Friday, 29 March 2013

Quote Of The Month

Microdave nails the 'Hacked Off' affair at Max Farquar's blog:
I’m well aware that our press is not really “Free”, but at least they do occasionally show willingness to publish controversial stories, as I’ll come to shortly. And the aspect of phone & text “hacking” which has prompted this affair would, most probably, never have come about if the accused had bothered to change the default PIN code that all phones and networks provide. Whilst the determined hack might consider every combination of 4 digit numbers until he/she found the correct one, in most cases they simply key in 0000 for Vodafone or 7890 for Virgin, for example.

8 comments:

Tatty said...

The old "Short Skirt Defence" is acceptable here ? Really ?

I live and learn.

Uncle Badger said...

This has been driving me nuts ever since these D-Grade brained slebs began this ridiculous campaign. It's as if they had tossed away just-read letters in the street, then complained that others had picked them up and read them.

To have perverted the meaning of the word 'hacking' (as the Left has done here) has been hideous to watch. Much like the activities of the aforementioned 'stars', I suppose.

James said...

It is nothing to do with "short skirts".

If you leave your house leaving the door unlocked and windows open it is still illegal for me to walk in and remove items from the premises, and if I am caught red handed and with evidence available that I have broken the law I will be prosecuted and jailed for burglary.

At the same time, neither will your insurance company pay out to replace the items I stole, as you failed to take due care to secure your property.

Now explain why a bunch of micro celebs are being paid thousands for being too stupid to set a password on their telephones.

microdave said...

Thanks, Julia!

Tatty said...

James - "Now explain why a bunch of micro celebs are being paid thousands for being too stupid to set a password on their telephones.

The so-called "phone-hacking" scandal has nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with expectation of privacy. One that we all have, quite rightly, and one that needs re-inforcing.

The journalists concerned had to do quite a bit more than pick up a piece of paper in the street. So the process of accessing someone else's voicemails wasn't particularly difficult to anyone who knew how but that hardly excuses the fact it was a deliberately intrusive act perpetrated on another's private property.

Which is where it has everything to do with short skirts.

From crossing the street to shove a sweaty hand up a the short skirt of a female (or male, frankly), to entering the open door of another person's home to accessing the private data of another person...without any express invitation or permission to do so whatsoever... is morally wrong and they shouldn't have done it, end of story.

Who pays, is paid or whether you agree with payment is another matter entirely and shouldn't be allowed to cloud the issue. I'm surprised that it does.

Moral Of The Story seems to be: It just depends on who is wearing the short skirt.

Anonymous said...

We had one of the freest presses in the world and all the newspapers did with that, at least in recent years, was print which minor celeb was screwing who.

Now the press are whining that their ability to expose political corruption and pursue other worthwhile stories is compromised. Well, a) who's ****ing fault is that? and b) how many stories like that were pursued by the press anyway?

If you want to find out about "climate change" go to WattsUpWithThat or Bishop Hill, you'll get bugger all useful from the papers. If you want to know about EU influence on politics or the horse meat scandal go to EUReferendum. If you want to know about the Savile farce go to Anna Raccoon or jimcannotfixthis ... I could go on.

On most of the important questions of our time the newspapers have little worthwhile to say and almost none of it is investigative, it's just cut and paste from the press releases of bodies with an axe to grind.

JuliaM said...

"The old "Short Skirt Defence" is acceptable here ? Really ?"

Not as a defence, no.

But one must take it into account, no? Personal responsibility IS a big thing here, as James points out.

"To have perverted the meaning of the word 'hacking' (as the Left has done here) has been hideous to watch."

Indeed. Much like the word 'troll'.

"... is morally wrong and they shouldn't have done it, end of story."

And if they'd done it to politicians? Would you still object?

"On most of the important questions of our time the newspapers have little worthwhile to say and almost none of it is investigative, it's just cut and paste from the press releases of bodies with an axe to grind."

Indeed so. There are still good investigative journalists out there, but they seem swamped by the rest.

Tatty said...

Julia - "But one must take it into account, no? Personal responsibility IS a big thing here, as James points out."

Because (just as with all the other examples given) tapping into someone else's voicemails is a widespread, extremely common and daily occurrence...it has happened so often with devastating consequences to so many people over the years now... that Joe Public couldn't possibly have been ignorant of such a thing until journalists did it ? No. We can't pretend that.

They stooped to a new low and the whole thing has taught us all a lesson now, sure, but the manner in which it was done was out of order.

So to answer your next question:
"and if they'd done it to politicians? Would you still object?

On basic moral principle...that such was a deliberately intrusive act on another's private property...yes.

Publicly funded phones issued to politicians stipulated as for use only in an official capacity in service of the public, on the other hand...

I guess it comes down to definitions of "Public" and "Private". Still some work to be done on that, evidently, and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I know I keep saying it but it bears repeating that we really should be careful what we wish for others.

You never, ever provide the enemy with ammunition to shoot you with. I'd have thought James would know better than that ;)