Guardian: Detectives have told a cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes his number

[cal04]

Breaking news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
* LATEST: Detectives have told a cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes his number was found on the phone-hacking list of a News of the World private investigator. More details soon …


Phone hacking: Family of Jean Charles de Menezes targeted
Mr de Menezes was killed by police marksmen on a tube carriage at Stockwell underground station on July 22 2005, in the wake of attempted terror attacks on London. The 27-year-old Brazilian electrician was mistaken for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8637532/Phone-hacking-Family-of-Jean-Charles-de-Menezes-targeted.html

[leveymg]

1. That would indeed be a scoop if the number was acquired before he was shot 7 times in the head

Otherwise, it just looks like it could be legitimate journalistic background research. Is it illegal to hack a dead person's phone?

[aquart]

2. Is it YOUR phone? Do you own his things if he's dead?

We have laws of inheritance, not grab what you can off the corpse.

[leveymg]

3. Just asking. Do you know what UK and US law says on the subject?

You have to have a victim for the crime of wiretapping. Not sure that an "estate of" qualifies under that legal definition.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. "Is it illegal to hack a dead person's phone?"

Yes, it bloody well is.

:wow:

[MattBaggins]

5. If you went into the house of a dead person

and took off with their TV what would happen?

[leveymg]

6. That's theft against property. Wiretapping is invasion ofd of Privacy. Do dead people have privacy

rights? Can someone give us an informed answer on this, please.

Otherwise, the media outrage over tapping dead children and 9/11 victims is misplaced, and we'll all be in for another letdown. The wiretapping of Royals and politicians, however, those are crimes.

[salin]

7. at least on of those 'tapping dead children' involved tampering with evidence.

Real crime when messages were deleted by the hacker.

[leveymg]

9. Yes, that is a special case, though. What about merely copying the tape?

Is that technically wiretapping?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I think this is informed here - it's about the system, not the recipient

Phone hacking involves both criminal offences, which can lead to a fine and/or imprisonment for those involved and a civil cause of action which allows its victims to sue for damages.

Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) makes it an offence to intentionally intercept communications transmitted over a public telecommunication system without a “lawful excuse”, which will only usually cover investigations by the Police or Security Services. Section 3 of the Act allows any victim of unlawful interception to sue in the Civil Courts. Unlike many similar offences and civil claims, there is no “public interest” defence available to Hackers.

The first major conviction under RIPA for phone hacking came in 2006 after Journalist Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire received prison sentences following the alleged surveillance of several members of the Royal Family against a backdrop of claims that there were only a few “rotten apples” involved. That statement now seems hollow at best.

Additionally, the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) allows the Information Commissioner’s Office to prosecute hackers for criminal offences including unlawfully obtaining, disclosing and procuring the collection of personal under section 55. Available defences involve obtaining the information in question to prevent or detect crime or if otherwise authorized to do so, again leaving surveillance solely within the province of the Police or other law enforcement bodies except where a disclosure is in the public interest, which is exceptionally rare and inconceivable in the case of the latest allegations.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/978/The_legal_and_moral_issues_surrounding_phone.html

So the offence under RIPA does not refer to the person who is the recipient of messages. Here's the law:

1 Unlawful interception.

(1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(a)a public postal service; or

(b)a public telecommunication system.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/I/chapter/I

[leveymg]

11. Note phrase: "in the course of transmission". Is hacking into an answering machine

actually collecting a message in the course of transmission? Is a home or business answering machine legally even part of a public telecom system?

Tapping someone's cell phone is definitely illegal under those UK statutes, but what about message machines? I'm not so sure. . . and I think Murdoch and his minions were counting on that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Yes, it is in the course of transmission

There are not home or business answering machines; these are the voicemail services that are part of the public telecom system (though answering machines may well be covered by the next section about private systems). There was a claim at one point that if they listened to the messages after the intended recipient, then it wouldn't count as 'transmission', but that was turned down.

Remember, the NotW royal reporter and the PI (Goodman and Mulcaire) have already been to prison for this.

[leveymg]

14. Thanks for that info! ;-) (happy face) Linkies?

What does the separate section about private systems say? I assume that's UK law.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Same .gov.uk URL as above:

"(2)It shall be an offence for a person—

(a)intentionally and without lawful authority, and

(b)otherwise than in circumstances in which his conduct is excluded by subsection (6) from criminal liability under this subsection,

to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.
...
(6)The circumstances in which a person makes an interception of a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system are such that his conduct is excluded from criminal liability under subsection (2) if—

(a)he is a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the system; or

(b)he has the express or implied consent of such a person to make the interception."

But I don't know if an answering machine does count as a 'system' (that may be meant to refer to internal company systems, for instance).

[leveymg]

17. Seems clear enoug, after the ruling that the statute applies after the call is made, that Murdoch's

minions are screwed under UK law for phone machine hacking as well as wiretapping cell phone calls.

There were thousands of such offenses, as I understand.

Is there a criminal or civil RICO statute, or similar, under UK law? If this sort of thing can be been shown to have happened here (as it would appear, if they were hacking the 9/11 victims), then prosecution under RICO would apply. It is possible that the US/UK gov'ts could seize News Int'l, if not NewsCorp and FoxNews.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I don't know of any British law similar to RICO

but, as they say, I Am Not A Lawyer. I've never heard it suggested that a whole company could be seized; the focus has always been on which individuals knew or instigated what.

[leveymg]

21. US RICO statute calls for seizure of "legitimate enterprise assets" of criminal organizations

But, given what we've seen so far from this Attorney General, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Racketeering/RICO


Federal and state racketeering, profiteering, and RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws make it illegal for criminal organizations to profit from any legitimate business operations. Many of these laws allow for the confiscation and seizure of the criminal organization's legitimate enterprise assets, and are typically used against known "organized crime" groups. The goal is to cripple the operation financially, and cut off sources of cash that support ongoing criminal activity.
Learn About the Law

VA

Federal

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
18 USC Chapter 96
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/racketeering_rico.html

[trumad]

10. Are you serious?

[leveymg]

12. Quite. About the legality of message machine hacking, there do seem to be gray areas of the law

No question, however, that intercepting someone's cell phone conversation is illegal under UK and US law.

[trumad]

16. This was cell phone hacking...

not some answering machine inside someones home.

It is quite illegal.

[leveymg]

18. Good! Wonderful - hope the higher ups get conspiracy and the company gets RICO

This could be the end of Murdoch's empire, as we've known it.

[trumad]

20. Network and Mobile Security is what I do for employment.

The hackers that work for my company can turn a cell phone inside out. Obtaining passwords on a cell phone, like Voice Mail passwords are very doable and very illegal.

[leveymg]

23. Do key loggers work on cell phones, just like computers?

Is there any difference in the succeptability to taps and viruses of Blackberry vs. other phones? (AT&T technical services claim that Blackberries rarely, if ever, have viruses.

What about when a Blackberry runs through another network, say AT&T? Isn't it just as exposed as any other phone - or is the circuitry more secure and the RIM network has better security that effectively blocks most viruses and spyware?

Finally, I saw it claimed that cellphone signal interception and de-encryption requires extremely sophisticated equipment that is only available to law enforcement and intel agencies in the US and UK. Is that true? The following Black Hat paper would seem to indicate otherwise: http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-08/Steve-DHulton/Whitepaper/bh-dc-08-steve-dhulton-WP.pdf

[trumad]

24. RIM is very secure... Android... not so much.

Remember... most cell phones now have wireless capabilities and are as vulnerable as a regular access point. If a cell phone access's your rouge AP...game is on with the key loggers.

Software to hack a cell phone can easily be obtained on the internet for around 45 bucks.

[leveymg]

25. Thnx

[LiberalAndProud]

22. I would think tampering with evidence would be a crime.

And it appears that they may have done so.

British wiretapping laws require consent, or implied consent. I don't think a dead person can consent to such a thing. Indeed, it would appear that dead people are protected against wiretapping.