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)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually there are quite a lot of crimes going on there!
Re:What's the point...? (Score:5, Funny)
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2. ????
3. Profit?
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
A sociopath, a criminal.
A Hero. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
QFT... especially since all of the early posters were modded down to zero for questioning the wisdom of sending kill squads into a house on the basis of a phone call.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of calling him a "prankster", a "hacker", etc. and then complaining that he is giving "the rest of us a bad name", why not call him what he really is?
A sociopath, a criminal.
Playful is crank-calling someone and asking if their refrigerator is running. Getting a dozen pizzas delivered to the local police station is a prank and theft but nobody got hurt. Calling in SWAT teams gets people killed. There are many cases of SWAT no-knocking the wrong apartment and either shooting unarmed people or getting shot at by guys with guns defending their homes. (Note to 2nd amendment types: your guns will not keep you free. If the government wants your ass, they're going to get it.)
This is strictly a devil's advocate post. That is to say, I mostly agree with you but have a nagging voice (perhaps from childhood) which poses a counterpoint to your post.
There seems to be a pattern echoed throughout generations which the rapid growth of communication technology in the 20th century lets us see quite clearly. Namely, previous generations attack the habits of current children/teenagers using reasons that seem perfectly sensible to members of the previous generations, but do not genera
Re: (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 wi
Re: (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 extr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.covertcard.com/ [covertcard.com]
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
This reads like the textbook definition of a sociopath.
Re: (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
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, I'm betting it won't be my house...pretty good odds
Nope, SWAT teams do this all the time. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ [cato.org]
Hell, a 80-year-old grandmother was killed dead because the cops could just bust in with no warning and start shooting. Too bad the scum got the wrong fucking house. Makes me sick.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the first few times i didn't mind and said what ever.. and let them search it.. but that changed after they started saying they pulled me for things that couldn't have happend.. s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.theagitator.com/ [theagitator.com]
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny that the posts saying that the police are frequently not comporting themselves professionally get modded down, while the obvious "donkey porn" troll does not. I really wish I had mod points today. Fact is, police teams rely on career criminal informants, and thanks to Tricky Dick and the Drug War, no-knock warrants are increasingly common. Police are happy to take shortcuts, since they're people just like everyone else. Problem is, that ends up with a greater number of innocent people being shafted.
"-1, Troll" is not a substitute for "I don't agree with you." Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So the cop waits it out... drunk driving no longer admissable in court. Cop gets off w/ no crime other than reckless op. Suspended from the force for 30da
Re: (Score:2)
I hear they call that "swatting" these days.
"Yeah, Sam got swatted last night during the evening news. He didn't realize that the TV crews and SWAT van he was watching on TV were outside his house until SWAT blew his door off the hinges. That's the third swatting this week!"
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
You can put kids on trial as if they were adults. I wonder if this guy can be sentenced as if he were non-disabled?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There was another story I read about swatting [dailynews.com] where they wanted the culprit charged with assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment by violence, both by proxy, which a
Re:Challenge? Why (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not really (Score:5, Interesting)
So while the telcos should work towards a better identification system, it isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world to develop and deploy, especially since the phone switches aren't the world's most extensible architecture (new features often mean adding hardware, not just changing code). We have to accept that virtual security is just like physical security: It cannot be perfect and impenetrable. We can have better and worse, but just because a failure is found doesn't mean the security is necessarily bad.
Besides, I see a bigger problem in kids who think this sort of thing is ok to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
That's not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:4, Informative)
They had a warrant, it was just obtained with false information from information provided by an informant who was know to be not credible.
The grandmother? She shot at the cops after they broke into her house. The cops were returning fire.
Yeah, the people that falsified information to get the warrant should be put under the jail. But don't lump all cops in with a few genuine baddies. Generally, they have a shitty job that pays poorly, and are doing their best to protect you and me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Have a nice day.
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:Cops always think that way... (Score:5, Funny)
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]
there's nothing wrong with attacking police abuses (Score:2)
"the abusive powers we have given law enforcement"
we give them those powers only because there are guys out there who happily use those powers to do evil things. these people are not police at all. they are something far worse. do you understand that? you don't sound like you do. it seems like in your mind, the worst thing out there are the police themselves. which is kind of insane
its impossible to police this world without th
Re:Cops always think that way... (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, I think they are using when it isn't necessary. And I think they are overly careless with it by getting the wrong houses and all. I don't think I read about the grandmother being shot down but I do remember a situation in Arizona (I think) where not only did they get the wrong house, but managed to catch it on fire and made the family watch their dog trapped on the second floor get burnt alive while hand cuffed and mocked on the front yard. A neighbor over heard a cop ask another if they should call the fire department in yet, and the reply was they don't deserve to have their shit saved.
This tells me that the cops did the swatt approach with the intent of somehow punishing the suspect in the process of his capture. They didn't even have enough competence to get the right house in the process. So yes, there is abuse. But I think instead of taking the tool away from them, they should have strict guidelines in when to use it, how it is used, with accountability for getting it wrong and hurting or damaging an innocent person. I don't think a telephone book lawsuit is enough, criminal charges and loss of job should be on the line for abuses and wrong houses and all.
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: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.
Thank Ma Bell (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:Yikes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyways, a common recurring theme I took from that and found it to be true with a lot of stuff is that the first generation doing something, whether that is separated by a few years of age or a real generation, the second seems to take it to an extreme and never gets the point of the fist right in practice. I mention this because the "plain assholes" are typically people who don't get it but want to participate in some way. It is usually what results in insane laws being made about things.
phreaker isn't only one liable. (Score:2, Troll)
1> the teenybopper;
2> The company that designed a digital infrastructure so insecure that a teenybopper could hack in and cause those zillions of dollars damage they always claim at trial.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am just trying to understand here, because on
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?
Re: (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 an
Oh christ. This is NOT phreaking... (Score:5, Informative)
Even spoofing Caller ID, while a possible phreaking tool, is now common enough today that it's trivial for almost anyone to do.
This is just some stupid punk kid making an ass out of himself and cost the police time and taxpayers money.
This is equal to screaming fire in a crowded theater.
Again, making prank calls to the police and emergency services is stupid, not phreaking.
Re:Oh christ. This is NOT phreaking... (Score:5, Informative)
E911 doesn't use Caller ID. It uses the same set of signals that the phone company uses for billing, which are much harder to spoof.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the problem with idiots like you, you see a nice pretty map with lots of markers on it and yet don't have any real clue as to the frequency (spanning time) because time isn't reported. Here's a quick test
Search Results
This 0 result represents
The state of: All
For the year: 2007
And the following type of incident
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.
Re:Identifying Juvenile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Identifying Juvenile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Identifying Juvenile (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
...the Matrix has you... (Score:5, Funny)
happens in dallas (Score:2)
On a related note, The crew that filmed Dallas SWAT use to hang out at a coffee shop I frequent and they said more often then not when they got deployed it was to a vacant house or the wrong address. It was amusing hearing stories about late night raids on an address that didn't exist or empty houses/buildings.
Interesting... (Score:2)
Now isn't that interesting? Least sophisticated and most malicious, at the same time? And this from someone who is "one of the most skilled active phreakers alive"?
This is sounding a lot like a
Caller ID or ANI ? (Score:2)
This is phreaking how? (Score:2)
Now, granted, he may be making the ANI lie instead of the caller ID. Although I don't personally have any idea how to do that, I suspect it isn't real hard either.
So what we have here is a 17 year old Bart Simpson, only he's calling Chief Wiggum instead of Moe, and he's putting people's lives at risk.
I don't care if he's blind - that doesn't get him some so
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.
Pretexting (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
caller-id spoofing is hacking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, good job at anonymity there, Wired (Score:4, Interesting)
We're looking for a blind kid, heavyset, with a shaved head. Lives on the East side of Boston. Has a single mother, older brother, younger sister. His last name starts with W. His birthday is April 7, 1990. His mothers name is Amy Kahloul.
Hey, Wired, great job of protecting this kids identity! Shit, not only could I track him down, I could probably get a credit card in his name with all that!
(Of course, I wouldn't, because I like having a phone. )
Re: (Score:2)
Now that would be a challenge.
Not a challenge for you, but for the fed. You're obviously good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Skillz! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.