The key difference between actual phone tapping and guessing someone’s PIN on their voicemail
PARISH NOTICE – A very small enhancement. Over the last few months I have occasionally declared a comment to be “Comment of the week”. This has been where I have been impressed by the maturity and knowledge displayed in a comment.
I have now introduced a little box in my right hand sidebar which will display a “roll of honour” showing each current “Comment of the week”.
This week’s “Comment of the week” is from “Fullabeanz” on my posting about the phone hacking affair, which was remarkably sensible. Here’s an excerpt:
TweetAlthough words like “hacking” and “tapping” are being bandied about in the media and on Twitter, all the hard evidence I’ve seen only mentions unauthorised accessing of unprotected Voice Mail or Voice Mail with very weak PINs set (i.e. date of birth). Anyone can find out what the default PINs are for each mobile phone network (it’s usually something like 1234). If they then call another person’s mobile phone and they’ve not reset their PIN to something different then, hey presto, you have access to their VM.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning such activity. Just pointing out that these activities are being somewhat exaggerated in order to increase the impact of the story. There has been talk of other “dark arts” being employed, but I’ve not seen any convincing evidence for it so far. I would be more concerned, for example, if phone tapping was being employed (i.e. listening to live conversations using covert monitoring techniques). As morally dubious (and, as far I can make out, illegal) as unauthorised accessing of another person’s unprotected VM is, there is a simple fix… set the bloody PIN… you’re a celeb for Christ’s sake!
Tapping on the other hand, or other true hacking techniques, work around normal security measures and are not so easily avoided. I would suggest any routine use of these, more nefarious, techniques is a more serious offence. And it is this scenario that is being painted with a pallet of evidence that doesn’t depict a convincing picture… to my eye at least!
If this kind of evidence came to light, then they’ve got my attention.
Related posts:
One Response to “The key difference between actual phone tapping and guessing someone’s PIN on their voicemail”
Leave a Reply
Burbler-in-chief
This has never been a way of thinking that works for me. I’ve worked in the tech sector for quite a while, and completely understand the distinctions between the techniques. They may impact the ability to prove guilt, especially if, say, phone tapping leaves a paper trail as it can do. But in terms of criminality, they are irrelevant.
The intent is the same. The key steps are the same – find phone number, get access to voicemail, use for one’s own purposes. The outcome is the same. Why should the details of step 2 make any difference to the degree of guilt?
There are plenty of analogies e.g. rape – don’t blame the victim, breaking and entering – an unlocked door is not implicit permission, privacy – being able to see through a window does not remove the reasonable expectation of privacy. Or how about a cold free market analogy, whereby the value of a good is the price it will fetch in the market, not the cost it took to make?
This does all make a difference. Look at the current situation specifically from Andy Coulson’s perspective. It is entirely reasonable to expect that an editor is aware of the steps being carried out as above, otherwise he wouldn’t know where the story came from and would be incompetent for printing it. But it would be completely unreasonable to assume he had any knowledge of whether the method of access was hacking, tapping, social engineering, or using the default setting.
In short – either it’s the same crime, or for some reason Andy Coulson is suddenly a nicer person just for having a “I don’t care how you do it, just do it” attitude. I tend to the former perspective.