Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[Martinus]

Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.

Is that a question, or a main point? 

If a question, the answer is almost certainly "not at all."  Reporters generally are not quivering in fear lest it be discovered that they, too, erased the phone messages of murder victims or bribed police to get tips on stories.  Those kinds of acts are way over the line, as is wiretapping, playing other peoples' private phone messages, and the like.  News people generally are not lawbreakers in any manner not shared with the population at large.  They don't need to be, to do their jobs.  The exception comes when reporters promise confidentiality to sources, when providing such confidentiality is against the law.  Then, reporters have to decide whether to reveal their sources or go to jail.  Their codes of professional ethics generally require them to go to jail.  I'm okay with that.

Indeed. I'm surprised this even needs to be explained/discussed.

[grumbler]

As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.

Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?

Publishing medical records of people, for example.

I can imagine that there are cases where medical information is in the public interest.  If a political candidate is imminently dying of cancer, for instance, the public presumably has a "right to know."  If some housemother is, then there is no "right to know."

[Martinus]

As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.

Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?

Publishing medical records of people, for example.

I can imagine that there are cases where medical information is in the public interest.  If a political candidate is imminently dying of cancer, for instance, the public presumably has a "right to know."  If some housemother is, then there is no "right to know."

Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).

It becomes more grey when you for example deal with a child of the prime minister.

[The Minsky Moment]

Publishing medical records of people, for example.

There are laws governing this issue.  Unless there is some specific ambiguity in those laws, there is no gray area.

In the US, HIPAA protects medical records at the federal level but media outlets are not covered organizations. 

At the state level, there is a common law doctrine of publication of private facts, which in theory could create ambiguity, except that as a practical matter, it is almost impossbile for a plaintiff to succeed.

[crazy canuck]

As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.

Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?

Privacy laws are relatively recent.  Their boundaries are still being litigated in this jurisdiction and I assume all issues have not yet been determined in other jurisidictions either. Given the strong visceral public reaction against the violation of privacy in this case to what extent will newsrooms shy away from anything that might approach an allegation of breach of privacy in future. To what extent will there be a chilling effect on investigative journalism which is already poorly funded.

[Razgovory]

Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).

It becomes more grey when you for example deal with a child of the prime minister.

No, no  it doesn't.

[The Minsky Moment]

Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).

No not really.  The question is: under what circumstances would a media outlet want to publish someones medical information?  And the answer is: only if there is something about the person or the information that makes it newsworthy.  But if it is newsworthy, then at least under US it is protected. 

[mongers]

So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there a smoking gun moment ?

For me it's when Murdoch senior went back to answer the question about the backdoor entry into No.10 for a meeting with Cameron, Murdoch suddenly became lucid and made a point of saying it was a meeting just after the general election, that they'd had tea as a thank you for help (presumably in the election) and they discussed nothing else.
He was quite clear on that point, so I'm of the opinion that Murdoch and the PM did infact discuss other things and if so what were they; was Murdoch trying to protest the PM ?


Haven't found a video of this, but here's part of the transcript from the guardian website:

3.07pm: JS: Ok. Again, Mr Murdoch, have you ever imposed any pre-conditions...

RM: Which visit to Downing Street are you talking about?

JS: Just following the last general election.

RM: I was invited within days to have a cup of tea to be thanked for the support by Mr Cameron, no other conversation took place. It lasted minutes.

[Admiral Yi]

Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

[mongers]

Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex.   

[Martinus]

Publishing medical records of people, for example.

There are laws governing this issue.  Unless there is some specific ambiguity in those laws, there is no gray area.

In the US, HIPAA protects medical records at the federal level but media outlets are not covered organizations. 

At the state level, there is a common law doctrine of publication of private facts, which in theory could create ambiguity, except that as a practical matter, it is almost impossbile for a plaintiff to succeed.

I thought we were talking about principles, not specifics of the US federal law (which, in addition to the fact that many participants in the discussion are not familiar with it, is not really an object of this thread at all since the whole thing happened in the UK).

[Martinus]

Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).

No not really.  The question is: under what circumstances would a media outlet want to publish someones medical information?  And the answer is: only if there is something about the person or the information that makes it newsworthy.  But if it is newsworthy, then at least under US it is protected.

"Newsworthy" is something else than "in public interest", especially in the scandal/celebrity culture we live in. I'm rather glad the simple fact that something is "newsworthy" is not enough in most EU countries.

[grumbler]

Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex.   

So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"

And your answer is yes?

Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?

[mongers]

Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex.   

So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"

And your answer is yes?

Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?

What error message is the above, anyone help ?

I think it's a sense of humour failure, but iirc that module was stripped when they upgrade the power supply to steam.

[grumbler]

Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex.   

So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"

And your answer is yes?

Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?

What error message is the above, anyone help ?

I think it's a sense of humour failure, but iirc that module was stripped when they upgrade the power supply to steam.

Yes, it is a failure of your sense of humor.

You said a silly thing, and when I noted how silly it was, you still didn't get it.

Don't worry about it.  Just avoid using the term "smoking gun" in the future.  It has nothing to do with oral sex.