Phone Hacking Journalists

estampida

This will be covered up as always

there is also an intersting point that if the NOTW staff were being hacked, stalked,
mis-reported, what would happen, would a very rich and powerfull man that claims to fix brit elections get involved and sweep it under the carpet....

I think labour whitewashed the last investigation into hacking with the hope of being backed by the news group.

Didnt work out that way, now prescott and others have turned into a panto queen's and want blood

remeber the press have not fully co-operated with the police for some time, there was a white fiat uno, arranged to stop a limo in a tunnel in paris to get the dirty pic's of fiyed and his new bird in tow. No one knows anything about it even today, but they knew they had a buyer for the pics whatever happens..

buy or read 1 of these and your just as bad, also as a note the sun & star are written for the reading age of a 10yr old

suzyb

EKE_38BPM wrote:

In the situation you describe, would the NOTW have told the police and Milly's familly that she had run away or would they have kept their mouths shut? No way of definitively answering that I guess, but I would guess they would keep quiet so as not to reveal the source of the information.

I would hope the NOTW wouldn't have had to tell the police as they would have asked the phone company for access to Mily's voicemail when she was missing and be keeping an eye on it for any messages that may indicate her whereabouts.

Sketchley wrote:

Parent company is News International, which in turn is News Corp which have big holding in and is planning to buy BSkyB. So if you feel outraged enough cancel those Sky subscriptions. Also take a look at http://www.newscorp.com/operations/publishing.html should probably boycott those as well.

Well that's the last time I buy the Sunday Tasmanian.

WisePranker

Sketchley wrote:

Parent company is News International, which in turn is News Corp which have big holding in and is planning to buy BSkyB. So if you feel outraged enough cancel those Sky subscriptions. Also take a look at http://www.newscorp.com/operations/publishing.html should probably boycott those as well.

It's a bit of a coincidence but I stopped reading the Times after reading a few things about Rupert Murdoch and News International and have also gone on to cancel my Sky subscription.
Needless to say I won't be going back to using either of these or any other NI services if at all possible.

EKE_38BPM

Sketchley, I know you're not trying to defend NOTW.
You described a hypothetical scenario and I could see that. Some others on here don't seem to be able to distinguish between real situations and hypothetical situations, but I'm not one (and I don't think Bails is either).

How about we settle this storm in a forum with a pint in the 'Peth on friday?

W1

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

Consider whether, if the press were rightly censored by the correct use of pre-emptive injunctions (which you are against), would they go to such lengths as they appear to have done in this case to obtain information they knew they couldn't publish? Of course not. They would be risking imprisonment for nothing. The freedom currently abused by the press is in part due to weak after-the-event legal processes (which you think are sufficient) whereby the making of money by selling papers incentivises the sort of behaviour the NOTW is being accused of, and the post-publication fines are simply a balance of risk in terms of profit/loss.

If you wish to amend your view to include support of injunctions and censorship of views in the press that incite hatred, threaten National Security and prevent the publication of illegally obtained information, then so be it. Of course that's not what you said. The implication of your view is that "everything else goes" in the name of freedom of speech. That may or may not be what you intended, but it is what you said - "I do not think freedom of expression should curtailed for any reason, other than perhaps national security and inciting hatred".... (my emphasis). Illegally (and immorally) gained material isn't within either of your exceptions to freedom of expression.

You may not like it - you may not have intended it by your posts in support of the press - but this topic is evidence of why in fact injuctions and limitations on the press are essential and what to print should not be left to editors to decide, which is what you propose.

spen666

Sewinman wrote:

....Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. ....

So if you hack into my phone and discover i'm plotting a 9/11 style attack and intend to carry out the attack imminently, you would say it was wrong to publish that information to save others lives?

Its not as black and white as people like ot think

bails87

spen666 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

....Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. ....

So if you hack into my phone and discover i'm plotting a 9/11 style attack and intend to carry out the attack imminently, you would say it was wrong to publish that information to save others lives?

Its not as black and white as people like ot think

Putting it in next Sunday's NOTW is very different from telling the police.

An interesting, if long article by a professor of journalism: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/code-breakers/

spen666

W1 wrote:

....
If you wish to amend your view to include support of injunctions and censorship of views in the press that incite hatred, threaten National Security and prevent the publication of illegally obtained information, then so be it. Of course that's not what you said. The implication of your view is that "everything else goes" in the name of freedom of speech. That may or may not be what you intended, but it is what you said - "I do not think freedom of expression should curtailed for any reason, other than perhaps national security and inciting hatred".... (my emphasis). Illegally (and immorally) gained material isn't within either of your exceptions to freedom of expression.

You may not like it - you may not have intended it by your posts in support of the press - but this topic is evidence of why in fact injuctions and limitations on the press are essential and what to print should not be left to editors to decide, which is what you propose.

If you did this, then you would have prevented amongst other things, the exposure of the Watergate Affair or the MPs expense scandal

You are simply assisting those in poewer to keep power by corruption and deceit if you prevent publication of all material obtained by criminal methods

spen666

bails87 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

....Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. ....

So if you hack into my phone and discover i'm plotting a 9/11 style attack and intend to carry out the attack imminently, you would say it was wrong to publish that information to save others lives?

Its not as black and white as people like ot think

Putting it in next Sunday's NOTW is very different from telling the police.

An interesting, if long article by a professor of journalism: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/code-breakers/

Telling the police and putting it in the paper are still publication of material.

You will end up tying yourself up in notes trying to split hairs and distinguish between different forms of publication and which are legal and which are not.

As I said in another post- Watergate and the MPs expenses would not have been exposed without the use of materially obtained in an unauthorised manner

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

....Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. ....

So if you hack into my phone and discover i'm plotting a 9/11 style attack and intend to carry out the attack imminently, you would say it was wrong to publish that information to save others lives?

Its not as black and white as people like ot think

I'll bite.

OK, I would speculate that it is not standard practice for the general populous to have their phones hacked.

In the scenario you described there would likely need to be (and I could be wrong) legal justification for your phone to be hacked - an investigation by those charged by the Government to seek out terrorism and for whatever reason you were being monitored.

Sewinman is referring to the press generally hacking the mobile phones of the unsuspecting public. The question is whether general phone hacking i.e. one party hacking another person's phone is illegal. Is it?

You are right, it is not black and white. However, the context of why hacking took place will determine if it is justified. In your scenario it is, in Sewinman's I don't think it is. (which is your point).

My understanding is that the press or private investigator has no right to hack a phone. The police acting in the interest of protecting the nation has every right.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

1. I think you have, again, demonstrated that you are largely a prat.

2. I don't think Sewinman (i) deserves to accused and (ii) is saying or has said what you think he is saying.

Of course there needs to be freedom of the press and that can be controlled at the editorial level. But like most things in society, when you are trying to establish collective agreement on what is acceptable and what isn't, there will be those that misinterpret or abuse those rules. Supporting one doesn't mean you automatically support the other.

Also, this has likely occurred because when press reporting freedom was established we didn't have things like twitter, facebook and mobile phones to mine for news stories. They - digital technology and social media are still new things and new laws are being established to encompass these things all the time.

There clearly needs to be new rules established to define what aspects of social media/networking/new forms of communication tech is exempt from press reporters and isn't. I.e. hacking phones, it could be emails next or facebook/twitter etc. - Much like Giggs's outing on Twitter it was a legal grey area.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

....
I'll bite.

OK, I would speculate that it is not standard practice for the general populous to have their phones hacked.

In the scenario you described there would likely need to be (and I could be wrong) legal justification for your phone to be hacked - an investigation by those charged by the Government to seek out terrorism and for whatever reason you were being monitored.

Sewinman is referring to the press generally hacking the mobile phones of the unsuspecting public. The question is whether general phone hacking i.e. one party hacking another person's phone is illegal. Is it?

You are right, it is not black and white. However, the context of why hacking took place will determine if it is justified. In your scenario it is, in Sewinman's I don't think it is. (which is your point).

My understanding is that the press or private investigator has no right to hack a phone. The police acting in the interest of protecting the nation has every right.

i'm not sure what you are biting at!

I am not supporting either Sewinman or W1.

I am merely pointing out that things are not as black and white as either have at some time said.

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

In this case, it could amount to peverting the course of justice as what is being alleged is destrying potential evidence

I am not justifying the act of phone hacking.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

....
I'll bite.

OK, I would speculate that it is not standard practice for the general populous to have their phones hacked.

In the scenario you described there would likely need to be (and I could be wrong) legal justification for your phone to be hacked - an investigation by those charged by the Government to seek out terrorism and for whatever reason you were being monitored.

Sewinman is referring to the press generally hacking the mobile phones of the unsuspecting public. The question is whether general phone hacking i.e. one party hacking another person's phone is illegal. Is it?

You are right, it is not black and white. However, the context of why hacking took place will determine if it is justified. In your scenario it is, in Sewinman's I don't think it is. (which is your point).

My understanding is that the press or private investigator has no right to hack a phone. The police acting in the interest of protecting the nation has every right.

i'm not sure what you are biting at!

I am not supporting either Sewinman or W1.

I am merely pointing out that things are not as black and white as either have at some time said.

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

In this case, it could amount to peverting the course of justice as what is being alleged is destrying potential evidence

I am not justifying the act of phone hacking.

Sorry, I don't think you are justifying phone hacking.

What I think is that you brilliantly pointed out where it could be justified and I agree with that. - I.e. Police phone hacking to stop terrorism.

I was just challenging the view as to where and when it is OK and where and when it isn't.

sorry for the confusion, I'm not at my best.

davis

It's utterly disgusting, but I'm really not surprised.

When my sister was killed someone from the local newspaper offices phoned up claiming to be from the college she was studying at.

No journalist has done much to challenge my preconceptions since then.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

1. I think you have, again, demonstrated that you are largely a prat.

Grow up.

Read the other thread again.

spen666

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

1. I think you have, again, demonstrated that you are largely a prat.

Grow up.

Read the other thread again.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

1. I think you have, again, demonstrated that you are largely a prat.

Grow up.

Read the other thread again.

Well, exactly, the other thread. Dragging this one off-topic so that you can score a point against/rerun an old argument with Sewinman and then telling others to grow up is a bit rich, no?

Anyway, back on topic. Spen's point that phone hacking isn't as morally (or perhaps legally) as clear cut an issue as might be assumed is fairly obvious. The police/security services have special powers to intercept communications, for which they have to apply for permission on a case by case basis, so that's fairly straightforward. The whistleblower scenario is using the justification that they are preventing/exposing a greater crime. Obviously the definition of 'greater' in that context is open to interpretation, but I believe it's a defense that has been used in cases of sabotage by environmental campaigners. Hacking doesn't need to be legalised for this defense to be used.

neiltb

never mind the name calling, who do I call about spen666's imminent 9/11 style attack I heard he's planning!!

As for the name calling, reporting that you were behind the PM in a newsagent queue and observed him buying a copy of razzle, is different to breaking into no. 10 and reporting what he keeps under the mattress.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Well, exactly, the other thread. Dragging this one off-topic so that you can score a point against/rerun an old argument with Sewinman and then telling others to grow up is a bit rich, no?

No!

The thread on superinjunctions and freedom of the press is absolutely relevant with regard to this topic. I outlined why in my previous post - the press require control; what they are allowed to print can regulate (to a degree) their behaviour; the current system does not work to regulate such behaviour (such as tapping phones); Sewinman is in favour of the status quo or even less restriction. His only limits would be (or were) due to national security or inciting hatred.

DDD calling someone a prat is risible and only evidences his misunderstanding of the topic and the points being made. As usual.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

They are very distinctly related. Your view is that editorial responsibility is the best way to allow freedom of expression and avoid censorship. Clearly that is complete cr*p, because editors are not responsible, and this is a good example of irresponsible journalism.

Consider whether, if the press were rightly censored by the correct use of pre-emptive injunctions (which you are against), would they go to such lengths as they appear to have done in this case to obtain information they knew they couldn't publish? Of course not. They would be risking imprisonment for nothing. The freedom currently abused by the press is in part due to weak after-the-event legal processes (which you think are sufficient) whereby the making of money by selling papers incentivises the sort of behaviour the NOTW is being accused of, and the post-publication fines are simply a balance of risk in terms of profit/loss.

If you wish to amend your view to include support of injunctions and censorship of views in the press that incite hatred, threaten National Security and prevent the publication of illegally obtained information, then so be it. Of course that's not what you said. The implication of your view is that "everything else goes" in the name of freedom of speech. That may or may not be what you intended, but it is what you said - "I do not think freedom of expression should curtailed for any reason, other than perhaps national security and inciting hatred".... (my emphasis). Illegally (and immorally) gained material isn't within either of your exceptions to freedom of expression.

You may not like it - you may not have intended it by your posts in support of the press - but this topic is evidence of why in fact injuctions and limitations on the press are essential and what to print should not be left to editors to decide, which is what you propose.

There are already laws in place to punish this sort of behaviour. If the punishment for hacking phones is not sufficient to stop journos from taking such a risk then the law and punishment against it should be tightened. I don't agree that by extension we should censure the press to prevent this behaviour; as it would have wider implications and effects than just stamping out what is an already illegal practice. The press are already "limited" from engaging in phone hacking - it is illegal.

I had taken it as a given in my posts on the other thread that a free press should act within the law. In this case they seem to have not, and for that they should be duly punished. In none of the superinjunction cases we were discussing at the time was there any suggestion that the press was acting illegally, or in fact that any of the information gathered was in any way untrue or gathered in an illegal manner. To quote me from that discussion takes my comments completely out of context and are not relevent to this discussion for the reasons given by many of the previous sensible contributers. I find it offensive that you chose to do so in order to 'win' some petty point.

dhope

W1 wrote:

No!

...

No. I'm fairly certain that Sewinman was saying that invasion of privacy, common decency and good taste should not be used to limit freedom of the press.
He wasn't implying that they should be exempted from all laws. They may not tap a phone without permission because that's illegal. Similarly if they're following a celeb by car and happen to plough through a herd of children then they can't just carry on because they have urgent smut to publish.
Freedom of the press != a license to break the law and one does not imply the other.

Sewinman

dhope wrote:

W1 wrote:

No!

...

No. I'm fairly certain that Sewinman was saying that invasion of privacy, common decency and good taste should not be used to limit freedom of the press.
He wasn't implying that they should be exempted from all laws. They may not tap a phone without permission because that's illegal. Similarly if they're following a celeb by car and happen to plough through a herd of children then they can't just carry on because they have urgent smut to publish.
Freedom of the press != a license to break the law and one does not imply the other.

Exactly, thanks.

Wallace1492

W1 wrote:

the current system does not work to regulate such behaviour (such as tapping phones);

Errrm, yes it does, tapping phones is illegal.

I do believe that Sewinman has stated that he is against any illegal means of obtaining information.

Therefore freedom of the press and this case, where illegal means were used to hack into an individual's phone are not related.

Please, lets stay on topic.

notsoblue

Well, I'm really glad this story came along so that W1 and Sewinman could have it out again.

Does anyone here actually buy The Sun or NOTW? And if you do, will this affect your decision to continue doing so?

The Rookie

Hacking into the voicemail (easily done, and nothing to do with the phone strictly) of a missing schoold girl was despicable and demonstarted the ability to have a level of morals lower than a worms belly, the Police were already monitoring the voicemails (obvious really - DUH) which is why the fact they were being hacked gave false hope, so the NOtW would never have contributed constructive anything by doing so.

I do think its fair to bring up the freedom of press argument, much was made about their editorial responsibility in that thread, this latest revelation surely demonstrates they have absolutely none at all.

I've just cancelled my Sky package and am going Virgin Media.

Simon

davmaggs

The real scandal is being lost in all the puff. That is that the police had all this evidence and declared that there was no case so they dropped it. They have had to be bullied and forced into legal action, and only then do they suddenly read the files that they claimed to have previously examined in detail.

Officers dropping investigations into the media and accepting money to provide information and being corrupted is the serious stuff. That however is being quietly ignored by the Police and MPs.

sketchley

davmaggs wrote:

The real scandal is being lost in all the puff. That is that the police had all this evidence and declared that there was no case so they dropped it. They have had to be bullied and forced into legal action, and only then do they suddenly read the files that they claimed to have previously examined in detail.

Officers dropping investigations into the media and accepting money to provide information and being corrupted is the serious stuff. That however is being quietly ignored by the Police and MPs.

Agreed with the above. but for me the real scandal is that the mobile phone companies left a massive security hole in their voice mail system which resulted in the personal data of several people being compromised, probably in violation of the data protection act, and it's not being reported on by anyone and is being dressed up as "hacking" by the journalists.

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

The real scandal is being lost in all the puff. That is that the police had all this evidence and declared that there was no case so they dropped it. They have had to be bullied and forced into legal action, and only then do they suddenly read the files that they claimed to have previously examined in detail.

Officers dropping investigations into the media and accepting money to provide information and being corrupted is the serious stuff. That however is being quietly ignored by the Police and MPs.

Agreed with the above. but for me the real scandal is that the mobile phone companies left a massive security hole in their voice mail system which resulted in the personal data of several people being compromised, probably in violation of the data protection act, and it's not being reported on by anyone and is being dressed up as "hacking" by the journalists.

It's not as if the phone companies left this stuff lying around, or sent a disk with every voicemail message ever recorded to the NOTW offices. It may not have been the most stringent of security measures, but it was a conscious decision to attempt to get unauthorised access to someone else's voicemail on the part of the 'journalists'/c*nts.

The police inaction/incompetence issue is a far greater concern, IMO.

cee

spen666 wrote:

Phone hacking if I believe illegal- I think, but don't quote me on this a crime to interfere with telecommunications.

I believe this is a criminal offence under RIPA 2000....specifically under unlawful interception of a telecommunication.....

and tenuously under Computer Misuse Act for securing unauthorised access to data held on a computer system....it might need a lawyer to argue that one though, because I think people have a hard time thinking of voicemail messages as data held on a hardrive somewhere.....just accessed through the handset..

and this 'hacking' thing really annoys me too...

its not hacking at all.....to call this hacking is like finding an open safe....taking something out of it, and calling yourself a safe cracker!

davmaggs

Just to back-up my post about police offers being paid by the media for information. It was said by the current Chief Exec Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) who is heading the News Corp investigation to parliament. Also the police investigator was Andy Hayman who now writes for.............................guess who?