This works in many countries, since the signalling protocols historically assumed a trusted small set of participants, not unlike email – with similar consequences once those assumptions became less and less true.
It's not unlike regular postal mail either. Wonder how prevalent were such scams with paper mail. A letter with a return address of a bank that asked to call a given number.
> historically assumed a trusted small set of participants
Kind of interesting to think about, maybe in the case of paper mail, "historically [...] small" was a village.
I've worked a bit on the app which calls major telco provider directly. It was a basic web service call, and sender could be entered as anything. This is basic property of cellular networks, no more safety than say standard email.
"The message sent was of the ‘Extreme Alert’ type and contained the word ‘misanthropy’ – which means hatred towards humanity. It is probably a hacker attack,” the agency’s statement said."
As this happens whenever there is an intrusion reported in the press, the word "hacker" is often misused:
"There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them."
As programmers in programming culture, we have a distinction between hacker and, potentially, cracker that no ordinary person has. ESR’s prescriptivism is pretty much worthless in this respect: words mean what people think they mean and what people use them for, and programmers do not have a monopoly on how people use the term.
OED has the “computer intruder” sense first cited in 1963, and the “enthusiastic programmer” sense first in 1969 (“now much less common than sense 3a”). Cracker first appears in 1968.
Besides, it is easy to disambiguate which meaning people mean. “Hacker attack” can only refer to the common usage of the term, not programming-culture usage.
At this point, it’s just you misusing the word. You WERE correct; it did mean the builders rather than the breakers. But to greater society outside of the tech industry, hacking is hacking, they don’t need a word to describe builders, and crackers sounds dumb and no one outside the tech industry would know what you were talking about. A cracker is a snack and a dated slang word to refer to white people.
It's not so much a fight as a reminder of the technical words that actually distinguish one type from another. Are hackers considered ethical in the press today? 40 years of movies and press articles hasn't exactly made the idea of "white hat" a known term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)
It's kind of like Australia or the UK saying kids are "hacking" their PCs to use VPNS. There can be a very legitimate use of tools, but the portrayal of users bypassing blocks could just as easily be painted in a negative light.
One time someone made a joke or observation, 20 years or so ago, that their Myspace page was "hacked" because someone "posted on their wall". It's obviously not that misused, but just labeled that way when misinformed.
There was a Larry Niven story where if you tried to call a certain guy, every phone in South America would ring instead. Anyone remember which story it was? The phone thing was just a throwaway line, not a significant plot point.
"Well?"Nessus began to pace the floor. "Many disqualify themselves by obvious bad luck. Of the rest, none seem to be available. When we call, they are out. When we call back, the phone computer gives us a bad connection. When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings. There have been complaints. It is very frustrating."
“When we call, they are out. When we call back, the phone computer gives us a bad connection. When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings.”
"This is Army Commander Tomás Miguel Ribeiro Paiva. We have chosen to take command of the country to protect you against serious crimes against the people that we have become aware of. Remain calm and continue with your daily duties."
"Due to deteriorating economic conditions, we have decided to abolish currency altogether. The Real is now worth nothing. All trade will henceforth be performed exclusively in gold."
This implies that governments didn’t already have this ability, which appears to be largely untrue? To my understanding, many countries already had emergency messaging systems, and mobile integrations are just a way of modernizing them.
(It seems exceedingly good that the government can warn every civilian about natural disasters, etc.)
TBH phones in Poland allow to call you "from" an arbitrary number (i.e. display it on your phone). Also send SMS with arbitrary source.
This is being used by scammers who call you and tell they are from police bank etc
This works in many countries, since the signalling protocols historically assumed a trusted small set of participants, not unlike email – with similar consequences once those assumptions became less and less true.
It's not unlike regular postal mail either. Wonder how prevalent were such scams with paper mail. A letter with a return address of a bank that asked to call a given number.
> historically assumed a trusted small set of participants
Kind of interesting to think about, maybe in the case of paper mail, "historically [...] small" was a village.
I've worked a bit on the app which calls major telco provider directly. It was a basic web service call, and sender could be entered as anything. This is basic property of cellular networks, no more safety than say standard email.
Not “unauthorized”, but previous cellular alert false alarms:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/mistaken-pickering-on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hawaii_false_missile_aler...
Ok, hackers got blamed for this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/09/dallas-hacke...
"The message sent was of the ‘Extreme Alert’ type and contained the word ‘misanthropy’ – which means hatred towards humanity. It is probably a hacker attack,” the agency’s statement said."
As this happens whenever there is an intrusion reported in the press, the word "hacker" is often misused:
"There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them."
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
As programmers in programming culture, we have a distinction between hacker and, potentially, cracker that no ordinary person has. ESR’s prescriptivism is pretty much worthless in this respect: words mean what people think they mean and what people use them for, and programmers do not have a monopoly on how people use the term.
OED has the “computer intruder” sense first cited in 1963, and the “enthusiastic programmer” sense first in 1969 (“now much less common than sense 3a”). Cracker first appears in 1968.
Besides, it is easy to disambiguate which meaning people mean. “Hacker attack” can only refer to the common usage of the term, not programming-culture usage.
At this point, it’s just you misusing the word. You WERE correct; it did mean the builders rather than the breakers. But to greater society outside of the tech industry, hacking is hacking, they don’t need a word to describe builders, and crackers sounds dumb and no one outside the tech industry would know what you were talking about. A cracker is a snack and a dated slang word to refer to white people.
Cracker News was taken
I didn’t realise that people still fought this fight. it’s time to drop it, dude. It’s truly blatant language prescriptivism at this point.
It's not so much a fight as a reminder of the technical words that actually distinguish one type from another. Are hackers considered ethical in the press today? 40 years of movies and press articles hasn't exactly made the idea of "white hat" a known term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)
It's kind of like Australia or the UK saying kids are "hacking" their PCs to use VPNS. There can be a very legitimate use of tools, but the portrayal of users bypassing blocks could just as easily be painted in a negative light.
One time someone made a joke or observation, 20 years or so ago, that their Myspace page was "hacked" because someone "posted on their wall". It's obviously not that misused, but just labeled that way when misinformed.
There was a Larry Niven story where if you tried to call a certain guy, every phone in South America would ring instead. Anyone remember which story it was? The phone thing was just a throwaway line, not a significant plot point.
It might have been the Ringworld
"Well?"Nessus began to pace the floor. "Many disqualify themselves by obvious bad luck. Of the rest, none seem to be available. When we call, they are out. When we call back, the phone computer gives us a bad connection. When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings. There have been complaints. It is very frustrating."
https://www.naneahoffman.com/the-blog/shelf-care-alien-archi...
“ When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings.”
That sounds like the computer had a bad solution to “find a Brandt.”
The comment with the request to find this reference had me thinking it would be a single phone number misconfigured to call a large population.
Ringworld. https://sciencemeetsfiction.com/2021/06/20/ringworld-theory-...
Of all the messages they could have sent they chose the most boring.
lets play a game HN, what would be the best alert to send?
mine would be something scifi, like "ALIENS HAVE LANDED" or "PLUTO DECLARES WAR"
The world needs more confusing positivity.
"You are beautiful and wonderful - keep going! (unlike this systems security)"
Keep on keeping on.
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
WHOSYOURDADDY[0]
0: https://classic.battle.net/war3/cheatcodes.shtml
METEOR STRIKE IN 8 MINUTES
DONT BELIEVE THEM
Any of the Sims 1 prank phone calls would be amazing
Most dangerous one:
"This is Army Commander Tomás Miguel Ribeiro Paiva. We have chosen to take command of the country to protect you against serious crimes against the people that we have become aware of. Remain calm and continue with your daily duties."
(Except in Brazilian Portuguese.)
Scary stuff.
I guess so scary that there isn't a single person willing to try it. But yeah, that is the most dangerous one possible.
Wake up, Neo...
"Help I'm trapped in a broadcast center"
Tom has added you as a friend!
“BRAZIL ELIMINATED FROM WORLD CUP”
This would create more chaos than any other suggestion so far. Well done.
I got a new job! from seank
The truth is out there!
THE DISPLAY IS A LIE
"THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CAUSE FOR ALARM"
“DO NOT LOOK AT THE MOON”
ARGENTINA IS BETTER THAN BRAZIL
"ALL DEBTS HAVE BEEN ERASED. JUBILEE."
"PIX will be discontinued today"
FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT
"Due to deteriorating economic conditions, we have decided to abolish currency altogether. The Real is now worth nothing. All trade will henceforth be performed exclusively in gold."
At least it wasn't a crypto scam.
misantropia é um perigo rapaziada
The power to send mass messages to a whole country is the worst thing google/apple have given to governments across the world.
This implies that governments didn’t already have this ability, which appears to be largely untrue? To my understanding, many countries already had emergency messaging systems, and mobile integrations are just a way of modernizing them.
(It seems exceedingly good that the government can warn every civilian about natural disasters, etc.)
These aren't from Google or Apple, they're from the wireless providers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Broadcast