Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

quote:

because the information may breach the human rights of the law firms, insurance companies and wealthy individuals who hired corrupt private investigators.

Does this mean prison? haha

# ? Jul 19, 2013 15:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 12:19

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

ultrabindu posted:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rs-8718049.html

This popped up this morning. Any ideas who's tied up in this? What precisely does "formally classified" mean?

Basically SOCA are unable to prove that the companies involved ever commissioned these companies to break the law, and so it would be wrong to release their details. It's not a fantastic decision but it's probably the right one.

(A somewhat stretched simile but a few years ago my local newsagent got done for selling booze and fags to underage kids via adults going into the shop for them. It would be a bit lovely for them to reveal my name as an adult who had bought booze and fags there while talking about these criminal charges when I was never involved in any criminal activities.)

# ? Jul 19, 2013 15:53

cloudchamber: Aug 6, 2010; You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine

Edit:nevermind

cloudchamber fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jul 28, 2013

# ? Jul 28, 2013 13:54

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Just an FYI, I wouldn't recommend people in the UK repost the Gawker article, it could get you in trouble with the law.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 15:41

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Not knowing what the Gawker article in question is, what particular flavour of legal trouble could it get you into?

# ? Jul 28, 2013 15:54

Verizian: Dec 18, 2004; The spiky one.

Probably another super injunction. I do like the nod to Ray Bradbury with the "error code" though, how long until that's adopted by more sites who face censorship?

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:02

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Well this is what the lawyers who contacted them said:

quote:

Dear Ms Tiku

I act for X in her forthcoming trial before the Central Criminal Court.

I have today had my attention drawn to a piece on your website which is appearing now in the UK. The piece contains a number of false and scurrilous accusations. No prior notice was provided to me by you of an intention to publish this piece.

I have this evening referred the matter to the Attorney-General of England and Wales as publication of the piece of this nature in the UK before a trial constitutes the serious criminal offence of Contempt of Court. The matter has also been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Trial Judge. No publication of any material that might prejudice a trial is allowed in the UK and the offence is punishable with a substantial sentence of imprisonment.

Please ensure and confirm that the piece is to removed immediately in order to mitigate any damage already done.

Yours sincerely,

X

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:10

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Brown Moses posted:

Just an FYI, I wouldn't recommend people in the UK repost the Gawker article, it could get you in trouble with the law.

This is going to seem really dumb, but which one? Is it the massive glaringly obvious one that is very much related to the thread, or am I going to get someone in trouble if they answer that? I am so confused about what can and can't be said, its kind of appalling.

Ah yes, I am guessing it is, when I click on the obvious article, this happens

quote:

Error 451 freedom of speech not found

freedom of speech not found

Guru Meditation:

XID: 2275535276

Varnish cache server

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:24

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Good job I don't live in the UK then

http://gawker.com/did-rebekah-brooks-gently caress-rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lach-926651851/935420143 posted:

The long-awaited criminal trial of former News of the World editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, who face conspiracy charges related to hacking the phones of murder victims and celebrities alike, is slated for this September. According to a rumor spreading around News Corp, things could get salacious.

Sources tell Gawker that during the discovery process, emails were unearthed suggesting that Brooks had, at various times, had sex with Coulson, her boss Rupert Murdoch, and Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert�s son and the likely successor to
his empire. A new twist on honor thy father.

In one of the emails, Brooks purportedly discussed the size of Coulson�s penis. It�s not clear if her estimation of his member was favorable or not.

In response to questions from Gawker, Steve Rubinstein, a spokesperson for the Murdoch family, said unequivocally, "There is no truth to these rumors." The lawyers representing Brooks and Coulson did not respond to requests for comment sent yesterday.

Whether the rumor is true or not, it is definitely circulating widely at high levels in the company. Three sources shared the claim of a sexual relationship between Brooks and Rupert Murdoch with Gawker; all three said they had learned the information through lawyers involved in the case. Two of those three sources are high-ranking executives at News Corp. The latter two sources had also both been told of a relationship between Lachlan and Brooks.

Rumors of the Coulson-Brooks affair have been floating around the Internet since last month when a vague report in The Daily Mail alluded to a �dynamite� sex scandal that prompted British Prime Minister David Cameron to hold crisis talks at Downing Street.

The prime minister's connection to the pair is two-fold. During the trial, Brooks will be represented by his brother Alexander Cameron. Meanwhile, Coulson's first job after after resigning as editor of News of the World was as director of communications for Cameron's Conservative Party. His next gig was as the top spokesman for Downing Street, before the scandal forced him to resign.

Rupert Murdoch�s relationship with Brooks has been closely scrutinized over the years. In the midst of the escalating phone-hacking scandal in 2011, Murdoch told reporters Brooks was his first priority, just before the smiling pair walked into the Stafford Hotel opposite his London apartment. Wendi Deng, Murdoch�s soon-to-be-ex-wife, is widely-known to despise Brooks, who was granted a $2.7 million payoff and chauffeured limousine as a reward for her loyalty.

In a Vanity Fair profile published last year, Murdoch insiders described Brooks as an �imposter daughter.�

�Although Murdoch has four daughters, two of them grown, over the years he has seemed closer to Brooks than to any of them. She was, people say, like the fantasy daughter, the daughter he always wished he had�the one who never argued with him, who devoted her life to pleasing him. They reportedly swim together in the mornings when he is in London. She fusses over him at dinner parties�making sure he�s eating, that his wineglass is full. �She�s very attentive,� says one News International executive.�

According to our sources, the damning emails are expected to come out as evidence during the trial. Although the affairs are being gossiped about around British newspaper circles, the country�s stringent legal culture when it comes to reporting on criminal prosecutions and upcoming trials has, thus far, kept it out of the press.

When the Daily Mail reported the mystery affair in June, the papers' refusal to name names was attributed to a �super injunction,� which both prevents newspaper from publishing information and from discussing the injunction.

Nonetheless, some natives persisted.

The British blogger Paul Staines, who writes under pseudonym "Guido Fawkes,� dropped a hint that the sex scandal concerned Brooks and Coulson. Another British blogger named Tom Winnifrith also pointed the finger at the Brooks and Coulson:

�The reason the Government and David Cameron personally is terrified about this appearing is that he appointed Coulson as his spin doctor in chief instead of a safer pair of hands from the BBC on the advice of�.the charming Rebekah. Rebekah was a good pal of his, lending him her horse to ride as they partied together in rural Oxfordshire. LOL.

And of course Rebekah�s lawyer is�.David Cameron�s big brother Alex.

Then there's the High Court of Stealth Online Stalking. Google: �Rebekah Brooks sle�� and you�ll get a prompt for the phrase �rebekah brooks sleeping with murdoch.� In a similar vein, the second prompt for �Rebekah Brooks affair� is �Rebekah Brooks affair Andy Coulson.� For our final search engine straw: �Rebekah Brooks ru�� will make Google wonder if you were searching for: �Rebekah Brooks Rupert Murdoch affair.�

We�ll have to wait until September for more substantial evidence.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:24

Pasco: Oct 2, 2010

I do quite like the "Error 451 freedom of speech not found" page if you try to access the article in question without a proxy.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:26

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Pasco posted:

I do quite like the "Error 451 freedom of speech not found" page if you try to access the article in question without a proxy.

I just accessed it without a proxy a few min ago...I presumer it's only blocked in the UK then.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:27

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Jut posted:

I just accessed it without a proxy a few min ago...I presumer it's only blocked in the UK then.

That is the error message I get when I try and access it and I'm not technical enough to know how to use a proxy to pretend I'm not in the UK, which is what as I understand it, a Proxy does.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:30

Murodese: Mar 6, 2007; Think you've got what it takes?
We're looking for fine Men & Women to help Protect the Australian Way of Life.

Become part of the Legend. Defence Jobs.

So... the Guardian is totally broken minutes after they posted that story?

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:32

Grundulum: Feb 28, 2006

Is it common for people to alert the subjects of articles to the upcoming publication of said articles? The letter from the lawyer made it seem like it was a personal failing of the author not to have asked for the go-ahead from all parties mentioned in that piece.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:34

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Murodese posted:

So... the Guardian is totally broken minutes after they posted that story?

Totally broken? How so?

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:34

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Grundulum posted:

Is it common for people to alert the subjects of articles to the upcoming publication of said articles? The letter from the lawyer made it seem like it was a personal failing of the author not to have asked for the go-ahead from all parties mentioned in that piece.

Yup

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:36

Murodese: Mar 6, 2007; Think you've got what it takes?
We're looking for fine Men & Women to help Protect the Australian Way of Life.

Become part of the Legend. Defence Jobs.

willie_dee posted:

Totally broken? How so?

Getting a 503 error on every single page, including the frontpage.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:37

ReV VAdAUL: Oct 3, 2004; I'm WILD about
WILDMAN

Murodese posted:

Getting a 503 error on every single page, including the frontpage.

Works fine for me.

Also as a general statement when prurient details get thrown up something more important is usually being ignored / sidelined.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:50

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Murodese posted:

Getting a 503 error on every single page, including the frontpage.

It's working fine for me

# ? Jul 28, 2013 16:55

Illuyankas: Oct 22, 2010

Frontpage of gawker is fine for me, with the massive image of Brooks and the Murdochs and the headline, just the article is freedom of speech error'd.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 17:23

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

And the article is a lot of "no smoke without fire" bilge.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 18:12

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

Pasco posted:

I do quite like the "Error 451 freedom of speech not found" page if you try to access the article in question without a proxy.

http://wiki.451unavailable.org.uk/wiki/Technical_standard_for_Error_451

# ? Jul 29, 2013 08:56

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

willie_dee posted:

That is the error message I get when I try and access it and I'm not technical enough to know how to use a proxy to pretend I'm not in the UK, which is what as I understand it, a Proxy does.

A proxy is basically a third-party website that fetches the website you want and then passes it on to you. The server hosting the web site sees the request as coming from the proxy server and not from you, which means you can use it to get around various kinds of blocking.

http://www.mars99.com/

Is one I just grabbed off Google.

standard disclaimer: Don't assume the people who run proxy servers aren't logging your IP and what you look at, or that they'll resist court orders to hand that information over (http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/58688-hidemyass-says-it-doesnt-hide-your-rear end) if you're doing something Properly Illegal� that's likely to get you noticed.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 12:19

dimebag dinkman: Feb 20, 2003

According to Hacked Off, the SOCA report, published in redacted form during the Leveson inquiry, that the media insisted would show that abusive private investigation practises were found to be worse in other industries than the press has now been released unredacted - and, surprise, the redacted parts say nothing of the sort.

dimebag dinkman fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 29, 2013

# ? Jul 29, 2013 18:36

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Grundulum posted:

Is it common for people to alert the subjects of articles to the upcoming publication of said articles? The letter from the lawyer made it seem like it was a personal failing of the author not to have asked for the go-ahead from all parties mentioned in that piece.

Yeah, it's standard journalistic practice to allow the person the article is about to respond. That's why most articles alleging a company or individual did something more or less always have a "X was asked to comment but did not provide a response at the time of going to print." or "X refused to comment on the matter.".

In the US it's an excellent CYA move and generally to be recommended. In the UK some publications have become a bit leery of it due to the number of pre-publication injunctions flying around these days.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 23:25

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Munin posted:

Yeah, it's standard journalistic practice to allow the person the article is about to respond. That's why most articles alleging a company or individual did something more or less always have a "X was asked to comment but did not provide a response at the time of going to print." or "X refused to comment on the matter.".

In the US it's an excellent CYA move and generally to be recommended. In the UK some publications have become a bit leery of it due to the number of pre-publication injunctions flying around these days.

The problem is that if they don't give a right to reply and then get sued, they're liable for considerably more damages, so they're damned if they do an damned if they don't. At least a superinjunction is cheaper.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 23:37

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Munin posted:

Yeah, it's standard journalistic practice to allow the person the article is about to respond. That's why most articles alleging a company or individual did something more or less always have a "X was asked to comment but did not provide a response at the time of going to print." or "X refused to comment on the matter.".

In the US it's an excellent CYA move and generally to be recommended. In the UK some publications have become a bit leery of it due to the number of pre-publication injunctions flying around these days.

It's a good CYA move here too, because a judge in a libel case will take a pretty dim view of you if you don't give the subject of your story the opportunity to comment.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 08:32

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Good piece from my regular contributor on the SOCA report, hard to escape the conclusion willful blindness is rampant
http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.com/2013/08/gloxinia-and-flandria-digging-over-dirt.html

# ? Aug 1, 2013 15:18

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Another excellent piece by my regular contributor about the Daily Mail's reporting of Operation Reproof
http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-daily-mail-needs-to-re-think-reproof.html

# ? Aug 6, 2013 10:31

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

The Mail is getting upset about dodgy PIs, "Private eye hacked 14-year-old girl brain damaged in horror car crash on behalf of insurers: Shocking case 'has echoes of Millie Dowler scandal'", which is a illegitimately worth article they then ruin by repeating their "Leveson only considered the evidence for 18 minutes" nonsense in the comment section, which was shown to be utter horseshit here.

# ? Aug 11, 2013 13:34

tithin: Nov 14, 2003; [Grandmaster Tactician]

Brown Moses posted:

The Mail is getting upset about dodgy PIs, "Private eye hacked 14-year-old girl brain damaged in horror car crash on behalf of insurers: Shocking case 'has echoes of Millie Dowler scandal'", which is a illegitimately worth article they then ruin by repeating their "Leveson only considered the evidence for 18 minutes" nonsense in the comment section, which was shown to be utter horseshit here.

I had to read that a few times before realising you weren't referring to Private Eye the newspaper. Then I read the article. I can't say I'm overly surprised to be quite honest, the way I understand it the medical insurance industry in America has functioned in a very similar way for a long time.

Disappointed, but not surprised.

# ? Aug 11, 2013 13:37

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

There's one group whose involvement in all of this has been overlooked, and that's the CSPs - mobile providers particularly, but email and internet service providers too. Exploitation of weak/default pins and passwords has been known about for as long as voicemail and email have existed, and blagging of pins and passwords has been a known issue for at least as long as I've been in the industry (since 1999, god I'm old :smith:

).

It took the Milly Dowler case for most of the mobile providers to at least enforce a PIN for remote access to a voicemail box, and still most if not all allow the PIN to be changed using information trivially available for the price of a Google search. Why even bother with remote access being on by default? Less than 2% of users ever remotely access the voicemail.

The situation with email is even worse - almost all email providers use the email address as a login and have trivial password-recovery techniques, and permit diversion of a copy of all email sent to a mailbox with no further notification required (Hotmail still permit it 8 years after they were heavily criticised for it by the trial judge in R. v Stanford) and once you have access to someone's email account these days it's pretty much all over. Google at least permit 2FA but hide it well away.

I'd like to pretend it's a conspiracy, that providers are secretly profiting from this, but the amount of resistance users (and management) put up to anything they see as making it even slightly inconvenient makes any kind of attempt to improve matters basically impossible. The ICO could do something about it - jacking up minimum standards for Data Protection and updating best practices which are still stuck in 1995 would be a start - but they're toothless.

# ? Aug 11, 2013 15:52

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

goddamnedtwisto posted:

There's one group whose involvement in all of this has been overlooked, and that's the CSPs - mobile providers particularly, but email and internet service providers too. Exploitation of weak/default pins and passwords has been known about for as long as voicemail and email have existed, and blagging of pins and passwords has been a known issue for at least as long as I've been in the industry (since 1999, god I'm old ).

Pretty sure I saw it used in one of the early episodes of Jonathan Creek.

# ? Aug 12, 2013 17:27

BogDew: Jun 14, 2006; E:\FILES>quickfli clown.fli

Zombywuf posted:

Pretty sure I saw it used in one of the early episodes of Jonathan Creek.

Yup, in the first episode. Maddie, a journalist, brute forces her way into someone's answering machine by systematically trying number combinations. It's strongly alluded that this is pretty common knowledge in her trade.

# ? Aug 12, 2013 17:46

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

WebDog posted:

Yup, in the first episode. Maddie, a journalist, brute forces her way into someone's answering machine by systematically trying number combinations. It's strongly alluded that this is pretty common knowledge in her trade.

My wife pointed this out when we recently re-watched the entire series and we guessed that for it to be written in it must have been common knowledge. Amazing to look back at it.

# ? Aug 12, 2013 18:14

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Aaaaand the police are looking into prosecuting News UK itself.

It's raining men! Hallelujah, it's raining men, amen!

# ? Aug 17, 2013 17:44

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Aaaaand the police are looking into prosecuting News UK itself.

It's raining men! Hallelujah, it's raining men, amen!

Looking into, does that actually mean anything other than, we could do it?

# ? Aug 17, 2013 18:34

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

How about you gently caress off, Murdoch?

# ? Aug 19, 2013 00:55

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

TinTower posted:

How about you gently caress off, Murdoch?

I get the first picture, but who are the people in the second?

# ? Aug 19, 2013 02:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 12:19

Just Another Lurker: May 1, 2009

Bob Socko posted:

I get the first picture, but who are the people in the second?

Hillsborough disaster victims, Sun readers in Liverpool is close to an oxymoron (the Sun blamed the fans for the deaths).

# ? Aug 19, 2013 03:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

«‹›99 »