The hypocrisy is astounding
"The reputation of the company we love so much, as well as the press freedoms we value so highly, are all at risk," wrote Brooks."
And who's fault is that then?
News International boss Rebekah Brooks, who has been at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, has resigned from her post and apologised for the "hurt" her company had caused to crime victims and others. She confirmed in an internal memo to staff this morning that she was leaving the sister company of Rupert Murdoch's News …
That is indeed one of the most striking things about all recent statements from key players within the senior levels of NI, the impression of hypocrisy one get. However, IMO, it is likely the case that to a considerable extent they do *not* actually get it, hard though that may be to believe. Hypocrisy requires that one *knows* that one is pretending to have a moral code whilst not actually practising what one is preaching. One should not underestimate the self-justifying pathology that such people are capable of exhibiting. Such types are fully capable of believing in their heart of hearts that they have not done anything wrong even when what they are doing is blatantly illegal. An American hotel-heiress who got caught bending by the US tax authorities a decade or so ago famously remarked that "rules are for the little people" (one assumes she was referring to me and thee and not leprechauns!). In this way these sociopaths (for that is what they are) manage to project (before they are eventually caught out) a very convincing front - because they have succeeded in convincing themselves.
BTW, if anyone feels that I have gone a touch over the top in using the term "sociopath" I include the URL to a list of the symptoms - I think that you will recognise many of the characteristics the moment you read them! A certain wealthy and influential businessman and his chums are positively *clinical* examples.
" I now need to concentrate on correcting the distortions and rebutting the allegations about my record as a journalist, an editor and executive."
I would have said this was impossible, but with the backing of News Corp (including Fox, Sky, The Times, The Wall Street Journal etc. etc.) there is a chance that key influencers will be got at.
Very badly handled by News Corp.
1) Fire her
2) Close the News of the World
3) Do *not* create a Sun on Sunday - i.e. lose market share
4) Keep BSkyB bid open
Thank goodness they didn't think about it too much and the old boy wanted to protect his CEO.
The formal enquiry will be, yet again, a whitewash - they'll get to the key personnell very fast - everyone has skeletons in their cupboards...
Lots of good news on a Friday. A surprise it's taken this long but nonetheless not unexpected.
Meanwhile we are debating in the office what she's going to do for another job. Something tells me the police may have other plans however!
Pic related, it's her as she gets her coat to leave.
Yes - no issues with avoiding tax.
If, on the other hand, you publish articles criticising banks and multinationals for avoiding tax while doing the same, you are open to being accused of hipocrisy. Or treating readers to the "banks are bad, lefty media outlets are good, m'key?"
Would that be the same story the Eye have been banging on about for years? Along with the dodgy tax affairs of many UK companies, including several newspaper groups.
Of course, legally avoiding tax, whilst reprehensible, is in no way comparable to hacking a missing girls's voicemail and bribing police, which ARE illegal.
Seems to be the latest meme from the right - attack the tax affairs of the Guardian, now that attacking Johann Hari is no longer a goer.
"Would that be the same story the Eye have been banging on about for years? Along with the dodgy tax affairs of many UK companies, including several newspaper groups.
Of course, legally avoiding tax, whilst reprehensible, is in no way comparable to hacking a missing girls's voicemail and bribing police, which ARE illegal.
Seems to be the latest meme from the right - attack the tax affairs of the Guardian, now that attacking Johann Hari is no longer a goer."
Actually attacking a company which is AVOIDING PAYING ITS PROPER TAX by using off shore tax shelters , while at the same time its attacks a government that is trying to mean an economy cocked up by Labour is wrong?
You dont see anything wrong in them spouting off about morals, while denying tax revenue that could be used to buy decent protection for our soliders and resources for our children?
What makes their crimes even worse is they hold themselves up as some kind of moral gaurdian(sic) and defender of the week, while their tox executives screw this country out of tax revenue.
Your defence is that other companies do it, and Private Eye has been banging on about this for years..you are right , privater eye has been banging on about this for years and the thing with private eye is they tend to get their man in the end ;)
Firstly, it's not hacking - it's just guessing a pin number...
But the amount of fuss the politicians raise about the whole thing when compared to the insignificance of the alleged offence is truly disgusting.
Let's face it - there is only an investigation because a) it affected personally a few schmucks who had the power to start the inquiry and b) because it helped those same schmucks to get back at Murdoch and score some political points for that.
Things much more damaging to society happen all they time and the MPs don't talk about them, let alone call for inquiries.
Tell me how did that half-arsed digital economy bill get passed so quickly after few lunches between whatshisname and the industry lobbyists?
Why is Tony Blair still at large instead of doing jail-time for taking the country to a hopeless war for no good reason other than his personal benefit?
Many more examples can be found, yet, the revenge for outing the name of some MP's lover is so important that the whole country must work to pay for their personal crusade.
Yes, when someone accesses a voicemail of a missing person it disrupts the police investigation because they will see the messages being read - this is serious, so find the perpetrators and prosecute them for that.
But to present this as some sort of momentous crime against democracy? And using News Corp as a scape goat (I'm 100% sure that journalists in all other media companies do the same things and more)? At the same time ignoring the real problems? This is hypocritical to the extreme.
The Boys from Lagos are doing much more serious damage every day, hi-jacking corporate PBXs but try to get the police to do anything about investigating that or an MP to call for nationwide inquiry - fat chance!
There was no inquiry when it seemed only politicians and famous people and politicians were affected, so presumably inquiry is being set up by schmucky grieving relatives. Those bastards.
Crime against democracy? Somewhat. Crime against decency? absolutely
... But i could not disagree with you more!
I potentially could agree if the hacking (and it was hacking - illegal entry into an electronic device without permission. The technical details of how it was done are irrelevant.) was done in the interest of news worthy stories. Actual news worthy stories. And there exists a public interest defence in such cases, in fact, in the past MP's have been caught out doing illegal things by means of deception and illegal entry. This is considered legal due to being in the public interest.
But the fact of the matter was that, the hacking that the NotW was doing was not in the public interest, it was in the sole interest of peddling cheap trashy headlines to morons and selling more newspapers.
And for the examples you mentioned - if the hacking had been done to try to prove that there was collusion between MP's and industry lobbyists then no one would be complaining. Tony Blair's actions where immoral for certain, but unfortunately they were not illegal under UK law. Yes there are more serious crimes out there, but by the same token then you may as well ask the police not to bother dealing with assaults and robberies because theres murders happening out there.
The NotW journalists (ironic that theyve always been called Hacks!) broke the law and they did so not for some high ideal of journalism or attempting to unearth a stroy that it is in the public interest to know, but solely to peddle utter tat, and make a bit of profit from others misery. If that doesnt deserve the full hand of justice then i dont know what does...
Not quite. Trashy headlines are just a lucrative sideline.
The *main* reason for the hacking was to build up a dossier of dirt on any potential political or business opponent. The lurid headlines in the NoTW were just a means to keep the threat real.
Any attempt to regulate the press? We'll smear you.
Any attempt to reign in the Murdoch empire? We'll smear you.
Any attempt to investigate criminal wrongdoing? We'll smear you.
There have been numerous examples of inappropriate influence on government policy by large media organisations. Just look at what happened to Labour's (eminently sensible) proposals on regional news. I dread to think what tactics led the UK Government to agree to Sky's monopoly on satellite broadcasting. The bodies must be buried *somewhere*.
The success of the Murdoch business empire is about much more than a few quid here and there from the red tops. It is about elimination of all competition, based on Rupert's freedom to do whatever the hell he likes.
In case you hadn't noticed, the hacking story only reached epic proportions when it was revealed that some non-shmucks were affected too. It had rumbled on for years before that.
It's funny how in another comment you draw a distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion and then proceed to rant about the lobbyists on the digital economy bill - how do you think many of the avoidance schemes stay or become legal? I would suggest that tax lobbyists do more damage than any of the examples you cite.
Damn straight it's a crime against democratic society. The phone hacking, while pretty illegal, isn't the big issue - it's the suborning of police officers.
You're mixing so many things in one pot...
Avoidance is and should be the right of every tax payer. You just can not have a society where you have a duty to maximise your tax - you will become a slave to the state.
If you find loopholes - by all means, go ahead and close them. However, before you do that you must consider whether this closing of a loophole will not result in the underlying or related tax-generating business be taken away (so you will end up with less tax collected than if you'd kept the loophole open).
The bribery of police officers is a hugely serious issue. However, all I hear from TV is "phone hacking, phone hacking". So far, the police bribery is being swept under the carpet...
I absolutely disagree that the story has been drawn to epic proportions only after revelations about crime victims's messages interception. The inquiry was already inevitable long before that - so much powerful self-interest got on the band wagon and they have already been smelling blood for months...
You see, I am not trying to justify News Corp actions at all - I just abhor the cynical show put up by the politicians who cover their ulterior motives by the banner of public interest (there is nothing new in that, though...)
"You're mixing so many things in one pot..."
Only because you used a kettle...
I know and you know that all avoidance is not created equally. You can't have a society either where the duty is to minimise your tax. Ideally (and yes, I do realise I'm being hopelessly utopian), avoiding tax should be easy; evading it hard - the use of gifts and donations to avoid inheritance tax smell far less than trust funds in Crown dependencies to achieve the same. Not that the chancellor has used the latter, of course.
When thinking about loopholes, lots of noise is often made about the underlying business being taken away, but there is very little empirical evidence for whether it would happen or not - and the models are developed by asking those who benefit from the loophole what they'd do. You'd have thought that monitoring the number of non-doms leaving as a result of the 30k residency tax would have been a good start in collecting that kind of evidence, but no monitoring was done. There's more than one way of covering ulterior motives...
The investigation was always going to happen, true, but it would have been more muted and easier swept under the carpet by the other side of the powerful self-interests.
I was never suggesting that you were justifying News Corp. I too abhor the cynical show, but all your additional complaints were like moaning about the state of the NHS in the hope that the trains would run on time.
"all your additional complaints were like moaning about the state of the NHS in the hope that the trains would run on time."
But I didn't have any additional complaints... Only about politicians making a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring or covering up more important issues.
Re: Firstly, it's not hacking - it's just guessing a pin number..
Vlad, it really does not matter whether the number was guessed or not. It was unauthorized access. If you left your home unlocked and someone entered, its still illegal entry. It might not be BREAKING and entering
Re: here is only an investigation because a) it affected personally a few schmucks who had the power to start the inquiry
Ah, yeah, and the point is, these individuals might have other content (on their vmail) related to national security. So the UNAUTHORIZED access is potentially more serious and requires closer review than it would be if your babysitter left you a voice mail to say she won't make it friday. If you don't understand that, then the next point will truly be lost on you.
The rest of your comments seem to be where you really have some personal objections and are more just random rants than anything factual. Come up with something a little more relevant and we can resume the discussion. Thanks
"It was unauthorized access"
Legality is not an issue here, maybe I was not clear in my previous post. Whey you say "hacking phone systems" it sounds much more dramatic than "listening to voicemails without permission".
The former has the sinister black-hat connotations (which is why it is being used by the MPs now), while the latter will be shrugged off by the public as a boring "what's-a-big-deal" type of thing.
"these individuals might have other content (on their vmail) related to national security"
This really made me LOL. If these individuals used an unsecure public infrastructure and *default* or easily guessed-at passwords for matters of national security they must all be fired immediately and the News Corp be given a medal for exposing a critical vulnerability.
And, of course, my "rants" reflect my personal objections. That's why I've bothered to post in the first place - to express my personal opinion (which may include personal objections). So had you.
"But to present this as some sort of momentous crime against democracy? And using News Corp as a scape goat (I'm 100% sure that journalists in all other media companies do the same things and more)? At the same time ignoring the real problems? This is hypocritical to the extreme."
Are they ignoring the real problems? Maybe the inquiries will lead to a dead end, just like a lot of inquiries, but the political class have tasted blood. Of course, many of them have also benefited from Murdoch's despicable control over public figures, as well as being victims of that control, and some of them won't survive in politics, but they have an opportunity to take revenge.
And this isn't about something important to us but not so important to them, like whether Blair started an illegal war or had knowledge of (and maybe even accepted) torture in conducting that war and the related circus around it. So you can be sure that these people will pursue this more vigourously than such other matters.
I have to say that you seem naive about the way British political society functions. A public figure can do all sorts of wrongs, many of them completely blatant, but they only tend to fall from power when they break a seemingly innocuous rule or push just one wrong button after having pushed many others. Everybody knew about the basis of this scandal and nothing significant was done about it, at least as far as the top-level perpetrators were concerned, but it took only one instance of something that everybody could agree was reprehensible, and then the repercussions could begin.
Sure, we could be seeing "business as usual" if Cameron chums up with Murdoch - the Tories were always great at nepotism - and gets "reassurances" and all the usual bullshit that enables stuff to be swept under the rug, but there are plenty of people who won't let this slide any more. If it does slide, expect a repeat of the end of the last Tory dynasty: leadership challenges, sleaze, resignations, the works.
Hacking should involve knowledge of the target system and actions to circumvent or disable its security components.
Guessing a password does not involve any of the above. You may call it hax0ring if you like...
Note, that I am not saying that it not being hacking means it's OK. But to call it "hacking" sounds like an insult to the IT profession...
Do give it up. Gaining unauthorised access to a computer system (in this case another person's voicemail) by deception (guessing the password) is just that - unauthorised access gained through deception.
Whether you call this hacking, or cracking is a mere matter of semantics (it could be argued that this better reflets the original meaning of the term hacking than other uses), the fact remains that it is illegal. As is bribing police officers, as is tampering with evidence in an ongoing police investigation, along with other forms of bribery and corruption.
Given the size of the organisation involved, it is, to my mind, right an proper that there should be a large scale investigation. I don't see NewsCorp being made a scapegoat here, I see them being held accountable for their actions over a period of years, now that they seem to have lost the power to apply the cosh to politicians to an extent.
The matter has also exposed how useless the PCC is in regulating the press, and it is therefore also right and proper that regulation of the press should be reviewed. At the very least, journos should be punishable for wrongdoings without being able to blurt out some 'freedom of the press' excuse along the lines of, "I kicked in his door and photographed him in bed with his mistress in the interests of the press M'lud, therefore I am not liable for any criminal damage", etc.
The press needs both regulation and freedom to investigate. The two need not be mutually exclusive.
... or is it? I'm sorry, I may have missunderstood the example you illustrate, but are you suggesting that someone just sat down and tried random 4 digit combinations until they got the right one? There are 10,000 possible combinations using the digits 0 - 9. Might have took a while then...
It is, in most cases, simply knowing a handful of default passwords that are (or where) set on voicemail. Dial the target, press hash/star/1 during the outgoing message and dial 0000 or 1111 or 1234 etc and hey presto, you iz sup3r l33t voicemail h4ck0rz...
Thankfully now many operators disable external access to voicemail until the password has been changed.
That lexicographic train has long since left the station.
The word 'hacking' now means any attempt to break into a computerised system no matter how it is done. It joins words like 'nice', 'garble', 'brave' and 'artificial' in having dramatically changed their meaning with time.
Give up, the battle is lost.
"No it doesn't because they all use the same 3 or 4 numbers."
Please explain how you know that "they all use the same 3 or 4 numbers" without having knowledge of the systems?
"I don't see why I should gladly accept newspeak corruptions here....."
The natural evolution of language transforms the meaning of words, there is no big brother conspiracy going on, you are not being subverted.
You need to throw off your old communist conformity and accept change as a positive and natural phenomenon.
"You need to throw off your old communist conformity and accept change as a positive and natural phenomenon."
If you re-read your post carefully you will (hopefully) realise that it is you who advocates conformity here...
"Please explain how you know that "they all use the same 3 or 4 numbers" without having knowledge of the systems?"
Consider the existence of phenomenon of default passwords as system-agnostic (see, I can also use neologisms when they mean something), hence, not requiring knowledge of a particular system.
The only thing any of them really regret is being found out. Once this little feeding frenzy is over and our appetite for revenge is sated they will all re-group anyway and will continue to ply their grubby trade selling idle gossip, slander, rumour and tittle-tattle to brainless morons who mistake it for 'News' or 'Entertainment' when it is neither.
That is all.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
The tone of her statement suggests she live in some Nth dimensional cloud-cuckoo land where black really is white and preying on the misery of others is an honourable pastime. Hopefully she and her bosses will get to dwell fondly on the Land of Honest Endeavours for a long time at Her Maj's Pleasure.
It wus the scum wot dunnit!
Ok, OK; mines the one with the happy pills in the pocket.
Out for a short while, then back in...out once more then back in until booted into the Lords. Where the troughing can get really lush.
God those political moral arbiters are a fantastic example aren't they.
Connery mode on...
'Do you expect me to talk Vaz-Finger?'
No Ms Brooks I expect you to die!
Connery mode off....that is all.
"At News International we pride ourselves on setting the news agenda". No Dear. What you should be doing is REPORTING the news.
"The reputation of the company ....at risk" What Reputation would that be? The bottom of the pile of scum-scucking, gutter press? Nope not at risk. Confirmed as true.
"sorry I am for what we now know to have taken place" It remains to be seen what you 'did' know.
"News International is full of talented, professional and honourable people." Honourable.? Possibly to your definition of honorable. Not to mine.
Regarding the risk to the company, I think they are now very worried about two important matters that are arising from all these shenanigans.
Firstly there is the rising fallout across the pond, where Murdoch makes a lot more of his money than he does over here. It was kind of fine when it was just slebs and politicos getting hacked - after all these people make a living out of courting the press so having sympathy when the press turns on them is in the same league as having sympathy when those two camp magicians were attacked by their captive tiger.
But now the news is involving photogenic schoolgirls, terrorist atrocity victims and soldiers, which is a different matter entirely and guaranteed to go down particularly badly with Murdoch's key US audience (right wing - family values - ohmygodterroristseverywhere - fox newsy brigade)
And more importantly, Murdoch is absolutely not stupid and he can see that he is sailing close to being on the end of a "Fit and Proper Person" test which in today's climate would go very badly for him (these tests are done on individuals not companies) - it is probably the main reason he dropped his Sky bid - but if he was subjected to a test and failed it would be disastrous for his media interests in the UK.
Or is anyone else sick to the back teeth of hearing about this "hacking" scandal yet? Yahoo "News" (crap, I've just laughed my drink all over my keyboard) has a text service where you can keep up to date with it as each tiny bit of minutiae comes out. I mean for fucks sake people.
...is one of the most important situations in recent decades in our modern 'democracy' in terms of it's relevance to our political system, the power of the media, the ethics of journalists and our law enforcement officers, the widespread abuse of individuals right to privacy in order to sell papers and the dubious ethical stance of those corporations who own that media and try and sell us their products through it despite their glaring hypocrisy by claiming to be ethical, getting in the way of you wanking in a dark room by yourself is it? For fuck's sake indeed.
"Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"
What about all the other shenanigans of NI/NDS/Sky etc.
EU wasn't fussed about his bid for BSkyB as they think he already makes all the important decisions.
Alleged card hacking promotion to destroy
Pay Satellite TV and "bad practices" on "locked in boxes" even though owned by customer
Their Pay TV USA, Mexico, Brazil, Ireland, Germany, Italy, UK, Australia.
Ofcom's refusal to regulate reasonable EPG and Encryption Costs
Sky Ireland's refusal to pay Irish VAT other than Installs (All goes to UK, contrary to EU rules on larger businesses).
Sky/Murdoch interference in Politics and Technology of Terrestrial Rollouts of Digital in UK, Ireland and Italy (Though amazingly Ofcom did stop the "Picnic" on DTT).
Wooh seven thumbs down, you're almost as good at telling people what they don't want to hear as I am. Let's see if I can get 9 thumbs down again:
The world, his dog and especially the good commenters at El Reg have been praising Wikileaks, Anonymous and various psychopathic, cretinous splinter groups who admit they cause damage for "the lulz" - if that isn't psychotic behavior I don't know what is - and everybody has been making absurd excuses from "they're white-hat hackers highlighting security flaws" to "they're fighting for openness and transparency" (by destroying personal privacy) as they openly admit they only want to cause harm to people they feel have the wrong opinions. Sir Assflange The Great (PBUH) admitted before a cabal of journalists that "collaborators" in Afghanistan and Iraq (read: people who are fighting for freedom from rule by Theocrats and fascists) deserve to be killed and that's why he dumped their private details in the public domain.
Well now it's been revealed that people associated with Rupert Murdoch have being doing the exact same thing, sans dumping all the information they steal straight into the public domain in the hope of causing as much harm to their victims as possible and now the sky is falling! The sky is falling! Yes, Vlad the Nerve Impaler is right: you're all a bunch of hypocrites and those who prattle on about Teh Big Bad Merikan Guvmunt's secret torture chambers are manchild versions of Alex Jones and you need to grow up and grow a brain.
No, let's not have a willy-waving competiton, boys.
Anyway reading Vlad's stuff carefully and not getting hooked on the emotive stuff he seems to have several valid points.
However, we are in the standard moral secnario of 'freedom fighter/terrorist' - it all depends which side of the fence people choose to be on or whether to get splinters in their bums.
Personally I find 'for the lulz' preferable to 'for the money, power and blackmail potential'.
"The world, his dog and especially the good commenters at El Reg have been praising Wikileaks, Anonymous and various psychopathic, cretinous splinter groups who admit they cause damage for "the lulz"...now it's been revealed that people associated with Rupert Murdoch have being doing the exact same thing...and now the sky is falling!"
Have you been taking names of the people praising the first groups you mentioned and comparing them to the names of the people condemning Murdoch et al.? No? Then have you considered the possibility that the people praising some groups and the people condemning the other might be different people?
Or are you just that good at intuiting the pulse of the nation?
I thought you were "sick to the back teeth of hearing about this "hacking" scandal". Oh wait, that was astroturfing strategy #1 (cultivate indifference) failing hard. Here comes strategy #2 (you non-patriots are hypocritical hippies and should get a crew-cut and sign up to serve your country).
We now await strategy #3 (throw mud at accusers, detractors) as soon as you realise how badly your little propaganda exercise is going.
They said she has been embarking on a serious course of Ugandan Discussions in order to bring a junior hacker into the world. Whether or not she does might be a different story...
I'm sure we can read all about it in the News of the Screws... oh wait....
Paris, because I mentioned discussing Uganda and there isn't an Idi Amin icon.
This post has been deleted by its author
Murdoch merely owns the company that owns the company that owned the NoTW. In my view that puts him far enough from the action so as to be unaware of it, or at least to introduce enough doubt about his knowledge and guilt.
RB on the other hand was NoTW editor. It does not seem possible that she could be unaware of what, it has emerged, was a common practice at the paper and the source of many front page stories. How could she edit the paper and not be aware of it ?
... or it pleases some people to think so. I personaly don't consider myself to be particularly niave, but hey - it's all depending on how much you know (or at least, think you do).
My Uncle gave me one of the most useful (and profound) pieces of advice I ever had when I was young. "The worsth crime in the world, is getting caught". Sadly, it took me a long time to really understand how true that is, and what it really signified about human nature.
I'm not going to waste your time stating the obvious - I'm not even going to bother to vote a certain post down. I'm sure there are many here as 'clueless' as me who know what I mean.
"... or it pleases some people to think so. I personaly don't consider myself to be particularly niave, but hey - it's all depending on how much you know (or at least, think you do)."
"My Uncle gave me one of the most useful (and profound) pieces of advice I ever had when I was young. "The worsth crime in the world, is getting caught". Sadly, it took me a long time to really understand how true that is, and what it really signified about human nature."
How profound that is. I got caught for riding my push-bike with out lights (at night would you believe). I hear about the massacres at (e.g. srebenica, rwanda, etc.) committed by loads of people who never got caught. I 'd look up to them if I wasn't hanging my head in shame.
"I'm not going to waste your time stating the obvious - I'm not even going to bother to vote a certain post down. I"
"I'm sure there are many here as 'clueless' as me who know what I mean."
I doubt it.
Nope, if I had an honest cretin on one side who caused harm with some particular goal in mind (I wonder if you can point to any evidence that the big bad Murdoch was planning to blackmail anybody) versus a person who causes harm and discomfort because he gets pleasure from it then give me the thug any day of the week.
And I'm not making any moral judgment on whether people who murder their fellow citizens are "freedom fighters" but the people who are being murdered sure are. that is why they are "collaborating" with Teh Big Bad Imperialists. And Assange has openly and honestly admitted that they should be killed. Real collateral murder in Iraq much?
"I wonder if you can point to any evidence that the big bad Murdoch was planning to blackmail anybody"
Astroturfing strategy #4: there's no proof of wrongdoing and the angry mob must stand down at once. Or maybe it's strategy #3 and the mob must be turned on the accusers.
Who knows? I'm not even sure which thug, Baked Beans whats us to "give" him, now, to be honest. Can you work it out, from reading all that crap? I think it's the one with a goal, in mind (or maybe he meant 'gaol' - in which case it could be any of them).
Anyway, he's posting about Julian Assange in a comments section about Rebecca Brookes resigning. All I can gather, is that he's asserting that the people who think News International did illegal things and should be investigated (preferably by some policemen who _didn't_ accept bribes), are the same people who think Anonymous are "heroes" and Assange should go free. Why he thinks this, is beyond me, unless he finds it easier to hate an enemy, with as one-dimensional a set of views, as his own.
(At least he's not passing judgement on "people who murder their fellow citizens"... Which was nice of him, I thought. That's the trouble with people, these days, you see? Too judgmental.)
I'm guessing that a highly regarded Guardian journalist wouldn't lie solely for the purpose of discrediting Assange, especially since the same journalist wrote a fawning tribute to him (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy) . Besides it sounds like something many people of his political persuasion would say.
It's also worth noting the term that the One uses in place of redacting: damage reduction. So how much damage were you intending to cause in the first place Mr. Assange?
"Nick Davies is an unreliable journalist."
What's up, baked Beans? Suddenly found yourself with a lot more time on your hands? It's tough, when an employer goes to the wall, but times are hard, and arses have to be covered, you know?
Anyway, I'm sure the paper-bag-faced old bastard had your best interests at heart, really.
"Soooo I'm being paid by News Corporation now? Kay."
Well, you could be. Or you could be working for someone else who would rather we didn't look into this business too deeply. I believe some of the people involved have public relations businesses.
Or you could be a stupid template "Britard" whose life revolves around gossip and voting for the suited-and-tied idiot who claims to serve your best interests, conveniently endorsed by the toilet paper masquerading as a source of news which satisfies your cravings for easily-consumed trivia and opinions on things that you can't be bothered to understand. As a result, you might just be bitter that your favourite publication isn't being printed any more and are throwing a tantrum.
But so far you've only discredited yourself over and over again. So if this is your job, I hope someone isn't paying you for it. If this is your hobby, I suggest finding something you can hope to be good at, because this isn't it.
"At least he's not passing judgment on "people who murder their fellow citizens"... Which was nice of him, I thought. That's the trouble with people, these days, you see? Too judgmental."
Well since somebody here thinks they are "freedom fighters" I don't want to get into a political row. If you want me to get judgmental then no, no I don't believe people that blow up children using IEDs are freedom fighters. I guess your smartarse comment inadvertently puts you on the side of the big bad imperialists now. Sorry about that.
And if you're too god damned thick to understand what I'm saying I'll say it as simply as possibly:
People not criticize Assange/Anon when steal data. People criticize News of World when do. Me not know why. You do know why?
Do you understand that?
All performers to date, that is News International and the Metropolitain Police have made a dogs dinner of their communications. Why ?
All parties have access to skilled PR people. Before they open a mouth all the options are thrashed through until the right positive message is identified. So why are all these people behaving like four year olds caught in the larder.
They could all have put out far better apologies.
So something is hidden. They will get done for the petty crimes of bunging a few grand to coppers, RIPA and a host of other laws that they consider appropriate for the little people.
... but "illiterate fuckwit" isn't? (re: my earlier comment you refused to post.)
Seriously, an editor of a major newspaper ought to know the difference between "distract" and "detract", and regardless of the morality of hacking into people's phones, basic subject-matter competence is actually really relevant to the matter of whether someone should be promoted to the higher reaches of a corporation?
To quote from the site you linked:
"Many factors can impact the interpretation from any single person's writing. The content, knowledge of the material, age of the author, nationality, experience, occupation, and education level can all impact writing styles. For example, a woman who has spent 20 years working in a male-dominated field may write like her co-workers. Similarly, professional female writers (and experienced hobbyists) frequently use male writing styles. Gender Guesser does not take any of these factors into account. "
So with that in mind, and considering the Ms Brooks has been a newpaper editor for a long time, it's certainly conceivable that with the adaptation of her writing style to that of her colleagues she still could have written that speech.
Furthermore, just out of interest, I posted a couple of pieces I've written into that Gender Guesser. One was a fictional interview with a female character from one of my short stories. It was written entirely by myself, of course, but when I pasted the female character's responses into the Gender Guesser, it identified the writer as female for both informal and formal writing modes. The other was a post I made here the other day concerning a proof for atheism. The Gender Guesser correctly identified the writer as male for both modes that time.
Which tells me two things: 1) a man who can write like a woman can fool it, and presumably vice versa; and 2) I can convincingly write like a woman. That may yet come in useful at some point, now that I know I can do it!
Only the Zionist Committee For World Domination and the Miscellaneous Evil Conspiracy Organization (a group of Shinto shrine maidens planning to take over the world). I removed myself from Murdoch's payroll when he promised me a mere 1% of the world once we conquered it. What a tightarse.
Also that Grauniad journalist did have a bit of a falling out with Assange; people with narcissistic personality disorder and no sense of irony don't make great friends and apparently dumping massive amounts of classified data into the public domain without regard for consequences is not cool (something about, 'sit called again, "ethics" is it?):
Christ, I'm agreeing with a Grauniad journalist. I need to take a bath.
...that the majority of assumptions appear to be that the phone hacking was as simple as guessing a PIN rather than social engineering tactics taken on helpdesk staff to actually enable a PIN on voicemail in the first place. I've not yet seen a news report that suggests that all the people concerned already had PINs set on their voicemails; if someone would care to point me in the right direction for an article that confirms this is the case then that would clear that query up.
I don't have a PIN on my voicemail BECAUSE it allows remote retrieval; thus it can only be retrieved from my handset (or a device that has my SIM or a clone of my SIM in it). if my handset/SIM were out of commission, without speaking to helpdesk staff to have the remote access facility enabled I expect I would be unable to retrieve my messages.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020