Cleveland Police usng a VoIP system perhaps?
Brit cops accused of abusing anti-terror laws to hunt colleague
Cleveland Police in the north east of England allegedly used counter-terrorism powers to hunt down a whistleblower within its ranks. That's according to a complaint filed to the UK's cop watchdog, the IPCC. Worryingly, the Cleveland force used the anti-terror powers to access the phone records of three journalists. The …
COMMENTS
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 17:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
> However, of the two reported incidents following on from the changes in which no judicial approval was sought,...
Presumably because they knew that the judge would tell them to f*ck off.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by these incidents. If you give Police free reign to go behind the backs of independent scrutiny, then some, not all, will take advantage. Why wouldn't they?
-
-
Thursday 19th November 2015 10:15 GMT LucreLout
@skelband
If you give Police free reign to go behind the backs of independent scrutiny, then some, not all, will take advantage. Why wouldn't they?
My best buddy is a serving police officer. He's always been very clear about his colleagues - they are a cross section of society like everyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are kind, some are not. Some are honest, and some are not.
The main reason he personally didn't want the police in Britain to be routinely armed was that he wouldn't trust some of his colleagues with a firecracker, never mind a firearm.
At the very least we need air-tight audit trails on the use of these powers such that when things like this come to light, named individuals can be called in to explain themselves, with appropriate sanctions for misuse.
-
Thursday 19th November 2015 20:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
> My best buddy is a serving police officer. He's always been very clear about his colleagues - they are a cross section of society like everyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are kind, some are not. Some are honest, and some are not.
I know what you mean. I have a close relative who is a police officer.
My comments were really aimed at the "police" as an organisation rather than individual officers.
Organisational psychology can pervert the morals of the staunchest moralist given half the chance.
That's why we need the police to know exactly where they stand as to what is right and what is wrong, what they can do, and what they absolutely shouldn't under any circumstances.
We should also, as a public, stop blaming the police when they don't have psychic skills when detecting crime. As someone else said in another thread: detecting crime is "supposed" to be hard. If it wasn't, we would live in a totalitarian state.
-
-
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 18:18 GMT Gray
Entirely too distracted
Cleveland City police and prosecution authorities remain entirely too distracted while scratching and covering to bury the consequences of gunning down a 12-year-old child (Tamir Rice) in a city park many months ago. They're either relying on the American public news memory (akin to that of fruit flies) to diminish, or they're hoping that the Rice family legal support will go away.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 16:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Entirely too distracted (Yes Gray, you are)
Not to mention that the "12 year old" had a replica gun on a school playground that was indistinguishable from the Glock it was patterned on and he pointed it at Cleveland USA police and refused to drop it when he was ordered to by the police. That same area that was a "no gun zone" where the municipality created additional penalties and requirements that made immediate police response a requirement.
Now if a similarly sized 12 year old was to wave the same gun at police in France today, they would come to a similar conclusion and shoot him
-
Thursday 19th November 2015 04:39 GMT Gray
Re: Entirely too distracted (Yes Gray, you are)
Ummm ... yeh, Cleveland (Ohio) cop, it's fitting that you sign on as "AC" ... coward.
Did you not review the surveillance video that aired thousands of time on American television? You spout the official Cleveland P.D. statement, which is shown to be a lie by the video. On a count of "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand" to mark off three seconds, the action unfolded as: in the first second, the cruiser brakes to a hard stop just in front of the child; in the second second, the cop in the passenger seat has thrown open the vehicle door, pointed his weapon, and fired. In the third second, the cop driving has emerged from the car and moved to the front; the shooting officer has retreated to the rear of the vehicle, and the child has fallen to the ground and is dying.
Where in that three-second sequence has the child "pointed it at Cleveland USA police and refused to drop it when he was ordered to by the police."
This is why trust of the police authorities in America is descending to that of a third-world country where police are feared as corrupt and murderous. Until cell phones with video features, and public CCTV cameras came along, we could only take the word of the police. Sadly, even when video evidence is overwhelming contradictory to the police story, they still choose to lie. Some AC will always take their side.
-
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 19:02 GMT Wommit
Are we surprised?
Peter Barron, the Echo's editor, said: "These allegations are a matter of serious concern – that a police force should apparently go to these lengths to identify the source of a story which was clearly in the public interest. This is surely not what the legislation was intended to do and the fact that Cleveland Police will neither confirm nor deny the allegations adds to our concerns."
That a police force should apparently go to these lengths to identify the source of a story which was clearly not in the police forces interest.
There, fixed it.
-
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 19:54 GMT David 132
"Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.
And this is (one of) the reasons I'm firmly against the expansion of GCHQ/MI5 police spying powers that the UK government (of whichever colour) keeps proposing.
Because the bastards have shown, time and again, that if they gain a power for justification <x>, they'll end up using it for <y>.
Anti terror laws, for example:
2000 "For catching terrorists and keeping you safe"
2001 "Well, we can use it against paedophiles. Everyone hates paedophiles, right?"
2006 "How about tax evaders, too? Boo, hiss. Evil banksters robbing money from the poor."
2008 "For spying on people who are putting out their bins early or fibbing about which school catchment area they live in"
2015 "For rooting out journalists who show the authorities in a bad light"
2016 "For identifying people who sympathise with extremists"
2017 "For identifying people who harbour thoughts of racism or bigotry"
2018 "For catching people who might vote SNP/UKIP/Green/Respect/[insert your preferred bogeyman here]"
2020 "For finally stamping out the scourge of anyone emitting more than their annual CO2 quota"
And if you think I'm over-dramatising, here's an exercise.
Whether you're a Labour/SNP voter or more inclined to Conservative/UKIP, read these two "headlines" and for each one ask yourself "What do I think of this?"
1) "Theresa May Proposes Strict New Internet Monitoring Laws"
2) "Keith Vaz Proposes Strict New Internet Monitoring Laws"
If you disapprove of [the party you hate] proposing the law, but approve of [party you support] doing it, you're a hypocrite.
And if you approve of security laws no matter who's proposing them, then sorry, but I think you're an unquestioning sheep.
If you disapprove no matter what, then congratulations, you have principles. Don't let them try to tell you you're obviously a terrorist/paedophile/extremist/little-englander sympathizer.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 10:48 GMT BenR
Re: "Give us more powers" they say. "Are you for or against terrorism?" they say.
Bloody well said!
It's far far far from the first time. And It'll be far far far from the last time.
Coppers using stop and search powers on suspicion of being black.
Using Section 47 to relieve photographers of private property in London.
Abuse of the PNC DB by officers wanting to check up on ex-partners, or the new partners of their exes.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
Give people unlimited powers, and eventually they abuse them.
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 20:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."
themselves mostly.
Add to David 132s list above Gordon Brown's use of terrorist laws to freeze the UK accounts of dying Icelandic banks at the start of the Financial Crisis. Not that I'm a big fan of badly run banks, but let's not use terrorism laws to extra-judicially hit businesses that have nothing to do with terrorism.
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 21:59 GMT David 132
Re: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."
Good catch.
Apologies if my posting came across as a bit frothing-at-the-mouth, but I'm in a ranty shouty mood at the moment.
I could have added:
GCHQ interception powers - granted to them "to fight terrorism". Next thing you know they're being used to "fight", as time goes on:
- paedophiles (that always-handy bogeyman to frighten Middle England)
- people downloading "extreme" pornography
- people downloading non-vanilla pornography
- people downloading anything that frightens the politicians
- economic threats, such as Johnny Foreigner buying his fighter jets from anyone other than BAE
..and so on.
My point about the Theresa May / Keith Vaz headlines was that there's a high degree of cognitive dissonance going on; if your party proposes legislation, the tendency is to think "they're a decent bunch, they have the interests of the country at heart, and they're right that <x> is a threat". If the other lot propose legislation, the instinctive reaction is "they're a bunch of fascists trying to snoop on every aspect of our lives". And yes, I'm as guilty of that propensity as anyone.
But we have to remind ourselves that governments change - bad laws endure.
My own inclination - and I appreciate that here I'm wandering off the topic and indulging in cod civics - is this: our British system of laws has evolved over centuries, shaped and checked and balanced to take account of human nature. It might not be perfect, but it works. Legislature, Lords, the Armed Forces, the judiciary and the monarchy all playing their part. It's arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that we can change one "bad" part of it and do better than our forebears. Tony Blair, I'm looking at you.
It's like looking at a carefully crafted Swiss watch mechanism, and saying "that cogwheel there is too big, it's ugly, it looks old-fashioned, let's remove it" - and then wondering why the whole thing runs fast, slow, and then bits start flying off and going sproing-pinnnng against the ceiling.
OK, that analogy could use some work.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 06:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help...."
It will soon be illegal to ask Keith Vaz if he knew anything about Elm Guest House during the time he worked as a Lawyer for the London Borough of Richmond, or to ask what his committee thinks about the allegations made against his friend Greville Janner.
-
-
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 20:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Simple fix
Pass a law that abuses like this will result in mandatory jail time for everyone involved all the way up the chain of the command to the top. They did it because they knew they'd get a slap on the wrist and probably won't even lose their jobs and pensions. In this case the guy was blowing the whistle on something that wasn't going to result in jail time for anyone, but what if it was? This needs to be treated seriously, but like laws passed because terrorism/pedophilia/organized crime are so bad they need special laws, they get abused because the legislating body is stupid enough to trust that cops are honest.
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 21:04 GMT CJatCTi
We needed an anti-anti-terror law
None of this is new anti-terror laws are ALWAYS abused, and nobody gets punished but live damaged.
What we need is a law that says if you as an individual are involved using anti-terror legislation for non-terror activities - 5 years in Prison fixed sentence.
Policeman / Council worker / Police commissioner - bring them to account
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 22:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: We needed an anti-anti-terror law
"What we need is a law that says if you as an individual are involved using anti-terror legislation for non-terror activities - 5 years in Prison fixed sentence."
"Policeman / Council ........ "
To that, add the supervising politicians, and also ban them from public office for life
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 12:45 GMT Just Enough
Re: We needed an anti-anti-terror law
But that's the beauty of the words "terror" and "terrorism". They can be extended to include anything you wish to suit your purposes.
"Yes, your Honour, I did use anti-terrorism measures to snoop on this journalist, because he was upsetting the Chief Inspector. That was distracting him from his job of catching terrorist, so this here journalist was aiding terrorism."
-
-
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 21:15 GMT David Roberts
Police whistle blower?
I find this phrase makes me feel especially old as I can remember (before all this new fangled wireless nonsense ) when every Bobby on the beat (sigh, mumble, dribble.....remember them?) had a whistle to blow to summon help in an emergency.
I still have a genuine police whistle somewhere, a gift from a policeman who was a family friend and amusingly called Dixon (though not of Dock Green, sadly). Kids today.......
-
Tuesday 17th November 2015 21:19 GMT Rich 11
Weak excuse
At the time the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Anthony May, stated this was because "naming and shaming [might] have the unintended consequence of undermining the open and co-operative self reporting of errors."
Or it might have the intended consequence of allowing the public to know what their Police Service is doing. The police could even benefit from being seen to be keeping their own house in order.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 08:14 GMT werdsmith
So phone activity records are being abused?
People will just find another way to talk surreptitiously. I'm sure these terrorists etc already avoid the phone, so laws to allow access to phone records are not really helpful for anything serious, if they are going to be any use at all it will be for finding evidence against the feckless and careless.
Police are welcome to all my phone and email communication anytime, if they just ask nicely they can fill their boots.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 09:41 GMT MJI
Remember the 42 days law which was shot down.
Anyone of us could have been arrested wihout charge for 42 days, you me, anyone.
A good way to get a love rival out of the way, or a person who really knows what is legal and illegal regarding speed cameras, just get them out of the way for 7 weeks.
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 13:12 GMT Sir Alien
Legal case?
I am no law expert so please correct me where I slip up but can the journalists now sue the crap out of the phone provider (and the police)? RIPA although it compels, is not a secret request so even though they skipped asking a judge can the provider not challenge this in court thus making a judge aware and having the judge slap the RIPA abusers?
- S.A
-
Wednesday 18th November 2015 19:45 GMT conscience
What's the deterrent here - them having to ignore the telephone for a little while?
It's nothing short of a disgrace that wrongful use of *any* laws/rules/resources like this does not end in a serious prison sentence for *everyone* involved, after which they should be struck off and banned from their profession for life for proving to be untrustworthy. We can never trust any organisation where this sort of thing is tolerated and goes unpunished.
It's seems obvious that instead of giving these people more powers, it would be far wiser to outlaw at least half of what the police/security services/government currently get up to and force them to once again work for us and not against us.
-
Thursday 19th November 2015 18:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
What's your point?
Is someone so naïve as to believe that journalists and whistleblowers are exempt from being crims themselves? Has anyone figured out from recent terror attacks why their is a necessity for international cooperation on defeating terrorism? Has the world learned anything more about terrorism and the need to share intelligence information and to monitor electronic communications? How many more people need to die from preventable terrorism? How many refugees are involved in crimes before and after they leave their homeland? How can any country afford to allow unlimited numbers of refugees to float into their country as illegal squatters? What is the point of having immigration laws if they are going to be ignored? Isn’t the whole point of immigration laws to keep criminals out of a country?