The thing here is that the 'they' in that is in fact a 'he' - Glenn Muclair, a private investigator working for the news of the world, but not actually employed by them.
Printable View
The thing here is that the 'they' in that is in fact a 'he' - Glenn Muclair, a private investigator working for the news of the world, but not actually employed by them.
Sorry, hitting the quote button is kinda automatic for me, even if I should probably just hit "reply to thread" and your post was what triggered the mental association.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Yeah, I'm the only one who has drawn a connection between the two threads so far. I don't think anyone on your end of the spectrum would WANT any sort of parallel drawn between the two topics. And sure there's a difference. The first does absolutely no direct harm, and rarely any indirect harm just aggravation, while the latter has a direct negative monetary impact on the "victimized" entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Ah, well, there's a very serious consequence and responsible party should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law... unfortunately for the whore-mongering media and frenzied public, it would appear that the responsible party is not the sleazy tabloid, or even the arch-demon Murdoch, but rather a private investigator who's already in jail for "hacking" that girl's phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
So why are we still lynching this tabloid and its parent companies? If we followed that logic through every time "Anonymous" launched a DDoS attack or hacked someone it doesn't like, the internet would be a much nicer place, what with all of 4chan's posters being in jail and all.
Well, presumably he wasn't doing it for a laugh. Either he was going on a fishing expedition, or someone asked him to.
EDIT: Grauniad.
Quote:
The Guardian investigation has shown that, within a very short time of Milly vanishing, News of the World journalists reacted by engaging in what was standard practice in their newsroom: they hired private investigators to get them a story.
Their first step was simple, albeit illegal. Paperwork seen by the Guardian reveals that they paid a Hampshire private investigator, Steve Whittamore, to obtain home addresses and, where necessary, ex-directory phone numbers for any families called Dowler in the Walton area. The three addresses Whittamore found could be obtained lawfully on the electoral register. The two ex-directory numbers, however, were "blagged" illegally from British Telecom's confidential records by one of Whittamore's associates, John Gunning, who works from a base in Wiltshire. One of the ex-directory numbers was attributed by Whittamore to Milly's family home.
Then, with the help of its own full-time private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World started illegally intercepting mobile phone messages. Scotland Yard is now investigating evidence that the paper hacked directly into the voicemail of the missing girl's own phone. As her friends and parents called and left messages imploring Milly to get in touch with them, the News of the World was listening and recording their every private word.
But the journalists at the News of the World then encountered a problem. Milly's voicemail box filled up and would accept no more messages. Apparently thirsty for more information from more voicemails, the paper intervened – and deleted the messages that had been left in the first few days after her disappearance. According to one source, this had a devastating effect: when her friends and family called again and discovered that her voicemail had been cleared, they concluded that this must have been done by Milly herself and, therefore, that she must still be alive. But she was not. The interference created false hope and extra agony for those who were misled by it.
Your comparison doesn't even make remotely sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
It does to me. "Anonymous" are agents of 4chan and routinely commit criminal acts. If we raged against 4chan like we're raging against Murdoch et. al. anytime Anonymous launched a DDoS attack, we'd arrest everyone who posts a t 4chan for the DDoS attack. After all, the P.I.(s) and perhaps employees of this scumbag tabloid committed criminal acts, but are only agents of the company that runs the tabloid, which is in turn an agent of the larger corporate hierarchy, which terminates at Murdoch, the head man. I don't see anyone calling for the people who actually committed the crimes to be hauled in front of Parliament to explain themselves... but we're seeing Murdoch being vilified and having answers demanded of him for something done by people he's probably never even heard of, insulated from each other by dozens of layers of management and corporate ownership agreements.
But if you don't like that comparison, how about we haul in the president and extract a pound of his flesh every time a DEA agent or an FBI officer or a DHS border guard is caught doing something seriously criminal? (And, for the record, I actually like this idea and would love to see it in practice.) It happens... a border agent was sent to prison for 20 years not so long ago because he sold information to a Mexican cartel, which as it happens, used this information to execute an undercover DEA agent. The only thing unusual abut this particular case is that we know about it, because another federal agent got killed. Low-paid customs officials and border guards being bribed by narco-cartels happens almost routinely. But, clearly, since president Hussein is the man at the top of all this sprawling organization, and there's a problem with crimes being committed in one of those departments, he should be made to answer for it in front of Congress, and we ought to dismantle the DHS and the DEA too, both of which have had serious issues with widespread corruption. (Again, something else I'd like to see happen.)
Double-standard, much?
Hell, I'll gladly eat my words if you can find another example of a CEO of a vast corporation being asked to account for the actions of a few rank-and-file (non-management) employees, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any, because people usually exercise some small degree of discretion and basic cognitive abilities in realizing that a CEO does not even know about, let alone control the actions of the thousands of individual agents and contractors that he employs.
Oh Rly? 4chan is paying them money for their "work"?Quote:
"Anonymous" are agents of 4chan and routinely commit criminal acts.
And killers are just agents of the Mafia, the Mafia itself is tottaly inocent innocent!Quote:
After all, the P.I.(s) and perhaps employees of this scumbag tabloid committed criminal acts, but are only agents of the company that runs the tabloid, which is in turn an agent of the larger corporate hierarchy, which terminates at Murdoch, the head man.
Politicians should be held responsible if there is something systematically wrong in their office.Quote:
ut if you don't like that comparison, how about we haul in the president and extract a pound of his flesh every time a DEA agent or an FBI officer or a DHS border guard is caught doing something seriously criminal?
The fish stinks from the head.
The difference here is, senior management either sanctioned the illegal activities in the first place, or were utterly complicit in covering them up once discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
And it's possible that this was known right the way up to Murdoch himself, which is why he is being hauled up before Parliament.
If it's shown that he and his cohorts at the top knew about this, and did nothing to stop it, then yes they should be held to account.
Just from the top of my head, the BP CEO Tony Hayward resigned over Deep Water Horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
all you're missing is the "taking it very seriously" lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
yeah.... noQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Where's your condemnation of the script kiddies who just stole private emails of NoTW workers? I guess it's only bad when rich people are implicated in crimes.
Here -> "Look I am a condemnation" <- here.
happy?
Well I don't know how it is in the US, but our courts actually take into consideration if you make profit from it. For example growing marijuana in your backyard is fined different if you grow it for your own consume or if you intent to sell it.
Where's yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yeah. You guess. You do that often dontcha? :)Quote:
I guess it's only bad when rich people are implicated in crimes.
You trying to replace Being as the color commentary here?
I do apologize for not responding in kind to your well thought out argument :)
I will try to do better in the future.
Your responses seem to consist of not taking a clear position and then mocking others for not understanding your position.
You should also try to reduce the contents of your post to one line each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
That's pretty ironic considering that nearly most of your responses in this thread are a line long, even when replying to paragraphs of text.
Other people had no problem recognizing my position last time. They even were kind enough to point it out to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And yeah, I do mock you. But you tempt me. So we at least share the blame for that.
Definitely trying to beat Being for number of posts without substance then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Normal person when attempting conversation about overnight breaking news
I've already attempted to discuss with Fuzzy the differences here. That exchange is but a handful of posts above this craziness. Not that I expected such posts to get in the way of your usual and shallow 1 line zing attempts. I've also already discussed the valid use of prosecution against hacking, but that didn't exactly fit into your shallow and simple minded black and white world, so I'm not at all surprised you forgot such conversations, and I fully expected you to ignore them anyway. Because if someone doesn't give a response thats an immediate black and white position, well damn, they are illogical people and completely incomprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retarded false Loki Rage
Now if you really want to rag all over your twisted panties, I haven't yet made a condemnation of what has happened here. I think its far to early for myself to understand where this is going, and where its coming from. I have only replied to off topic remarks or reposted news links that may push along or clearify the conversation. So please, go fuck yourself.
to many ridiculous quotes:
This shit is so getting turned into a movie...
Phone hacking whistleblower found dead
-
Police examine bag found in bin near Rebekah Brooks's home. Former NI chief executive's husband denies bag – containing computer, paperwork and phone – belonged to his wife
Sad to hear about the death but difficult to know whether the whistleblower was telling the truth or not. He had a problem with both drugs and alcohol which led Andy Coulson to fire him. Years later he blew the whistle on the man who fired him. I hope there's some evidence one way or the other as to whether his claims were genuine or just disgruntled.
Yeah, because making money is evil. Way more evil than doing something for non-monetary rewards.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The reason your courts don't care about personal use is because they don't care about personal use. The profit or lack thereof isn't the factor they're really concerned about, it's just a proxy for distribution.
Is that what you think you did? They said "we're going to attack internet venues in Orlando in retaliation for the city's retarded police actions" and you're claimed in that most recent post that they're just trying to highlight problems with internet security and you think that qualifies as an attempt at discussion, rather than an egregious and inaccurate white-wash?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Nah, I gave it away to many friends for free, no problems there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:rolleyes: Come on Loki, this is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you saying that Switzerland actually HAS criminalized making money? Huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker