As if we didn’t know already……..?

Watching Us…..Watching You……Local Authorities using covert surveillance legislation for reasons other than it was specifically intended…..a real or imaginary threat to civil liberties?

We’re back, after more than nineteen months and two court cases. No surprises then, as we get ourselves organized in the run up to exposing yet more corruption at every level in the power structure, from Councils and Public Authorities, to the Police and what used to be the Public Utilities, a number of local authorities, 186 in total, have finally been caught out by a mass FOI request into details of their over zealous use of covert surveillance powers, originally enacted by Parliament as a means of targeting Organized Crime and Terrorism, for minor infractions such as dog fouling and fly tipping. For Anonymous veterans of #opBigBrother this should come as no surprise, but to many ordinary people who pay their taxes and go about their day to day business blissfully unaware of what is really going on behind the scenes, much of this will come as a very nasty shock indeed.

The original legislation that has enabled them to do this was the so called ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000’, which is described in its own introductory text as: ‘An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for Commissioners and a tribunal with functions and jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes.’

In essence, the act is regulated by means of the application of specific warrants in a situation which, in the words of the Guardian newspaper, is intended ‘to allow law agencies to catch up technologically with the increasingly sophisticated tools used by terrorists, drug smugglers and organised criminal gangs.’ Its use for more mundane and trivial infractions such as dog fouling, littering and feeding pigeons, matters that should to all intents and purposes be dealt with by local authority Street Wardens, or in the case of minor acts of anti-social behaviour, by Police Community Support Officers, both of whom have adequate powers to deal with such matters effectively, is, to say the least, excessive.

Indeed, the recent revelations published in the Guardian, based in turn on a mass Freedom of Information Act carried out by the Liberal Democrats, to which only 186 of the 283 local authorities approached actually responded, has made Britain the laughing stock in countries which our own press and media have sought to demonize as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘undemocratic’. Perhaps the most shining example of this is the Russian news service RT, which has stepped into the breach that the Guardian left behind when it adopted a more Centrist Neoliberalist approach to its political commentaries following the fall of the Major Government and the rise and rise of Blairite Populism at the end of the nineteen nineties.

Indeed, in an article published on its website on Monday 26th December, as a follow up to the Guardian piece of the previous day, RT journalists were swift to point out that ‘Critics say that Ripa was purportedly intended only to be used when absolutely necessary to protect British citizens from extreme threats such as terrorism – not dog fouling or other petty crimes.’ A matter raised in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Paddick, who was quoted by both sources as saying: “It is absurd that local authorities are using measures primarily intended for combating terrorism for issues as trivial as a dog barking or the sale of theatre tickets. Spying on the public should be a last resort not an everyday tool.”

So what happens when the private citizen subjects these same local authorities and their partner agencies to the same robust methods of scrutiny as they subject ordinary citizens to, but in a specific context for which no warrant is actually required? Watch this space for details in the coming weeks and months and find out……

ACLU app lets you automatically send videos of police encounters

Interesting post about how to keep tabs on those who are trying to keep tabs on you!

Audio Visual Communication

In a time when nearly everyone, regardless of income, seems to have a smartphone, the ACLU has come up with something that could help during your next encounter with an overzealous law enforcement officer: an instant reporting app Mobile Justice CA…

Source: mashable.com

tThe app also allows you to turn on GPS tracking so that you can be notified if anyone else using the app near your location reports an incident…

See on Scoop.it – #Communication

View original post

A Visit from the Police

With the political situation in the United States on a virtual war footing from the point of view of internal security in the wake of the Boston Bombings, the question of electronic and video surveillance is once again a red hot news topic: just as the question of Drones and Drone Warfare raised the self same issues, comparatively recently, in the wake of the Dorner Affair. The particular relevance of the Boston Bombings to one or two specific points raised by Anonymous as part of the internet debate that they were to start in the wake of their initiation of #opbigbrother during the second half of 2012 is that, as is so often the case, in spite of the vast number of security cameras in the vicinity of where the bombs were detonated the ‘Authorities’ failed to catch those responsible before the explosions went off.

In view of this, it is perhaps significant that the primary reason why most domestic users of CCTV, who, for the most part comprise those with something genuine to lose in their offices, houses or garages, by way of personal property, do so, is for the purpose of crime prevention. Arms of government on the other hand, whether civilian or military, are more concerned with the use of such hardware for the purpose of social control. This considered, it is perhaps significant, that in a large number of cases, those who see themselves as ‘being in control’ will do anything and everything in their power to ensure that the means of surveillance, by whatever means, are kept out of the hands of ordinary people; even if they turn out to be repeat victims of crime. This is particularly true in cases where the various manifestations of local government responsible for the implementation and enforcement of local by laws, and other inter-related legislation designed to regulate the use of such devices, with particular reference to their siting in communal areas, both public and domestic, to which members of society at large have unrestricted access, are engaged in activities which are directly related to social control. Activities which, more often than not, have some sort of corrupt or criminal agenda of their own.

One such repeat victim of crime is County Durham pensioner John Arthur Marley, who we encountered in our last posting. For years Mr. Marley has been subjected to threats, abuse, and intimidation by his neighbours, as well as having his car and the fence around his bungalow repeatedly vandalized. So, during the Summer of 2009, he made the first of a number of attempts to try and put a stop to what was being done to him by purchasing an everyday digital stills and video camera. What happened next was perhaps what you might expect in a society in which those who see themselves as being in control view themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what is and isn’t legal: regardless of what it actually says on the statute book. He got a visit from the Police!

The embedded sound file at the top of this posting consists of a conversation between Mr. Marley and two officers from Bishop Auckland Police Office, who we shall encounter again not only in the future postings on this blog, but also some re-postings of some earlier material due to run on another, parallel, thread. In spite of the fact that Mr. Marley is the repeat victim of crime, the sound recording that can be heard here gives the impression that the Police view him as the perpetrator of something criminal: although what, exactly, is at this stage unclear.

Taking this into account, it is well worth considering the little known fact that Bishop Auckland Police Office is itself perhaps the only Police Station in the U.K. to have a plaque mounted on the wall of the reception area which openly advertises the grim reality that the premises were originally opened by a convicted criminal: in the person of former Chair of Durham County Council, and one time Chair of Durham Police Authority, Alderman Andrew Cunningham: Father of one time Blair Cabinet Enforcer Jack Cunningham. Of further significance perhaps, as a much publicized Bilderberg Conference looms in the Party and Protest Calendar directly ahead of us, is that Cunningham’s alleged partner in crime was former Tory Home Secretary Reginald Maudling: a renowned former member of the Bilderberg Group, whose relationship with Cunningham was to lead to some interesting developments in political history, the ramifications of which are still being felt today. As the postings on this ongoing thread roll out in the days, weeks and months to come, we shall see that what looks at first glance to be the comparatively insignificant story of an Old Age Pensioner up against the system, has far more sinister ramifications of its own than we could ever imagine: ramifications that ultimately affect us all.

First Get Your Camera…….

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gave a large number of powers to public bodies across the UK in relation to CCTV and other forms of surveillance, and their use in matters directly related to enforcement. Although originally drafted for the purpose of dealing with terrorism and the passing of encrypted data files over the internet, the Act has been used by local authorities across the UK for dealing with such mundane and day to day issues as dog fouling, parking offences and littering. In an age when big bucks can be made from fixed penalty notices served on generally law abiding citizens, who, as a rule, are more than likely to pay them, the Act has given some councils a sufficiently easy source of extra revenue to attract the attention of the mainstream  media in a significant number of cases, not to mention the consternation of those who find themselves being policed unawares by the Big Brother cameras by which they are continually surrounded.

But what happens when those who usually find themselves on the receiving end of such intrusive surveillance procedures start to apply the same techniques to those who have been actively watching and listening in to them? The results can vary considerably. Often, the problem consists of trying to install your camera legally in the first place. Particularly if you live in social housing for example. In the South West Durham coalfield in the North of England low level crime and anti-social behaviour have plagued many communities for decades. During the so called ‘Thatcher Era’, colonial methods of policing in which known criminals and trouble makers appear to have been used by the Police to stop Working Class people from organizing themselves collectively, fear of crime is still quite often way out of proportion to actual crime: statistics wise at any rate. However, for those who question authority and stick their heads up above the parapet harassment and anti-social behaviour are still an every day issue to contend with.

One such repeat victim of regular harassment, anti-social nuisance, criminal damage and low level theft has been Bishop Auckland pensioner John Arthur Marley, who, after more than two years of being messed about by the housing association from whom he rents his bungalow, decided to initiate an official complaint with the help of another local resident. In spite of having been given a guarantee by a local Police Beat Inspector that he would assist him in what is, to all intents and purposes, a crime prevention activity which the Police are supposed to be actively encouraging, the Housing Association had repeatedly sidelined his requests, keeping him tied up in as much red tape as was humanly possible. And, when a more experienced friend attempted to help him with this on going problem, he was to find himself accused of attempting to bully the staff member who the pair of them had approached in an endeavour to get things moving.

A sound recording of what was actually said, to which the Chair of Etherley Parish Council and other interested parties have been given access, is currently lodged with Clark Willis Solicitors, Darlington, and is likely to be referred to a number of other relevant individuals and organizations in due course. Those who have had access to this material thus far are themselves now fully aware that the substance of what can actually be heard differs considerably from the words which Mr. Marley’s friend and associate was accused of using; when the pair of them subsequently exercised their rights as tenants, by booking an appointment for a face to face meeting with those directly responsible for the pensioner’s plight, after more than two years of messing about. The fact that this recording bears little or no resemblance to what he actually said at the time also means that, as such, the extract from the letter that the accused himself was subsequently to receive, in the wake of the meeting at which this sound file was actually recorded, is little more than a tissue of lies.

In the regular updates to this on going blog we shall expose what appear to be the hidden motivations for the continuous attempts by those in authority to prevent the average citizen, the ordinary man or woman in the street, from applying the very same methods of recording and surveillance to them, that they apply to us, on a daily basis throughout the U.K. and beyond. And, in so doing, we shall expose the hidden world of criminality and corruption that permeates every level of the system, from its highest levels within the Cabinet Office, to the minions in the Jobcentres, Council offices and other official departments across the UK, at local and national level simultaneously. Getting the drop on Big Brother in a street level response to Anonymous #opBigBrother…..

AnonSecSurveillance

Watching us….Watching them…Watching you…..