staringclown

News of the world scandal

52 posts in this topic

The police claimed early on that it was not worth following up. 11000 documents later... News of the world closed down! So many questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully after this performance, Paul McMullen will never work again in his chosen profession.

Steve Coogan and Greg Dyke rip into Paul McMullen on Newsnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully after this performance, Paul McMullen will never work again in his chosen profession.

Steve Coogan and Greg Dyke rip into Paul McMullen on Newsnight

Holy Sh*T. All is forgiven Paul McMullen. Supergrass. Legal Fees paid for by the Guardian. Perceived conflict of interest. Bye bye Andy, Rebecca & James. Enjoy your time in the slammer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm

Former NOTW executive recounts phone hacking

Former News of the World executive Paul McMullan tells ABC News 24 editors were fully aware of the phone hacking going on at the tabloid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Sh*T. All is forgiven Paul McMullen. Supergrass. Legal Fees paid for by the Guardian. Perceived conflict of interest. Bye bye Andy, Rebecca & James. Enjoy your time in the slammer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm

Former NOTW executive recounts phone hacking

Former News of the World executive Paul McMullan tells ABC News 24 editors were fully aware of the phone hacking going on at the tabloid.

I agree with McMullin on not trying to over regulate what the press publishes. (I saw an interview with him on lateline during the week however and he does come across as slightly deranged -but that's just a personal opinion. :) ) After all they publish what sells and we (the public - not you and I obviously) want to read.

The main problem I have in particular with the Murdoch press is that they are self censoring. They push news agendas rather than report on objective facts. I have nothing against them publishing opinion pieces as editorial but they go beyond this. How much coverage of this (reasonably big) story has appeared in the Murdoch papers over here for example?

Pretty sure it's illegal to hack into peoples phones here. I see this as more of a violation privacy issue. If a public servant accesses information here that is not strictly related to the performance of their duties then they get the sack/charged and they can also be jailed for more severe cases. I can't see why this is any different that those cases if Britain has similar laws. I can't see why it should be a freedom of the press issue if laws have been broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a particularly well crafted comment on the matter. How sad that the much more ethical Lochie may have little choice but to disown both his brother and his father.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/11500767

"will there be a reception committee at Heathrow i.e. The Sweeney? Or will the world continue to think this case is being handled by Clouseau of the Yard?

Alternatively, maybe the great media baron will pull off his ultimate masterstroke and sack himself?

How about it, Rupe? Take responsibility for something for once in your life?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to blink first? Payback time coming up

If Brooks continues to have Murdoch Snr's total support, then Brooks must have some really good dirt on Murdoch and his family . Is she threatening them too?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks

MPs allegedly backed down from summoning Rebekah Brooks to the Commons after being warned that their private lives would be investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to blink first? Payback time coming up

If Brooks continues to have Murdoch Snr's total support, then Brooks must have some really good dirt on Murdoch and his family . Is she threatening them too?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks

We can't prosecute the media for hacking phones lest they hack our phones. :huh:

Let's have some laws introduced where journalists have the ability to sue households that don't provide safe and easy access to garbage bins for them to rummage through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's having control over communication mediums by which to publicly mass distribute the contents of the hacked phones, hacked computers and hacked communications of every nature, which is where some of the perceived and real power of the media owners lies.

I think there is a strong case for stronger laws to prevent anyone (i.e Wikileaks or Newspapers) in receipt of stolen or illegally obtained information from publishing or distributing it. Particularly for personal information. This needs to be coupled with stronger laws in defining "stolen" or "illegally" obtained information.

quote name='staringclown' timestamp='1310265316' post='49092']

We can't prosecute the media for hacking phones lest they hack our phones. :huh:

Let's have some laws introduced where journalists have the ability to sue households that don't provide safe and easy access to garbage bins for them to rummage through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely Rupert could have seen this coming.

The threat to his power, was not from Politicians, but from his competitors and the people.

And to think that the part News Corp owned Sky News apparently nearly got awarded a Government Tender to run the Australia Network.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Opposition-fails-to-get-TV-documents-JJ6RZ?opendocument&src=rss

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/10/observer-editorial-murdoch-phone-hacking

On Thursday, Murdoch's son, James, deputy chief operating officer of News Corp, the ultimate owner of News International, which also owns theTimes, the Sunday Times and the Sun, possibly opened himself up to criminal charges on both sides of the Atlantic. He admitted he had misled Parliament, although he stated that he did not have the complete picture at the time. He went on to give an extraordinary admission of negligence, describing what he called "repeated wrongdoing that [had] occurred without conscience or legitimate purpose" on his watch. He admitted that, without apparently much questioning, he had signed cheques for £1.7m for two individuals among dozens more celebrities, whose phones have been hacked. Why did the young Murdoch authorise the payments? They paid out £700,000 to the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, Gordon Taylor. One of the conditions was that Taylor didn't speak about the case. News Corp also persuaded the court to seal the file on Taylor's case to prevent all public access, even though, as the Guardianrevealed, "it contained prima facie evidence of criminal activity". Did alarm bells not sound for him, that he was having to spend such vast sums of money to keep his company's victims quiet?

One would have expected the company to leave no stone unturned to get to the root of the cancer that had spread across its paper. Instead, it convinced almost everyone, including a toothless Press Complaints Commission (PCC), that it was the work of a "rogue reporter". It was anything but – it was industrial scale hacking of phones.

The senior management at News International were abject in their failure – through lack of insight or enthusiasm – to get to the root of the problem. They failed their victims, they failed their journalists and they failed theNews of the World. They may yet be proved to have failed their shareholders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/10/rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking-cameron

This story is about the failure of the entire political class. Journalists and politicians, advisers, PR people, writers and lawyers drank Murdoch's champagne, swooned in his company, took his calls and allowed Rebekah Brooks to irradiate them with her crooked little smile. Over more than three decades, the perversion of politics by and for Murdoch became institutionalised, a part of the landscape that no one dared question.

Serious crimes were committed and the police covered them up. Corrupt, or at least badly compromised, relationships became the norm and all but a very few politicians looked the other way, telling themselves this was how things were and always would be

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all good moral and ethical issues, the boundaries are always blurred.

There is no black and white here.

The is the paradox of right and wrong.

On some occasions we need people to plumb unexpected quarters to reveal the truth.

But!!

When those same actions intrude into rather delicate areas of life, we suddenly become very defensive about the very same practice we previously endorsed.

Facts about relationships, as any judge will tell you, are difficult to ascertain.

Finding proof associated with people's private lives is almost impossible, unless you use the tactics employed by the journalists, now under scrutiny.

Legislation will never solve this dilemma.

Regulation will fail to stop immoral behaviour.

It can only ever provides the penalty after you have been found out.

Self-control is the only method ever that can be employed to stop individuals going further than is socially or personally appropriate.

It use to be the individuals own moral compass that set the standard, and if certain individuals didn't impose their own restrictions than the levels of bureacracy provided a ladder of moral decision making that ensured certain stories or information didn't make the light of day.

That's not to say that our ancestors didn't have some very juicy dirt on certain situations, its simply that they imposed their own moral and ethical standards on what was acceptable. Those standards seem to have been lost at about the same time, that people began rejecting spiritual maturity.

Unfortunately in a culture that has now rejected such controls, and have become far more reliant on external controls, (ie; the law), I think we this is only the tip of the iceberg of unethical practices that occur in the corporate world today. I would love to know what is available to organisations such as ASIO (see quote below), or the Aust Federal Police, in their capacity to protect or investigate private citizens.

ASIO contributes to a whole-of-government national security efforts by collecting, analysing and reporting intelligence on those threats to security described in the ASIO Act, principally threats from politically motivated violence and espionage. We work closely with a wide range of partners, including Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies, foreign liaison partners and industry, who provide support and information that allows us to fulfil our responsibilities.

We want a permissive society, but then we get all moral, because we have a permissive society.

Make up your mind!!!

I think the new modern generation have some serious questions to ask going forward.

Because the technology is now such that "Big Brother", is very much alive and well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all good moral and ethical issues, the boundaries are always blurred.

There is no black and white here.

The is the paradox of right and wrong.

On some occasions we need people to plumb unexpected quarters to reveal the truth.

But!!

When those same actions intrude into rather delicate areas of life, we suddenly become very defensive about the very same practice we previously endorsed.

Agreed that there are cases where surveillance is warranted. It depends on whose doing the surveilling though. We have a system at the moment where warrants are issued to relevant authorities and scrutiny of the what is the "public good" are applied when the warrant is issued. All recorded and accountable. Anything else is illegal AFAIK. News organisations aren't included and aren't accountable.

Even with blurred boundaries there still has to be a line. And sanctions when it's crossed. I think we can safely draw a line at a news organisation interfering with a murder investigation. Unfortunately some of the police seem complicit in the whole scandal.

Facts about relationships, as any judge will tell you, are difficult to ascertain.

Finding proof associated with people's private lives is almost impossible, unless you use the tactics employed by the journalists, now under scrutiny.

Legislation will never solve this dilemma.

Regulation will fail to stop immoral behaviour.

It can only ever provides the penalty after you have been found out.

Self-control is the only method ever that can be employed to stop individuals going further than is socially or personally appropriate.

That's not to say that our ancestors didn't have some very juicy dirt on certain situations, its simply that they imposed their own moral and ethical standards on what was acceptable. Those standards seem to have been lost at about the same time, that people began rejecting spiritual maturity.

We want a permissive society, but then we get all moral, because we have a permissive society.

Make up your mind!!!

Unfortunately in a culture that has now rejected such controls, and have become far more reliant on external controls, (ie; the law), I think we this is only the tip of the iceberg of unethical practices that occur in the corporate world today. I would love to know what is available to organisations such as ASIO (see quote below), or the Aust Federal Police, in their capacity to protect or investigate private citizens.

I'm not convinced there has been a "high tide" in morals at any time in human history sol. We used to send children to war and make them sweep chimneys. We've mostly stopped doing that in this country at least. That's an improvement on the past isn't it? Which particular time period are you referring to?

It use to be the individuals own moral compass that set the standard, and if certain individuals didn't impose their own restrictions than the levels of bureacracy provided a ladder of moral decision making that ensured certain stories or information didn't make the light of day.

Are you saying cover ups are a good thing? Weren't the catholic church were able to cover up sexual abuse of children for years under such a system?

I think the new modern generation have some serious questions to ask going forward.

Because the technology is now such that "Big Brother", is very much alive and well.

There are indeed many challenges for the digital age. Privacy is a big one. Legislation has to keep up with the technology.Thankfully, it will keep me in work for at least the next ten years. :wine:

Edited by staringclown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to make children sweep chimneys. We've mostly stopped doing that in this country at least.

It only stopped because nobody can afford the firewood to heat their home anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only stopped because nobody can afford the firewood to heat their home anymore.

Oh I can afford the wood it's the price of chimney sweeps that's killing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that there are cases where surveillance is warranted. It depends on whose doing the surveilling though. We have a system at the moment where warrants are issued to relevant authorities and scrutiny of the what is the "public good" are applied when the warrant is issued. All recorded and accountable. Anything else is illegal AFAIK. News organisations aren't included and aren't accountable.

Thanks for respond to my post SC.

You begin to highlight how complicated this whole issue gets, when you start to pull it apart.

It begins to look like a tangled fishing line, that if you pull on one loop, you may gain some line only to have other parts tighten up.

This is what I was arguing.

This is now a very complicated issue.

I have long believed that individuals no longer really have any privacy.

To join any online forum such as this one, I'm required to supply my details, or at least some of them.

But a person before the 1500's could live in relative anonymity, and sometimes complete isolation without any authorities even knowing they existed. Indigenous Australians is a case in point. They lived in this country in anonymity for thousands of year. This recent issue is associated with the price of technological advancement.

Even with blurred boundaries there still has to be a line. And sanctions when it's crossed. I think we can safely draw a line at a news organisation interfering with a murder investigation. Unfortunately some of the police seem complicit in the whole scandal.

I agree there have to be lines.

I just don't know where you draw the line now.

As soon as you draw a line, you create a pseudo censorship. (We've been down this path before on this forum)

Is that what we want, or do we agree there have to be lines, and therefore none of us demand that the line be crossed.

We (modern people), are so clamouring for the juicy and gory bits, we are almost hoping that someone find out and tell us. That someone supply pictures so that we can see the devastation for ourselves, etc!!!

I'm not convinced there has been a "high tide" in morals at any time in human history sol. We used to send children to war and make them sweep chimneys. We've mostly stopped doing that in this country at least. That's an improvement on the past isn't it? Which particular time period are you referring to?

I guess I was arguing from the perspective of protecting people from scenes or issues of life, that can also harm their well-being, rather than the sense of reaching purity. Morals are a slippery area of science. Some human beings believe there is actually no place for them in the modern world, and that they are carry over from the conservative past. I disagree.

I was trying to highlight a period where individuals made some calls, (whether right or wrong), not to release certain information on the basis of certain member of society being ill-equipped to cope with it.

That doesn't seem to be the case today, and people almost demand that they be allowed to access all information associated with an experience or event. This is fascinating stuff, and hopefully you can appreciate that it has tentacles into every sphere of life. When does information become gossip, etc, in families or amongst work colleagues?

Are you saying cover ups are a good thing? Weren't the catholic church were able to cover up sexual abuse of children for years under such a system?

Definitely not.

The case you provide is a good example, as to the reason not.

The bible has a piece though which suggests that all human beings prefer the dark, rather than the light.

Mainly because we all have little/subtle aspects of our life, that we do not want to become public knowledge.

Now why is that?

Shame. Guilt. Excuses. Pride. Lots of different reasons, for keeping things hidden.

There are indeed many challenges for the digital age. Privacy is a big one. Legislation has to keep up with the technology.Thankfully, it will keep me in work for at least the next ten years. :wine:

I agree, and the greater challenge is actually keeping pace with them.

Legislation will never keep pace with the technology, mainly because legislation usually only is written after the fact has become obvious that there is a discrepancy or fault that needs to be repaired.

I'm glad you will have a necessary job for that long, because I think unemployment is on the rise in Australia in the near future.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Hope I've answered some of your concerns raised by my earlier post.

It is hard to explain fully in a digital dialogue, sometimes exactly what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to refrain from anymore comments on this much written about subject but after reading

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/right-rolls-over-and-lets-political-correctness-censor-the-world/story-e6frg6zo-1226091910333

I could not help myself

At first I thought it was a brilliant piece of "satire", then I realised that the writer was deadly serious.

No mention of alleged criminal conduct, threats to politicians, shafting of shareholders, putting personal and family above shareholders and customers.

Sorry but you are the weakest link, you are in the process of being voted off, you are not liked any more, probably never were, just feared. End of Story.

In the social media, smartphone and internet age, many people are becoming more and more paranoid of having their personal information and computers and phones hacked into or stolen. Gatekeepers of this info, whether it be the NBN, Telstra, Vodafone, TPG, Google, Facebook, Myspace (nice one Rupert), Yahoo/7, Microsoft, will need to stay clear away from any sort of a business that is remotely connected to do the sort of things that NOTW is alleged to have done. Owning media assets and tabloid press are not compatible as Rupert either already knows or is about to find out worldwide in my opinion.

"That such a public institution can be dispensed with so swiftly, that a huge swath of the British people can overnight be deprived of an institution they had a close relationship with, ought to cause way more concern than it is. How would we feel if other public institutions - the BBC, perhaps, or parliament - were to disappear?"
What last week's events confirm most of all is the extent to which the right-wing sections of political and public life have lost the capacity or willingness to withstand pressure. Instead they roll over in the face of attack and think little, it seems, of bringing to an end one of the key media outlets for their way of thinking.
one of the ironies of the media debate about the hacking scandal is that it has depicted Murdoch as an immensely powerful force that can devour politicians, political parties, and other media outlets at will.

The overestimation of Murdoch's power and the underestimation of the influence of the illiberal liberals, the uncritical acceptance by many of the "Murdoch controls Britain" narrative

It is a sad day for press freedom when all journalists are put under extreme pressure to be good boys and girls, like those in the "proper press".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to refrain from anymore comments on this much written about subject...

You probably shouldn't have

No mention of alleged criminal conduct

There is my point. I don't agree with the article but I also don't agree with daft band wagon jumpers that get all excited. Go back and read the article again without your filters on, then construct an argument without the strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With papers going out of fashion doesn't anybody see the possibility that this was the perfect opportunity to swiftly eliminate one paper to extend the life of the others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in denial if you think this story is just going to fade away like Fukushima.

Too many organisations that want to bring Murdoch down and get control of his assets and power. Too many people he and his henchman have pissed off.

Obviously you have never been the subject of having ones phone or email or personal info hacked into or stolen. It is not only journalists and PI's that hack personal information.

Maybe it won't get written about as much here in Oz with Murdoch entities owning approx 70% of all newspapers.

In the UK with the latest allegations of ex-Prime Ministers family medical records being illegally obtained, there are going to be severe recrimininations. Mark my words.

You probably shouldn't have

There is my point. I don't agree with the article but I also don't agree with daft band wagon jumpers that get all excited. Go back and read the article again without your filters on, then construct an argument without the strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in denial if you think this story is just going to fade away like Fukushima...

That's what I said alright. Stellar comprehension skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it's illegal to hack into peoples phones here. I see this as more of a violation privacy issue. If a public servant accesses information here that is not strictly related to the performance of their duties then they get the sack/charged and they can also be jailed for more severe cases. I can't see why this is any different that those cases if Britain has similar laws. I can't see why it should be a freedom of the press issue if laws have been broken.

As I understand it the regulation around freedom of the press (sounds a bit wrong!!!) allows them to breach privacy laws if it is in the publics interest to do so.

Basically the press does have some room to maneuvre around privacy laws if it is in the public interest to do so. ABC for example putting secret video cameras in a possum abatoir in Tasmania which was taken by the abbatoir to the high court, where the ABC ran the argument that it was in the public interest for this invasion. (I learnt about this over 5 years ago so forgive me that I do not actually remember whether ABC won or not!)

Actually it just dawned on me that the ABC seems to have a thing for visiting abbatoirs. Maybe lots of vegetarians amoung that lot.

I don't think that hacking peoples phones are going to be legitamate under most circumstances.... well I guess I could hypothesise of some very extreme things that would perhaps warrant such an extreme violation but there has to be a balance between the invasion of privacy v the issue being uncovered.

If they were hacking someones phone account because they had overwhelming information pointing to a terrorist plot and in doing so then uncovered a plot to unleash a nuclear weapon in the middle of london I imagine the burden of demonstrating it was in the public interest would be met and hacking phones / computers or whatever would all be considered reasonable in those circumstances.

This is why it is a press issue rather than just a privacy one when even on the face of it a breech of privacy has been committed the issue is whether it is justified in this instance which it does not appear to be.

A similar issue surrounded whether it was justified that the Labor member in NSW had his nightlife exposed to the public and whether this story was in the public interest and whether monitoring of his movements were justified to uncover this, however apart from media watch I don't think anyone pursued this as there was no corporations interests on the line unlike in the possum abbatoir case.

I guess the upshot of all this being uncovered is the mass of resources that the dodgy side of the news has compared to the real reporters. As you say unfortunately due to the publics appetite for crap news stories about whether posh spice has decided to become a buddist appear to be all the public is interested in means that the press will go to any length to uncover such stories and throw any level of resources to that end. Then while doing this leave the plot to blow up london for the handful of real reporters who are left with very little in the way of resources compared to those who follow up these kinds of stories.

I am all for freedom of the press it is just a shame that what we want to learn from the press is so mundane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I have some correction to make in the above post.

I decided to go and read a review of the lerah game meats case to clear up some things in my own mind.

An injunction to prevent the ABC airing the footage was made and succeded at the full court of the supreme court of tasmania not the high court as I say above.

this was then put to the high court later a review of that decision case can be found here and it does give a good background to how the regulation operates in Australia even if the writer of the review does not think the case is that informative, for laymen like myself it certainly exposes at least the doubt surrounding such law in Australia;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/MULR/2002/36.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=possum%20abatoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it's illegal to hack into peoples phones here. I see this as more of a violation privacy issue. If a public servant accesses information here that is not strictly related to the performance of their duties then they get the sack/charged and they can also be jailed for more severe cases. I can't see why this is any different that those cases if Britain has similar laws. I can't see why it should be a freedom of the press issue if laws have been broken.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 (jump to Section 7) covers it though IANAL. It does also mention civil remedies (Section 165).

http://www.austlii.e...ct/taaa1979410/

Section 474 of the Schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995 also covers intercepting telecommunications, so I'd say phone hacking is officially naughty in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the news last night I saw Rupert and James leave a building and be swamped by journalists. James had his hands full to keep them out of their face and he was doing a pretty bad job of it. I felt a bit sorry for Rupert. Come to think of it a camera knocking into his head could have left the old bugger for dead.

You would think they could afford a ring of bodyguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for respond to my post SC.

You begin to highlight how complicated this whole issue gets, when you start to pull it apart.

It begins to look like a tangled fishing line, that if you pull on one loop, you may gain some line only to have other parts tighten up.

This is what I was arguing.

This is now a very complicated issue.

I have long believed that individuals no longer really have any privacy.

To join any online forum such as this one, I'm required to supply my details, or at least some of them.

But a person before the 1500's could live in relative anonymity, and sometimes complete isolation without any authorities even knowing they existed. Indigenous Australians is a case in point. They lived in this country in anonymity for thousands of year. This recent issue is associated with the price of technological advancement.

I agree there have to be lines.

I just don't know where you draw the line now.

As soon as you draw a line, you create a pseudo censorship. (We've been down this path before on this forum)

Is that what we want, or do we agree there have to be lines, and therefore none of us demand that the line be crossed.

We (modern people), are so clamouring for the juicy and gory bits, we are almost hoping that someone find out and tell us. That someone supply pictures so that we can see the devastation for ourselves, etc!!!

I'm fine with the line where it is at the moment sol. I don't see regulation of peoples privacy as censorship though. If NOTW broken the law then prosecute them. If society doesn't agree with the law or no law exists lets lobby/vote to have it changed. I don't know the penalties for phone hacking either here or britain. I'll try and find out.

I think that now they're are suspicions they've bribed a royal body guard security concerns might kick in. (Pay this guard 1000 pound for some phone numbers - how much does he charge for letting an assassin through? Especially now that he/she is compromised and has taken the first payment - we can blackmail him.)

There has to be an enquiry. The cops are involved so it's going to be interesting to see the terms and references of the enquiry and how serious they are about chasing it up the chain.

Let's hope they all rat on each other to minimise they're own penalty. Classic prisoners dilemma. (Thanks tor) :)

I guess I was arguing from the perspective of protecting people from scenes or issues of life, that can also harm their well-being, rather than the sense of reaching purity. Morals are a slippery area of science. Some human beings believe there is actually no place for them in the modern world, and that they are carry over from the conservative past. I disagree.

I was trying to highlight a period where individuals made some calls, (whether right or wrong), not to release certain information on the basis of certain member of society being ill-equipped to cope with it.

That doesn't seem to be the case today, and people almost demand that they be allowed to access all information associated with an experience or event. This is fascinating stuff, and hopefully you can appreciate that it has tentacles into every sphere of life. When does information become gossip, etc, in families or amongst work colleagues?

Kids have access to the internet now. I must admit I was pretty naive during my own childhood. Very straight air force crowd.

Even so I'm not convinced that shielding people from reality is a good thing. To know what humans are capable of (for both good and ill) I think is quite important to know.

I agree that the scrutiny of celebs/politicians is overboard. The internet is now the court of public opinion. The bullsh*t that flies around this media is awe inspiring. An exceptional bullsh*t detector is required. The trouble is everyone thinks their bullsh*t detector is better than everyone elses. Who would be a politician?

Definitely not.

The case you provide is a good example, as to the reason not.

The bible has a piece though which suggests that all human beings prefer the dark, rather than the light.

Mainly because we all have little/subtle aspects of our life, that we do not want to become public knowledge.

Now why is that?

Shame. Guilt. Excuses. Pride. Lots of different reasons, for keeping things hidden.

Nobody needs to know that Ms clown and I do it wearing chickens suits. Doh!

I agree, and the greater challenge is actually keeping pace with them.

Legislation will never keep pace with the technology, mainly because legislation usually only is written after the fact has become obvious that there is a discrepancy or fault that needs to be repaired.

I'm glad you will have a necessary job for that long, because I think unemployment is on the rise in Australia in the near future.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Hope I've answered some of your concerns raised by my earlier post.

It is hard to explain fully in a digital dialogue, sometimes exactly what you mean.

Thank you sol. Morality is a subject that interests me too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now