Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security IT

Anonymous To Release Sun, News of the World Emails 363

Posted by samzenpus
from the take-a-look-at-this dept.
siliconbits writes "After having hacked Rupert Murdoch's flagship news website, thesun.co.uk, and redirecting its readers to a spoof front page and pilfering its email servers, Anonymous' unofficial mouthpiece, Sabu, has revealed that the group is 'sitting on [the sun's & NOTW's] emails' with a press release from Anonymous & possibly more coming in a few hours. While that website has already been taken down, the email bounty is likely to be potentially more damaging with Sabu releasing details of two of the Sun's top three employees, Rebekah Wade and Bill Akass, the former editors of the Sun and News of the World respectively as well as Lee Wells & Danny Rogers, Editorial Support Manager at News International and Sun Online Editorial Manager respectively, as a taster of what's coming next."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous To Release Sun, News of the World Emails

Comments Filter:
  • I love this (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ardeaem (625311) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:54AM (#36812478)
    This scandal keeps getting worse; it's like the "penis pump" scene from Austin Powers....
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:55AM (#36812492)

    How could they do such a cruel thing to the good people at News of the World?!?!?

    • I think the correct phrase is:
      Pay back is a bitch.
    • by sycodon (149926) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:05PM (#36812642)

      I wonder if Anon and Lulzlzlz (what the fuck ever) realize that they are and have been doing the very same thing they are pissed at The Sun for doing. They just have different targets that in their minds, deserve it.

      • Maybe. I do think that in a technical sense you're totally right. But in a political sense, releasing these emails is perhaps more akin to releasing the state dept cables. This release is going to change the way the police and politicians are able to cover this whole thing up. It's going to open the door on far more scrutiny from "legitimate press and blog" investigators, who may be able to hold wrongdoers in the emails to account publicly and therefore eventually legally.

        Hacking celebrities and royal famil

        • by sycodon (149926)

          Hacking into accounts that are not yours is hacking into accounts that are not yours.

          Motivation is irrelevant.

        • by sumdumass (711423) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @01:49PM (#36813916) Journal

          Actually, I think it is more severe to hack and release the emails of a company/person facing both civil and criminal charges/actions.

          Now all the internal email and communications that could be subpoenaed to discover the depth of this scandal and criminal or civil liability can be questioned for it's legitimacy. after all, their servers were hacked and some activist group had complete control over them for an unspecified period of time in which they covered their tracks making it difficult to know exactly what they did while in control of it.

          So in court, it would go like this, well, MR CEO, did you tell the reporter to hack the voice mail as is stated in this document? You Honor, I have never ordered anyone to do anything of the sort, it was not a company policy and if it was know, the people responsible would have been reported to the authorities and terminated, that accusation is a fabrication created by an activist group calling itself anonymous who hacked our servers and planted evidence of what they wanted the case to become.

          But the investigators have this email sent from your computer. Well, your honor, those documents were retrieved by investigators after the activist group had illegally accessed our servers and one of our IT staff showed us how these headers and identifying information can be fabricated like in this example that looks very realistic as if it was an email you sent under your court email account but from a Disney world resort 3000 miles away and 5 minute into the future from now. IF this was planted on the courts servers by an activist group, would it be evidence that you went to Orlando Florida instead of presiding over this hearing?

          The judge would then order the evidence after the break in unreliable unless supported by something the activist group did not hack into. This would likely result in only low level employees who admitted to the deeds getting into trouble.

      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:58PM (#36813308)
        One group did it for tabloid headlines and profit, the other did it to expose the truth and corruption in government. What they are doing seems quite a bit different to me.
        • by blair1q (305137) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @01:54PM (#36813978) Journal

          Both groups do it for both those reasons (albeit Anonymous' system for turning the profit is far less well-developed); you just happen to agree politically with one of them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044)

      Funny but doesn't Anonymous do that exact same thing? I mean dumping users email addresses and password hashes hurts the users as well as the companies.

      • by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:11PM (#36812736) Journal

        Yep - releasing userid/passwords is the same thing as hacking into dead childern's voicemails for scoops.

  • by Mushdot (943219) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:55AM (#36812498) Homepage

    While I'm quite enjoying what Anonymous/Lulzsec are doing, I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations that are to follow.

    • by BondGamer (724662)
      This could absolutely compromise the investigations. If the emails are leaked the defense could possibly get them suppressed and made unusable in court.
      • by adamchou (993073)
        Under what law/rule would the defense be able to get them suppressed and made unusable in court?
        • by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:05PM (#36812648)
          Jurors who have been previously exposed to evidence, and who have encountered it in a context that isn't up to the non-prejudicial standards of the court, wouldn't be considered reasonably neutral. If certain messages are widely spread around in the public because Anonymous thinks their priorities and standards are more important than the prosecutors', then that could indeed make such evidence essentially unusable in court.
          • by adamchou (993073)
            they were able to find jurors for the casey anthony case even though the case was so widely publicized. i'm sure they can find one for this case too, if need be.
          • by jbezorg (1263978)

            I think that applies only to evidence obtained by the court. Not criminals turning evidence in against other criminals. e.g. Paedophile jailed after burglars with a conscience tip off police about child abuse pictures on stolen laptop [dailymail.co.uk] ( new window )

            • by ScentCone (795499)
              I'm not sure how your example applies. Did the burglars make all of that information widely public before the creepy guy was prosecuted? Because that's the issue, here.
          • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:27PM (#36812910) Journal
            You're mixing the issues here. The fact that a jury pool has been tainted does not in any way affect the admissability of evidence.

            Whether or not the evidence is tainted depends on a few factors. First off, if the evidence is illegally obtained by a third party not under the influence of the authorities, the evidence is not automatically tainted. Chain of custody becomes an important issue, however, since the prosecution would have to pretty much prove that the evidence was not altered by the third party. However, the most important one to this example, I think, would be the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Namely, whether the authorities would have inevitably discovered these documents in the course of their investigations (assuming full compliance with warrant issued by the court). I don't think there is any way the authoities would NOT serve a warrant for those emails.

            There are of course other factors involved in whether the evidence is admissable. But a third party acting completely independently from the authorities acquiring evidence illegally does not make that evidence inadmissable, no matter whether or not it taints the jury pool.[1]

            And for what it's worth... without public outcry, it's quite possible that the alleged guilty parties at NOTW would enter a plea bargain and have the evidence suppressed (legally or extra-legally, they have a ton of influence). It's why this is such a big scandal... that's exactly what they've been doing for years. Public access to the information is the foundation of the only weapons we have against the government-corporate-media complex[2] that subverts the US democracy.

            [1] IANAL. If you want a real legal analysis, consult a real lawyer. YMMV. Half of what I know about law I learned from Perry Mason, Colombo, and Law and Order. The other half comes from researching topics relevant to slashdot discussion on the internet. Do not use my post as legal advice. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

            [2] I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much that line makes me sound like one. It's obvious to me that US Legislators are far more beholden to the companies that pay their election bills and hire them once they are out of office than they are to the public; especially so for media companies, who by-and-large control what information the public has.
      • Who cares? The courts have already proven that they have no teeth against corporations. Hopefully this will hit them where it really hurts by demonstrating what a heap of shitheels these people are and they lose massive business which will impair their ability to buy political power in the future.
      • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:06PM (#36812658) Journal
        That's not how it works in the US, I dunno about the UK (I assume you're from the US due to your spelling of defense).

        If the authorities made no effort to induce the illegal acquisition of the evidence, then it would still be admissable in US court AFAIK. The evidence if only tainted if the authorities, or someone acting at their behest (not a third-party with no link to the authorities), performs an illegal source. Chain of custody would be an issue, I would think, because it would have to be proven (more or less) that the emails were not altered after being lifted from NOTW's servers.

        *I know this from watching Perry Mason, Columbo, and Law & Order reruns; IANAL; YMMV; if you want legal advice consult a real lawyer; Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
        • That's a more or less correct reading, based upon your exposure. However, there would be no chain of custody here because it went from the defendants, to a third party (Lulzsec) and then (presumably) to the authorities. (Proper chain of custody would be something like: scene of the crime -> lab technician -> detective -> prosecutor.) Instead, a prosecutor can take these emails along with additional evidence to get a warrant for the originals, thereby getting a "clean" set of evidence. The clean

        • by DriedClexler (814907) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:34PM (#36813012)

          Good point, that's how Batman is able help win legit convictions: he's not acting on authorization of the police, so when he leaves the criminals at the crime scene bundled up with the evidence, Gotham City can use all they found in court.

          I mean, if all that happened in real life.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:00PM (#36812572)

      I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations

      You mean the investigations that Scotland Yard has already swept under the rug and tried to kill several times? Yeah, we wouldn't want to compromise those thorough investigations by competent, unbiased police officers. Shit, I heard they're going to put Sherlock Holmes on it, just the make sure that Scotland Yard's unblemished reputation in this matter is upheld.

      • by tbannist (230135)

        According to this article [macleans.ca] at least part of the reason Scotland Yard has tried to sweep this under the rug is due to the bribes and blackmail from News Corp.

    • by ScentCone (795499)

      I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations that are to follow

      You mean, these [cnet.com] investigations?

    • by sycodon (149926)

      Consequences be damned! They have a point they want to make.

    • by scorp1us (235526)

      I am much more interested in seeing LulzSec become bedfellows with the government. Also, wikileaks. Once they start using information from these sources, the establishment must admit they do society some good. Both organizations while operating illegally are operating on moral grounds: that truth and fairness prevail. Meanwhile we have the legitimate government continually hiding information that is "not in the best interest" (according to them) for people to know. Who is worse? Well absent perfectly trans

  • by Baby Duck (176251) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:55AM (#36812502) Homepage
    Outfoxed!
  • Pay back is a bitch. As others have mentioned this may not be the best thing for the criminal investigations, but it will be interesting to see how News Corps responds to this since it was apparently ok for them (a private entity) to tap other private entities' phones and e-mails.
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Considering the irrational hate and fear, is now up to physical attacks against Murdoch. I'm sure that people are a-okay with things like this too.

      Yep and good job people. You want to suck up to a partisan ideology. That's fine. You want to take your partisan ideology to the next step? Well that's okay too. You want to keep going and physically assault people because you don't like their business? You're just as fucked up as the person you claim to be railing against.

  • When is Anonymous going to hack Wikileaks as payback for Wikileaks hacking people to get stuff to report?

    • When you can prove that wikileaks 'hacked' people. Publishing information from insiders is not same hacking. Try logic 101.

      • Yea I'm sure the Wiki-leaks information just magically appeared. People have been referring this latest episode as "phone hacking" which is bullshit and anyone who considers this "hacking" should turn in their geek card in immediately. People just didn't change their default voicemail passwords and got owned. This is also pretty common on luggage locks so you better get to changing them in case the someone short stops your baggage looking for juicy info to post on the front page. This type of illegal access
      • by dreemernj (859414)
        So Anonymous should wait to release these emails until it has been proven that The Sun and News of the World employees hacked people.
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      When are they going to hack the US federal government and spread information far and wide about the Obama admin's gun running program(aka fast and the furious or project gunrunner), and attempt to violate the 2nd amendment. I'm going to guess never, but people will happily froth at the mouth over Murdoch when their own government was complicit in killing people, and enabling mexican cartels getting fire arms.

  • If your breaking the law by hacking them, whose to say that what you released is even real? Whenever you commit the same crime to expose a crime you lose all credibility. Fighting ethical misconduct by committing your own misconduct gains nothing! You end up being as big a piece of excrement as the people you say your trying to expose. Looking forward to hearing about more arrests. At News Corp International and members of Anonymous! Knock ! Knock!
    • by kelleher (29528)
      I agree with your post, but I have to admit that Anonymous is providing some guilt free schadenfreude....
    • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex AT ... trograde DOT com> on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:55PM (#36813270)

      Civil Rights protesters can't be trusted -- If they're breaking the law by riding in the front of buses or participating in illegal protests speaking out the very laws that make such things illegal, or performing their "duty as a statesman" to overthrow an oppressive government (as mentioned in their original Declaration of Independence), then they can clearly NEVER be Trusted!

      Are you now or have you ever been in violation of any law? Aha! Your vehicle exceeded the mandated speed limit! Your words are meaningless to me now!

      Also: I do not abide by laws that are unjust, or logic that is flawed. Nor do I wait idly for the next blow from my assailant's fist.

    • Because maintaining the moral high-ground by spreading the good word based upon what little we know resulted in keeping HADOPI, the PROTECT IP act, the PATRIOT act, and DMCA down, right? It's what's going to keep ACTA from being forced into reality? The moral high ground is putting down the corruption in the two party system? What has smiling and taking it actually won us? And if that's not a solid enough argument, I have this thought in parting: If what they're doing is so bad, why can I not help but smil
  • by pcgfx805 (1750684) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:28PM (#36812934)
    It was Lulzsec.
  • ..to release the emails of a dead news paper.
  • In case anyone is wondering a few years from now why their internet liberty will be so limited, it is this kind of abuse of freedom that will get us there. Thanks in advance Anonymous et al.

    If information wants to be free, let's all get tracking chips today!

  • Did the group just try to breach thesun.co.uk for the occasion or did they have the opportunity for some time and now decided to use it?

    It's just somewhat convenient, but nothing rules out pure chance.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...