Hosking on Double standards


via Newstalk ZB (she should sue!)

I’ve been under a lot of pressure from people to cover the Jennifer Lawrence stolen photo issue, and the parallels to my situation. ?In my view, everyone has?made up their minds already, so it doesn’t ?matter anymore. ?That doesn’t stop Mike Hosking having another try

I take it I am not the only one who is seeing the irony here in the Jennifer Lawrence hacking case.

Jennifer Lawrence and a bunch of other names have had nude photos hacked out of the cloud and distributed for the world to see.

The world, or at least parts of it, is outraged. Editorials are running in publications all over the planet, filled with upset and anger over what they?re broadly calling a massive invasion of privacy. A hunt has been launched for the hacker. Such is the upset when Ricky Gervais posted a tweet about it, he received an avalanche of hate over making fun of such matters.

It would appear that if you looked at this case in isolation, you would quickly conclude that hacking private information is the height of bad manners, bad behaviour and a very serious criminal act indeed.

I’m just waiting for my naked photos to be published. ?

Now while all that?s going on, the outrage doesn?t appear to have reached our shores. The stolen material that has dominated our campaign is also hacked material stolen by crooks. Yet unlike poor Jennifer and her global support and sympathy, we appear to want to dine out on such material.

So what is the precedent here? Is stolen material acceptable in certain circumstances? If it?s stolen and it?s got good dirt, does that make it OK? And if it does, how do you qualify what?s dirt and what?s not? If it?s dirt in the national interest, is it acceptable? But what if that dirt also contains personal information? Or in the case of Whale Oil, a whole pile of fatuous, dishonest bollocks?

There is a massive double standard here. Stolen goods are stolen goods, whether they?re digital or a box of oranges. You don?t avoid getting charged with stealing a car if you plead poverty and had no other way of getting to work. So it should apply to digital material. It?s either yours or it isn?t, and if it isn?t it?s not yours to take.

Mr Snowden and Mr Assange learnt that they might argue they were doing the right thing, but the fact they?re in Russia and an embassy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their pleas of innocence and exposing the truth and unearthing the dastardly deeds of others won?t hold water in a court, hence they remain behind diplomatic fences out of reach.

If we have laws around this, those laws need to be enacted. The Feds are after Assange and Snowden, and they?re after Lawrence?s crooks. So let?s hope we hear details soon of who gave Hager his material.

I can’t fault the police for their intent and effort spent so far. ?But this sort of crime is very hard to stop. ?The damage will be on-going.

Yesterday the hacker?threw Paddy Gower under the bus as having been someone I work with. ? There will be more, as these releases are out of my hands. ?Those journalists that were dumb enough to go public denying that they work with me must be lying awake at night. ?How do they think they will be able to control the release of information from these hackers?

If they feel secure that it won’t happen, that tells us something already. ? And if they don’t feel secure, all they have to do now is nurse their stomach ulcers?until they’ve upset the hacker and they’ll go under the bus as well.

There is essentially no end to this. ?Six years of emails. ?Six years of working with people all over New Zealand. ?And the hacker will just keep on keeping on.

The scale of it?is a precedent. ?But this isn’t even the?first time, and?it won’t be the last. ?You can count on someone else’s private emails ending up in a Hager book next election. ? That pattern is very well established.


– Newstalk ZB