Two Hackers & A Side Of Corruption Please!

The Rebekah Brooks Trial

Image courtesy of Gwydion M. Williams at Flickr

It is now a well-recognised fact that Rebekah Brooks, the former editor of the News of the World and four other defendants (including her husband and former members of staff) were recently cleared of several charges at the Old Bailey. It is not a surprise that the trial lasted around 138 days and that it was classed as one of the most expensive and lengthy police inquiries in criminal history (costing around £100 million!). Almost 150 detectives were drafted to work full time on the following three inquiries, which opened in the wake of phone hacking allegations:

1. Operation Weeting - this investigation looked specifically at voicemail interception at the News of the World.

2. Operation Elveden - this examined allegations of corruption between journalists and public officials.

3. Operation Tuleta - this observed allegations of computer hacking.

So what were the horrific charges that had the world talking?
Brooks was charged with offences such as; conspiracy to hack phones, conspiracy to corrupt public officials and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - all of which she pleaded not guilty to and was found not guilty of, alongside her husband and colleagues.

Prior to Brooks's trial, five associates of the News of the World interestingly pleaded guilty to hacking charges:
Glen Mulcaire (Private Detective)
Neville Thurlbeck (Former Chief Reporter)
Greg Miskiw (Former News Editor)
James Weatherup (Senior Journalist)
Dan Evans (Reporter)
If her colleagues and associates were pleading guilty left, right and centre, how innocent is Brooks really?

The police force hunted for admissible, appropriate and sufficient evidence that may implicate Brooks and other newspaper figures. They gathered documents, such as emails from News International's Management and Standards Committee and contacted victims of the alleged phone hackings. Though, despite Brooks's acquittal, the police seemed to show no signs of abating their investigations, as they were reportedly planning to interview Rupert Murdoch (the News Corporation Chairman, or the devil himself - you decide) as a suspect.

The court heard witness speak of instances where Brooks authorised payments through emails to a Ministry of Defence official to obtain details of soldiers killed in action before they were officially released, whilst working for The Sun newspaper. Andrew Edis QC said "It really matters when [such detail] is released and how it was released to other people affected by it." My personal interest and concern, lies with the family and close friends of those soldiers who died and how they would feel about a price being placed upon the news of their beloved's death, merely to create a story for the public. The prosecution suggested that by behaving in such a way, Brooks was involved in a conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and that she knew this.

Where is Brooks now and what next for her future?
She could have faced a very lengthy prison sentence, a ruined reputation and financial difficulty, but with a good friend like PM David Cameron, was this really going to happen? Brooks has now stated that she will spend more time parenting her daughter, Scarlett. Since resigning from the News of the World, Brooks received a staggering £16.1m pay-off. According to a colleague who knows her well "Rupert [Murdoch] will not allow her to slip into poverty" - the pair remained very close during their legal troubles.

The Andy Coulson Trial

Image courtesy of Ninian Reid at Flickr

Andy Coulson, former deputy to Brooks and editor of the News of the World (between 2003 - 2007) was conversely found guilty of one charge of conspiracy to hack voicemails. The pair found themselves in an affair for 6 years, which was revealed in court.

Coulson was found guilty of being involved in the conspiracy to intercept the voicemails of many celebrities, royals, politicians and ordinary members of society when he was editor. The prosecution said that due to the scale of the hacking events whilst he was editor of the News of the World, he must have known about the scandal and the jury seemed to agree with this.

Subsequently after Coulson's conviction, PM David Cameron apologised for hiring him as his director of communications. He said that bringing Coulson to Downing Street was the "wrong decision". Ed Miliband had said that Cameron had "brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street" and his government was "tainted" as a result. Undoubtedly, this brings Cameron's judgement and logical reasoning into question by the public. It is clear and expected that Miliband, of the opposing party, would comment in such a way regarding the situation, but I cannot stop myself from wondering whether Cameron knew about the scandals and if so, how much he knew about it all. Did he know that members of the public were being violated and let it happen?

After the jury found Coulson guilty, he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (out of a possible maximum of 2 years). However, as reported so largely by the media, it is known that he served less than 5 months of this and was released. Coulson was subject to an open prison in Suffolk called Hollesley Bay after being moved from HMP Belmarsh in South East London. It is understood that he is now to wear an electronic tag until he has served half of his full 18 month sentence as a condition of his early release.

The Ministry of Justice has denied any comment on this case, but has said that prisoners could be released under home detention curfew arrangements. A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said "Public protection is our first priority. Only prisoners who pass a strict risk assessment can be released on HDC [home detention curfew]." Many people have experienced outrage at the outcome of these trials - the fact that Brooks was found not guilty and that Coulson was released after having served less than half of his sentence. Though some victims and victims' families had fairly positive words to say. Milly Dowler's parents said they were pleased that the case had led to a debate about press ethics. The investigation seems to have enlightened the public on the relationships between particular sectors within our society - politics and media.

Image courtesy of Gwydion M. Williams at Flickr

"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." - Napoléon I

Secrets & Lies!

The Obiter Media Law Podcast

Image courtesy of Michelangelo Carrieri at Flickr

This week, the Official Secrets Act 1989 and it's predecessor the Official Secrets Act 1911 were observed and construed. Myself and colleagues over at Blah Blah Media Law and Overseas In My Briefs recorded a podcast for you all to listen to. Apologies in advance for my bloopers and the horrific quality of my microphone!

"The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect Secrets, it is there to protect Officials." - Sir Humphrey, Yes Minister

Image courtesy of Michael Nielsen at Flickr

Shaken, not stirred.

Sharing Is Caring (As Long As You Attribute Me)

What is a creative commons licence?
A creative commons licence acts to allow other people to share and even modify your works that have been copyrighted without infringing the copyright and without the need for others to ask your permission. As we have seen from my copyright post, works created by individuals are automatically copyrighted in the UK. Creative commons provides licences to use the work free of charge!

Image courtesy of creative commons wikipedia

An example of how creative commons works:
Let's say that I wanted to use a photo on my blog, I would be able to use this image without having to ask the permission of the photographer who created that photo first, because they have already given permission through their creative commons licence.

Creative commons is split up into many elements/rules/licences that your use of the work will depend upon:

Image courtesy of creative commons wikipedia

This is 'attribution' (BY) and it means that I can use the work as long as I attribute/accredit the creator when I do.

Image courtesy of creative commons wikipedia

This is for 'non-commercial use' (NC) and it means that no one apart from the creator is permitted to make money from the work, so I would not be able to sell anything with an image belonging to someone else on it, for example.

Image courtesy of creative commons wikipedia

This is 'no derivatives' (ND), which means that the creator has not given permission to make modifications. I would be able to use the work, on my blog for example, but if I wanted to alter the work I would need to ask permission.

Image courtesy of creative commons wikipedia

This is 'share alike' (SA), which means that new creations which use and encompass the work need to be under the same licence or terms as the original one.


All works that are under a creative commons licence automatically have the rule of attribution, the other three may be added or left out depending on the creator's wishes.


Please visit and watch the following videos which are very useful for those who want to know more about creative commons and how to protect their works:

http://creativecommons.org/videos/creative-commons-kiwi
http://creativecommons.org/videos/get-creative

I shall now leave you with this entertaining and enlightening video on music and copyright to end my copyright related posts.




“If you have a candle, the light won't glow any dimmer if I light yours off of mine.” - Steven Tyler

Copyright or Copy Wrong?

Copyright allows creators (be they, authors, lyricists, artists, directors, etc) of intellectual property to make a living. The person who creates an original creative work should be the one to receive the economic rewards through accreditation and/or remuneration - through payment or royalties. This way, the creator will be recognised as the original rights or copyright owner; to whom rights will be reserved. These rights allow him/her to decide whether and how copying, distributing and other uses of their works take place.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

This Act introduced an automatic and immediate copyright in original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works (S.1(1) CDPA 1988). However, this does not exist until and unless the work has been recorded - though not necessarily by the author. For example, if a person recorded a band playing their music at a pub, then the copyright for this could vest in the band. It is important, then, to note that copyright does not protect ideas or creations themselves, but safeguards the expression of it.

General concepts cannot be copyrighted, for example, the general idea of a battle in outer space; the idea needs to be sufficiently well developed (Fraser v Thames TV [1983]). Also, character names appear not to have the ability to be copyrighted, although they would be able to be registered as trademarks to be distinguishable as a separate brand - for example, 'James Bond'.

A copyrighted work under CDPA 1988 can be relatively easy to prove within the scope of the Act. This means that there are no strict standards of novelty to be met, as there are with patent laws and trademarks. Due to the fact that the copyright automatically arises, there is no official form of registration of copyrights in the UK, as there are in places such as the USA.

So, how can a person copyright their works for free?

Musicians and their musical works would be a good example. If a musical artists was willing to pay for their copyright, then they could sign up to the Musicians' Union. However, not all musicians have the financial luxury of splashing out on these sorts of membership whilst trying to make their 'big break'. Therefore, musicians could write and record their music, seal it inside an envelope containing their name, the date the music was written and published. They would also need to send this package to themselves in the post and leave it unopened (as I have used this method in the past when I played music, it is likely that examples involving music will be used a lot!) This way, if there was ever a legal dispute, the musician could demonstrate their free copyright through this method and leave it to the trial judge to open the package for him/herself.

How long will a copyright last?

In September 2011, the EU Parliament implemented the EU Copyright Term Directive 2011 (Directive 2011/77/EU) - this extends the copyrights for music performers and sound recordings to 70 years. Those who compose already had, by this point, owned copyright over their music until 70 years after their death! Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Cliff Richard were among the artists who had campaigned and lobbied at the European Commission for this to be implemented for sound recordings.

Copyright also applied to the internet in the same way that it does with other mediums of media. If a person wants to distribute works on the internet that belongs to another person, that they are granted the copyright owner's consent, unless any of the exceptions below apply:

- It is for non-commercial research and private study;

- Receives criticism or is a report of an event;

- Teaching in educational establishments;

- Helping visually impaired persons;

- Time-shifting (eg. a recording of a broadcast, made on domestic premises for domestic use for it to be viewed/listened to at a more convenient time.

It is not an infringement of copyright to create a work located in and which is available to the public domain. It may appear obvious, but copyright is also not infringed when the material is used within legal proceedings.

Economic Rights & Royalties

Intellectual property rights underpin the economic factor of creating a work, so that money can be made. Royalties are usage-based payments made by one party (usually the licensee) to another (the licensor) for ongoing use of their asset (their intellectual property right, eg. the copyright). These 'permissions'  usually come about through a written contract and the royalties tend to be a particular percentage of gross or net sales derived from the music CD, for example.

A royalty interest is the right of the creator of the work to collect a stream of future payments, as a percentage ownership of future productions/revenues from the license agreement that had been made.

The granting of an 'exclusive right' or 'licence' means that the copyright owner can grant a particular person limited rights to their creation. Let us take J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter novels for example. This diagram shows how one book can bring in revenue in many different ways through the assignment of rights, becoming assets to the companies involved. Though rights can be assigned to these companies for a temporary amount of time (please see more about licensing and creative commons in my next blog post).

Copyright Infringement

Breaching primary infringements (breaches of reproduction, rental rights, communication rights, etc) are strict liability offences - this means that there is no elements of mens rea to be proved (here comes the Latin phrases...) The mens rea refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act, so in an ordinary offence, intent or recklessness would need to be proven, but here this is different. This means that purely innocent breaches may be actionable - beware of what you 'use' or 'take' from the internet and anywhere else for that matter!

With regard to primary infringements, the court can offer relief in the form of criminal and civil remedies sufficient to deter such issues as film piracy and the copying of MP3 files. Possible defences include permitted acts, fair use/dealing, research and private study. The Chancery Division of the court will usually grant injunctions or use equitable remedies such as 'specific performance'. The High Court may be able to grant a warrant to check the copyright infringer's premises for other pirated goods, if they see it appropriate to do so.

Secondary infringements (such as selling, importing, using equipment to produce infringing items, etc) require the proof of actual or constructive knowledge from the defendant that they knew or ought to have known that they were committing an infringing act (an objective test).

Image courtesy of Giulia Forsythe at Flickr

"The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years." - David Bowie (2002)

I Know Something You Don't Know...

Many people often feel that all information (from private or public sources) should be published and be available for the world to see. Though, as it always is with the law, there is the prominent need to establish a healthy balance between the legitimate need for an organisation to gather information on people and the right of an individual's respect for privacy of their personal details. The problem that a court often sees, is that once sensitive information has been released to the public eye, it can be disseminated at the speed of light, ultimately leaving no way of retrieving it. It may be easy to state that all openness is good and that secrecy is bad, however, who is to claim that secrecy does no good for society? In fact, secrecy in diplomacy is a very effective tool for governments around the world. For instance, the UK uses the Official Secrets Act 1989 to prohibit the leaking of classified information.

Consider this point; if information held by the intelligence, such as, MI5 was to be disclosed publicly, this may be damaging because of the possibility of endangering British citizens (under s.3(2)(a) Official Secrets Act 1989) to terrorist and other international threat. Surely, in these situations, the public would regard secrecy as vital because it would be within the public interest.

Image courtesy of jeffschuler on Flickr

Data Protection Act 1998

The DPA 1998 has established a framework of rights and duties which are designed to safeguard personal data belonging to all of us (unfortunately, if information belongs to the deceased, it cannot be protected). Data protection specifically applies to the handling and processing of information (through a very wide spectrum - from manual through to electronic systems); so if a company processes this data publicly, then it must comply with the provisions of this Act.

So here is a little bit of information on how data is collected.

When an organisation collects or holds personal data, this is classed as processing data. For example, for those of who have signed up to the social media world of Facebook, the site itself would have requested numerous personal details when signing up (as you can see in the image below). 

If a person then proceeded to 'Get Facebook Mobile' (see arrows) then additional information would be processed by Facebook, such as, location and access to mobile phone contacts providing agreement has been made to its terms. It is likely that the DPA 1998 has required data handlers/controllers, such as, Facebook, to register with the Information Commissioner's Office. Many of us tend not to read through these seemingly pointless terms carefully enough, so do we really agree with what we are signing up for? If we do not agree with them, then is there a way to sign up without this information being handled or do we simply give up on this aspect of social media?

Everyone has the right to find out what information data controllers hold regarding themselves and can do so through making a subject access request via writing or email. It may not be commonly known, but students can actually conduct this process with their universities. Once a student requests information, the university would have 40 days to reply to this request and may have to provide documentation such as the following:

- A break down of all academic grades;

- Attendance records;

- Any CCTV footage of the student (and the list goes on...)

What is the nexus between DPA 1998 and FOIA 2000?
Since the FOIA came into force, it became clear that there were grey areas within both statutes. The Information Commissioner now handles both data protection and freedom of information requests. Whilst the DPA 1998 sets out the rules to ensure that personal information is handled appropriately by data controllers, the FOIA 2000 covers the right to know about public authorities and the information that they hold about individuals.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Do not be deceived by the stated date - the FOIA actually came into force in 2005! The Act requires public bodies to provide information when they are asked for it. As the Preamble says, this is an act to make provisions for the disclosure of information by public authorities or by persons providing information to them.

Any person who makes a request for information from a public authority is entitled:
- To be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds the information requested, and;
- If so, then the person should have that information communicated to them
- Where the public authority reasonably requires further information in order to identify and provide the person with what they originally requested, then the public authority does not need to do the above (providing it has notified the applicant of this).

Expenses, More Expenses & an 'Unsung Hero'

The steps required in FOIA were put to the test with the enrichment of Members of Parliament in the 'expenses scandal' of 2009.

Image courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin

The unsung hero, Heather Brooke (Journalist), played a major role in exposing the scandal that occurred, although she may not have received full credit for her investigative work. She first contacted the House of Commons in 2004, with an interest in the opacity of the UK parliamentary expenses system. When she spent time in the USA, she found that they have a relatively transparent system whereby anyone can access local politicians' receipts very quickly. At the time, she was told by the Commons that the expenses would be published in October of that year and so they were, but in suspicious bulk figures under categories named, travel, staff and second homes. As any journalist would, Brooke wanted to know the details, but the Commons would not allow this.

She filled in her freedom of information requests, knowing that if the Commons did refuse the information then she could appeal internally and then to the so-called 'outside' regulator - namely, the Information Commissioner. I say 'so-called', because the Information Commissioner is appointed by and has his salary paid for by the government. As expected, her requests in 2006 for details were all rejected and the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, also refused the publication.

In the High Court, Andrew Walker (the Head of the House of Commons Fees Office) described the expenses system that he oversaw on a daily basis, stating 'Transparency will damage democracy' and 'Public confidence is not the overriding concern per se...'. Tribunal members said the system 'constituted a recipe for confusion, inconsistency and the risk of misuse'.

The Commons presented two key arguments:
- Privacy - it was an invasion of privacy for the public to know what MPs spent public money on during their course of public duties.
- Security - MPs were likely to be 'shot in their beds' if their second home addresses were to be made public (but no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that these threats were imminent and not just a conspiracy theory).

Eventually, the judges ruled in Brooke's favour and the Commons was ordered to produce the expenses in a publication in October 2008, October and December went by but the information still had not been published, more and more taxpayers' money being spent in legal proceedings by this point. By the end of this, the information was published through illegitimate means, despite Brooke's years of hard work.

The Commons committed unforgivable acts repeatedly during this process of gaining transparency and an accountable government. MPs felt morose, though they had many opportunities to do right by those who had elected them as representatives.

Brooke's argues that in order for there to be a clean slate, those who created the mess need to be eradicated.
"Only then can we have a parliament of which we are proud." - Heather Brookes

The Rise and Fall of an Ethical Press

My friend at Blah Blah Media Law and I created this stomach churning, dizzy-making presentation about the Leveson Inquiry - please feel free to read and browse the elements of it at your pleasure!


For years, Rupert Murdoch's empire of tabloid newspapers hacked into private phone messages and voicemails for content to gossip about. Scandals such as the Milly Dowler case raised huge outcry by the public. Murdoch's tabloids erased messages from the kidnapping victim's phone, leading her parents to believe the misconception that she was still alive. The closure of the News of the World should have signalled the end of such invasions of privacy, but the act itself did not deal with the real issues and it is arguable whether the correct perpetrators have now been brought to justice.

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

Lord Justice Leveson's report has faced masses of criticism claiming that the Inquiry and the Report produced have left members of the press and victims dissatisfied. During the post-Leveson period, many now question how the Leveson Inquiry actually affected the culture, practice and ethics of the press.

The relevance of the Leveson Inquiry in protecting privacy and curtailing arguably excessive behaviour of the press should be questioned; its territory appears to be narrow and outdated. Are the Twitter ramblings of (sometimes) freelance journalists who have affiliation with 'the national press' included in its scope, or was the Inquiry simply analysing the practice of conventional journalists working for well-known newspapers? The press of the 21st century, however, seems to take in the form of social platforms; through realms such as, blogging software and the 'hidden corners' of the internet. It is important to note that the world of media appears to be entering a new age where ethics regarding the public interest are going to change and continue to do so further into the future.

This is not to say that those victims who were affected by the invasions of privacy that occurred, should not receive suitable redress. It appears that many of those who were affected, now feel at a loss to why so much money (£5,442,400) was spent on a way to find a solution, yet they are continuously expected to live contently with the damaging experiences forever. In addition to this, the inquiry did not effectively provide victims, or the rest of the public for that matter, with any information regarding the ways in which phone-hacking may occur and how to take preventative measures against it. I, personally, was not aware of how easy it is to hack a person's voicemail service until very recently. So how can the government and the press expect an average person to assist in preventing such atrocities from happening again?

Prime Minister David Cameron said only a new media regulatory system and a full inquiry into what went wrong with News of the World and beyond would meet public demand. However, we are now 2 years on from the Leveson report and neither has the public increased its trust in the media, nor is the press happy with its self-regulatory system.

Freedom of speech and the right to respect private life still maintain a battle.

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power." - Malcolm X