Jump to content

Phone Hacking?


Dave225

Recommended Posts

I am sorry but is anyone really interested in the N of the W phone hacking scandal? Evidently it is costing millions and utilising umpteen police officers who could otherwise be catching criminals and for what? Doe anyone really care what Prescott et al had to say on their mobiles? If my experience of having to listen to people on the bus chattering away is anything to go by, the value is pretty minimal. Apart from ‘I am on the bus’, ‘what are you having for tea’, and ‘ he did what last night?’ There is not a lot to get excited about. I am pretty sure there are enough security organisations around the world eavesdropping on everything we say and write, so the fact that a scandal sheet thought it could do the same, is not really end of the world stuff. If I recall even when they intercepted some of Diana’s chatter, it was not exactly riveting.

 

I am not a supporter of the Murdoch media monopoly and do not buy his newspapers, but surely there are more important things to worry about, or is this another scheme for half baked celebs/ irrelevant MP’s to get even more money?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2011-04-08 8:22 PM

 

Evidently it is costing millions and utilising umpteen police officers who could otherwise be catching criminals .....

 

 

That is what the police are doing, they are catching criminals (who are listening-in to private conversations).

 

Would you want all your conversations to be bugged and made open for public discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, police dropped case as they were not interested, but then several people started to sue NoW and police had to do something to be seen to uphold the law.

Plus I believe no eavesdropping was involved, it was hacking into SMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2011-04-08 9:19 PM

 

IIRC, police dropped case as they were not interested, but then several people started to sue NoW and police had to do something to be seen to uphold the law.

Plus I believe no eavesdropping was involved, it was hacking into SMS.

 

 

As I understand it they were hacking in to voicemail messages.

 

Trouble is that there is a market for this sort of thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where to start..

 

Allegedly they were hacking into childrens phones to listen to messages from their mother who was concerned that she was going to die. Nice. I guess you're comfortable with this.

 

They have admitted that they were hacking into the phones of Government ministers, including the minister responsible for regulating the media. I'm assuming that you can't see anything wrong with this.

 

They have broken the law with regard to hacking into peoples' phones. They have admitted that they pay the police to leak information about cases that they are working on (which is illegal). Then we find that the Metropolitan Police have, allegedly, covered up this illegallity.

 

They are probably the most powerful media organisation in the world and are able to influence elections and Governments.

 

Sounds like quite a major story to me.

 

I assume that you would be happy to have all of your personal conversations broadcast to all and sundry?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCC - 2011-04-09 11:02 AM

 

Where to start..

 

Allegedly they were hacking into childrens phones to listen to messages from their mother who was concerned that she was going to die. Nice. I guess you're comfortable with this.

 

They have admitted that they were hacking into the phones of Government ministers, including the minister responsible for regulating the media. I'm assuming that you can't see anything wrong with this.

 

They have broken the law with regard to hacking into peoples' phones. They have admitted that they pay the police to leak information about cases that they are working on (which is illegal). Then we find that the Metropolitan Police have, allegedly, covered up this illegallity.

 

They are probably the most powerful media organisation in the world and are able to influence elections and Governments.

 

Sounds like quite a major story to me.

 

I assume that you would be happy to have all of your personal conversations broadcast to all and sundry?

 

 

 

 

 

I agree this is wrong but the government have been doing this for years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jhorsf - 2011-04-10 12:41 AM

 

I agree this is wrong but the government have been doing this for years

 

No it hasn't. The police and security services tap phones but only after a warrant has been issued by a judge.

 

I'm very puzzled as to why the fact that legitimate state organs, legally eavesdropping on criminals and terrorists, has anything to do to with a newspaper illegally doing the same thing to innocent people, simply to obtain scandal to sell more papers.

 

The government imprisons people too, but that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye if the News of the World does it as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

francisgraham - 2011-04-10 7:45 AM

 

jhorsf - 2011-04-10 12:41 AM

 

I agree this is wrong but the government have been doing this for years

 

No it hasn't. The police and security services tap phones but only after a warrant has been issued by a judge.

 

I'm very puzzled as to why the fact that legitimate state organs, legally eavesdropping on criminals and terrorists, has anything to do to with a newspaper illegally doing the same thing to innocent people, simply to obtain scandal to sell more papers.

 

The government imprisons people too, but that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye if the News of the World does it as well!

 

 

 

so you think everyone who the government spies on has had a warrant issued by a judge GCHQ alone would keep quite a few judges busy.Yes the legitimate state organs as you put it do eavesdrop but not just on criminals and terrorists.You missed the point its wrong for anybody to do this gov included

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy for Government agencies to eavesdrop and tap phones to help stop crime and terrorism. After all - I doubt that those who were going to down several planes a few years back by the "liquid bomb" method were caught solely by traditional beat officers - excellent job tho' they do.

 

No - this group of extremists were caught by infiltrating and listening to their conversations - so it is NOT wrong for Government to tap phones. Not if it saves lives. Which it has.

 

What is wrong is scum journalists taping phones to sell a grubby newspaper.

 

(And I use the term "newspaper" with a high degree of scepticism. To call the NoftheW a comic, read by the terminally stupid is to be highly unfair to true comics and their readers.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jhorsf - 2011-04-11 2:14 AM

 

francisgraham - 2011-04-10 7:45 AM

 

jhorsf - 2011-04-10 12:41 AM

 

I agree this is wrong but the government have been doing this for years

 

No it hasn't. The police and security services tap phones but only after a warrant has been issued by a judge.

 

I'm very puzzled as to why the fact that legitimate state organs, legally eavesdropping on criminals and terrorists, has anything to do to with a newspaper illegally doing the same thing to innocent people, simply to obtain scandal to sell more papers.

 

The government imprisons people too, but that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye if the News of the World does it as well!

 

 

 

so you think everyone who the government spies on has had a warrant issued by a judge GCHQ alone would keep quite a few judges busy.Yes the legitimate state organs as you put it do eavesdrop but not just on criminals and terrorists.You missed the point its wrong for anybody to do this gov included

 

So then, you think that it is wrong for the government to eavesdrop on our enemies? As for GCHQ, its actions are legal and fully authorised by the government and I can assure you that if it stepped outside of its remit then it wouldn't be long before some disgruntled employee spilled the beans.

 

There is really no point in continuing a discussion with a man who thinks that it is wrong for our government to try to listen in on suspected terrorists and major criminal gangs. If you really knew anything whatsoever about the subject then you'd know about the major atrocities that have been averted by wiretaps and other surveillance devices and about the major criminal gangs that have been broken up using the same methods.

 

Currently, in New York, there is a trial taking part which will eventually see the end of one of the Mafia's major crime families. One mobster is testifying against another and there is no doubt that his evidence will convict him. Why is he testifying against his ex-compatriate? He's testifying because a wiretap in prison recorded him confessing to some murders. In exchange for life-imprisonment rather than the death penalty he has agreed to spill the beans.

 

As I said though, you think that it is wrong for the government to have listened in on this man and, as I said, there is simply no point in continuing a debate with someone whose views are so strange and so illogical, so I shall leave you to your views.

 

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/defense_lawyer_needles_mafia_t.html

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with all that you say Francis with one small exception - I do believe in engaging in conversation those that currently hold differing views.

 

We can then agree to differ peacefully or, by the honesty or integrity of our argument, seek common ground.

 

I think NOT using phone taps to prevent crime and acts of terror would be equally stupid as the atrocities themselves. To me - any one who says that eavesdropping should not be carried out for any reason can only come to that absolute conviction by way of absolute ignorance.

 

The State has a duty to protect and thank the Lord we live in a State that is generally benevolent. There are others that are not as I am sure you would agree.

 

Saying that in such cases phone tapping is wrong is like saying the restriction against walking on a Motorway is wrong. Yes - we should be free to go where we want in a free country, but nobody objects to rules and the restriction of freedom where it is obvious that lives can be saved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...