Police state or the state of policing

[tonyh29]

The row over using surveillance information to spy on people has intensified after it was revealed that 1,400 requests to snoop on the public were made every day last year.

Councils, police and the intelligence services asked more than 500,000 times for approval to access private email and phone data.

Each one allows public authorities access to communications data - which includes records of phone, email and text messages - but not their content.

The Home Office says the new figures "offer reassurance that the powers are being used appropriately".

But the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the figures "beggared belief" and the country has "sleepwalked into a surveillance state".

"It cannot be a justified response to the problems we face in this country that the state is spying on half a million people a year.

"The Government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, and not a blueprint."

The figures were published in the annual report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy.

It showed 504,073 requests for communication data were made last year, or nearly 10,000 every week.

Although slightly down on last year, the total is up more than 40% on two years ago.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Of course it's vital that we strike the right balance between individual privacy and collective security.

"And that is why the Home Office is clear these powers should only be used when they are proportionate."

source:news.sky.com

Why would a council need to spy on people through their phone , text records etc ?

i'm sure i've seen that Orwell line before though :winkold:

[snowychap]

Police investigated over stop and search of man and children under terror law

Two police officers are under investigation after using anti-terror stop-and-search powers against a man and two young children in a south London street.

The 43-year-old man had his mobile phones, USB sticks and a CD seized by the officers, who were in plain clothes, and was asked to stand in front of a CCTV camera in order to have his photograph taken. The undercover Metropolitan police officers also took the man's photograph with their own camera and searched the two children he was walking with – his 11-year-old daughter and his neighbour's daughter, aged six.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said todayit would "manage" the investigation into the incident in July, meaning that an independent investigator will control the inquiry conducted by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards.

It is unusual for the IPCC to manage an investigation into an incident of this kind, and the decision comes amid mounting concern over police use of stop-and-search and surveillance powers. The commission has received dozens of complaints relating to the use of stop-and-search powers, but the nature of this complaint is understood to have concerned investigators.

In a statement today, the IPCC said: "The complainant states that, when he asked under what legislation his property was being seized, he was told it was under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He also complained that he was given no information as to when he could retrieve his goods or who to contact in order to do so, and that there was no communication from police despite assurances that he would be told when he could collect his things."

The Met's complaints bureau is known to have received a number of complaints relating to alleged misuse of anti-terror powers. Two months ago, Gemma Atkinson, 27, a film-maker from London, said she would challenge the Met at the high court after she claimed she was handcuffed, detained and threatened with arrest for filming officers on her mobile phone.

Lawyers for Atkinson said the Met's complaints bureau has been slow to respond to their complaints. Atkinson was detained at Aldgate underground station one month after Section 58(a) – a controversial amendment to the Terrorism Act – came into force, making it illegal to photograph a police officer if the images are considered "likely to be useful" to a terrorist.

Speaking about the case of the 43-year-old man, the IPCC commissioner, Mike Franklin, who leads on the issue of stop and search, said: "The use of section 44 stop-and-search powers is a very sensitive issue and it is right that complaints of this nature are taken very seriously. It is particularly worrying that two young children were allegedly searched in this way. This investigation will look at whether the use of these powers in this case was lawful, reasonable and correctly carried out."

[Gringo]

We need to repeal 12 years of vile laws attacking our liberty

It takes 100 years or more for some species of tree to grow to full size but a few minutes to cut them down. The roots may live and sprout but the tree never grows back in quite the same way again. The question that faces the British electorate in the next eight months or so is whether the same applies to the conventions of liberty, trust and privacy which have been felled by Labour's chainsaw. Is the damage irreversible or can the opposition parties muster the leadership and will to guarantee a restoration of all that has been lost in the last 12 years?

At the other end of the UK, in Brighton, you find the same misappropriation of drink and oppressive presence of police officers. Attend a legitimate political meeting in the town and you are likely to be met by police forward intelligence teams with a video camera at the door.

This is a story I have been telling for some years now. Things don't get better; we just get used to them, which is dangerous. Beneath these measures are disturbing developments which heap suspicion on individuals and undermine their rights. Look closely at the "sleeper" clause in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 which from the end of this month extends the range of circumstances that a restraining order can be made under Jack Straw's Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I quote from a lawyer's commentary: "Restraining orders can be issued following conviction for any offence rather than just offences covered by the 1997 act; and secondly restraining orders can also be issued following an acquittal for any offence."

Yes, that's right – following acquittal for any offence. So the innocent will become subject of an order which, if breached, may result in a maximum jail term of five years. Lewis Carroll must have had a hand in drafting this clause. If you are innocent, you are guilty – off with your head.

The opposition parties understand what is going on. At the time of the Convention on Modern Liberty earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats produced the Freedom Bill which covered everything from the intrusive Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to ID cards, the regulation of CCTV and the retention of DNA from innocent people. It is an excellent blueprint. David Cameron welcomed the convention with this: "Things we have long thought were part of the fabric of liberty in this country – such as trial by jury, habeas corpus with strict limits on the time that people can be held without charge, the protection of Parliament against intrusion by the executive – have been whittled away."

This is right, but I have one big doubt and that is the Tory faith in local accountability and scrutiny. During the six months since the convention, it has become clear that local authorities and police forces have thrilled to the excessive use of authoritarian powers.

We need a Great Repeal Bill, which lists in detail the large and small measures responsible for the decline in Britain's democracy. This needs to be endorsed and settled by both opposition parties in their separate ways before the election campaign begins in earnest and the issues of freedom are swamped by the debate about spending cuts and tax.

[snowychap]

Home Office declines to detail DNA-for-foreigns trial

Home Office experiments with various DNA and isotope tests to try and "prove" an individual's nationality are a bogus use of bogus science, scientists have said.

Several scientists, including DNA fingerprinting boffin Alec Jeffreys, have told the Home Office that its trial of mitochondrial DNA tests on asylum seekers is "wildly premature".

The UK Borders Agency began its "Human Provenance Pilot" in mid-September and will run it until June 2010. A spokeswoman stressed that the programme would look not just at mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) but also "language analysis, interview techniques and other recognised forensic techniques". The scheme is aimed at asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa. The Agency has had problems with asylum seekers from the region claiming wrongly to be from Somalia.

But there remain questions over exactly what techniques are being used and how effective they are. Isotope testing, for instance, does a good job of telling you in which region corpses spent their early years, but are less good at specifying on which side of a national boundary someone was born or brought up.

Jeffreys told Science Magazine: “The Borders Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa; the extensive research needed to determine population structure and the ability or otherwise of DNA to pinpoint ethnic origin in this region simply has not been done. Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality - people move! The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.”

Mark Thomas, a geneticist at University College London, described the scheme as "horrifying". He said that working out a person's ancestry, never mind nationality, from mtDNA was difficult enough and that many companies which claimed to offer such services were peddling junk.

Thomas said: "mtDNA will never have the resolution to specify a country of origin. Many DNA ancestry testing companies have sprung up over the last 10 years, often based on mtDNA, but what they are selling is little better than genetic astrology. Dense genomic SNP data does have some resolution… but not at a very local scale, and with considerable errors.”

The use of isotope testing is even more controversial, with many researchers disputing how far isotope testing can show where people originate from. Observers questioned why the procurement document refers to the "Adam Torso" case - where the body of a teenager found in the Thames was eventually traced back to a small area of Nigeria. But that relied on bone samples rather than teeth and hair, and many of the techniques remain unknown because they were not peer-reviewed or tested in court.

The Home Office declined to offer any further details on the trial or explain which labs are being used - some scientists have questioned the independence and statistical skills of the private labs presumably doing the work.

They did send us the following statement:

Nationality swapping is often used by fraudulent asylum seekers to help prevent their removal. That is why we are continuously looking at new and improved ways to ensure that we can ascertain the correct identity and nationality from every asylum seeker. This pilot scheme will use DNA testing to build up a clearer picture of where a person originates from. This will enable the UK Border Agency to make further enquiries, including language analysis and face to face interviews, to indicate the possible origin of an individual and help successfully return them to their true country more quickly.

Home Office relying on junk science? Surely not. ®

Genetic astrology. It could be amusing - if only.

[snowychap]

MP's arrest 'not proportionate'

The arrest of Tory frontbencher Damian Green as part of an inquiry into Home Office leaks was "not proportionate", an official report has found.

Ex-British Transport Police chief Ian Johnston said the leaks only amounted to "embarrassment" for ministers, and did not threaten national security.

Mr Johnston was asked by the Met Police to review the Home Office leaks probe.

Mr Green, who was never charged, was held for nine hours in November, and his home and Commons office searched.

Mr Johnston says in his interim report: "In my view, the manner of Green's arrest was not proportionate because his arrest could have been carried out on an appointment basis, by prior agreement, and when he could be accompanied by his legal representative.

"I recognise the significant political context in which the leaks occurred and the professional anxiety they caused within the civil service.

"However, I regard the leaks for which [Christopher] Galley can be clearly held responsible in law, as amounting to 'embarrassment matters' for government.

"I do not think, from the material presented to me, that the leaks in themselves are likely to undermine government's effectiveness."

...more on link

[leviramsey]

Great Scott!

Last week, attorneys for special ed student Marshawn Pitts released the security video below, which shows Pitts being beaten by Christopher Lloyd, a police officer in Dolton, Illinois who was working security at the school. Pitts' attorneys say Lloyd administered the beating because Pitts hadn't tucked in his shirt, as required by the school's dress code.

When the video first emerged last week, the Dolton police department refused to release Lloyd's name. With good reason. Lloyd is in jail in Indiana. He was arrested last month for raping an Indiana woman at knife point. He had also threatened the woman weeks earlier, but apparently wasn't arrested or disciplined for it.

But it gets worse. Lloyd was also fired last year from another suburban Chicago police department . . . for killing his ex-wife's husband in front of their children. The town of Robbins fired Lloyd after the February 2008 shooting, but Chicago police bought Lloyd's claim that the shooting was self-defense, so he was never charged. That enabled Lloyd to find work at the Dalton police department 11 months later.

According to a lawsuit filed by Lloyd's ex-wife, autopsy reports contradict the police investigation. The autopsy shows that Lloyd shot the man 24 times. When contacted by the Chicago Tribune, a spokesman from Chicago PD said details of the department's investigation of the shooting "could not immediately be found."

[Awol]

More sinister and utterly wrong use of the Anti Terrorism laws:

Climate change activist stopped from travelling to Copenhagen

UK border police used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent a British climate change activist from crossing over into mainland Europe where he planned to take part in events surrounding the forthcoming United Nations summit in Denmark.

Chris Kitchen, a 31-year-old office worker, said he feared his treatment by police could mark the start of a clampdown on protesters, hundreds of whom are planning to travel to Copenhagen for the climate change talks in December.

Tonight he will make a second attempt to reach Denmark, where he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action.

He said he was prevented from crossing the border yesterday at about 5pm, when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel.

Kitchen said police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.

The passports were not initially scanned, Kitchen said, suggesting the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him from the coach before they boarded. During his interview, he was asked questions about his family, work and past political activity. The police also asked him what he intended to do in Copenhagen.

When Kitchen said that anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to environmental activists, he said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things". By the time his 30-minute interview had concluded, Kitchen's coach had gone.

Police are understood to be monitoring protesters on a number of databases, some of which highlight individuals when they pass through secure areas, such as ports.

Kitchen is a prominent activist who has taken place in a number of peaceful acts of civil disobedience, such as glueing himself to a statue in parliament, to call for more action to cut carbon emissions.

"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he said. "We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.

"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."

Kitchen said police paid for a ticket for him to return to London after questioning and arranged for the coach company to give him a seat on another coach.

A Home Office spokesman said: "There has been no change in policy. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

"The exercise of the powers by the police is an operational matter for each force."

Glad we were promised the legislation would only be used sparingly and in cases directly related to terrorism. It now appears you can be branded a terrorist simply for having an opinion that differs from the Government line.

[Gringo]

It now appears you can be branded a terrorist simply for having an opinion that differs from the Government line.

Or wearing the wrong t-shirt, or heckling speakers, or taking photographs.

Obviously this is more sinister as you say - not the knee-jerk reaction of a poorly trained plod, but pre-planned illegal detention of a subject - obviously with some sort of involvement of UK and foreign secret services.

[snowychap]

‘Routine’ armed police units for London streets

The prospect of an armed police service moved a step closer yesterday when Scotland Yard announced the formation of a new firearms unit that will routinely patrol gun crime hotspots in London.

...

The armed patrols are being deployed after a dramatic rise in gun crime. They will target key areas in North London, where Turkish gangs are engaged in a bloody turf war, and south of the Thames, where gangland shooting incidents have soared.

The C019 Proactive Unit will walk estates while some officers will use motorbikes to provide the capability for high-speed pursuit.

But the announcement has created a political row, with demands for Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, to convene an emergency meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

It is understood that Mr Johnson, who is also the MPA chairman, was not consulted by senior police commanders. The Times understands that Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was also not fully briefed on the move, which was taken at assistant commissioner level.

Neither Sir Paul nor Tim Godwin, the deputy commissioner, were at Scotland Yard to respond to the news, which was revealed in Police Review magazine.

...

The deployment of armed patrols to deal with gun gangs is a significant shift in emphasis, reminiscent of policing in Northern Ireland rather than anywhere else in Britain. “CO19 has traditionally provided a response to gun crime but this new unit sees a move towards a more proactive approach to deal with weapons and people linked to violence on our streets,” said Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant, of CO19.

Inspector Derek Carroll, who heads the first patrol unit, said: “People in and around London will be used to seeing armed officers but this is taking it away from the main roads to where these gangs are hanging around.”

The unit’s scope ranges from community reassurance to “estate sweeps” and it has already recovered a number of weapons, including two rifles hidden in a garage in Brixton and a loaded handgun on a roof in North London.

Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, welcomed the move: “If these areas are where the gun crime is, then that is where the armed police should be.”

But one officer said: “The worry is that more and more officers will be expected to carry firearms and that is not what the average officer wants.”

Last night a spokesman for Mr Johnson said that the mayor had sought reassurance from Sir Paul over armed deployments. He said: “The mayor has been reassured that there is no intention of using armed police in the routine manner suggested. Armed police have a role but that should be the exception, not the norm.”

Scotland Yard sources said that the force had no intention of departing wholesale from its unarmed tradition.

EDIT: 10,000th post. I am legend (again).

[Gringo]

At least those armed police are run by the govt.

Secret files reveal covert network run by nuclear police

The nuclear industry funds the special armed police force which guards its installations across the UK, and secret documents, seen by the Guardian, show the 750-strong force is authorised to carry out covert intelligence operations against anti-nuclear protesters, one of its main targets.

The nuclear industry will pay £57m this year to finance the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). The funding comes from the companies which run 17 nuclear plants, including Dounreay in Caithness, Sellafield in Cumbria and Dungeness in Kent.

....

Most of the nuclear force's officers are armed with high-powered guns and Tasers. The CNC has spent £1.4m on weapons and ammunition in the past three years.

They patrol outside nuclear plants, with their jurisdiction stretching to three miles beyond the perimeter of the installations. They have the same powers as any other British police officer and can, for instance, arrest and stop and search people.

....

The force is expected to expand as the government presses ahead with plans for a new generation of nuclear plants, which are likely to attract protests.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaign, said: "There are very obvious worries about an armed police force that is accountable to an industry desperate to build nuclear reactors in the UK. This industry will probably be very keen for their police force to use all the powers available to them to prevent peaceful protests against nuclear power."

....

The force is authorised to send informers to infiltrate organisations and to conduct undercover surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It is also permitted to obtain communications data such as phone numbers and email addresses.

Private armies?

[snowychap]

Doth I protest too much?

Mark Thomas

I was sent the now notorious "police spotter card" through the post. It's an official laminated card for "police eyes only" and labelled as coming from "CO11 Public Order Intelligence Unit". The card contained the photographs of 24 anti-arms trade protesters, unnamed but lettered A to X. My picture appeared as photo H. You can imagine my reaction at finding I was the subject of a secret police surveillance process … I was delighted. I phoned my agent and told him I was suspect H. He replied: "Next year we'll get you top billing … suspect A."

The Metropolitan police circulated the card specifically for the Docklands biannual arms fair in London to help its officers identify "people at specific events who may instigate offences or disorder". Which is such a flattering quote I am thinking of having it on my next tour poster. While being wanted outside the arms fair, I was legitimately inside researching a book on the subject, and uncovered four companies illegally promoting "banned" torture equipment. Questions were later asked in the Commons as to why HM Revenue & Customs and the police didn't spot it. Though, in fairness, none of the torture traders featured on the spotter card.

What exactly was I doing that was so awfully wrong as to merit this attention? Today's Guardian revelations of three secret police units goes some way to explain the targeting of protesters and raises worrying questions. The job of these units is to spy on protesters, and collate and circulate information about them. Protesters – or, as the police call them, "domestic extremists" – are the new "reds under the bed".

Many of those targeted by the police have committed no crime and are guilty only of non-violent direct action. So it is worth reminding ourselves that protest is legal. Sorry if this sounds obvious, but you might have gained the impression that if three police units are spying on and targeting thousands, then those people must be up to something illegal.

The very phrase "domestic extremist" defines protesters in the eyes of the police as the problem, the enemy. Spying on entire groups and organisations, and targeting the innocent, undermines not only our rights but the law – frightfully silly of me to drag this into an argument about policing, I know.

Protest is part of the democratic process. It wasn't the goodwill of politicians that led them to cancel developing countries' debt, but the protests and campaigning of millions of ordinary people around the world. The political leaders were merely the rubber stamp in the democratic process. Thus any targeting and treatment of demonstrators (at the G20 for example) that creates a "chilling effect" – deterring those who may wish to exercise their right to protest – is profoundly undemocratic.

No police, secret or otherwise, should operate without proper accountability. So how are these three units accountable? Who has access to the databases? How long does information remain in the system? What effect could it have on travel and future employment of those targeted? How closely do these units work with corporate private investigators, and does the flow of information go both ways? Do the police target strikers?

A police spokesman has said that anyone who finds themselves on a database "should not worry at all". When a spokesman for the three secret units will not disclose a breakdown of their budgets, and two of the three will not even name who heads their operations (even MI6 gave us an initial, for God's sake), then the words "should not worry at all" are meaningless. Indeed, when the police admit that someone could end up on a secret police database merely for attending a demonstration, it is exactly the time to worry.

Spotter card in question.

[LondonLax]

Spotter card in question.

Miss "I" appears to be Jennifer Aniston and it looks like Mr "L" is possibly under suspicion for drug related offences.

[snowychap]

‘Routine’ armed police units for London streets

Seems that the head of the Met has stopped this from happening.

According to the article in The Times, he wasn't best pleased with those who came up with the idea.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Armed police units are nothing, wait until you see the army patrolling your streets!

Doesn't happen here anymore mind, but it goes to show that its not out of question especially in troublesome areas in London, Manchester etc

[bickster]

M is someone relatively well known too, can't remember her name right now (looks like Miss Jones from Rising Damp but obviously not Frances de la Tour)

[tonyh29]

M is someone relatively well known too, can't remember her name right now

M is a woman :shock:

[tonyh29]

Another Part of Labours Scorched earth policy it seems will go through before they get evicted from the Big Borther house ...The Policing Bill will be introduced as full legislation, and the Home Office hopes it will be passed before Parliament is dissolved next year.

A new power will allow members of the public to challenge a chief constable's refusal to delete their profiles in court - but they will have to pay an application fee to do so.

The proposals are contained in a new policing bill to be unveiled on Wednesday, part of a “slimline” programme of legislation that will also set out plans to reform the House of Lords and curb bankers’ bonuses.

Up to a million people are on the national DNA database who have never been charged or convicted for an offence. There are now more than 5.3million profiles on the system, making it the largest of its kind in the world.

Other proposed powers contained in the bill will allow police to take the DNA and fingerprints of UK nationals who committed crimes abroad and who have since returned to the UK and those who committed crimes here in the past but have, for one reason or another, not had their DNA taken.

[snowychap]

Arrests are being made 'to expand DNA files'

Police are routinely arresting people simply to record their DNA profiles on the national database, according to a report published today.

It also states that three quarters of young black men are on the database. The finding risks stigmatising a whole section of society, the equality watchdog has warned.

The revelations will fuel the debate about the DNA database, the world’s largest. They are included in a report by the Human Genetics Commission, an independent government advisory body. It criticises the piecemeal development of the database and questions how effective it is in helping the police to investigate and solve crimes.

Jonathan Montgomery, commission chairman, said that “function creep” over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects. Almost one million innocent people are now on the DNA database.

Professor Montgomery said: “It’s now become pretty much routine to take DNA samples on arrest, so large numbers of people on the DNA database will be there not because they have been convicted, but because they’ve been arrested.”

Recorded crime has fallen every year since 2004-05, but the number of people arrested in England and Wales annually is rising. Latest figures show that arrests rose by 6 per cent to 1.43 million in 2005 and a further 4 per cent to 1.48 million in 2006-07.

Professor Montgomery said there was some evidence that people were arrested to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstance.

He said that a retired senior police officer told the commission: “It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons . . . is so that DNA can be obtained.” He said that the tradition of only arresting someone when dealing with serious offences had collapsed.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission said the proportion of black men on the database created an impression that one race group represented an “alien wedge” of criminality.

The report’s foreword states that the DNA profiles of 75 per cent of black men aged 18 to 35 are recorded. But the commission admitted that it had “hardened up slightly” earlier estimates quoted in Parliament.

The Crime and Security Bill heralded in last week’s Queen’s Speech proposes cutting to six years the time that innocent people’s profiles are kept. Those arrested but not charged, or those cleared in court, currently remain on the database for ever. There are no plans to reduce police powers to take samples from everyone arrested.

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, has said that innocent people should not have their DNA retained by the police once they are acquitted of a crime.

The commission report said that the database should be placed on a clear statutory basis and overseen by an independent authority. Isabella Sankey, of Liberty, said: “Not only are we stockpiling the most sensitive information of innocents who have never been charged, let alone convicted, we are also creating a perverse incentive to arrest people solely to get their details on the database.”

The Home Office suggested that the over-representation of young black men on the database was linked to disproportionality in other areas of the criminal justice system

[leviramsey]

Who didn't see that one coming...

[Gringo]

It is ridiculous to think that the state would abuse powers it grants itself. What next a surge in secret inquiries even though jack straw said there was only one case in the past 5 years where the legislation would apply.

In news ACPO set up a private company that charges corporations to monitor the domestic extremist threat.

A police force to serve and protect the people, the state or the money men.