In the wake of more alleged hackings by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp empire, I wonder, as a journalist, how far is too far to get a story?
In an internet age where so much information is publicly accessible and competition from various news outlets means that the same story will be told and retold from every angle before you have time to blink, finding a good story is like looking for a needle in the haystack. Much of modern journalism has become reactionary, a response to the news rather than the only source from which it emanates. Given the amount of information that is publicly disseminated, good stories can often come from information that is not publicly accessible, simply because it offers something not everyone has or can have. I can understand, given these conditions, why a frustrated journalist would want to turn to illicit means to get a new angle. Hacking worked for WikiLeaks. Hacktivism, on the form of collectives such as Anonymous and others, has evolved as an ethically questionable yet formidable form of political protest. The urge to gain access to what does not belong to you is undeniably irresistible, at least cognitively.
But when do you stop? When does pursuit of a story turn into a breach of trust, a breach of privacy? Just as a journalist is entitled to freedom of the press, a citizen is entitled to their privacy. Public institutions, such as governments and those given public funds, must have high levels of transparency on principle. Trusted with taxpayer money, our mistrust of these institutions leads to a parental demand to know their every move. If a journalist feels as though there is information from these institutions that is not being made public that should be, hacking into their databases in the name of justice and transparency could be justified under the right circumstances.
However, what about private citizens? John Finn, a Professor of Government at Wesleyan gave a compelling lecture last week, in which he advocated for the abolition of the state action doctrine, arguing that the biggest threats to personal liberty in today’s day and age stem from corporations and other private interests. As admittedly unfeasible as this position is in terms of legal ramifications, in the wake of these hackings I can’t help but see his point. Here is an example of a private corporation invading the privacy of citizens to further its own private interests. Hacking in defense of the public welfare is arguably ethical. Hacking in defense of private interest leaves you with pie on your face.
