In the quoted text he says NoW’s surveillance was more thorough than the Stasi’s, not that they are more powerful. The latter would be fairly stupid, so your headline’s a bit unfair to Rusbridger.

So much for the assurances we were given about RIPA, which was a pretty poor Act anyway.

This level of criminality is astonishing. The criminal abuse of police power and receipt of bribes alone should make any reasonable person’s hair stand on end.

Fair point, I’ve changed the headline and added the NYT article.

Apparently, authorisation is restricted to relatively few individual officers.

So it shouldn’t be too difficult to find out whodunnit, should it?

It is pretty clear that News International and by extension News Corp is a racketeering criminal enterprise. Simply not enough for News Corp to withdraw their offer for BSkyB. Considering that they are unfit shareholders they must be ordered to dispose of their existing shareholding in BSkyB. Moreover, News Corp must be told to sell all the other NI titles and exit from the UK market. If the unholy troika do not appear at next weeks Culture Media and Sport Committee there is nothing preventing MPs sending a sergeant-at-arms to arrest them and compel their appearance.

What is the evidence for this? Is it just rumour? I find it very hard to believe. If it is true then…wow

The NYT needs to stop making speculative claims and give us actual evidence, or hand over what they’ve got to the Judge-led enquiry ASAP. If these rumours are true then News Int needs breaking up immediately and all those involved in this criminal enterprise prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Including James and Rupert Murdoch.

Including James and Rupert Murdoch.

They’ve got levels of editors and executives in between them and the crime, so even if they did know about it (I’d be mildly surprised if they didn’t) I can’t see them being charged unless someone has something definite. I guess it’s not the New York Times.

Is this accusation limited only to News of the World journalists incidentally? Because if it is, it is not a News International problem, if it is not, do we believe that only News International did it?

In corporate liability, the company is guilty when a person acting for the company is guilty, they are considered the mind of the company. That company is News International. Nice try with attempting to irrelevantly extend the accusations to other organisations. Irrelevant and in no way minimises the guilt of News International. Moreover, only one media organisation is subject to a serious police investigation. So all the whataboutery about other media is just hot air.

@5. Richard W: “It is pretty clear that News International and by extension News Corp is a racketeering criminal enterprise.”

A couple of days ago I mentally constructed the same argument. It was the day that stories about illegal phone access by The Sun and one of the Times newspapers appeared.

Logically, the police should obtain warrants for NI’s entire server estate: email servers, the backend databases, file servers, content management systems. And they should grab all of the desktop and laptop PCs which might contain cached copies of incriminating documents or messages. And everybody’s mobile phone. But as with the Enron investigation, what do you do when you have so much data? It would take decades to analyse it.

But if there are further revelations about The Sun and Times, a massive confiscation is plausible.

“So all the whataboutery about other media is just hot air.”

You know what? I’m deeply unconvinced by that.

A declaration of interest: I’ve written for and been paid by News I. I have no current or ongoing relationship with them.

Back to the whatabboutery: I think we’re going to find that all of the newspaper groups were doing this sort of thing. Paying off coppers? Yes, certainly. That’s been going on for generations and most certainly is not restricted to NI.

I do think NI has serious problems about this (Sunny isn’t the first person to note that the US laws about foreign bribery could be problematic, I was published on this point on Monday) that other UK media groups might not.

But I really don’t think NI are unique in what they’ve been doing at all.

@11. Tim Worstall: “But I really don’t think NI are unique in what they’ve been doing at all.”

It depends on “what they’ve been doing”. If other newspapers have used underhand techniques to reveal political or economic corruption, readers and coppers turn a blind eye. If other newspapers have used those techniques for celeb stories, they deserve to get screwed.

“If other newspapers have used those techniques for celeb stories, they deserve to get screwed.”

That’s the bit I mean.

It would be terribly amusing if Murdoch were judged “not fit and proper” and thus had to sell the papers. And then no other UK newspaper owner was fit and proper to take them over.

No?

And yes, I know this is different: but HMRC itself has admitted to buying stolen information….

Tim, I agree if other groups have been involved in similar stuff we need to hear the allegations. Personally, I would not mind if the whole rotten UK newspaper lot went bust. The printed newspaper model is on the way out anyway. The chatter in the US is Murdoch wants out of UK newspapers completely to enable News Corp to come back with a bid for BSkyB at a later date. I don’t think he quite gets that his whole brand is toxic in this country. Even if someone bought the newspapers from him the government will not allow a bid for BSkyB to succeed even a year from now.

@13: Perhaps the NI stable should be placed in the hands of the voluntary sector, ‘The Big Society Community Press’, free of political bias, non-profit. Unlikely to happen, but they could’nt do a worse job than NI.
@14: Good point, he really does’nt seem to get it. It is’nt just his newspapers or his company. It’s him as a person the public simply do not trust.

“It would be terribly amusing if Murdoch were judged “not fit and proper” and thus had to sell the papers.”

I take all this with a pinch of salt. His critics are understandably but rather incoherently lashing out with the weapon that happened to be lying there, the BSkyB bid. The premise of the resolution is that he remains a fit and proper person to manage the company and own 39% of the shares but not the other 61% and neither side has any appetite to push the question to a logical conclusion. He may yet ditch the papers, but won’t be forced to. The Times in particular will I suspect have little appeal other than as a vanity project for an oner likely to make us nostalgic for the Digger.

While you’re here Tim, I’d be interested on your thought about Newscorp’s share buyback on the eve of what was on any view a market sensitive announcement on abandoning the BSkyB deal. Could this be a problem?

I don’t think the analogy is wild.

Yes it is. So they know where someone’s mobile phone is. So what? There are websites in Britain that you can sign up to that will allow you to do this. Admittedly you may need the permission of the phone owner.

That does not mean you know the owner of the phone has the phone. Or what they are doing. And they can simply turn it off.

That is a far cry from total surveillance.

9. Richard W

In corporate liability, the company is guilty when a person acting for the company is guilty, they are considered the mind of the company.

No. The company cannot be found guilty for the all actions of its employees. The company has to be shown to have contributed in some way. The liability applies only to the directing minds. This is the result of the Tesco case where Tesco was found not liable for the actions of a store manager because it had taken reasonable precautions and the manager was not one of the company’s directing people.

That company is News International.

You want it to be but that does not mean it is.

Nice try with attempting to irrelevantly extend the accusations to other organisations. Irrelevant and in no way minimises the guilt of News International.

It is not – another defence is what is commonly accepted practice. If everyone else is doing it, it is literally a legal defence.

Moreover, only one media organisation is subject to a serious police investigation. So all the whataboutery about other media is just hot air.

Which is evidence of a vendetta against Murdoch. Not that NI is unique.

18. So Much For Subtlety

Umm, in your world SMFS is committing a criminal offence by bribing police officers with company funds taking ‘ reasonable precautions ‘ to prevent the company not breaching the law. How do we know they bribed officers? Rebekah Brooks said so. “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

The senior executives who authorised the payment of the funds make the company liable through their seniority.

“It is not – another defence is what is commonly accepted practice. If everyone else is doing it, it is literally a legal defence. ”

Maybe you would like to point me towards where it says in the Bribery Act, it is acceptable if everyone does it?

” Which is evidence of a vendetta against Murdoch. Not that NI is unique. ”

Since he is not a British citizen we do not owe him anything do we? Is that not usually your position with regard to foreigners?

19. Richard W

Umm, in your world SMFS is committing a criminal offence by bribing police officers with company funds taking ‘ reasonable precautions ‘ to prevent the company not breaching the law. How do we know they bribed officers? Rebekah Brooks said so. “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

Paying people for information is not necessarily bribery. Nor is Ms. Brooks’ word evidence of a crime. If NI does not have a policy to do so and they have explained to people not to do so, then yes, I would think it is. We will have to see how it turns out.

The senior executives who authorised the payment of the funds make the company liable through their seniority.

If any senior executives did. And if those payments are bribes. If someone signs off on an expense account or on payment to a consultant, that does not make him guilty of bribery.

Maybe you would like to point me towards where it says in the Bribery Act, it is acceptable if everyone does it?

In the law on corporate liability. Not bribery.

Since he is not a British citizen we do not owe him anything do we? Is that not usually your position with regard to foreigners?

No we don’t. But you owe yourself. Spittle flecked speech is rarely edifying. And this site would do well with much less irrational hatred.

” Paying people for information is not necessarily bribery. ”

” (1)A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.

(2)Case 1 is where—

(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and

(b)P intends the advantage—

(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or

(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity. ”

Feel free to deny that a police officer is not acting ‘ improperly ‘ when they pass on confidential information to a journalist. Courts will have a different view.

Story needs clarifying. All mobile networks have to provide “lawful intercept” interface to the authorities. No one writes chits! If they want to know the location the network does indeed ping but that is very standard. It is in essence the same way it handles incoming calls! The same interface allows you to listen in on calls etc. If bent coppers in the met were using this to provide info to NI it is of a far worse degree than voice mail hacking. (I am a telecoms engineer).

21. Richard W

Feel free to deny that a police officer is not acting ‘ improperly ‘ when they pass on confidential information to a journalist. Courts will have a different view.

Yeah. There’s that word “improperly” though. The Courts may have a different view but we will have to see as neither of us know what their view is now. Policemen pass information to the media all the time. It is part of their jobs. They brief the media both formally and informally. They use the media to appeal to the public for information. Now it will vary case by case, but it is hard to believe that any accused policemen won’t argue that they were behaving properly as their intent was to further their investigations by raising community awareness of a particular crime. Or even that good relations with the media is vital for modern policing and that implies a sharing of information. Or perhaps as they all tend to have sociology degrees these days, they will simply argue that they believe in open government and in the public’s right to know.

We are in the midst of one of our usual hysterical witch hunts right now. But when things have calmed down, it is hard to see how anyone is going to be convicted for this. Unfortunately.

“I’d be interested on your thought about Newscorp’s share buyback on the eve of what was on any view a market sensitive announcement on abandoning the BSkyB deal. Could this be a problem?”

As far as I’m aware, they haven’t actually bought any shares yet. They’ve just filed the notice that they will, or might, over the next 6 -12 months. That’s a fairly standard thing, to file the (what, k-8 form maybe?) form and then that allows you, as and when you wish (ie, probably when the shares dip a little) to mop up a few shares here and there.

So, no, not a problem at all, even at the edges of theory.

BTW, the big “crime” (not necessarily criminal, but very much frowned upon) is not to release the statement to the stock exchange when you’ve made one of these big deisions. So, whatever was going on with BSkyB or anything else, a $5 billion buyback is a material event: you must announce it when you’ve decided it. Similarly the dropping of the Sky bid: must announce it as you’ve decided it.

22. tenpole

If bent coppers in the met were using this to provide info to NI it is of a far worse degree than voice mail hacking.

Yes but would they need a bent copper? As I said, there are services in the UK you can sign up to in order to track mobile phones. Read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/02/mobile-phone_tracking/

This is simply the first such company I found with google:

http://www.mobilelocate.co.uk/#

They are supposed to get authorisation from the phone’s owner but as it is so simple to do, I assume you could just chuck a guy in the back office a brown envelope and Bob’s your uncle.

@25

Article doesn’t say that they joined a website and paid bribes. It says they paid Policemen. They went through Police channels. It also says police are only authorised to do this for high level criminal and terrorist operations where in subsequent court cases an expert is called to explain the triangulation between phone masts to a jury.

Back to the whatabboutery: I think we’re going to find that all of the newspaper groups were doing this sort of thing. Paying off coppers? Yes, certainly. That’s been going on for generations and most certainly is not restricted to NI.

I do think NI has serious problems about this (Sunny isn’t the first person to note that the US laws about foreign bribery could be problematic, I was published on this point on Monday) that other UK media groups might not.

But I really don’t think NI are unique in what they’ve been doing at all.

Of course they aren’t.

From What Price Privacy Now? by the ICO:

What price privacy?’ reported that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Following the report the Information Commissioner received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for further information about the publications that the 305 journalists were employed by and a breakdown of their activity. After considering the relevant exemptions information which did not identify the journalists or the publications was provided to the requester.

Having considered the matter further the Information Commissioner has decided that a further disclosure is in the public interest and in the context of a special report to Parliament is consistent with the discharge of his functions under the Data Protection Act 1998. The following table shows the publications identified from documentation seized during the Operation Motorman investigation, how many transactions each publication was positively identified as being involved in and how many of their journalists (or clients acting on their behalf) were using these services.

It should be noted that while the table is dominated by tabloid publications they are far from being alone. Certain magazines feature prominently and some broadsheets are also represented. The Commissioner recognises that some of these cases may have raised public interest or similar issues, but also notes that no such defences were raised by any of those interviewed and prosecuted in Operation Motorman.

The NotW was not the worst offender.

Maybe you would like to point me towards where it says in the Bribery Act, it is acceptable if everyone does it?

Fine, provided you point out where in the Bribery Act 2011 it says that it applies retrospectively to payments alleged to have been made 8-9 years before the Act came into force.

SMFS,

Policemen pass information to the media all the time. It is part of their jobs. They brief the media both formally and informally. They use the media to appeal to the public for information. Now it will vary case by case, but it is hard to believe that any accused policemen won’t argue that they were behaving properly as their intent was to further their investigations by raising community awareness of a particular crime. Or even that good relations with the media is vital for modern policing and that implies a sharing of information. Or perhaps as they all tend to have sociology degrees these days, they will simply argue that they believe in open government and in the public’s right to know.

They are not allowed to accept payment in return for handing over information that is supposed to be confidential / private / sensitive. And no, “everyone else does it” is not a defence.

26. dave bones

Article doesn’t say that they joined a website and paid bribes. It says they paid Policemen. They went through Police channels. It also says police are only authorised to do this for high level criminal and terrorist operations where in subsequent court cases an expert is called to explain the triangulation between phone masts to a jury.

Sure. And maybe the article is even right. But my point is that this isn’t some high tech James Bond sh!t. It is painfully low tech. Anyone can do it.

29. ukliberty

They are not allowed to accept payment in return for handing over information that is supposed to be confidential / private / sensitive. And no, “everyone else does it” is not a defence.

I agree. And they shouldn’t. Those found to have done so ought to be booted from the Force. But realistically they have a Union and so like every other Civil Servant they will be all but unsackable. If Sharon Shoesmith can walk with millions for being sacked, God knows how this will turn out.

However if it comes to trial, I wonder how much of a record there will be. Bribery is hard to prove. You think they got receipts? You think they won’t claim it was for perfectly acceptable consultancy work? You think that they won’t claim it was a bet on a golf match or something?

@30

“But my point is that this isn’t some high tech James Bond sh!t. It is painfully low tech. Anyone can do it.”

“Anyone” can follow you around without you suspecting & make written notes about where you are, who you’re seeing, what you’re buying, what you’re saying. That’s even more low-tech “sh!t”. The point isn’t how low or high tech the snooping it, it’s that it may be happening by an organisation with no good reason whatsoever (I can sort of see the point of snooping with regard to terrorism etc even though the liberal in my shudders at the thought).

@31

Er, illegality? Breach of confidence? Abuse of power?

Don’t let SMFS obscure the central issues.

Where does the much-vaunted righty notion of liberty stand under these circumstances? Or freedom? Or rule of law?

SMFS,

agree. And they shouldn’t. Those found to have done so ought to be booted from the Force. But realistically they have a Union and so like every other Civil Servant they will be all but unsackable. If Sharon Shoesmith can walk with millions for being sacked, God knows how this will turn out.

However if it comes to trial, I wonder how much of a record there will be. Bribery is hard to prove. You think they got receipts? You think they won’t claim it was for perfectly acceptable consultancy work? You think that they won’t claim it was a bet on a golf match or something?

I’m sure if it is easy that the officers would be locked up already – I don’t believe anyone is claiming this will be easy.

31. Mr S. Pill

“Anyone” can follow you around without you suspecting & make written notes about where you are, who you’re seeing, what you’re buying, what you’re saying. That’s even more low-tech “sh!t”.

Sure. But completely legal I would guess.

The point isn’t how low or high tech the snooping it, it’s that it may be happening by an organisation with no good reason whatsoever (I can sort of see the point of snooping with regard to terrorism etc even though the liberal in my shudders at the thought).

So again your basic problem with this is that it was NI and the NOTW that did it and not that snooping per se?

Good reasons are hard things to define. What most people here seem to think of as a good reason is one aligned with their political beliefs. And because the Left has been losing for a long time in Britain, they usually want that enforced by the government. This is not a good idea. So it remains hard to see what they have done that they are actually going to get punished for – except being NI.

32. Cherub

Er, illegality? Breach of confidence? Abuse of power?

You mean NI or someone following someone else around writing down what they are saying?

Where does the much-vaunted righty notion of liberty stand under these circumstances? Or freedom? Or rule of law?

Surely liberty ought to go to the right of people to follow other people around and write down what they have to say?

@32/34

No, my point is that I reluctantly see the point of spies and so on with regards to governments (and yes the things mentioned @32 do bother me) – but corporations, particularly news corporations with the power to destroy people’s lives, should never be allowed to resort to such tactics. The difference is that governments are accountable (or supposed to be at least) – corporations are only accountable to their shareholders.

And SMFS: if the Guardian or Indie or Morning Star or whoever is found to be using the same criminal tactics that NI has been doing then I will be equally vocal in my criticism of them.

@24 Thanks Tim

I think the Stasi analogy is stupid:
1) The Stasi ceased operation in 1989. Of course they didn’t have the same technological methods that News of the World has had in the 21st century.
2) The Stasi recruited children as spies on their parents, husbands as spies on their wives, students as spies on their teachers. The Stasi could wreck your life, your relationship, your career, they could lock you up and torture you.