News International is still the story

[Guest]

A good friend of mine who was a political Press Officer always maintained that a good PO should never become the story - what would she have made of ACampbell/ACoulson goodness only knows

However, News International continues to make the front pages ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13598746

Nice that the Met has finally 'uncovered' this one

[rubbernecker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13598746

Nice that the Met has finally 'uncovered' this one

Not so sure you're right about this particular case. I suspect this might be the rare one where the paper could legitimately argue that hacking was in the public interest.

[Flosshilde]

Whatever you think of the person who's phone was hacked, & his alleged misdemeanors, it can never be in the public interest for a newspaper to hack into someone's phone. (apart from the fact that it is illegal)

[amateur51]

Whatever you think of the person who's phone was hacked, & his alleged misdemeanors, it can never be in the public interest for a newspaper to hack into someone's phone. (apart from the fact that it is illegal)

Exactly.

Surely this is a matter for the Met and for the Met alone? If the Met then has sufficient grounds, it can apply to a judge for permission to tap the relevant phone?

That's how it used to be I thought - but rubbers is one of our legal experts here

[scottycelt]

The Good Lord be my merciful judge, I now find myself in full agreement with Ams 'n' Flossie ...

Who the heck do these hacks think they are?

If they have broken the law in an attempt to get their grubby paws on what they suspect might be an 'exclusive' they should be charged like any other bunch of criminals.

'Public interest' my foot!

[rubbernecker]

Surely this is a matter for the Met and for the Met alone? If the Met then has sufficient grounds, it can apply to a judge for permission to tap the relevant phone?

That's how it used to be I thought - but rubbers is one of our legal experts here

Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came in the police don't need to apply for permission from a judge. They are (like a surprising number of others, including local authorities) already authorised under the Act to conduct covert interception of private communications. You can bet the Met were hacking Dizaei's phone when they were investigating him (and that he knew it).

To say it can never be in the public interest for a newspaper (or anyone else who is not authorised) to hack someone's phone is to deny the existence of public interest; or, at the very least, to say the question of public interest is something that can only be determined by the police or the authorities. Do you honestly believe that is the mark of a free society?

[amateur51]

Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came in the police don't need to apply for permission from a judge. They are (like a surprising number of others, including local authorities) already authorised under the Act to conduct covert interception of private communications. You can bet the Met were hacking Dizaei's phone when they were investigating him (and that he knew it).

To say it can never be in the public interest for a newspaper (or anyone else who is not authorised) to hack someone's phone is to deny the existence of public interest; or, at the very least, to say the question of public interest is something that can only be determined by the police or the authorities. Do you honestly believe that is the mark of a free society?

Thanks for this explanation of the law, rubbers

However I am appalled that local authorities have these powers - is it limited, and to whom? What's the chain of command, etc. Do they have to liaise with the local police, keep a record book of such intrusions into citizen privacy?

In answer to your question, in the time honoured approach of answering like with like, do you really want a media mogul who is a self-confessed republican to have the power if he has the desire to tap the Queen's phone? I really am appalled that politicians, (Straw? Blunkett?) have allowed this to happen. I assume it's all under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorists. How those who would do us harm must be laughing at how we have allowed our politicians to fritter away our right to privacy.

[amateur51]

The Good Lord be my merciful judge, I now find myself in full agreement with Ams 'n' Flossie ...

Who the heck do these hacks think they are?

If they have broken the law in an attempt to get their grubby paws on what they suspect might be an 'exclusive' they should be charged like any other bunch of criminals.

'Public interest' my foot!

Strange bed-fellows indeed, scotty (pace Mrs Scotty)

[Flosshilde]

To say it can never be in the public interest for a newspaper (or anyone else who is not authorised) to hack someone's phone is to deny the existence of public interest; or, at the very least, to say the question of public interest is something that can only be determined by the police or the authorities. Do you honestly believe that is the mark of a free society?

Depends what you mean by 'public interest'. Is it in the interests of 'the public' to have a newspaper take the law into its own hands? Is it in the best interests of the public for a newspaper, owned by a mega-rich media baron who has no public accountability & tries (with some success) to manipulate governments to decide to hack into someone's phone? Remember that it wasn't just the phone of a policeman under suspicion - a large number of politicians and others had their phones hacked.

Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came in the police don't need to apply for permission from a judge. They are (like a surprising number of others, including local authorities) already authorised under the Act to conduct covert interception of private communications. You can bet the Met were hacking Dizaei's phone when they were investigating him (and that he knew it).

Which is not a desirable situation, & has come about because of the 'war on terror'. However, an unacceptable legal situation doesn't make an illegal practice acceptable.

[rubbernecker]

However I am appalled that local authorities have these powers - is it limited, and to whom? What's the chain of command, etc. Do they have to liaise with the local police, keep a record book of such intrusions into citizen privacy?

I really am appalled that politicians, (Straw? Blunkett?) have allowed this to happen. I assume it's all under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorists. How those who would do us harm must be laughing at how we have allowed our politicians to fritter away our right to privacy.

Ah, I knew that would get you going! I agree - it's an extremely alarming state of affairs that few have realised has been the law for the past decade. You can read about it in more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIPA

And although I would love to go head to head with Flossy on what s/he thinks is the public interest, I need now to escape from this fine fortress in Wapping, home of Britain's finest newspapers, and cycle my way home

[amateur51]

Ah, I knew that would get you going! I agree - it's an extremely alarming state of affairs that few have realised has been the law for the past decade. You can read about it in more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIPA

Well I had a look at the entry on RIPA and was pretty flabbergasted.

But if Defence Intelligence, GCHQ, HM Revenue and Customs, Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service and territorial police forces of Scotland all require a warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice to do phone-tapping, I don't understand how News International can manage it without this permission.

And why isn't Cleggie doing something about this? (What am I saying?)

What's to stop a newspaper from tapping someone's phone as part of a fishing exercise until they find evidence of a misdemeanor likely to be in the public interest?

[amateur51]

Avaaz is getting a petition together to prompt Vince Cable to come out publicly against Murdoch just as jeremy Hunt is making his decision about BSkyB

http://www.avaaz.org/en/bkyb_decision_time/?cl=1094955101&v=9252

This is for information of course

[rubbernecker]

Well I had a look at the entry on RIPA and was pretty flabbergasted.

I don't understand how News International can manage it without this permission.

What's to stop a newspaper from tapping someone's phone as part of a fishing exercise until they find evidence of a misdemeanor likely to be in the public interest?

The short answer is, as has been said above, is that they can't because it is an illegal practice. When I said in my first post that the paper could plead public interest, I meant it only as a moral argument, not as a legal defence. Although a jury might well be sympathetic to the argument ...

It seems to me there has a lot of knee-jerk moralising by commentators over the role of the press and the rights of the individual, both in the phone hacking affair and the so-called superinjunctions fiasco.

I'm afraid the practice of listening to people's answerphone messages (which is what this so-called hacking is) has been quietly going on, rightly or wrongly, in newspapers and other organisations for years. It only became illegal after RIPA came into force in 2001. The purpose of RIPA was not only to give certain people blanket authority to intercept private communications so they didn't have to go to a judge to get permission, but also to codify exactly what practices were illegal, which due to the increase in web and mobile phone use, and advances in wireless technology, had become hopelessly outdated.

It caught many journalists and investigators by surprise, since they were simply not aware that they could not continue to do what they had been doing before. Leaving aside the question of legality, was what they were doing wrong from a moral point of view? If you were told there's a great story going on over there, but you have to peer through a crack in the fence to see it, would you honestly turn a blind eye?

I don't have any particular agenda, although I have worked as a lawyer in this industry (including the Murdoch empire) for 20 years. My own view, fwiw, is that the mess that News International now finds itself in has been the result of ignorance and stupidity (and subsequent mis-handling of the story) rather than any intention or desire to do wrong. However, I do passionately believe in freedom of speech and the public's right to know.

Public interest, for me, means anything that I as a member of the public should know about, because it affects my security, health or welfare, or that of my fellow citizens. Like most of us, I am not comfortable with the concept of surveillance: the fact that the Welsh Ambulance Service is empowered to know how often I phone my wife, or that the taxman can bug my car, but I try to justify it by saying this is the price of living in a secure, democratic and free society.

[Nick Armstrong]

Stirring stuff, rubbers. I completely agree with you on this:

It seems to me there has a lot of knee-jerk moralising by commentators over the role of the press and the rights of the individual, both in the phone hacking affair and the so-called superinjunctions fiasco.

I'm uneasy about a couple of things though.

the public's right to know.

I have always found that an unhelpful weasel phrase. It begs so many questions.

.....what they were doing wrong from a moral point of view? If you were told there's a great story going on over there, but you have to peer through a crack in the fence to see it, would you honestly turn a blind eye?

I don't think your innocent analogy tallies with the intrusive harassment to which the tabloids are prepared to stoop. And again, it depends what 'the story' is.

As regards the notorious concept of the "public interest", I agree with your definition.

What is nauseating is to encounter tabloid journalists et al. trying to argue that just because someone is a rich or famous or successful sportsman or actor, that means there is a "public interest" in peddling their sexual indiscretions to millions of readers.

[amateur51]

Like most of us, I am not comfortable with the concept of surveillance: the fact that the Welsh Ambulance Service is empowered to know how often I phone my wife, or that the taxman can bug my car, but I try to justify it by saying this is the price of living in a secure, democratic and free society.

Those are very nice and special meanings of secure, democratic and free, I would suggest rubbers

I'm afraid the practice of listening to people's answerphone messages (which is what this so-called hacking is) has been quietly going on, rightly or wrongly, in newspapers and other organisations for years.

Almost always wrongly in my book.

The subject & detail of this conversation makes me feel rather old and rather alarmed and very angry