back to article LulzSec say they'll release big Murdoch email archive

The hacktivists behind a hack on The Sun's website claim to have extracted an email archive which they plan to release later on Tuesday. News International's systems were hacked on Monday night. As a result, visitors to The Sun's website were redirected towards a fake story on the supposed death of Rupert Murdoch by infamous …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Of course not

They lost them when the paper folded...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Good luck finding an impartial jury for any court cases

This will only go to give the news more fodder and I'd go as far as saying nobody in the UK isn't aware of whats going on. So much so that if there are any court cases the prospect of finding a true impartial jury will be most colourful.

Moral being if your going to hack then don't use lame hack's that any 11 year old can work out. Also don't hack joe public, they have bigger bite in the end than large companies.

Issue realy is phone companies having default passwords, same kind thing as a bank issuing cashpoint cards with default numbers.

But lets all ignore how lulsec said they were on a break and now sucking up to joe public by giving them more fodder that they don't realy even need. Lets face it - emails obtained illegaly and unverified will realy help things here to go even further downhill.

Sadly though the news aint goona change until Apple releases a new iPhone - but thats joe pleblic for you.

0
0
Thumb Up

Interesting development

I don't think it really matters if the stolen emails can be used in evidence or not. If they contain anything of significance they will allow others to ask the right questions - and that should provide the evidence needed.

1
0
Big Brother

Forget about the newspapers, there are much more people doing this

(Almost) everybody has been missing the point. When newspaper guys can "hack" voice mailboxes, who can't? It's a well-known issue with the service, and there is no fix coming. Anyone can still do it, so why should we care about 3000 "victims" when there are countless more. I wouldn't blame newspapers, but the service provider for a negligence of security and for not sufficiently informing customers about the risk of having voice mailboxes.

2
0
Trollface

Is 'doch headed for the dock?

Time will tell.

My guess is no, he could slime his way out of anything.

0
0
Silver badge

I'm getting impatient

where is all this lovely info?

1
0

@ac subjudice

I'm not an expert on law, you're claiming the disclosure of emails would not be subjudice,

but if that evidence makes any future defendants look guilty, and presumably it does make certain indviduals look guilty, then this compromises the trial: given the level of interest in this case, the defendants would be able to legitimately argue that no jury can ever give them a fair trial, that the jury members could have all been influenced by the media before the trial even commences.

Whilst I'd love to see Lulsec spill the beans on that obnoxious woman (if there are any beans to spill), I'd like to see her banged up.

I just can not believe for one second that so much universal phone hacking has gone one on such a massive scale with large financial payments being made and that none of the managers, chief execs knew about it. Of course they did.

2
0

But, TkH11 ...

... you have shown that there is no way of ensuring that "... the defendants would be able to legitimately argue that no jury can ever give them a fair trial, that the jury members could have all been influenced by the media before the trial even commences ..." because there will be a lot of people who would " ... like to see [them] banged up". So many people "... can not believe for one second that so much universal phone hacking has gone one on such a massive scale with large financial payments being made and that none of the managers, chief execs knew about it." Unless and until a trial happens, the attitude of "Of course they did" means that the case is being prejudged, and there will be no way to find members of a jury that reliably can be found to be neutral.

This is not the first time that a high-profile case has come up, and in which members of the jury could not possibly have failed to have some opinion beforehand. So far, there have been no successful appeals based on this argument, though it would just keep adding hypocrisy to the thing if the NI lot tried to affect a decision (either to prosecute, or to appeal a conviction) on this basis, given that they have whipped up so much frenzy about some other cases that it has been impossible to get a fair trial!

0
0
Pint

Damn

63000 wait a minute that's the same number as my luggage combination.

0
0

Does anyone actually think there will be serious legal repercussions for Murdoch?

Especially after yesterday it seems unlikely. This release, at the very least (if it contains something incriminating), will disgust the public even more with the Murdoch franchise, hence a revenue hit.

0
0
Holmes

Call the Police!

"Oh no, we've been hacked by crooks!"

"Call the Police! Call the Police!"

"Wait a moment. On second thoughts...?"

0
0
Mushroom

Hope they go broke over this...

Big Brother's corruption incorporates News Limited as well as various other news sites. Perhaps reasonable journos can find a source outside these major manipulators to fund them rather than an organisation that fabricates stories out of nothing & hides the truth when it exists...

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018