It's only illegal if Murdoch does it.

Murdock together with Inspector Brackenreid would never do anything illegal. How dare u.

G-S is the anti-Christ of free market capitalism - they are the uber-insiders, sheer hypocrisy them complaining about illegal info gathering. Any damage that an be done to them is a holy act of retribution. The free world would be better off without them.

We all know. Its not what you do, but what your politics are that determines if any law was broken. Including destroying an economic empire

Simple. Goldman and Bloomberg work for the same master, and Goldman wasn't actually worried about Bloomberg publishing anything that the plain people of Christendom might need to know (not while there was still time to stop Goldman from robbing them of a bit more of the inheritance of Christian civilization).

Their real fear was that a disgruntled employee might spy on Goldman and forward what he'd found out to Zerohedge. Just possibly that might be because the employee had somehow developed a conscience or at least come across a book or two on social credit and realized he was working for the Father of Lies. If destroying Goldman and Bloomberg wouldn't be sufficient amends to demonstrate a man's penitence and assure his passage into heaven, I don't know what would.

More likely it would be the perfect revenge after being passed over for a bonus or promotion before quitting the firm, destroying its business relationship with Goldman. I seriously doubt Bloomberg has many closet Socreds on the staff.

This is different in the most important way. Bloomberg is a Big Dem. Murdock isn't. 'Nuff said.

Murdoch.

Bloomberg, is a Joo, pissing on Goldman, another Joo, Murdoch, has only a little Jooish blood. Bloomberg and Goldman are leftier and bigger crooks then Murdock, that about sums it up!!!!

Shades of, The Shockwave Rider, by John Brunner.1975
Trust is eaten away by the suspicion that others have access to more information about you.
Creeping certainty that the game is fixed and you are not gonna remain on the up side. Even if you are winning right now.
Until the current edifice of lies falls down, expect more government protected criminality.
I am becoming certain that liberals have no comprehension of ethics and do not understand consequences.

Different?

Seems in many ways, using the word hack for a start. Quite how the prefix got used in relation to the Murdock “journalists" I don’t know, what I do know and very certainly know is that from the very inception of being able to leave a voice mail on a mobile/cell phone in the UK all phones when bought came with instructions, these all in big capital letters informed the person that the call back number for retrieving messages came with a factory default setting and to avoid anyone else accessing your messages the first thing to do was alter the four digit number a via the settings.
Otherwise anyone with your number could simply call your number and at the first tone add the preset and listen to your messages.

Stupid sometimes can’t be fixed, people that didn’t read the instructions as opposed to others that could and where dirt diggers live they can find a use for that.

Its cost us the British tax payers in excess of £4million, plus the pain of having the views of idiots thrust down our necks by a Biased Broadcasting Corporation and the result more incremental loss of freedom.

The Bloomberg story looks to be at a totally different level, that looks more like computer access to what was sold to commercial customers as confidential systems.

That is most definitely a different thing entirely.

DSV

aaah yes, a lie and a white lie, different animals U say

technically they are different, ethically not so much

NME666

Sorry but I don’t get that at all, there was no lie with the Murdock press “hacking” debacle, merely “journalists” exploiting the stupidity of people, I’m not even sure that they broke any law, and indeed for all the police time wasted on this I don’t see any real criminal prosecutions, invasion of privacy? maybe, but its going to be hard when the very people that had their messages listened to are the same type that usually court publicity
.
The Bloomberg scenario appears totally different. When you purchase a commercial system and server use, my wild guess is that it comes with some fairly robust security. That another arm of the same entity that sells the system can have access to your usage and then transmit that to the public domain would I imagine not only compromise commercial confidentiality (which should be a foregone in any commercial contract) but also any system used for trading should I would have though have to be a secure system just to conform to national and international trading and insider laws.

I’m no expert on the Bloomberg server stuff but whilst the first seems to be a MSM lame attempt to castigate someone they hate by huffing, puffing and posturing the second would appear to be a very real criminal act.

Ethically one exploits stupidity, whilst the other is just a criminal act. I think there is a big difference between the two.

There is a very great difference between the two.
In the case of Murdoch ... individuals were using their own resources to snoop on people.
This had nothing to do with the organization they worked for other than the fact that they worked there.

In the Bloomberg matter ... Paying customers of a data service were spied upon by agents of their service provider.

I'm pretty sure that none of the banks, brokers, insurance companies or other clients of Bloomberg LP agreed to anything in their contracts that included having third parties access their data at any level for any purpose.

It does not matter one bit whether Goldman Sachs chose to pursue this or not.

There are thousands of these terminals in hundred of companies.

Further, given the willingness of some Bloomberg agents to violate the client's trust ... there should be questions asked about how much further this went. This could easily go far beyond simple monitoring of activity and use patterns.

The very nature of a managed information service like the Bloomberg service, is that users can trust the data they receive and trust that the data they transmit is secure. So, who is to say that Bloomberg agents never filtered the information feeds, intercepted or altered data transmitted to clients?

Michael Bloomberg's political connection will not save him from the civil actions he could face from this. (hoping to see him pay the piper)