4 ms·

Secret unit within News Corp promoted a wave of tech piracy in Australia

36 points by NoBorders 15y ago

mhw 15y ago
Allegations of similar behaviour in the UK as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723
ajb 15y ago
There was a big case about this between echostar and NDS in the US, and canalplus in France as well, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group (although there seems to be a minor edit war going on on that article, so look at the history).
- Maxious 15y ago
  That edit war is disgusting... although the current revisionist history echos how the News Ltd papers are covering these accusations - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/foxtel-denies-pay-tv-dirty-tricks/story-e6frg996-1226312470663 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/foxtel-denies-pay-tv-d...
- Terretta 15y ago
  Yes, all outlined in the linked article's timeline.
ktizo 15y ago
I remember when people were burning the cards for On-Digital in the UK. The new codes would apparently be uploaded within only a few minutes of being switched over, so it was obvious at the time that it was either someone from within On-Digital, or someone with extremely good resources.
rbarooah 15y ago
I wonder whether we need a different presumption of executive responsibility in these cases. Plausible deniability seems way too weak a defense to permit, since it allows executives to set up a culture and incentives to encourage wrongdoing and yet walk away from the consequences if they weren't directly informed of the specific actions taken. In a away it's analogous to the 'it wasn't me, it was the algorithm' defense - 'it wasn't me, it was my employees'. This doesn't mean that executives should necessarily be held personally liable for the damages caused by their companies, but if they persistently can't keep their organizations operating within the law, perhaps a period of open public administration at the company's expense might be a good remedy. [note: there might be some serious drawbacks to this proposal - it's just a conjecture since corporate wrongdoing is a serious problem that doesn't seem to have good solutions yet]
- nikcub 15y ago
  They did that with company financials with Sarbane Oxley. It increased compliance costs for all companies because of a rogue few. Let the courts and legal system handle this. Probably too soon to ask for more regulation.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    I don't see how your comment or Sarbanes Oxley is relevant to what I said. I didn't suggest more regulation or anything to 'comply' with. I was suggesting an alternative theory of corporate responsibility, and a remedy that the courts could apply in the case of detected wrongdoing, not for all companies. Am I missing something?

36 points by NoBorders 15y ago

mhw 15y ago

Allegations of similar behaviour in the UK as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723

ajb 15y ago

There was a big case about this between echostar and NDS in the US, and canalplus in France as well, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group (although there seems to be a minor edit war going on on that article, so look at the history).

Maxious 15y ago
That edit war is disgusting... although the current revisionist history echos how the News Ltd papers are covering these accusations - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/foxtel-denies-pay-tv-dirty-tricks/story-e6frg996-1226312470663 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/foxtel-denies-pay-tv-d...
Terretta 15y ago
Yes, all outlined in the linked article's timeline.

ktizo 15y ago

I remember when people were burning the cards for On-Digital in the UK. The new codes would apparently be uploaded within only a few minutes of being switched over, so it was obvious at the time that it was either someone from within On-Digital, or someone with extremely good resources.

rbarooah 15y ago

I wonder whether we need a different presumption of executive responsibility in these cases. Plausible deniability seems way too weak a defense to permit, since it allows executives to set up a culture and incentives to encourage wrongdoing and yet walk away from the consequences if they weren't directly informed of the specific actions taken. In a away it's analogous to the 'it wasn't me, it was the algorithm' defense - 'it wasn't me, it was my employees'. This doesn't mean that executives should necessarily be held personally liable for the damages caused by their companies, but if they persistently can't keep their organizations operating within the law, perhaps a period of open public administration at the company's expense might be a good remedy. [note: there might be some serious drawbacks to this proposal - it's just a conjecture since corporate wrongdoing is a serious problem that doesn't seem to have good solutions yet]

nikcub 15y ago
They did that with company financials with Sarbane Oxley. It increased compliance costs for all companies because of a rogue few. Let the courts and legal system handle this. Probably too soon to ask for more regulation.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  I don't see how your comment or Sarbanes Oxley is relevant to what I said. I didn't suggest more regulation or anything to 'comply' with. I was suggesting an alternative theory of corporate responsibility, and a remedy that the courts could apply in the case of detected wrongdoing, not for all companies. Am I missing something?