Aside from the fact that its not "hacking".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24746550
This is going to be interesting, at least to me.
Whether they knew about it or not, proving it will be very hard. I have no doubt that they approved and paid financial rewards, and knew that they were approving them; Although that doesn't really prove much insofar as accessing someone else's voicemail is concerned.
And unauthorized phone access? I doubt that they actually knew, although perhaps they suspected. And I would be shocked if they "officially" knew.
For example, sometimes I work on sensitive stuff. Sometimes I know stuff about the situation that I share with those paying me. I pretty much never share how I know, and as far as I can recall I've never been asked. (In my case this is to avoid demystifying my perceived value rather than concealing anything illegal). Although perhaps its obvious that what I know came roundabout.
Particularly in this case I am unclear as to why the person who pays the bribe is somehow more morally reprehensible than the person who received the bribe. I would have rather thought it should be the other way around.
What equally confounds me is how the newspaper buying public is quite happy to read such private and lurid stories, especially those featuring the phrase "sources close to...." but somehow leap on an outraged soapbox when the "friend" turns out to be voicemail.
|