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

steelcityblues · 16-07-2011 11:57PM

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

Bob Z · 17-07-2011 01:26AM

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 · 17-07-2011 01:57AM

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

southsiderosie · 17-07-2011 02:08AM

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 · 17-07-2011 02:39AM

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

jill_valentine · 17-07-2011 02:48AM

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 · 17-07-2011 03:24AM

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 · 17-07-2011 04:18AM

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 · 17-07-2011 04:20AM

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 · 17-07-2011 04:55AM

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 · 17-07-2011 05:36AM

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 · 17-07-2011 12:02PM

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 · 17-07-2011 12:05PM

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 · 17-07-2011 12:39PM

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 · 17-07-2011 12:54PM

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 · 17-07-2011 02:08PM

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 · 17-07-2011 02:27PM

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 · 17-07-2011 02:49PM

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

Overheal · 17-07-2011 03:24PM

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 · 19-07-2011 05:11PM

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

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

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

Comments