spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 They've been caught already! http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16207669 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Note this quote: "We are confident the MPS communication systems have not been breached and remain, as they always have been, secure. "We are satisfied that any recording would have been made via the receiving handset only and not from an attack on internal systems. http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16207669 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 A random angry 16 year old hacker is probably a more reliable source than Scotland Yard. If they weren't hacked then what are the arrests for? You don't get "arrested at an address in the West Midlands on suspicion of offences under the Malicious Communications Act and the Computer Misuse Act" over a couple of prank calls. It's going to be a very strange trial if the police arrest a couple of kids for hacking them, but deny they've been hacked. "The arrests come after Scotland Yard denied its computer systems were hacked after a recording emerged of a confidential phone discussion between counter-terrorism officers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 A random angry 16 year old hacker is probably a more reliable source than Scotland Yard. If they weren't hacked then what are the arrests for? You don't get "arrested at an address in the West Midlands on suspicion of offences under the Malicious Communications Act and the Computer Misuse Act" over a couple of prank calls. It's going to be a very strange trial if the police arrest a couple of kids for hacking them, but deny they've been hacked. "The arrests come after Scotland Yard denied its computer systems were hacked after a recording emerged of a confidential phone discussion between counter-terrorism officers." Because what they did was still illegal, i.e. secretly recording and publicly posting it! Also the denial of service is illegal! Those chavs got a lot of information wrong! More interested in verbally abusing all Western security forces, they didn't even understand what these different services do, they even claimed the hotline was run by MI6... not their remit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The computer misuse act is about unauthorised use of a computer (hacking), phoning a hotline shouldn't really be covered by that. You don't need to be particularly knowledgeable to be a hacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 The computer misuse act is about unauthorised use of a computer (hacking), phoning a hotline shouldn't really be covered by that. Hacking, i'm a hacker, they are not! Hacker = Programmer! They were phreaking and interrupting networks. They also used Skype bots through proxies, so it was using computers and networks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Hacking, i'm a hacker, they are not! Hacker = Programmer! They were phreaking and interrupting networks. They also used Skype bots through proxies, so it was using computers and networks... "Script kiddie" would probably be a more accurate technical term. Their computer use needs to be unauthorised (by the owners of those computers) - so that should mean that the owners of the computers they misused are giving evidence to show that their use was unauthorised. Proxies in another country are unlikely to be the source of the complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 ... Their computer use needs to be unauthorised (by the owners of those computers) ... No, the illegal bit was to disrupt services and to illegally record and publish private conversations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 No, the illegal bit was to disrupt services and to illegally record and publish private conversations! That wouldn't be covered by the computer misuse act! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 That wouldn't be covered by the computer misuse act! Even though they used computers to commit the crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.