So, recently, it's come into light that News of the World, the British news paper that was revealed to be hacking into phones of celebrities to gain information, also hacked into the phone of a missing girls' phone, listening into voice mail messages being left for her by friends and relatives. Not only that, but the company even deleted voice mails to make sure that the invoice did not become full. This lead to relatives to believe that the girl was still alive, as it appeared that she was deleting the voice mail herself (she was later found murdered, the suspect who is currently on trial), and also potentially seriously impeding on police investigations into the incident. From this, and considering previous records of News of the World, it is suspected that the cororation intercepts and hacks phone calls/voice mails on a frequent basis. Now, this isn't, I must insist, a call for arms for Anonymous against this corporation (not yet, anyway). Rather, does this count as something that Anonymous should direct it's intention to? At first glance, while this is an atrocious act of breach of personal privacy and definitely illegal, it doesn't seem to be something that is against the right to people's free speech, something that is crucial for Anonymous to really take action. However, at the same time, we also need to consider the potential consequences of News of the World doing these things - primarily, it could easily give governments excuses to impose tighter rules against media in general, which could lead to serious breaches against the freedom of the press, and allowing the government to withdraw information which people have a right to know of (well, more than they already do). So, should Anonymous' next target be News of the World? Baring in mind that just because they've already got the ire of the public and the attention of the police doesn't mean we can't interfere as well - in many ways we can do far more to damage the news paper corporation than either of the other two. TL;DR: News of the World - attack or no?