So here's what makes me curious about the UK phone hacking scandal.

[TheWraith]

If you're attempting to engage in illegal electronic surveillance of government employees and legislators, for the purpose of discovering secrets... then what, exactly, is the dividing line between a tabloid newspaper, and a hostile intelligence agency cell?

[indurancevile]

1. good question.

[aquart]

2. None whatsoever.

Murdoch has made himself a superpower without citizenry just by doing exactly that. Makes Osama look like a rank amateur.

[myrna minx]

3. I wonder what MI5 and MI6 have to say about this.

Good question.

[CJCRANE]

4. Espionage and propaganda.

Two great things that go great together...

[Hutzpa]

5. What is your definition of hostile intelligence agency cell

would you elaborate on that.

[CJCRANE]

6. It seems pretty obvious.

NewsCorp hacked the phones of British royalty, British politicians, bribed police officers and royal bodyguards, not just for the purpose of obtaining stories, but also to gain inside knowledge and exert covert pressure to implement policies favorable to them.

[Hutzpa]

11. It is not obvious if they are doing it for profit reasons

or to sell more fake news, now a covert operation is just that, a covert operation,
you have to show proof why you think the individual is a risk to the government for
you to undertake a covert operation against a tax paying citizen.

Not the same thing.

[CJCRANE]

12. That's still...

espionage. We'd call it industrial espionage if the Russians or Chinese did it.

Plus the phone hacking is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other more serious allegations that are emerging.

On edit: plus don't forget we're talking about the UK, where Murdoch is not a taxpaying citizen.

[Hutzpa]

16. But,

if it IS espionage wouldn't that put them in more doodoo than they realize. :shrug:
How can they explain spying on the Queen and the Royal family, spying on the
former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

[CJCRANE]

19. In fact

I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a company to spy on, bribe or threaten members of another company for the purposes of gaining a commercial advantage. That's industrial espionage, even if it involves companies from the same country.

So throw in a foreign corporation and high-level politicians and police officers and it's starting to sound serious.

[Hutzpa]

21. Absolutely.

indeed, and that is how you get them on this side of the Atlantic.

[Uncle Joe]

26. What happens when "for profit reasons" threaten national security?

Using distorted propaganda and forcing extorted policy to undermine critically needed legislation ie; global warming policy, working against holding destructive corporate malfeasance to account for the purpose of benefiting a select ideology etc. etc. which in turn either threatens society or serves to disenfranchise or alienate the people from their government?

In a day when mega-corporations can bounce from nation to nation, I'm not of the mind that "for profit reasons" should be a blanket exemption from the charge of traditional espionage of putting governments at risk.

I see no reason as to why they couldn't potentially be prosecuted of both espionage and industrial espionage, depending of course on the outcome of the investigation(s).

[Hutzpa]

30. And, get this

according to the Supreme Court Ruling, they(corporate) are now considered an individual, so what
would you do to an individual caught using unscrupulous means to gain an advantage. :shrug:

[TheWraith]

7. A group of people working to engage in espionage on a government from within it's territory.

Usually funded and supplied by an outside power.

[Hutzpa]

9. I thought you might be going down that road

are you trying to bridge covert operation with phone hacking/blagging?

[TheWraith]

13. No one said anything about "covert operations."

Most intelligence agency operations have nothing whatsoever in common with such Hollywood fantasies. They are, usually, information gathering operations.

[Hutzpa]

22. I thought gathering of information is based on covert

operation, it is done in extreme secrecy, no?

[TheWraith]

29. As is, say, any other criminal enterprise, such as illegally hacking thousands of phone accounts. nt

[spanone]

8. it's terrorism. plain and simple.

[malaise]

10. Excellent question which begs another question

What was the role of the cell phone companies in both?

[JuniperLea]

15. !

And are their asses covered on that count here in the US?

[Hutzpa]

18. I can see where this is going but I don't want to say it. n/t

[JuniperLea]

23. I know...

Things that made us go hmmmmm years ago might be making more sense in this light... and not in a good way.

[Hutzpa]

24. Yup! n/t

[dmr]

14. I've always equated Murdock to Elliot Carver's character from "Tomorrow Never Dies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies

Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver, a media mogul modelled on Robert Maxwell, but analysed as a satire on Rupert Murdoch.<5> He is completely insane and possibly even psychopathic, with scant regard for any of the lives destroyed or simply taken as a result of his media ambition.

[Hutzpa]

20. Well yes, the similarities are uncanny.

Yes, the dude that reports the news before it happens.

But see what 007 did to him in the end.

Do not mess with HMSS.

[fascisthunter]

17. You Nailed It

...AND I would like somebody in the media to ask that question too!

[JDPriestly]

25. Exactly. The dream of terrorists.

Murdoch makes Manning and Wikileaks look like amateurs.

Manning and Wikileaks published documents that were already widely disseminated within our military. But Murdoch's crew stole (and probably published) information that was not intended for anyone's hearing or view other than the person to whom it was addressed. The expectation of secrecy/privacy was much greater as to the things that Murdoch was snooping into.

Manning and Wikileaks was far less intrusive. They published reports that were intended for a limited audience, but an audience, none the less.

Also, the Manning and Wikileaks documents concerned matters of public interest, great public interest, much of which should have been made public anyway. Whereas, the information that Murdoch stole was in part highly personal.

Further, the things Murdoch learned in this illegal fashion may have included matter that his empire could have used for extortion. The question arises to what extent they did use some of this information for a form of extortion?

Manning and Wikileaks do not appear to have intended to use information for extortion. Murdoch?????

[Taverner]

27. HAHAHA Lock Murdoch up in Gitmo!!!!

[JuniperLea]

28. +1

:rofl:

He can stew a while.

[Rex]

31. A very, very good question I'd like to hear the answer to!

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Hostile?

Given the evidence that the police were helping Murdoch's criminal enterprise, acting as contractors for what he was doing, I would say they had a serious leg up on "hostile" intelligence agencies. It seems the police will help you break the law provided:

1) You are white.

2) You have a lot of cash.

For an American example see the Whitey Bulger story.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Mass-Unholy-Alliance-Between/dp/0060959258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310648651&sr=8-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger


Here you had the FBI paying a mobster while he killed 19 people, then warning him when he was about to be arrested so he could gather money and escape.

Everybody was involved in this caper working to help a stone-cold killer: The FBI, the press and the state government. there were frequent column's in the Boston Globe defending him, and his brother ran the political machine for the state.

The nice thing about an operation like Murdoch's is that the real "intelligence" agencies like MI-5 and MI-6 could use it for their black bag work and get around any laws restraining them.