organisations network security teams.

I think more likely is the social engineering aspect, tricking someone into allowing access, or pretending to offer IT support and then installing key loggers, that kinda stuff.

Whilst these methods are no doubt "clever" they're not really in the same league as real hackers who actually discover and exploit points of entry into systems.

I'd bet a pound to a pinch of st that there was some degree of rummaging through the bins involved in this, if it actually turns out to be substantiated.

[Marf]

Either that or a simple key logging trojan set to covertly mail it's collected data once a week.

[Derek Smith]

There is a certain irony in the fact that Levenson, who is in theory the open minded person looking into abuse of authority, comes up with this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/29/leveson-...

[tank slapper]

I don't know about the finer points of the law regarding that, but I have been watching the inquiry when I've had the chance. It is quite interesting. Most of the witnesses have come across very well, and have made good points. The exception being the ex-journalist who was on earlier today, who seems to be under the impression that he is entitled to poke his nose wherever he likes, using whatever methods he likes, with the justification that people will read it. The classic example of inability to determine the difference between public interest and interest to the public.

Anne Diamond made some good points yesterday about regulation and behaviour of the broadcasting industry in comparison to the press, and how despite having quite a quite strict code of conduct it hasn't prevented investigative journalism.

[5705]

tank slapper said:

inability to determine the difference between public interest and interest to the public.

This is the whole issue. And the Great British Public (bless 'em) are not innocent in this.

The mouth-breathers simply want to read stories about slebs bonking, snorting and looking stunning/ugly. The stories don't even need to be true. As long as there's a constant stream of titillation and enough photos so they don't have to actually read much, they're happy as pigs in st.

Meanwhile, the chattering classes want to read true stories that uncover 'important' wrongdoing: MPs expenses, Belgrano sinkings, etc. But don't kid yourself - they also don't care if the stories are discovered by data theft, national security breaches, etc.

[Eric Mc]

The problem is drawing the line bewteen -

"celebs" who revel in the publicity whether it be good or bad

public figures who wish to retain some sort of private life

those who are thrust into public life through no doing of their own e.g. friends and relatives of victims of crime

As far as the tabloids are concerned, all these people are ripe for exploitation. I would only consider the first category to be pretty much fair game.

[Marf]

AFAIC Paid with public money = public interest. Anything else is nobody elses business. IMHO of course

[Eric Mc]

Marf said:

AFAIC Paid with public money = public interest. Anything else is nobody elses business. IMHO of course

I think those who deliberately court publicity for furthering their carreers - the Jordans of this world, for instance - have less of a defence of invasion of their privacy if a story that they would rather not have published emerges.

[Marf]

Eric Mc said:

Marf said:

AFAIC Paid with public money = public interest. Anything else is nobody elses business. IMHO of course

I think those who deliberately court publicity for furthering their carreers - the Jordans of this world, for instance - have less of a defence of invasion of their privacy if a story that they would rather not have published emerges.

Granted, but that to me would still not be "in the public interest".

[5705]

Marf said:

AFAIC Paid with public money = public interest.

OK, that's a working definition.

Marf said:

Anything else is nobody elses business.

Then where does privacy start? Are you saying that newspapers/bloggers/everyone can write nothing about a person unless:

• it's already in the public domain (e.g. court documents), or
• it specifically came directly from that person to the relevant journalist
• that person gives explicit permission
• that person knows that it will be published

(genuine question - just using this as a logical process)

Such a rule would end kiss-n-tell stories and a lot of the 'friends of a visibly distressed Kerry Katona said...' stories. And would pretty much end all manner of discussions of third parties in print and online. And it would turn journalism into pure PR. And it would be unenforceable.

But it would definitely be fair.

Edited by 5705 on Wednesday 30th November 13:25

[Marf]

I see what you're saying, and speaking personally it wouldnt bother me if the situation you describe was applied to celebrity. It'd stop all the inane gossipy ste that gets swished around in the media.

Now, as I've typed this it makes me realise that of course public interest includes criminality. If someone "famous" (or anyone for that matter) is acting illegally, then the press could rightly expose that.

As for unenforcable, I dont think it would be with the relevant legislation backing it up.

It would force the media to actuall seek out stories in the public interest.

[MX7]

5705 said:

Meanwhile, the chattering classes want to read true stories that uncover 'important' wrongdoing: MPs expenses, Belgrano sinkings

Are you saying that those two events are equally wrong?


I liked this bit:

"Mr Campbell said the press was "frankly putrid in many of its elements".

Irony will never be taken to such giddy heights again.

[freecar]

Marf said:

Eric Mc said:

Marf said:

AFAIC Paid with public money = public interest. Anything else is nobody elses business. IMHO of course

I think those who deliberately court publicity for furthering their carreers - the Jordans of this world, for instance - have less of a defence of invasion of their privacy if a story that they would rather not have published emerges.

Granted, but that to me would still not be "in the public interest".

I'm with marf, if you are responsible for members of the public then you may be in the public interest. Jordan may be interesting to members of the public but it is not in our interest to know things about her, she has nor responsibility upon our lives.

Same goes for footballers, my Father raised the issue of "role models" being in the public interest but I see it differently, nobody decides to become a role model it is decided for you by other people, I don't believe that anybody can apportion responsibility to you without your consent. How does a footballer know if his career will be granny shagging or shaking hands with sick kids? It is not fair to make them responsible for standards that you have decided that they should uphold.

[CommanderJameson]

MX7 said:

5705 said:

Meanwhile, the chattering classes want to read true stories that uncover 'important' wrongdoing: MPs expenses, Belgrano sinkings

Are you saying that those two events are equally wrong?


I liked this bit:

"Mr Campbell said the press was "frankly putrid in many of its elements".

Irony will never be taken to such giddy heights again.

Even a truly horrific st of a man can be right every once in a while.