Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9489254)

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.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9489133)

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.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 9489402)

The MP's expenses info was first obtained by the Telegraph as a result of a leak from a civil servant who was obliged, as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act, to keep it under his hat. Thus, strictly speaking (although in many instances the OSA is laughable) it was obtained illegally. After it all came to light more details were supplied through the offices of the Information Commissioner, or whatever it's called in the UK these days.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9489562)

Ok. I wasn't aware of that. I am amazed that if it was available under the provisions of the (information) act, it would be covered by the OSA.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9489562)

Ok. I wasn't aware of that. I am amazed that if it was available under the provisions of the (information) act, it would be covered by the OSA.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 9489580)

's all to do with "proper channels," innit. OSA, as it applies to civil servants in central government ministries, pretty much mandates that everything is an official secret until somebody asks for the information through the proper channels...A civil servant can't just go around telling people stuff because he or she thinks they ought to know. .:confused:

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9489670)

Looks like one commentator agrees with me: We got the phone hacking we wanted

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9488412)

Do you believe that the police should be able to do the same thing then: Use illegal means to obtain "useful information" (illegal survellience, agent provocateur, etc)? Should the military (torture, etc)?

Either it is illegal, or it isn't. Whether the information obtained is "useful" is irrelevent.

I note that, once again, the rules don't appear to have to apply if they don't agree with what you believe is correct;)

Originally Posted by London Mike (Post 9489789)

I suspect that police surveillance in order to protect the citizens of a nation is more in the public interest than surveillance for red-top profiteering. As far as I know, there is not a 'Police Tits/Bum Weekly' magazine publishing photos priced at only 20 pence!

I was sad to hear that 4m people bought the very last NOTW. No, it will NOT be a collector's item! It's for this reason that no-one wants to regulate the tabloids because that's a lot of very stupid/naiive people that can be manipulated to put [insert Con/Lab] into power in 2015.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9489678)

The mans an idiot. How can you take him seriously?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9490626)

Maybe, but I bet he gets paid more for his opinions than you do for yours:p

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9490626)

Maybe, but I bet he gets paid more for his opinions than you do for yours:p

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9490612)

Are these the same stupid/naive people that watch X-Factor, Big Brother etc. and think that going down the pub is the epitome of being social? If so, not only are you insulting most of the UK, but the vast majority of the posters on here.

This is similar to the point I was making in my first post: Despite what people wish to believe, they get the politicians they want, the media they want and the lifestyle they want but, somehow, it is never their doing;)