Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Crime Government Security United Kingdom United States

Anonymous Posts Audio of Intercepted FBI Conference Call 336

Posted by timothy from the sounds-like-a-job-for-rupert-murdoch dept.
DrDevil writes "A member of the computer hacking group Anonymous has hacked into a telephone conference between the FBI and Scotland Yard (London Police) and posted it on the internet. The Daily Telegraph has a comprehensive article on the hack. The audio of the call can be heard here." Reader eldavojohn snips as well from the AP's story as carried by Google: "Those on the call talk about what legal strategy to pursue in the cases of Ryan Cleary and Jake Davis — two British suspects linked to Anonymous — and discuss details of the evidence gathered against other suspects."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Posts Audio of Intercepted FBI Conference Call More

Anonymous Posts Audio of Intercepted FBI Conference Call

Comments Filter:

  • I Guess This Means ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:21PM (#38917001)
    If Anonymous can listen to FBI calls then they'll certainly know when the FBI will be coming to kick down their door.

    This will really piss off the FBI and it will be the political motivation for the FBI to pull out all the stops to find members of Anonymous.

  • So Anonymous found a weak link and exploited it (Score:4, Informative)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:22PM (#38917011) Homepage Journal

    Seems to me a clever FBI/Scotland Yard, could take advantage of that to find their listeners.

    If nothing else I expect they'll be a bit more careful now, which could be a good thing. Anonymous likes to brag about accomplishments .. more insidious people have no desire to make it known they are tapping in.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lashat ( 1041424 )

      "Seems to me a clever FBI/Scotland Yard, could take advantage of that to find their listeners."

      Or, they just did exactly that. Here is a phone line with a specific code for YOU to login and listen. Don't worry we will keep it interesting enough for you to stay on the line while we trace the call/IP.

      Or, they were penetrated.

  • Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:25PM (#38917049)

    If the government can listen to our calls (without a warrant) then why can't we listen to theirs?

  • Dragnet (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TankSpanker04 ( 1266400 )

    Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

    • Re:Dragnet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:31PM (#38917151) Homepage Journal

      Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

      Nah. Never expect cleverness where carelessness would as easily explain how it was achieved.

      Some agent has been found and his mailbox is regularly visited for content of interest. Use some better security, send out a honeypot once in a while and see who connects, etc. This is a lesson for FBI and Scotland Yard not to take their security for granted. Could have been worse.

      I'm certain anyone else who was privy to these conference calls is highly annoyed at the exposure, which will result in some changes.

      • Besides, anyone who would hit so close to the enemy through a traceable connection is a moron.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ackthpt ( 218170 )

          Besides, anyone who would hit so close to the enemy through a traceable connection is a moron.

          Not even necessary to trace their connection - with each incident they expose vulnerabilities and the means used to exploit them. It's almost a service to government and industry, helping harden their systems. Certain this is not what they intend, but it is what they are accomplishing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )

        Nah. Never expect cleverness where carelessness would as easily explain how it was achieved.

        But never discount cleverness as a possibility.

  • They aren't heroes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:26PM (#38917071)
    Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can, and I imagine the replies to this comment will be to do the same. Now they're being apprehended and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

    • Re:They aren't heroes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:42PM (#38917359)

      They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can

      The problem is this same statement pretty well applies to the FBI and CIA and insert Gov agency here since 9/11.

    • Says Anonymous Coward

    • i know a good place that sells spectacular postals. i can cut you a deal.

    • Re:They aren't heroes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SendBot ( 29932 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:48PM (#38917451) Homepage Journal

      I mean this question in all seriousness: In this new information age in which we find ourselves, who ARE the heroes and who are the villains among these?

      1. Wikileaks / Bradley Manning / Julian Assange
      2. The justice department in conjunction with the overzealous copyright lobby and their partner brain slugs attached to the heads of the US executive branch
      3. "Illegal" immigrants
      4. The 1% that siphons wealth out of the country so they can get a generous cut along the way
      5. The proletariat who are mostly content with the way things are, but would be fully content if there was just more of it.
      6. Television news media
      7. The US congress
      8. The US military
      9. Anonymous / Lulzsec / 2600

      Here's my OPINION (for what it's worth, don't feel obligated to buy it)
      Heroes: 1,3,8,9
      Villains: 2,4,6,7
      Undecided / Neutral: 5

      What destruction has Anonymous caused that compares to suppression of the 1st amendment? They're effectively just calling shenanigans loud enough for everyone to hear, and I find it hilarious how much offense their opponents take in response.

      • You left off OWS

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )

        How is 8 a hero when they work for 4 and 7?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by SendBot ( 29932 )

          As I see it, the military works for the people, but are controlled by congress, who are supposed to be working for the people, but have been corrupted and now work for the 1%. I don't see the military as victims because it's voluntary service, and I don't see them as neutral because they get blown up and shot at a lot more than most lines of honest work.

          Uh oh... did I just imply that the military is honorable? Here it comes...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bob9113 ( 14996 )

        What destruction has Anonymous caused that compares to suppression of the 1st amendment?

        Well said. Thanks.

    • Re:They aren't heroes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eddy ( 18759 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:55PM (#38917611) Homepage Journal

      Well, if the FBI and the Yard does not have anything to hide, then why are they so upset about being listened in on? They LOVE to live in a surveillance society so much that they're the primary force in bringing it to be!

      You should ALWAYS listen to what the police say.

    • Re:They aren't heroes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:55PM (#38917625) Homepage Journal

      >Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes

      Perspective, wherefore art thou? The worst type of vigilantes rip people apart, physically - body from limb, burn homes, kill families and innocent people; baying, pitch-fork-wielding, lynching, bloodthirsty mobs.

      Personally, I see Anonymous as a cross between Robin Hood and Loki.

      I'm not saying nobody's going to get hurt, but part of me really rather likes them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I am a well-adjusted, tax-paying, home-owning, voting, employed, married, graduate-educated, 30-something American citizen. My political views are fairly main stream. It is remarkable how freedom and privacy I've lost and how much power the government has gained in my lifetime. I want more freedom and more privacy, even if I must pay with safety and money. I no longer see the police and the federal security apparatus as working in my interests. It is gratifying to see someone take them on and win.

  • Like Watching at The Zoo... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:27PM (#38917081)

    ...as some idiot climbs the fence to the bear exhibit so they can cuddle with the huge teddy tear. You just know it's not going to end well.

    Anon can't stay one step ahead forever.

    • I wouldn't be so sure. If you think government agents are as intelligent and competent as they're portrayed on TV shows, you're sadly mistaken.

    • Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:07PM (#38917881)

      I guess you sort of don't get the point of anonymous. They don't two [insert fecal reference here] because they are anyone and everyone, they blend right into the crowd. It could be anyone you know or don't know and people don't even have to join anonymous to be anonymous. These are basically random acts of terror. They don't really "decide" to do things as a group. Some random guy out there just suddenly decides, hey I'm going to go and do this and this and announces it to everyone. For example, the "public" opinion in "anonymous," which just so happens to match the general public opinion at large at the time, was that the Sony attacks and other related video game hacks were going to far and undermined public opinion of the "group" as a whole. Also, a lot of them are gamers too, so they weren't too happy with the idea of attacking gamers, in general. But, one or two "members" just decided gamers needed to be trolled, and did so. And, the fact that other anonymous members were annoyed by it, just made their trolling sweeter. Also, there were other members who simply get off on following the rest of the sheep in any attack they decide to do, so even though they might not have been in favor of it they just went along with it because that's where the action was.

      They're the epitomy of a pure anarchy. They coordinate by accident, and when they don't they act as lone wolves and do things of their own accord and agendas. And, the FBI and powers that be catch a few here and there, but it's like trying to stop whistle blowing for example there's always going to be more out there "joining" every day. Except that they're not really "joining" per se, all you need to do to be a supposed member is commit a random attack, brag about it, and stay anonymous. The moment your identity is known, e.g. you got doxxed, then you're no longer a "member" of the group. The ones they catch don't know any of the other members. Hopefully, that puts things in perspective.

      Basically, they're unstoppable. Maybe you can scare the group as a whole, sort of. For example, when some members were captured during a protest and taken by the Mexican mafias. Other "members" essentially negotiated for their safe release, using probably the only method they had at their disposal, blackmail. However, the mafia said to anonymous, that they would release the members but that if anonymous continued to expose and attack the mafia they would kill 1 innocent a day or something like that. Guess what anonymous did after their member's release? Sure enough, they went right back to exposing / attacking the mafia. Some "members" are amoral and really don't care, and some do care. But, the ones who care can't stop the ones that don't from doing simply anything they please. Just like if you picked a handful of random members of the general population, you'll find some people that care about others, some that don't, and some that may even amount to being criminal.

      The concept of anonymous is a pretty dangerous thing. Just like the war on terror, it's asymmetrical warfare. I'm reminded of an old saying, "It is easier to destroy than create." -- Niven's 6th law.

      They're probably going to be with us a very long time, the genie is out of the bottle. Even if you tracked every single communication and person in the world, they're going to find a way around it. They have a lot of hackers as members, great ones and not so great ones. Ironically, probably a hundred years from now they'll be the only thing standing between the average population and an absolute world totalitarianism that controls everything we think, say, and do. That's the only comforting thought I can think of about this whole fiasco.

    • the gov has to be careful, as well. martyrs can be a back-fire on the cause of the oppressor.

      public opinion can change REAL FAST on this.

      which is one reason the gov wants total control over the internet. they want to squash news of anything that shows them to be the bad guys or showing bad actions on their part.

  • Anonymous is the least of their worries... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TravTrav ( 1236742 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:29PM (#38917119) Homepage
    After all, if what amounts to a few script-kiddies can get this deep into confidential material, how much more material can a determined, knowledgeable, and well-funded adversary get?

    • Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eddy ( 18759 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:37PM (#38917269) Homepage Journal

      Perhaps the lesson is rather that Anon isn't ONLY made up of scriptkiddies. I know, goes against the talking points, but at some point they do get a bit tired.

      • Right, Anonymous does have a few competent people who are of course in no way, shape, or form their leaders, they just happen to direct the actions of everyone else in Anonymous and do most of the stuff that keeps Anonymous relevant. But they are not their leaders, because Anonymous doesn't have leaders, everyone knows that.

      • Perhaps the lesson is rather that Anon isn't ONLY made up of scriptkiddies. I know, goes against the talking points, but at some point they do get a bit tired.

        I'm sure there are some highly intelligent and very, very capable people working for anonymous, at least in a technical sense, just as there are probably lots of mediocre hangers-on. But when it comes to sense, these aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack. Sooner or later, FBI is going to go to NSA for help on this... the international aspect of Anon's ops will legally justify that... and these guys are either going to be caught, or spend a very scared and pathetic life on the run, like some old 60's radica

  • Cone of Silence (Score:5, Funny)

    by WillgasM ( 1646719 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:30PM (#38917141) Homepage
    And that's why I always insist that we use the cone of silence.

  • How convenient (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ebunga ( 95613 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:32PM (#38917171)

    "Anonymous is a dangerous threat to national security. They can even listen in on phone calls on secure lines. We must have mandatory validated identification of all users of the Internet and an end to anonymity to protect our secret operations."

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Bob9113 ( 14996 )

      "Anonymous is a dangerous threat to national security. They can even listen in on phone calls on secure lines. We must have mandatory validated identification of all users of the Internet and an end to anonymity to protect our secret operations."

      Do you think if Anonymous didn't exist they would say, "Well, we don't really need any more extreme measures to keep the populace quiet and compliant, because Anonymous doesn't exist. We'll just be happy with the tools we have now. We're even thinking about stopping

  • Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:46PM (#38917413) Homepage Journal

    This just shows what a bunch of clueless morons Anonymous is.
    They perform a brilliant bit of counter-intel and gained an upper-hand by finding a way to exploit the FBI and eavesdrop on their conversations.

    And what do they do with this victory? Do they send the FBI tripping over itself on an internal mole-hunt by going to the media with a tiny bit of this info explained as "information leaked by a source within the FBI?". Do they patiently sit and gather more intel, maybe useful information to help them evade arrest or gather bits of public interest in other cases for later use?

    No, they broadcast it to the world with details on how they did it, all but going to the FBI and closing the weakness themselves.
    These jerkoffs have shown once and for all that they are just a bunch of egotistical little shits who are indeed just in it for the lulz and "street cred".
    I doubt we'll see anything come of Anonymous aside from more LOIC attacks, credit card thefts and web page vandalism.
    They've shown all the intelligence and finesse of a group of anarchistic thugs.

    • Well first, they'd been bragging about being able to access the FBI's communications for some time, apparently.

      And second, you can't exactly keep Anonymous exploits secret. That's why when an operation requires secrecy they split off little private groups like LulzSec.

    • Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AdrianKemp ( 1988748 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:10PM (#38917945)

      They're apparently much smarter than you are.

      The FBI is what it is because it outwardly appears to operate effectively. If you can demonstrate well enough that it is not effective it will be dismantled either through staffing changes or actual full-on dismantling.

      You don't try to tie up the FBI's time, because it will just cost the tax payer more money. You throw egg in it's face as often as you possibly can until it's a laughing stock and must be replaced/removed in order to save face.

      Again, clearly much smarter than you

    • Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:23PM (#38918243) Journal

      Better anarchistic thugs than authoritarian thugs.

    • Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:10PM (#38918999) Journal

      Or, it's brilliant.

      Let's say Anon managed to through some one-time gap (ie a sympathetic insider, perhaps) managed to get the login details to this one conference. It's meaningless, because they can't repeat the success.

      However, if they leak it:
      - heads roll at the FBI
      - everyone's walking on eggshells because of management fury
      - everyone's required to use full-secure protocols and resources for the stupidest trivial conversations
      - FBI still doesn't know who leaked it, so begins witchhunt which consumes resources, and makes everyone nervous.

      I think it's probably a one-off, parlayed into a fairly clever bit of system-attack.

      You know, like a single coordinated unrepeatable multiplane hijacking could theoretically cause an entire country to be consumed by paroxysms of paranoia for more than a decade, leading to absurd legislation, efficiency costs for hundreds of millions of people, as well as actual TRILLIONS of dollars of waste.

      Right?

  • This basically means, anonymous is no joke. if they can intercept this, they can intercept even more delicate and dirty stuff and release them.

    this seems to be both a feat, and a threat/prodding stick. ...........

    not that governments did not have it coming though. as many of you said, they listen to every one of us, and yet dont tell us shit. well, someone does that for us now. im sure they are rabid about these new 'terrorists'. talk about 'by the people for the people'.

  • Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:54PM (#38917605)

    When Anonymous does it: good. When News Corp does it: bad.

    Selective outrage certainly is a useful propaganda tool, isn't it?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's not about who's doing the eavesdropping it's about who is being eavesdropped on.

      In once case private individuals, in the other the government (or government agents).

    • When Anonymous does it: good. When News Corp does it: bad.

      Selective outrage certainly is a useful propaganda tool, isn't it?

      News Corp isn't a government agency. News Corp isn't a law enforcement group. Strawmen are certainly useful, no?

    • Depends on the motive and the target

      These are official agencies that in the past have been proven to act against the public interest. And we as the public are not informed what they are up to.
      For example; they discuss setting up a 15 year old kid who shouldn't even be discussed with US authorities lest be extradited. Also the flow of information is very limited into one direction. Why would the Met even tell the Feds so much with NOTHING in return? Why extradite your own folk to a country that wouldn't e

    • Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:03PM (#38923785)

      That's a poor comparison. When Anonymous becomes a publicly traded company that poses as a legitimate media player, then it would make sense. No shit Anonymous is breaking the law, that's what they do and they're doing so for a cause (whether it's justified or not is irrelevant, they seem to believe in it).

      News Corp. eavesdropped on conversations for personal gain, oftentimes exploiting grieving families.

      Selective outrage is certainly useful for the logical thinker who doesn't compare apples and oranges.

  • Love the big brass ones that these guys have. I don't agree with much of their agenda, but really have to admire their tenacity in the face of serious opposition. Impressive stunt.

  • imagine someone intercepting the calls of some industry execs doing shitty dealings with government and posting them online.

    imagine hollywood goons pushing government bureaucrats or representatives/senators to do shitty stuff for them for their expense in a backroom, in all the dirty, non politically correct language those backrooms tend to have, and post them online.

    imagine this happened before sopa was killed........ there wouldnt even be a day of protest needed to kill sopa.

    or, nuclear industry pressuring government to play with statistics to keep dangerous old plants running........ ..........

    see, this is why they want to censor internet. and, they would do this regardless of what we, as the people did. because, it was certain that, someone (anonymous or not, or even a single dutiful citizen or some repenting low level govt. bureaucrat) could post these online some day.

    thats why they have been running all kinds of schemes to censor internet. and how they would not stop if there wasnt anyone (leave aside anon) doing these. they NEED internet censored so such things can be averted.

    these stuff, should be happening through the hands of the government itself. transparency, remember? where is it ? NOWHERE. and those who attempt to provide that transparency, are now 'terrorists'. ........

    we are fighting a very battle for the soul of the internet, free speech, and transparency. and it is happening here and now. we should do everything in our power to prevent censorship, sopa, acta, pipa, schmogga, whatever. its a 'we should fight in the landing grounds, and in the hills' situation. we should never surrender.

    this is not the fight of anonymous. this is our fight, which we have not been fighting yet. we must fight it, to not lose what we hold dear ; internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Close