Phone hacking/hackers

dilemna

Now it emerges Milly Dowler's phone and family have been targetted possibly compromising the criminal investigation and giving the family false hope that Milly was still alive.

People who did and knew of this, and who tried to keep it quiet are low life filth.

I don't understand how it is possible to hack into one person's phone let alone the large number of people's phones that have been systematically targetted?

Who else's phone has been hacked into? It appears these immoral people at NOTW authorised widescale phone hacking of anyone and everyone who could be worth a news story.

NOTW newspaper should be closed down and the senior management jailed. They wouldn't lose sleep if they sold their own mothers, grandmothers or children.

Guyzie

Couldn't agree more.
NotW, News International and Murdoch are complete scum! And I'm normally a very placid person, but this has really pissed me off.
Even found myself agreeing with John Prescott following his interview y'day!

dabber

Agreed... absolute scum. Close down te NOTW and throw away the key for those directly involved.

pb21

I was pretty much nonplused by the whole ‘celebrity’ phone hacking that was going on.

This is completely different though, especially deleting messages from her voicemail. Something is seriously wrong when people decide this is a good thing to do and hopefully all the people responsible will face the justice they deserve.

Yossie

Agree totally with the sentiments above - I'm normally a pretty placid kind of guy and will let most things go but this has really rattled me - excuse my French, mods, but its fukkin' appalling what they have been doing: I don't care if Kate Moss et al get their phones hacked (although there is a privacy issue and all that) but the Milly issue is something else: absolutely disgusting and the minute they lock the people responsible up for a long time the better.

Its not often that I get really, really angry, but when I heard about this on the Beeb last night, lets just say that I wasn't a happy Yossarian. The best we can hope for is that he gets locked away and someone in there repeatedly kicks seven bells out of him. On a daily basis would be nice.

There endeth my two pennies worth.

GiantMike

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Boycott NotW and other Murdoch industries. At the end of the day, all they care about is money and the only way to get them is with reduced sales and therefore reduced incomes.

Hopefully the Police will do the official/legal thing, but it's consumers that have the real power.

However, be aware that most journalists are scum. The industry is incredibly competitive which encourages mis-reporting and semi-legal shenanigans to get a good story. There are cheats in every aspect of life, whether it's commerce, sport or journalism. Where this cheating affects a Police investigation there must be a proper criminal investigation. I'd be surprised if this doesn't lead to serious charges.

The NotW is remaining tight-lipped about the whole thing. Nice set of double standards there!

rajMAN

NOTW - Not fit for chip wrappers!! and as for Murdoch.....C***T of the highest order.

daviesee

Rebekah Brookes was the NotW editor at the time.
Is it time to go t'internet viral on her?
After all, she is in the public domain and in the public interest yadda yadda yadda......

Lets start with her being a proven liar.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/steve ... one-brooks

Aggieboy

dilemna wrote:

Now it emerges Milly Dowler's phone and family have been targetted possibly compromising the criminal investigation and giving the family false hope that Milly was still alive.

People who did and knew of this, and who tried to keep it quiet are low life filth.

I don't understand how it is possible to hack into one person's phone let alone the large number of people's phones that have been systematically targetted?

Who else's phone has been hacked into? It appears these immoral people at NOTW authorised widescale phone hacking of anyone and everyone who could be worth a news story.

NOTW newspaper should be closed down and the senior management jailed. They wouldn't lose sleep if they sold their own mothers, grandmothers or children.

This is of course, a disgrace. Not only have they interferred with the investigation but have now heaped more upset and despair on the family.

The 'hacking is child's play. They only get access to the messages though, not real time calls.

rick_chasey

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

pb21

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I guess you are right, but these latest allegations come from 2002, which I believe is prior to the celebrity hackings we have been hearing about.

I suppose hacking of some kind has always been going on.

dilemna

I think to suggest that Rupert Murdoch himself had any knowledge of this is at this current time is fanciful. It is probably an activity carried out by low life hacks at the NOTW and similar such gutter press and authorised by their amoral and incompetent management. The Editor at the time Rebecca Brooks should go or be sacked. I can't understand why Murdoch appears to be standing by her. Sack her. If she didn't know, she should have known. Stomach churning, just like that Shoesmith woman claiming she was unfairly sacked after baby Peter Connelly died because the department she was supposed to be running to protect vulnerable children such as baby Peter was in total chaos. I bet behind the scenes Murdoch is furious especially as he is trying to take over control of BSKYB.

Mulcaire and all the others who hacked phones or knew about or tried to suppress it becoming public knowledge should go to prison for a long time. It appears yet again the police haven't exactly carried out the most thorough investigations so they have serious questions to answer.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I don't know if I can buy the logical path argument as I still feel it's an enormous leap from exposing the playboy lifestyle of young millionaires to tampering with messages on a phone belonging to a missing 13 yr old girl. Surely the moral compass should start twitching at some point?

Aggieboy

verylonglegs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I don't know if I can buy the logical path argument as I still feel it's an enormous leap from exposing the playboy lifestyle of young millionaires to tampering with messages on a phone belonging to a missing 13 yr old girl. Surely the moral compass should start twitching at some point?

Don't think it matters who it is. I'd be really, really annoyed if they'd hacked mine for any reason tbh.

rick_chasey

Aggieboy wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I don't know if I can buy the logical path argument as I still feel it's an enormous leap from exposing the playboy lifestyle of young millionaires to tampering with messages on a phone belonging to a missing 13 yr old girl. Surely the moral compass should start twitching at some point?

Don't think it matters who it is. I'd be really, really annoyed if they'd hacked mine for any reason tbh.

Eey, I agree with Aggie. Must be because it's his birthday.

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Gazzaputt

I love the bury head in the sand attitude from Rebekah Brookes and Andy Coulson. Both claiming they never knew what was going is total bull.

I worked in the industry for sometime and editors rule these places with rod of iron. They know when sub farts let alone hacks voicemails.

The story was published by NoW when a call was left by a recruitment agency by mistake. NoW claimed some sicko was trying apply for jobs in her name.

The editor goes through these stories before publication and would have know the story's source.

The Sun and NoW are total scumbags.

You can understand Vince Cable's hatred for Murdoch.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I don't know if I can buy the logical path argument as I still feel it's an enormous leap from exposing the playboy lifestyle of young millionaires to tampering with messages on a phone belonging to a missing 13 yr old girl. Surely the moral compass should start twitching at some point?

Don't think it matters who it is. I'd be really, really annoyed if they'd hacked mine for any reason tbh.

Eey, I agree with Aggie. Must be because it's his birthday.

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Oh I wasn't condoning what they do to film stars and footballers either, I have a lot of contempt for celeb gossip columns and their readers. I just don't think the journo's can take the defence that what may have happened with regard to Milly Dowler is somehow the public's fault, no matter how dumb the general public is, whoever was tampering with the messages has to take responsibility for their actions.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Eey, I agree with Aggie. Must be because it's his birthday.

Why is it different for young millionaires?

It must be a day for it Rick as i am in agreement with your stance on this :shock:

It is either privacy or public domain for everyone. You can't pick & choose who deserves privacy.

IronHorse100

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think this is an instance where the slippery slope argument does play out.

If people are happy to turn a blind eye to 'celebrities' having their phone's hacked, or even think it's OK because it's "in the public interest", or perhaps more precisely, "the public is interested in it", then it's not too difficult to see how said hackers moved on to stories like this.

In this instance, the people involved are famous and in the public eye, for whatever reason, so those hackers feel, similarly, that it's "in the public interest" or that the public is interested.

For them, it's the same logic path.

The privacy issue IS the issue, regardless of the victim, simply because, eventually, you will get a case that gets people 'outraged.

I don't know if I can buy the logical path argument as I still feel it's an enormous leap from exposing the playboy lifestyle of young millionaires to tampering with messages on a phone belonging to a missing 13 yr old girl. Surely the moral compass should start twitching at some point?

Don't think it matters who it is. I'd be really, really annoyed if they'd hacked mine for any reason tbh.

Eey, I agree with Aggie. Must be because it's his birthday.

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Because they court publicity and have a symbiotic relationship with the press?

It may, in effect, be the same crime. But this latest case fully deserves the moral outrage that is occurring and it's totally understandable that there was much less of a fuss or sympathy for the previous victims.

I agree it's dangeours to pick and choose for whom privacy laws apply. But I felt little sympathy for hacked 'celebs'. This is a different ball game.

rick_chasey

IronHorse100 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Because they court publicity and have a symbiotic relationship with the press?

It may, in effect, be the same crime. But this latest case fully deserves the moral outrage that is occurring and it's totally understandable that there was much less of a fuss or sympathy for the previous victims.

I agree it's dangeours to pick and choose for whom privacy laws apply. But I felt little sympathy for hacked 'celebs'. This is a different ball game.

Ah I fundamentally disagree.

#1, Moral outrage is overrated. Morality is ultimately subjective, so it's a pretty rubbish way of measuring anything on a public scale. It also comes far too late, and is far too easily manipulated. Most importantly, it's reactionary, not objective, and swings widly. It's not a good way to measure anything.

#2. Just because someone courts publicity for their professional work (i.e. being a famous footballer, or making money out of being famous), doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy. Indeed, you could argue reasonably convincingly, that the family of the missing girl were similarly courting publicity just like a celebrity. The only difference is the means: celebs do it to earn their living, this family are doing it to help their search.

I'm sure that's the angle the hackers use to justify their actions. "We hack telephones of people who are of interest to the public, and people who court publicity". You let it slide for a celeb, then the line becomes blurred, and no-wonder this occurs.

GiantMike

Not sure about that argument regarding privacy. For me, if somebody courts publicity and chooses to be a news event it's very different to somebody who is forced to and is unwittingly part of a story. The Dowler family had no choice but to engage the media for maximum publicity. Certain journos then think it's acceptable to hack into the girl's phone knowing it might affect the investigation. Journos should not be hacking into anybody's mobile phones because they are not under any scrutiny into their actions. The very fullest weight of the law should be applied to them regardless of whether they are journos or not.

verylonglegs

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

rick_chasey

verylonglegs wrote:

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

For governance, the law can't make that distinction, and why should we?

Privacy is privacy, whoever you are.

You want some information that's important to the public? Get it by legitimate means.

pb21

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

For governance, the law can't make that distinction, and why should we?

Privacy is privacy, whoever you are.

You want some information that's important to the public? Get it by legitimate means.

The law makes a governance in the severity of the crime relating to the punishment.

In this case the hacking of a missing girls phone is more serious than hacking a celebrities phone.

redvee

On teh lunchtime news a NI spokesman said the latest hacking stories were only allegations at the moment and have yet to be proved to be fact. Doesn't the NotW publish allegations before they can chaeck they are facts?

verylonglegs

pb21 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

For governance, the law can't make that distinction, and why should we?

Privacy is privacy, whoever you are.

You want some information that's important to the public? Get it by legitimate means.

The law makes a governance in the severity of the crime relating to the punishment.

In this case the hacking of a missing girls phone is more serious than hacking a celebrities phone.

Yes, was going to say the judge makes a distinction at sentence, a wife who murders her husband after years of domestic abuse for example.

rick_chasey

verylonglegs wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

For governance, the law can't make that distinction, and why should we?

Privacy is privacy, whoever you are.

You want some information that's important to the public? Get it by legitimate means.

The law makes a governance in the severity of the crime relating to the punishment.

In this case the hacking of a missing girls phone is more serious than hacking a celebrities phone.

Yes, was going to say the judge makes a distinction at sentence, a wife who murders her husband after years of domestic abuse for example.

My point is, people can't be surprised when things like this occur if they let the law slide in some instances. Either you enforce it properly or you don't at all.

It's unfortunate it takes something like this to bring into light the issue.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's unfortunate it takes something like this to bring into light the issue.

Very true.

Aggieboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I appreciate your argument Rick, logically it makes sense but I can't agree with your last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, that the only difference is celebs making money and a family looking for a (potentionally)abducted child. That's a massive difference imo, I couldn't equate Wayne Rooney losing a sponsorship deal to a missing person.

For governance, the law can't make that distinction, and why should we?

Privacy is privacy, whoever you are.

You want some information that's important to the public? Get it by legitimate means.

The law makes a governance in the severity of the crime relating to the punishment.

In this case the hacking of a missing girls phone is more serious than hacking a celebrities phone.[/quote]

Yes, was going to say the judge makes a distinction at sentence, a wife who murders her husband after years of domestic abuse for example.

My point is, people can't be surprised when things like this occur if they let the law slide in some instances. Either you enforce it properly or you don't at all.

It's unfortunate it takes something like this to bring into light the issue.

I think that the hacking of anybody's phone messages carries the same weight, it's the consequences of doing so that can be, as in this case, more serious.

IronHorse100

Rick Chasey wrote:

IronHorse100 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Because they court publicity and have a symbiotic relationship with the press?

It may, in effect, be the same crime. But this latest case fully deserves the moral outrage that is occurring and it's totally understandable that there was much less of a fuss or sympathy for the previous victims.

I agree it's dangeours to pick and choose for whom privacy laws apply. But I felt little sympathy for hacked 'celebs'. This is a different ball game.

Ah I fundamentally disagree.

#1, Moral outrage is overrated. Morality is ultimately subjective, so it's a pretty rubbish way of measuring anything on a public scale. It also comes far too late, and is far too easily manipulated. Most importantly, it's reactionary, not objective, and swings widly. It's not a good way to measure anything.

#2. Just because someone courts publicity for their professional work (i.e. being a famous footballer, or making money out of being famous), doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy. Indeed, you could argue reasonably convincingly, that the family of the missing girl were similarly courting publicity just like a celebrity. The only difference is the means: celebs do it to earn their living, this family are doing it to help their search.

I'm sure that's the angle the hackers use to justify their actions. "We hack telephones of people who are of interest to the public, and people who court publicity". You let it slide for a celeb, then the line becomes blurred, and no-wonder this occurs.

I fundamentally disagree back!

Can't help thinking you're taking a rather 'Mr Logic' stance on this. Yes, morality is subjective, but we're not talking about a Daily Mail type moral outrage here - there is a broad consensus that this is very much beyond the pale and drags the British press beyond the gutter and into the sewer.

I'm not placing myself in the position of Rumpole of the Bailey here - but as an oridinary Joe. I have no real issue with celeb phone hacking. It's wrong but...meh!

As for "Indeed, you could argue reasonably convincingly, that the family of the missing girl were similarly courting publicity just like a celebrity" - if the person being convinced was a moron, then maybe. Otherwise, it's nothing like the same thing.

rick_chasey

IronHorse100 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

IronHorse100 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it different for young millionaires?

Because they court publicity and have a symbiotic relationship with the press?

It may, in effect, be the same crime. But this latest case fully deserves the moral outrage that is occurring and it's totally understandable that there was much less of a fuss or sympathy for the previous victims.

I agree it's dangeours to pick and choose for whom privacy laws apply. But I felt little sympathy for hacked 'celebs'. This is a different ball game.

Ah I fundamentally disagree.

#1, Moral outrage is overrated. Morality is ultimately subjective, so it's a pretty rubbish way of measuring anything on a public scale. It also comes far too late, and is far too easily manipulated. Most importantly, it's reactionary, not objective, and swings widly. It's not a good way to measure anything.

#2. Just because someone courts publicity for their professional work (i.e. being a famous footballer, or making money out of being famous), doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy. Indeed, you could argue reasonably convincingly, that the family of the missing girl were similarly courting publicity just like a celebrity. The only difference is the means: celebs do it to earn their living, this family are doing it to help their search.

I'm sure that's the angle the hackers use to justify their actions. "We hack telephones of people who are of interest to the public, and people who court publicity". You let it slide for a celeb, then the line becomes blurred, and no-wonder this occurs.

I fundamentally disagree back!

Can't help thinking you're taking a rather 'Mr Logic' stance on this. Yes, morality is subjective, but we're not talking about a Daily Mail type moral outrage here - there is a broad consensus that this is very much beyond the pale and drags the British press beyond the gutter and into the sewer.

I'm not placing myself in the position of Rumpole of the Bailey here - but as an oridinary Joe. I have no real issue with celeb phone hacking. It's wrong but...meh!

As for "Indeed, you could argue reasonably convincingly, that the family of the missing girl were similarly courting publicity just like a celebrity" - if the person being convinced was a moron, then maybe. Otherwise, it's nothing like the same thing.

I was already pretty unhappy about the whole celeb hacking and the Max Mosley story.

It irritates me that it takes something so extreme for people to care. The reason some people were shouting about the hacking long before this story came out is because there is a very good reason why privacy stuff exists.

As for the final point. It's the same means, to different ends right? It's the same with the Madeline McCan story, which is even worse. Are they fair game because they courted publicity to help their search? The tabloids seemed to think so. It's all so predictable.

The public clamour and cry for blood and bait, and then get outraged by this? Either have your cake and eat it, or stop asking for it.