• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Britain: Police State?

Henry Porter has something to say on the surveillance state...

The story of Milly, an eight-year-old cat who disappeared out of window in Whitstable two weeks ago, has much to tell us about the petty-minded forces that have come to replace proper policing in this country. Her owners, Stephen and Heather Cope and their son Daniel, 13, searched high and low for Milly, then, failing to find her, did what any normal person would do: put up posters to see if anyone had seen her. The next thing they heard was from one of the local council community wardens, who rang the telephone number on the poster and threatened them with a £80 on-the-spot fine for antisocial behaviour.

Seldom can there have been a more officious, twerpish enforcement of the law, but this kind of action is now one of the established parts of this dreadful government's legacy. As the police retreat from the streets, we are prey to every type of snoop, informant, busybody and vindictive martinet, all of them licensed by the government's accreditation scheme so that they may demand our names and addresses, photograph us, check car tax discs and seize alcohol, issue fines for truancy, rowdiness, graffiti and dog fouling.

In Colchester, litter wardens are taking pictures of alleged offenders to publish them in the local paper. One local council has been reported as using officials to check car numbers outside homes to see who is sleeping with whom, for God knows what purpose. Children as young as eight are among 5,000 private citizens across the country recruited as paid 'covert human intelligences sources'.

The speed with which our dear, familiar democracy is vanishing under the weight of totalitarian pettiness is appalling and one wonders when this easygoing nation will rise against the trends set so blithely by that authoritarian basket case Tony Blair and continued by mediocrities such as Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith.

Even police officers have doubts about the blurring of lines between uniformed officers of the law, whom we know to have received standard training, and these upstarts and busybodies wearing red-and-white prefect's badges. Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said on the BBC recently that the public would not understand why someone with a 'small badge was telling them what to do'. He added: 'I think it's going to lead to confrontation.'

I hope it does, because only then will people begin to understand what we have allowed Labour do to our society with its informer networks and child spies. Only then will we begin to question the right of a nightclub bouncer with 20 hours' training and maybe a criminal record lurking in the background to challenge citizens and issue fines.

The mystery in all this is: where are the police? Since Labour came to power, the police have basked in the sun, though, like farmers, they always complain about their lot. The facts are these. Between 1997 and 2007, spending on law and order rose by a half a percentage point to 2.5 per cent of GDP. Last year, the criminal justice system received £22.7bn, about £15.13bn of which went to the police. In the past decade, the police have received a budget increase of 21 percent and the police workforce rose by 50,000, which includes an extra 15,000 officers.

To put these figures in perspective, we spend more on law and order than any other OECD country including the United States, France, Germany and Spain. It is fair to say that Britain is in the grip of law and order obsession, yet we seem incapable of putting police officers on the beat to patrol our streets, investigate crimes and keep order with an eye to proportionate and sensible use of their powers. By that, I do not mean three officers on mountain bikes pursuing a colleague on his racer through crime-ridden Hackney to issue him with a £30 fine because he had avoided dangerous roadworks by briefly using the pavement. I don't mean texting the victim of a burglary, as happened to a friend of mine, to see if she had anything more to report.

Despite crime figures going down, we continue to spend more and lock up proportionately more people than any other free country. The most recent figures for London show falls of 14 per cent in both knife and gun crime and a 7 per cent reduction in violent crime generally. Since 1997, the official figures for the country claim a drop in the crime rate of 35 per cent. Academics suggest this figure is hugely inflated, but the downward trend is undeniable and could be claimed by Labour as a victory for its policies were it not for its sinister need to keep us in a state of permanent fear about crime.

The estimable Cherie Booth put her finger on the problem and inadvertently (perhaps) provided a grand analysis of her husband's cynical use of crime to push his authoritarian programme. On the release of a very good report from the Howard League for Penal Reform attacking the government's policy of building Titan prisons, which will hold 2,500 brutalised souls, she used the word 'punitive' a lot and referred to 'the hysterical rhetoric of politicians attempting to ride the tiger of public opinion'. Or what is perceived as public opinion, she added.

We have forgotten all our empirical skills when it comes to law and policing. Instead of assessing what the problems are - the fact that prisons do not reform offenders, that crime is caused by complex social issues as much as by individual moral failure, that police officers at their desks or in squad cars do not deter crime as well as those on the beat - we have allowed a blind and vengeful regime to skew our sense of reason and what is right for a liberal democracy.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, also came out with an excellent report last week, which attacked the creation by Labour of 3,600 new offences - nearly one for each day in power - and pointed out that England and Wales had experienced an 11 per cent drop in crime at the same time as an incredible 45 per cent increase in the prison rate.

Last week, the prison population reached 83,000. The conclusion is clear: we are sending too many of the wrong people to prison and for too long. This impression was supported by the Chief Constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, a contender to succeed the besieged Ian Blair at the Met. He complained last week that his force was 'over-inspected' and that officers were demoralised because sentencing policy was dictated by availability of places in prisons. Criminals who deserved prison were avoiding jail.

Huhne's report nails the politics behind the degraded policy of banging up more and more people. When Blair took over the Labour's home affairs brief in 1992, he skilfully moved on to the traditional law and order territory occupied by the Tories and so began a policy war in which the main parties tried to best each other with, as Cherie Booth put it, 'the hysterical rhetoric about crime'. David Cameron's hyperbole about a broken society and Dominic Grieve's announcement about new surveillance powers for police are both part of this competitive pessimism about our society.

So let us start thinking logically about crime, punishment, policing and the cause of our problems. Let us end this punitive regime. Let us put policemen back on the beat, throw the likes of Jacqui and Hazel out of office and return all their spies and accredited jobsworths to the twilight of their power-crazed fantasy lives.
Click to expand...

Source
 
And upcoming, the international day of protest (11th October)

Surveillance mania is spreading. Governments and businesses register, monitor and control our behaviour ever more thoroughly. No matter what we do, who we phone and talk to, where we go, whom we are friends with, what our interests are, which groups we participate in - "big brother" government and "little brothers" in business know it more and more thoroughly. The resulting lack of privacy and confidentiality is putting at risk the freedom of confession, the freedom of speech as well as the work of doctors, helplines, lawyers and journalists.

The manifold agenda of security sector reform encompasses the convergence of police, intelligence agencies and the military, threatening to melt down the division and balance of powers. Using methods of mass surveillance, the borderless cooperation of the military, intelligence services and police authorities is leading towards the construction of "Fortresses" in Europe and on other continents, directed against refugees and different-looking people but also affecting, for example, political activists, the poor and under-priviledged, and sports fans.

People who constantly feel watched and under surveillance cannot freely and courageously stand up for their rights and for a just society. Mass surveillance is thereby threatening the fabric of a democratic and open society. Mass surveillance is also endangering the work and commitment of civil society organizations.
Click to expand...

Source

The aims are stated at the end. Perhaps the start of a back-lash?
 
Park pervert patrol shock

Council staff on the lookout for paedophiles have been ordered to stop and quiz any adults found walking in Telford Town Park without a child, it was revealed today.

Anyone who wants to go to the park but is not accompanied by at least one youngster will have to explain why they are there.

Telford campaigners battling to retain full public access to the park today branded the policy “draconian” and “authoritarian madness” but the council defended the policy, claiming it had a responsibility to “protect the vulnerable”.

The policy came to light after two environmental campaigners dressed as penguins were thrown out of the park last month when caught handing out leaflets on climate change.

Telford & Wrekin Council said Rachel Whittaker and Neil Donaldson of the Wrekin Stop War pressure group were ejected because they had not undergone Criminal Records Bureau checks or risk assessments before entering the park.

David Ottley, Telford & Wrekin’s sports and recreation manager, said in a letter seen by the Shropshire Star:

“Our Town Park staff approach adults that are not associated with any children in the Town Park and request the reason for them being there.

“In particular, this applies to those areas where children or more vulnerable groups gather, such as play facilities and the entrances to play areas. This is a child safety precautionary measure which members of staff will continue to undertake as and when necessary.”

Former childcare social worker John Evans said: “It is authoritarian madness which can only be based on ignorance.

“It appears that the council wants to use child protection as a cover for anything they don’t like taking place in the park, like the campaign against global warming by those two people who were handing out leaflets.

“It is absurd, it is insulting and what’s more it is dangerous as it panics people about the dangers their children face.”

Rob Breeze, who has campaigned to retain free public access to the park, said he was aware of an incident in which people on a charity bike ride through the park in aid of Severn Hospice were told to dismount by park staff.

Mr Breeze, of Stirchley, said: “People seem to be coming up with ever more draconian and unsupported rules and regulations about use of the park.”

The Shropshire Star today put the policy to the test when we sent a male reporter to the park. It took just 30 minutes for him to be asked what he was doing by an official as he stood near Spout House and the children’s play area.

Councillor Denis Allen, cabinet member for community services, said: “Our staff are asked to approach adults without children in areas where children gather such as play areas, using their own judgement and discretion.

“To suggest that adults in the other areas of the park without children would be routinely approached is simply not correct. Having systems and procedures to protect the vulnerable, may be unacceptable to some people but we have a duty of care to children and we take our duties very seriously.

“As landowner of the park, we have child protection responsibilities and a duty of care. Anyone approached would be treated sensitively, and in a fair and even-handed manner.

“If required, the police or child protection services would be informed and the appropriate


http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/0 ... iz-adults/
 
I would have thought "because I pay for its upkeep" would have been a good enough reason swiftly followed by "as well as yours".

Here's my predicition - said park will become a no-go area for young children because teenagers will colonise it safe in the knowledge there's no-one about to see what they're up to.
 
Councillor Denis Allen, cabinet member for community services, said: “Our staff are asked to approach adults without children in areas where children gather such as play areas, using their own judgement and discretion.

“To suggest that adults in the other areas of the park without children would be routinely approached is simply not correct. Having systems and procedures to protect the vulnerable, may be unacceptable to some people but we have a duty of care to children and we take our duties very seriously.

“As landowner of the park, we have child protection responsibilities and a duty of care. Anyone approached would be treated sensitively, and in a fair and even-handed manner.

“If required, the police or child protection services would be informed and the appropriate
Click to expand...

It could simply be a problem with over zealous employees.

Not every adult with no children is a danger and the council need to be wary because they could land themselves in some trouble if an innocent adult takes offence.
 
And some more fun with cameras....

The police are to expand a car surveillance operation that will allow them to record and store details of millions of daily journeys for up to five years, the Guardian has learned.

A national network of roadside cameras will be able to "read" 50m licence plates a day, enabling officers to reconstruct the journeys of motorists.

Police have been encouraged to "fully and strategically exploit" the database, which is already recording the whereabouts of 10 million drivers a day, during investigations ranging from counter-terrorism to low-level crime.

But it has raised concerns from civil rights campaigners, who question whether the details should be kept for so long, and want clearer guidance on who might have access to the material.

The project relies on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to pinpoint the precise time and location of all vehicles on the road. Senior officers had promised the data would be stored for two years. But responding to inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, the Home Office has admitted the data is now being kept for five years.

Thousands of CCTV cameras across the country have been converted to read ANPR data, capturing people's movements in cars on motorways, main roads, airports and town centres.

Local authorities have since adapted their own CCTV systems to capture licence plates on behalf of police, massively expanding the network of available cameras. Mobile cameras have been installed in patrol cars and unmarked vehicles parked by the side of roads.

Police helicopters have been equipped with infrared cameras that can read licence plates from 610 metres (2,000ft).

In four months' time, when a nationwide network of cameras is fully operational, the National ANPR Data Centre in Hendon, north London, will record up to 50m licence plates a day.

The Home Office said in a letter that the Hendon database would "store all ANPR captured data for five years". The photograph of a person's licence plate will, in most cases, be stored for one year.

Human rights group Privacy International last night described the five-year record of people's car journeys "unnecessary and disproportionate", and said it had lodged an official complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the government's data watchdog.

In a statement, the ICO said it would take the complaint "seriously" and would be contacting police "to discuss proposed data retention periods". "Prolonged retention would need to be clearly justified based on continuing value not on the mere chance it may come in useful," it said.

In 2005 the government invested £32m to develop the ANPR data-sharing programme after police concluded that road traffic cameras could be used for counter-terrorism and everyday criminal investigations. Senior police officers have said they intend the database to be integrated into "mainstream policing".

Half of all police forces in England and Wales have now been connected to the network, reading between 8 and 10m licence plates a day. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the database would be linked to ANPR systems run by all but two police forces by the end of the year. The database will be able to store as many as 18 bn licence plate sightings in 2009.

The Acpo ANPR strategy document, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, envisages the database will be used at all levels of policing. The document, which sets policy up until 2010, states that police forces should "fully and strategically exploit" the database.

Officers can access the database to find uninsured cars, locate illegal "duplicate" licence plates and track the movements of criminals. The Acpo adds that the database will "deter criminals through increased likelihood of detection".

"Experience has shown there are very strong links between illegal use of motor vehicles on the road and other types of serious crime," said Merseyside Police's Assistant Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, who leads Acpo's ANPR policy.

The director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, said last night the database would give police "extraordinary powers of surveillance". "This would never be allowed in any other democratic country," he said. "This is possibly one of the most valuable reserves of data imaginable."

Peter Fry, of the CCTV User group, said that licence plate images captured by CCTV are generally retained for 31 days. "There's not a great deal of logic to explain keeping the same images for five years," he said.
Click to expand...

Source

Quite a scary scenario.
 
Funny I seem to remember saying this would happen 2 years ago and got called tinfoil hat man !!!!!!!!!!!!

10 million jOUNEYS already tracked pretty cool !
 
As I recall it was more the claims of why the information was being collected and what it would be used for that provoked the (imaginary?) tinfoil hat man comments.
 
Given the government's record, they'll probably lose the data anyway...
 
A bit like this then?

A police force has undertaken an urgent hunt for a computer memory stick after admitting it has been lost by an officer on duty.

West Midlands Police would not confirm or deny reports that the data stick contained information on terrorism.

The Home Secretary has been informed of the blunder, as has the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

It is the latest in a line of high-profile losses of sensitive equipment by public bodies.

A force spokeswoman said searches are being conducted to recover the item and added: "We will not comment in relation to the contents of that memory stick."
Click to expand...

Source
 
And some more fun with personal data (in this case medical).
The government wants academics and businesses to be granted access to the medical records of almost every man, woman and child in England.

Almost all visits by patients to hospitals and GPs will be identifiable in the dataset, which will be stored in the NHS’s ‘Secondary Uses Services’ database.

Companies would access the database to get details for medical research to improve public health, officials say, though it would also be used to sell products to the NHS.

Patients can have their say on what “additional” purposes their medical data should be used for “other than direct care”, in a consultation which opened without publicity last week.

Input from a consultation on the summary care records system, which is part of SUS, has convinced officials they should not be allowed to view anyone’s SCR without asking them first.

Until an announcement last week, patients had to contact their GP to opt-out of the database if they did not want their records included, with failure to do so resulting in inclusion.

But this victory for privacy campaigners has been turned pyrrhic by the disclosure that the NHS is set to share medical records with academics and businesses.

The Big Opt Out said it found out the NHS “has entered into financial arrangements with private companies and academic organisations to give your SUS medical records to them.”

Once the care records system has gone live, (it is currently running four years late) the group said pharmacist and GP records will also be sent to the SUS database for third-party use.

The Department of Health has said most records would be anonymous but admitted to a Sunday newspaper that identifiable data, which could include names, might be sent if it was deemed useful.
Click to expand...

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003972.html

So perhaps even more direct marketing on allegedly anonymous data? Wonder how HR departments would deal with something like this. Perhaps it should be restricted to academics with an interest in a given field (disease clusters etc.)?
 
And a touch more on ID cards for teens.

Identity cards could be handed out to children as young as 14, a home office minister has suggested.

The first ID cards are due to be offered to 16 and 17-year-olds from 2010 as part of a plan to introduce the controversial scheme in stages.

But Meg Hillier said the age range was still "up for grabs" and could be lowered "if they prove popular".

She also said the scheme might be too far advanced for the Tories to "unpick" if they came to power in 2010.

Speaking at a "No ID, No Sale" fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference, Ms Hillier said a ministerial working party was considering extending the scheme to younger children and was talking to the universities and youth groups about the idea.

She said she had been "struck" by a visit to Hungary, where 14-year-olds routinely carried ID cards - and she pointed out that six-year-olds were already fingerprinted for visas.
Click to expand...

....

Phil Booth of No2ID said Ms Hiller was "delusional" if she thought ID cards could not be scrapped by an incoming Conservative government.

"The officials themselves, since 2006 have designed the contract on the basis that the entire scheme could be canned at the next election."

"It could simply be downgraded so it is just for passports," he told the BBC News website.

Mr Booth, who had been due to speak at the fringe meeting but was unable to gain entry to the conference centre because of a problem with his pass application, also criticised the plan to give the cards to younger children.

He said ID cards legislation specified a minimum age of 16 and he said it was wrong for young people to be tied into a giant database "for the rest of their lives".

On his conference pass problems, he said: "If this is how they are organising their ID for their own party conference, how the heck are they going to organise ID cards for 50 million people?"
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7630088.stm
 
lupinwick said:
And some more fun with cameras....

The police are to expand a car surveillance operation that will allow them to record and store details of millions of daily journeys for up to five years, the Guardian has learned.

A national network of roadside cameras will be able to "read" 50m licence plates a day, enabling officers to reconstruct the journeys of motorists.

etc etc

Peter Fry, of the CCTV User group, said that licence plate images captured by CCTV are generally retained for 31 days. "There's not a great deal of logic to explain keeping the same images for five years," he said.
Click to expand...

Source

Quite a scary scenario.
Click to expand...

Without reading the whole article, bear in mind that ANPR is also a great tool for the Police. I've seen it used very successfully to spot a missing persons vehicle and give an indication of where they were at a given time/date so providing useful information on where they were going. Similarly, it can pick out vehicles with what can be described as 'interest' markers, such as vehicles used by known disqualified drivers, or at the extreme end of the scale major criminals or terrorists.

It's not going to let your wife know that on the day you said you were stuck in the queue at B & Q you were actually off to see your bit on the side. :oops:
 
Ginando said:
...

It's not going to let your wife know that on the day you said you were stuck in the queue at B & Q you were actually off to see your bit on the side. :oops:
Click to expand...
But, with so much data power, you could if you wanted too...

With great power, comes great responsibility. Power corrupts. Power attracts the corruptible.

So, I'd be keeping an eye on who applies for the jobs in the Collator's Office. ;)
 
Without reading the whole article, bear in mind that ANPR is also a great tool for the Police. I've seen it used very successfully to spot a missing persons vehicle and give an indication of where they were at a given time/date so providing useful information on where they were going. Similarly, it can pick out vehicles with what can be described as 'interest' markers, such as vehicles used by known disqualified drivers, or at the extreme end of the scale major criminals or terrorists.
Click to expand...

Indeed it can. The data however does not need to be kept for 5 years though. Automation of the detection of vehicles which are not taxed (but on the road) would be childs play. Vehicles recorded as stolen could also be tracked automatically.

The data collated would be impressive and of value to a lot of folks, for example the Highways Agency for capacity planning, AA and RAC for route planning (avoid blackspots). Anonymised data would be fine for these kind of uses.

However, could a driver find out what information is stored about them? Could the data be sold on (as per the DVLA)? Could a third party buy information regarding routes on given vehicles (nukewatch for example)?

Is there a real rationale behind the extension to 5 years?
 
The government is moving to regulate the private-eye industry after growing evidence the work of private investigators is a world away from the romantic fictional image of Sam Spade.

A BBC investigation approached 40 private detective agencies in the UK and the results suggest the reality is an altogether more sinister affair.

Posing as wives suspicious that their husbands were having affairs, researchers for Radio 5live's Donal MacIntyre programme found more than half the private investigators approached quickly offered to break the law.

Using an online telephone book and internet search engine the callers identified 20 private investigators or detective agencies in London and 20 in Manchester, ranging from lone operators, to companies with a few dozen employees.

Half of the private detectives contacted offered to break the law.

The illegal services the private eyes offered included bugging phones, cars and houses, inserting James Bond-style spyware onto computers and obtaining confidential bank account details.

16 of the 40 investigators contacted offered to find out who the husband was calling on his mobile phone.

Where a 'wife' was suspicious of a regular financial transfer, 10 private detectives offered to ascertain the husband's bank details and find out where the payment was going to.

One agency admitted it was not easy to legally find who the money was being paid to but still said they could do it for between 500 - 1000. Police 'on payroll'

Many of the private detectives spoken to openly admitted what they were doing was illegal.

To resolve the suspicious wife's dilemma, the investigators did not require information held by the police, however, one private eye bragged that he could get information from police officers who were 'in debt and needed money'. This agency, one of the bigger firms with offices around the country, said that using a car registration number their police contacts could get a name and address.

It is against the law for officers to access the Police National Computer in this way.

The Serious and Organised Crime Agency has warned ministers links between private investigators and serving police officers are a major source of corruption.

BBC 5live's revelations came as the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said it had raided the offices of five private investigators after uncovering a Hong Kong based website which allows unscrupulous investigators to bid to provide personal information, some of which can only be obtained by breaking the law.

According to the ICO some of the personal information requested via the website relates to UK individuals and involves a number of private investigators based in the UK.

Regulator to investigate

The private investigators are being investigated for breaching the Data Protection Act, as it is a criminal offence to illegally obtain, buy or sell personal information.

David Smith, Deputy Head of the ICO said 5live's findings were 'shocking and worrying but not surprising.' Mr Smith added: 'We know there is a significant illegal trade going on. We are collecting intelligence, we are investigating these people. We do bring prosecutions. And your evidence tells us that although we're working very hard on this area we need to work even harder still.' The ICO, which estimates that as many as 60% of its enforcement activity involves investigating private eyes, says illegal activity by private investigators involves the most serious breaches of the data protection act. Mr Smith said: 'It is a real intrusion into the privacy of people's information. There is some evidence that this is linked with serious crime. 'Some of the information which is obtained by deception is used to intimidate witnesses and is used to compound fraud and so on. 'It's not just an intrusion into people's privacy though that's an important part of it. We are having some effect on the trade but there is a long way to go yet, but licensing, prison sentences would all help us in our task' With mounting evidence of widespread illegality, Ministers have asked the watchdog Security Industry Authority (SIA) to examine ways to rein in the industry.

They are considering a system of licensing and regulation.

It is not known exactly how many private investigators are operating in the UK, but it is estimated to be several thousand.

Five of the private agencies contacted were members of the Association of British Investigators (ABI).

An ABI spokesman said it was 'saddened' by the findings and was determined to 'root out' any illegal practices. He added that the 'vast majority of members were doing valuable work for corporate and business clients'. Find out more on the Donal MacIntyre programme on Radio 5live at 1900BST on Sunday 28 Sept or download the podcast at the
website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/newsFeedXML/mo ... 636518.stm
 
perhaps we need a law to prevent people using laws for other than their intended purpose :(

Town Halls use anti-terror powers to spy on people

COUNCILS in West Yorkshire are using anti-terror powers
In the past two years, Leeds, Wakefield and Kirklees have used surveillance techniques almost 200 times to investigate offences ranging from taxi drivers illegally plying for hire to people using property to prepare food unlawfully.

Today campaigners condemned the councils for over-zealously using anti-terrorism laws to spy on people for "trivial" offences.

Taxpayers Alliance campaign director Mark Wallace said: "This is a total abuse of these powers for purposes which they were never intended to be used for.

"People want councils to focus on providing decent services and value for money, not rushing around doing a bad impression of James Bond."

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) was introduced to give police access to computer records to help them intercept terrorist communications. Powers were granted to councils to carry out surveillance, including monitoring phone records, if they are able to prevent or detect a crime.

Leeds City Council used the legislation a total of 96 times between June 2006 and June 2008.

Of those, 59 cases were the result of alleged antisocial behaviour and many involved setting up hidden cameras as well as covert surveillance by council officers and contractors.

Other instances included: a secret camera being installed to monitor private hire vehicles; computer files scoured to look into a case of alleged financial fraud by a member of staff; and surveillance to see whether a father of a child at risk was still in a relationship with the mother.

Leeds City Council also used Ripa powers 20 times to spy on suspected fly-tippers, once for snooping on a person repairing vehicles on the public highway and four times for watching a person selling cars by the roadside.

In one case, four officers spent four weeks watching a site where illegal waste was being dumped. At a similar site, four officers installed CCTV and spent three weeks and four days watching.

The council was unable to say how many of its surveillance operations ended in prosecution or notices being issued.

In Kirklees, the local authority used the laws a total of 53 times to investigate antisocial behaviour, drug dealing, illegal sub-letting of council homes and unlawful use of a premises for food preparation.

The council also monitored a case of domestic violence and captured evidence of a man defecating on the public pavement, which resulted in him being prosecuted.

Kirklees Council was unable to say how many other cases resulted in action.

Wakefield Council used the powers 32 times. Officers mainly investigated noise nuisance and taxis illegally plying for trade. From 11 surveillance operations, eight resulted in further action, typically prosecutions.

Other cases included installing CCTV to investigate a case of alleged gross misconduct by a member of staff; static surveillance of a group of employees to investigate alleged misconduct and an inquiry to see whether a member of staff was claiming benefits fraudulently.

A Leeds City Council spokesman said: "This type of surveillance is used by the council as a last resort where alternative methods of gathering evidence have been unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 4536790.jp
 
The abuse of RIPA legislation by councils has been wide spread. Google the terms. Try here for example.
 
The Open Right Group are organising....

Happy-snappers unite! We need as many people as possible to take photos of stuff that embodies the database state, and the UK’s world-famous surveillance society (wake up! You’ve just walked into it).

On 11 October, No2ID and the Open Rights Group will make a live collage of the images you’ve taken in a prominent location in London (to be confirmed), to celebrate Freedom Not Fear Day 2008.

Freedom not Fear is an international day of action for democracy, free speech, human rights and civil liberties, and events to celebrate these central tenets of a just society will be taking place all over the world.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Spot something that embodies the UK’s wholesale transformation into the surveillance society/database state. Subjects might include your local CCTV camera(s), or fingerprinting equipment in your child’s school library
2. Snap it
3. Upload it to Flickr and tag it “FNFBigPicture” - please use an Attribution Creative Commons license*
4. That’s it!
Click to expand...

Source

And of course look forward to Fear Not Freedom day in October :)
 
RIPA powers are not and never were designed solely for anti-terrorism. When the press report them as such they're being disingenuous. Whether or not the powers are fair or morally justifiable is another matter but technically the powers aren't being abused.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
To resolve the suspicious wife's dilemma, the investigators did not require information held by the police, however, one private eye bragged that he could get information from police officers who were 'in debt and needed money'. This agency, one of the bigger firms with offices around the country, said that using a car registration number their police contacts could get a name and address.

It is against the law for officers to access the Police National Computer in this way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/newsFeedXML/mo ... 636518.stm
Click to expand...

I had an obnoxious ex cop turned Private investigator blatantly walk into my office and ask if I would give him information on a local man whom he was investigating. He knew roughly where the guy lived and wanted to trace his vehicle so he could put a watch on it. For those of you unaware, there is also a facility to go into the Police National Computer, and using a street name, show which vehicles are registered to that street, and therefore whoowns said vehicle. He was genuinely amazed when I told him to sling his hook as he said had no problems with cops doing him a favour at stations in the Central belt of Scotland. Then he suggests I meet him for a bite to eat at the hotel near the station. He doesn't offer anything, so he knows he can't get done for attempted bribery, but its clearly what he's implying. This time when I said to him to get out or he's getting lifted (arrested) he points to his Mercedes outside and advises me that he could 'buy and sell me twice over'. So I know it's going on and with things going the way they are financially, there will be people tempted by people like these.
 
Of course, he could've been "bigging it up" to try to get a police contact.
 
Government will spy on every call and e-mail
David Leppard

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project.

Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers - thought to be BT and Vodafone. BT has nearly 5m internet customers.

Ministers are braced for a backlash similar to the one caused by their ID cards programme. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “Any suggestion of the government using existing powers to intercept communications data without public discussion is going to sound extremely sinister.”

MI5 currently conducts limited e-mail and website intercepts which are approved under specific warrants by the home secretary.

Further details of the new plan will be unveiled next month in the Queen’s speech.

The Home Office stressed no formal decision had been taken but sources said officials had made clear that ministers had agreed “in principle” to the programme.

Officials claim live monitoring is necessary to fight terrorism and crime. However, critics question whether such a vast system can be kept secure. A total of 57 billion text messages were sent in the UK last year - 1,800 every second. :shock:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 882600.ece
 
well it's not like they've got anything better to spend £12 billion of our taxpayers money on is it?

*cough cough* NHS *cough cough* petty crime *cough* public services
 
So phorm (or similar) may get government backing then? Bastards all.

Pointless too given that you could use TOR, PGP etc to encrypt everything sent via a computer. Will it cover steganography as well? Or even simply code phrases?

Will it happen given the how unpopular this government is? Even more so given that tax rises may be needed to cover back bail-outs.
 
Another piece from Cory Doctorow. Given that he is Canadian you have to wonder exactly what is going on. Interesting also as my wife is a German national, and although she has lived in this country since she was 7 still holds German nationality. Hopefully the EU rights will still hold.

When I moved from my native Canada to the UK in 2003, I thought it was ironic that the Doctorows had returned to Europe. My father was born to Polish-Russian parents in a refugee camp in Azerbaijan just before the second world war ended. My grandparents – deserting Red Army conscriptees – destroyed their documents and became, in the parlance of the day, Displaced People.

When the war ended, they went west again, but when they reached Russia, they kept going. When they reached Poland, they kept going. They moved with the great refugee herd into Germany, to a camp near Hamburg (where my aunt was born), before boarding a refugee boat and sailing to the port of Halifax, where an immigration official truncated their names – Doctorowicz became Doctorow – and gave them a train ticket to Toronto, where my great-uncle Max and his family lived.

My grandmother is still alive, and sharp as a tack. I asked her recently why they didn't stay in the Soviet Union. Despite her aversion to military service, she was a war hero. She had gone through her adolescence as a civil defence worker during the hard years of the Siege of Leningrad, digging trenches and hauling bodies as a girl of 12, until she was evacuated to Siberia at the age of 15. Her family still lived in Leningrad – mother, father, baby brother. Leningrad is a majestic city, cosmopolitan and vibrant, even with the war scars on its face. In Toronto she knew no one, didn't speak the language. Her years as a refugee would stretch out for decades until she could truly consider herself a Canadian.

I asked her why she didn't stay, and she shook her head like I'd asked the stupidest possible question. "It was the Soviet Union", she said. She waved her hand, groped for the answer. "Papers," she said, finally. "We had to carry papers. The police could stop you at any time and make you turn over your papers." The floodgates opened. They spied on you. They made you spy on each other. Your grandfather wouldn't have been allowed to stay – he was Polish, they wouldn't let him stay with the family in Russia, he'd have to go back to Poland.

My head bobbed unconsciously as she told me this. I knew all of it, by way of innuendos and hints over the years, but I had never heard her say it all at once. I'd even seen it firsthand, when we visited the family in Leningrad in 1984, having our conversations cut short when they strayed into political territory, with over-the-shoulder looks for the snoops who might be listening in and waiting to turn my family in to the KGB.

Half a century later, the Doctorows came back to Europe. I set up residence in London, working for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an American civil liberties nonprofit, running the European operations. I was privileged to be given status as a "highly skilled migrant" (the only visa category I qualified for, given my lack of a university degree). A few years later, I was living with my partner, and had fathered a British daughter (when I mentioned this to a UK immigration official at Heathrow, he sneeringly called her "half a British citizen"). We were planning a giant family wedding in Toronto when the news came down: the Home Secretary had unilaterally, on 24 hours' notice, changed the rules for highly skilled migrants to require a university degree. My immigration lawyers confirmed it: people who'd established residence in the UK for years and years, who'd built businesses and employed Britons here, who owned homes and given birth to British children, were being thrown out of the country, taking their tax-payments, jobs and families with them.

My partner and I scrambled. We got married. We applied for a spousal visa. A few weeks later, I presented myself in Croydon at the Home Office immigration centre to turn over my biometrics and have a visa glued into my Canadian passport. I got two years' breathing room. My family could stay in Britain.

Then came last week's announcement: effective immediately, spousal visa holders (and foreign students) would be issued mandatory, biometric radio-frequency ID papers that we will have to carry at all times. And I started to look over my shoulder.

Once again, it seems as though the Doctorows may have to leave Europe. The identity card I'm to be issued when I renew my visa is intended to be linked to all my daily activities: my medical care, my use of transit, my banking and finance, my tax – a single identifier that will track me through time and space, forever. The dossier thus gathered on me will be managed by the same agencies that have lost (literally) tens of millions' worth of records on British people in the past year alone.

It will all be tied to my biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints. Unless you wear gloves at all times, you leave these identifiers behind continuously, everywhere you go. These identifiers are not only available to law enforcement and the state, but to anyone who cares to lift them off any smooth surface you happen to touch. Once these identifiers are compromised, there is no means – short of amputation – to change them. Consider the case of German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble, who advocates biometric IDs: his fingerprints were lifted from a water-glass at a public debate and published on 10,000 pieces of acetate by a group of media pranksters with no budget and who stood to gain no financial benefit from the stunt. Will well-heeled identity thieves who can use these biometrics to commit crimes and empty bank accounts be less resourceful?

The identity card will emit my personal information to people who are at a great distance from me, without my knowledge or consent. The RFID tags in the cards are advertised as only being readable at a few centimetres' distance, like an Oyster card, but, like an Oyster card, security researchers have shown that these cards can be read at tens of metres, and can be cloned using cheap, off-the-shelf technology.

So it's fortunate that I got my spousal visa when I did, before these identity papers were made mandatory. Indeed, it's fortunate that I received my spousal visa at all, as Labour moves to limit the number of annual new visas of all kinds to 20,000 people, meaning that Britons who marry foreigners can no longer be assured that they will be able to settle and raise their families in the UK.

The national ID card does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of an unprecedented, unparalleled programme to use technology to spy upon and control the movements of people in the UK. Our internet connections are censored and wiretapped by advertisers. Soon, our ISPs will be forced to log and retain the details of all our online activity for snooping by governments, bored employees, or any crook who can hack or bribe his way into the surveillance databases. Our image is captured hundreds of times every time we leave the house. Our number-plates are photographed hundreds of times by traffic cameras, creating a record of where we've been. Our Oyster card data is logged and made available to police, snoops, crooks and anyone else with the resources to get hold of it.

We can be arrested and held for weeks without charge. Government tells academics which freely available information about terrorists they are allowed to study and what they are not allowed to look at.

We are encouraged to spy on our neighbours and report their suspicious activity. We can be stopped and searched with no particularised suspicion, and during these searches, police officers can and do examine such things as the books we're reading and the personal notes we've made.

Every one of these measures was beta-tested on less-advantaged groups before it was rolled out to the general public. CCTVs used the be the exclusive territory of bank vaults and prisons. Network wiretapping and censorship began in schools, "to protect children".

Now, we immigrants are to be the beta testers for Britain's sleepwalk into the surveillance society. We will have to carry internal passports and the press will say, "If you don't like it, you don't have to live here – it's unseemly for a guest to complain about the terms of the hospitality." But this beta test is not intended to stop with immigrants. Government freely admits that immigrants are only the first stage of a universal rollout of mandatory biometric RFID identity cards. What happens to us now will happen to you, next.

Not me, though. If the government of the day when I renew my visa in 2010 requires that I carry these papers as a condition of residence, the Doctorows will again leave their country and find a freer one. My wife – born here, raised here, with family here – is with me. We won't raise our British daughter in the database nation. It's not safe.
Click to expand...

Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top