In the past the nation as a whole communicated and conversed via residential fixed landlines from either home, work or booth. This applied to both the general public and government situated in parliament. Apart from the Spying conflict of the Cold War from 1947, of whom could tap landlines, no other body had the knowledge nor technological capabilities to monitor calling traffic.


As this was the case Politicians across the UK felt untouchable to any attempts of invading privacy. World affairs discussed over the phone from region to region and nation to nation and that were highly confidential were insured to stay private.


In the present day technology has vastly developed to which the majority of people can access mobile devices, Smartphones, broadband and of course the landline. Large parts of the public are also subscribed to contracted calls and SMS, which can be followed by the applied mobile server in order to invoice. Though all of the previous appears to be an impressive showcase of how communications have improved, the same changes in contacting one another has increased Surveillance but yet decreased Security.


According to regulators Ofcom, as of late 2014 93% of Britain owned a mobile phone (for which 15% opt as their home contact) and over 25M residents had an installed home or work telephone. In early 2015 66% obtained a Smartphone device to make an overall national number of 61% accessing wireless internet when moving around.


These statistics simply suggest that the majority of the British public communicate in one form or another. The lesser conversing techniques of mailing are not immune from the vulnerability of detoured hacking (or third parties reading content before reaching destination). In Britain around 117 SMS or MMS messages were sent per month (in 2014), whilst just over 40M items were posted daily (in 2015).


These large numbers of mailing and the previous additions of residential fixed lines and mobile access to the internet make foreign tapping easy.


This has been a crime largely unnoticed until the outburst media coverage of the Leveson Inquiry in 2013 and 2014;


Recent phone hacking scandals in the news has highlighted how encompassing the problem of hacking has become. This includes criminal activity such as hacking business telephone systems to initiate outbound calls to premium numbers. Known as ‘Phone Phreaking’.

  paper 1Figure 1

Image taken from


 The Leveson Inquiry surrounding newspapers leaking electronic mail sourced from Celebrities illustrated to not only the UK but worldwide that no individual was safe from having their privacy invaded (see Figure 1).


For years the regular person has found the odd letter to have been stolen or wireless infiltrated by a virus that are later regarded petty crime. Suddenly institutes once thought to be untouchable from unknown interference were now finding themselves to also be targets, with leading businesses first to feel the effects of tapping following the Leveson Inquiry. It was reported in 2015 that businesses had to pay up to £1B to repair hacking damage.


The surveillance and investigation inquiry and interceptions of conversations to and from leading corporations brought up the question…if celebrities and national/ international brands are unable to prevent hacking, how are politicians any different?


The answer is that they are not…which is a great concern to us (the public) but an even greater shock and surprise to the MP.


According to statistics there are 650 constituencies currently based in the Houses of Parliament, and with the inclusion of regional members and their governing counterparts this calculates to around 92,000 overall. For decades the political patriot has progressed with their highly confidential duties of scrutiny debates over legalisation and world relations and affairs under the impression that all is safe.


To a degree the governor is correct in believing this. The government proceedings can be secure in regards to the personal protection of the party member (with close protection) via a bodyguard or chauffeur, and when negotiations are discussed at engagements with event management (meeting protection).


However just like those subject to the Leveson Inquiry, politicians in the UK are also not out of bounds from phone hacking. Not known how but for generations the Houses of Parliament and extended networks have done daily business under the impression that a granted law offered extended security from phone tapping and the support from British Spies to pinpoint any potential infiltrators. This safety net was non-existent in fact, as following the media storm of the Inquiry a Judge declared that there was no written law guaranteeing extra surveillance just for politicians.


Thus when the 90,000 plus parliamentarians commune the confidential through Wi-Fi, Smartphone, mobile or simply landline it could be as easily hacked and retrieved by cyber thieves as the norm calling family or friend. A real worrying contemplation for national safety.


paper 2 Figure 2

Image taken from


Following this outcome from the courts all parties could feel the sweat and anxiety over being a victim. A victimisation that leading lawmakers David Davis MP (Figure 2), Mary Honeyball MEP and Lord Strasburger later experienced.


‘The attackers took control over the Tory MP David Davis’ email account, then the experts also hacked the PayPal account of the politician, too easy because Davis shared the same credentials for the several web services.


His PayPal account was then compromised, as it used the same username and password as his G mail, a common habit.’


Pierluigi Paganini, Chief Information Security Officer



As for the fellow two victims from online trafficking, Lord Strasburger had his voicemail message attacked whilst Mary Honeyball MEP succumbed to the same crime through having her Facebook account hacked whilst on the internet in an internet café.




If you are concerned about being a victim of online hacking please click on the link