“But there is a huge difference between a justified breach of personal privacy in support of investigative journalism and a blatant fishing trip for private and confidential information.”

“justified” - who did the justifying, and according to what criteria?

“investigative journalism” - undefined - did the Mosley business qualify?

“private and confidential information” - we all know what this is, don’t we, yet the premise of this article seems to be that it is what it is, until somebody decides, according to their “justified” definition of “investigative journalism” that it is not.

Doesn’t really get us very far does it?

Why the obsession with the case of the princeling? That was the only occasion when the wrath of the Law was applied forcibly. What about the other 13,343 lines of enquiry, initiated by 305 journalists, that Operation Motorman adduced from the files of the raid on the home of Steve Whittamore? Of which 5,025 were positively seen to be breaches of the DPA and a further 6,330 probably so? All of which must, by the kindest definition, have involved matters of public interest. All of which were so above board, the clients were asked to pay VAT on them.

And that was just one “investigator”.

Where is the line between “investigative journalism” (”We already know X, so tell us more - or else”) and blackmail?

Why is £5,000 a credible maximum fine for breaches of the DPA if, as Dominic Kennedy has it in today’s “Times”, “£7,500 was the magic number that turned protests about an invasion of privacy into a willingness to talk”. In other words, cheating on the DPA and getting caught is cheaper than a direct approach!

Finally I am confused by your logic. Acquiring digital information by waving a cheque-book at a data-thief is OK: buying stolen data off a hacked mobile phone isn’t. So long as it’s burned to a CD/DVD that’s fine and dandy. Did I get that right?

Or is it that the ultimate public interest defence amounts to “he can’t afford to sue, he won’t sue, he daren’t sue”?