News Corp. Hacking Scandal Spreads To Government 105
wiredmikey writes "The scandal revolving around the News Corporation's now defunct British tabloid, News of the World, has entered a new phase with news that the hacking extended into areas of national security, as detectives working for the Murdoch media empire may have hacked into the computer of a government minister responsible for Northern Ireland. Scary stuff, yet the enterprise security community seems strangely quiet on the topic, aside from showing other journalists how easy it is to do. Potentially, if you know the correct mobile number and you can guess four digits, you too can be listening to your elected leaders' personal messages. The chances are pretty good that it could be their birthday."
Qestion (Score:1)
>if you know the correct mobile number and you can guess 4 Digits
Would that be any 4 digits, or some particular ones?
Re:Qestion (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be any 4 digits, or some particular ones?
Any of these particular digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Re: (Score:2)
You would think if any phone in the world had "Precedence dialing" ABCD buttons, it would be the govt phones, but they dont. Of course the govt types would rely on security thru obscurity and therefore all their passwords would be "A"
Obligatory (Score:3)
Re:Qestion (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're slipping, guys!
Well, well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Will a contrite Rupert Murdoch make a tearful visit to No. 10? MI5?
Really not surprised, when the people in News International (NI) were going for a story they let nothing get in their way. And the juicier the story, the more Big White Letters on the cover of NotW or Sun. Drunk with it, they were, the idea of digging where they should not and getting away with it.
Another round of review for suitability of the Murdoch Clan by stock holders? Might just be enough to dislodge the old goat and his son.
Re: (Score:2)
Will a contrite Rupert Murdoch make a tearful visit to No. 10? MI5?
If things work out correctly, he should be spending significant amounts of his time in the near future at the Old Bailey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
To treat him exactly as any other criminal would be necessary, sufficient and unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
>> You really think Murdoch babysits any of these people?
No, but do you think it's unlikely that get-the-story-no-matter-what directives came from the top? Also, it was not just one case, they were doing this for long, and doing it systematically, and doing it with no regards to moral, ethical or legal aspects. I am not sure all this went on without it being the culture from top to bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
"You really think Murdoch babysits any of these people?"
His son James? the guy who has been implicated in having direct knowledge and acknowledgement of all this by the evidence from a number of ex-NotW staff?
Yes, I think Murdoch did babysit him, from the moment he was born to the moment he put him on the News Corp. board and beyond in fact.
If there was ever a poor example in which to question whether one person babysat another, then this would be it, because he did, quite literally. I suppose you could alw
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a British cultural problem, not a Murdoch problem.
Don't know where you live, mate, but Murdoch's (Rupert and Prince James, the News International heir apparent) have control over London Times, The Sun and News Of The World (now defunct) and wrote the cheques and managed the managers who made all this possible.
Any editor worth his pay packet, when presented with an astounding story, based upon what appears to be inside information, has to ask, "Where did you get this information?" When you are in James' place, overseeing the British arm of News International (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above) you have to do more than gaze in wonder at what a talented and resourceful lot you have under you. You should be paying the occasional visit to your managing editors and ask, "Where are we getting this?"
There has always been the ability of the government to enquire, which they've done a poor job of, just how the news knows some things. Dave's doing his best CYA, but it keeps going along. What are you going to do about foreign ownership of a large part of your media, Dave? Learning anything important, Dave?
Re: (Score:3)
overseeing the British arm of News International (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above)
News International is the British arm of News Corp.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
News International Ltd is the United Kingdom newspaper publishing division of News Corporation.
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
" (incorrectly stated as News Corp in the article above) "
There is a lot of that. The Murdoch Empire (probably the most correct name possible) moved quickly to attach the stigma of "hacking" to those few select managers at one specific newspaper, then closed that one newspaper. The naive are supposed to conclude that those few select managers were rogues, and that they were punished by the Murdoch Empire. And, the naive have mostly come to that conclusion. Amazing, that Rupert is so good at manipulating the gullible masses.
One thing that can't be dismissed, is that Rupert personally paid multiple settlements, out of pocket, long before the scandal really broke. Many people overlook it, but no one can dismiss that fact. Rupert Murdoch was intimately familiar with the details of this hacking operation. Rupert Murdoch personally approved of the operations, or they would have been shut down to prevent the necessity of paying out more settlements.
I can't fault you for naming names in the manner you used. But, I insist that "Murdoch Empire" is most appropriate, and that the Emperor is entirely responsible for all misconduct. This particular emperor seems to hate delegating any authority, to anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
.
News International was allowed to do all their "hacking" under a Labour government, but made the mistake of not supporting the brothers at the last election.
Don't let
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know where you live, mate, but Murdoch's (Rupert and Prince James, the News International heir apparent) have control over London Times, The Sun and News Of The World (now defunct) and wrote the cheques and managed the managers who made all this possible.
Because all the non-Murdoch British newspapers are perfectly well-behaved? The various Dailys, other tabloids etc. have spent years breaking all sorts of laws (just look at the number of cases they've lost in privacy and defamation alone), and that's the stuff they've been caught for - not the daily set of lies, spin, manipulation and hypocrisy (like the Daily Mail trying to use [guardian.co.uk] it's greatest target of hate and contempt, the Human Rights Act, to blow the privacy of people ... giving evidence to an inquiry i
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Murdoch pere, who has worked in the newspaper industry from the bottom up, there is no plausible defence ; for Murdoch fils, he has (AFAIK) never worked in a newspaper, but has only ever worked as a paper-shuffling manager. So he has a pathetically weak defence of "I'm a manager ; I've never been trained in the common ethics and best practices of journalism." (How h
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Informative)
You could certainly argue that this is a problem with the culture and practices of the press and not one specifically with Murdoch. That said, when a significant portion of the popular press is in fact owned by Murdoch the distinction seems moot.
I heard this on the radio yesterday and it seems pertinent: Charlotte Church (a singer - just think 'Bieber' but with classical training and a proper excuse for looking like a girl) was asked to perform at a Murdoch birthday party. She was told that if she waived her usual fee she would be treated "favourably" in News Int. papers. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical but that sounds rather a lot like extortion. It's even worse when you bear in mind we're talking about a girl who was in her early teens at the time.
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced that Britain has anything to do with it, besides merely being where the story was first exposed. Do you suppose the Italian press (mostly owned by their soon-to-be-ex-leader) has never hacked into the phones of people Berscolini wanted discredited? Perhaps you imagine Fox News and TMZ are wholly innocent of any kind of malpractice in the United States? Clear Channel Radio is, of course, wholly innocent of any wrongdoing, right?
It seems to me that most nations have press scandals that they've either successfully suppressed or don't need to suppress because they own all the media that matters.
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of only one difference between Britain and the US in this regard: we don't have O'Reillys, Colberts or Mahers. The only analogue I can think of is Jeremy Paxman but he's not even close; we just don't celebrate(?) political commentators to the same degree.
I can't speak Italian so I won't comment on their media but I will say this: it seems as though Berlusconi got away with much worse than defamation or phone hacking. Ultimately though, I'm only really concerned with how my own country's media op
Re:Well, well.. (Score:4, Informative)
We don't celebrate the same sort of commentary. From "That Was The Week That Was" (TW3) to "Spitting Image" to "The Mary Whitehouse Experience", we've had apolitical satire (ie: everyone's fair game, and like most game it's apparently best served plucked and roasted). Politically-inspired satirists (Ben Elton, Alexi Sayle, etc) also exist. However, they're nowhere near as nasty, cruel or mass-marketed. They're humourists who present the warts-and-all view of contemporary life, including politics, in a way that might provoke a little thought here and there ("Bumbledown: Life and Times of Ronald Reagan" is a great example) but isn't intended to be the mouthpiece of some specific segment of society. There wasn't the mean-spirited attitude there.
Paxman - psssh! He interviews political figures and is nasty to some of them, but David Frost was both a stronger interviewer and a more respectful one at the same time. Being unpleasent isn't necessary or useful in political commentary.
Indeed, I'll argue that that that is really the underlying difference there. Us Brits can get nasty - In Scotland, never, ever try and put ginger ale in a single malt Scotch if you value your life - but it's just not in the same way. We save our violent rhetoric for where it belongs, the football terraces^W^H^WLongship Burnings and the LARP SummerFest.
Re: (Score:3)
Paxman - psssh! He interviews political figures and is nasty to some of them, but David Frost was both a stronger interviewer and a more respectful one at the same time. Being unpleasent isn't necessary or useful in political commentary.
Paxman only cares about one thing: getting an answer to his question. He won't tolerate the typical politician's response of ignoring the interviewer and answering their own question ("Well, I think the real question is..."), and will push it until they either respond or look like the devious bastards that they are.
Around the early part of the 2000s politicians stopped agreeing to be interviewed with their opposition. You would get a Labour MP and a Troy MP come on to be interviewed, sitting right opposite
Re:Well, well.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes; those damn brits who insist on making their police actually investigate corporate crimes. If this was a proper civilised country the corporations would be allowed control the media for political benefit and nobody would lift a finger. Look at how the FBI have managed to make accusations of hacking 9/11 victims completely disappear for example*. That's a proper example of a police system that knows that it's job is controlling the people.
* we'll leave Australians for a while; there has been some uncivilised muttering about news international corruption, but it's quite possible that nothing will be done..
Re:Well, well.. (Score:5, Funny)
I've always wanted to hear Yoda's take on the Mines of Moria. Thank you.
Standards couldn't be much worse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Standards couldn't be much worse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Standards couldn't be much worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Bear in mind, he knows more than almost everyone about the relationship between the press and the government. For better or worse.
He didn't call for regulation by government but concluded that self paid regulation was pointless and self serving. Which I think is fair.
If I am honest I think it has given me a small amount of new found respect for the man who sold the world a terrible war.
Re:Standards couldn't be much worse (Score:5, Interesting)
.
Be very careful how much respect you gain for both Campbell and Leveson - the inquiry has one aim and one aim only, and that is to come up with a framework for press and internet reporting restrictions. Campbell is only one of the chosen witnesses whose statements will be used to this end.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you, Askylist? Paul "the twat" McMullan? You seem ever-so-eager to read this as entirely political, despite the large numbers of apolitical figures, public and private alike, whose privacy has been invaded and whose lives have been damaged by tabloids acting with the most atrocious viciousness.
Re: (Score:2)
If it isn't political, kindly explain why none of the accusations against the Mirror have been widely reported, while every titbit about the News of the World is slavered over by the BBC and the non-Murdoch press.
Most people didn't give a monkeys about the "hacking" until the Millie Dowler thing came out - the whole inquiry is a sop to Labour but has at its root a desire to regulate free speech. I wouldn't bank on Leveson leaving the internet alone if I were you.
And no - I'm not McMullan, who in any cas
Even Easier than Guessing a Birthday (Score:5, Insightful)
About 6 years ago when this all originally flared up, it became clear people were simply not changing their default voicemail pin-codes from the network supplied default. All you needed to do was call the mobile number, listen for which operator it was that was which was responsible for the voicemail, then punch in the default pin-code for that network operator.
At the time, this caused a few MNOs to change their systems so that you could not use remote voicemail until the user had set a new pin-code other than the default. In fact, its sad that operators were not somehow made partially liable for all this in the first place!
Re:Even Easier than Guessing a Birthday (Score:4, Insightful)
While its good you are up on the Phone Hacking. This is about hacking a server... I don't know everything about servers, but I don't think you call many of them and retreive voicemail on them with a PIN. This was about going in and learning things of a highly sensitive nature. Documents. Names. Etc.
We'd probably applaud Wikileaks for publishing some of this stuff. But since it's the weasels at News International (NotW, Sun) you should wonder what they're doing this for.
Re: (Score:1)
That's all true, but so what? Are people allowed to wander along a road, trying all of the doors, and entering when one is unlocked? Voicemail PINs, like locks on luggage, will never be terribly effective; they're to keep the honest people from making honest mistakes. When someone dishonest tries to break the system, the correct action is legal plus jail time.
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing will effectively change (Score:4, Funny)
They'll can some middle and upper middle management types, but Murdock and his cronies that created and encouraged a corporate culture of amoral lawbreakers will continue to walk off, rich and happy, after a few carefully crafted statements full of empty sentiment, and dropping more guilt on top of the scapegoats of the day.
Of course, if there was less government regulation, the field would be level, and countless competitors would exist to force Murdock's News Corp to actually be honest and... aww, damn it, I can't keep a straight face and finish that crap.
Re:And nothing will effectively change (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how less regulation and lower taxes are always the answer to any problem, isn't it?
It's okay, everybody. (Score:1)
That strawman had it coming.
Re:And nothing will effectively change (Score:5, Informative)
Amazing how less regulation and lower taxes are always the answer to any problem, isn't it?
UK has a concept of Fit and Proper, which could be applied to management of News International, forcing them to divest of certain properties if the government deems the Murdochs as unfit or improper. Could you imagine that in the USA? Not I.
Re: (Score:2)
At this stage, I think it's fair to say that the UK has a *nominal* concept of Fit and Proper. Given that it didn't stop Richard Desmond getting his hands on his print and television assets, and given that it hasn't seen the removal of James Murdoch or indeed anyone at all, it appears to be worth three-fifths of fuck-all in practice.
Re: (Score:3)
naah, there's a better one (Score:2)
Leveson (Score:5, Informative)
Watching the Leveson inquiry over the last couple of weeks has been one of the most depressing things I've ever done; the lowlight was probably former NOTW journalist Paul McMullen saying the following on the subject of privacy:
In 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never actually come across anyone who's been doing any good. Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in.
Privacy is evil; it brings out the worst qualities in people.
Privacy is for paedos; fundamentally nobody else needs it.
Basically the papers are full of amoral arseholes (Not just NI papers either, it's clear that the Daily Mail and others have been up to it as well), the Police and the ICO have been shamefully complicit and the government didn't want to look into it in case it upset Murdoch and he told his papers not to support them any more.
Makes you proud to be British really...
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this as I heard that on NPR this morning. Has the transparent society begun?
-l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if he would say those things if someone were spying on *HIS* wife or kid.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Leveson (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you proud to be British really...
But now McMullen and all his awful associates have been dragged out into the daylight and they can't hide anymore. Yes, it is ugly. Yes, it is depressing. But. It will eventually get better. First, there must be the full investigation. Second, there must be the corrective measures. Hopefully they don't wedge a new government agency into the pressroom. For all the rot, there has been some good and press need ability to hold government to account, something which would be difficult if the government vetted news.
Re: (Score:2)
Any debate on privacy always draws me to The Right to Privacy, by Warren and Brandeis Harvard Law Review. Vol. IV December 15, 1890 No. 5 [mit.edu]:
Of the desirability -- indeed of the necessity -- of some such protection [for privacy], there can, it is believed, be no doubt. The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle. The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury. Nor is the harm wrought by such invasions confined to the suffering of those who may be the subjects of journalistic or other enterprise. In this, as in other branches of commerce, the supply creates the demand. Each crop of unseemly gossip, thus harvested, becomes the seed of more, and, in direct proportion to its circulation, results in the lowering of social standards and of morality. Even gossip apparently harmless, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil. It both belittles and perverts. It belittles by inverting the relative importance of things, thus dwarfing the thoughts and aspirations of a people. When personal gossip attains the dignity of print, and crowds the space available for matters of real interest to the community, what wonder that the ignorant and thoughtless mistake its relative importance. Easy of comprehension, appealing to that weak side of human nature which is never wholly cast down by the misfortunes and frailties of our neighbors, no one can be surprised that it usurps the place of interest in brains capable of other things. Triviality destroys at once robustness of thought and delicacy of feeling. No enthusiasm can flourish, no generous impulse can survive under its blighting influence.
The relationship between this 120 year old paper and modern society is illuminating.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. This Paul guy is such a turd.
Privacy is the part of life where your personal ethics are found and expressed; and it is shared, smartly, with those who agree with said ethic and are included in the privacy.
In all of us, we have thoughts, acts, and materials in private, that if made public, would be construed to be 'evil' or 'wrong' in some form. There is no absolute ethic, though many genius minds like John Rawls have tried (and I agree with him, but some don't).
The big kicker for privacy is that the
Re: (Score:2)
erm, because:
a) they sell millions of paper on the back of their actions
b) they have publicly ruined the lives of hundreds or possibly thousands of people
c) there has been blanket impunity until very recently
d) the hacking has been on a vast scale
Pin based Social Engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Social Engineering.
I hate to be the bearer of obvious news, but the DEFAULT password on everyones voicemail is usually 1234, 1111 or something. Every place I worked it was the same. Every cell carrier, landline and VoIP... they use the same default password, not random ones.
Plus there are people who have the voicemail password programmed into their cell phone. That sets the stage for hacking the voicemail without doing much at all. Just call in via a landline and try the defaults first, then try their birthday and family birthdays. You'll get most peoples PIN's this way.
The only reason there isn't large amounts of chip+pin/ATM pin fraud is because ATM's eat cards after 3 wrong answers, but if you have access to a POS system to keep trying, keep trying PIN's. Keep buying sticks of gum from gas stations and 711's until you guess the pin.
In voicemail systems, the voicemail retrieval number is easily found, and everyone STUPIDLY puts their full name in the voicemail greeting. NEVER DO THIS. Your voicemail message should not be in your voice, and should not have your full name in it. Better yet, only list the extension. The reason is that you make yourself a voicemail hacking target for social engineering by having your name on the voicemail.
Say I'm a hacker wanting to get the PIN to someone elses voicemail. I keep trying voicemail boxes until I find someone with a name that works their. Next thing I do is get ahold of the technical service desk and ask for them to reset the voicemail PIN and say I'm the person on the voicemail greeting. Oversimplified (if they're doing their job they'll ask for the employee badge number, but oh, that can be socially engineered too.)
When I worked for (CELL PHONE CARRIER), it's easy to reset passwords, just call in, verify the SSN and the password will be reset. Such horrible abuse of personal information.
When I worked for (INTERNET SERVICES), someone tried to social engineer me using the voicemail. Fortunately my name isn't easy to spell. Someone went through the phone directory and left messages asking to be called back to deal with their account. As the customer was in the US and I was not handling US customers it raised a red flag right away.
Please don't respond in seriousness to this (Score:2)
"The chances are pretty good that it could be their birthday."
Is that the so-called 'birthday attack' ?
Re: (Score:1)
Obligatory declaration of being shocked. (Score:2)
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't just a troll trying to divert attention from this particular incident of malfeasance by News Corp (itself a rather vile organization), and note that there is rather strenuous objection to government hacking, spying on its own citizens and the whole big brother thing on a regular basis. In fact, such objections can be found in just about every single thread over 100 comments, regardless of the actual topic of the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, such objections can be found in just about every single thread over 100 comments, regardless of the actual topic of the thread.
A new variation on Godwin's Law?
Wunderbar!
Re:What about government hacking? (Score:5, Interesting)
The government hacks people all the time, but I rarely see outrage about it.
Cite or STFU. That is all.
Actually, no it isn't. The government - or more correctly the police - are quite capable of getting their hands on your data easily, without resorting to "hacking" if they get a court order. They don't need to hack anything.
Besides that, Britain isn't some tin pot dictatorship (yet) where the police are basically there to do what politicians say: ministers have been tried, convicted and sentenced for a number of crimes, so they patently aren't above the law. I've no doubt, however, that they still get away with the same kinds of financial shenanigans that any rich banker or company executive does.
Re: (Score:2)
To summarize: The likelihood of the government blackmailing you is pretty low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. How can you present the discovery of the public interest defence as something new?? I despair, I really do.
Why isn't FOX News shut down in the U.S.? (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, it's bad enough that Fox News is owned by a man who allegedly changed his nationality to get around foreign ownership laws of media outlets (how come the Aussies and Brits don't have those laws? That way he'd only influence ONE country's media).
But aren't there laws in the U.S. against the blatant use of the public airwaves to push a particular viewpoint or even "hatemongering" (just as one example: look at the number of times Fox accidentally spelled "Obama", "Osama" and mentioned his middle name "Hussein")? For a detailed look at this bias watch the documentary "Outfoxed".
Even if you were to claim that this is protected free speech (yes but not using public spectrum! Use a satellite like Howard Stern!) couldn't there be a case made for shutting the network down for the public interest? Several recent studies have shown that Fox viewers are not only less informed than viewers of other network/media, but they are less informed than people who WATCHED NOTHING AT ALL (don't know exactly the comparisons, google it).
Until then I didn't know that ignorance could be a negative value. Wow.
Of course, if there is any proof to the allegations that his company spied on Americans, perhaps some form of justice will be done.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but not using public spectrum
I don't like Fox news, and I hate defending them, but they don't use public spectrum. They're a cable/satellite channel. Outside of inciting violence (and various libel laws I'd imagine) they can pretty much say what they want.
Man am I ignorant! (No really) (Score:2)
Thanks for not thoroughly trashing me. I didnt realize they weren't on public airwaves. I got confused when I saw the local Fox affiliate (which IS broadcast I think) and thought it was tied to the Fox cable news network (it isn't is it?).
Anyway, my only excuse is I've been out of the country for 5 years and I'm at my uncle's place. He's got his A/V setup as a mishmash of satellite, cable (and terrestrial?) and I'm not sure where I'm getting ech feed from.
Definitely the restrictions on what he has to say
Re: (Score:2)
Even-so, while broadcast news may generally be biased one way or the other, in my experience they are much more fair than Fox News.
If there is no law forcing them to do so, I'm not sure why exactly that is. I expect it is because they fear that if they cross the line too far that there will be repercussions. The Supreme Court did rule, after all, that the Fairness Doctri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Fox News radio programs are syndicated in some markets.
I did not speak incorrectly. Broadcast, as we were talking about it, refers specifically to public airwaves. They used to have somewhat special regulations in terms of news broadcasting, since the public broadcast spectrum is inherently bandwidth limited. Of course that's less
Re: (Score:2)
Government Bribery, more probably (Score:3)
The thing people keep ignoring in this ongoing story is how most of the "hacking" happened with the assistance of one or more people working for the government: police officers (some of them have already been nabbed for this) and political appointees, along with the standard-issue public employee bureaucrats.
The official who had his computer "hacked?" BS. He sold the information to someone, and when he got caught, he lied.
That's what happens when you give bureaucrats the power to tap phones and other private communications: they sell it to people who would get arrested for doing it, or who are too dumb to do it themselves.
It's not just NewsCorp, too - half of the tabloids in the UK have been caught in this affair.
Why would you need to guess the 4 digit code? (Score:2)
I know the popes passcode (Score:2)
It's 0666
Re: (Score:2)
you (and pretty much all christians) were almost right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_115 [wikipedia.org]
People who do this are guilty of espionage... (Score:2)
Many countries frown upon spying on government officials, even to the extent of imposing life imprisonment or execution.
Given corporations' statuses as people, it would seem logical to try them based on the laws of the country in which they operate.
I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, so would instead ask that News Corp, if/when found guilty, simply be locked up for life, just as any other "person" would be.
I defy anyone to challenge that logical conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
When you hear "Corporations are People", your perception is wrong.
Try thinking more along the lines of Soylent Green.
And with that, putting them through a tree chipper is a perfectly viable solution. With food coloring added before packaging, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are tasty meat!
Network operators could do better (Score:2)
Why is there no discussion of requiring the network operators to improve security?
After all, it's fairly easy for them to know who is placing a call, and to bill the right user: I can't spoof someone else's phone and make them get the bill for my call. So why can't the carriers lock voicemail to the device by default?
I don't want the hassle of using a PIN every time I dial my voicemail, but I am quite happy for my cellphone with my SIM to be the trusted token. Yes, if I'm unlucky enough to have my phone st
An Organisation Breaking Privacy Laws? (Score:1)
Every phone call and text message I make are monitored and recorded. The websites I visit are recorded. My emails are read. My posted packages and letters are opened and read. My car number plate is recorded as I move across the country. My credit card transactions are watched, and the movements I make on public transport with my oyster card is recorded and logged. My medical records are routineley examined, as are records of any dealings I may have had with the police. This is done without my knowlege or c