Monday
Jul112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Guardian flip flops on hacking
Jul 11, 2011 Climate: CRU FOI Media Guido Fawkes notes that although the Guardian is on its high horse about the misdeeds of the News of the World, it was formerly all in favour of such tactics, publishing the hacked Wikileaks cables with some fanfare.
Of course as readers here know, before the latter incident the Guardian was against hacking, noting repeatedly that the (alleged) hacking on the CRU emails was illegal.
Flip, flop, flip.
Reader Comments (73)
It's rather like its views on tax-dodging viz it's OK when it does it; it's wrong only when someone else does it.
No. The wikileak cables were leaked not hacked. (clue is in the title)
Where’s the flip-flop? The Guardian makes an essential moral distinction between what’s in the public interest and what the public’s interested in. They’ve just revealed that the Sunday Times paid for information on Gordon Brown’s tax returns, and that the Sun paid for his handicapped son’s medical records.
The Telegraph praised the “brilliant journalism” of their rival. I’ve frequently praised Monbiot’s investigative journalism. Let’s not let our opposition to the Guardian’s suicidal espousal of gloal warming blind us to their qualities. They were defending women’s right to vote and the abolition of slavery when many who comment here were in short trousers.
If you watched Jeremy Hunt`s statement this pm in the HoC you will have heard him say that he hoped that hacking e-mails would receive the same attention as hacking phones or blagging bank accounts. Expect the political class to make the most of the current outcry against the NOTW and News Interntional to attack freedom of speech. The journalists` defence can only be public interest - obviously not applicable in the now notorious cases of private individuals (as opposed to public figures). Quite where the Climategate e-mails would figure in all this is not hard to discern - the government has deemed and declared it to be illegal.
We live in dangerous times.
Got to be nimble on the intersection of logic, PR, and politics, right Hengist? freedom fighter/terrorist; leaker/hacker; skeptic/denier, climatologist/scientist, so many loaded terms to keep straight.
Hengist.....define hacking.
And then reconcile your definition with what Bradley Manning is alleged to have done, the NoTW has allegedly done (and in certain aspects and actions admitted) and what is alleged to have happened at CRU.
Or explain why publishing information on a website is good, but publishing it in print is bad.
Actually Mr Montford I've been leafing thru your book looking for some guidance on this topic and I cannot find anything to suggest the illegality of the acquisition of the emails has troubled you or coloured your approach in any way, please correct me if I am wroing.
So publishing the wikileaks cables is wrong , coming from somebody who sees no ethical quandary in publishing the CRU emails. Curious set of standards.
Actually there is a HUUUUUGE difference between what Manning did, which at the very least put lives at risk and what the NoTW did where no lives were put at risk or even taken.
Geof, who determines what is in the publics interest? Right now the BBC and the BBC print version (the Guardian) are in full battle cry and why? Because they understand the threat that the BskyB merger means to their little leftist empire...after all, we cant be having the wrong kind of information getting out there can we!
Mailman
Hengist
Are you aware of something that establishes the illegality of the acquisition of the emails? The messages left by "RC" on the day of the disclosures suggests that the motivation was whistleblowing, which is, in certain circumstances, a lawful excuse.
"The messages left by "RC" on the day of the disclosures suggests that the motivation was whistleblowing" - Andrew Montford
Whistleblowers receive full security and protection in law - there is no need for them to remain anonymous. The lengthy and ongoing police investigation, the lack of anything incriminatory in context, and reports of other climate units being hacked at the same time, lead anyone without perspective-distorting pre-conceptions to come down on the side of 'hacked'.
Since we're straying away from the CAGW debate.............
I noticed in a Graun article today that "Gordon's friends" said the Browns were "immensely distressed" when Rebecca Brooks called them in 2006 to say The Sun were running a story about their son's health.
Today mega-twitterer Sarah tweeted how "hurtful" it had been.
How curious then that, in 2008, Sarah was hosting girly sleepover parties at Chequers for Rebecca together with Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth and his wife Wendi........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2121751/Gordon-Browns-wife-Sarah-holds-slumber-party-at-Chequers.html
Clearly the Browns believed in "forgive and forget"..................... at least where News International were concerned.
Wonder why?
Mailman (9:19 PM) asks “who determines what is in the public[s] interest?”
Judges do. It’s a legal thing about balancing freedom of speech against freedom from invasion of privacy. It involves moral judgement, something the “leftist empire” is very prone to. It makes them preachy and sometimes intolerant. The right is largely free from that. I remember a pre-Delingpole Telegraph which had no problem about apartheid or genocide in Vietnam. But let’s not start swapping left / right insults.
The Guardian (like the Telegraph) was right about the NOtW and Wikileaks (and MPs’ expenses), wrong about Climategate. The three former cases they judged on morality, the latter on ideological grounds.
Milipedes current Director of Communications is also ex News International and also has some skeletons in his closet.
This runs a lot further than just NI, others are also guilty but just not revealed yet.
Just as an amusing diversion - can you give us the references for these " other reports".
I seem to remember they caused quite a bit of merriment at the time.
Heh, many Americans write 'Tax Cheat' on any bills they find bearing Treasury Secretary Geithner's signature. You could look it up.
======================
Bit of an oxymoron there Geoff.
I remember reading in the Graun that George Bush might have blown up the twin towers.
[No]
ZDB claims "whistleblowers receive full security and protection in law" - this is fine, so long as those responsible for enforcing the law do so.
Yet the behavior of the UK establishment regarding the Climategate emails - ICO handwringing over statutes of limitations, two investigations set up specifically to find no wrongdoing and completely successful in that aim - would not reassure any putative whistleblower as to the value of that "full security and protection in law".
Now, insofar as Wikileaks vs the NOTW folks - it's true that the Graun was publicizing material that others had collected and disclosed, just as the NYT and WaPo did with Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers way-back-when, whereas NOTW's own staff and contractors were actively engaged in wrongdoing.
On the other hand, while the NOTW's efforts resulted in embarrassment and discomfort for its victims, the Wikileaks material undoubtedly harmed careers and reputations and may have even killed people.
I would hope that sensible people could make a qualitative distinction between "hacking" / "leaking" documents that are embarassing to democratically-elected governments [USA, UK] and their agencies / employees [State Dept., Foreign Ministry, Army, UEA, CRU, NASA, Phil Jones] on the one hand, and "hacking" the private information of private citizens [especially minors...] on the other hand.
Kim,
If I remember correctly, Geithner's problem was with the tax exposure of income earned working for the World Bank, or maybe it was the IMF. In any case, his excuse was that he had misunderstood his tax status with regard to that income - of course to his own benefit. Since hundreds of other similarly situated employees had figured it out, and in fact were recipients as was he of the correct view on this condition as part of their coming on board papering, it seemed all the more amazing that we could find this confused fellow in charge of a significant part of our national wherewithal, or if not exactly that, in charge of the rate of its destruction.
Well, I'm going to raise you and see you on that one Zebbie.
Well known 911 "truther" Michael Meacher (he wrote the foreword to the truther book "The New Pearl Harbour" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor) wrote an article in the Graun on Speptember 6th 2003 entitled "This War On Terrorism is Bogus" and containing the quote Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
I'll await your grovelling apology (but I doubt I'll get it).
Who knows - maybe you agree with Meacher.
Foxgoose:
There is a major difference between an act of Commission and an act of Omission. Very few acts of Omission amount to crimes or torts; an act of Commission can easily be unlawful.
Your earlier post alleged an act of Commission; this last post contained quotes that could be interpreted to amount to an nefarious Omission by George Bush.
Many have gone insanely overboard when discussing Bush II. It wouldn't surprise me if you could find an allegation in the Guardian like you described. Sloppy allegations and weak evidence generate flame wars, and help the threads meander off topic.
[No]
@Geoff Chambers, 8.25pm:
One thing I'd like to query - your use of the word 'they'. Can it really be said that the Guardian / Telegraph / Times / Mail / whatever of today bear any resemblance to past issues beyond the title? Can, for example, Arsenal FC, managed by a Frenchman and playing at a state of the art new stadium sponsored by a Middle East airline, playing sophisticated, cultured (but largely unsuccessful) football be compared to the teams of Herbert Chapman or George Graham? Only loosely, perhaps.
Jim
I don't want to "meander off topic" further - but I think you'll find that an act of Omission becomes criminal when the perpetrator has a duty of care to the victim.
The most recent case law was police refusing assistance to a drunk who died.
Since the POTUS has a pretty well established duty of care to his citizens - a deliberate act of omission would certainly be criminal.
If you're worried about flame wars - try not to chuck rhetoric like "sloppy allegations" about - especially when you're wrong ;-)
ZDB:
Stop moving the goal line.
Foxgoose didn't say that he read something that "represented" the Guardian, merely that he read something "in" the Guardian.
@Bishop Hill,
Whistleblowing is in certain circumstances justifiable I'll grant you that. But the CRU email hack aren't whistleblowing imho they're more of a fishing expedition.
@Hengist
so fraud and/or criminal activity isn't a acceptable reason for whistleblowing ?
Come on Zed - you know Meacher is a widely recognised 911 truther and has been a regular Graun contributor for years.
He also gets considerable support from CIF commenters for his bizarre theories.
Anyway - he wrote it - I read it - you lost.
Tough
(I'm not sure what it's got to do with climate scepticism though - is that some sort of Pavlovian thing with you when you're losing an argument.)
Foxgoose:
I am a licensed, practicing attorney in the US.
Your legal analysis is incorrect re: the duty of the POTUS / police to protect citizens - at least in the US.
I stated that criminal omissions exist, and am aware of when omissions may be unlawful.
You provided zero evidence of allegations that Bush "might have blown up the twin towers."
Have a pleasant day.
Zedsdeadbed
"Whistleblowers receive full security and protection in law - there is no need for them to remain anonymous. "
Well, they may not want to endanger present/future job prospects.
They may not wish to be centre of a media ****storm - and we know now more than ever how bad that can be. They may fear for the effects on their friends and families and work colleagues. Given the nature of the controversy they could never be sure that they wouldn't be at risk of harassment, or worse.
Not everyone is a media tart. Not everyone wants the attention.
It's one thing to have theoretical protection it's an entirely different matter to say that there will be no adverse (from your point of view) effects on your life.
ZDB,
i know from very close experience that a known whistleblower is never likely to get another job. Sometimes the existing job evaporates with the downfall of the miscreants. The W-blower is now confronted with dissociating herself from the problems she made public and convincing prospective employers that she isn't a troublemaker which of course she conspicuously is.
Blowing the whistle is almost always career suicide. You might think about this a little more.
I've often wondered, what does "ZedsDeadBed" mean? I don't mean what does he/she mean when posting, but what does the name itself mean? I feel sure there must be some subtle wordplay or hidden message in it, but I'm afraid it's completely eluded me. (Perhaps it was explained way back; if so, I missed it).
Foxgoose
Sorry about the oxymoron. It’s not easy being an unreconstructed lefty who agrees with Delingpole. Even worse when you also agree with Zed. Meacher in the Guardian merely reported what the federal prosecutor Loftus said, and asked a question. Incidentally, when my son started preaching global warming scepticism among his friends, he was met by disbelief, though none of them believe the official version of 9/11.
DougieJ
Whether the newspapers are the same entities now as in days of yore - despite changes of ownership and personnel - is getting us into deep philosophical waters. As Heraclitus said, you can’t step into the same stream twice. (Though didn’t some Greek philosopher say “the ‘Sun’ is fixed”?
ZDB,
i know from very close experience that a known whistleblower is never likely to get another job. Sometimes the existing job evaporates with the downfall of the miscreants. The W-blower is now confronted with dissociating herself from the problems she made public and convincing prospective employers that she isn't a troublemaker which of course she conspicuously is.
Blowing the whistle is almost always career suicide. You might think about this a little more.
Jul 12, 2011 at 1:41 AM | j ferguson
Agree 100% with this - the history of what happens to whistleblowers is not a happy or pretty one. The surgeon I know who flagged up poor results in his NHS hospital did not have his contract renewed and was out of work for some time.
Now has a position in Perth Australia.
It is more likely that the climategate emails were leaked by a young up and coming researcher appalled at the dubious practices he/she witnessed. He/she probably wants to continue in the line of work they are trained for.
If the emails were stolen - then action by now would have been taken.
@Bishop Hill,
Whistleblowing is in certain circumstances justifiable I'll grant you that. But the CRU email hack aren't whistleblowing imho they're more of a fishing expedition.
Jul 11, 2011 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone
Any actual evidence that the emails were hacked? Offically we dont know whether it was a hack or a leak. Though from climate minister Gregory Baker >>
Barker said: "Over the last two years the climate agenda has been on the back foot. The IPCC scandal last year, the email leaks from the University of East Anglia – all were grist to the mill of the climate sceptics. (from a previuos thread)
So he seems to think it was a leak. I suppose that one day the results of the ongoing police investigation will be published and we will know more.
Hands up all those here who, like me. have been banned from Comment is Free (better titledArbeit Macht Frei) at the Guardian for disagreeing with the party line on AGW?
The garuniad's commitment to 'free speech' only applies to itself it seems.
Grauniad's free speech policy
'We will defend to your death your right to agree with us'
Not surprising the grundi calls anything it dislikes 'hacks' or 'stolen ' anything it likes as 'leaks' or 'whistle-blowing" very BBC ! given it's total hypocrisy over it's tax affairs and it's own reporters habit for using dubious mean of story getting, It's funny to see the "they did it first sir " mutterings of the gurnard liker's!
I've had eight ID's in around 18 months at Comment is Futile.
The survival time of each new ID is getting progressively shorter (must be either climate change or IP tracking).
My last one, only last week, survived less than 24 hours from birth - poor thing.
Mind you it was "Marx'noldbangersRus" - which might have had something to do with it ;-)
@ZDB
'reports of other climate units being hacked at the same time'
News to me. Which climate units? When were they 'hacked'? Where can I read the reports? Why were the 'hackers' so unsuccessful at other establishments and yet so spectacularly effective at CRU?
Please provide links so that I can catch up on these other attempted 'hacks'.
Some observations / comments:
No. The wikileak cables were leaked not hacked. (clue is in the title)
Jul 11, 2011 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered Commenter Hengist McStone
So were the CRU emails (leaked).
Whistleblowers receive full security and protection in law - there is no need for them to remain anonymous...
Jul 11, 2011 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered Commenter ZedsDeadBed
In theory perhaps, but not in practice, and definitely not where the Bish (and I) live where Perth and Kinross effectively stab whistleblower's in the back after proimising support - http://design15.clickstay.net/general/UnionBossWhistleblowerShould.htm
I remember reading in the Graun that George Bush might have blown up the twin towers.
Jul 11, 2011 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered Commenter Foxgoose
Typical Guardian to be so misinformed and clueless. Bush was in Florida and it was Cheney, Rusmfeld and other Neocons who were pulling the strings.
As for the main topic - my thinking is that all the papers are as bad as or just about as bad as each other - stuffed with misinformation and bollocks, and staffed by hypocritical and gullible idiots who wouldn't know good investigative journalism if it hit them on the head. Witness the IPCC/CRU scandals, the CO2 and renewable energy scams and the many unanswered 9/11 questions for a start. Okay there's the odd exception and journalist with some insight and integrity but they are few and far between. If you want the truth you have to read it on the blogs - but that said at least 95% of the stuff on the web is also crap - you have to invest some time to find the good places to hang out. BH is of course one of them.
It's worth posting Pointman's excellent article again for those who haven't seen it:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/
He posts here occasionally so may have more to add.
You may not agree with the Graun’s moral position, but it is not illogical to approve of certain leaks/hacks and disapprove of others. This is why I think His Grace is mistaken in accusing them of “flip-flopping”.
We define ourselves by the moral positions we take. (Unless we are politicians, in which case we define ourselves by the moral positions the focus groups, or Rupert Murdoch, tell us we should take).
The Guardian, to its credit, has expended a lot of effort and taken some financial risks to expose the behaviour of the Murdoch press. The Telegraph, to its credit, has praised the Guardian. The Telegraph laid itself open to criticism in paying for the information on MPs’ expenses. Newspapers, like the rest of us, are fallible. As long as we’re all fallible in different ways, there’s hope. On AGW, all the fallibility is in the same direction.
Thanks SimonW for pointing out the excellent pointman article. What I’ve never seen discussed is - were the emails in the FOIA2009 file removed from the computers, or simply copied? Did any of the inquiries pose this simple question?
Re: hack v leak, has UEA ever been asked if the FOIA2009 file had been assembled "officiall"?
It was always my suspicion that it was prepared in case a decision was made to accept an FOIA request.
@ lapogus. I agreed completely; any sort of investigative journalism in the MSM is dead. The blogosphere is where it's all happening. See -
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/the-death-of-journalism-and-the-irresistible-rise-of-the-blogosphere/
and the following blog too ...
@geoffchambers. Copied not taken as the latter action would have tipped the CRU straight away that the emails had been accessed.
It is of course a possibility that the emils were collected together as a response to an FOI request but they span a period of 10 years. It would have to have been a very broad FOI request that involved that amount of emails and source code to satisfy it. Does anyone know if there was an FOI like that put into CRU?
Pointman
Pointman
My question about whether they were copied or removed was because, if removed, that would suggest that the FOIA2009 file was compiled with the intention of deletion. The ten year span is neither here nor there. You start assembling mails with respect to a particular request in order to delete them, and stick anything else you want to delete into the same file.
Of course, a hacker wouldn’t delete. Someone intending to hide the facts would. Jones said he’d delete data. He asked others to delete emails. My question is simply: did anyone check whether the mails were still present on the relevant computers?
@Geoff, Apologies, I did misunderstand your query.
People tend to think the lifecycle of an email is similar to that of a letter being posted but that's simply not true. A letter is written by someone, posted, sorted centrally and delivered to the recipient. At no stage is it viewable nor are the contents routinely copied and archived.
A copy of an email is left on the sender's machine and the original is sent to their outgoing mail server. The contents of mail servers are always being continuiously backed up. From the sender's email server, it may pass through other servers (also being backed up) until it arrives at the recipients email server. Eventually it is retrieved by the recipient and a copy may be left on their mail server, depending on how it's configured.
As you can see, deleting emails individually on a server (I believe there were about 1600 of them) would not only be a long laborious job but it would be pointless; they could always be found on other servers or the backup servers. Also don't forget the Climategate payload contained source code as well as the emails.
There's a saying in security circles - "email is a postcard". I think it's even worse, more analogous to a public notice.
Pointman
Someone above claimed that the NOTW's actions didn't put lives at risk.
Probably not in general, but one of the (alleged) actions was to delete messages from the phone of a missing girl, Milly Dowler, who was later found murdered. She was almost certainly already dead by that time, but:
a) the NOTW didn't know that
and
b) the action obstructed the police investigation, and may conceivably have helped the killer to avoid detection and commit more murders. The killer did in fact commit other murders, but I don't know, without checking, whether they were before or after Milly. Either way, the NOTW (alleged) action *was* putting lives at risk.