6 ms·

Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in car

Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to try him, but it was also deemed a risk to national security for any part of it to be public. He was evidently acquitted, or perhaps proceedings still drag on, with him wagering on a visit from the reaper before judgement is passed - oh irony. There was a rather incredible turn of events where one of the parties who had been asked/told to be involved tried to go to the press (not owned by said mogul), and was promptly ratted out to the government, and the prime minister of the day then went on the ten o’clock news to denounce them, bringing their rather comfortable cosy-to-the-establishment life to a crashing end. They became a national hate figure overnight. Really, we don’t even know what we don’t know — at least in this case we know that antitrust proceedings are underway.

ghusto 3y ago
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
  - HenryBemis 3y ago
    I remember throughout my years that London had a (negatively) impressive amount of cameras (https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by-number-of-cctv-cameras https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by...) I don't know how it started, but their own "war on terror" must have helped to hit that top spot. Monitoring internet is just the same. "Eyes everywhere". The technology changed (people walking on the street vs people browsing the internet), but the practice remains. And to show where the focus is (and it's not to serve and protect) the amount of corruption in the UK police (even rapists & murderers) are only caught after years and years, and only after the victims go through hell and high water to get justice. (that last paragraph is a bit provocative - but true)
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      The US actually had more per capita (world rankings are US, China, UK, Germany), though they may be more _visible_ in the UK (particularly after the GDPR, there are differences in rules on covert surveillance). As I understand it, they're nearly all privately owned in both the US and UK, and their installation is driven more by insurance company requirements than anything else.
    - garblegarble 3y ago
      Remember that the overwhelming majority of these cameras in London are privately owned and operated by shopkeepers and homeowners, it's not a massive state-operated surveillance network. They usually have extremely poor image quality and are hooked up to fixed local tape/hard drive recording rather than networked. With that said, there are still a lot of state-operated cameras. Mostly to make money from traffic infraction fines, curiously that's one area where governments don't ever seem to cut police funding :-)
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    As a hint as to surveillance in the UK, a poster which appeared on the London Underground some years ago. This is/was not ironic. https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/posters/item/2003-3170 https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...
    - XTHK 3y ago
      Now the hard popup asking about cookies on that page is very ironic!
  - ghusto 3y ago
    To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us. OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.
    - madaxe_again 3y ago
      Two reasons I shy away from naming names: 1) There is no such thing as anonymity from state actors on the internet. Apart from anything else, semantic analysis can accurately indicate the identity of the writer of content - never mind the full take interception that has been a fact of life in the U.K. for over a decade now. 2) I really don’t want to bring the hellfire that rained on said friend down upon him once more, or upon myself. They crushed him like a damned insect. If I were to name him, you’d just say “oh, the pedophile. You can ignore anything he says, he’s a pedophile”. He is not, is anything but, and the “evidence” of his transgression that was presented doesn’t exist - the court transcripts from the incident in question show an entirely different picture from what the papers and prime minister threw at him. This made me acutely understand that the truth is entirely irrelevant, when you are up against the powers that manufacture reality.
      - ghusto 3y ago
        Damn. Now I have more than just academic curiosity.
    - dangerface 3y ago
      > OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, The UK govenrment monitors UK citizens internet people have already been prossecuted simply for having knowledge of this court case which in the UK is illegal. The fear of surveillance doesn't stop her the reality of the government survaling people and then acting on it does.
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  I assume it is that: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rupert-murdoch-agrees-return-uk-582248/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rupert-m... "after last week’s emergence of secretly recorded comments he made about bribes in the British newspaper industry and the phone-hacking probes." I remember this happening at the time. I don't follow 'media news' much, but I do remember the scandal due to the 'recording' and how they were going about recording calls, SMS, etc.
- maffydub 3y ago
  If the case was subject to reporting restrictions (which seems quite possible given what he says), it might be illegal for him to tell us the names.
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  I’m assuming you missed the part where they destroyed a friend’s life for trying to let this see the light of day. His wife ended up hanging herself as she couldn’t deal with the onslaught of publicity, and he had to leave the country for a few years, and now has a different, quieter, sadder career. But sure, I can’t see any reason.
  - ghusto 3y ago
    > I’m assuming you missed the part where ... Yes, I did. I only know what the OP said, and that it's almost definitely about Rupert Murdoch. Who was the individual?
- dangerface 3y ago
  Its ilegal to talk about the trial or the people involved in the uk because it is sealed.
Y_Y 3y ago
Getting something sealed in the UK courts is a surefire way to get it on the front page of the Irish papers the next day. Keeping secrets by decree is very difficult these days.
- nerpderp82 3y ago
  There is no verifiable way for you to make that claim.
retube 3y ago
> but it was also deemed a risk to national security for any part of it to be public Surely it's OK to keep secret if it WAS a matter of national security? Quite possibility that is open to debate in this case, but it seems sensible at least to have this provision in law?

ghusto 3y ago

Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.

passwordoops 3y ago
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  I remember throughout my years that London had a (negatively) impressive amount of cameras (https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by-number-of-cctv-cameras https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by...) I don't know how it started, but their own "war on terror" must have helped to hit that top spot. Monitoring internet is just the same. "Eyes everywhere". The technology changed (people walking on the street vs people browsing the internet), but the practice remains. And to show where the focus is (and it's not to serve and protect) the amount of corruption in the UK police (even rapists & murderers) are only caught after years and years, and only after the victims go through hell and high water to get justice. (that last paragraph is a bit provocative - but true)
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    The US actually had more per capita (world rankings are US, China, UK, Germany), though they may be more _visible_ in the UK (particularly after the GDPR, there are differences in rules on covert surveillance). As I understand it, they're nearly all privately owned in both the US and UK, and their installation is driven more by insurance company requirements than anything else.
  - garblegarble 3y ago
    Remember that the overwhelming majority of these cameras in London are privately owned and operated by shopkeepers and homeowners, it's not a massive state-operated surveillance network. They usually have extremely poor image quality and are hooked up to fixed local tape/hard drive recording rather than networked. With that said, there are still a lot of state-operated cameras. Mostly to make money from traffic infraction fines, curiously that's one area where governments don't ever seem to cut police funding :-)
- jjgreen 3y ago
  As a hint as to surveillance in the UK, a poster which appeared on the London Underground some years ago. This is/was not ironic. https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/posters/item/2003-3170 https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...
  - XTHK 3y ago
    Now the hard popup asking about cookies on that page is very ironic!
- ghusto 3y ago
  To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us. OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    Two reasons I shy away from naming names: 1) There is no such thing as anonymity from state actors on the internet. Apart from anything else, semantic analysis can accurately indicate the identity of the writer of content - never mind the full take interception that has been a fact of life in the U.K. for over a decade now. 2) I really don’t want to bring the hellfire that rained on said friend down upon him once more, or upon myself. They crushed him like a damned insect. If I were to name him, you’d just say “oh, the pedophile. You can ignore anything he says, he’s a pedophile”. He is not, is anything but, and the “evidence” of his transgression that was presented doesn’t exist - the court transcripts from the incident in question show an entirely different picture from what the papers and prime minister threw at him. This made me acutely understand that the truth is entirely irrelevant, when you are up against the powers that manufacture reality.
    - ghusto 3y ago
      Damn. Now I have more than just academic curiosity.
  - dangerface 3y ago
    > OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, The UK govenrment monitors UK citizens internet people have already been prossecuted simply for having knowledge of this court case which in the UK is illegal. The fear of surveillance doesn't stop her the reality of the government survaling people and then acting on it does.
HenryBemis 3y ago
I assume it is that: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rupert-murdoch-agrees-return-uk-582248/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rupert-m... "after last week’s emergence of secretly recorded comments he made about bribes in the British newspaper industry and the phone-hacking probes." I remember this happening at the time. I don't follow 'media news' much, but I do remember the scandal due to the 'recording' and how they were going about recording calls, SMS, etc.
maffydub 3y ago
If the case was subject to reporting restrictions (which seems quite possible given what he says), it might be illegal for him to tell us the names.
madaxe_again 3y ago
I’m assuming you missed the part where they destroyed a friend’s life for trying to let this see the light of day. His wife ended up hanging herself as she couldn’t deal with the onslaught of publicity, and he had to leave the country for a few years, and now has a different, quieter, sadder career. But sure, I can’t see any reason.
- ghusto 3y ago
  > I’m assuming you missed the part where ... Yes, I did. I only know what the OP said, and that it's almost definitely about Rupert Murdoch. Who was the individual?
dangerface 3y ago
Its ilegal to talk about the trial or the people involved in the uk because it is sealed.

Y_Y 3y ago

Getting something sealed in the UK courts is a surefire way to get it on the front page of the Irish papers the next day. Keeping secrets by decree is very difficult these days.

nerpderp82 3y ago
There is no verifiable way for you to make that claim.

retube 3y ago

> but it was also deemed a risk to national security for any part of it to be public Surely it's OK to keep secret if it WAS a matter of national security? Quite possibility that is open to debate in this case, but it seems sensible at least to have this provision in law?