Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous To Release Sun, News of the World Emails
siliconbits writes "After having hacked Rupert Murdoch's flagship news website, thesun.co.uk, and redirecting its readers to a spoof front page and pilfering its email servers, Anonymous' unofficial mouthpiece, Sabu, has revealed that the group is 'sitting on [the sun's & NOTW's] emails' with a press release from Anonymous & possibly more coming in a few hours. While that website has already been taken down, the email bounty is likely to be potentially more damaging with Sabu releasing details of two of the Sun's top three employees, Rebekah Wade and Bill Akass, the former editors of the Sun and News of the World respectively as well as Lee Wells & Danny Rogers, Editorial Support Manager at News International and Sun Online Editorial Manager respectively, as a taster of what's coming next."
I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations
You mean the investigations that Scotland Yard has already swept under the rug and tried to kill several times? Yeah, we wouldn't want to compromise those thorough investigations by competent, unbiased police officers. Shit, I heard they're going to put Sherlock Holmes on it, just the make sure that Scotland Yard's unblemished reputation in this matter is upheld.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
A kind word for an eye will leave you blind and your attackers unharmed. Some people just deserve having their asses kicked.
You're mixing the issues here. The fact that a jury pool has been tainted does not in any way affect the admissability of evidence.
Whether or not the evidence is tainted depends on a few factors. First off, if the evidence is illegally obtained by a third party not under the influence of the authorities, the evidence is not automatically tainted. Chain of custody becomes an important issue, however, since the prosecution would have to pretty much prove that the evidence was not altered by the third party. However, the most important one to this example, I think, would be the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Namely, whether the authorities would have inevitably discovered these documents in the course of their investigations (assuming full compliance with warrant issued by the court). I don't think there is any way the authoities would NOT serve a warrant for those emails.
There are of course other factors involved in whether the evidence is admissable. But a third party acting completely independently from the authorities acquiring evidence illegally does not make that evidence inadmissable, no matter whether or not it taints the jury pool.[1]
And for what it's worth... without public outcry, it's quite possible that the alleged guilty parties at NOTW would enter a plea bargain and have the evidence suppressed (legally or extra-legally, they have a ton of influence). It's why this is such a big scandal... that's exactly what they've been doing for years. Public access to the information is the foundation of the only weapons we have against the government-corporate-media complex[2] that subverts the US democracy.
[1] IANAL. If you want a real legal analysis, consult a real lawyer. YMMV. Half of what I know about law I learned from Perry Mason, Colombo, and Law and Order. The other half comes from researching topics relevant to slashdot discussion on the internet. Do not use my post as legal advice. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
[2] I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much that line makes me sound like one. It's obvious to me that US Legislators are far more beholden to the companies that pay their election bills and hire them once they are out of office than they are to the public; especially so for media companies, who by-and-large control what information the public has.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
At the end of the game, The king and the pawn go back in the same box.
What about:
1) Hacking the phones of the police officers investigating the phone hacking case?
2) Bribing police officers for information on those same officers.
3) Blackmailing some of those officers with information obtained by 1) and 2).
4) Bribing the officers they couldn't blackmail in 3 to drop the case.
5) Hacking the phones of politicians.
6) Bribing police (and doctors?) for information on politicians.
7) Using the information gained in 5) and 6) to dictate favorable legislation.
8) Using his control of diverse news media to interfere with elections.
9) Using the threat of interference to influence politicians
There's a lot more to this case than just the phone hacking. Picking on "regular people" is what outraged a lot of people, but now they might actually pay attention to the other, more important, stuff.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Civil Rights protesters can't be trusted -- If they're breaking the law by riding in the front of buses or participating in illegal protests speaking out the very laws that make such things illegal, or performing their "duty as a statesman" to overthrow an oppressive government (as mentioned in their original Declaration of Independence), then they can clearly NEVER be Trusted!
Are you now or have you ever been in violation of any law? Aha! Your vehicle exceeded the mandated speed limit! Your words are meaningless to me now!
Also: I do not abide by laws that are unjust, or logic that is flawed. Nor do I wait idly for the next blow from my assailant's fist.
One group did it for tabloid headlines and profit, the other did it to expose the truth and corruption in government. What they are doing seems quite a bit different to me.
Also, don't forget one of the biggest accusations of illegal activity was that it appears that the police were bribed by representatives of Murdoch Corp. We'll see how that portion comes out in court, but it appears that it might have gone all the way to the top, hence the resignations of the chief of Scotland Yard. We may see even more as apparently, one of the editors of the News of the World during the time of the phone hacking/alleged bribery went to join the Prime Minister's cabinet.
This is what happens when he law fails. Murdoch and his ilk cannot and will not be punished in our current system of law. Vigilante justice is wrong, but it is the only justice left to deal with these folks. If the law would do its job this would not happen.