Kid Arrested For Hacking Sues Newspapers For Privacy Breach

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How much do you want to bet that this kid gets all the charges against him dropped after this little snafu?

A teenage boy arrested over the TalkTalk hacking breach is suing three national newspapers over an alleged breach of his privacy. Lawyers for the 15-year-old are taking legal action against The Sun, Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph over allegations they identified the minor accused of breaking into the mobile and broadband provider’s data network.
 
He's potentially exposed the private information of millions of TalkTalk users. How about a class action suit in their behalf against him and his parents. After all, it's good enough for him when he's the injured party.
 
Those are British newspapers right?

Do they have bars in Britain? Can the lawyer be disbarred for being a total fucknut?
 
Can't say British newspapers don't have a history of being complete bumblefucks.
 
Steve said:
Lawyers for the 15-year-old are taking legal action against The Sun, Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph over allegations they identified the minor accused of breaking into the mobile and broadband provider’s data network.
[/I]
Click to expand...

If he's old enough to hack a web service, he's old enough to be identified, and old enough to be held responsible.

The lawyer should be disbarred for trying to pull this garbage.
 
I don't know enough about English law to make a call one way or the other.
 
nutzo said:
If he's old enough to hack a web service, he's old enough to be identified, and old enough to be held responsible.

The lawyer should be disbarred for trying to pull this garbage.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty. He is currently accused of a crime and that does not make him an adult for all other things. One broken law does not allow another to be broken. His lawyer is defending his rights as they were violated. This has to be handled separately from his earlier actions regardless how we may feel about it.
 
If by some strange miracle he wins this case then any settlement should be placed in a protected trust so that the victims of his hack can sue him and his parents for damages and not have them take the money and run
 
Darunion said:
Innocent until proven guilty. He is currently accused of a crime and that does not make him an adult for all other things. One broken law does not allow another to be broken. His lawyer is defending his rights as they were violated. This has to be handled separately from his earlier actions regardless how we may feel about it.
Click to expand...

But does the freedom of press not protect the rights of the newspapers to post what they found? Now, if they were wrong, they should be sued for defamation/libel. That'd be a whole different story. And that's if they didn't say accused and just said he did it.
 
nutzo said:
If he's old enough to hack a web service, he's old enough to be identified, and old enough to be held responsible.

The lawyer should be disbarred for trying to pull this garbage.
Click to expand...

In the 20 century, kids didn't do stupid shit. These antiquated laws do not reflect the reality of 21st century kids who are different.

Did you know that the first juvenile detention facility in the United States wasn't even built until August of 2001? It's sad that today's youth doesn't have the social awareness that all the previous generations were blessed with from birth.
 
Hmmm I stand corrected I see there is no specific law regarding publishing minors names. Hmm
 
westrock2000 said:
In the 20 century, kids didn't do stupid shit. These antiquated laws do not reflect the reality of 21st century kids who are different.

Did you know that the first juvenile detention facility in the United States wasn't even built until August of 2001? It's sad that today's youth doesn't have the social awareness that all the previous generations were blessed with from birth.
Click to expand...

dafuq??

we had juvie way back when

get off my lawn
 
damicatz said:
Yes there are.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/reporting_restrictions/

Most countries are very restrictive about publishing the names of minors accused of a crime. The US is a very notable exception.
Click to expand...

I didn't read thoroughly through this page, but here is some additional information:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/reporting_restrictions/#an10a

There are types of courts in the UK where this protection is not automatic. There are also instances where criminals are not protected by these laws. There are additional circumstances where the public is to be made aware of the identity of the individual when it is in the best interest of the public to in so many words help them remain safe. If I'm surmising what I read correctly, when/if the individual is a danger to the public they are to be made known the identity of the defendant

These are good laws. Some people are downright bad and the public should be made aware of who they are. There is also however a delicate balance to be played in protecting a child who in many senses does not have a fully developed cognizance and protecting the public.

Both the UK and US systems could use work. I think that a big problem we face these days are individuals as a whole who seek notoriety for their crimes. More should be done to blockade identities. Perhaps it would take the wind out the sails of many crimes. In a world where anyone can become infamous in minutes, you end up with some really sick individuals.
 
Darunion said:
Innocent until proven guilty. He is currently accused of a crime and that does not make him an adult for all other things. One broken law does not allow another to be broken. His lawyer is defending his rights as they were violated. This has to be handled separately from his earlier actions regardless how we may feel about it.
Click to expand...

Allegedly, His lawyer is defending his rights as they were allegedly violated. No one has proven anything yet right?
 
pothb said:
But does the freedom of press not protect the rights of the newspapers to post what they found? Now, if they were wrong, they should be sued for defamation/libel. That'd be a whole different story. And that's if they didn't say accused and just said he did it.
Click to expand...


Good question, find an Englishman and ask him :D
 
pothb said:
But does the freedom of press not protect the rights of the newspapers to post what they found? Now, if they were wrong, they should be sued for defamation/libel. That'd be a whole different story. And that's if they didn't say accused and just said he did it.
Click to expand...

UK libel law is very different from the US.

1.In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that a statement is defamatory. In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that a statement is NOT defamatory. If the newspapers directly accused the kid of hacking by name (and didn't just print someone else's comments), or implied his accusations were facts rather than just accusations, it could be defamation unless they can prove that he did it with the knowledge available at the time they printed the statement.

2.In the US, fault is required in order to win a defamation case. The amount of fault depends on the stature of the person alleging defamation; for private individuals, simple negligence must be proven; for public figures, the standard is actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

In the UK, no fault is required for a successful defamation claim. The mere publishing of a defamatory statement is enough regardless of whether the publisher did their fact checking or not.

3.In the US, with the exception of defamation per se (in most but not all states : allegations of unchastity of an unmarried woman, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations that tend to cause injury to trade, profession, or business), damages must be proven and hurt feelings don't count.

Traditionally, in the UK, damages were assumed no matter what. They recently changed this however.
 
westrock2000 said:
In the 20 century, kids didn't do stupid shit. These antiquated laws do not reflect the reality of 21st century kids who are different.
Click to expand...

Kids did all kinds of stupid shit, just the internet was nearly as big back then.
 
damicatz said:
UK libel law is very different from the US.

1.In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that a statement is defamatory. In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that a statement is NOT defamatory. If the newspapers directly accused the kid of hacking by name (and didn't just print someone else's comments), or implied his accusations were facts rather than just accusations, it could be defamation unless they can prove that he did it with the knowledge available at the time they printed the statement.

2.In the US, fault is required in order to win a defamation case. The amount of fault depends on the stature of the person alleging defamation; for private individuals, simple negligence must be proven; for public figures, the standard is actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

In the UK, no fault is required for a successful defamation claim. The mere publishing of a defamatory statement is enough regardless of whether the publisher did their fact checking or not.

3.In the US, with the exception of defamation per se (in most but not all states : allegations of unchastity of an unmarried woman, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations that tend to cause injury to trade, profession, or business), damages must be proven and hurt feelings don't count.

Traditionally, in the UK, damages were assumed no matter what. They recently changed this however.
Click to expand...

So yea, that seems to be on all the kid's side if they were to sue for defamation/libel though, if he's guilty that's all moot.
And iirc hurt feelings to count, say they feel threatened by others or something usually seemed to work out, if nothing else, claim they had to go to therapy or some shit.
 
damicatz said:
UK libel law is very different from the US.

1.In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that a statement is defamatory. In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that a statement is NOT defamatory. If the newspapers directly accused the kid of hacking by name (and didn't just print someone else's comments), or implied his accusations were facts rather than just accusations, it could be defamation unless they can prove that he did it with the knowledge available at the time they printed the statement.

2.In the US, fault is required in order to win a defamation case. The amount of fault depends on the stature of the person alleging defamation; for private individuals, simple negligence must be proven; for public figures, the standard is actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

In the UK, no fault is required for a successful defamation claim. The mere publishing of a defamatory statement is enough regardless of whether the publisher did their fact checking or not.

3.In the US, with the exception of defamation per se (in most but not all states : allegations of unchastity of an unmarried woman, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations that tend to cause injury to trade, profession, or business), damages must be proven and hurt feelings don't count.

Traditionally, in the UK, damages were assumed no matter what. They recently changed this however.
Click to expand...

The way this is worded by the article it is not a libel or defamation case as I understand it. So everything you wrote doesn't apply? It seems to me that there is a law about posting the name of an under aged person who allegedly committed a crime until they have gotten their time in court or just because they or under aged and these newspapers seem to have broken that law?
 
He was responding to me. I was saying that, this lawsuit seems dumb, and the only case he would have is to be innocent, then he could sue for libel.
 
Some of you are missing the bigger picture here. The guilt of this kid is irrelevant.he probably is and will get what's coming to him. However that doesn't excuse the fact that the media for years now has been playing fast and loose with reporting. While the US media is certainly worse, both have been doing the report first, get facts later style journalism for years. They need to be made accountable for it. I can only hope this case succeeds and it sets a prescident that snowballs and starts getting the media held accountable for what they report.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Some of you are missing the bigger picture here. The guilt of this kid is irrelevant.he probably is and will get what's coming to him. However that doesn't excuse the fact that the media for years now has been playing fast and loose with reporting. While the US media is certainly worse, both have been doing the report first, get facts later style journalism for years. They need to be made accountable for it. I can only hope this case succeeds and it sets a prescident that snowballs and starts getting the media held accountable for what they report.
Click to expand...

Not to defend the media (because they make lots of FUs) but they are in a no win situation to a certain extent ... the modern audiences demand instant news (and punish the sites or sources that can't provide that) ... it is kind of like the old saying, "Fast, Good, Cheap ... pick any two" ...

there is also another more dangerous trait of many in the modern audience ... most don't really care to hear the truth as much as a story or byline that supports their view of politics and the world ... truly neutral sources (of which there are few) generally get punished financially for that neutrality while the skewed reactionary or radical sources are rewarded
 
kbrickley said:
Not to defend the media (because they make lots of FUs) but they are in a no win situation to a certain extent ... the modern audiences demand instant news (and punish the sites or sources that can't provide that) ... it is kind of like the old saying, "Fast, Good, Cheap ... pick any two" ...

there is also another more dangerous trait of many in the modern audience ... most don't really care to hear the truth as much as a story or byline that supports their view of politics and the world ... truly neutral sources (of which there are few) generally get punished financially for that neutrality while the skewed reactionary or radical sources are rewarded
Click to expand...

I'm well aware, which is why I hope this gains traction. The only way to make them stop is to make it financially bad for them to continue doing it irresponsibly.
 
Is there any privacy protection for underage accused in the UK? If so, in this instance, were those laws violated by the news operations for their own profit (obviously)?
If so, hold them criminally liable.
 
pothb said:
So yea, that seems to be on all the kid's side if they were to sue for defamation/libel though, if he's guilty that's all moot.
And iirc hurt feelings to count, say they feel threatened by others or something usually seemed to work out, if nothing else, claim they had to go to therapy or some shit.
Click to expand...

even if he is guilty under the age of 16-18 they are protected his identity is not allowed to be published, the news outlets will get fined for publishing a name of a minor even if found guilty or not (unlike in the USA, UK media don't get let off by been correct) not like he go to jail any way as we don't jail minors

now they have had to move house to another area, as you get some stupid vigilantes targeting them

in the USA, media gets a name no fucks are given even if the person is innocent same result as above but worse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top