GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals 229
An anonymous reader writes The Telegraph reports, "GCHQ has lost track of some of the most dangerous crime lords and has had to abort surveillance on others after Edward Snowden revealed their tactics ... The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals following the exposes by the former CIA contractor. Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks. One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations. More intense tracking of others has either been abandoned or not started because of fears the tactics are now too easy to spot and will force the criminals to "go dark" and be lost sight of completely."
Lest we forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Please remember that "serious criminals" included the entire population.
Re:Lest we forget (Score:5, Funny)
You're thinking of Australia. That's where UK deported its serious criminals, whereas it deported its religious nutcases to North America.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't you innumerate racist clown.
Re: (Score:3)
there never were natives in England.
Everyone who can trace their ancestry back far enough will find Eastern European roots.
(I only have to go back to 1822 and I'm looking at Polack, French, Spanish, German, Greek, black West African and Scandinavian).
Re: (Score:2)
uh... that wasn't it, his father moved the family to Australia in an attempt to help Gibson's brother dodge the draft for Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
Darn, another good explanation I learned years ago now smashed.
However that explanation is odd. Australia also had conscription for the Viet Nam war. My dad wasn't subject to it because he worked for the PMG (and had two small kids). Wouldn't Canada have made more sense?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they are right that serious criminals have gone unpunished in the last year, i.e. the ones working at GCHQ.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you do that, physically? And more importantly, why would you want to kill two of the greatest heroes of our time?
Re: (Score:3)
major difference:
Snowden was a whistleblower who was betrayed by the US Government after he exposed their criminality. Now they want him dead simply because they got shown for what they are.
Philby was a KGB double agent who stole military secrets for the Soviets.
Relevant quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"We can't do our jobs, while obeying the law."
--Gang leadership, er, correction, GCHQ leadership
Re: Relevant quote (Score:2, Informative)
You mean the criminals of Ghcq who are infamous of hacking phone companies outside britain are complaining they don't know what there felow criminals are up to?
Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing (Score:3, Interesting)
As a former federal inmate (Read my story via The Market is Not Random [tminr.com]), I was able to witness the expanding overcrowding of the system. The United States Sentencing Commission has been stating for many years that prison sentences are too long, and that non-violent criminals (like me) are prime candidates for alternative sentencing. In fact, regardless of crime, the majority of Americans believe a prison sentence of 2.6 years is long enough.
That said, I don't see that as the complete problem. Once released, federal inmates are subject to supervised release sometimes in excess of 10-15 years. The ability to track the ever expanding populous of inmates does a disservice to tracking the non-reformed. If one was to believe that prison did not lead to reform, then the proper conclusion is that all prisons (including myself) should be executed, regardless of crime.
Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing (Score:4, Informative)
Despite Mr. Klatch’s success, his young age led to some reckless decisions. Mr. Klatch was indicted in 2011 by the federal government, and he subsequently accepted a guilty plea to four felony counts: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Money Laundering. Mr. Klatch acknowledges that he engaged in deceptive marketing tactics, which led to some investor losses during the 2008-2010 financial crisis. However, he accepted responsibility for his actions, and successfully served a five-year federal prison sentence. Today, he is actively pursuing various avenues in order to make full restitution to his victims.
FBI [fbi.gov]:
Kenyen Brown, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, is pleased to announce that Anthony J. Klatch, II, of Tampa, Florida and Sugarloaf Township, Pennsylvania, has pled guilty to one count each of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. These convictions all stem from his involvement in a fraudulent investment scheme involving the TASK Capital Partners hedge fund. All the TASK fund investors were located in either the Mobile area or in Florida. Combined, they lost a total of $2.3 million. In addition to spending time in prison, Klatch will be required to forfeit assets associated with his fraudulent activities. As part of his plea agreement, Klatch also agreed to the following facts about his involvement:
In January 2009, Anthony J. Klatch, II and Timothy Sullivan created the TASK Capital Partners, LP hedge fund, with Klatch serving as the fund’s Senior Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer.
After creating TASK, Klatch, Sullivan, and others solicited individuals to invest in the fund. This was done through a variety of means, including, but not limited to, providing potential investors with investment prospectuses, which contained material misrepresentations and material misleading omissions. At least one potential investor received this prospectus via e-mail.
From April through October 2009, seven investors invested approximately $2.3 million in the TASK hedge fund. Along with the seven investors, Klatch and Sullivan each invested $1 in TASK. Once investors agreed to invest money in the TASK fund, the investors used interstate wires to transfer, or to authorize a transfer of, money from their accounts into accounts managed by TASK. Wire transfers, or the authorizations to transfer money, for three of the TASK investors originated in the Southern District of Alabama.
Between April 2009 and December 2009, Klatch and Sullivan managed the $2.3 million of investment capital in TASK. However, only about 60 percent of this amount was ever actually invested. This 60 percent was lost over the course of eight months through a series of investments. In December 2009 and January 2010, all TASK investors were told by Klatch, Sullivan, and others that their entire investment had been lost in a single bad trade.
The remaining 40 percent of money in TASK was used for non-investment related expenditures. This includes $180,592.45 which ended up in Klatch’s personal bank account. Before ending up in his personal account, this money was moved through different bank accounts, via a series of transactions, which Klatch knew were designed in whole or in part, conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds.
In addition to his involvement in the TASK scheme, Klatch admits that he was also involved in similar fraudulent investment schemes involving American Private Equities, LLC, ARM Capital Management, LLC, and Vigilant Capital Management, LLC. Furthermore, Klatch agrees that the total fraud amount associated with these other funds will be included as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. The parties agree that
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out how the man also controls time. He was indicted in 2011, and successfully served a 5 year prison sentence. That means it's 2016 man!!! Where did the last two years go?
Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing (Score:4, Insightful)
The same accounting that brought us the banking crisis?
My guess is that he was given credit for time in custody, and he's now on parole after serving 1/2 of his sentence, so he hasn't "served a 5 year prison sentence."
And for those who wish to argue this is slightly off-topic, white collar crime has ruined his victims' lives. Surveillance of known white-collar criminals should be fairly easy, since many of them depend on the internet for at least a portion of their scams, and you know who you need to keep an eye on.
"Oh, but he needs to make a living."
Sure, but not in anything that can allow him to commit more white-collar crimes while out on parole. Let him pick up garbage, learn how to lay bricks, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I have done everything possible to show my remorse. I have forfeited every asset. I have accepted my responsibility, and I am working on my books in order to make full restitution to my victims via my "Five Mill to Freedom Campaign."
The misconception that my criminality did not lead to immense knowledge is wrong. I worked 3am-4pm every single day, as provable by my trading records. That information resulted in me writing, "The Market is Not Random." [tminr.com], and the forthcoming fictional portrayal of how to sav
Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, cowboy. You did not "forfeit every asset." Those assets weren't yours to begin with, since they were got with stolen money. If you had stolen a car, you couldn't say "well, I got caught and I forfeited my car." If you had fenced that car, and bought a big-screen TV, it's still not something that you rightfully own - it's the proceeds of crime.
Also, "The misconception that my criminality did not lead to immense knowledge is wrong." Sure, you had to be knowledgeable to defraud people out of millions. Too bad you couldn't do it legally - guess you didn't have enough knowledge or smarts on how to do it right. You set out from the beginning to defraud people, So, why should anyone trust your "immense knowledge", when others in all walks of life make it without resorting to multi-million-dollar frauds?
Thinking you can just sit on your arse and write a couple of books and that will solve the problem is like the frequent posters here who ask slashdot "I just got laid off and I hear there's big money in programming." You have less credibility in finance than an Ouija board.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything - but you, and people who thought like you - that they could "take lots of money out and we'll cover it with huge profits" - were part of the reason for the financial crisis. Time to turn to "sweat of the brow" work, even if it will never give you the lifestyle you used to have. Certainly your victims are in the same position because they trusted you.
Re: (Score:2)
That is basically how the legal code of law in the Qin kingdom in China worked. The Chinese believed back then that it was a waste of time and resources to jail men so the most common sentences [wikipedia.org] were either death or corporal punishment.
Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the surveilance was about terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled irrational...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I thought the surveilance was about terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorists, paedophiles, organized crime, bad drivers... Any of the usual suspects can be used interchangeably to justify more powers and surveillance.
I remember the bad old days, before criminals used the internet for communication and we were unable to spy on them. You could hardly walk down the street without being blown up by a terrorist, and every child was molested by at least two paedophiles on a typical day. It wasn't until GCHQ started monitoring everyone that we could live our lives in relative peace.
Brought it on ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if our police forces hasn't been so overbearing in their surveillance methods they wouldn't have had this problem.
It isn't so much that people are upset that police have the ability to listen in to phone calls or track us. Rather, they are upset that increasingly these powers are being used on everyone all the time, usually without needing a warrant or having any oversight. These powers have been, are and will continued to be abused by the authorities. The citizens - including whistle-blowers like Snowden - are making a fuss because they don't want everyone to be treated like a crook. Had the police and security apparat contented themselves with appropriate measures, there would have been much less impetus for Snowden and Assange to make the great revelations they did.
But no, we have cameras on every corner, our communications are bugged, our every movement and behavior tracked and analyzed. Don't try to shift the blame onto the people who helped make us aware of your overreach. Stop labeling everyone a criminal, stop depending on gadgets to do your work for you, and stop misusing the tools and powers we-the-people already gave you (and then demanding even more). Only then can you talk about how the bad whistle-blowers are making your job more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't so much that people are upset that police have the ability to listen in to phone calls or track us. Rather, they are upset that increasingly these powers are being used on everyone all the time, usually without needing a warrant or having any oversight. These powers have been, are and will continued to be abused by the authorities.
Came here to say this, and you said it better than I could. Thanks!
Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that the Telegraph is an extremely conservative newspaper which is very cosy with the British establishment.
The key phrases in the article, "the Daily Telegraph can disclose", and "a senior security official said", imply that the Telegraph has been explicitly briefed knowing that it will big up the story. You know the quotation:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(Thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
Mind you, the fact that they're talking about drug gangs is especially significant as on the one hand it's an attempt to deflect attention from the political nature of GCHQ spying whereas on the other it's suggesting that GCHQ has a routine role in what would normally be considered police work. They're obviously proud of their mission creep.
Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just that they spy on everyone, it's that they actively abuse these powers for their own benefit. For example, in the recent "Plebgate" scandal a police officer was shown to have lied, and was convicted. The police responded by using their RIPA powers to get the phone records of the journalists who exposed them, in order to find out who their confidential sources were.
I'm afraid that human nature being what it is the security services can't be trusted with these powers. No amount of oversight will fix it, they just can't have them.
Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yes. You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran. So while some of those documents may have happened to "blow the whistle" on some things, some of those documents may also have happened to cripple our intel capabilities and threaten national security. Snowden didn't distinguish those two things, so he may well be both a whistle-blower and a traitor of the highest order, and he may well be to blame for some real problems in law enforcement that have nothing to do with overreach.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Edward Snowden chose the reporters he talked to very carefully and asked them to be responsible with their disclosures. He did not just dump documents and run, and he did take steps to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary disclosure.
Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Also, perfect is the enemy of good. If one expects someone in his position to be utterly perfect in every way, then you'll still be languishing in the dark. As a Brit, I'm glad this happened. GCHQ can go screw themselves, frankly. They had no business spying on all of us and if they've made their own lives harder---it's their fault.
I'd rather take a few more ciminals than big brother.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that eventually you'll get more than you think you bargained for. However it's too late, somebody else made an irrevocable decision for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that eventually you'll get more than you think you bargained for.
So far you've told me to be afraid and backed it up with the word of those with a strong vested interest in bolstering their own power. If there really is a threat, you can convince me better than that.
My grandfather died a couple of years ago. It wasn't tragic: he was 93. He was Jewish and lived and fought through WWII. There was a real existential threat there. The islamic terrorists are not.
Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.
Exposing corruption is not being a traitor, no matter how many times you try and claim it. I realize that in propaganda school they teach you to lie until people believe it, but in this case we never will. Snowden did not release names of agents or criminals, he exposed the high level slide shows used to train people to perform illegal surveillance. These documents demonstrated that the agency is not worried very much about "Drug Gangs" as TFA tries to claim, it's worried about people who question what their own Governments are doing.
If the GCHQ was not having agents sift through email and tweets looking for people trying to organize for protests (you know, exercising free speech) they could actually focus on crime. If they were not trying to silence journalists questioning policies, they may be able to catch drug gangs. They could do so legally because they would have the resources available to do so. Instead, you have these agencies working to stifle free speech and collaborate with other countries to help them stifle free speech in their countries as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Times are changing, nowadays you can commit crimes without even going out of your house, real-time encrypted communication with your whole gang.
When has this not been true? Invite a bunch of neighbours over with some balloons tied to the front porch, and a sign up that says "Happy Birthday Son!"
Then, sit in the kitchen talking about your plans to blow up some local municipal building, while some co-conspirator dresses as a clown and entertains the kiddies in the front room that you can see through the window from the street. (Ok, so you probably had to leave the house to buy the balloons, but still.)
Police methods and laws need to keep up with the technology and their use by criminals.
Provide evidence to a judge, receive a warrant.
What a load of bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
So the intelligence officers let three quarters of the UK's most harmful crime gangs operate peacefully in spite of being in on their communications? If they are not doing anything about them, it can't be that important.
At any rate: if the criminals avoid the eavesdropping anyway, how about stopping the eavesdropping on the law-abiding citizens?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You couldn't be more wrong. Before the Snowden leaks, you could not buy recreational drugs in the UK. Nobody in the entire country did any drugs because they were impossible to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it (Score:2)
I really doubt it, if anything this shows the inability of the police to adapt to changing situations, and for those already busted the word got out how it was done so if anything the Snowden revelations drew a line under it, not actually revealing anything unknown.
So What Else is New? (Score:5, Insightful)
> One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded
And how is this different from the last 40 years?
Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn.
That's exactly like criminals whining that police is interrupting the normal flow of their criminal operations.
Disgusting. And very easy to see through, what a nonsense.
some reclues for GCHQ (Score:4, Informative)
the BBC
Parliament
Buckingham Palace
Just three of many places where criminals operate with impunity.
Evidenced and in the public domain.
It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals (Score:5, Funny)
But its keeping a close eye on the humourous ones.
reliant on one form of intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
This just shows that gchq have lost track of some of the criminals it knew about but had not gained enough intelligence to form a case (or the crimes were not considered serious enough). It has not lost track of the criminals that weren't using the communications channels it had a viewport on because it didn't have them tracked in the first place.
Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.
Essentially: c+ must try harder.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Snowden let us know that GCHQ was busy carrying out DDOS attacks [bbc.co.uk] on websites suspected of being used by Anonymous. Without due process, without any tested proof of wrongdoing, without any judicial oversight of what they were doing or consideration of collateral damage. Legal only because GCHQ has pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want. Maybe if GCHQ spent more of their time doing what most people think they should be doing, instead of playing script kiddy and DDOSing random chat rooms, they woul
Re: (Score:2)
This just shows that gchq have lost track of some of the criminals it knew about but had not gained enough intelligence to form a case (or the crimes were not considered serious enough). It has not lost track of the criminals that weren't using the communications channels it had a viewport on because it didn't have them tracked in the first place.
Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.
Essentially: c+ must try harder.
Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.
GCHQ are signals intelligence, not human intelligence. If MI5 and National Crime Agency aren't following up it isn't on them.
Re: (Score:2)
C- ... shows distinct lack of ability coupled with severe behavior issues and a complete lack of respect for authority.
Re: (Score:2)
you are clearly not uptodate on your bond movies (live and let die, license to kill)
Waaaaaaaa! (Score:3)
We have to actually work instead of sitting back and letting the computer do our jobs, boohoo.
Yeah, respecting the rights of the people makes tyranny difficult. Maybe you shouldn't have partnered with the colonies. :P
I know! Lets throw a pity party for the oppressor!
Yes? (Score:5, Interesting)
a) They shouldn't have overdone the surveillance to an extent that made it neccessary to have a Snowden to restore protection of those who the three letter agencies are supposed to protect and
b) this is based on the fallacy that before Snowden, criminals did not know about the surveillance protocols. Well, obviously, SOME didn't know. But those criminals who managed to bribe or blackmail a someone on a Snowden-like position into sharing their Snowden-like knowledge wre never monitored by the GHCQ.
Re: (Score:2)
The information disclosed by Snowden can be reduced down to "The three letter agencies can convert any electronic device with a microphone into a hidden tape recorder" and "anything sent down The Tubes can also be recorded". So they meet in person and just leave their smartphones in the room outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what the really clever criminals did even before Snowden.
Class A Narcotics (Score:2)
"One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics..."
What do they want, Class B narcotics?
Question: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To jail a criminal you have to provide real proof then win in court.
To harass innocent citizens they just have to avoid going anywhere near a court.
Fucking (Score:3)
This information is old information and irrelevant (Score:3)
You reap what you sow! (Score:5, Insightful)
But they broke the law and got caught. Don't blame Snowden for having some integrity and doing the right thing. These agencies could learn a lot from Snowden.
As for the 'war on drugs', the Taliban declared opium poppy cultivation illegal just before the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan. Opium production - and by extension heroin production - was reduced to almost nothing.
In effect, the Taliban dealt the single most effective blow to the so-called "war on drugs" since its inception decades ago.
Since then the UK/USA invaded and allowed opium to be produced again - and now they produce record levels of opium and heroin. Billions of dollars of drugs. All controlled by UK/USA.
Now it seems that GCHQ can't monitor all of the drug dealers they'd like to. Are they worried that someone might be taking a slice of their pie?
You reap what you sow.
Good. Now spend unused resources on prevention (Score:2)
So, (potentially) a quarter more class A narcotics entered the country due to (potentially) a quarter of the communications intercepted no longer being so. For one, I highly doubt those numbers translate to effective raise in class A narc. consumption or even availability. Let's not forget Snowden's actions also alerted the criminals, so they are EFFECTIVELY more aware, and thus LESS active since.
In any case, the number of drug addicts does not always increase with availability. Some studies actually indica
can't they just pick up the trail again (Score:2)
The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals
can't they just pick up the trail again when they come out of the mosque?
Of course, (Score:3)
The cops who blew the OJ case probably thought they were doing a good job too.
The best way to avoid getting caught (and ruin everything you're working towards) is not to break the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be sure and tell Melanie Shaw that. She tried to expose systemic child abuse during her time in Beechwood Children's Home, last week she was convicted by a directed jury of causing a shed fire that did not happen and sentenced to time served (in horrific conditions during which time she developed a stage 3 ulcer on her leg which also threated her foot) and three years probation.
The State fucking hate it when people try to expose their criminality, they can and will pull every dirty trick imaginable (an
Here's a thought (Score:2)
Lets take this complaint by the GCHQ, and lets assume that the NSA/FBI may have similar issues, if indeed it's really a problem.
Then lets look at the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offering up encryption for their users, as though to say "you're safe with us now".
These Snowden revelations crippled the "security" agencies, so what's the natural response?
"How do we get users to become complacent again?"
Easy, have the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offer up encryption, then have the FBI come out publicly and c
I suppose ... (Score:3)
Please (Score:2)
One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations.
As if Class A narcotics weren't available in the UK when these excuse-stuffed buffoons did have unimpeded access to everyone's private communications.
Gone "dark"??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right... (Score:2)
- Should we add a "think of the children" type paragraph in it sir?
- Neah, not this time.
Big Britter (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotham Ciy PD (Score:2)
I read the headline as "GCPD Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals" and immediately thought to myself "Damn it! Someone call Batman!". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_City_Police_Department)
Simple and Disallowed (Score:3)
Simple: legalize it all. Now, you've removed the massive profits, reduced the associated violence of the sellers, the theft and robbery crimes of the users, while also reducing the amount of ODs, allied health costs, and even deaths, ala Portugal.
But they have no idea of allowing these solid, provable benefits to society, as it would be a detriment to their power and money (i.e., they're just another criminal organization).
An admission? (Score:2)
So it seems to me that GCHQ are admitting that mass surveillance is no longer effective after Edward Snowden.
Don't blame Snowden.. (Score:2)
..Blame yourselves for abusing dangerous power that we the people entrusted you with. Now we don't trust you and the power is gone. If you had used it sparingly and for real need you'd still have it. Now the world is indeed more dangerous because you failed to constrain yourselves.
Poor babies.... (Score:3)
Awww... cry me a river. UK cops actually have to engage in police work to catch criminals instead of resorting to outright criminal or at least very shady methods to catch them. I guess the UK and US govts shouldn't have abused the power we entrusted them with.
Want an easier time catching criminals? Stop BEING criminals.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you're missing sufficient evidence to indict and you're ignoring due process.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.
That's right, the security/intelligence services here in the UK just do all that wiretapping and spying for the lulz, they have no intention of ever using it in court.
Mission Creep (Score:4, Interesting)
The warrantless wiretap surveillance of citizens was originally justified as a national security necessity to fight terrorism. But it is ostensibly being used for a different purpose.... law enforcement against drug crimes. And you can be sure that it will also be used for surveillance of political enemies and for industrial espionage. There is a reason the Constitution guanantees that no search can be made without a warrant. It's because the power to snoop is a drug in itself, addicting those who have it to abuse those who don't.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason the Constitution guanantees that no search can be made without a warrant.
You do realize this article is about England not the US? They don't have to fallow our Constitution.
Re: Mission Creep (Score:3, Interesting)
The warrant requirement originated in England. Although Parliamentary Supremacy means the political party due jour is able to gut hundreds of years of civil rights protections.
Even worse is the erosion of the House of Lords. Having a group of stodgy old men and women with veto power over such abuses is not such a bad thing. More often than not they'll go along with the House of Commons, but in the breech their veto can really matter.
Actually, the worst is the move of the Supreme Court from the House of Lord
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not used in court, it's used to extract confessions.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.
You will if you have a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
If they dont have evidence they dont know they are criminals.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Knowing something and proving it in a court of law are two different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps not in theory, but in practice? Happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
You must be thinking of the USA where the following offences merit mandatory jail time:
(1) driving while Black.
(2) walking while White.
(3) possession of a Penis.
You forgot that
(1) walking while black and
(2) selling loose cigarettes while black and, my favourite,
(3) carrying a toy gun in a toyshop while black
are punished by on-the-spot execution.
The hilarious part of (3) is that he was shot for carrying a toy rifle in an open carry state.
Re: Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
California once had very liberal gun laws. In response to police brutality a group of Black Panthers stormed the California Capitol building armed to the teeth. This was legal, mind you.
Very quickly Governor Ronald Reagan passed stringent gun laws.
Now that's funny...
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that pretty much the entire pro-gun cohort is rallying behind the cops regardless of what they do
This is not true, actually. The hardline conservatives are into cop worship, but libertarians are pretty strong in pro-gun movement as well, and they are generally not a fans of police militarization and excessive use of force.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
some how the bankers are still free.
Re: (Score:3)
there's this thing called evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence != Conviction.
1. You suspect someone of a crime based on some evidence you obtained legally, either by accident,by witnessing something in a public place, by a witness statement, by a confession, or some other method, but regardless, it's without a warrant, but using a method that's legal to obtain evidence without a warrant.
2. Based on this evidence, you obtain one or more warrants and use them to gather more evidence.
3. If the totality of evidence points to a crime being committed, you arrest and
Re: (Score:2)
Obfuscating the matter with Time Lords won't help.
I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.
Of course the criminals are following with interest the ways the authorities can monitor them. But then this will just highlight the need for inventing new methods in crime fighting.
Re:Crime Lords (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.
This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.
And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.
Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't have the right to use that one any more, they have been exposed as having failed to protect children in some very high profile exposures: Beechwood, Wood Nuck, Coventry, Rochdale, Savile, Elm, Jersey, Brym Estyn. Historically, they have taken actual actionable complaints by survivors and buried them, and in some cases persecuted the survivors to the point of rendering them legally unreliable (Melanie Shaw, for the most recent example).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't call £6 a gallon inexpensive.