Greetings from Stanford! I've spent the morning in lectures on popular constitutionalism and how power was intended to be in the people's hands by our founding fathers. Luckily for you, this is also unit one so I will be extra smart this year :)
One thing we will frequently see this year is that parts of the Constitution conflict with each other. And when this happens- which part wins??
I thought we would head a different direction this week and talk about your rights to privacy (implied 9th amendment right) v. the rights of press (1st amendment right). But, we are heading across the pond for this week’s example.
As I hope you know, our Bill of Rights is based on England’s Bill of Rights. So why we are using a British current event, my principle theory to you will hold in our country as well.
So, as I hope you’ve heard- New Corp’s New of the World (a sensational rag-mag news company that practices “Yellow Journalism” has been found that they were hacking into private citizens phones and planting wire taps. Now, this is NOT a search and seizure topic since it is a private company doing this to private citizens.
But my question to you is Where should journalistic ethics draw the link on their quest to get the story and expose an issue? How far is too far? And if you were the citizen who had been tapped- where is your right to privacy theory?....
Explore these links before you post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14183281
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/europe/19hacking.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/08/world/europe/20110708-key-players-in-the-phone-hacking-scandal.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
I think there is no doubt that the phone-hacking had been taken to far. If it is true that the police had been taking bribes, then this issue is much more controversial. If that is the case, then the government is at major fault, and action must be taken against it. But, that problem is more directly with the government than phone-hacking.
I am not sure what the phone system is like in Britain, but if it's like America, the system is of multiple private companies that provide a service to it's users. No one forces us to use these services. I think that we use telephones at our own risk, whether it is brain cancer, or interception of our information, we are the ones choosing the private company in hopes that we remain safe.
On the other hand, the USPS is not a private company. The US mail is run by the government, and the government is supposed to protect our privacy by it's own rules, right? So, I believe that if a person wishes to keep information private, they can have more faith in the government operated USPS, than the private operated phone companies. I also believe that the government has more right to concern if people begin wide-stream hacking into the US mail, because that is a direct infiltration of the government itself.
I think that having a conversation on a Sprint phone, or Yahoo email, or Facebook message all guarantees you about the same amount of privacy. It is the responsibility of each of those companies to keep your information private, not the responsibility of the government. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to make the right decision, and our problem if we can't do such a thing.
When a journalist is trying to achieve a noble goal- like exposing illegal government activities or trying to help out someone who is wrongfully accused- some breach of privacy and use of questionably legal tactics to discover the truth are justified if in the end, people are helped.
The problem arises in determining which reporters' goals are noble, and if their stories are worth infringing upon the privacy of others.
However, News of the World is a tabloid paper. As much as they'd like to think they're making a positive impact on the world, they aren't. Yellow Journalism isn't respectable in any right.
According to the New York Times article, News of the World "regularly hacked the cellphone messages of celebrities, politicians and other public figures." News of the World was prying on the scarce private lives of these public figures in search of scandals that could ruin them. Anything that would make 'good news'.
Now if a journalist suspects a man on death row has been framed by a murder, wouldn't they exhaust all means to find evidence to support the truth in order to save the life of an innocent man? Even if it means infringing on privacy?
In these extreme cases, exceptions should be drawn in the moral codebook of journalism.
And I'm not just saying this because I just watched Fair Game and The Paper recently. (But you have to admit, debates about journalistic integrity and freedom of speech make great movies!)
So obviously, journalists should not be able to hack into people's phones whenever they want to just to get a story. I don't see how that could even be considered legal let alone ethical. What could possibly give journalists the right? Any ordinary person is punished for doing such a thing, so of course I think that media has taken it too far with the whole phone hacking issue.
It makes the whole thing that much worse that the victims are mostly people who have been put through a traumatic experience. According to the chart in the New York Times article, some of the people hacked included "people who had just received news of a family members death in Iraq and the phone of a girl who was kidnapped and killed". These people were hacked so that some gossipy tabloid story could be printed, not to expose a wrongdoing or corruption. It simply puts those families through even more difficulties as if they weren't already dealing with enough. Why should these citizens not be able to go about their everyday lives without people invading their privacy? Why should they have to worry about some brown noser listening in on their phone conversations, are we all just supposed to start talking in code over the phone because some random reporter is going to publish it in tomorrows paper? Maybe we should just give them the passwords to our computers and emails and such so they can just get into those without the hassle of hacking us. People have a right to privacy. Period. The government generally does a good job of protecting this by making computer hacking and phone tapping illegal. Let's just keep it that way.
Kathy Nguyen: I would like to begin by agreeing with Dustin’s point of view. We do have the same amount of privacy and that it is the company’s responsibilities to keep that information private. Adding to this, journalists and others should not be able to hack into people’s phones or messages to “get the benefit”. A person who does not know “won’t harm” them, it still invading privacy. There is a limit, I believe, to where journalists should be able to expose certain information. Tapping into phone lines is not an option to get answers. I find it quite absorbed that people hack into phone lines and ease drop onto conversations. It’s not just only phone conversations but also emails and web pages that also expose private information. I also agree with Lauryn, that the government should keep on protecting our privacy and prevent people from hacking computers and tapping into phones. As for journalists, there is an extent to where the can go and “scoop” up some “sprinkles”. These “sprinkles” meaning that the ideas that they research is found correctly and with permission (having the right to take that information and distributing it) and also without invading privacy. Everyone has the right to have their own privacy and their power on whether they should allow that to be published.
The press have the freedom to tell the story. They do not, however, have the right to invade another's privacy to the extent that they are able to hack into his/her phone.
The Patriot Act allowed the government to wire-tap. Not the press. Big difference. Granted, the rag newspaper at fault is in Britain, but there is a certain element of ethics that needs to be put into place.
Can we always enforce this standard of ethics? Not likely. That's unfortunately what comes with freedom of speech (no matter what country has it). While I agree with Dustin that you're more likely to be safe with a goverment program, I don't think the government should sit on their rumps and do nothing when hackings occur in private companies. There needs to be some sort of recourse.
There, thankfully, is one good thing that can come from being hacked and ostracized by the media. There are always defamation/libel/slander suits out there, for these situations precisely.
I think our world is in a very sad state right now. Ethics and our sense of right and wrong seem to have disappeared from our midst. That's what allows things like this scandal to happen.
I agree with everyone already here in that this phone-hacking case definitely was unacceptable and infringing on privacy. In general, I think that the right to privacy, especially in this case, overrules the right of freedom of the press. Obviously, these celebrities, public figures, and other victims of this phone hacking were speaking on private phones. If they wanted the whole world to know what they were talking about, they could talk to people in a more public manner! They could tweet, write it on facebook, or make a statement as to what they were talking about; but they didn't want to do that, they wanted to keep it private. As a result, these journalists should not be hacking into their private phones and using the information they find to create a tabloid story. Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 all somewhere imply a protection of privacy. Whereas a freedom of the press is mentioned only in the 1st Amendment.[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html] So it seems to me that privacy rules over the press.
Our rights to privacy should always come before the rights of the press. I wouldn't say phone hacking has been taken "too far", because it really shouldn't be taking place at all. There don't seem to be examples that justify any phone tapping as a reasonable way to protect the people. Whether we're talking about privately owned phone companies or government run companies, no citizen should have the right to impose upon another citizen's privacy- especially if the citizen is hacking Prince Harry's phone for some strip club gossip. Where's the justification for that? MAYBE if these companies were using hacked information to expose wrongdoings and successfully protect the country, we'd have an argument. But the first amendment doesn't just grant people the right to be nosy. Right to privacy wins.
John Gennaro
How can freedom of press and freedom of privacy get mixed up? As Bill said, the media has the right to tell any story they please but no right at all to invade someone’s privacy. Figuring out the story through real methods such as talking to certain members thought to be involved, may not be as easy as hacking into someone’s phone but is certainly not breaking anyone’s freedom of privacy. Rarely has journalistic ethics drawn a line to not breach freedom of privacy when given the opportunity, but nonetheless, this line should be drawn when the private life of an individual is breached without his/her consent. Once again there are so many other legit ways to get the answers and find the truth than trespass into another’s private life through the means of tapping phones. No one wants their entire life posted on a magazine and especially when you have already been through a traumatic experience. This would most likely make things worse for that person and is only being done to them because a private company is too lazy to find out information the right way. I believe that everyone’s use of cell phones, Facebook/MySpace, and any other means of passing information should be guaranteeing one’s confidentiality. This should not be left for the government to handle but the individual companies as Dustin stated. Therefore, the line between the right to privacy and right of press should be made so that either one is not broken when trying to find the truth in a scandal.
In the case of rights of privacy v. freedom of the press, phone-hacking seems like a highly inconcieviable concept to allow to take place. Freedom of the press was put into place to allow journalists to publish whatever they please. However, this does not give journalists the right to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone has the basic right to privacy, whether it be in there own home or over telephone lines. Journalists and well paparzzi, as they're know, sometimes take things to far. Most people already stereotype paparazzi as being sleezy and think that they will do anything to get their story. Now it means hacking into people's phones. It will be hard for people to trust the government and fellow citizens if this continues. I understand that a private company contorls the phone services, but that doesn't mean that they can just let journalists tap the phone lines for sums of money. The right of privacy should protect the citizens from being phone taped. The government should step in and ensue serious punishment for both the company and journalists of the newspaper. Journalists have the right to publish whatever they want, it is just the means to do so should most definetly not break laws or infinge upon others rights.
re: Lauryn Rasimus
I completely agree with your point that News of the World was wrong in hacking people's phones, especially those families of soldiers who had just gotten word about the deaths of those soldiers. The tabloid wasn't looking to do anything positive with the information they were gaining from the phones they hacked.
As far as, "What could possibly give journalists the right?" I think there's exceptions to be made. Very rare exceptions, of course, but there are delicate investigations that cannot be pursued purely through normal means. (See my first post for reasoning on this)
Re: Dustin
I agree with your comment that "it is our responsibility to make the right decision, and our problem if we can't do such a thing." With the myriad of social networks available for us to use, privacy is becoming more scarce, and it's up to use to safeguard the information we send via text, email, facebook, etc. The government can only do so much.
After reading some the story of what actually occurred with New’s Corp New of the Word company I still don’t understand how there is a dispute between Freedom of Privacy and the Rights of the Press get thrown into a “gray area”. Most of modern day journalists are looking to make money in this capitalistic economy and where this money is located in the press is in tabloids and other non-informational pieces of writing. To get the front-page stories on these various journals and magazines “dirt” needs to be dug up usually illegally. The information that is gathered on various celebrities and whom they hooked up with or their weight has no effect on the masses in America. However, these journalists go to the end of the Earth to find this information such as hacking telephone lines and trespassing onto their properties, overall invading their privacy. Why these tactics are being now targeted onto random private citizens is beyond me and I believe it should never occur. The sacrifice of millions private lives should not be made to benefit only a few of “yellow journalists”. I do agree with Dustin that many take their own risk with using private companies to use their various communication devices. However, that does not mean that these companies should be allowing easy access to this personal information. These cell phone providers must be held accountable under Federal Regulations. This is very similar to people using banks. The banks are privatized companies but they are held responsible to not reveal other user’s ATM pins or account information by certain laws and regulations. It seems that similar actions should be taken against the phone companies if this problem persists. I also agree with Amy that there may be times when a few rules should be broken to get the true story and potentially save someone’s life. These situations should all be looked at in context but what happened with New of the World was for no ones benefit but their very own. When someone’s motives for breaking such laws are called into question I believe that is when you know journalism has been taken too far and the 9th Amendment should come into effect.
AJ Solomon
With what happened with the hacking of information into USPS is without a doubt illegal and should be strictly watched and secured. This is a government run service like Dustin has stated. If now the people can't even trust their own government with simple information and mail then what will happen in a few years. People's distrust in the government could grow and unleash in bursts of anarchy. People need to held accountable to their own actions especially when held in such high esteem as a national government.
AJ Solomon
I agree with everyone that says a citizen's right to privacy should trump a journalist's freedom of the press. I cannot imagine anyone can really believe that when the 'freedom of the press' was established, the government had in mind that anyone with any sort of journalistic degree at all could hack into a person's network and eavesdrop on any phone calls without a hint of guilt or repercussion. There are incredibly few cases in which 'exposing the story' justifies the means, and even in cases like what Amy Suto described, it should not be a journalist's duty to bring truth to light, but the government's.
There are plenty of cases in which the press uses its 'freedom' a bit excessively, but in this case, they just took it too far. Citizens shouldn't have to be afraid of using their cell phones because they don't know if their private conversations will end up in the news the next day. As much as people have the 'right to remain silent,' they should also have the right to keep talking and not have to worry about who is listening in.
Also, that ^^ was Kathleen Carroll C:
I think that hacking into people's phones is wrong and an invasion of privacy. If celebrities, government officials, and others who are constantly in the public eye wanted people to know information about themselves they could definately get it out there. What they say in a private phone conversation is none of the public's business. It could be a serious family matter or just private information that the person has, and journalists shouldn't be able to make it news so they can personally benifit.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/europe/19hacking.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp)
Journalists also took it "too far" by butting into average citizen's lives. The families of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been through so much emotionally, and to have their phones hacked is just sad. Same with Milly Dowler's family. In this case journalists not only listened to voicemails, but also deleted them. What gave them the right to delete private messages of a thirteen year old girl? I seriously doubt they had an scandalous information in them. Regular people are not used to all the public attention celebrities are used to, so I would imagine that they do not handle this situation well, and it effects them more in the sense that they aren't used to people doing whatever it takes to get a story like celebrities are. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/08/world/europe/20110708-key-players-in-the-phone-hacking-scandal.html)
I agree with everyone else that the right to privacy wins and someone should have stopped people from hacking phones. As Amy said there are some cases when it is okay to get access to private information and invade privacy, but most of these cases weren't like that.
I think that the right to privacy is more important than exposing the story. Permission should be asked for before using private facts and things from someone's life. People have the right to keep things to themselves, and that right should be respected. The press should only portray the facts that present themselves that aren't infringing on someone's personal rights.
The phone-hacking is overstepping the boundaries of privacy, and taking eavesdropping to a new level. But the fact that the government is allowing the hacking to continue just shows that the government doesn't have the people's best interest at heart. The journalism of the UK is a bit too radical.
In America, we have passwords, patterns, and PIN numbers on our phones in order to keep them private from those of us around us that just might look over our shoulder at a text or a picture. If the phone-hacking was happening in America, the citizens would be outraged and I think that the government would be on the side of the right to privacy. But it'd be completely different if the government was behind the scandal.
Well basically everything on this subject that should be said has been said. I agree with all of it. Personal privacy should not be exploited by the press or else none of us can feel secure.
I'm just wondering though, where's the original article that was written with evidence acquired from phone hacking?
Journalism isn't so much about exposing a scandal as much as it is presenting a story interesting enough to read over some coffee or while Justin Bieber is loading on Youtube.
That aside, journalism, in any scenario (city, town, village, hamlet, tribe, assortment of huts) should draw the line of obtaining information after bribing; everything short of bribery is okay, and besides, most things have physical value, right? And anything worth hiding can't and won't be sold. However, I find exposes on movie stars children and multi adoptions and the like incredibly obnoxious. So, exposes on individuals may only be conducted with consent of the interviewed.
I believe relationships should be private, so talking, even over the phone, is the business of not but the participants. There, journalism has not right to rear its ugly phone tapping face.
Also, I feel like too many people on all of the blogs agree with each other too much. I want to re: at people until they hate me.
Hahah Scott, your comment was enjoyable to read.
I find that celebrities aren't exactly a good example for privacy. They don't exactly care if the world knows their business, any publicity is good publicity, right? Well to them it is. They may even tap their own phones just to let the press get wind of what's going on in their lives, you never know.
Now, us average joes don't want every detail of our lives posted on Facebook or any other social networking site. We enjoy our right to privacy and would like to keep our private lives just that, private.
Wow, for once, I actually agree with the majority here! While I do enjoy the occasional reading what Lulzsec has been up to, hacking public systems are on a completely different to me. Private anythings should not be recorded or tapped. The right to privacy and the right to press shouldn't interfere. This reminds me of an ad I saw recently where a certain company was selling software that a parent can install on their kids' cell phones that monitors everything done on the phone; including who they are texting,the contents of the text, and what websites they go to. Upon seeing this, who's to say that parents will not be the only people using this service?
-Janeen Lantry
In journalism there is a fine line between following a story and obstructing personal privacy. I understand that a journalist wants to get as much information as possible to construct a strong story but when innocent civilians are becoming involved they need to change their way of getting information.
When talking on the phone, people only believe that their friend, family member or peer is listening but when they find out that it has been hacked, a worried feeling is present because there is a lack of privacy. If this happened to me, I would be very upset because you think that you are having a private conversation but it turns out anyone could be listening. Although I would be upset, it is true that phone companies are not backed by government programs therefore it is not guaranteed that your privacy will be supported at all times. Therefore people cannot really do much about the situation rather than try a different messaging system.
Even though journalism has the power to tap into any phone system, I think they should only use this power on phones that are involved with the situation and leave the civilians alone.
Pretty much I feel that the phone hacking shouldn't be taking place. They are public figures but it doesn't mean the law can just be overlooked. What that tabloid did in hacking phones was blatantly illegal and I think that it is right to be suspicious of those involved with the people who directed those activities. There obviously should be an investigation of this situation if there's not already one.
This makes me paranoid about our country and if we really do have "privacy" anymore or if it is something we've been lead to believe.
RE Jacky Chen:
I have no idea where the original article is. I can hazard a guess that (because of the recent scandal) it was removed. Though, I'm sure some copies could be found if you Google it enough. ;)
RE Janeen:
You bring up a good point about the parents and technology. It's a little worrisome for sure. We must ask ourselves: how far will this go?
RE all:
I'm just slow on the uptake...my profile should read Bill Fitzgibbons.
What's really disturbing is I'm just noticing this now. This is what happens when you get busy.
*facepalm*
Q: Where should journalistic ethics draw the link on their quest to get the story and expose an issue?
A: If a company guarantees a citizen that they won't share private information, then journalists shouldn't be allowed to hack into a company and steal that information.
Q: How far is too far?
A: Phone tapping is too far. A citizens privacy shouldn't be exploited by the media.
Q: If you were the citizen who had been tapped- where is your right to privacy theory?
A: I'd feel severely annoyed and I would sue. Because my right to privacy had been violated.
The invasion of public privacy by the government as well as the press is an issue that plays a large part in the climax of "The Dark Knight." Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) realizes that Bruce's invention that can pinpoint anybody's location is overstepping moral boundaries. And since he's Morgan Freeman, he's probably right.
Freedom of press and freedom of privacy can coexist. However, freedom of privacy is violated when the press invades the privacy of someone's personal cell phone. This being said, unless someone has a criminal record that warrants the limitation of their rights, phone-hacking is completely unconstitutional.
I believe the debate between rights of privacy and freedom of press can change on a case to case basis. If a reporter is attempting to expose someone just to embarrass them or to glory one's self, then imposing on privacy rights cannot be tolerated. But if a reporter is attempting to help out a victim in a crime or simply to reveal the cold, hard truth then I believe infringement on privacy is acceptable; to a certain extent.
When it gets to the level of phone- hacking, in this case, people have gone too far.
Re: Bill
The fact that these divices and types of software are available to anyone was what I meant. What of someone were so inclined to know your dailu comtacts and messages? If the said person borrows your phone overnight or swaps it, who's to say you aren't being tracked?
I also wanted to bring up another point of interest that I hear on a daily basis from my father, a software architect. Once something goes online, there is no way to keep it from being hacked. People will always find a way around digital barriers no matter how illegal it is. Analog phone tapping is a different matter all together, but because it is less common, tapping them would be as well.
-Janeen Lantry
The News of the World should not have hacked the phones of those private civilians. I think it would be a different story if the newspaper had been trying to uncover some corruption or evil act but the fact is the publication was a tabloid paper practicing “yellow journalism” so it was not exactly exemplifying the noble case cracking news reporter. However, when our government installed those full body scanners at airports everyone got upset about privacy even though we all were aware it was to help keep terrorists from putting bombs or weapons on planes. I think its nice to think that phone hacking can be used for noble causes but you will never actually know that. If your listening into conversations you probably hear a lot of private things waiting for something that could for example, cause a corrupt businessman to be arrested so the practice is just not ethical. If someone hacks your phone and someone heard all those personal discussions wouldn’t it be similar to standing in an airport scanner while someone looks you over. It would be really terrible whether it was for a good cause or for some trashy gossipy column.
It is also true that those people by saying those things out loud allow for the chance of the facts coming out. If you tell your friend something secret and someone sitting nearby hears it by accident it’s the same thing. You took that chance of someone overhearing the secret by saying and its nice to believe that no one would stoop to bugging a room or hacking into a phone line for trivial drivel but it happens and the person chose not to be aware, and so chose to have their private lives put on display.
So I know that they should not have hacked the phones of those private citizens, however once again people like celebrities and politicians are no longer really private citizens. Part of their lives is spent in the public eye and so even though they to are privy to personal time it is only the presence of both newsworthy attributes and ethical/reliable sources can you really have a story worthy of being printed. So since they did not get the facts ethically its wrong to print the story. And it’s wrong to have hacked the phones.
So, focusing on the current events in my response, I would say that journalistic ventures should draw the line at trespassing, either in property or personal privacy, and unless there is a sufficient hunch of government corruption or something of that sort, you keep to that line. Ditto everyone's common sense statements. But illegally fishing to get gossip stories about the royal family, government officials and the like, just to try and publically scandalize them, is ridiculously low, vile thing to do.
Obviously, in the matter at hand (to be revised if more information found), phone tapping is across the line, as well as bribing police.
As previously stated by Dustin and whoever else, in the private telephone system you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but not an unbreakable security. That being said, you would feel horribly violated if your private information and conversations were fed to the public for the media's greed in gossip stories. The right to privacy, unless there is a reasonable suspicion of illcit activities, to be investigated by the government only, is pretty well established I should think.
Re: Mitch
Love your Morgan Freeman/Batman references. They certainly do apply to real life. And that argument will probably be brought up again with all the new tech popping up. Knowing where everyone is all the time is definitely invading people's rights to have lives that are not the public's business. Just think if this stuff was used during any war, past, now, or future. It would be devestating.
As unfortunate as it may seem,in today's dog-eat-dog world, "ethics" in journalism have for the most part devolved into simply hollow promises. No longer does the media industry, in general, revolve around the truth of the matter. Rather, it is the appropriately called "dirt" that is now chased after voraciously, especially by journalists. These often less than important sub-stories are in high-demand from a steadily decreasingly informed public that thrives on knowing who the next "Bachelorette" will be and how Jenny on teen mom is doing after learning that her boyfriend cheated on her with that "slut" Jessica. Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite.
Now, where journalism ethics SHOULD be...
Informative, RELEVANT and unbiased! And NO Jenny and Jessica are not relevant. Before the journalists around the world can get the message that we expect a higher level of reporting from them, we have to actually expect it OURSELVES! Product meets demand, people.
Now that I'm done venting about our lack of care I'll answer the question.
In my opinion, journalism should be run similarly to a police investigation. No I'm not suggesting that journalists wear uniforms and pull people over because they feel like it. Rather, journalists should not go looking for a story that will sell, but simply the truth. And that truth should be uncovered through constitutional means, ergo respecting the right of privacy among citizens. Ergo, not phone-tapping. Yes, the 1st amendment guarentees freedom of the press, however I've read nowhere that the freedom of the press allows journalists to overrule the multiple amendments regarding the right to privacy. And until I do, I refuse to believe that breaching that privacy as a private company is any way legally or morally acceptable.
RE: DUSTINSTORY
So, being a fascist, you're against this because only the government has the right to intercept phone calls?
~Vladimir
Ashley,
you have a good point. It was just an example to demonstrate my suggestion that articles on people, such that their child died or have contracted bunions, should only be in print with the Mourning/Contractee's consent.
And I meant to extend this to the average joes and janes as well.
I hope this cleared up any misunderstanding.
RE; Scott Suddarth (Vladimir)
Yeah, in my government, if I saw that the phone-hacking was out of line, we would take care of the problem, and that would be that. Then nobody would be complaining. But then somebody would complain that we killed the hackers and it was cruel and unusual punishment, and then we'd have to take care of them too, and it would take several casualties before people learned to shut up. But then again, what really is the significance of a civilian life? Haha ;D And taking bribes wouldn't make too much of a difference. If the suspect offered us money, we would just take it... then dispose of him. It really would work well, you should be able to understand where I'm coming from here.
RE: Nearly everyone
I still don't believe that anyone really has a case against the government other than the bribe situation. If you are willing to put secret information into a phone that transmits signals across the water, and across the land, and up to a satellite in space, and back to earth, and expect it to just appear in the ear of the person on the other end, you are very naïve. I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says "We will protect your privacy in every way possible, and you can say anything to anyone and nothing will ever get out where it's not supposed to and everyone will be happy (:". That would be absurd in my opinion. That is like the government saying that we have the right to life, so they will babysit us all to make us live forever. NO, our choices have consequences. Every action has a reaction. If a person wants privacy, it is up to that person to make it happen.
This is why drug dealers and crime bosses don't just do business all happily on a nice phone call while walking through the park. They have meetings in secured, guarded areas. Areas guarded by big Italian guys with guns. It's an efficient manner of achieving privacy. But when the poor celebrity gets hacked it's a big deal! And instead of them being the dumb ones, it must be the government's fault. Maybe they should quit whining and appreciate what we have in America. If not, maybe they can try living in some third-world African nation that doesn't even have cell phones. Then they can be private all they want.
RE Janeen:
I knew what you meant. I was just asking a rhetorical question to stimulate conversation.
I still agree...:)
Re: Sam
I agree with what you pointed out about how nowadays there is also a high demand for celebrity gossip and irrelevant news that nobody really benefits from knowing. "Yellow journalism" exists because there is a demand for it.
RE: Dustin
I agree that we put our faith in private companies, and that's our problem. But if there hadn't been any police bribing, don't you think the government should still do something about the phone hacking?
Re: Dustin
I don't think we should have to use phone services "at our own risk". We have a right to privacy and under no circumstances should any company be able to tap into our phone calls and take that away from us. Just because the company isn't government controlled and no one is forcing us to use phone services doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. Hacking phone calls is illegal. You said you "believe that if a person wishes to keep information private, they can have more faith in the government operated USPS, than the private operated phone companies". This makes sense, but I don't think it should be that way. We should trust that our right to privacy will be protected in all situations, just like all our other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Re: Mark
You made a good point, freedom of the press gives people the right to express their opinions. It does not give the press the right to infringe upon the privacy of others just to get the story. I see freedom of the press as an extension of our freedom of speech. A journalist can come out and say they absolutely hate a government decision, or that they don't agree with some political figure. Publishing hacked information about the private life of celebrities isn't justified by freedom of the press at all.
Re: Ashley
You made a good point saying that the right to privacy is a respect issue. Obviously the phone hackers did not care if they hurt the person they were listening to or exposing private information. The journalists definately did not have the person's best interest at heart as they were exposing private information meant for only one person to hear. There is a lack of respect in the journalist/ celebrity, government official, other citizens relationship that the country needs to work on so that this can stop and the people can have at least some privacy.
Re: Amanda Bermudez
You're right in saying that it would have been different if the hacking was taking place to expose some terrible and corrupt thing, but it wasn't, therefore, the phone hacking was not okay.
I didn't really think about the story getting out through the other person on the phone, but at least in that case, the phone- hacked had the choice to confide in the other person and trust them not to spread the information further, and if they did then that is on the person who decided to tell the private thing in the first place. The difference is the person who's privacy was invaded didn't choose to tell the journalist their secrets, they didn't even know that they were getting out until they found out their private confersations were being listened to by a complete stranger, which is really sad. I also think that since celebrities have very social lives and don't have as much privacy as you and I, they should be able to have some sort of private life where everything about them isn't exposed for all to see. Celebrities and politicians need some room to relax and escape from being in the public eye.
Re: Dustin
Don't you think that we should be safe when calling from our phones? I know it's our problem because it's a service provided by a private company but I also believe that people would be outraged if that privacy was not kept. And saying that the government should protect your privacy at all times is a bit different then having them take measures to prevent phone-hacking by every day citizens.
RE: Dustin!
I love the points you made! but I do think that the phone companies should offer protection and promise not to share our information. But I don't think we should get mad at them or the government if the info gets stolen. Instead, get mad at the people stealing the information.
RE: Allie
You're very right. The "yellow journalists" do not care who they are hurting in the process of getting the story. The phone hacking is a complete violation of the right to privacy, and in this case, privacy beats freedom of the press, because the press is infringing on the rights of others.
Now exposing a crime ring, terrorism, or some equally horrifying scandal would be a different story, IF the person who's phone was tapped was involved in the issue. But tapping an innocent civilian's private phone is overstepping quite a few boundaries.
RE: Jacky
Yes, I do believe that the phone companies would try to protect us. I don't see why they wouldn't want to. Say there are hypothetically 4 major phone companies in Britain (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile) for the purpose of this blog. If everyone that was hacked was on Sprint phones, then people will see the pattern, and thousands of customers would switch services. The companies cannot afford to let multiple hackings take place on their network; it would be bad for business. The phone companies would basically be forced to heighten security to prevent these kind of privacy infringement issues. Although, even when they say they are doing it to protect us, it's more like they are doing it to protect themselves from losing our money.
RE: Connor
Thank you! I appreciate the enthusiasm! I really agree with what you said, it makes sense.
RE: Amy
Your point about a journalist going to all extremes to get the story, is what i think is the problem. You said journalists might step over boundries if they're trying to prove someone's innocence. Well this in turn gives other journalists to step over boundaries in different areas of journalism.
RE: Mark
John Gennaro
I agree completely on how it isn’t right to for private companies to allow journalists to hack into phones for sums of money. I also agree that these invasions of privacy occur all the time and most likely never even heard about. So yes, it is basically only being pointed out as a problem because it happened to a celebrity. However, this is just a way to show people that privacy rights are being broken and the only way this message could be effectively given is through a giant scandal involving famous celebrities. No one would care otherwise. So this is actually a good thing, in which it allows people to realize what is going on and hopefully try and uphold their rights.
RE: Sam R.
John Gennaro
Journalism is no longer following any moral code or ethics, because people don’t care about the truth or how any story is uncovered. People want entertainment; something interesting and “scandalous” to read. So basically your statement, “gone are the days of Walter Cronkite”, is very true. I also agree with your view on the private companies breaking privacy rights. The right of privacy and the right of press are two separate things, and when one line is crossed a law is still being broken. Even if it is a private company, because the last I heard private companies can’t bypass amendments.
Re: Courtney
I agree with your opinion that if this had been towards something like protecting the country maybe there'd be the semblance of justification. However if these people were just looking for a good gossip story then it's frankly ridiculous. Anyhow, I also agree that our rights to privacy come before the press
Re: sam rabichow
Your references to the bachelorette and teen mom made me laugh. And it's a good point. The power and purpose of television has truly deteriorated from being informative to purely gossip/entertainment. Everyone is obsessed with their favorite shows and celebrities that really important matters go ignored.
RE: Sam Rabichow
I completely agree that journalists should just go for the truth, but unfortunately that doesn't always sell. Journalists have to go looking for stories and stir sometimes stir them up. It's just while doing, they can not cross boundaries like police can protected by the Patriot act( I believe.)Stories just don't come to journalist's, they have to search for them. Everyone seems to agree though that they can't imfringe upon other amendments.
Re: Jacky Chen
In defense of what Dustin was saying, I don't think that the government should have a hand in helping security for private companies. That is the duty of the private company. If the company has a history of being unreliable with it's security, we won't use it and it will go out of business. As unsuccessful companies are wont to do.
Plus, if we're trying to cut government spending in America, why should we make it the job of the government to help an industry that is actually making a profit?
I feel like arguing with someone.
Come at me!
Haha, I just now saw Dustin's response to you.. *facepalm*
I agree with Dustin.
Re Allie:
I agree with you on the idea that hacking into phones is wrong and an invasion to privacy. It is terrible to read about stories where they are listening to the public's phone messages, espicially when it is a 13 year old girl. As you said how does this benefit the journalist's story in any way?! I think that journalists are going way too far and have crossed the line when they are involving innocent people into the situation.
Re:Allie
I like that you pointed out that even though phone hacking can be used to prevent crimes and other bad things from happening most of the cases involving the News of the World stuff was not doing anything to help. Those cases were just scandalous gossip or trying to get information from grieving people that probably wouldn't talk to them.
Re:Jennifer
I like that you pointed out that it is possible to gain news worthy information without crossing that ethical line so even if people like the FBI can tap phones and stuff they have to do that to get the information but with the newspaper it is not life or death and they had other options so they were totally in the wrong crossing that line into the private civilians life.
Re: Caitlyn
After reading articles about this situation it really make you wonder if this type of activity is going on in our country.I think with all the new technology it is easier to hack into people's lives. It is the wrong action but it does happen (as we have seen here). I guess we will need to be more protective of our personal things such as our phones. As you questioned do we really have privacy?
Lauryn Rasimas
Re:Amy
I see where you are going with the whole "under certain circumstances journalists can cross certain lines" argument. I suppose you are right, that when it comes to the greater good the lines become blurred and there is a grey area. There are a few instances in which I can understand journalists resorting to drastic measures to uncover scandals or illegal activities ect..
Re: Courtney
I agree that right to privacy is definitely more important then freedom of press. The press can print whatever they want that they discover without violating privacy. If Prince Henry had written on his brother's facebook wall about hitting up strip clubs, then sure the press could go crazy with that. They should not however be allowed to hack his phone and then use that information to write a story. It's taking the sleaziness of creeping on people's lives and writing stories about their personal issues to a whole new level when you hack their phone to get the dirt.
Re: Dustin or whomever
In agreement.
Regardless of the motives of phone companies they should still be better with security. Also, Dustin, drug dealers or whoever might meet in secret secure locations, like dark street corners, but they do do business over cell phones. Granted, they are not shouting into the phone "How much coke do you want?" but we're not talking about eavesdropping, and people could still hack into their cell phones. Pre-paid cells would be the smart route, but hey, you never know. Though I do concede the point of the mob and such. Except I don't know if Africa has the same privacy laws, so - point denied in Africa. (:
RE: Dustin Story
I disagree with the comments that you have made about the government protecting the people because of your reference to drug dealers and how the make their income. How is it all similar? Drug dealers are committing illegal actions and they know it so in order for their business to still stay afloat they are trying to maintain privacy when it should instead be made public and dealt accordingly. Regular, everyday Americans are law-abiding citizens so why should they be handled as if they were criminals with the hacking of personal devices? I’m not being naïve and asking for the government to “babysit” the public. It is just asking them to be ethical and not be power hungry enough to try and receive this information. I know transmitting information through cell phones isn’t absolutely safe, but there should be no reason for it to be hacked in the first place. If there was government without these greedy and power seeking individuals these problems would not even arise.
AJ Solomon
RE: Courtney Newcombe
I agree with your statements that even though we do use private cell phone companies to share and process information we should be allowed some level of privacy. For people that wanted to make sure that their information was not being sold to some journalism companies, using the government run USPS service is just a step backwards in our technological advancement. Dustin is suggesting that everyone resort back to pen and paper and that all the advances we have made in technology should be abandoned because there is now a risk of hacking. This problem should again just not occur and some privacy from the cell phone companies should be provided even if they are private. It is a bond of trust between the consumer and the provider and with this phone-hacking situation there has been a major dent in this trust and there is no telling how far it will go.
AJ Solomon
Re Nikki and AJ
I made the comparison to drug dealers because they care a lot about their privacy. I myself care less about my privacy than a drug dealer, so I'm not as careful with saying things in public. Most of what I say isn't important to keep private about. A tabloid wouldn't need anything I say for their paper. If I were a celebrity, I would start treating my privacy more like the drug dealer. If I were a celebrity and was trying to keep a secret, I'd say it only in person.
I said Africa because it could take away their phones and media and the press. Without that, privacy is more simply retained.
Re: Dustin Story/Connor Mullins
I both agree and disagree with both of you. No, the government should not have to divert funds to ensure the security of phone companies. That security goes hand in hand with the service that the company provides to its customers. However, the government should indeed, in accordance with enforcing the right to privacy bestowed upon us as citizens, be a part in investigating and pursuing suspects involved in breaking said privacy i.e. hacking phone companies for PRIVATE information.
Re: Anthony Perri
Anthony, as unfortunate as it may be, I'm going to have to go against your belief. The right of privacy and its integrity should not vary on a "case-to-case" basis. That leaves far too many openings and loopholes for ill-willed people to work the system. A lack of rigidity in one area of the constitution could ultimately lead to a lack in all areas of the constitution; something not to be looked at too lightly.
RE: Amy.
I see where you're coming from when suggesting "exceptions" to the moral code of journalism, but I would have to disagree here.
While we all want the good guys to win, pardoning violations of privacy for the greater good would open the door for well-worded lawyers to weasel their way through the justice system. Since we all have varying views on right and wrong, hackers would pursue their "righteous" goals.
I guess the main issue with your suggestion (to me) is the partiality of such a rule/law.
RE: Caitlyn
You tell 'em, sistah!
I agree with you, famous or not, phone hacking is bad. And though we MAY have privacy for now, it is a very precarious thing.
Re: Nikki Paulat
You say that journalists should "draw the line at trespassing," but I think the problem is what can we define as 'trespassing'? There needs to be a strict description of what is trespassing exactly, or what cannot be hacked before it is considered illegal. If you give a person leniency, then that can be used and abused to mean anything.
-Kathleen Carroll
Re: Mitch Fehr
Nice "Dark Knight" reference. Though, I don't really think Bruce Wayne falls under the statutes of 'freedom of the press'. Which kind of brings up another question as to whether it is better or worse that Bruce Wayne invades cell phones, because he's just a normal citizen, but at least he isn't publishing stories about it.
But you're probably right--it's fine because Morgan Freeman says it is.
@Sam Rabichow
I agree with you about that.
Re: Dustin and Connor(although it's probably to late)
I never disagreed with the fact that it's the companies' responsibility to keep our phone lines private. I actually said that customers would be outraged, which is a good reason for companies to increase their security measures. My dispute was for your metaphor.
And more specifically at Connor:
The government shouldn't meddle with the phone companies' security. It just needs to "take measures against phone-hacking by everyday citizens". This could be merely to make the penalty for phone-hacking harsher.
For evryone... here is an interesting article which occurred here in Arizona that has to do with hacking. Just thought I would share it.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/hackers-say-they-hit-another-military-contractor/?scp=1&sq=hackers%20smartphones&st=cse
Re: Jennifer
Yes there is definitely "hack jobs" occurring in the states. In the article above it says that these hackers found evidence of "shady practices and illegal surveillence" in the company they hacked into. It also says that these illegal practices had possible ties to our government.
With elecronics you can never be to careful. All computers have an IP Address and this is how officials were able to track who was downloading files from limewire.
As for my take on the media and press. They are a bunch of sharks who rip, tear, chew, and then spit out there own piece of some kind of event that will interest the public. They will come from an angle and push and shove until they get what they want.
Post a Comment