Now, pay close attention.
When this person's operation hacks into your voicemail and email account, they are committing a crime.
Rupert Murdoch
BUT.
When this person's organization hacks into your email and voicemail accounts - he is a hero.
Julian Assange
So.
As I type this, I'm watching the Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch getting grilled by the UK Parliament.
As they should. The evidence which has been disclosed thus far, that Murdoch's UK paper, "News of the World" engaged in phone hacking to obtain stories, including the hacking of information from a 13 year old schoolgirl, is reproachful.
We should all be offended and efforts certainly should be made to assure that while a vibrant and aggressive press is necessary to keep our government and others honest - when they cross the line into criminal behavior, they should be held accountable.
But the story, really, is bigger than that.
It is no secret that Rupert Murdoch is the man behind Fox News - a notorious right-wing voice in the United States, and worse yet (from the point of view of liberal types) his Fox News station is much more than appealing to a "fringe" element, with it's ratings typically dwarfing so-called liberal or "typical" media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.
So, then.
When the big dog.. the big conservative dog, is found to be offside, it is with great glee that MSNBC, CNN, and closer to home, CBC attack the Murdoch name like a pack of attack dogs.
Fine and fair - though, one might suggest that more and more as this story progresses, many in the mainstream media are beginning to look like Nancy Grace screeching for the head of Casey Anthony.
My question.
Where were you when Julian Assange was found to be distributing private information and private communications through his "WikiLeaks" franchise?
Michael Moore, darling of the "progressive movement" not only hailed Assange as a hero, but actually put up his bail money, stating:
WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.
Nice.
So, hacking into private emails and exposing them, to the great embarrassment and angst of hundreds of people is ok, as long as it's hacking the "right" people?
Seems to me a little bit like saying it's only a crime when you sexually assault a nun, but not if you sexually assault a prostitute.
Isn't stealing private information wrong? Period?
Or are we entering a world where we judge the wrong based upon who it is perpetrated against?
Alright - so hacking into the George W. Bush administration is "good", but hacking into the goings-on with the Obama administration is "bad"?
Or is it government employees can be hacked, but not the rest of us?
But wait! Police departments are an arm of the government. So then, the logic goes, hacking into or offering bribes to allow the public access to otherwise private information on police files should be perfectly acceptable - at least according to Michael Moore. Only then can we make the police and, by extension, "government" accountable.
Alright, then, to follow Michael Moore's tortured reasoning, if we hack and expose private communications for "good reasons", we call the hackers heroes - but if we hack and expose private communications for "bad reasons", we call them criminals.
Fine.
Who gets to make that call?
Michael Moore? Some star chamber of "right thinking" members of society who will decide whether the ends justify the means?
The thing is, we already have that. They are called "judges" and they issue these things called "warrants", to assure some basis upon which to authorize "hacking", to provide some parameters to the "hacking" and to provide some accountability for the hackers if they venture too far afield. Perfect? Hardly - but a little better than allowing some skinny albino freak to just do what he will, at will - or for that matter, some greasy so-called "journalist" from News of the World.
See - there is no justifying Julian Assange if you, at the same time, seek accountability and prosecution of those responsible for the hacking and other wrong-doing in the News of the World scandal.
Hacking private information is just wrong.
And whether someone hacks into a voice mail account or email account is really no different that what Julian Assange did when he gleefully accepts private communications and then publishes them.
The technology, really, just clouds the issue.
Rupert Murdoch's people, allegedly, hacked into the voicemail account of a murdered 13 year old girl.
Would it be any less offensive if they paid a housekeeper to steal her diary and published from that?
So, then, at what point is someone going to demand that Julian Assange be produced for parliamentary or congressional hearings to discuss how he gets what he gets and who gives it to him?
0 comments:
Post a Comment