No Honor amongst thieves! So the saying goes

The story about the story (sorry Dylan Howard, but as much as you want to say it isn’t, the story is the Story) continues with news today that Seven has been raided and documDHents seized:

Police have raided the Seven Network’s Docklands office as part of an investigation into the alleged theft of medical records relating to two AFL players. Victoria Police confirmed they had seized a number of documents under warrant, with Seven co-operating with the investigation.

Seven raided over alleged records theft – Real Footy – Breaking News

What I didn’t see in this report was that they have handed over details of the women that brought the documents to them. Howard is on record as saying that they didn’t give the women any guarantees that they would keep her name secret just that they wouldn’t use it in the story.

This (along with the $3,000 price they paid) goes to show in my opinion that they knew that there was something wrong with these documents and that they should cover their own ass and that they didn’t want to put everything on the line for the story. Surely they normally would protect their source. Not on this issue. Smells bad to me.

Molly

IceRocket tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

  1. “cyberstalking” laws here in Victoria.

    Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person's personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

    I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I'm not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

    So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

    (The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens' personal security rather than a big corporate's brand value protection.)

    Something to think about, anyway.

    -Greg.

  2. Hi Molly,

    Just a friendly reminder to you about the so-called “cyberstalking” laws here in Victoria.

    Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person’s personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

    I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I’m not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

    So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

    (The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens’ personal security rather than a big corporate’s brand value protection.)

    Something to think about, anyway.

    -Greg.

  3. Hi Molly,

    Just a friendly reminder to you about the so-called “cyberstalking” laws here in Victoria.

    Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person’s personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

    I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I’m not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

    So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

    (The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens’ personal security rather than a big corporate’s brand value protection.)

    Something to think about, anyway.

    -Greg.

  4. Hi Molly,

    Just a friendly reminder to you about the so-called “cyberstalking” laws here in Victoria.

    Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person’s personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

    I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I’m not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

    So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

    (The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens’ personal security rather than a big corporate’s brand value protection.)

    Something to think about, anyway.

    -Greg.

  5. other forms.

    I have left the email address as I don't see that as a problem (and would be happy to argue that to a judge if necessary). Personally I think Dylan has commented on the good feedback he has gotten and would say that I hope if your unhappy with the story and the Gutter media you comment to 7/Dylan (he has asked for it).

    Greg, you seem to have an eye for legal matters, should 7 fear anything from this women (and another man) being charged? Could they be charged with dealing with stolen goods?

    Molly

  6. Hmmm….I take your points on board and have examined my communications around and your inference that maybe I have gone to far probably has some merit and I believe I have fixed it up. Bad luck others haven’t followed that lead, but they may get there own medicine in other forms.

    I have left the email address as I don’t see that as a problem (and would be happy to argue that to a judge if necessary). Personally I think Dylan has commented on the good feedback he has gotten and would say that I hope if your unhappy with the story and the Gutter media you comment to 7/Dylan (he has asked for it).

    Greg, you seem to have an eye for legal matters, should 7 fear anything from this women (and another man) being charged? Could they be charged with dealing with stolen goods?

    Molly

  7. Hmmm….I take your points on board and have examined my communications around and your inference that maybe I have gone to far probably has some merit and I believe I have fixed it up. Bad luck others haven’t followed that lead, but they may get there own medicine in other forms.

    I have left the email address as I don’t see that as a problem (and would be happy to argue that to a judge if necessary). Personally I think Dylan has commented on the good feedback he has gotten and would say that I hope if your unhappy with the story and the Gutter media you comment to 7/Dylan (he has asked for it).

    Greg, you seem to have an eye for legal matters, should 7 fear anything from this women (and another man) being charged? Could they be charged with dealing with stolen goods?

    Molly

  8. mens rea (“guilty mind”) offence, which means that the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the mind of the accused at the time, he/she knew they were stolen. It's not enough to show that they actually were stolen.

    I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed “Catherine” when she said “Oh, I found these in the gutter”. Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that's less plausible than if she'd said it fell off the back of a truck.

    However, I'm not sure about what “know” means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really “know” about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?

    There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.

  9. <insert/>about doing something quickly here>.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Molly

  10. Good points. It would be hard to maintain you thought this was a lawful exchange.

    I'm not sure what the law is around “finding” confidential documents, or if there's any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can't be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?

    Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.

  11. Look, it could be. It probably boils down to “plausible deniability”.

    I think receiving stolen goods is a mens rea (“guilty mind”) offence, which means that the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the mind of the accused at the time, he/she knew they were stolen. It’s not enough to show that they actually were stolen.

    I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed “Catherine” when she said “Oh, I found these in the gutter”. Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that’s less plausible than if she’d said it fell off the back of a truck.

    However, I’m not sure about what “know” means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really “know” about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?

    There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.

  12. Look, it could be. It probably boils down to “plausible deniability”.

    I think receiving stolen goods is a mens rea (“guilty mind”) offence, which means that the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the mind of the accused at the time, he/she knew they were stolen. It’s not enough to show that they actually were stolen.

    I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed “Catherine” when she said “Oh, I found these in the gutter”. Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that’s less plausible than if she’d said it fell off the back of a truck.

    However, I’m not sure about what “know” means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really “know” about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?

    There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.

  13. I have seen it written that the women was clearly not the owner of the documents and Seven could verify this and they therefor should know that the women was in no position to sell them the document.

    The other thing to me that proves they thought it was fishy is that they didn’t agree to protect her as a source like you would expect with other sources. They handed her name over quicker then .

    Just my 2 cents.
    Molly

  14. I have seen it written that the women was clearly not the owner of the documents and Seven could verify this and they therefor should know that the women was in no position to sell them the document.

    The other thing to me that proves they thought it was fishy is that they didn’t agree to protect her as a source like you would expect with other sources. They handed her name over quicker then .

    Just my 2 cents.
    Molly

  15. Good points. It would be hard to maintain you thought this was a lawful exchange.

    I’m not sure what the law is around “finding” confidential documents, or if there’s any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can’t be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?

    Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.

  16. Good points. It would be hard to maintain you thought this was a lawful exchange.

    I’m not sure what the law is around “finding” confidential documents, or if there’s any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can’t be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?

    Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.

  17. Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist “can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity”. This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard's Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.

    Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

  18. So what your saying is that the write of the edit should have gone on the evening news and made the claim? The guy didn't make that claim, he only said that it was rumored. You know, like Howard didn't say that Braun was on EPO only that it was rumored!

    Molly

  19. Molly,

    Thought you’d be interested to know that the Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist “can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity”. This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard’s Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.

    Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

  20. Molly,

    Thought you’d be interested to know that the Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist “can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity”. This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard’s Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.

    Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

  21. Molly,

    Thought you’d be interested to know that the Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist “can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity”. This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard’s Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.

    Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

  22. So what your saying is that the write of the edit should have gone on the evening news and made the claim? The guy didn’t make that claim, he only said that it was rumored. You know, like Howard didn’t say that Braun was on EPO only that it was rumored!

    Molly

  23. So what your saying is that the write of the edit should have gone on the evening news and made the claim? The guy didn’t make that claim, he only said that it was rumored. You know, like Howard didn’t say that Braun was on EPO only that it was rumored!

    Molly

Speak Your Mind

*