This voicemail hacking business - anyone else not offended?

[joebongo]

It's hardly hacking at all, in fact the default voicemail PIN's are common knowledge and not at all of any interest to real hackers.

If I choose not to set a PIN then it's my problem, and frankly you're welcome to my voicemail - it's not earth shattering stuff and by not setting a PIN I'm really leaving the door open to anyone who wants it.

To me, this is all a load of hype and I think it may be done on purpose to see off a dying business before it became unprofitable.

Anyone else not at all massively insulted by this whole debacle?

[Robb F]

agree with you tbh on the most part, but I heard they were doing it to murder victim's families which I think is a bit off.

[gtdc]

It was the deleting messages from Millie Dowler's inbox so it looked as if she'd accessed them - but she was already dead. That was really fked up.

[Marf]

joebongo said:

It's hardly hacking at all, in fact the default voicemail PIN's are common knowledge and not at all of any interest to real hackers.

If I choose not to set a PIN then it's my problem, and frankly you're welcome to my voicemail - it's not earth shattering stuff and by not setting a PIN I'm really leaving the door open to anyone who wants it.

To me, this is all a load of hype and I think it may be done on purpose to see off a dying business before it became unprofitable.

Anyone else not at all massively insulted by this whole debacle?

So to be clear, because they've called it "hacking" you couldn't give two sh-ts about the illegality of the privacy breaches?

If so, wow.

[ewenm]

I think it's immoral but I'm utterly unsurprised that the UK media have done it. So the only bit I find insulting or offensive is all the non-NewsCorp media sources feigning outrage.

[anonymous-user]

joebongo said:

frankly you're welcome to my voicemail - it's not earth shattering stuff and by not setting a PIN I'm really leaving the door open to anyone who wants it.

To me, this is all a load of hype

I suspect your view may be slightly different if your entire life and livelihood hinged around a public image, and that "stuff", however trivial, was being used without your consent to try to tarnish said image.

[tank slapper]

joebongo said:

It's hardly hacking at all, in fact the default voicemail PIN's are common knowledge and not at all of any interest to real hackers.

If I choose not to set a PIN then it's my problem, and frankly you're welcome to my voicemail - it's not earth shattering stuff and by not setting a PIN I'm really leaving the door open to anyone who wants it.

To me, this is all a load of hype and I think it may be done on purpose to see off a dying business before it became unprofitable.

Anyone else not at all massively insulted by this whole debacle?

I think you are missing the point. The ease of which it took place is neither here nor there. I expect that most people weren't even aware that this facility exists on their voice mail, let alone that anyone could easily gain access to it. Would you be happy with someone standing at your front window watching everything you do all the time? If your answer is no, then why? Surely you could just draw the curtains - leaving them open is obviously an invitation for people to look in.

What people are finding offensive is that it is entirely without bound. They were trawling for gossip that they could print as a matter of course, which means all the arguments about 'free press' and public interest fall flat. It wasn't in the name of exposing wrongdoing by an official, but purely an exercise to sell more papers.

[Marf]

^^ Good post.

OP is an idiot, frankly.

[Alfa numeric]

joebongo said:

...in fact the default voicemail PIN's are common knowledge ...

Really? I don't know anyone who knew that they could remotely access their voicemail before the Prince William story brought it into the public domain.

[zac510]

It's a password protected service regardless of what the password is. I think the label of hacking is entirely valid.

[NoVetec]

It is pretty poor-play, breach of privacy is not good at all to say the least.

But the whole thing has been blown out of proportion as usually happens in Britain, there's even going to be another bloody government 'enquiry'.

[Cogcog]

I have checked your voicemail as invited Mr 'Joebongo' and someone from a company of lawyers had left a message for 'Rupert'. They say 'get the feck out of the country while you still can', if that means anything to you?

[tank slapper]

NoVetec said:

It is pretty poor-play, breach of privacy is not good at all to say the least.

But the whole thing has been blown out of proportion as usually happens in Britain, there's even going to be another bloody government 'enquiry'.

For a very good reason - there are strong implications that corruption involving members of the police is involved and perhaps widely. It is necessary for an enquiry to take place, and hopefully get rid of those who are corrupt because they undermine the confidence the public have in the police.

[joebongo]

Marf said:

joebongo said:

It's hardly hacking at all, in fact the default voicemail PIN's are common knowledge and not at all of any interest to real hackers.

If I choose not to set a PIN then it's my problem, and frankly you're welcome to my voicemail - it's not earth shattering stuff and by not setting a PIN I'm really leaving the door open to anyone who wants it.

To me, this is all a load of hype and I think it may be done on purpose to see off a dying business before it became unprofitable.

Anyone else not at all massively insulted by this whole debacle?

So to be clear, because they've called it "hacking" you couldn't give two sh-ts about the illegality of the privacy breaches?

If so, wow.

No, I think the use of the word "hacking" is to sex it up a bit. I just don't think it's a big deal. Yes it is an invasion of privacy and all that, but it should just be dealt with by the police/lawyers as normal.

Maybe my moral "outrage-o-meter" is broken but I just can't be arsed to be overly offended.

[wolves_wanderer]

Am I offended? Yes, undoubtedly, it is disgusting what has happened. However I am far more offended by the way that the BBC are taking such a sanctimonious line, drip-feeding revelations to gleefully maximise damage to News International and continuing to give unjustified prominence to this story.

The difference in their attitude towards illegality in this case (nobody hurt or killed) and illegality in the wikileaks case is interesting. Broadcasting unchallenged Gordon Brown's rambling [over 10 minutes primetime Radio 5] justification for his inaction was astonishing. I can't help wondering if all this information has been sat on for so long for the express purpose of scuppering the Sky News takeover and/or embarrassing the government.

[joebongo]

Cogcog said:

I have checked your voicemail as invited Mr 'Joebongo' and someone from a company of lawyers had left a message for 'Rupert'. They say 'get the feck out of the country while you still can', if that means anything to you?

Nah, you'd find one from the bloke up the road who has a printer on the blink and wants me to have a shufty. If you'd like to do it then it would save me a bit of time.

The post about accessing Milly Dowler's messages with the purpose of making them look like they'd been accessed is more sinister though. That is very wrong I'll grant you.

[T84]

gtdc said:

It was the deleting messages from Millie Dowler's inbox so it looked as if she'd accessed them - but she was already dead. That was really fked up.

I don't think they did it so it looked like she was alive, they did it to clear space in the inbox and take on more messages.

[drivin_me_nuts]

I think it utter sickening that a newspaper would ever either employ or use the services of peoples who seem quite happy to abuse the sufferings of those already going sheer bloody hell in order to sell more of their st.

I cannot even begin to comprehend how it musy have felt for the parents of Millie Dowler to have been told the news of their child's death. How much more of a violation is it that the people printing the story of their child's death are complicit in the abuse of their privacy. Words fail me... moreso that you would not be bothered by this story. It is a violation of the very worst sort, an obscenity even.

Even with Brown and I have no idea what the 'truth' is on that, I think it is no business what so ever for a newspaper to print the details of a child's medical history, however attained. That to, is an obscenity and an invasion into the life of someone who has no voice to respond.

If ever there was a shred of respect for journalism as a profession, I think these events taint it beyond all past transgressions. The fact that serious journalists themselves are spitting feathers at the abuse within their profession speaks volumes. Serious journalists must be quaking in their boots at what is going to emerge next. It's more than the monkeys though, it's one of the chief grinder's, whose reputation is on the line. He's a dead man walking business wise.

It does not matter what Murdock does next, he will be forever tainted with the stench of this story. The miasma of his corporate violations will follow him, his business and his family, long after he's past being dust. He must be so very proud of his business and those he employs.

[NoVetec]

tank slapper said:

For a very good reason - there are strong implications that corruption involving members of the police is involved and perhaps widely. It is necessary for an enquiry to take place, and hopefully get rid of those who are corrupt because they undermine the confidence the public have in the police.

That can of course only be a good thing. Yet I fail to see what can be proved.

I understand there were emails allegedly linking payments to officers, but I don't think anyone taking an illegal payment would do so along with written correspondence directly implicating themselves.

I am willing to eat my words if when the enquiry ends, it leads to a mass kick-out/jail time for those in the wrong.

[anonymous-user]

joebongo said:

Nah, you'd find one from the bloke up the road who has a printer on the blink and wants me to have a shufty. If you'd like to do it then it would save me a bit of time.

The post about accessing Milly Dowler's messages with the purpose of making them look like they'd been accessed is more sinister though. That is very wrong I'll grant you.

And deeply offensive - I don't know how you can sit there and say it isn't! They also hacked into the relatives phones of soldiers who had been killed in Afghanistan. What they possibly hoped to gain from this is beyond me.