:00:10. > :00:13.there is plenty of wrath. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: More
:00:13. > :00:15.revelations in London about News International, an arrest in
:00:15. > :00:21.Shetland in connection with so- called cyberhacking and continuing
:00:21. > :00:27.controversy over WikiLeaks. Is our whole legal and moral system for
:00:27. > :00:31.dealing with information in crisis? And is technology making new laws
:00:31. > :00:34.to deal with the issue redundant before they're even written?
:00:34. > :00:39.Also tonight, is it really a Royal wedding just because a Royal is
:00:39. > :00:43.getting married? We look at how a damp Edinburgh is limbering up for
:00:43. > :00:46.another joyous day out. Good evening. Well, while the media
:00:46. > :00:51.goes into another frenzy about the News International scandal, the
:00:51. > :00:54.internet never sleeps. There, a campaign is under way to encourage
:00:54. > :00:57.people to shun PayPal, an online payments system which stopped
:00:57. > :01:00.processing payments to WikiLeaks. And if you believe messages tonight
:01:00. > :01:09.on Twitter, then a group of hackers will tomorrow publish a slew of
:01:09. > :01:11.documents from the American Department of Homeland Security.
:01:11. > :01:17.News International, WikiLeaks, cyberhacking. Could they by any
:01:17. > :01:21.chance be related? Well, yes. Tomorrow's front pages will again
:01:21. > :01:25.be dominated by the News International scandal following the
:01:25. > :01:29.allegations that Sara Payne's phone was hacked. This morning's front
:01:29. > :01:34.pages were dominated by another hacking story, the arrest of an 18-
:01:34. > :01:40.year-old in Shetland as part of an investigation into the cyber
:01:40. > :01:43.hacking group's Anonymous. He's being held in London as part of an
:01:43. > :01:47.ongoing investigation into hacking and so-called distributed denial of
:01:47. > :01:52.service attacks with a websites of international companies and
:01:52. > :01:56.intelligence agencies are flooded to make them crash. Among the most
:01:56. > :02:02.recent alleged victims are the Italian Government agency
:02:02. > :02:05.responsible for protecting vital computers in June the CIA's public
:02:05. > :02:12.website was taken down for a period. Among other alleged targets have
:02:12. > :02:16.been the US Senate, bang Senate Bank of America and Sony. They've
:02:16. > :02:19.also allegedly blocked access to the website of visa and hijacked
:02:19. > :02:29.sites belonging to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. In a statement
:02:29. > :02:33.
:02:33. > :02:36.yesterday people claiming to be So, the News International scandal
:02:36. > :02:39.and international investigation into cyber hacking, and don't
:02:39. > :02:44.forget the WikiLeaks affair, which has been obsessing the chattering
:02:44. > :02:48.classes for ages, and for that matter the MPs expenses scandal,
:02:48. > :02:52.what do they all have in common? Well, they all raise the question
:02:52. > :02:56.of whether the ability of technology to give us access to
:02:56. > :03:00.secret information has outstripped our laws and moral rules about
:03:00. > :03:05.privacy. Today, Lord Justice Leveson, asked by the Prime
:03:05. > :03:09.Minister to look at journeyistic practices, raised the issue.
:03:09. > :03:13.At some stage, there needs to be a discussion of what amounts to the
:03:13. > :03:18.public good, to what extent the public interest should be taken
:03:18. > :03:24.into account, and by whom. So, who defines what is in the
:03:24. > :03:26.public interest? Who controls information that by definition is
:03:26. > :03:30.increasingly accessible, even the most sensitive types of
:03:30. > :03:39.information? And when can using questionable methods to access
:03:39. > :03:42.information be justified in the public interest?
:03:42. > :03:46.I'm joined now from Edinburgh by computer security expert Professor
:03:46. > :03:48.Bill Buchanan of Napier University. Here in Glasgow, Strathclyde
:03:48. > :03:51.sociologist Professor David Miller, and joining us live from San
:03:51. > :04:00.Francisco by the magic of the internet is Hanni Fakhoury, who's
:04:00. > :04:06.staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the EFF. Do
:04:06. > :04:12.you think that the issues we have seen arising with these hacking
:04:12. > :04:18.issues recently, the campaigns on Paypal etc, are we just seeing a
:04:18. > :04:24.bunch of kids being criminals or is this some new form of civil action?
:04:24. > :04:30.I think we're seeing a new form of civil action to a certain extent.
:04:30. > :04:35.The ability of the internet to make large amounts of data accessible to
:04:35. > :04:39.many people all at once provides really an opportunity for people
:04:40. > :04:43.who do have a particular social agenda or cause that they want to
:04:43. > :04:46.publicise or promote t make it easier for them to get that
:04:46. > :04:52.information out there. And often times governments are going to try
:04:52. > :04:57.and label what they're doing criminal, but there is certainly a
:04:57. > :05:01.strong argument to be made that what they're doing is really
:05:01. > :05:06.pursuing the public interest. So we can - it's difficult because often
:05:06. > :05:10.times we may not agree with their means, but at least for many of
:05:10. > :05:15.these individuals they see it as their ends are justified. Right,
:05:15. > :05:21.but where do you draw the line? For example, there's a spectrum, if we
:05:21. > :05:24.take Paypal, there were attempts to basically by these people to say to
:05:24. > :05:28.people who have accounts don't have them, because we don't like what
:05:28. > :05:32.they're doing, that sounds like a perfectly legitimate form of
:05:32. > :05:37.protest. Then there were attempts to flood the Paypal site to bring
:05:37. > :05:40.it down, I suppose you could say that's like having a demonstration
:05:40. > :05:44.in the city centre if it's for a period of time. Should there be an
:05:44. > :05:47.attempt to publish the details of Paypal account holders because
:05:47. > :05:53.someone's hacked in? That does seem to be something very different,
:05:53. > :05:56.doesn't it? It does. And I don't want to say that it's OK to
:05:56. > :06:01.disclose other people's sensitive private information, I am certainly
:06:01. > :06:06.not suggesting that. But if the issue is do these individuals see
:06:06. > :06:12.themselves as some sort of social Crusaders, then I would say yes,
:06:12. > :06:18.they do see themselves that way. I think a lot of people forget
:06:18. > :06:22.sometimes that in many of the recent - in recent history civil
:06:22. > :06:27.rights movements, if you want to call it that, or massive protest
:06:27. > :06:30.movements, they have been criminal behaviour has been the forefront of
:06:30. > :06:34.that, so I mean we can sit and label something a crime and not a
:06:34. > :06:38.crime and it may be crime by the legal definition of what is and is
:06:38. > :06:45.not a crime, but do these people see themselves as doing something
:06:45. > :06:49.for the greater good and don't see themselves as just vandals and
:06:49. > :06:53.criminals? Then yes, I think they do see themselves that way. How we
:06:53. > :06:56.as a society views them is a more difficult question and there are
:06:56. > :07:03.people who obviously are going to agree with their methods because
:07:03. > :07:08.they'll believe that the ends justify the means. What links these
:07:08. > :07:11.issues together, links it with News International in a way, things like
:07:11. > :07:16.Milly Dowler, everyone was horrified, but there are situations
:07:16. > :07:19.where a newspaper might say well, we have done things that actually
:07:19. > :07:23.are technically illegal but we have a public defence, we have exposed
:07:23. > :07:29.an arms dealer, for example, breaking UN sanctions and we have a
:07:29. > :07:33.right and actually it's enshrined in law a lot of issues, we have a
:07:33. > :07:38.public defence. Do the kind of people that Hanni is talking about
:07:38. > :07:44.have a moral, never mind a legal right to say, well, we're just - we
:07:44. > :07:47.are the new version of newspapers? We are the new version of
:07:47. > :07:50.investigative journalism, yes, they are in some respects, they are
:07:50. > :07:54.replacing some forms of investigatesive journalism. That's
:07:54. > :08:00.a good argument but there is also a clearly an argument in relation to
:08:00. > :08:04.News International, that there are some techniques of journalism which
:08:04. > :08:09.are unacceptable and which horrify... It's drawing boundaries
:08:09. > :08:12.now, I mean ethically, never mind legally, they difficult, isn't it?
:08:12. > :08:17.It is and that's partly to do with the technology which we have been
:08:17. > :08:21.hearing about and partly to do with the concentrated assault there's
:08:21. > :08:25.been on the concept of the public interest. Many of the most famous
:08:25. > :08:29.prize winning economists regard the concept of public interest as a
:08:29. > :08:34.meaningful concept and think that people who defend the public
:08:34. > :08:44.interest are maniacs and extremists and and must be kpwalted --
:08:44. > :08:47.
:08:47. > :08:51.combated. That's a key issue as well, which meshs in with the
:08:52. > :08:55.question of technology. Is there a danger, it's this balance with
:08:55. > :09:01.protecting privacy and criminalising people. An example,
:09:02. > :09:06.it took me about five seconds this evening to find a download page for
:09:06. > :09:10.something called a low orbit ion collider, which is apparently
:09:10. > :09:15.software you can use to engineer mass floodings of websites to close
:09:15. > :09:19.them down. Now I didn't download it but people in the United States
:09:19. > :09:28.have been visited and indeed arrested by the FBI for having
:09:28. > :09:35.We are now moving from an industrial age into this new area,
:09:35. > :09:38.which is an information age and we are learning about how we protect
:09:38. > :09:43.ourselves and businesses from malicious purposes, because there
:09:43. > :09:47.are a great deal of motivations out there and political gain, there's
:09:47. > :09:52.financial gain, so I think businesses need to understand how
:09:52. > :09:56.to protect themselves, so there has been a little bit of a malaise
:09:56. > :10:00.inside businesses and organisations to say that it doesn't really
:10:00. > :10:03.matter if we are being attacked or we lose data or something has been
:10:03. > :10:11.compromised. There needs to be a greater investment. Is it the case
:10:11. > :10:18.that, as I understand it, a lot of the attacks that these groups like
:10:18. > :10:22.Anonymous have done, the techniques they are using are not that
:10:22. > :10:25.sophisticated. It's just that the people they are attacking are so
:10:25. > :10:30.laxy they don't have defences against it? That is extremely true.
:10:30. > :10:34.If you ask a good security professional they'll say the
:10:34. > :10:40.easiest person to defend against is the standard kidy who is using
:10:40. > :10:44.standard tools that are widely available on the internet, because
:10:44. > :10:49.other professionals know how to defend. We have found the biggest
:10:49. > :10:52.risk is serious and organised crime groups, typically outside the UK,
:10:52. > :10:56.that have sophisticated methods. They have software programmers and
:10:56. > :11:01.they can actually pay for things to be developed for them. Once you
:11:01. > :11:05.change something then it makes it more difficult to protect against.
:11:05. > :11:09.Hanni Fakhoury, I'm interested to attitudes in the EFF as to whether
:11:09. > :11:15.you would defend some of the hacking activities. Again, from
:11:15. > :11:20.having a legitimate campaign, yes, but for example, bill Bucahanan was
:11:20. > :11:25.mentioning criminals, so if you hack into PayPal and publish lists
:11:25. > :11:28.of names, those names and passwords can be used by criminals, even if
:11:28. > :11:34.the people who are hacking are around kisses or just trying to
:11:34. > :11:41.have a laugh? Well, we at EFF have always tried to approach every
:11:41. > :11:45.situation in its own unique set of facts, so we take every - if people
:11:46. > :11:53.approach us about representing them then we take a case-by-case
:11:53. > :11:55.individual approach, but I would say that we - with respect to
:11:55. > :12:00.publishing lists and people's person and private information,
:12:00. > :12:04.obviously we don't support or encourage people to do that. To the
:12:04. > :12:08.extent that the law criminalises people who engage in that type of
:12:08. > :12:14.activity, that's not a thing that we really - we don't take too much
:12:14. > :12:21.issue with that. We do, however, take issue with the way the law at
:12:21. > :12:26.least in the United States is often times interpreted. It's meant to
:12:26. > :12:30.cover that criminal behaviour, but often it gets used in a way to
:12:30. > :12:33.criminalise much broader categories that may not be so criminal. Hanni
:12:33. > :12:38.Fakhoury, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we are going to have to leave
:12:38. > :12:41.it. Gentlemen, thank you all very much indeed.
:12:41. > :12:45.Now, you can imagine Derek Bateman's reaction when we asked
:12:45. > :12:49.him for a film on this weekend's Royal Wedding in Edinburgh between
:12:49. > :12:53.Zara Philips and Mike Tindall. He protested that it wasn't a Royal
:12:53. > :12:56.Wedding and the Palace didn't want people turning up on the Royal Mile,
:12:57. > :13:05.but we insisted he head off to Edinburgh in the rain and here's
:13:05. > :13:15.the result. All the world loves a Royal Wedding. Only this won't be
:13:15. > :13:17.
:13:17. > :13:21.one. It is officially a private family affair. It just happens to
:13:22. > :13:30.be be closing parts of Edinburgh and requires police and private
:13:30. > :13:34.security and the monarch will be there. Who else has the timetable
:13:34. > :13:42.for their horse trials adjusted to allow guests to get into tails on
:13:42. > :13:48.time? We know this is a very private affair, because the
:13:48. > :13:54.minister of the Kirk won't do interviews. Actually, neither will
:13:54. > :13:58.the City Council. They've been doing an all-round tidy up ahead of
:13:58. > :14:02.the big event, which personal I think is a very good idea, because
:14:02. > :14:08.the last time I walked around the cemetery here there was clear
:14:08. > :14:15.evidence that local people had been using it as an overnight stop. The
:14:15. > :14:19.inside word - OK, the Daily Mail - says Zara was keen to sell the
:14:19. > :14:25.event to Hello but was scuppered by her mum. Yes, there's a rumour
:14:25. > :14:30.around and I say they should have gone for it. That �500,000 that is
:14:30. > :14:35.rumoured to have been paid for the pictures could also have paid
:14:35. > :14:41.�500,000 for all the police and kuert for the event. -- and
:14:41. > :14:49.security for the event. Is there a danger that the happy couple will
:14:49. > :14:53.be playing second fiddle to the monarch and to the heir and his new
:14:53. > :14:57.wife? Yes, no doubt. Anyone who is making an attempt to get a look
:14:57. > :15:04.will be looking to see Kate and William rather than Zara and Mike,
:15:04. > :15:10.but you never know, there might be a few Zara watchers around. Why is
:15:10. > :15:15.the wedding in Edinburgh at all? When the Princess Anne branch of
:15:15. > :15:18.the family there is a tradition of getting married if Scotland. When
:15:19. > :15:23.she wanted to marry her second husband, there was worry about
:15:23. > :15:27.whether she could do this in the Church of England because she had
:15:27. > :15:34.been divorced and in typical Princess Anne fashion, she kout out
:15:34. > :15:38.the nonsense by getting -- cut out the nonsense by getting married
:15:38. > :15:44.near malmoral. There's the tradition and the famous thing
:15:44. > :15:48.about Princess Anne supporting Scotland at rugby and all that.
:15:48. > :15:52.They see themselves as the most Scottish branch of the family.
:15:52. > :15:57.this a family, private affair? Absolutely not. You may say it's
:15:57. > :16:01.not a Royal Wedding, but it is a wedding and it's Royal. I know what
:16:01. > :16:07.they mean, it's not a great state occasion, so it will be a simple
:16:07. > :16:12.and smaller do, which can only be to the good. Shouldn't Scots
:16:12. > :16:16.welcome these events? Maybe we would welcome them if we were
:16:16. > :16:22.invited along and allowed to sort of enjoy them more than it seems we
:16:22. > :16:28.are being allowed to. We should remember the last time there was a
:16:28. > :16:36.Royal wedling -- wedding Britain celebrated and Glasgow went on the
:16:36. > :16:41.rampage. It doesn't help that the Edinburgh police introduced a dose
:16:41. > :16:46.of pessimism by saying there will be minimal opportunity to see the
:16:46. > :16:52.couple. So tight is space on the Royal Mile. Sadly, you won't see
:16:52. > :16:58.them either. There will be no camera inside and only one outside
:16:58. > :17:04.to see them arrive and depart. What of the dress? We are more used to
:17:04. > :17:09.seeing Zara in a fleece and there is a manly ring to her sponsors.
:17:09. > :17:17.Chunky Rolex watches, Land Rover 4x4s and water-proof clothing.
:17:17. > :17:20.Perhaps she will link all three to deal with the Edinburgh weather.
:17:20. > :17:25.There is an historical symmetry in the choice of the Kirk. The
:17:25. > :17:35.construction was started under James VII but finished under
:17:35. > :17:37.