Almost Canadian

Watch "Unthinkable" and tell me if you are the character played by Samuel L. Jackson or Carrie-Anne Moss

Alan2005

Everyone has the right to keep things private from others - but this involves not telling anyone or only dealing with trusted counterparties.

Nobody has the right to suppress the flow of information already in the public domain. Otherwise why would people bother with NDAs etc?

Almost Canadian

So how is information on a cell phone or computer, in the public domain?

ann m

Who is talking about censorship? Not me. There is proper investigative journalism, and police investigations, etc - and then there is taking liberties and pursuing illegal methods. If you want to highlight a story, by using illegal methods, then be prepared to stand up to the punishment for using those illegal methods. And if you do not employ proper investigative techniques - legal ones - then be prepared to answer for that too.

Same with police or military or anyone else. If you find out something illegal or valuable - while yourself acting illegally - and you go ahead and use it to prove your point, but be prepared to be held to account yourself.

I watch Spooks - I know what goes on
Is it ever justified?

JamesM

I like your writing style and I definately agree with your comment about the poor former suspect in the Jo Yate's murder which is a good example of poor journalism.

Alan2005

It isn't. Accessing this information is illegal and the perps should be prosecuted. The courts can decide whether or not this was in the public interest and should be pursued.

Ultimately illegal is not equal to immoral anymore than legal equals moral. Sometimes illegal acts are justifiable. You expect the system to be able to cope with this, and it mostly does as the law can be changed/refined over time.

Alan2005

This.

Oakvillian

I know Alan's reply quoted wasn't directly in response to AC's post, but this is the basis of the "public interest" defence, isn't it? That there are some instances where the breach (of trust, or of law) is justified by the more heinous breach (of trust, or of law) of the information remaining secret?

This is the basis under which signatories to the Official Secrets Act, for example, have brought to light mismanagement of public money - in military procurement, in government expenses, etc - where "proper channels" such as Freedom of Information Act requests have been stonewalled. This is the raison d'etre of organizations like Wikileaks.

In such cases, while a crime may certainly been committed in publishing the information, the greater public interest may best be served by not prosecuting the person who broke the story. Where there is no genuine public interest (and what constitutes the public interest is quite properly a matter of judgement, through the courts if necessary) then there is no justification for breaking the law to obtain information.

Where the line is drawn in that judgement call is very definitely not fixed, much as AC would like to see this as a black-and-white issue. Exposing the misuse public money to clean out a castle's moat seems to be on one side of the line; clearing messages from a dead girl's cellphone on the other. Whether Ryan Giggs is shagging somebody else's former girlfriend seems to be about where the cusp lies. Is the balance right? IMHO just about yes.

Oink

So, the News of the World has closed down. I look forward to reading all about it in next week’s News of the Globe.

ann m

As an aside, I am surprised this made as much of a mark in the Canadian news as it has ... will there be a knock-on effect elsewhere, or was NOTW really that well known?

ultrarunner

I'll tell you why it did, the fact that the word HACKING came up. Most people here haven't even heard of NOTW or Murdoch before the news broke.

On a lighter note, you think Murdoch was doing RB?




The Ginger Whinger sure got around

Alan2005

Yes, that's kind of what I was getting at. Though you've put it much better than I did.

BristolUK

While the "gossipy" angle is not in the same league as those voicemail messages I'd still put it the same side of the line. It's a more minor thing and people might want to know. That doesn't mean they have the right to know.

It doesn't seem overly difficult to me. I thought Human Rights legislation gave people the right to privacy. If it does, then apply it. If it doesn't, then change it so it does - with the usual exceptions, procedures and safeguards. Perhaps, then, Human Rights laws wouldn't attract so much ridicule.

If it's not illegal (or in some way conflicting with responsibility etc) don't publish without the agreement of the person concerned, or at least don't identify them.

If the person themselves goes to the paper about something, then bets are off; they opened the door. If they don't like the revelations or corrections, that's tough.

Almost Canadian

I jumped into this thread by wishing to speak out at the hypocrisy of allowing, for example, the Squidgygate, Camillagate hacking, while condemning the current hacking. Posters above have appeared to suggest that one is OK because it involves celebrities or members of the Royal Family, the other is not as it involves "real" people. I wished to suggest that such a distinction is bullshit: either it is right or it is wrong. I didn't realise the row over MPs' expenses came about as a result of "illegally" obtained information.

What I suspect, however, is that all those on here that appear to say "fair game" would have a completely different outlook if it was their information being bandied about.

Alan2005

If my information was bandied about then I'd be pissed off. And I suspect I'd be able to sue the people that leaked my info or I'd want them prosecuted for breaking the law. What you are (deliberately for the sake of argument I expect) misunderstanding is that this is not mutually exclusive to anything I have said above.

A case in point. I have a PSN account - these were hacked recently and my credit card info was probably stolen and published on the internet. The reason behind this isn't worth going into here, but the people that did it think they are justified. However, most reasonable people (including me) would not and if they are ever caught and prosecuted they will probably be imprisoned/fined.

Basically "Fair game" depends on context. Illegal/legal is black and white but justifiable, not justifiable is not.