One of the more curious aspects of the ongoing News of the World privacy invasion scandal is the focus on mobile phone hacking accusations, when a far wider range of dubious and downright criminal tactics were allegedly in play at the tabloid newspaper. Clive Goodman, the NotW's former royal correspondent and Glen Mulcaire, a …
Slap Me later
And here we have the "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to fear" that we are so used to hearing Mr Prescott, after all, it's all in the database, even all your expenses for pies.
It's all a bit like the "Contact Point" database. If you are an MP or Famous then you can opt out (Something to hide?), unless of course you are normal person, in which case TOUGH.
Remember "Nothing to hide !"
/A bit fat "fail" coz you cannot have it both ways.
What you have to remember..
Is that those celebs know that on one hand they could put the boot into the NOTW, but they
also know that the NOTW has a long memory.
One wrong step out of place, a long lens photo of them taking Bolivian marching powder in a
club toilet, and that's their career down the drain, and remember that they give the NOTW a kicking
then that's the entire Murdoch empire after them.
So most of those celebs are thinking is it worth taking them on and getting a shit storm in return!
Paris because even she knows , not to pull a tiger by the tail!
There's nothing wrong with databases! You must be a pussy if you're afraid of a database! "Run away, run away, the databases are coming!" Pussy!
Oof! Sorry about that, I Kempf'ed out for a minute there... That was a weird sensation, I even thought I could feel a penis growing out of my forehead for a moment...
On the subject of privacy:
Max Mosley was right all along.
There, I said it. Now I'm going for a shower. I feel dirty.
I heard someone (?) say that in many cases information hadn't been "hacked" but obtained "sneakily" (that being somehow illegitimate but lawful)...
If you look at the data protection and privacy terms of most institutions (e.g. banks) you'll find you can drive a bus sideways through the T&Cs - all anyone has to do is to persuade someone they need the information for the "investigation" or "prevention" of crime (no warrant required, no obvious ID checks made) etc.(pick the clause of your choice, they're all pretty vacuous) and I'm sure everything the investigator wants will be helpfully and promptly dumped in their laps.
That having been said, I'd just like to know why the forces of Laura Norder don't seem to give a stuff about data protection, illegal communications interception etc. Surely if the NotW et al can get at almost anything they like they, so could more seriously nasty types... which ought to make it a general security/policing issue...
If you're going to make fun of Aaron Kempf you should mention his full name so that it gets into Google's database.
What is the fuss all about? I just don't get it.
So, a scummy sunday newspaper has decided to do a bit of digging and muckraking on 'High Profile' public figures. Who created them as 'High Profile' public figures in the first place? The red tops and there customers.
You may rest assured that the red tops will not be investigating the bank accounts or other records of 'High Profile' (or indeed Low Profile) criminals or Civil/Public Servants or Business leaders. Crims - 'cos they'll get killed if they nose about and get caught. Civil/Public servants & business leaders 'cos it would take time and effort to get a real public interest story and they'd get injuncted up the wazoo if there was a hint of publication.
So far only one paper has been outed but they're in a competitive business so I suspect they've all been at it. The NoTW was just the first (&only?) one to get caught.
Nothing to Hide, Nothing to fear.... Move along now... We've got your number so don't cause a fuss...
One way to overcome NoTW et al is to treat information information a bit like drugs. Eliminate the value in information by making it all available.... But then, what would they do to sell red tops if the couldn't pique "our" interest with salacious stories....
Hacking my arse
I'm pissed off with the way it's being described as 'hacking into mobile phones'. AFAIK, they were simply listening to peoples voicemail. Full instructions for UK Vodafone (from their web site) except for the guesswork:
Dial +447802 090100
Enter mobile number
If you don't know the PIN, guess! Many networks use the last 4 digits of the phone number backwards or 5555, 0000 or something equally obvious and consistent. Most people either never change this or aren't even aware that it exists because it's not normally needed to retrieve voicemail from your phone.
Naughty and probably illegal but not really hacking?
@ What you have to remember..
So, your suggestion is that the celebrities should allow (Murdoch's) papers to walk all over them, violate their privacy with gay abandon and in some cases simply make up stories to flog newspapers?
They may be celebrities, but they are people too. They have feelings, they have families, they have rights too regardless of who may be jealous (IMHO a prime motivator of that Perez Hilton character). A lot of harm is caused by the pressure that celebrity reporters create because they must information, preferably negative, to sell newspapers.
The result is that celebrities have close to zero privacy and security because it's always possible someone flogs their diary or other information for the irresponsible amount of cash those papers can offer, and if it all goes wrong the papers just count the litigation a cost of doing business. Can you imagine having to guard your every word because the nice person you just met might be taping you to use it against you later (no joke - has happened)? Who on earth can these people eventually trust? Even old friends are rooted out by those so-called journalists and either harassed or bribed into talking about the celeb in question. A single smile at someone becomes an affair, a bad hair day becomes a cancer scare or drug use allegation - do you consider that normal?
Meanwhile, the people who could really DO with some attention get off Scott free because this lot draws off the limelight. Where were the other papers re. expenses? Why did nobody else ask questions when FOI was so tardy? *Real* journalism is thin on the ground.
The most recent reminder that there is a human behind every celeb were the few words of Michael Jackson's 11 year old daughter. Let's not forget that in many cases there are also children around, and they too get affected by this.
In case you're wondering, I'm no celebrity. But my work involves providing exactly that sort of protection a lot of them lack so I see it from up close. I wouldn't want that life for myself for the world..
And sneaking out at the bottom of page 7 today is...
Never mind the rehash of an old crime (remember, even the Guardian said they had no *new* evidence of the crimes these stooges *had already been convicted of" - not even new crimes, FFS!), what I want to know is, how many people were looking at the "small print" stories where ZaNu Labour are wont to bury things they don't really want people to notice...
Anon, for obvious reasons.
Certainly on T-Mobile and probably on all UK networks, dial the number you want to "hack" and as soon as it starts to ring you press # and it asks for the voicemail PIN and in you go. Time this for when you know the "celeb" is not going to be answering their phone and you'll just be one of many missed calls they undoubtedly get!
have fun with this one 6185642640
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Wall St's DROOLING as Twitter GULPS DOWN analytics firm Gnip