Why such controversy over prank?

[Something completely different]

I don't think you understand UK law at all.

The Leveson Inquiry concluded that there should be an independent regulator of the press. It did not enact one, nor does it have the power to enact one.

Even if it did, a UK regulator of the press can only affect press working in the UK. It cannot stop, nor can it charge two Australian DJs.

As Shell said, this is an international matter. You can't apply UK laws to Australia. The DJs will be held accountable under Australian and International law only.

I gave the leverson ininquiry as a poor example ........ admited. And maybe I again failed to properly express myself.

What i wanted to point out is: that ignoring the law whilest trying to gain privat information can lead to bad consequences.
The recent phone hacking scandal is for me a perfect example of this.

I didn`t demand for a regulatory body or anything. I would simply suggest that laws - are inforced - which they should have been, but werent during the time in which criminal activity amongst tabloid journalists was ongoing.

I do have no clue which laws will apply if this case should be investigated.

Countery to popular belief, international law does not provide laws and standards for every single aspect of criminal justice for every nation (that would undermine a nations sovereignty and therefor violate the UN charta). Legal matters such as extradition and cross border court and police cooperation are sett into existance and their limitations determined through treaties via diplomatic negotiations. So if there will be legal action - then it`s course and whos responsibility it is will be are determined by the legal treaties between the UK and Australia.

Here Germans, this is for you buddy I know how you love memes.

---

---

great.................. you made a "funny".

what a wonderfull display of how mature you are.

I think what I said just went right over your head, sorry!

Maybe if you would have kept your shit together and actualy once in a while do some research, you would know that members of scienology have to sign legal papers concerning the private information they give to the organisation..... which is why scientology can publish this privat information.

Because they have their members\ex-members legal concent.

You fail to miss the point that privat information canot be simply published.

Let me explain this concept to you again: information is free, you can not lock it. There are protections in place, yes, but at the end of the day information is free - if you come into that information legally, you can publish the information, doesn't matter what it is.

There is freedom of information in the sence that everyone has access to free information.

You fail to understand that my question is: "What information should be freely accessabel"?

Medical records of a individual should not be without the legal concent of that individual.

Did they get that information with the individuals legal concent?

NO.

[Tiberius]

I gave the leverson ininquiry as a poor example ........ admited. And maybe I again failed to properly express myself.

What i wanted to point out is: that ignoring the law whilest trying to gain privat information can lead to bad consequences.
The recent phone hacking scandal is for me a perfect example of this.

The point is, they weren't ignoring the law. The phone hacking scandal is not a good example, because the journalists who hacked the phones were in the UK, and thus were breaking UK law directly. This tragedy involved two Australian DJs, who are not under the jurisdiction of UK law.

I didn`t demand for a regulatory body or anything. I would simply suggest that laws - are inforced - which they should have been, but werent during the time in which criminal activity amongst tabloid journalists was ongoing.

I do have no clue which laws will apply if this case should be investigated.

I think everyone thinks that laws should be enforced; it doesn't really need saying. Laws also depend heavily on the context. Killing someone by accident and killing someone on purpose result in the same result (the death of a person), but have completely different contexts and result in completely different sentences. Likewise, these DJs did not intend to break any laws; they were trying to make a prank call. They weren't even after personal information; it was all a big joke, and they never expected to actually end up talking to a nurse about the princess. In this context, they did very little to nothing wrong at all.

Countery to popular belief, international law does not provide laws and standards for every single aspect of criminal justice for every nation (that would undermine a nations sovereignty and therefor violate the UN charta). Legal matters such as extradition and cross border court and police cooperation are sett into existance and their limitations determined through treaties via diplomatic negotiations. So if there will be legal action - then it`s course and whos responsibility it is will be are determined by the legal treaties between the UK and Australia.

I never said international law covers every single aspect of criminal justice. What matters is if they broke any laws in Australia, as the crime would have been committed in Australia. I realise that in the age of digital communication it's hard to set the boundaries, but multiple court cases have shown that even if you commit a crime against some foreign country using phone lines or the Internet, you are usually only charged and sentenced according to the country you were in at the time.

[Something completely different]

The point is, they weren't ignoring the law. The phone hacking scandal is not a good example, because the journalists who hacked the phones were in the UK, and thus were breaking UK law directly. This tragedy involved two Australian DJs, who are not under the jurisdiction of UK law.

But it is an example of the tabloid culture which includes violating ones privacy to gain information.

Even if DJ`s werent in the UK, they violated someones right to privacy and thought of it as being ok.

Even if they werent in the UK, you cannot deny that they violated that persons right to privacy.

I think everyone thinks that laws should be enforced; it doesn't really need saying. Laws also depend heavily on the context. Killing someone by accident and killing someone on purpose result in the same result (the death of a person), but have completely different contexts and result in completely different sentences. Likewise, these DJs did not intend to break any laws; they were trying to make a prank call. They weren't even after personal information; it was all a big joke, and they never expected to actually end up talking to a nurse about the princess. In this context, they did very little to nothing wrong at all.

Commiting a crime without knowing that one is doing so doesn`t liberate one from guilt, it might be mitigating circumstances - but it doesn`t liberate them from having to take responsibility.

They took the personal information from that nurse and it was broadcasted - not knowing that what they were doing wasnt alright doesnt make something more right.

I dont think I have to explain why.

I never said international law covers every single aspect of criminal justice. What matters is if they broke any laws in Australia, as the crime would have been committed in Australia. I realise that in the age of digital communication it's hard to set the boundaries, but multiple court cases have shown that even if you commit a crime against some foreign country using phone lines or the Internet, you are usually only charged and sentenced according to the country you were in at the time.

Dont know, depends on legal treaties between the UK and Australia.

[Great Ape]

Does the UK have a law equivalent to our HIPAA in the US?

[Cinjin]

Some nurses are more dangerous than others ...

IT WAS A JOKE!!

too soon?

[KichigaiNeko]

nah