UK Terror Bust Caught With Wiretapping

1cebird writes "In an AP story entitled Brothers Emerge As Focus of Plot Probe, British sources reveal that the UK -> US plane-bombing plot was uncovered by a UK wiretap. So it looks like they are getting results with their wiretapping program. Will this make governments and citizens more comfortable with the idea?"

Next?

So what will happen when the terrorists all begin using strong SSL chat sessions and avoid unencrypted communications entirely?

Re:Next?

They could of used Skype PC to PC sessions and still be undetected, but sssssh, we shouldn't be giving them any ideas. Thankfully these terrorists are technically illiterate.

Re:Next?

Yeah, but so what they use Skype? DARPA will figure out a way to break the encryption.

It's not about being uncomfortable with wiretaps. It's about being uncomfortable will illegal, non-FISA approved wire taps. If these guys were in a terror cell (and in the US) and FISA was asked for a warrant, it would be granted.

The general public isn't worried about wiretapping. They're worried about an executive branch that thinks it's a dictatorship, free from the laws that govern this land.

Re:Next?

That's simple. Anyone using strong encryption is automatically sent to a det^H^H^Hhappy camp.

Don't assume perfection

Clearly, if any group were to use perfect tradecraft and communications, it would be much more difficult - if not impossible - to catch.

But perfection doesn't come easily. Look at how many CIA, KGB, MI6, DGSE and other intelligence agencies' officers have been caught because of screw-ups. These are people trained for long period of time - often years - to accomplish their jobs, yet even among their ranks screw-ups occur.

Terrorists, such as those caught in the UK, don't have such training. While they use many sophisticated (and many simple) means to avoid detection, they often lack the discipline to use them all the time and, in the case of Al Qaeda, often operate in such large groups as to make security hap hazard at best.

Consider Thursday's group and Al Qaeda's MO. A group that size had probably been in the planning and recruitment phase for several months if not several years. A group of that size needed large amounts (by terrorist standards) of outside funding, training, and support. They needed to move lots of information, stay in contact with each other, all while maintaining an outward appearance of normalcy (which they also apparently failed at, as a human intelligence source played a major part in busting the plot as well). A group of 24 - some say as big as 50 - quickly becomes unwieldy, and establishing perfect discipline amongst its often panicked members can be quite difficult.

Al Qaeda's biggest strength, and its biggest weakness, is the size of its attacks. The 9/11 attack was astounding, winning the group recognition worldwide, but it required a very large group to plan and execute. If the planned airline bombings had taken place, the result would have been perhaps equally astounding, but Al Qaeda's eyes are much bigger than its stomach - if it had targeted only one, perhaps two airliners and kept the groups small, tight, and using foreigners instead of UK citizens, it probably could have pulled it off. Look at the "shoe bomber" - he was stopped only by passengers, and his plot was unknown to counter-terrorist officials beforehand. If he'd had the smarts to try and pull it off in the airplane's bathroom, one would assume he'd have been much more successful.

Even if the group keeps 95% of its communications perfectly secure, that 5% slip can be enough to get them. Using that pre-paid cell too many times, forgetting to encrypt a chat just once, slipping up and paying with a credit card, not properly casing a facility, failing to use proper cut-outs to wire cash, etc. Insecure communications are far more efficient and, when one is panicked or when one becomes too confident, are often opted for, which is the key to getting people. By keeping the pressure up and making these groups feel nervous, most are bound to screw up in one way or another, helping them get caught.

While perfectly secure means of communication may well exist, the human element is what will always screw it up. Think about it this way - how easy is it to commit a "perfect murder", one that that leaves you with practically no chance of getting caught? If properly planned, not too hard, right? Yet most murderers are eventually caught. Why? They get lazy. They screw up. All too often it is the stupidity, poor planning, lack of discipline, panic, or overconfidence that gets them caught. Terrorists - who generally operate in sizable groups - often fall to the same problems.

Re:Don't assume perfection

My personal opinion - he got scared. He got scared, he didn't want to go through with it, but was also afraid of being labelled a coward (or perhaps worse) by his handlers, so he went for it, put up a bit of a fight, and let himself get captured. He gets

Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

On the Charlie Rose show last night, an ABC newscaster said that the U.S. and British governments spy on each other's citizens, doing things that would be illegal in their home countries, and share that information with each other.

It should be mentioned

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

The West and Islam never fought before oil was discovered in the Middle East?

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

Never heard of the Crusades then? The current battles are being branded as the "modern crusades" by people looking to drum up outrage. Also don't forget the Ottoman empire's invasion of Vienna, and the Umayyad dynasty's conquering of Spain. This all hap

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

Thomas jefferson sent troops to defeat countries in the middle east. Thats was before the oil was exploited? the first naval battle that included american marines was tripoli. Hence the song...

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

Thomas jefferson sent troops to defeat countries in the middle east.

Tripoli is no more the Middle East than is Rome or Berlin. Arab does not equal Middle East. Arab includes much of North Africa, including areas rather west of Portugal, once included most of Iberia and much of west Africa (hence Swahili). Arab does not include Iran.

KFG

I found a link to a video of the show:

I found a link to a video of the show: Charlie Rose - Brian Ross / Syria's role in the Mid-East / YouTube co-founders [google.com].

During the show Brian Ross of ABC said both governments break the laws of the other, and share the information.

They've been doing th

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

It should be mentioned that the U.S. and British governments have been killing Arabs and interfering with Arab governments for more than 40 years, and that's what started the terrorism.

And not the French, the Russians, the Chinese? In particular, have a look at France's brutal colonial record in the Arab world.

Nice try though. The world's terrorism problems are not the exclusive fault of the US and the UK.

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

Your sig says it all... but the answer is, the US will be immaterial to a violent culture with a long history of extremism.

To quote syriana: We think a hundred years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each others head's off, and t

Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments

On the Charlie Rose show last night, an ABC newscaster said that the U.S. and British governments spy on each other's citizens, doing things that would be illegal in their home countries, and share that information with each other.

That's the UKUSA prog

Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050

But thank you for the canned soundbite about how the west is responsible for the crappy condition of the avg arabs life. Somehow a less biased person might look at the middle east and think that their problems stem from lousy corrupt governments that have a willingness to kill their own citizens, the subsitution of religous precepts for sane government policy and a willingness to blame everyone else in the world for their own problems.

Hope your hairshirt fits well.

Re:Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050

Somehow a less biased person might look at the middle east and think that their problems stem from lousy...

...lines drawn in the dirt by the Leage of Nations in 1920.

I suggest you read
The Middle East and the West: Carving Up the Region [npr.org]
and
The Middle East an [npr.org]

Re:Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050

But thank you for the canned soundbite about how the west is responsible for the crappy condition of the avg arabs life. Somehow a less biased person might look at the middle east and think that their problems stem from lousy corrupt governments that have a willingness to kill their own citizens, the subsitution of religous precepts for sane government policy and a willingness to blame everyone else in the world for their own problems.

You are blaming arab governments on the arabs? My favorite middle eastern country, in terns of messed up history, is Iran. It isn't technically arab, but a lot of westerners don't bother to make any sort of distinction. Especially those making arbitrary blanket statements like yours.

At the start of the 20th century, there was a movement in Iran to move from a monarchy under the Shah to a nation with a constitution. There was some success, but England and Russia very actively impeded this process, and supported rolling back the role of the constitution. Then, there was a bit of a revolution, and a new Shah who had been involved in getting the constition made came to power.

The western powers hated this guy, basically forced him to abdicate, and had his son take power. In the 50's, the prime minister was asked to step down, tried to have another little revolution in order to move the country from a constitutional monarchy to a proper republic. The English and Americans would have none of it. So, we reinstalled the Shah, and installed a new prime minister. We also set up some official agreements and contracts about oil. A set of western oil companies had full control over the oil in Iran, and Iran couldn't audit the accounts to see if they were getting their contracted cut. So, basically Iran got shit from the exploitation of their own natural resources, because the West decided how the government should be run. (On several occasions!)

Interestingly enough, the Islamic revolution happened right about the same time that those oil contracts ran out. The whole history is far more interesting than I can fir into a slashdot post. My research on the subject is also far from complete. And, that's just one country.

For another interesting tidbit -- after the Islamic revolution in Iran, America was scared, a wanted to avoid having radical Islam spread in the middle east. We wanted to support non-religeous leaders in the area. It was less than a year after the Islamic revolution that Saddam came to power in Iraq.

False

Details here:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-s urveillance-not-illegal.html [blogspot.com]

Please describe how this would work

The general problem with recognizing whether or not warrantless wiretaps will aid a terror investigation is that while it's true that 99% of terrorism investigation will likely never have a need for a warrantless wiretap before they will be found out, the

Sure

It is nice to know that wiretaps have been useful in doing this, but the question has never been whether wiretaps should be used to counter terrorism. The issue is whether or not illegal wiretaps should be used!

Re:Sure

You make a valid, and somewhat rare point. The key arguement is whether the wiretaps are legal or not. It is difficult for anyone to say "wiretaps should always be illegal" with a straight face unless they have no historical perspective or just insane.

The government is GOING to do wiretaps, the key is enforcing the law and making them prove they are necessary before they do them, and yes, very often, they ARE necessary. People would do better to focus on the legal/illegal aspects instead of just saying "all wiretaps are bad". Taking that stance makes someone look like a whacko, and no one will pay attention to them.

A world where NO wiretaps are allowed is no better than a world where wiretaps go unchecked. Just a different brand of bad.

Wait... what?

• First off, the arrests, as have been widely reported, originally began as the result of a tip-off from within the British Muslim community [google.com].
  
• The investigation had already been ongoing for quite a long time at the point at which the phone call, which gets only a brief mention in the article there, was intercepted by a wiretap. What this article tells us is that sometimes police use wiretaps when investigating suspects. We already knew that.
  
• "More comfortable with wiretapping"? Wiretapping has been used by law enforcement for decades, and nobody really has a problem with this. What people have a problem with are:
  1. Indiscriminate "blanket" wiretapping
  2. Wiretapping without warrants or judicial safeguards.
  Neither of these things were necessary at any level of the U.K. investigation there; they knew who to tap ahead of time, and they were in a position to go ahead and follow correct procedures for wiretapping such as obtaining warrants. The current U.K. case in fact weakens the case for these new, neoconservative policies, since the suspects here were caught through good old fashioned police work, not through crazy new vague police powers where the police tap whoever they want whenever they feel like it.

The question is not "Is wire tapping effective?"

The question is, "Is unregulated wire tapping of citizens with out oversight more effective than regulated wire tapping with oversight and a 24 hour grace period?"

I don't think anyone will argue that wiretapping is bad. But many will argue that wiretapping with out oversight will quickly lead to an abuse of power.

-Rick

how is it justified?

We have real problems that could be solved with the money wasted on this terror bullshit.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/ [crimestatistics.org.uk]

Despite increased surveillance, violent crime is soaring yet our goverments idea of punishment is handing out an ASBO. Most ineffectu

Government is always comfortable with wiretapping

Whether or not the people are comfortable is hard to say. We'll see if this latest "terror plot" is all bullshit or has any basis in reality in a year or two. At least the British police didn't murder any Brazilian plumbers this time.

I don't think any

Re:Government is always comfortable with wiretappi

At least the British police didn't murder any Brazilian plumbers this time.

Its too soon for that. We are not into the post attack panic yet.

We've had wiretapping for a long time

We've had wiretapping for a long time, and most people are comfortable with it. Here in the US, you can get a warrant from a judge for wiretapping a US citizen, and we have a special court called FISA specifically for issuing warrants for international type wiretaps. It's routine and it happens *all the time*.

However, as I understand, wiretapping is *not* what tipped off British officials to the group who were going to carry out this plot. It was a friend/relative of one of the plotters who tipped of the police. Then, I'm guessing, the police went and got a warrant to tap this guy's phone, and worked thier way through the group, getting more warrants and taps, until they understood the group structure and their goals.

However, what I am extremely uncomfortable with is the unaccountable and warrantless comprehensive wiretapping of all phone calls in the US. If it is not illegal in the specific wording of the law, it certainly goes against the spirit of the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence. This is very scary. Totalitarian governments love keeping records and tabs on everyone so they can harrass and dissapear them whenever some person starts speaking up.

I'm not saying that Bush is a facist, but think about it -- would you trust Hillary Clinton ;) or whoever the next president is with such a massive, ongoing surveillance database?

Here's the deal

I've never seen a terrorist. To me, terrorists exist on television. What I have experienced are authority figures abusing power. Until terrorists stop hanging out with Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny and end up near me, I don't care how dangerous they are.

I'm more scared of the cops, even though I'm not a criminal.

Re:Here's the deal

I've never seen a water molecule, but I still shower in the morning.

Re:Here's the deal

I think you're misunderstanding me. Authority figures pose a far greater threat to me than any terrorists do. Because of that, I would rather have the authorities restrained than the terrorists.

Re:Here's the deal

Terrorists do not only exist in NYC and London, although they are popular targets.

I live in London, have done since i was born 18 years ago. I never really lived through the IRA bombings, but we just stumbled through it. The greatest freedom that i feel i'

I'm comfortable with it..

..just get a warrant, keep it in the public record, and hold the government accountable when they screw up, so that they choose their wiretaps carefully. Heck, if you want to err on the side of caution and wiretap first, get the warrant second, I'm fine wi

Legal or not?

But was this wiretap legal, or was it done with shadowy methods with no regard for proper process? If it's the former, then good for them. If the latter, only then do we need to re-think anything.

Are we watching a sublte PR campaign?

I find it odd that all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the phones or the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us and make us pro-monitoring.

Transporter_ii

Re:Are we watching a sublte PR campaign?

and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping."

No-one has claimed this group was caught through wiretapping. Hemos accepted a submission that lied about the contents of the article.

Yeah, IF

Yeah, I might trust them IF they have warrants.

Anyway, I don't necessarily believe them when they say they cracked the case using wiretapping. They may well be preserving operational security by saying they got the plotters by a different method than they really used. Or perhaps they're just lying like they have so many times before.

In short, there is no new information based on this bust.

If instead they said they caught them by sneak-and-peek, would that mean that you would no longer want protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

Read the article before approving, Hemos

Hemos, you got trolled so hard I bet your ass hurts. The article never mentions any Britsh wiretap of any kind.

Nope

I am not willing to trade my constitutional rights and other civil liberties in exchange for security.

Misleading

This was NOT caught with random wiretapping! Wiretapping happened after a tip [cnn.com] was received:

"The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official."

"The tip was from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005, terror attacks in London, the official said."

Just ignore them, they'll go away.

Easy way to stop terrorism, just let them blow shit up and say "so what, kill 1000 more if you like, who cares?"

Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...

People don't care anymore, they're fearful and spineless, and are more than willing to give up their rights these days.

I'm trying, in my own way, to do something about this. I talk to friends and family. I talk to people at work. I tell them, as best I

Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...

>and so far one legitimate, serious attack has been prevented.

So far, no one's been charged or convicted in this case. Who knows, maybe they were just discussing their trip to Disneyland. They were supposedly going to use a soft drink bottle for explosi

Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...

Um wiretapping isnt new...

It is an old tactic that is widely accepted as a legit form of investigation.

Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...

Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...
Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.

and so far one legitimate, serious attack has been prevented.
So is there some sort of quota that you want? We must stop at least one serious terrorist attack every two months before it's justified action?

The same attack could likely have been prevented by forcing everyone to check all luggage and allow no carry-ons.
Ah, so you complain about civil rights being eroded, but you'd have no problem if before 9/11 they'd have said: "Right, you're not allowed hand luggage except the bare minimum, that's passport, tickets and wallet." People would go nuts and ask why it's justified, wonder why they can't take their Gameboy, MP3 player or even a book onboard that really fun 7 hour transatlantic flight. Screw business class and business customers having the ability to work on the move, by-bye laptop, mobile phone, dictaphone and probably even pens or pencils.

As much as i dissapprove of the idea of only reacting to something after it's happened, if you'd even have suggested the security measures now 10 years ago, you'd be laughed out for costing the industry millions.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference..

Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...

Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.

I'm sorry but I don't see a functional difference between violating the rights of 60 million to catch one guilty person vs the rights of 500 m

Addendum.

In fact, the first reports -- before the higher ups in the real PR department got into full spin -- was that the reason these people were tracked was because after the London bombings a relative contacted the police with suspicions. You will note how that in itelf would TRIVIALLY allow the police the right to do taps under the OLD laws. No massive tapping of everyone, no carte blanche needed. Just the good old normal "We have resonable suspicion, please allow us to tap these people, Judge".

This is just "Lock The Laws In" spinning. 100% full throttle let us build a Big Brother Government so pervasive that there is no doubt that terrorism is in fact working excellently-spinning.

And it'll work. The phantom enemy, the "intelligent network", will win. Wasn't it odd that the first press conference I saw had a talking head explaning how this was ''very similar to an Al-Qaeda plot'', trying directly to instill that link to the ''network of evil'' as it were.

Sickening. Truly.

Re:Only People I don't want wiretapping

I agree, there should be a "-1, Head too far up ass" mod for that very post.

Re:Nonsense

I'm setting up an agnostic community. Then the reporters will be able to disambiguate us from the other religions and we can join in this warfest the others seem to be having, if one is to believe the news. Anyone up for it? Meetings the third Tuesday of e

Re:*Sigh* wiretapping is not the issue

As I have said, the problem is with Islam itself. Enough political correctness, please. Islam is a religion that exhorts its followers to violence.

*sigh* Fine, I have karma to burn, and I am feeling in a bad mood today.

• You should get out more and meet more diverse people.
• You should buy this book [amazon.com] and meditate its teachings on the violent background of every religion.

Now, with the exception of radical Hinduism and unorthodox strains of pseudo-Christian religions, almost all modern religion outside of Islam considers peace to be a virtue.

Right. And you are full of it. Religion is all about gathering a group of people around a central figure. The easiest way to do this is to create "enemies of the faith". And the easiest way to create enemies is to focus on their (alleged) sexual behaviour. Read this book [amazon.com] and that book [amazon.com] for more information on this. The bottom line is this: group dynamics and religious propaganda will always drag people toward violence , especially if religion -- or some form of religious belief -- is there to de-humanize the so-called "enemies". By the time individuals realize this, it's a full-scale religious war and it's to late to change course.

When you have created nice enemies, violence will always be a consequence. Does not matter which religion you are following, including Buddhism. Jainism or Zoroastrianism may be exceptions, but this is mainly due to the fact they have both been extremely small minorities for centuries now, even millenias in the case of Zoroastrianism.

And just as a warning to those who want to cite a few violent verses in the Bible to me as "proof" that Judaism and Christianity are as bad as Islam, I can cite just as many direct commands from God that override any "general" interpretation of those.

This is so dumb it's not even funny. First of all, I can probably quote more scriptures from the Bible (that great big piece of religious shit) than you. Second, when will you realize that human beings focus on the violence, and not on peace?

For every "Love thy neighbour" there is a "Kill all your enemies, and do not spare women and children". We could go tit-for-tat like this for centuries, and people have been doing exactly this all over the Internet. Interpretation of absurd commands and nit-picking regulations is what most religions are all about. And interpretation always responds first of all to bloodthirst. And we are bloodthirsty animals, all of us.

There was a time when good Christians launched Crusades against Moslems -- whose civilization was, at the time, the most brilliant on Earth. Now Moslems are using terrorism against "Christians". History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).