PDA

View Full Version : Someone can hack into your telephone, call 911 and send ETF to storm your house...


wasserkool
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:00 PM
This is exactly what this ******* did:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/59899.html

This could have ended very very bad. If the swats were trigger happy or if the man came out with a gun instead...he would been riddled with bullets.

"A teenager from Washington state was arrested last week on charges of hacking into an Orange County, Calif., 911 system and tricking the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) into sending a SWAT team to an innocent couple's home in Lake Forest."

"Ellis then allegedly used the victims' names and address and claimed to have shot and murdered someone in the Lake Forest home. He also threatened to shoot additional people, according to the OCDA, which sparked the sheriff's department there to deploy a SWAT team. When the team arrived at the Lake Forrest home, Doug Bates heard rustling in the bushes outside and believed it to be a prowler. He took a knife from the kitchen and went into the backyard, where he found the SWAT team pointing assault rifles at him, the OCDA reported.

The SWAT team handcuffed both parents at gunpoint and held them until it was determined the report was a fake. "

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:16 PM
This is exactly what this ******* did:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/59899.html

This could have ended very very bad. If the swats were trigger happy or if the man came out with a gun instead...he would been riddled with bullets.

"A teenager from Washington state was arrested last week on charges of hacking into an Orange County, Calif., 911 system and tricking the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) into sending a SWAT team to an innocent couple's home in Lake Forest."

"Ellis then allegedly used the victims' names and address and claimed to have shot and murdered someone in the Lake Forest home. He also threatened to shoot additional people, according to the OCDA, which sparked the sheriff's department there to deploy a SWAT team. When the team arrived at the Lake Forrest home, Doug Bates heard rustling in the bushes outside and believed it to be a prowler. He took a knife from the kitchen and went into the backyard, where he found the SWAT team pointing assault rifles at him, the OCDA reported.

The SWAT team handcuffed both parents at gunpoint and held them until it was determined the report was a fake. "

No one is hacking anything... The guy is probably using some sort of Voice over IP setup to emulate the person's phone # and address information...

Ever get a phone call from 123-456-7890? Same sort of deal.

gordholio
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:21 PM
No one is hacking anything... The guy is probably using some sort of Voice over IP setup to emulate the person's phone # and address information...

Ever get a phone call from 123-456-7890? Same sort of deal.

Whatever it is, it's unethical and dangerous to be doing it.

champlinD
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:32 PM
I Know I need new glasses but I don't get this.

"A teenager from Washington state was arrested last week on charges of hacking into an Orange County, Calif., 911 system and tricking the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) into sending a SWAT team to an innocent couple's home in Lake Forest."

And the Title is

"Someone can hack into your telephone, call 911 "

ullyeus
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:38 PM
No one is hacking anything... The guy is probably using some sort of Voice over IP setup to emulate the person's phone # and address information...

Ever get a phone call from 123-456-7890? Same sort of deal.

In the most general sense it could be considering hacking. ie: exploiting an electronic system.

ullyeus
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:39 PM
I Know I need new glasses but I don't get this.

"A teenager from Washington state was arrested last week on charges of hacking into an Orange County, Calif., 911 system and tricking the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) into sending a SWAT team to an innocent couple's home in Lake Forest."

And the Title is

"Someone can hack into your telephone, call 911 "

What don't you get?

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Whatever it is, it's unethical and dangerous to be doing it.

Yeah no argument from me.

Hairball
Mar 13th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Heck, making any phone call from anywhere reporting a threat could have police coming, this doesn't have to be a "hacked" phone.

st7860
Mar 13th, 2008, 03:03 PM
nobody has heard of phreaking i guess.

blainehamilton
Mar 13th, 2008, 03:05 PM
Sounds like the teenager is going to get a slap on the wrist and at least 6 months probation / house arrest for being so bad.

Good thing it didn't result in somebody being killed. Otherwise, he might get 12 months probation instead...

Ebola
Mar 13th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Sounds like the teenager is going to get a slap on the wrist and at least 6 months probation / house arrest for being so bad.

Good thing it didn't result in somebody being killed. Otherwise, he might get 12 months probation instead...

This case is in the US, not Canada. So more likely to have more punitive sentences.

computer01
Mar 13th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Probably some Internet / VoIP thing but it could be as simple as a beige box:

Take a small regular home phone. Get a regular phone extension cord. Cut the cord leaving the jack end and a couple of feet of cable. Solder alligator clips to the red and green wires. Go to the outside demarc or open the pedestal at the street. Clip onto the binding posts and voila, dialtone. That or just buy a buttset.

EDIT: And nice work on the tactical part OCSD. If that had been a real situation, your rustling just alerted the suspect that you were outside.

EDIT2: "We're not going to share exactly how he hacked into the system, but... he was doing this all from his home in Washington..." Obviously not a beige box. Probably CID spoofing via VoIP.

GunnerX
Mar 13th, 2008, 03:59 PM
I thought 911 Operators are instructed to call the number again to confirm the situation.

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 04:02 PM
I thought 911 Operators are instructed to call the number again to confirm the situation.

Pretty much whenever someone calls 911 expect the police to pay you a visit.

Someone calls 911 and says "Help, someone is in my *click*"

911 calls back and asks if everything and the person says everything is fine. What's to say the person isn't under some sort of duress.

board123
Mar 13th, 2008, 04:23 PM
What don't you get?
The article states that the perp hacked into the police system. The title states the perp hacked your personal phone line and used it to call 911.

champlinD
Mar 13th, 2008, 04:39 PM
What don't you get?

The same you didn't read

ibanker
Mar 13th, 2008, 04:48 PM
someone can look through a phone book and know where you live and call 911 from a payfone and send etf to your house as well??

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 04:54 PM
someone can look through a phone book and know where you live and call 911 from a payfone and send etf to your house as well??

Yes, but this is different.. When you call from a payphone the 911 operators sees you're calling from a payphone. In this situation, the guy spoofed the phone # and address and made it look like he was calling from the house.

corrupt123
Mar 13th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Yes, but this is different.. When you call from a payphone the 911 operators sees you're calling from a payphone. In this situation, the guy spoofed the phone # and address and made it look like he was calling from the house.

But how? VOIP systems clone/generate phone numbers, but 911 response should have call display listing address, location, line owner, etc. VOIP can't generate that. Even if he had used a cellphone number (no address/location) they should have picked up that it's not a legit line.

VorteC
Mar 13th, 2008, 07:22 PM
What don't you get?

He's saying that it doesn't make sense because the title is "someone can hack into your telephone" but obviously in the article, the guy hacked into the police telephone system using a fake number and address...

Ebola
Mar 13th, 2008, 08:21 PM
But how? VOIP systems clone/generate phone numbers, but 911 response should have call display listing address, location, line owner, etc. VOIP can't generate that. Even if he had used a cellphone number (no address/location) they should have picked up that it's not a legit line.

As was mentioned I think he actually hacked into the police network.

Are you saying the police are more responsible for this incident than the guy making false 911 calls?

AudiDude
Mar 13th, 2008, 08:39 PM
All I need to do is go to the Bell terminal every building or neighbourhood has and call 911. This can be done from the side of the house, or from any splice point between the CO and the customer. Rogers customers would need someone to spoof the address because their dialtone only appears inside the house, not outside (possibly for several kms).

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 08:44 PM
But how? VOIP systems clone/generate phone numbers, but 911 response should have call display listing address, location, line owner, etc. VOIP can't generate that. Even if he had used a cellphone number (no address/location) they should have picked up that it's not a legit line.

I'm just "arm charing" this whole thing, I really have no clue and the news article isn't too helpful in terms of details (for a good reason obviously).

Peckerwood
Mar 13th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Does nobody else find it unnerving that an entire SWAT unit, fully armed mind you, can be deployed to a house by nothing more than a mere phone call?

Blaming the kid for all of it is a bit of a stretch(he definitely deserves some serious punishment)...but keep in mind that he was taking advantage of a system mounted on a hair trigger.

cwb27
Mar 13th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Does nobody else find it unnerving that an entire SWAT unit, fully armed mind you, can be deployed to a house by nothing more than a mere phone call?

Blaming the kid for all of it is a bit of a stretch(he definitely deserves some serious punishment)...but keep in mind that he was taking advantage of a system mounted on a hair trigger.

The kid was making a false report that the people shot/killed other people AND THEN made the false threat that the people would shoot/kill others. What sort of reaction would you expect?

So what if it were real and a single officer with a ride along was dispatched, then both of them, god forbid, get shot and die? Then what you would be saying? I'm almost certain it would be something critical due to the lack of response from the police.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and go with that you misread the story. You surely can't expect any less then a full out response when someone says "Hey 911 operator!! Yeah, I shot up Joe Blow and I feel like killin more people. Bye!"

Get real.

Peckerwood
Mar 14th, 2008, 12:07 AM
The kid was making a false report that the people shot/killed other people AND THEN made the false threat that the people would shoot/kill others. What sort of reaction would you expect?
A proper lead investigation with frontline officers in uniform by means of patrol car to the front door as well as a standard phone call to the home to establish direct contact with the occupants. None of such procedures are out of the ordinary but are actually the standard protocol prior to engagement with SWAT or ERT.

Anything above that is an over-reaction based upon an unclarified source.

Have you any idea how many calls are actually prank calls? Not to mention the fact that many of such calls can also be distractions to dilute police presence for the purposes of a burglary or illicit activity elsewhere.
So what if it were real and a single officer with a ride along was dispatched, then both of them, god forbid, get shot and die? Then what you would be saying? I'm almost certain it would be something critical due to the lack of response from the police.
I am only critical of LEO when they use excessive force...not less. Answering a random call using a fully armed quasi-military unit, without prior clarification of circumstances through effective use of intermediate surveillance, is overkill to say the least.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and go with that you misread the story. You surely can't expect any less then a full out response when someone says "Hey 911 operator!! Yeah, I shot up Joe Blow and I feel like killin more people. Bye!"

Get real.
Misread the story?

Police receive a call...real or not an entire SWAT unit was dispatched to someone's home...armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

Conversely, what if the very same SWAT unit was mistaken by the homeowner and instead of a knife he grabbed a firearm? Who is right and who is wrong.

cwb27
Mar 14th, 2008, 01:02 AM
A proper lead investigation with frontline officers in uniform by means of patrol car to the front door as well as a standard phone call to the home to establish direct contact with the occupants. None of such procedures are out of the ordinary but are actually the standard protocol prior to engagement with SWAT or ERT.

Anything above that is an over-reaction based upon an unclarified source.

Have you any idea how many calls are actually prank calls? Not to mention the fact that many of such calls can also be distractions to dilute police presence for the purposes of a burglary or illicit activity elsewhere.

I am only critical of LEO when they use excessive force...not less. Answering a random call using a fully armed quasi-military unit, without prior clarification of circumstances through effective use of intermediate surveillance, is overkill to say the least.

Misread the story?

Police receive a call...real or not an entire SWAT unit was dispatched to someone's home...armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

Conversely, what if the very same SWAT unit was mistaken by the homeowner and instead of a knife he grabbed a firearm? Who is right and who is wrong.


One of the persistent problems with news articles like this is that they leave out many, many, MANY important details. This case is no exception, to play hypothetical for a moment seeing as we don't know all the details....


The kid calls 911 says "blah, blah, blah I killed people, I'm gonna kill again, come get me cause I ain't comin out!" Now to most people, this sounds pretty normal; crazy guy, says he killed, wants to kill again, ain't coming out.

But the critical part of this... "...cause I ain't coming out...", now all of a sudden you have a barricaded person. Do we know for a fact they're barricaded, killed people and will kill again? No, not 100%, sure we can go out and look, ask questions and hopefully not get shot/killed or get someone else shot/killed in the process.

Typically, with almost every police force I'm aware of that has an emergency response team, it is Standard Operating Procedure that SWAT/ETF units (who are provided the most training for) respond to and make contact with the barricaded person. An excellent example of this is the Peter Silverman/optometrist incident last year, the guy locked himself in his store, told the patrol officers he wasn't coming out, and the ETF responded. (of which I remember a few RFDers were shocked that the ETF showed up)

I understand what you're saying with regards to an investigation into the circumstances behind the situation (i.e. a prank call). But there are times within policing that you do not have the liberty of time for sending out a unit to do recon and find out what is really going on. To me (and FWIW, I have somewhat greater than average understanding of policing) a person claiming to have killed people and has stated they will kill again requires a quick, co-ordinated and powerful response from those who have been tasked to protect people. Police forces everywhere always say, they cannot appear weak infront of criminals as it only increases the resolve of the criminal.

As for your "what if" example, what if the person had been carrying a gun? Assuming the guy was to shoot first and ask questions later... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that as with other accidental police shootings that occur, there probably would have been a public (and private) apology as well as a sizable cash settlement.


It's also really no secret that SWAT/ETF say that a large amount of their job is a show of force. When a bad guy with a weapon sees 6-8 guys, dressed in black, wearing helmets and body armour, carrying weapons show up it typically makes them no longer want to go out in a blaze of glory and instead play the waiting game until they realize the police aren't going away.


I do really hate talking in hypothetical sometimes... ;)

abu_sme
Mar 14th, 2008, 04:17 AM
wired said that this "hack" was simply using a caller id spoofing service. I'm too lazy to find the article. This article makes it sound like he hacked into the 911 PBX and somehow made it say something else when he clearly didn't.

The scary thing is anyone can do this.

kleptodathief
Mar 14th, 2008, 08:52 AM
wow interesting...the topic sentence is kinda misleading tho....

Peckerwood
Mar 14th, 2008, 03:06 PM
CWB27, I still disagree to a point. I understand your position and in some aspects I wholeheartedly agree...but the problem arises when the SWAT becomes a standard usage for more and more types of calls.

Generalizing their functions through multiple parameters will slowly change the meaning of their acronym from Special Weapons And Tactics to something more along the lines of Standard Weapons And Tactics. Not only will this lead to the militarization of the Police, but will also breed a certain amount of familiarization in the eyes of the Public to such fringe concepts as Legitimate Power Monopoly.

This is a slippery slope no matter how it is applied simply because of the types of people that are attracted to these jobs in the first place as well as their handlers and funding brokers who direct their policy making.

A single example is how the US Dept. of Homeland Security(designed as a terrorist rooting force after 9/11) gets used by the Federal Government to bust a toy store for selling illegal copies of Rubik's Cubes.

Another example is using various Law Enforcement Agencies from both the US and Canada(including Canada's NWEST, America's BATFE, and FBI) to swoop down with SWAT units on a gun manufacturer with no evidence of wrongdoing, or proof of regulatory offences that to this day still have not been established.

LEO's in that case confiscated all of his property, including milling machines, lathes, specialized equipment, etc without a single charge or proof of infraction, despite the fact that his business was well recognized and was above board without catering to the criminal element. This type of reverse onus is slowly crossing the border, and with the use of our very own National Weapons Enforcement and Support Team involved with jurisdictional powers in a foreign country...learning their bad habits so to speak...I don't like the direction it is taking.

Attacking law abiding citizens in this fashion is a disreputable form of Law enforcement and an abhorrent use of said resources in my honest opinion.