New Hacking revelations in The Sun and The Times

[Purpleswimmingtiger]

Given the breaking news regarding hacking\blagging\leaking of confidential medical records of Gordon Browns son will Mumsnet be targeting the advertisers of the Sun and The Times in the same way they so successfully did with the now defunct NOTW?

Newsnight (I think) showed a table of which papers used PIs the most & the DM was top.

NotW was 5th IIRC. Didn't see who were 2nd, 3rd & 4th but anyway, it's universal.

However it's not the use of PIs which is the problem

Yep it was Newnight ponders

I believe it was NotW, The Sun, DM, Mail on Sunday and the Times that they listed.

surely they used PIs so as to avoid committing illegal acts themselves?

Here's another graph relating to PI usage - according to this one Mirror was top, followed by DM.

all newspapers use PI's - all of them. Even the guardian would have to admit that - it doesn't necessarily mean they're employing illegal methods though

I mostly used PI's to obtain ex D numbers

Nerf - I think the hacking of Millie Dowler's phone was unforgiveable and don't know a single journalist that thinks otherwise - Celebrities, to be honest, I care less about.

Nancy66, 'caring less about celebrities' appears to have been part of a slippery slope. Once you think certain sections of society have no right to a private life, it's easier & easier to 'justify' the idea that no-one has.

How come this has all suddenly come out? Surely journos etc. knew all this was going on for years? Why didn't politicians intervene years ago and why is it happening now?

bob- thanks, that's the one I saw.

Nancy- the problem is that the children of celebrities have no say in their parents' fame, and surely have a right to privacy? How can a newspaper justify obtaining medical records for GB's 4mo son? How can a story on that be in the public's interest, let alone the child's?

I don't agree with accessing medical records at all.

It's just a shame that GB chose to not act on the information he had back then - presumably because he needed to keep NI onside.

well FWIW GB wasn't PM when the Fraser leak happened - it was still Blair

I agree with bob the more info you have the more you need to get a reaction which is why the more this story unfolds the less impact the revelations will have its a fact of life sadly.

How does that make it any less wrong?

Has Murdoch got any cards up his sleeve or is he facing a losing battle?

It doesn't make it any less wrong - but shows that politicians were happy to turn a blind eye/deaf ear while it suited them to do so

it doesn't make it less wrong, but it means he was not in a position to do something about it as he could have (possibly) if he was PM. (& if Blair wasn't still sucking up to Murdoch)

I find it very interesting that murdoch hasnt dumped RB; fascinating in fact.

Fear was a factor in not taking Murdoch on. Has the fear gone? Is Murdoch now a paper tiger?

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/news-corp-murdoch-news-of-the-world-closure?CMP=twt_gu\this goes some way to explaining why not}

it's all complicated family stuff - comes of having a dynasty, innit

plus she effectively shields JM as long as she stays (she was closer to the action)

Newsnight GB knew and still went to RB wedding and had her to stay at his home for a weekend etc. They are ALL in it. GB might be 'outraged' now that it suits him but he wasn't bothered enough imo to do the right thing rather than turn a blind eye.

I've been holding back on commenting on all this but it's a bloody mockery. It makes me v angry. I used to be a journalist and then I moved into information security.

As a journalist, in order to get approval to do something untoward (i.e. illegal) took a two minute conversation with your boss and the promise that if you were caught you were on your own. If you did it without your editor's approval the story would be canned and/or you'd get fired. I saw this happen to a colleague of mine. Twas the early days of the internet, people didn't take security too seriously (they still don't but that's another story) so it was a doddle. People had analogue phones FFS. The demands for salacious stuff were slightly less than now but not much, so the motivation to dig was high. Some organisations were worse than others.

Later I worked with people whose job is was to hack professionally (i.e. for govt) and you know what, it took days to get permission, it was really tightly regulated and not something you could just randomly do because you might find out something interesting. It was not open ended and yes, lots of people disagree with the reasons behind it but at least there were brakes applied if no wrongdoing could be quickly shown. Grrr.

And it's all our own fault. WE DEMAND THIS SHIT buying up stories of celebrities, wanting the gory details of every child murdered or abused. We appear to love it.

RB could go round with a shovel uncovering a lot of bodies. I'm not surprised she's still in post.

when you say "we", wmmc...