A committee of MPs was presented evidence on Tuesday that several News of the World journalists were involved in illegal mobile phone hacks, piling further pressure on News International which maintains that only one rogue reporter was involved. Appearing before the Commons committee on culture, media and sport, Guardian …
As far as I am aware it was also uncovered that the NoTW gossip gang were also gaining illegal access to peoples bank accounts, DVLA records, tax records and police records (to name a few)
Since these are a lot more serious and a few of which carry very specific criminal penalties of their own, my question is obviously "why all the fuss about a few voicemails?"
Seriously - it seems an example of very odd priorities when 'hacking' a voicemail, which lets face it usually just involves knowing a 4 digit pin is taken more seriously than gaining illegal access to police files
Or is it just me and recordings of "I'm stuck in traffic back in 30 - bye" *are* more important, why did no one tell me? I'd have rehearsed my last few message better
These ignorant arragant MPs are so out of touch...
The shear scale of hypocrisy of the MPs is incredible. They are creating a relentless police state to monitor all of us, yet if anyone monitors them, then they go nuts!
new word, first use
"Redacted" ... fortunately and quite recently we all know what that means now, well done for using that word in a sentence that does not involve another word 'expenses'
I'm guessing the voicemail is being highlighted because the NotW would have hoped they'd get a juicy bit of gossip from one sleb or another along the lines of who's shagging who and how often and what flavour dildo was inserted where.
Dog Bites Man
Journalists behave unethically? Strewth!
Agree with Enrico (above) and I think that the main reason this is becoming a story is more to do with a Guardian / BBC / Labour Party attempt to smear Cameron's advisor (who at the time resigned over the matter in his position as editor of the 'Screws) in revenge for the Damian McBride episode.
For the politicians involved I'm guessing that their mobiles were paid for out of parliamentary expenses anyway. Which kind of makes them "our" voicemail messages, no?
Your question echos one posed by El Reg as well.
A possible answer may be the matter of proof. I have a feeling the Guardian went public with what it could prove so any possible court case based denial would result in a black eye for NotW and even more publicity.
Once they have published this evidence it's just a matter of following Mr Plod who has to start digging into what appears to be quite a few crimes, and dutifully report what else has been going on. Much cheaper than paying someone for more data, and Mr Plod can go legally where the Guardian would have to resort to potentially questionable tactics as well, and I don't think they would (or at least in this case - no idea otherwise).
IMHO that would be a smart and simple strategy, and inflict maximum damage as they report proof after proof..
Redacted? Or censored?
One naturally expects private information to be blacked out, but the right word is censor, not redact.
An old Aussie raz to Murdoch and his ilk
" Suffer in ya jocks! "
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests