Teen Phone Phreak Targeted by the FBI 431
Wired has an interesting editorial on the latest resurgence of the old days of phone phreaking and the latest phreak that is rising into the FBI crosshairs. The most recent hoax, "swatting", involves malicious pranksters calling police with reports of fake murders, hostage crises, or the like and spoofing the call to appear as though it was from another location. "Now the FBI thinks it has identified the culprit in the Colorado swatting as a 17-year-old East Boston phone phreak known as "Li'l Hacker." Because he's underage, Wired.com is not reporting Li'l Hacker's last name. His first name is Matthew, and he poses a unique challenge to the federal justice system, because he is blind from birth. If he's guilty, the attack is at once the least sophisticated and most malicious of a string of capers linked to Matt, who stumbled into the lingering remains of the decades-old subculture of phone phreaking when he was 14, and quickly rose to become one of the most skilled active phreakers alive."
What's the point...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Challenge? Why (Score:5, Insightful)
The justice system should be blind, so who cares if he broke the law.
For this he will (rightfully) be tried as an adult because this kind of behavior can cost real lives. (I'll get modded down for being a troll)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
i really don't mind (Score:5, Insightful)
but please don't target the local law enforcement guys. you're actively denying some poor shlub 911 resources who might need them in a real emergency
that makes you worse than anything you say you are opposing
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
A sociopath, a criminal.
Yikes! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a kid and used to phreak..... um, I mean, when I heard about people doing this..... it was all about connecting to long-distance BBSes for free and downloading games. What this kid is doing is just sick.
There's hackers/crackers/phreaks, and then there's people who are just plain assholes.
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, I'm betting it won't be my house...pretty good odds
At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that there is a big difference between phone phreaking to get free long-distance calls and spoofing phone numbers to bring SWAT down on an innocent family.
A Hero. (Score:3, Insightful)
Identifying Juvenile (Score:5, Insightful)
Wired is so kind not to identify the juvenile...
Thanks to this reporting, anyone who knows him now knows what he did. This will follow him around forever.
Wired could have at least left the first name out and kept the story intact.
The good ole days (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending a SWAT team to someone's random house is not a juvenile prank, someone could easily get shot.
Now having a gay 1-900 line call a buddy back and thank him for his business, now that is a prank.
Stick to free 1-900 calls and messing with phone switches. Think before sending heavily armed, trigger happy police into a perceived hostile environment.
Re:Thank Ma Bell (Score:0, Insightful)
ANI exists for a reason.
I suspect this kid was spoofing ANI (which is possible if you have the right kind of PSTN termination; it's not a hack, christ). If he was spoofing CID and actually managed to send the SWAT team to some peoples' houses, some E911 centers really need to review their policies.
That's not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Identifying Juvenile (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am just trying to understand here, because on
Thuggery (Score:5, Insightful)
When you get caught you are not released to the custody of your parents, they make sure you go to ass-pounding school.
Re:Thank Ma Bell (Score:4, Insightful)
If the caller ID were not available, or were from a cellphone, or didn't make sense, or whatever else, the 911 responder would still have been obliged to send emergency personnel. If a call sounds legit (and often even if it doesn't), the police will respond, regardless of what caller ID says. Ultimately this was a dangerous prank and should be treated as such.
The caller ID spoofing merely means that it took a bit longer to track down the prankster. You might argue that the insecurity of caller ID gave the prankster the guts to make a fake call in the first place. But then again, pranksters can use pay phones if they want anonymity. In any case the police will respond to the call.
Re:Skillz! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's an idea (Score:1, Insightful)
You would think they have enough surveillance & snoop equipment to look into a house they've got a call on to find the house empty, or have no struggle going on.
Can't they just send one officer instead of a whole SWAT team, why not just send one officer in to kindly inquire? That's what they do for prank/hangup 911 calls. This may sound sick, but it would better if 1 cop perished on an actual call than a whole terrorized family from a SWAT team. They put their lives on the line while the families don't.
This reminds me of the gullible managers at a McDonalds that were supposedly called by "police", instructing to strip serach & molest an employee. Haven't we had telephones long enough to realize the other end might not be honest. Proof, evidence, heard of 'em?
The SWAT teams/dispatchers could have solved this problem ages ago. 9/11 isn't some sort of excuse to say "oh we can't take any chances" and turn a family into swiss cheese.
Re:phreaker isn't only one liable. (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, laws like that would only discourage companies from even trying. In the physical world, no company would be willing to undertake the legal liability for selling padlocks. In software, no company would be willing to sell security software (or any software at all if the law applied broadly). Alternately, software would cost a fortune (the liability insurance would be built-in). This would also kill free/open-source software, since they would have no way to pay for the liability insurance and legal bills that would result from a compromised vulnerability.
Ultimately the people in charge of data/computers must be the ones held responsible. If you store top secret files in a cheap file cabinet, it's not the fault of the file-cabinet maker when someone breaks the lock and steals the files. Similarly if a company poorly implements security software, that is their fault... not the software vendor's.
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:1, Insightful)
Might want to think about doing something to the mother, too. According to the article she was aware of his activities and did nothing about it. In fact, it says, she was proud of what he'd learned to do.
What a loser (Score:3, Insightful)
What he did relates to "phreaking" like burning down a server rack relates to "hacking".
There is a word for that kind of people. Its "sociopaths". Dont believe me? Look it up.
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with cops power, even if I agree that it might be excessive. This has everything to do with a person finding a way to direct that power in an illegal and dangerous manner. It'd be like finding a way to send powerful surges of electricity to your house and damaging your electronics -- you wouldn't blame the electric company for the problem, even if they were responsible for a system in which such a surge was possible.
Re:Nope, SWAT teams do this all the time. (Score:2, Insightful)
It could have been worse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago a friend's stepdad was killed in Kansas City. The cops followed his stepdaughter (my friend) home from a party where drugs were present. An hour after she went home the cops busted into her house with flashlights and guns. Their uniforms were black. Well, the step-dad hears the ruckus and comes out with his handgun that he kept near to his bed. Without warning the police shot and killed him. AND, there were no drugs in the house and my friend had LEFT the party because drugs had been present. The cops busted into their house for NO legitimate reason. The family won a large lawsuit against the city and the police department for a wrongful death.
What if something similar to this happened after the blind kid called the SWAT in on somebody? I'd sue the crap out of this kid's family, their cousins, their cousin's cousins and anyone else whose name I had. I'd sue the folks that make the technology that allow 'spoofing' of the calls origin. I've read about phreaking and it could be stopped instantly if telecos went all digital.
This kid should have the privilege of prison cell for a few years.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think so - if your source of information is Hollywood or tinfoil hat websites. In reality, they don't.
You know what happens when they do that? People die. Either the cop, or people involved in the struggle, or innocent bystanders.
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, slow down there buddy. If someone breaks into your house, its totally reasonable to shoot at them to defend yourself. How is she to know if they are cops or not?
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, having a SWAT team sent to the home of an unsuspecting family is bad and someone might get hurt, but if the officers are well-trained, people probably won't. I know that's not much comfort if something does go wrong, but I think I'd rather live with that than the results of them not taking a real situation seriously.
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok but then (Score:4, Insightful)
So are you going to go and sue Kwikset or Schlage or whoever makes your lock if I break in? Should your insurance refuse to pay because you got a normal lock, instead of a high security one? Again I ask: Do you hold physical security to the same standard as virtual security (which like most geeks seems to be perfection), or is it different? If so, why?
This AIN'T PHREAKING (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, you would think that on slashdot people would know the difference, this is prank calling, NOT phreaking. Phreaking is about getting free phone calls, not about causing a nuisance and most certainly NOT about sending swat teams out to third parties. A real phreaker would absolutly at no point consider causing harm to others (other then the phone company offcourse :P ) as even acceptable, let alone for it be the only goal.
This guy and others like it are at best doing prank calls and at worsed doing real harm to the people around them. How would you like to be really need the emergency services and find that they are out because some lunatic send them on a wild goose chase? How would you like it if swat stood on your doorstep.
What next, smashing somebodies face in and stealing their mobile is phreaking too?
Put this guy in jail, and if he is blind, well I am sure he can find a cellmate to show him the ropes. I am sick to death of the bleeding hearts, you do wrong, you go to jail. Just remember the thing about equality, all people should be equal for the law, and that means being blind or whatever doesn't get you out of jail.
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:3, Insightful)
He blew hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money getting emergency crews running around on wild goose chases. He tied up the emergency system needlessly and someone who needed them at the time may very well have been killed.
This is clear cut public reckless endangerment, and he should be prosecuted fully for it.
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait, he's 17, and not an adult.
Derp.
Re:Identifying Juvenile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think should happen? Ask them politely to leave? Do you think they break in to throw you a suprise birthday party?
Please, wake up. You're only as safe as YOU make yourself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html [nydailynews.com]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html [nydailynews.com]
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/news/regionalnews/l_i__home_invasion_slaying_regionalnews_frank_ryan______and_c_j__sullivan.htm [nypost.com]
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cops-arrest-suspect-in-attempted-home-invasion/3555644578 [aol.com]
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
A sociopath, a criminal.
Only works for a few asses. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the government getting one or two asses is one thing. Thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of asses - that's a bit harder to contain.
Ask the Vietnamese. Or the Mogadishuans. Or the Iraqies.
Double Standards for Geek-a-like Sociopaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because there are holes in a system that he's inadvertently exposing through his exploits doesn't make him a hero any more than the Russian mafia are heroes for exposing flaws in the credit card system.
Morally, this tosser is no better than the scum who make phoney calls to the fire brigade and throw stones and objects at them. The consequences have the potential to be just as- and possibly more- serious.
Of course, this guy's a hacker- one of us, right. He's not some antisocial ned [wikipedia.org] or chav [wikipedia.org] from a council estate [wikipedia.org] (who'd probably attack you and film it on their mobile phones [wikipedia.org]). So that makes his actions alright, doesn't it? Way to go with the double standards.
Is he clever and talented? Probably, yeah, but since he's using his "skills" to fuck about with mostly decent people for his own amusement, fuck the prick and let him rot in prison.
Re:Only works for a few asses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait..
Why is phreaking even relevant here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sending an armed SWAT team to innocent man's hours, on the other hand, is NOT trivial in any way! Neither is calling ambulances to nonexistent emergencies. There's 2 issues here:
1. The SWAT teams are being called to what they think is a deadly situation involving hardened criminals. The innocent homeowner hears someone break into his house and is quite likely to do what a LOT of people would do in that situation - grab the nearest weapon. If he happens to own a gun, he's probably going to at least load it and make it quite visible, and quite possibly fire it at the intruder. Not only will he get mowed down in a hail of a gunfire from the SWAT team, but he may very well unknowingly kill a cop before he dies.
2. Guess what happens when some random guy has a heart attack, and arrives 20 minutes late to the hospital because all of the ambulances are busy responding to pranks?
"Swatting" and phoning false emergencies are NOT harmless phone pranks. They can both directly and indirectly kill innocents.
Whether the guy bribes a cop to get a false swat report put out or hacks the phone system to do it is totally irrelevant.
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the police thing they are the military, and they are not. There not trained nearly as well, their situation is different, there job is different and they are not in the military.
You hand cuff and and secure someone, you don't keep pointing guns at them, you have no reason to scream obscenities at them(this under NO circumstance can help anyways, it only confuses the situation by adding noise that gets in the way of actual informative communication.
When you are wearing no clear identifing marks, storm into someones home and get killed, that's YOUR fault, not the person who thought they were being robbed.
So you need accountability, and in the case where procedure was violated, or a procedure is deemed unreasonably, the law enforcement officer should go to court, and the dept. should be held liable of monetary damages.
make them think, and make the dept. think. Before being allowed to go, perhaps there should be someone whose job it is to review the information?
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? What has Florida done for the other 49 states lately?
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't stir a Hornet's nest. You know SWAT teams aren't renowned for their sense of humor, don't go playing pranks on them. There is a term for what you are describing, it is Criminal Negligence. You are responsible if people get hurt, end of story. It has nothing to do with the Old Generation and everything to do with the new generation not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
This reads like the textbook definition of a sociopath.
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
The "prankster", or better named, CRIMINAL.
Getting the police to knock down the door to someone's house and put the entire household at risk is not a "prank". It is deliberate and malicious assault, as much as if the criminal himself had broken down the door and held the residents at gun-point. The criminal knows very well what the police response to his fictitious call will be, the results are extremely predictable.
I believe you might want to look up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule [wikipedia.org]. It makes anyone who participates in a felony (assault with a deadly weapon, e.g.) guilty if any one of the participants kills someone.
could they simply be trigger-happy gun owners?
If someone is breaking into your house unannounced while your family is asleep, it is not being 'trigger happy' to defend them. It is a life-and-death situation, not taken lightly, and not something people go looking for. It is insulting and ludicrous, even in a "devil's advocate" context, to label such people that way.
Granted that many gun-owners are responsible and informed, but are they all?
Your question is moot. It is not the fault of the gun owner in any way, shape, or form, that the SWAT team is breaking down his door. It is the fault of the criminal who made the fictitious call.
I do not understand why this is a "unique challenge" to the justice system. He's blind. He's committed a criminal act. His action could have been the reason someone died. Put him on trial, and if he is found guilty, put him in prison. End of story.
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason we don't put kids in jail for crimes we put adults in jail for is that there are more effective ways to deal with a kid criminal that have better results than jail. Kids are different from adults: they can usually still learn and set their lives right in ways that adults usually cannot. It's not out of some bleeding heart "mercy" or cowardice of treating a kid as bad as we'd treat an adult. It's because usually adults cannot really change the way that kids usually can.
If anything, we need to look harder at how adults can change as readily as children can, before just condemning them to jail that usually makes them worse. And yes, we should look at kids convicted of crimes to see whether they're as hopelessly unchangeable as most adults, before letting them off the jail hook. But only because that's what's actually the best (or least bad) option in either case.
The mentor can go right to jail, if they had reason to expect the kid would do what the mentor told them to do. And if there's no other way to get them straightened out.