AntiSec Reveals FBI Laptop Containing 12 Million Apple UDIDs

Status
Not open for further replies.

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
Congrats on the hack team, thats for sure, even if they used Java to breach.
But the real issue is the info, and how it can be used for activity surveillance.

Damn it, I just wish everyone in this world to know how to detect tricky programming lines. This wouldn't happen if everyone could just open an OS and know exactly what it does. I miss my internet security and privacy u_u

Maybe this is just another reminder that we should support and cheer up free thinking, ethical OS and software developers, freelancers and guys like the ones at Linux, instead of big rotten companies.
 

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
[citation][nom]applegetsmelaid[/nom]I don't think it's too far fetched to conclude that Apple gives the FBI whatever info they ask for.[/citation]
It's not.
That is within the FBI attributions. They can ask for digital records held by any company in case that a subjet is being investigated. But seriously, 12million IDs?, perfectly usable for tracking? ... that's the creepy part.
 

jazz84

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2010
80
0
18,630
0
Why does the FBI have the user info of over 12 million Apple device owners?

My guess: because Apple willingly handed it over. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was unsolicited, too.

Apple: Hey, FBI! We keep detailed records of everything our users do with our devices. Interested?
FBI: Yeah, but we didn't ask you fo-....
Apple: First taste is always free. We'll talk contracts later.

*I keed, of course... or do I?
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
Or, the FBI asked for some info regarding some people, and Apple decided to dump everything onto the FBI just in case.

I'd think Apple's lawyers would rather face a class-action lawsuit than a FBI investigation...
 

jazz84

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2010
80
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]_scientist[/nom]Hmm, I wonder what else the federal government is "monitoring" these days.[/citation]

Probably more than what they're not monitoring.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17
While I am doubtful of (a) the hack, or (b) the file contents if there was a hack, it could also be if the FBI is harvesting apple device info, maybe it's for government-issued devices?

Anyhoo, I am highly suspicious that this happened simply because of the name of the file. While there are tons of examples of dummmyness and contrary-to-common-sense-ishness, I would be shocked if the name of a project were used in the name of a file. The first thing you're supposed do with classified info (or rather, info on a classified project) is detract any associations with the project in file-names. This would be a pretty unbelievable thing if it were true (yet...believable...).
 

jazz84

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2010
80
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]...I am highly suspicious that this happened simply because of the name of the file.[/citation]

I wouldn't be so sure (though I am in no way trying to shoot you down). Let's look at the first part of that file name: NCFTA. Forbes did a decent write-up on this shady little non-profit: http://tinyurl.com/bm73wcf
To quote their article:

"Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA’s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI."

This would lend credence to the idea that Apple probably just flat-out handed the data over and likely does so on a regular basis. Easy way to bank some quid pro quo with a powerful national government. This would also suggest that the means by which the FBI received this information were not classified, so the rules you mention about file names related to classified projects may not even apply here.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17
[citation][nom]jazz84[/nom]I wouldn't be so sure (though I am in no way trying to shoot you down). Let's look at the first part of that file name: NCFTA. Forbes did a decent write-up on this shady little non-profit: http://tinyurl.com/bm73wcfTo quote their article:"Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA’s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI."This would lend credence to the idea that Apple probably just flat-out handed the data over and likely does so on a regular basis. Easy way to bank some quid pro quo with a powerful national government. This would also suggest that the means by which the FBI received this information were not classified, so the rules you mention about file names related to classified projects may not even apply here.[/citation]
Ah, that's all a very good point! I would counter and say that just because information was communicated between two parties doesn't mean it's still not classified. Tons of government sub-contracts are all-contained as classified/secret/top-secret, and info always goes to and fro between the two parties. If the project is classified/secret/top-secret, so is the info (again, not saying that this had anything to do with a classified project either).
 

hawkwindeb

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
72
0
18,630
0
It was stated in the article about the FBI agent: "He’s a known recruiter in the FBI focused on getting white hack hackers to work for the feds," ...

So maybe, if the article is about real a FBI agent, and the data is really as it is stated, again - maybe the data was stolen by some hacker that is of interest to the FBI either to be recruited or prosecuted. It may be part of the hacker's portfolio to show off what that hacker can do. Yes a lot of maybe's and if's. just saying....
 

jazz84

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2010
80
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]hawkwindeb[/nom]It was stated in the article about the FBI agent: "He’s a known recruiter in the FBI focused on getting white hack hackers to work for the feds," ...So maybe, if the article is about real a FBI agent, and the data is really as it is stated, again - maybe the data was stolen by some hacker that is of interest to the FBI either to be recruited or prosecuted. It may be part of the hacker's portfolio to show off what that hacker can do. Yes a lot of maybe's and if's. just saying....[/citation]


Now THAT gets me thinking: a file like that full of seemingly-legit data (but with a way-too-obvious file name) and on the portable computer of an agent who apparently has regular contact with talented members of the hacking community? Either the agent is a grade-A doofus or this is essentially the digital equivalent of a bait car.
 

cumi2k4

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2011
309
0
18,810
14
Well, since he's a recruiter, maybe he need it to perform preliminary check and elimination for potential employees? After all, you do know what they say about the intelligence of apple user nowadays, right?

/keed
 

The_Trutherizer

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2008
509
0
18,980
0
Well I doubt that they'll be reading your texts or checking what music you've been listening to if you are not under investigation. And generally your internet privacy isn't worth squat when you are under investigation. The thing just is that somewhere somebody is abusing this information. No doubt. And assuming that the law allows for the agent to have the data then agent miserably failed to protect the confidentiality of the people he is supposed to serve. Whether it be from his own fault of that of the system he is in it marks a failure. And I just don't know whether to blame the system or blame the hackers anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS