Key UK Murdoch executives charged over phone hacking conspiracy

We still have waaay too many friends in high places

The News of the World phone hacking scandal continues to rock News Corporation and undeniably, its CEO and founder Rupert Murdoch. Two key Murdoch executives along with six others were charged today with conspiracy to hack phones.

Last summer, the Guardian revealed that reporters working for the popular British tabloid the News of the World had paid private a detective to hack into the voicemail of Milly Dowler, a 13 year-old girl who had been abducted and murdered. A public demand to discover the extent of the news organizations phone hacking activities soon followed, and the 168 year-old publication folded under the pressure of the escalating scandal. Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson (pictured) resigned from their positions, she the head editor of the News of the World and he the Communications Director for Prime Minister David Cameron.

Brooks, Coulson, five other former employees and private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, face up to two years in prison if convicted. The pair are noted for their deep political connections with high ranking members of the the UK government, including sitting Prime Minister, David Cameron. Brooks was also a confidant of Murdoch and friends with a succession of Prime Ministers.
The Guardian:

He Said, She Said?: Wikileaks vs. The Guardian

Someone sprung a leak! And it's still a bit difficult to tell where it came from.

According to Julian Assange, (and the lawyers representing Wikileaks), it was a reporter working for The Guardian. The Guardian has denied all responsibility. The trouble, Wikileaks alleges, all started when The Guardian's, David Leigh, published a lengthy encryption key in the February 2011 publication Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. The key was given to Leigh by Assange so that he could access an online file containing more than 250,000 uncensored US State Department diplomatic cables.

The point of contention could simply be miscommunication between Assange and Leigh. The Guardian claims both parties agreed the diplomatic cables would be available on an online server in July 2010 for a period of hours, after which, the files would be removed and the temporary server turned off. Assange denied this account in a recent interview with New Scientist, "The only thing that was temporary was the website location the file was stored in. But the password is not used for the website – it is used for decrypting the file."

However, the plot seemingly thickens, as questions remain over where and when the first bittorrent leaks occurred and at what point Wikileaks became aware that the files had become public. The BBC bluntly stated, "It has long been known that Wikileaks lost control of the cables even before they were published and that encrypted files are circulating on the internet." The Guardian also claims that after the initial leaked file surfaced on bittorrent, "At about 11pm on Wednesday [Aug. 31] an anonymous Twitter user discovered the published password and opened a separate file – not the one shared with the Guardian – that had also been circulating on file-sharing networks for several months."

What is clear is that at some point, the encrypted files containing the diplomatic cables had found their way onto bittorrent. However, writing for The Guardian, James Ball reports that the bittorrent file had not yet been discovered by the public: "By 10am on Thursday [Sept. 1] it had been accessed once in the previous 31 days, despite mounting speculation about its existence."

The accusations flying between Wikileaks and The Guardian continue to mount. The news organization defended its publication of the encryption key:

It's nonsense to suggest the Guardian's WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way. Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours. It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database. No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book.