|
Just on BBC Breaking Newsquote:First civil phone #hacking claim in US is issued against News Corporation and News International, by former stunt double for Angelina Jolie
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Gambrinus posted:What does this mean in English? It means the libel laws in Old Blighty prevent UKanians from saying things like "Tony Blair is loving Wendi Murdoch", so they have to make subtle eyebrow movements in the direction of American journalists who are legally allowed to say all kinds of poo poo.  (It's probably sexist of me to say "Tony Blair is loving Wendi Murdoch"; it's entirely possible that she's loving him, or that they gently caress each other. Terribly complicated, these fleshy human relationships.) (BM, if you can still get in trouble for my saying poo poo like this, just let me know and I'll knock it off.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Guys, NY Times is not Murdoch owned, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
bornbytheriver posted:Guys, NY Times is not Murdoch owned, right? The New York Post is Murdoch owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Well that puts a spin on "I can get you access to the PM..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Just on BBC Breaking News Is this significant? Floodgates open now? Very damaging financially and otherwise for them in the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Is this significant? Floodgates open now? Very damaging financially and otherwise for them in the US? It could be, there's likely to be more, and that'll get plenty of attention, especially if it involves a UK based paper up to dirty work in the US. Something else from today's Elveden charges quote:It is also alleged that the same prison office sold information to Trinity Mirror's People newspaper for £900.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
More Hackgate newsquote:Andy Coulson appears in court on perjury charge
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Is Coulson still working for Cameron in downing street?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Is Coulson still working for Cameron in downing street? He quit in 2011 when the phone hacking scandal broke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Perhaps the impending return to the court given the newly unearthed recording of Rupert is why Wendi is catching the train to splitsville. Perhaps she doesn't want to swing at any more pie-wielding comedians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The New York Post is Murdoch owned. For a moment I thought that perhaps Murdoch's own paper is on the nasty spin about Wendi. Be reckless of him to do anything like that at the moment I figure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-8669148.htmlquote:
More behind the link.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
Whoops, sorry, wrong thread. Teach me to keep too many tabs open.
Darth Walrus fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in the mind of Piers Morgan...Piers Morgan on Twitter posted:Interesting that the Guardian so vigorously supports #Snowden criminal hacking. Same paper that wants journalists jailed for it in UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
News International has just had a name change. Makes sense. As you were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
dimebag dinkman posted:News International has just had a name change. Apart from the atrocious spelling I must object that the name implies they haven't always sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Apart from the atrocious spelling I must object that the name implies they haven't always sucked. NEWS UK > shift 3 S UKNEW > reverse WENKU S I'm also confused why they changed their name to what we already called them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
That's some terrible design work too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Same as the old suk
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
This seems relevant? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...me-8673726.html quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
REQUEST Remember the 14,400 emails from Ray Adams that were leaked last year? I need them urgently, the complete set, not just what AFR released, so if anyone has them can you email them or a link to them to brownmoses@gmail.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:REQUEST
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
 Breaking NewsFive UK phone hacking defendants, including Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, lose bid to block their prosecutions I wonder at what point canaries start singing? Will they ever? Even when it becomes totally obvious that they're going to do time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge is the best title/name since Cardinal Sin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Pasco posted:
quote:The five defendants argued that the accessing of voicemails through hacking, after they had been listened to by the intended recipient, was not an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Uh.... what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:Uh.... what? It's not really about invading someone's privacy -- it's all about spoiler prevention. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:Uh.... what? They're trying to make a distinction similar to the one between intercepting mail (very illegal) and stealing someone's thrown-away letters out of their bin (which I believe is still illegal but less so, IANAL). Seems like it didn't go so well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Humphrey Vasel posted:Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge is the best title/name since Cardinal Sin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:Uh.... what? ACRB posted:The words used in RIPA "do not extend to cover voicemail messages once they have been accessed by the intended recipient". So basically, they were arguing that a communication cannot have been 'intercepted' after the recipient had listened to it. It's probably true that RIPA is unclear on this, and that this is one of those letter versus spirit of the law deals, but fortunately Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge (which is indeed the best title/name combo ever) told them to get hosed with that nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
Pasco posted:So basically, they were arguing that a communication cannot have been 'intercepted' after the recipient had listened to it. TBH I'd say the RIP act is the wrong thing to try and prosecute people under and they should be using the Computer Misuse act where accessing someone's voicemail without authorisation is quite clearly a crime. Torturing the RIP act like this is just going to lead to more pain down the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
I don't understand, does that mean they have plead guilty to a lesser charge in an attempt to avoid stricter sentences? I mean they literally say accessing voicemails through hacking was legal in the manner that they did it under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Also sorry BM I have switched computers since I had all the emails and I cannot find them on my backups, hope you found them!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Does this mean that Brooks and Coulson have admitted to doing this (hacking voice mails after the messages were listened to)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Pasco posted:So basically, they were arguing that a communication cannot have been 'intercepted' after the recipient had listened to it. It's a bollocks argument anyway because: 1) there is evidence that the Dowler's messages were being listened to BEFORE they had collected them, and; 2) I can listen to 3 seconds of a message and it will be marked as read, what if the papers then listen to the rest of it before me? Plus the fact that the spirit of the law clearly intends reading or listening to someone's private communications to be illegal, even if it doesn't explicitly give every possible example of how you could do that. Can't wait for the trial, fuckers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
This is something that's been going on for months, but because of reporting restrictions I've not been able to discuss it online, so I'm loving glad they've finally lifted reporting restrictions. Makes you wonder what else is going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
What exactly were the previous reporting restrictions on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
The legal challenge that just got denied, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Pasco posted:So basically, they were arguing that a communication cannot have been 'intercepted' after the recipient had listened to it. s.1 of RIPA is a little poorly-worded, referring only to communications "in the course of [their] transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.". There'a some very shaky case law on whether a voicemail (or any other non-immediate communication like an email) is a communication covered by RIPA, depending on exactly how it's accessed, but signs mostly point to a listened-to and stored voicemail *not* being a communication covered by RIPA. It's quite interesting (and a very bad sign for ACRB) that the court has apparently decided to hear arguments on this because previously courts had punted on it, waiting for the new Comms Data Bill to clarify the position - with that now stalled, it's possible that we'll actually get a solid decision on this. However even if it's decided that a "read" communication is not covered by S.1 RIPA, they will have multiple other avenues of prosecution (Computer Misuse Act (unauthorised access to a protected computer system), Data Protection Act, Communications Act (improper use of a public communications network) off the top of my head, plus charges for whatever means were used to obtain the PINs in cases where they weren't default). Having said that, punishments under RIPA are by far the most swingeing - 2 years in prison and up to £100,000 fine *per count*, and while the former don't add up the latter do, and as we're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of counts here, that's going to get very, very expensive. There's an interesting further wrinkle here, but I'll need to double-check this - as I understand RIPA, ACRB will only have committed an offence if they are proven to have actually listened to the intercepted communications themselves. Paying someone to intercept a communication is not actually a crime under RIPA (again, this is as I understand it, I'll ask someone who knows more and get back on that one).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:What exactly were the previous reporting restrictions on? You couldn't report on the previous court appearances that were making up this entire process, or the fact those court appearances were even taking place, even when they were listed in court schedules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
If they'd won the appeal would the restrictions have been reported then? Obviously I am very ignorant, I had thought reporting restrictions only applied to jury cases to prevent the juries being prejudiced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:29
|
|