Last night's news said something about NYC police officers' phones being hacked by Fox News post 9/11. But I didn't catch the whole thing, and it might have been nothing more than a hypothetical allegation. Guess we'll find out as time goes by....if Rupert's empire was built on secret sleeze and spying.
Are our UK posters completely and totally disillusioned and skeptical now? Wow, not only do you have reason to distrust your media, but also your police and government leaders. Not the desirable type of Trifecta.
There is evidence that Murdock employees, either this tabloid or another, attempted to bribe a NYC officer for access to the phones and call records of the families of 9/11 victims.Originally Posted by GGT
EDIT:
found a link
http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/11/p...5875-23262694/
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I wasn't aware of this ruling, but that goes significantly further than the most extreme thing I have said. Seems like the court indeed means that even taking the picture can constitute a breach of privacy.
Congratulations America
Disgusting.
WTF does that mean? He's either incompetent or unethical?Mr Murdoch’s son James, who is chairman of News International, admitted to approving out of court settlements to hacking victims and misleading Parliament – which he claims was not deliberate.
2009, so not long-standing.www.out-law.com/page-9764Oh really? Which again is why we have no papparazi on this continent. When did this bigshot EU court make such a ruling and on what?It's not his interpretation, it's an actual ruling by bigshot EU court.
There's an excerpt from the ruling on wikipedia somewhere
Also that was a case about a baby in a hospital, not a celebrity in public.
Looks like they may have been going after some royalty as wellDisgusting.
London - Gordon Brown’s sick son, the Queen and Prince Charles were sensationally identified on Monday night as targets of “institutional criminality” at Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
The former prime minister was subject to unlawful attempts to access his voicemail and obtain information from his bank account and his family’s medical records, it was claimed.
Brown believes details of his infant son Fraser’s medical records were obtained by The Sun, which went on to publish a story revealing he had cystic fibrosis.
Another of Murdoch’s newspapers - the Sunday Times - was dragged into the affair as it was claimed a “blagger” acting for the title posed as Brown and gained details from his account at the Abbey National.
The former prime minister’s wife Sarah said it was “so sad to learn all I am about my family’s privacy”, adding: “It is very personal and really hurtful, if all true.”
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not sure what a "blagger" is, but anyone who hacks private medical information is scum, and any media entity (or empire) who turns a blind eye or tries to cover it up is....well I don't even have a word for that, other than evil.
Most distressingly, in 2006, Mrs Brooks, then editor of The Sun, is understood to have contacted the Browns to tell them the newspaper had obtained information about the poor health of their son.
Fraser, then four months old, was being treated for cystic fibrosis, though the information was known only to a small number of family members and medics.
The call is understood to have caused Brown and his wife deep distress, since they were only just coming to terms with the diagnosis.
David Muir, one of Brown’s former aides, said the couple “didn’t know how Rebekah came across this information”, adding it appeared to have been “obtained by what could be illegal methods”.
Accessing medical records would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which allows disclosures only in the public interest. News International is understood to be confident, however, that information about Fraser’s illness came from legitimate sources.
Legitimate sources my ass. Nobody involved in the care of that baby and his family has the right to breach their privacy.
Last edited by GGT; 07-12-2011 at 02:21 PM.
UK slang for someone who, usually through fast-talking and/or lying through their teeth, obtains something they are not entitled to.
The Sun's intrusion into Brown's private life is yet another hideous chapter to this story. The Browns themselves had only just learnt of the diagnosis.but anyone who hacks private medical information is scum, and any media entity (or empire) who turns a blind eye or tries to cover it up is....well I don't even have a word for that, other than evil.
Most distressingly, in 2006, Mrs Brooks, then editor of The Sun, is understood to have contacted the Browns to tell them the newspaper had obtained information about the poor health of their son.
Fraser, then four months old, was being treated for cystic fibrosis, though the information was known only to a small number of family members and medics.
The call is understood to have caused Brown and his wife deep distress, since they were only just coming to terms with the diagnosis.
David Muir, one of Brown’s former aides, said the couple “didn’t know how Rebekah came across this information”, adding it appeared to have been “obtained by what could be illegal methods”.
Accessing medical records would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which allows disclosures only in the public interest. News International is understood to be confident, however, that information about Fraser’s illness came from legitimate sources.
Legitimate sources my ass. Nobody involved in the care of that baby and his family has the right to breach their privacy.
Seems people want to talk boycott, which considering how large this empire is, I doubt is going to work...
Why am I not at all surprised that Fox is all over this list?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I've already done a bunch of legal research recently. I'm not going to waste my time trying to find European cases which might not be the ones you're talking about and which, even if they are, might not explain to me what you've been saying. You understand the topic and why things are different in Europe and are already familiar enough with what sources say *or you wouldn't have made the declaration in the first place* so I am asking you to answer my question. It was fairly simple.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Uh guys, do beware that in this type of media frenzy, you ARE going to say papers reporting "claims" which turn out not to be true. Remember to keep taking anonymously-sourced claims with an appropriate grain of salt.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well in case of Google, the Commissioner for data protection is handling the cases, so this is not a civil case between some people and Google. The Commissioner is an independent position that checks the government and companies.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Depends from case to case, but in principle you can report it to the police I think, which then passes it on to the prosecutors who take on the case. But I might be wrong, not to mention that it's probably different in every country.
Well, the ball started rolling years back because they were after royalty, so that was the least surprising claim. Considering someone is already convicted for hacking royalty phones...
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It's not exactly news that the royals might have been targets of phone hacking, and as for the Gordon Brown thing, Rebekah Brooks, keen student of moral philosophy, actually contacted him explaining to him that they had this information about his son shortly after the family had found out and the story was actually published, so no "claims" there - the only think up in the air was how they came by the information. Same with the Times thing - the only thing in question there is how they actually came by the information in the first place.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
The Brown article was very sympathetic to Brown and it seems that the article was given to The Sun (then a friendly paper, a strong supporter of Labour and Brown) by someone close to Brown. There are strong claims that the story was a planted one, on a day to bury what was some bad (political) news for Brown.
Not a splash done to cause harm. The birth card didn't come from hacking a file.
In what universe would a newspaper write an article about something like that and not make it sympathetic? Like, what possible angle would there be to make the thing critical?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It could be written as salacious gossip.
:/–adjective
1.
lustful or lecherous.
2.
(of writings, pictures, etc.) obscene; grossly indecent.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Indeed.
So I'm getting different answers? Why don't you guys thrash it out amongst yourselves and then get back to me on the basis for claiming how enforcing European privacy law on public photography *which is presupposing centralized pan-EU restrictions* is different from how things are done in the US and does not involve any litigation, as EJ insisted to me.
Yes, and of course when I said "media frenzy" and the need to be skeptical about inadequately sourced claims I was only talking about one thing, rather than the apparent torrent of new or reinvigorating allegations which are suddenly being trumpeted about.Well, the ball started rolling years back because they were after royalty, so that was the least surprising claim. Considering someone is already convicted for hacking royalty phones...
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's lame how people are referring to all of this as "Murdoch" crimes.
Last time I checked, Switzerland wasn't part of the EU.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
And yet you told me to "Look up the Google street view cases, those in Yurope are based on complaints,"
Am I confused and that wasn't meant to be Europe in general? Is Yurope a Swiss canton I don't know about? I don't see any cities, villages, or municipalities by that name or any possible transliteration of it. Stop wasting my time. If you can't justify and explain what you say, particularly when its supposed to be a 'correction' of what someone else says, then show some restraint and don't say anything.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I see no cases of private law in here.Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic Street View has been banned since September 2010 by the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection after more than half a year of unsuccessful negotiation between the Czech Republic and Google. The Office described Google’s programme as taking pictures “beyond the extent of the ordinary sight from a street”, and that it “disproportionately invade citizens’ privacy.” However pictures taken before this decision (mostly in 2009) may remain available online but Google is obliged to erase every picture from that period shall it be disputed.”[21][22]
[edit] European Union
A recent demand from the European Union would require Google to warn local residents before sending out the cameras. It also requires Google to keep the unblurred versions of the photos no longer than 6 months, instead of no longer than a year. Google was instructed to give advance notice online and in the local press before photographing.[23]
In 2010, Google announced that it might cancel Google Street View service in the European Union due to unmanageable requests of the European Commission
n the first days of launch the UK service drew criticism due to privacy.[25] Images were found of a man leaving a sex shop, a man vomiting and another man being arrested. Some images were removed including those surrounding Downing Street.[26][27]
The service drew criticism in Belfast that it represented a "reckless" security risk, particularly for showing the exteriors of army bases and police stations so soon after the killing of two soldiers in the 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting, and a police officer.[28]
Soon after the launch human rights watchdog Privacy International sent a formal complaint about the service to the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which cited more than 200 reports from members of the public who were identifiable on Street View images. Privacy International director Simon Davies said that the organization had filed the complaint due to the "clear embarrassment and damage" Street View had caused to many Britons. He said that Street View fell short of the assurances given by Google to the ICO in July 2008 that had enabled its launch, namely that privacy would be protected by blurring faces and vehicle licence plates, and asked for the system to be "switched off" while an investigation was completed. He said the few cases where Google's face blurring system had failed meant the data used by Street View would fall under UK Data Protection legislation, which requires that subjects give permission for the use of information concerning them.[29]
Davies subsequently sent an open letter to Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, accusing the company of briefing journalists against him, claiming Davies was biased in favour of Microsoft. Google has pointed to connections between Microsoft and data protection consultancy 80/20 Thinking, run by Davies, and has said that Davies' connections to Microsoft should be made clear in public, as the credibility of his criticisms is undermined by the fact that he acts as a consultant to companies who are direct rivals and critics of Google, a fact Davies rarely discloses in press releases or comments.[30]
However, on April 23, 2009, the Information Commissioner ruled that although Google Street View carries a small risk of privacy invasion it should not be stopped. They ruled that "There is no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person using the camera is not harassing people". They also ruled that Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act, as an image of a house held on Street View is not a data protection matter, as data protection is about people's personal information.[31][32]
On April 3, 2009, it was reported in the press that residents of the village of Broughton in Buckinghamshire formed a human barrier to stop a Google car from photographing the village,[33] expressing fears that it was "invading the villagers' privacy" and "facilitating crime".[34] As also reported in the press, contrary reactions have come from some Internet users, who have called on people to "descend on the village to snap their own perfectly legal photographs".[35]
On May 21, 2009, Google Street's privacy issues got some attention in the tabloid press, after it was revealed that Google's facial recognition technology automatically blurred out the face of "The Colonel" on the shop signage of Kentucky Fried Chicken stores "to protect his privacy", despite the fact that Harland David "Colonel" Sanders, upon whose image "The Colonel" is based, died in 1980. A spokesperson for Google defended the decision as "it shows how good our facial recognition technology is".[36]
In October 2010, Google admitted to accidentally downloading passwords and e-mails from unprotected wireless networks across the United kingdom
Denmark
According to a Danish media lawyer, Oluf Jørgensen, Google's practice of photographing people on private property is illegal. The Danish data authorities advices people, who are photographed by Google, to turn Google into the police.[37]
Switzerland
In November 2009, Switzerland's Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner Hanspeter Thür announced that his agency would be suing Google because in Street View "numerous faces and vehicle number plates are not made sufficiently unrecognizable from the point of view of data protection".[49]
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Nice, a bunch of unsourced material. I assume you're still trying to waste my time with an encyclopedia, a source I regularly deride because it's craptastic and incapable of aiding in or providing understanding? Why is this so hard for you? You said something. I asked you to clarify. You evaded, put up a smokescreen, falsely claimed to be talking about someplace else, and just put up another smokescreen. Why?
edit: Oh, and I can't help but notice you keep trying to use an entirely different legal framework. While I suppose that could be a subtle commentary it doesn't seem very likely. I assume instead you have no clue what any possible differences are and more importantly you don't have the least clue about the ways in which that slightly different framework doesn't matter with regard to what I've said in this thread. Just an issue of casting things in slightly altered phrasing. Oh, and for the record? Legal theory as accepted and practiced for the EU owes rather more to civil law traditions as practiced in states like France and the Netherlands than it does to the very strong public/private law distinction you're apparently most familiar with, or the somewhat peculiar English "common law" adaptation of it.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 07-13-2011 at 06:52 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Eh, we're not really talking about the EU here. We're talking about the ECHR which was ratified by Switzerland.
The problem with all these privacy questions is that the members of the Council of Europe with regards to privacy have a duty to safeguard it for its subjects. That means that every time you get two questions at least; was there an invasion of privacy and did the member do enough against such invasions? The solutions are all national under this big umbrella, which obviously made it possible in Switzerland - and Holland for that matter - to have the state act on complaint rather than being forced to have to go to court in litigation.
Congratulations America
Well I think it's my fault not to clear up things, but it was LF who put the EU into this. So if you replace pan-EU with pan-European (that meaning all countries that have ratified the ECHR) the statement actually holds.
And to add, the national implementations might vary but in the end you always can go to the ECHR if your complaint has been ruled out by your national levels of jurisdiction.The solutions are all national under this big umbrella, which obviously made it possible in Switzerland - and Holland for that matter - to have the state act on complaint rather than being forced to have to go to court in litigation.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Exactly, and that's where the standards are set.
Congratulations America
No, it's not "lame" at all. It is, after all, a Murdoch empire. Rupert's son was in charge of UK operations, and he testified on behalf of the company years ago when the hacking scandal first came to light. Rupert's daughter is also in charge of some operations, so it's a Family Affair.
If CEO's and corporate owners aren't where the buck ultimately stops, then what's that mean---they're just paying others to be the fall guys?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
