PistonHeads.com Forum

Sky News gets in on the Hacking Scandal

Sky News gets in on the Hacking Scandal

Author
Discussion

carmonk

7,910 posts

94 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
That's not a valid point either.

Breaking or entering something you should not have broken into or entered is the crime.
Not really. If you wander into someone's garden and peek through their window the outcome is predictable. You won't be charged with a crime and the homeowners won't get £60K compo. I was momentarily outraged when I heard journalists had deleted messages from the Dowler girl's phone but apparently that was made up. I'm also happy for people who 'hack' (is there no other word) into voicemail to be relieved of their jobs but the public resource that has gone into these investigations is little short of outrageous.

Eric Mc

87,702 posts

172 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
So you've never heard of a Peeping Tom?

carmonk

7,910 posts

94 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
So you've never heard of a Peeping Tom?
No, I've never heard of a person being charged with voyeurism without a sexual element. Please provide some links.

davepoth

Original Poster:

26,112 posts

106 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
carmonk said:
Eric Mc said:
So you've never heard of a Peeping Tom?
No, I've never heard of a person being charged with voyeurism without a sexual element. Please provide some links.
Voyeurism in and of itself has a sexual element. Looking in through peoples' windows merely to see what is in there comes under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/sectio...

Muncher

10,415 posts

156 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Only if you do it twice if I remember correctly.
Advertisement

davepoth

Original Poster:

26,112 posts

106 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Muncher said:
Only if you do it twice if I remember correctly.
Something like that - I think it has to be a course of harassing incidents, which could include peering through windows, waiting outside a workplace, that sort of thing.

Eric Mc

87,702 posts

172 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
So "spying" on someone is a crime.

carmonk

7,910 posts

94 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
So "spying" on someone is a crime.
As has already been covered, no, it's normally not.

davepoth

Original Poster:

26,112 posts

106 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
So "spying" on someone is a crime.
No, not if you do it properly and don't get noticed. wink

Oakey

19,727 posts

123 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
According to the news not only did they hack Darwins email account they then passed on these emails to the police and they were used as evidence in the case against him?

roachcoach

3,280 posts

62 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Oakey said:
According to the news not only did they hack Darwins email account they then passed on these emails to the police and they were used as evidence in the case against him?
I may be mixing US law here but iirc courts don't give a st if evidence was illegally obtained so long as the police didn't break the law themselves.

davepoth

Original Poster:

26,112 posts

106 months

Thursday 5th April 2012
quotequote all
Oakey said:
According to the news not only did they hack Darwins email account they then passed on these emails to the police and they were used as evidence in the case against him?
I think that may be the jist of it. At the rate they're going I reckon next week may be a good week to go robbing in London - there'll be no policemen left in the Met...

Eric Mc

87,702 posts

172 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
carmonk said:
Eric Mc said:
So "spying" on someone is a crime.
As has already been covered, no, it's normally not.
Au contraire, if you happen to notice something "by accident" that isn't a crime.

If you systematically set up an unauthorised surveillance over a period of time, it most definitely cam be a crime.
Haviong said all that, I don't think what Sky did in this instance is anything like what Nes of the Woprld were up to.

Of all the Sky TV operations, the only one of which I have any regard for is Sky News and the sooner they are completely separate from the influence of the Murdochs, the better for them. It would be a real shame if they ended up suffereing because of the cary on of their (part) owners.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 6th April 09:01

DJRC

23,563 posts

143 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
carmonk said:
Eric Mc said:
So "spying" on someone is a crime.
As has already been covered, no, it's normally not.
Au contraire, if you happen to notice something "by accident" that isn't a crime.

If you systematically set up an unauthorised surveillance over a period of time, it most definitely cam be a crime.
Haviong said all that, I don't think what Sky did in this instance is anything like what Nes of the Woprld were up to.

Of all the Sky TV operations, the only one of which I have any regard for is Sky News and the sooner they are completely separate from the influence of the Murdochs, the better for them. It would be a real shame if they ended up suffereing because of the cary on of their (part) owners.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 6th April 09:01
Except the whole of Sky TV produces an infinitely better experience than what was available to tv viewers pre-Sky.

Eric Mc

87,702 posts

172 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
That is a matter of taste and interest. On the whole, most of Sky TV has little on offer for me. But that is to do with my personal preferences in what I like to watch. The exception for me is Sky News which is better in some ways than terrestrial news coverage.

DJRC

23,563 posts

143 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
Not really, its in technical innovation aswell.

Sport coverage on TV is in a different league now to back in the day. Sky+/tivi like stuff and multiroom would be unheard of without Sky in the UK and Europe. There was *no* incentive to innovate before Sky.

Eric Mc

87,702 posts

172 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
I am not that interested in the sports Sky has on offer so that side of things has passed me by. As I said, I am speaking of personal preferneces here.
I certainly don't think much of the "innovation" that they have brought to the F1 coverage.

davepoth

Original Poster:

26,112 posts

106 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
Not really, its in technical innovation aswell.

Sport coverage on TV is in a different league now to back in the day. Sky+/tivi like stuff and multiroom would be unheard of without Sky in the UK and Europe. There was *no* incentive to innovate before Sky.
That makes no sense at all. How can you say that PVRs wouldn't have been introduced around the same time by another satellite company (as they were across the world)?

Multiroom is more of a billing innovation than anything else. And as for any other innovation as regards image and sound quality, such as high definition, you need to look to the BBC and their Japanese counterpart NHK rather than Sky.

What they have done is use existing technical innovations to their financial advantage. There's no shame in that (done properly), but they certainly have not been responsible for very much, if any, technical innovation of their own.


Derek Smith

25,026 posts

155 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
davepoth said:
That makes no sense at all. How can you say that PVRs wouldn't have been introduced around the same time by another satellite company (as they were across the world)?

Multiroom is more of a billing innovation than anything else. And as for any other innovation as regards image and sound quality, such as high definition, you need to look to the BBC and their Japanese counterpart NHK rather than Sky.

What they have done is use existing technical innovations to their financial advantage. There's no shame in that (done properly), but they certainly have not been responsible for very much, if any, technical innovation of their own.
Indeed. It is technology itself that has improved TV coverage, not the method of presentation. In fact one thing with Sky is how dreadful some of their sports coverage is. Their rugby commentators vary from poor to dreaful sometimes. Stuart I've got to say something absolutely stupid and indefensible every play Barnes often makes me turn the sound down.

There was no 'incentive' for the BBC to improve their F1 coverage yet it is superb, improving year on year. The incentive to improve when the monopoly of Sky bec ome a reality.

hornet

6,333 posts

157 months

Friday 6th April 2012
quotequote all
I can't say I enjoy Sky's sports coverage, as they insist on padding everything out with endless punditry and analysis. Very much style over content a lot of the time. Plus of course the presentation style is ludicrously overblown...

"SKY MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL! EXCITING PREMIER LEAGUE ACTION FEATURING...um, Wigan and Bolton".

Their F1 ads are doing it as well, especially on Spotify. It's not "F1 on Sky", it's "F1 ON SKY!".