Why journalists tapping into mobile voicemail is sometimes justified

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.

Comments

[Michele Neylon]

The problem is how you decide to draw the line.

Suppose you suspect someone of doing something and you tap their phone. You then find out that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Where does that leave you?

[Gerard Cunningham]

Suppose you find out the minister isn't corrupt, but he's shagging Glenda Gilson?

[Twenty Major]

What if Glenda Gilson's babies are actually half scorpion and could bring about the destruction of the human race?

I think in that case I agree with Adrian - the murder of Glenda is entirely justified.

[Adrian Weckler]

Ha ha ha!

[Quin]

Sure by all means, but I also expect the person who broke into the phone to be punished to the full extent of the law.

[adrian]

Quin,

No problem Quin. That's called creating a martyr.

[Brian Honan]

Adrian

A number of problems with this in my opinion;

Hacking into anyone's voice mail is breaking the law. So does this mean that journalists are above the law so long as it is in the name of "exposing corruption" or a good story? What if it was not a voicemail that confirmed the corruption but say a signed piece of paper that is in the corrupt politician's house? Is it justifiable for the journalist to break into that house to get their hands on that piece of paper?

Also, how do you as a journalist know that after hacking into the voicemail that it is genuine? What criminal and forensic training do most journalists have to scientifically determine whether a piece of electronic evidence is real or not?

Finally, is breaking the law by a journalist and exposing a piece of criminal evidence worth putting any future criminal case against the corrupt politician at risk simply so the journalist can scoop a story?

Journalists are not criminal investigators, that role should be left to the appropriate authorities.

[Mark]

Brian,

It's not always about scooping the story, it can be about printing the story that causes the criminal trial you refer to...

I'd hold broadly the same views as Adrian on this one.

[Brian Honan]

Mark

I have no issue with a story being printed whereby journalist has gotten the material (unsolicited) and it has been somehow verified, but my concern is by breaking the law the journalist may jeopardise any criminal trial that may follow.

[Aaron]

The "IF my auntie had balls..." expression comes to mind...

What I'd say is, it's all about lines. And the issue here is setting those lines. If the government - or any government - talks about wire tapping or any other tapping (internet, for example?) in "limited circumstances" most people cry foul. Why? Because, they say, it'll very quickly go from limited circumstances to anytime and every time.

Slippery slopes, the road to hell and all that.

[Adrian]

Brian,

You have one excellent point: no, journalists are not forensically trained to determine that the voice on a phone is, in fact, 100 per cent flawlessly that of the corrupt developer. That is a worry insofar as someone could be 'set up' by a good mimic.

You say the following:

"So does this mean that journalists are above the law so long as it is in the name of "exposing corruption" or a good story? What if it was not a voicemail that confirmed the corruption but say a signed piece of paper that is in the corrupt politician's house? Is it justifiable for the journalist to break into that house to get their hands on that piece of paper?"

Breaking into someone's house? No. But suppose the corrupt politician goes to the bathroom and leaves a folder on the table, with photocopies of an incriminating document that he had intended to give to one or two people. Suppose the journalists happens across this. Is taking one of the photocopies -- which proves the corruption -- completely ruled out because it is theft (which it is)?

Starts to get blurry, doesn't it?

While you make a good point in relation to forensics, I think you rely overly on adherence to "the law" and every minor detail of it.

Do you obey every single law in Ireland? Seriously? Road laws? Copyright laws? Do you sometimes justify transgressions of the law to achieve something that you see as being in the greater good?

Because I think that most people probably do.

[Aaron]

Adrian,

I think the point is that, as the good Schlink line goes, "Societies think they operate by something called morality. But they don't. The operate by something called law."

The law, for good or ill, is the law, and one must try to work within it. Yes, it is a really grey area between right and wrong, doing a wrong to make a right, but let me put it this way: Replace journalist with government, and most people know which side to come down on.

If a journalist, in the course of getting a story, acquires a source / information that could bring down other corrupt/criminal people, would it be wrong for the government to tap their phones? Demand the information from them? I think you know which side you'd come down on there. But it's two sides of the same coin.

[Adrian]

Aaron,

I agree, I would. Yes, there is a dichotomy there.

But I also admit that if the government tapped my phone and it led to the successful arrest of a heinous criminal, and they wouldn't have caught him otherwise, that although I may complain about the method, the public won't argue with the result.

And I would get short shrift if I argued that it was better that the paedophile (or whoever) went free to protect the ethical sanctity of my mobile phone.

What this really boils down to is that this country is not run like clockwork, strictly by the rules. There is a large fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants element to it. That's just the bare reality. If we were Germany or France or Denmark, where people largely play by the rules (the 'law'), then I'd agree wholeheartedly with observing absolute legal limits. But do Irish businesses observe the law this faithfully? Do Irish citizens? Do Irish politicians? Do Irish policemen? No they don't.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the only group we singled out for strict ethical adherence was the media?

[Aaron]

Adrian,

Re: the pedophile remark, the best way to catch those types is through internet monitoring, making ISP's hand over their data, and there’s a lot of resistance to legislation proposing just that. So we propose that people can do so without any legal mandate? Just their own suspicions?

The point is that it's a slippery slope at that point, and it becomes very difficult to say "In this case, it was justified." and "In that case it was not." Who then gets to play the judge? Editors? Lawmakers? Courts? Public opinion?

Societies operate by laws to prevent this ambiguity (and for other reasons, but for the purpose of this debate lets stick to that one.) Without the law you end up in a free-for-all situation where there are no lines, and if you can get away with tapping a phone for one thing then you can swing it to get away with it for another.

I think that where surveillance is concerned the only room for it should be through court-ordered methods. I don't actually mind if it's special criminal courts that largely act in secret, as long as there's good faith that they're acting in, well, good faith.

Outside of that you enter a realm of if's and but's and that's just not going to work.

Who ensures that journalists are above reproach? Do certain ones get red passes to do what they like? Are journalists going to become the Stasi of the State, with informants and wire taps and the impunity to do it all, citing “protection of sources” when asked how they get certain information?

We ought to aspire to obey our laws, or else it becomes a furball. And I don’t think that journalists are any less prone than any other layer of society to getting drunk on the kind of power that impunity, or even near impunity brings.

If I won’t let the government tap my phone without a warrant then I sure as hell don’t want anyone else doing it.

[Gerard Cunningham]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the only group we singled out for strict ethical adherence was the media?

If your complaint is "everyone else is doing it", then you're not on very high moral ground while exposing corruption.

[Adrian Weckler]

Aaron,

In terms of aspiring to obey our laws, absolutely. But Ireland is often a lawless place. Jaywalking to prevent an old lady being mugged should not result in the jaywalker being sent to jail.

I accept that there's no reason to think that journalists are any more noble or well-meaning than any other group. But you either want corruption exposed or you don't. If you do, I think the examples I've outlined are reasonable and proportionate. Finally -- and this part is crucial -- they work when no other method of exposing corruption works.

Frankly, I don't trust the legal system or the guards to expose corruption. And I'm surprised that you do. How many corruption scandals have they exposed? And this is bunch we need to leave in sole control of matters? Sorry, I say no.

[Adrian Weckler]

Gerard,

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

If the only way to expose corruption is to break less serious laws, then it's sometimes worth it.

Nope, I'm not looking for the high moral ground.

[Aaron]

Adrian,

I agree that our state bodies are ineffective at exposing, for example, corruption. But my solution is to solve that problem. Allowing journalists to do it is like the old joke about throwing in the snakes to control the rat population and then something else to control the snake population... Etc... You solve one problem and create another.

Yaknow, this is a grey area - and I agree with you that in principal, if say a journalist were to expose corruption through illicit means I'd not really want the guilty party to get off on the technical detail that his phone was tapped illegally, for example.

What I'm saying is, we should strengthen our lawful tools for doing so and not rely on the vigilantes to dispense justice where and when they see fit (for example, would we end up with a case whereby a minister might get chased down, but a thousand small fry local politicians will be ignored for one reason or another.)

I just worry that allowing it is to allow ourselves down a very slippery road indeed. Journalists are not the national policemen… Yet, they have fulfilled the role in many countries and many situations. I think we need to walk the fine line, and allowing journalists more leeway to invade privacy than any other group is, I think, dangerous. For every true scandal you uncover you’ll find people’s private lives being dragged out in the open and destroyed for the sake of a few redtops.

[Adrian]

Aaron,

Partly agree with that, although there's a much wider discussion about celebs' control of their privacy and how much they intentionally waive to pursue fame. Not going to get into that here, though.

To your basic point, I agree theoretically, but not practically. No, I don't think that the courts/barristers/guards/political parties are capable (or even motivated) to seriously deal with corruption. (And you might even argue that the Irish people are ambivalent toward it too, but that's a different topic.)

In that context, I think it's sometimes okay for journalists to take their chances. As I said, if it was Sweden, where they really believe in transparency, I'd say no way to journalists ever crossing the line.

But we are no Sweden.

[Aaron]

Alas! ;-)

Well, we shall agree to agree on certain grey areas then, and if it goes too far then you can help me go trash a few newspaper offices and tap some journalist phones, and we can run a blog detailing their sorded lifestyles ;-)

[Donagh Mc Sweeney]

I was reading the post thinking that I was completly going to disagree with everything you said by the end, but, a actually think you may have a fair point. The issue is where do you draw the line! And as per your example, you would need to have solid suspicions about said corrupt politican before engaging in such activity. Relying on a 'tip-off' surly wouldn't be enough justification!