FBI to investigate claims of hacking 9/11 victims' phones by News Corporation

AudreyHepburn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/14/fbi-news-corp-hacking-claims

Another of Rupert Murdock's companies is now under investigation by the FBI for phone hacking, this time into the phones of 9/11 victims.

Where will it end?

He doesn't stand a chance if the FBI can prove these charges though, not where 9/11 is concerned.

El Guapo!

Scum

The_Kew_Tour

They should be locked up and key thrown away

Yakult

Great to see a dirty empire fall.

AudreyHepburn

It just gets worse and worse doesn't it? Nobody's safe.

sunflower27

How anyone can put $$$$$ signs before the feelings of grieving people sickens me beyond belief.

I suppose at this point we can now look at any major event and presume phones were hacked. Despicable.

Lollers

Good F*CK off Murdoch

mackg

I hope their use of hate and fear mongering post 9/11 comes back on Fox News now and that they disappear out of existence and stop feeding their bull**** to the American people. All of them are just branches of the same rotten tree.

Helix

its not murdoch who was hacking the phones lads. it all came from notw, and ive no doubt that detestable and all as murdoch is, he knew not one jot about it

Freddie59

Helix wrote: »

its not murdoch who was hacking the phones lads. it all came from notw, and ive no doubt that detestable and all as murdoch is, he knew not one jot about it

TBH I'd find that a bit of a stretch.

Helix

Freddie59 wrote: »

TBH I'd find that a bit of a stretch.

really? you find it a stretch that a guy who owns dozens of companies, in many countries on different continents doesnt know the goings on of every single publication in his media empire?

honestly?

Overheal

Helix wrote: »

really? you find it a stretch that a guy who owns dozens of companies, in many countries on different continents doesnt know the goings on of every single publication in his media empire?

honestly?

Who says he needs to know it all, and not just the important facets?

It's plausible he did know. As I'm sure it's plausible he didn't know. Plausible Deniability. Lovely thing.

Emiko

mackg wrote: »

I hope their use of hate and fear mongering post 9/11 comes back on Fox News now and that they disappear out of existence and stop feeding their bull**** to the American people. All of them are just branches of the same rotten tree.

Until they bring back the Fairness Doctrine, there will always be scope for the existence of the likes of Fox News.

Helix

Overheal wrote: »

Who says he needs to know it all, and not just the important facets?

It's plausible he did know. As I'm sure it's plausible he didn't know. Plausible Deniability. Lovely thing.

theres no way he knew. there are plenty of things that bosses simply dont want to be told. im sure he knew well the kind of rag the paper was, and that there'd be shady goings on, but at his level of business that's not stuff he wants to know


anyone who thinks he knew, consented or even cared is codding themselves here

craggles

Stop being ridiculous, it's his company of course the buck ****ing stops with him.

mackg

Considering that now its two different companies he owns it's quite the coincidence.

Helix

craggles wrote: »

Stop being ridiculous, it's his company of course the buck ****ing stops with him.

do you think he was in the notw office or something day in day out?

he owns the company, he doesnt run it

yeah the responsibility for it lies with him since its his, but that doesnt mean he knew what was going on. stop being so daily fecking mail

Helix

mackg wrote: »

Considering that now its two different companies he owns it's quite the coincidence.

i can guarantee you it happend with a lot more of them, plus plenty of non murdoch owned papers. they were all at it

craggles

Helix wrote: »

really? you find it a stretch that a guy who owns dozens of companies, in many countries on different continents doesnt know the goings on of every single publication in his media empire?

honestly?

So how much are News Corporation paying you?

craggles

Helix wrote: »

do you think he was in the notw office or something day in day out?

he owns the company, he doesnt run it

yeah the responsibility for it lies with him since its his, but that doesnt mean he knew what was going on. stop being so daily fecking mail

if I was "daily fecking mail" I'd probably support phone hacking!

Helix

craggles wrote: »

if I was "daily fecking mail" I'd probably support phone hacking!

no no, daily mail love to play the reactionary card without stopping to think things through

rupert murdoch has better things to be doing with his time (in his opinion) than calling every one of his papers on a daily basis to find out exactly what each and every one of them are up to

that's not what owners of empires do. they build things up, and let other people run them for them

its like expecting barack obama knows whats going on in a council office in the sticks in alabama

Chuck Stone

Helix wrote: »

its not murdoch who was hacking the phones lads. it all came from notw, and ive no doubt that detestable and all as murdoch is, he knew not one jot about it

Helix wrote: »

anyone who thinks he knew, consented or even cared is codding themselves here

Who cares?

He's the head of the snake.

Helix

Chuck Stone wrote: »

He's the head of the snake.

if you go after him the people responsible will never be brought to account, meaning theyll be able to do it again

orourkeda

This will represent as a big a sh1tstorm as news corporation are likely to face. Its highly they will get through this without some form of negative impact

Killer Pigeon

I'm dying to know what the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Foxnews are going to say to this one ... such hypocrites.

Augmerson

Ahahahahaha Murdoch is ****ed hahahahahaha!

im invisible

Yakult wrote: »

Great to see a dirty empire fall.

i thought it was the world trade center?

mackg

Helix wrote: »

i can guarantee you it happend with a lot more of them, plus plenty of non murdoch owned papers. they were all at it

Hope they all come down for it, and it's not like I am saying hang Murdoch and leave it at that. Everyone implicated in the scandal from the PIs that did the illegal hacking need to be held responsible for what they did.

amacachi

Even if it's found to have happened I wouldn't expect much to come of it, would be hilarious to see how it's handled though.

AudreyHepburn

Helix wrote: »

its not murdoch who was hacking the phones lads. it all came from notw, and ive no doubt that detestable and all as murdoch is, he knew not one jot about it

My backside he didn't! He owns the paper for god's sake, he has to have known.

double GG

Do people even understand the term phone hacking? It has absolutely got nothing to do with hacking anyones phone!

It's 'hacking' someones voicemail which has nothing to do with the handpiece. The Voicemail on your phone is run by each individual Network Company (02 Meteor etc.)

Also lets take it into context yes, these people shouldn't be doing it and it's plain wrong but some people are stupid enough to leave their passcodes for their voicemail to the default code of 1111 or 1234 etc..... It's basically asking to be 'hacked'.

Don't get me wrong I am not condoning these people's actions as it is downright wrong but would you leave your ATM pin at a default no. if this was the case, that banks gave all ATM cards a default pin? What about passwords for everything else? Everyone seems to have their own passwords for them so why the hell shouldn't it be different for your own personal voicemail.

Whilst here now I could easily go through my phone book on my phone and 'hack' a good few of their voicemails simply because they haven't changed the passcode and it's an original default one.

Again I'd like to reiterate my stance that I don't condone these actions, but this is such an easy way of getting into people's voicemail, it's actually laughable how easy everyone here, with a phone could do it to a lot of people.

For God sake people you wouldn't show everyone your ATM pin or your email passwords so bloody change your Voicemail password PLEASE!!!!

steelcityblues

I would be worried about Murdoch organising a friendly chat with an FBI higher up, right about now.

Bob Z

double GG wrote: »

Do people even understand the term phone hacking? It has absolutely got nothing to do with hacking anyones phone!

It's 'hacking' someones voicemail which has nothing to do with the handpiece. The Voicemail on your phone is run by each individual Network Company (02 Meteor etc.)

Also lets take it into context yes, these people shouldn't be doing it and it's plain wrong but some people are stupid enough to leave their passcodes for their voicemail to the default code of 1111 or 1234 etc..... It's basically asking to be 'hacked'.

Don't get me wrong I am not condoning these people's actions as it is downright wrong but would you leave your ATM pin at a default no. if this was the case, that banks gave all ATM cards a default pin? What about passwords for everything else? Everyone seems to have their own passwords for them so why the hell shouldn't it be different for your own personal voicemail.

Whilst here now I could easily go through my phone book on my phone and 'hack' a good few of their voicemails simply because they haven't changed the passcode and it's an original default one.

Again I'd like to reiterate my stance that I don't condone these actions, but this is such an easy way of getting into people's voicemail, it's actually laughable how easy everyone here, with a phone could do it to a lot of people.

For God sake people you wouldn't show everyone your ATM pin or your email passwords so bloody change your Voicemail password PLEASE!!!!

Most people don't know you can listen in you messages from another phone thats why they never changed their pin codes

But wasn't it the case that the NOW employees were getting the numbers of poeple who HAD changed their pin codes?

Tehachapi

I'd hold rebekah brooks more accountable than murdoch himself tbh.

southsiderosie

Helix wrote: »

rupert murdoch has better things to be doing with his time (in his opinion) than calling every one of his papers on a daily basis to find out exactly what each and every one of them are up to

that's not what owners of empires do. they build things up, and let other people run them for them

its like expecting barack obama knows whats going on in a council office in the sticks in alabama

Tehachapi wrote: »

I'd hold rebekah brooks more accountable than murdoch himself tbh.

Which is exactly why I would be surprised if Murdoch did not know what was going on - he reportedly enjoys a very close relationship with Brooks, and saw her as critical to News Corp's future. To go back to the Obama comparison, she wasn't some outsider in a 'council office in Alabama', she was working in the West Wing. Murdoch now knowing what she was up to would be like Obama not knowing what Rahm Emanuel (the former chief of staff) was up to.

Spread

He knows that she knows. Where the bodies are buried, that is.

jill_valentine

Murdoch is famously aggressive, hands-on newspaper man. If he wasn't pushing his people to take every possible avenue to get the story, legal or otherwise, it would be massively uncharacteristic of him.

Of course he knew his people were breaking the law.

Overheal

Helix wrote: »

theres no way he knew.

I'll just cut you off right there: Of course there is a way he knew. It's so very very narrow minded to completely rule out the possibility. Just because its much more highly probable he didn't know anything about it, does not mean his knowledge of it is not a plausible circumstance. Things are never absolute or impossible. In the vast majority of cases, they are simply improbable. The chance for them being true however, still exists. However narrow. Even if as narrow as a mind that believes theres no possible way someone knew what was going on in a company that they owned.

Helix wrote: »

if you go after him the people responsible will never be brought to account, meaning theyll be able to do it again

Hmmm when it's a media corp, we don't go after the leaders, noooo. On the other hand when it's the Military, and they have helicopters and they shoot at vans and tripods and it becomes international ****ing news - thats when its OK to call for the head of the president of the united states, and the generals, and complain that the soldiers shouldnt be used as scapegoats. You can apply that to a thousand situations over the years. Why is scapegoatery more acceptable in this particular case, Helix?

Helix

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

My backside he didn't! He owns the paper for god's sake, he has to have known.

rupert murdoch owns LOTS of stuff

do you reckon he knows whats going on behind the scenes at every single one of those businesses all the time? get real ffs

just because he owns it doesnt mean he knows everything that's going on. he's not fecking omnipotent

Helix

Overheal wrote: »

Hmmm when it's a media corp, we don't go after the leaders, noooo. On the other hand when it's the Military, and they have helicopters and they shoot at vans and tripods and it becomes international ****ing news - thats when its OK to call for the head of the president of the united states, and the generals, and complain that the soldiers shouldnt be used as scapegoats. You can apply that to a thousand situations over the years. Why is scapegoatery more acceptable in this particular case, Helix?

when have i ever called for the head of the president of the united states, or any other country, because of the act of their military?

answer: never

so why exactly are you asking me that question?

Spread

The Daily Beast opens up a Western Front. He is surely fcuked on this side also

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/15/how-rupert-murdoch-s-money-helps-him-makes-friends.html?om_rid=NsjbL4&om_mid=_BOIZhcB8cX6VsT

Overheal

Helix wrote: »

rupert murdoch owns LOTS of stuff

do you reckon he knows whats going on behind the scenes at every single one of those businesses all the time? get real ffs

just because he owns it doesnt mean he knows everything that's going on. he's not fecking omnipotent

Your argument is He can't know everything; therefore he knows nothing.

You get real, ffs.

Guy:Incognito

Bob Z wrote: »

But wasn't it the case that the NOW employees were getting the numbers of poeple who HAD changed their pin codes?

How would they do that unless they were given the passcodes?

Guy:Incognito

Overheal wrote: »

Your argument is He can't know everything; therefore he knows nothing.

You get real, ffs.

But is your arguement not that he could know everything, therefore he does?

AudreyHepburn

Helix wrote: »

rupert murdoch owns LOTS of stuff

do you reckon he knows whats going on behind the scenes at every single one of those businesses all the time? get real ffs

just because he owns it doesnt mean he knows everything that's going on. he's not fecking omnipotent

Yes I do. CEOs/Company Directors do tend to know what is going on in their business as every decision has to go through them at some point. If they were in the dark about anything, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Guy:Incognito

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I do. CEOs/Company Directors do tend to know what is going on in their business as every decision has to go through them at some point. If they were in the dark about anything, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Seriously? You think all decision in all of Murdochs businesses are run through him? Would he even have the time to do that, assuming he devoted all day everyday to it? He still needs to eat and sleep too.

Does anyone have a figure on the number of businesses hes involved in, so we can get an idea of the time involved?

Bob Z

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Bob Z wrote: »

But wasn't it the case that the NOW employees were getting the numbers of poeple who HAD changed their pin codes?

How would they do that unless they were given the passcodes?

it's been a while since I read about but I think they might bribed telephone company employees

were they able to get the number of people who were exdirectory

Guy:Incognito

Bob Z wrote: »

it's been a while since I read about but I think they might bribed telephone company employees

were they able to get the number of people who were exdirectory

They still couldnt get in to the voicmail without a passcode though, unless it was still default.

Surelay anyone that took money and gave out information should be at least loseing their jobs.

Da Shins Kelly

I really hope Murdoch gets done on this. The man is a vomit.

Overheal

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But is your arguement not that he could know everything, therefore he does?

My stance is therefore we should all stfu and see what the FBI discovers, since nobody on here knows wtf they are talking about, and has no idea what Murdoch knows, or doesn't know. Regardless of the probabilities.

You guys are shooting down every comment with "Really? You think he's Omnipotent?" it's a little flaccid. You have no way of knowing if he knows. I have no way of knowing that he doesn't. Whats the current point of this tangent when there is no substance to go off of?

joseph brand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0nN_snrOtk

Murdoch interviewed by spineless Fox 'guy'. (short clip)