Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
Mrs John Murphy

Phone Hacking

Thoughts on the current scandal? My feeling is that in the end Murdoch, like Armstrong, FIFA and the UCI will some how weather it and come out more powerful than before.

Completely reprehensible, and no doubt just the tip of the iceberg, but its pretty clear how Murdoch has been protected by politicians and the police.
KarenP

Re: Phone Hacking

Mrs John Murphy wrote:

Completely reprehensible, and no doubt just the tip of the iceberg, but its pretty clear how Murdoch has been protected by politicians and the police.


It's completely shocking about the hacking. I was surprised he pulled the plug on the whole newspaper and not just the people involved. It means a whole lot of people who weren't involved have lost their jobs. But I'm wondering, given how unprofitable the newspaper industry is today, if Murdoch didn't have an ulterior motive for pulling the plug.
gerry12ie

Vermin. Good riddance
Nolte

bad week for News Corporation

1: they sell myspace for a loss of €535 million (maybe not €)
2: phone hacking
3: Poor Wiggins.
Bartali

What worries me is how seemingly easy it is to hack a phone.  Just how do they do it?
Guiness

It's easy. I've just hacked yours. You're talking to the Tinkie Ladies. yeah baby yeah. Wink

Seriously I think this fiasco is ridiculous.
smarauder68

Re: Phone Hacking

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Thoughts on the current scandal? My feeling is that in the end Murdoch, like Armstrong, FIFA and the UCI will some how weather it and come out more powerful than before.

Completely reprehensible, and no doubt just the tip of the iceberg, but its pretty clear how Murdoch has been protected by politicians and the police.


don't be naive and assume Murdoch's people are the only ones using that technique...I'm willing to bet it's common practice among the tabloid community in London.
Mrs John Murphy

I don't doubt that at all. Which in part is why other media has been so reluctant to cover the story.

This is why I think (like with doping debates) there is a concerted effort to make it into 'one or two bad apples'.
Bartali

Guiness wrote:
It's easy. I've just hacked yours. You're talking to the Tinkie Ladies. yeah baby yeah. Wink

Seriously I think this fiasco is ridiculous.


I bet you normally have to pay premium rates to listen into a conversation like that ...   Wink
ullrichfan

I thought it would be more of a monologue and some heavy breathing...
Bartali

So you've hacked my phone too ... is nothing private!!
ullrichfan

Yes, except you actually had a conversation.  Selected "highlights" included:

"Put your hand on my Glandon, baby!"

"Is that a powerbar in your shorts, Bart, or are you just pleased to see me?"

and worst of all:

"Last time I rode a tunnel this big, my contacts fell out."

You should be ashamed, you beast  Shocked
Guiness

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Mrs John Murphy

Ignoring the slightly more infantile responses. It's a pretty serious issue given that no one effectively has any privacy.

The hacking of Milly Dowler's phone was perhaps the worst element of it all.

I have absolutely no sympathy with the hacks who think they are being unfairly vilified - afterall, now they know how their various victims felt.

Whether anything will ever come of this and we will actually see reform of the press I some how doubt. The elite always looks after their own. And fear is the best weapon out there.
Bartali

Very good Ulle Smile  Smile

MJM ... as I understand it it is illegal and therefore prosecution should follow whether its Milly Dowler, parents of fallen troops or politicians and footballers.  And I still don't understand how/why it seems so simple to do.
Mrs John Murphy

As I understand it - scanners - very easy to listen into people's mobile conversations in the first place.

From what I understand you don't even need to break the pin code.
Biosphere

Bartali wrote:
. . . And I still don't understand how/why it seems so simple to do . . . .


It's not 'seems' easy - it is easy. Or at least it was.

Things have tightened up a bit now. When you called someone's mobile and got through to someone's voice mail and were prompted to leave a message, you typed in a PIN and then gained access to the voicemails that were there. Most phones were left at factory default 1111, 1234, etc. If not it would probably be something like date of birth which isn't exactly a secret for celebrities.* The phone companies never really publicised this feature so not many even knew about it. If you called from the mobile itself, the PIN stage was skipped (for the users 'convenience') as the call coming from the phone that the voicemail was associated with was taken as sufficient proof of identity, so most people remained unaware that there was a PIN with their voicemail and the vulnerabilities. Even now with all the shit that has hit the fan, that aspect of how it was done is unreported. There were other ways of doing it do such as getting the details from the mobile phone companies through fraud, but the default PIN was the main gateway.

It was a big drop off on the behalf of the security services looking after the Royal Family and Government that they didn't even tighten up something as basic as this. Basically they left their metaphorical keys in their front door whilst telling us about all the rights we had to give up so they could fight terrorism Rolling Eyes

*Unless they're shaving off a few years Wink Or adding a few if they're doing the Marmotte and want a gold medal - rumour has it you're only 37  Laughing
Bartali

Biosphere wrote:
*Unless they're shaving off a few years Wink Or adding a few if they're doing the Marmotte and want a gold medal - rumour has it you're only 37  Laughing


Ha ha ... I wish!!!

So, you still need the 'victims' mobile phone number?
Guiness

My concern is the big PR opportunity that Morduch has taken care of my shutting down the News of the World. Just imagine the amount of sales that paper did today! All he now needs to do is put the money into the other papers he owns.

Is that fair? F*cking not.
Biosphere

Bartali wrote:
So, you still need the 'victims' mobile phone number?


Yeah, but probably easy enough to get if you're a paper with entertainment correspondents, political correspondents, royal correspondents, sports correspondents and so on tasked with interviewing these people.
smarauder68

By the way, government workers are not allowed to keep their personal mobile phones on their person in some govt buildings for the fears of "hacking" - anybody can use software to hack someone's phone and not only listen and read messages, but also listen in to their conversations as long as the phone is turned on...your phone essentially becomes a "bug" - all the perpetrater needs is your phone number...
SlowRower

ullrichfan wrote:
Yes, except you actually had a conversation.  Selected "highlights" included:

"Put your hand on my Glandon, baby!"

"Is that a powerbar in your shorts, Bart, or are you just pleased to see me?"

and worst of all:

"Last time I rode a tunnel this big, my contacts fell out."

You should be ashamed, you beast  Shocked


I have it on good authority that Bart used the old "My mate on the hybrid fancies you" opening gambit with the Tinkies. Smile
Mrs John Murphy

smarauder68 wrote:
By the way, government workers are not allowed to keep their personal mobile phones on their person in some govt buildings for the fears of "hacking" - anybody can use software to hack someone's phone and not only listen and read messages, but also listen in to their conversations as long as the phone is turned on...your phone essentially becomes a "bug" - all the perpetrater needs is your phone number...


The latest stuff apart from the Times stealing the medical records of Gordon Brown's children - so they could break the story that his son has cystic fibrosis, is that they also hacked the phones of 9/11 victims.
mazda

Guiness wrote:
My concern is the big PR opportunity that Morduch has taken care of my shutting down the News of the World. Just imagine the amount of sales that paper did today! All he now needs to do is put the money into the other papers he owns.

Is that fair? F*cking not.


Insignificant.
It is advertising revenue that finaces the cost of producing a newspaper.
Hence the fact that advertisers were fleeing in droves is what drove the demise of the paper.
He was simply cutting his losses.

Actually, I did hear that all revenue from the sale of the final edition was going to some charity.
Bartali

How long would the advertisers have stayed away if the response had been a bold condemnation of past behaviour and an undertaking to clean up their act?  I doubt they would have even walked if that had been the case.

Bottom line is that printed newspapers are on their last legs and this was a great opportunity to cut and run.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
The latest stuff apart from the Times stealing the medical records of Gordon Brown's children - so they could break the story that his son has cystic fibrosis...


I'm not in any way condoning the publishing of the story about GB's son's illness, but it is slightly odd that subsequent to the incident, GB and his Good Lady attended Rebekah Brook's wedding. I think Mrs B was involved in the organisation of said wedding in some way as well.

Whether GB is simply putting the boot in now for News International's "defection" to the Tories prior to the 2010 election (and I would simply say "Well done, Sir!" if this is the case) or that the Browns were so under the influence of NI at the time that they felt they had to attend is hard to say.

It's difficult to understand how anyone would willingly attend the wedding of a person who was directly responsible for publishing what must have been a very distressing article.

Throw into the mix some of the stuff that GB apparently sanctioned Damien McBride and Derek Draper to make up about the Tories as part of a smear campaign and you have very confused picture. There was certainly a decidely ruthless side to GB when it came to trying to beat the Tories, so he's certainly no complete innocent in this sort of issue.

I'll give Gordo the benefit of the doubt; he does at least have a few redeeming features, whereas Brooks, Coulson and Murdoch et al appear to have none.
Mrs John Murphy

LOL - blame the victim much? Seems to me that your hatred of Brown is getting in the way of seeing the bigger picture.

More to the point - Brown did try to launch a judicial investigation into the hacking but was blocked by the head of the civil service who claimed it was 'too political'.

No matter who a person is, they are entitled to privacy, I would be just as outraged if it were revealed that Cameron's son's medical records had been hacked.

You also miss the wider issue which is the extent to which elected politicians are held hostage by the unelected press. All politicians because of the reach of NI feel that they can not hope to gain office without first of all gaining the approval and support of NI.

Your attacking Brown is in poor taste and more about you trying to score cheap political points. Which I have absolutely no interest in. So please take your wumming elsewhere.
SlowRower

I was supporting Brown against NI if you'd actually bothered to read what I posted!

It can't be denied that Brown was not averse to a bit of muck-racking himself, o/wise he wouldn't have employed McBride as a special adviser.

Just because Brown was wronged by NI in respect of his son's medical history does not mean he occupied the moral high ground elsewhere. He's clearly out for a bit of revenge - and who can blame him? - as he made only his second speech in the House since the 2010 election yesterday, specifically to put the boot in.

I completely understand the need for politicians to toady up to the tabloid press. One of Blair's favourite sayings in election strategy meetings was "Never forget that 5 million people buy the Sun every day." The fact that the results of the General Elections hinged (hopefully past tense only now) on Sun editorials is a pretty good advert for a bit of dictatorship, but we are where we are. People collectively (if not individually) get the politicians they deserve.

The Tories are just as bad in this respect. As yet though, Cameron has not been stitched up by News International like Brown was to create the odd situation of him continuing to toady up to NI after the event. Without the phone-hacking scandal I'm sure Cameron, Brooks and Coulson would have continued as "best friends" until the Sun switched back to Labour and stitched Cameron up good and proper to flog a few more papers.

I wonder if Brooks and Cameron will share Christmas lunch again this year...Smile
Mrs John Murphy

I did read your post - and saw that it was a typical troll effort full of false comparisons and irrelevent material designed to take the topic off course.
SAP

Quote:
I wonder if Brooks and Cameron will share Christmas lunch again this year...


Doubtful as she's been arrested today.
Guiness

Hackgate, the Movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFufrqhp0eE

       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum