Phone hacking by news organizations became the subject of scandals that raised concerns about illegal acquisition of confidential information by news media organizations in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia between 1995 and 2012. The scandal had been simmering since 2002 but broke wide open in July 2011 with the disclosure that a murdered teenage girl's mobile phone had been hacked by a newspaper looking for a story. The scandals involved multiple organizations, and include the News of the World royal phone hacking scandal, the News International phone hacking scandal, the 2011 News Corporation scandals, and the Metropolitan Police role in the News International phone hacking scandal.
By 2002, the practice of publications using private investigators to acquire confidential information was widespread in the United Kingdom,[1] with some individuals using illegal methods.[2][3] Information was allegedly acquired by accessing private voicemail accounts, hacking into computers, making false statements to officials to obtain confidential information, entrapment,[4][5] blackmail,[6] burglaries,[7] theft of mobile phones[8] and making payments to officials in exchange for confidential information. The kind of information acquired illegally included private communication, physical location of individuals, bank account records, medical records, phone bills, tax files, and organisational strategies.[9]
Individuals involved in the scandal included victims, perpetrators, investigators, solicitors, and responsible oversight officials. Victims of these illegal methods included celebrities,[10][11][12] politicians,[13] law enforcement officials,[13] solicitors,[13] and ordinary citizens.[14] As this illegal activity became apparent, arrests were made[15][16] and some convictions achieved.[15][17] Upon learning their privacy had been violated, some victims retained solicitors and filed suit against news media companies and their agents,[18] in some cases receiving substantial financial payments for violation of privacy.[19] Successful suits and publicity from investigative news articles[20] led to further disclosures, including the names of more victims,[14] more documentary evidence of wrongdoing,[21] admissions of wrongdoing,[22] and related payments.[23] Allegations were made of poor judgement[24] evidence destruction, and coverup[25] by news media executives[26][27] and law enforcement officials.[28] As a result, new investigations were initiated including some in the US and Australia,[29] and several senior executives and police officials resigned.[30][31] There were also significant commercial consequences of the scandal.[32][33]
There was evidence that illegal acquisition of confidential information continued at least into 2010.[34] Solicitors representing victims were targeted for surveillance by a news media organisation being sued as recently as 2011.[35] Illegal payments by news media agents to public officials continued into 2012.[36]
WhatPricePrivacy
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianRees20110608a
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianDowler20110704
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianGuilty20050416
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianGoodman20110809
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianGoodman20061120
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianRusbridger20110717
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).IndependentWidespread20110718
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).HarneysMulcaire20110818
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).[Goodman] admitted intercepting the voicemail of three members of the royal household.
MetPoliceWeeting20110706
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianHinton20110715
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).guardianStephenson20110818
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).GuardianNotW20110807
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).