Australian radio prank page 2

58 posts

Flag Post

Your admiration of me is still rather baffling. I’m just an ordinary bloke like you who likes to keep abreast of what is going on around me. I hope you don’t lose sight of that.

I would also add that I see the hospital as culpable too. Kate Middleton is married to the second in line to the throne, and as such was bound to attract a lot of media attention. To put themselves in a position where the duty nurse was having to deal with phone calls about her was sloppy to say the least. The Queen is far too savvy to make casual calls to a hospital personally, and it’s not the first time that the media have tried impersonation to get information. In this case it was done as a bit of a laugh rather than an attempt at serious journalism, but that’s beside the point. There should have been an experienced PR person on duty at all times, and the fact that there wasn’t represents, in my eyes at least, a serious failure which goes way outside the boundaries of this particular incident.

Presumably the Australian radio station employs people to vet content in the same way that the Beeb does. I don’t think we need to change broadcasting laws, just make sure that people are doing their jobs properly. There is to be an inquest into the death later this week, so we may soon have a better idea of why it happened.

On re-reading my last post, the bit about getting right to the point sounded much more unkind than was intended, so my apologies if I caused any offence with that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

There is no way you can know this as a fact… because she didn’t say it herself. But the way she acted and psychologists’ as well as family’s reasonings does lead me to believe it as that.

You’re the one who stated it as fact. You flat out stated that she was already depressed and suicidal.

 
Flag Post

Yes, Kegfarms. And as I said, I’ll continue to believe that if that’s what psychologists and family say… This argument is getting circular. I fail to see how psychologists’ and family’s opinions are untrustworthy in this instance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Yes, Kegfarms. And as I said, I’ll continue to believe that if that’s what psychologists and family say… This argument is getting circular. I fail to see how psychologists’ and family’s opinions are untrustworthy in this instance.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Yes, Kegfarms. And as I said, I’ll continue to believe that if that’s what psychologists and family say… This argument is getting circular. I fail to see how psychologists’ and family’s opinions are untrustworthy in this instance.

Apparently you don’t know what a “fact” is. You just said you couldn’t know it was a fact then stated it as it was a fact and flat out said it was a fact.

 
Flag Post

I think the DJ’s impersonating someone with the intent to decieve someone so to get information that they know they are not allowed is crossing the line, and that is what they should be punished for.
As for the suicide, that isn’t the fault of the DJ’s.

 
Flag Post

Details were a little sketchy but as I recall she had 2(?) children, but they lived with her husband in Bristol and she was living in nursing accommodation in London. I obviously don’t know the details but I would guess there were existing personal problems.

Some Brits do still value the royal family for more than just the tourist potential and Brits of Indian decent often do so it may of meant more to her than it would to others, me (for example), who don’t really give a crap about the royals. She may also of received taunting etc from the people around her if they were pro-royals, or just assholes.

Add personal problems and social problems and/or public ridicule together and that is likely to test anyone’s resolve. I’m not saying everyone would kill themselves in that situation, we all react differently, but I am not too surprised by a suicide, sad as it may be.

 
Flag Post

The DJs were CLEARLY breaking impersonation laws and whatever laws govern the release of sensitive data pertaining to patient’s medical history.

However, they did in no way contribute to the nurse’s suicide. I think we can all agree that the incident in itself would not push the average, mentally healthy person to suicide. Therefore we can summarize that there was SOMETHING wrong with the nurse. She was on the edge of the cliff already; the call was just a small push. That “small push” could have come from anywhere. It could be a colleague mocking her for being fat, or vandals smashing her car windows in.

Besides, how do we know the nurse’s suicide had anything to do with the prank call? I have not read about any suicide note or any scrap of evidence that the suicide was connected to the call. Perhaps she committed suicide due to money matters. (Ignore this if there is in fact something to suggest that the prank call caused the suicide.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by helltank:

The DJs were CLEARLY breaking impersonation laws and whatever laws govern the release of sensitive data pertaining to patient’s medical history.

However, they did in no way contribute to the nurse’s suicide. I think we can all agree that the incident in itself would not push the average, mentally healthy person to suicide. Therefore we can summarize that there was SOMETHING wrong with the nurse. She was on the edge of the cliff already; the call was just a small push. That “small push” could have come from anywhere. It could be a colleague mocking her for being fat, or vandals smashing her car windows in.

Besides, how do we know the nurse’s suicide had anything to do with the prank call? I have not read about any suicide note or any scrap of evidence that the suicide was connected to the call. Perhaps she committed suicide due to money matters. (Ignore this if there is in fact something to suggest that the prank call caused the suicide.)

Helltank, do ya see the contradiction there?
NO way probably isn’t a small push.
I can accept a huge IF hung before: there were, the “push” was totally, innocently, unintentional and could have come from any number of sources.

HOWEVER,,,,
it didn’t come from any other sources,,,
it came from the DJ’s. I’ve said that, while they aren’t the total “load-of-hay” on that woman’s back, it very well MIGHT have been the DJ’s “last-straw” call that broke her back. But, since she is dead, obviously we will NEVER know…..and can ONLY speculate.

This is the damning part in that, if the DJ’s have any concience at allk, they very likely will never know the very SMALL (teeny-tiny?) PART their call MIGHT have played in her death…IF AT ALL. I know I wouldn’t want to carry that around for the rest of my life.

Let me put this on the table for discussion. Due to the extreme sensitivity of the nature of information divulged (as YOU establish as being “sensitive data”),,if she were subsequently FIRED from her job, losing very needed income, and possibly NOT being able to find work in her field of expertise (resulting in a huge downgrade in income and the likely added self-shame of not being able to do a job that fulled self-esteem), and being continuously (even for a short while) the butt of a lot of ridicule (both to her face and in widely distributed media)….could this be seen as a much bigger “push”?

I know these things would come to my mind were I to have made the call. Due to my long life, I have been given the opportunity to do a lot of “walking-a-mile-in-other’s-shoes” and have seen that what one is able to observe on the outside of a person can be quite different than their inner-self…both for a positive or negative reality, and maybe a very complex mixture of the two. I’ve learned to greatly mollify my assessment of pp,, w/ only a weeebit of information known,,l because of what is commonly known as: Ya can’t judge a book by its cover. This form of “judging” can also be often seen as being: PREjudgist and overly shallow knee-jerking on something as complex as a human being.

Something that has been brought up in the “gun thread” pertaining to the many events where some gunman goes whacko and shoots many ppl (one poster failed to mention Pres. Regan’s shooting and that of Senator Gabby) should make one wonder at the paths leading up to any (all?) such shootings. What were the “straws-on-the-camel’s-back”….where did they come from….in what manner were they “mentally processed” by the shooter?

In my daily events, I offer the world a smile, a nod, a “good” word. Be these gestures extremely small…I see them as being positive rather than negative. Ergo, I hopefully can find myself being on the “help” side for ppl rather than on the “hurt” side. It takes damn little from my life to be genuinely positive to the world around me (I’m often called: gregarious & very personable).

BUT, I often wonder if my doing this is simply: SELFISH
I really abhor being in “negative” environs.
I do all I can to avoid them.
I do all I can to turn them to positive ones.
I use any sane method available (w/o overly investing) to accomplish this.
I follow the words of Will Rogers: “I never met a man I didn’t like”.

For me, this means that I shouldn’t prejudge a person (even when I have “good information” given by “reliable sources”). This blog takes that even one more step farther, a psychological one, and is something I learned (about myself?) long ago and try very hard to constantly make effort to do.

 
Flag Post

The DJs are the straw that broke the camel’s back. So why are we acting like they’re the WHOLE DAMN LOAD OF HAY instead of just a TINY LITTLE STRAW?

I don’t mind if you reprimand and warn them for making such a prank call(the sensitive data part is a different matter; they should be at least fined for that), but acting like they’re cold-blooded murderers who deliberately made a phone call to a busy nurse knowing that she’ll pipe them through to the princess in order to force her to commit suicide is just stupid.

In an old SD thread, the subject of a boy who bullied a classmate so hard he committed suicide was brought up. This boy was not just the straw. He was perhaps 7/8ths of the load of hay. Yet (according to some SDer whose name I can’t remember) “he wasn’t charged with murder. He was charged with everything else, but not murder.”

Note:feel free to treat the last paragraph as an unreliable quote as I can’t seem to dig up the thread it was posted in. The first two paragraphs sum up the core points of my argument.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by helltank:

The DJs are the straw that broke the camel’s back. So why are we acting like they’re the WHOLE DAMN LOAD OF HAY instead of just a TINY LITTLE STRAW?

Hell, it always helps if ya supply an antecedent to your pronouns when discussing who is doing what.

If ya’re paying much attention at all, the more “reliable” posters on this forum aren’t saying that…..at all.

In fact, we have been saying pretty much what ya say just below.

I don’t mind if you reprimand and warn them for making such a prank call(the sensitive data part is a different matter; they should be at least fined for that), but acting like they’re cold-blooded murderers who deliberately made a phone call to a busy nurse knowing that she’ll pipe them through to the princess in order to force her to commit suicide is just stupid.

I guess ya’ve completely “missed” our positions on the matter.
PLUS, please show me where this “…knowing she will pipe them through to the princess in order to force her (the princess? ? ?) to commit suicide…” is presented. OR, did ya just assume the DJ’s were trying to do more than ascertain the princess’ condition? As for “forcing the princess to commit suicide” goes,, it’s pretty obvious the mistakeis due to a lack of punctuation. Ppl can ridicule me for my EXCESSION punctuation….but, at least it is there and is easily seen.

In an old SD thread, the subject of a boy who bullied a classmate so hard he committed suicide was brought up. This boy was not just the straw. He was perhaps 7/8ths of the load of hay. Yet (according to some SDer whose name I can’t remember) “he wasn’t charged with murder. He was charged with everything else, but not murder.”

All I’m seeing here is some data that isn’t of merit enough to be comparative to this issue. YOUR opinion that the bully in that scenario was 7/8ths responsible is just that…..YOUR opinion. Ya’re comparing apples to bowling balls. The DJ’s made one HARMFULLY-UNINTENDED foray of “innocently” improprity that cannot be seen as “bullying” of any nature……other than simple cajoling.

Just to be clear on what my position on this event has been:
1) I said it would be a stretch to make a case for even the mildest form of manslaughter.
2) I said a civil suit against the radio station employing them is a real possibility.
3) I said that if the DJ’s had any concience at all, their part in the whole mess would very likely be “punishment” enough…..and, hopefully some form of “lesson” for others in their wide appeal audiences and for each & everyone of us about how we should better use simple CONSIDERATION before we indulge in rash behavior involving ppl who are strangers to us.

 
Flag Post

I have to agree with Karma. The worst thing they did was identity theft. The second-worst was gain access to sensitive data. With the data, its a lot like getting hold of data on American troop deployments, and then broadcasting that over the airwaves at the height of the cold war. It’s not something that should be done. Broadcasting a person’s medical data is the same level of no-no, and they would have known this.

So, willfully breaking the law, deserves legal repurcussions.

In the case of the medical data, not a fine no. A light prison sentence. somewhere in the ballpark of 18 weeks behind bars would be about right. Enough to strongly remind them of the need to respect boundaries, and not to steal private property (sensitive data).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

Your admiration of me is still rather baffling. I’m just an ordinary bloke like you who likes to keep abreast of what is going on around me. I hope you don’t lose sight of that.

Awwww…c’mon, beauval. I think of ya as the “second coming”. LOL
Nah, rather than “admiration”,,,,I think APPRECIATION would be much closer. I deeply see appreciation (as opposed to DEpreciation) where applicable if it greatly enhances understanding of a issue//problem and can offer some damn good ideas on solutions.

I’m “explaining” this appreciation for yer hugely positive input to this forum because of the mistaken perception (by some?) that you & I were in “conflict” on the DJ’s involvement. I viewed any remotely possible disagreement as being the result of coming to the table via simple differing avenues and yet pretty much ending up at the same point.

And, maybe I just want SOME posters to see that I’m able to dish out appreciation as easily & as well as I am disagreement & disdain…..LOL

On re-reading my last post, the bit about getting right to the point sounded much more unkind than was intended, so my apologies if I caused any offence with that.

Ah..hell no. Even if there was any “unkindness” involved,,,,I probably merited it. LOL
BUT, I’m not one known to beat around the bush to get down & dirty to the point if need be. Rather, I’ll slash at the bullshit-in-the-bush until it lies on the ground where it belongs and will no long impede progress in getting to a workable solution.

NOW:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I have to agree with Karma. The worst thing they did was identity theft. The second-worst was gain access to sensitive data. With the data, its a lot like getting hold of data on American troop deployments, and then broadcasting that over the airwaves at the height of the cold war. It’s not something that should be done. Broadcasting a person’s medical data is the same level of no-no, and they would have known this.


So, willfully breaking the law, deserves legal repercussions.


In the case of the medical data, not a fine no. A light prison sentence. somewhere in the ballpark of 18 weeks behind bars would be about right. Enough to strongly remind them of the need to respect boundaries, and not to steal private property (sensitive data).


While I no arguement w/ YOUR assessment w/ the “wrong-doing” in this issue,,,I’m still not any too sure on what any form of repercussions they merit. It would be interesting to be privy to ALL OF the involved discussion on this,,,ya know, from the minds that typically deal w/ the legal ramifications of issues such as this.

One thing is very likely should there be any “guilty LEGAL verdict”, it is going to result in probation rather than jail-time. Of course, as I’ve already stated, civil verdicts (esp. against the radio station) is a whole ’nother matter.

 
Flag Post

The main problem is going to be the DJs being located in a different country to the one they ‘pranked’. I know in the UK identity theft is a serious issue, and the data protection act is taken very seriously, but I am unsure if Australia has similar harsh laws on those who falsify their identity and publish sensitive restricted data obtained through pretending to be someone with clearance.

If the laws are similar, then yes a light prison sentence is very likely, as is the likelihood of losing their lisence to broadcast – a black mark making them unemployable by any broadcaster who wishes to stay on the air.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

The main problem is going to be the DJs being located in a different country to the one they ‘pranked’. I know in the UK identity theft is a serious issue, and the data protection act is taken very seriously, but I am unsure if Australia has similar harsh laws on those who falsify their identity and publish sensitive restricted data obtained through pretending to be someone with clearance.

Aha…I’m most glad ya brought up this (probably?) relevant point. I’ve been meaning to do so, I just failed to do so before this thread “dropped out of sight”.

If the laws are similar, then yes a light prison sentence is very likely, as is the likelihood of losing their lisence to broadcast – a black mark making them unemployable by any broadcaster who wishes to stay on the air.
Yeah…I hope I didn’t come off as saying that “convictions” in particular areas of actual infractions of laws shouldn’t be levied. Rather that one shouldn’t expect them to (likely?) be very strong and that, equally as likely, little-2-no “Iron Bar Hotel” visit would occur. That is if things in Austrailia are much like they are here in the U.S. where jail over-crowding is so heavy that first-time offenders of even violent crimes are often not even incarserated.

Also, I think laws—while there is room for “judgement” of a law as applied to various situations—should be enforced. Not that such enforcement be seen so much as punishment as it be seen as a serious statement about how such behavior is viewed by society.
i.e. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

To do anything less can make one wonder if such hollow laws—upon being struck by infractions—merely create a resounding echo of a drumbeat by which others who would consider doing likewise, for whatever reason, would begin their march down the path of thumbing their noses at laws in general.

I’ve very interested in seeing the total resulting outcome of all of this.
I even would be very keen to know its ramifications as applied to the U.S.
I guess I’m gonna have to talk to a few lawyers I know. LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

The main problem is going to be the DJs being located in a different country to the one they ‘pranked’. I know in the UK identity theft is a serious issue, and the data protection act is taken very seriously, but I am unsure if Australia has similar harsh laws on those who falsify their identity and publish sensitive restricted data obtained through pretending to be someone with clearance.

If the laws are similar, then yes a light prison sentence is very likely, as is the likelihood of losing their lisence to broadcast – a black mark making them unemployable by any broadcaster who wishes to stay on the air.

Saying you are somebody you aren’t is nowhere close to being identity theft.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Saying you are somebody you aren’t is nowhere close to being identity theft.

Actually, saying you are somebody you are not, with the express purpose of gaining access to materials that person has acces to and you do not, is exactly what identity theft is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Saying you are somebody you aren’t is nowhere close to being identity theft.

Yes it is, it just gets really serious when the person starts stealing a person’s identity though means that legally makes them that person and/or using the person’s money or status to benefit themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Saying you are somebody you aren’t is nowhere close to being identity theft.

Actually, saying you are somebody you are not, with the express purpose of gaining access to materials that person has acces to and you do not, is exactly what identity theft is.

Because obviously a prank phone call is the same as creating credit cards using somebody else’s identity. You are just flat out wrong.

 
Flag Post

It doesn’t matter what the information was. It was information solely authorised to the persons whose identity was fabricated. They used their fabrigation to take something which did not belong to them.

Have you considered that taking something that does not belong to you, might be considered stealing? The information belonged to the identity, and they assumed the identity to access that information.

It is fundamentally no different to obtaining credit card information for the royal couple and broadcasting that overthe airwaves. Sensitive, restricted information is still sensitive, restricted information regardless of its specific nature.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

It doesn’t matter what the information was. It was information solely authorised to the persons whose identity was fabricated. They used their fabrigation to take something which did not belong to them.

Have you considered that taking something that does not belong to you, might be considered stealing? The information belonged to the identity, and they assumed the identity to access that information.

It is fundamentally no different to obtaining credit card information for the royal couple and broadcasting that overthe airwaves. Sensitive, restricted information is still sensitive, restricted information regardless of its specific nature.

It is entirely different. They didn’t steal shit because they didn’t actually use any real information such as what happens with true identity theft. Another example that is somewhat similar is how copyright infringement is not theft because you only copy something and do not take something.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is entirely different. They didn’t steal shit because they didn’t actually use any real information such as what happens with true identity theft. Another example that is somewhat similar is how copyright infringement is not theft because you only copy something and do not take something.

Fair enough, so if I pretend to be you, phone the bank and convince they I am you, using whatever methods necessary, in order to obtain your credit card information, you would be perfectly happy with my broadcasting your credit card number and pin over the airwaves,right? Adfter all its not stealing to do so, and nobody is harmed in the process. Everyone just takes a ‘copy’ of this highly sensitive, fairly classified information to use as they see fit, and the whole process is completely unactionable – right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is entirely different. They didn’t steal shit because they didn’t actually use any real information such as what happens with true identity theft. Another example that is somewhat similar is how copyright infringement is not theft because you only copy something and do not take something.

Howzzbout we say they OBTAINED information in an ILLEGAL manner?
Howzzbout we say they LIED.
Howzzbout it really doesn’t matter if I use a watch I cobbed,,,
I’m still guilty of stealing it.

As for your copyright INFRINGEMENT ….I think I’d look up some information on a “proof” I’m trying to use. I might not then come off looking the fool.

I guess ya don’t watch much major league sporting events: “This copyrighted broadcast is the property of the National Football League. Any rebroadcast or reproduction without the consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited.” It’s used for MLBaseball games, too. I imagine hockey, etc.

 
Flag Post
I don’t see these two DJs as being particularly culpable here, but as you say, the radio station is a different matter.

That is totally backwards. The DJ’s are the ones who actually made the calls. The radio station merely failed to prevent them from making the calls. That’s like, if someone jokingly fires a gun into the air and the bullet hits someone, suing the gun store but letting the shooter go free.

Unless the station actually TOLD them to make the calls, the DJ’s are WAY more liable. (If lawyers get involved, they will of course WANT to sue the station more because the station has way more money than two random guys. But that’s another thing altogether.)

 
Flag Post

The DJ’s are the ones who actually made the calls. The radio station merely failed to prevent them from making the calls.

Not true. The radio station claims that they sought permission to transmit the call.
But whether or not that is true, the fact remains that the call was prerecorded, and the radio station had the opportunity to consider the matter and decide not to transmit. But they transmitted anyway. The DJs gave them some controversial material, but it was not their decision to use it. In my opinion the radio station and the hospital, as I explained earlier, are the guilty parties here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceasar:

Unless the station actually TOLD them to make the calls, the DJ’s are WAY more liable. (If lawyers get involved, they will of course WANT to sue the station more because the station has way more money than two random guys. But that’s another thing altogether.)

As a broadcaster, the station is expected to have a director of programming (whatever the job is actually called). It is their job to oversee the content being delivered. This person could at any time have pulled the plug on the broadcast. That they didn’t, and in fact let it run, means that the radio station is indeed culpable for any laws the broadcast broke.