The scandal going on in Britain with News Of The World journalists tapping into celebrities' mobile voicemail accounts throws up some interesting ethical questions.
Without a doubt, tapping into a celebrity's unprotected voicemail to root for gossip is wrong and should not be tolerated. But can tapping into voicemail ever be justified?
I believe that it can be, in certain (very limited) circumstances.
Before I go any further, the obvious disclaimer: I have never done this. And another disclaimer: this is obviously a personal view and does not reflect my employer (this is a personal blog).
Le me explain a circumstance in which I believe a journalist tapping someone's voicemail may be justified.
Suppose a journalist is trying to expose a corrupt government minister. Suppose this minister has accepted a huge bribe to facilitate the building of a town on completely unsuitable marshland: a town that will wreck residents' lives.
Supposing the journalist gets a reliable tip from a whistleblower that the corrupt developer has left a confirmation voice message in the voicemail account of the corrupt minister. And suppose that this is the only way to expose this horrendously corrupt act.
Is the journalist justified in accessing the voicemail to record the conversation to expose the massive corruption? Or is the right to privacy so strict and absolute that, given the choice between the corruption going unpunished or violating the minister's privacy, the minister's privacy prevails?
Given this particular choice, I believe that the intrusion is warranted.
This does NOT mean that it's okay to tap into Glenda Gilson's mobile account to see who she might be shagging. And yes, there is a line. And yes, I am drawing it somewhere between exposing a corrupt minister and rooting for gossip about celebrities' sex lives.