NEW POLICE POWERS 2

Civil liberties group raises concerns over the Met's purchase of technology to track public mobile phones over a targeted area. Britain's largest police force is operating covert surveillance technology that can masquerade as a mobile phone network, transmitting a signal that allows authorities to shut off phones remotely, intercept communications and gather data about thousands of users in a targeted area. The surveillance system has been procured by the Metropolitan police from Leeds-based company Datong plc, which counts the US Secret Service, the Ministry of Defence and regimes in the Middle East among its customers.

Strictly classified under government protocol as "Listed X", it can emit a signal over an area of up to an estimated 10 sq km, forcing hundreds of mobile phones per minute to release their unique IMSI and IMEI identity codes, which can be used to track a person's movements in real time. The disclosure has caused concern among lawyers and privacy groups that large numbers of innocent people could be unwittingly implicated in covert intelligence gathering. The Met has refused to confirm whether the system is used in public order situations, such as during large protests or demonstrations.

Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, warned the technology could give police the ability to conduct "blanket and indiscriminate" monitoring. He said, "It raises a number of serious civil liberties concerns and clarification is urgently needed on when and where this technology has been deployed, and what data has been gathered. Such invasive surveillance must be tightly regulated, authorised at the highest level and only used in the most serious of investigations. It should be absolutely clear that only data directly relating to targets of investigations is monitored or stored."

Datong's website says its products are designed to provide law enforcement, military, security agencies and special forces with the means to "gather early intelligence in order to identify and anticipate threat and illegal activity before it can be deployed". The company's systems, showcased at the DSEi arms fair in east London earlier this month, allow authorities to intercept SMS messages and phone calls by secretly duping mobile phones within range into operating on a false network, where they can be subjected to "intelligent denial of service". This function is designed to cut off a phone used as a trigger for an explosive device.

A transceiver around the size of a suitcase can be placed in a vehicle or at another static location and operated remotely by officers wirelessly. Datong also offers clandestine portable transceivers with "covered antennae options available". Datong sells its products to nearly 40 countries around the world, including in Eastern Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia Pacific. In 2009 it was refused an export licence to ship technology worth £0.8m to an unnamed Asia Pacific country, after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills judged it could be used to commit human rights abuses.

A document shows the Metropolitan police paid £143,455 to Datong for "ICT hardware" in 2008/09. Official records also show Datong entered into contracts worth more than £500,000 with the Ministry of Defence in 2009. All covert surveillance is currently regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which states that to intercept communications a warrant must be personally authorised by the home secretary and be both necessary and proportionate.

The terms of Ripa allow phone calls and SMS messages to be intercepted in the interests of national security, to prevent and detect serious crime, or to safeguard the UK's economic wellbeing. Latest figures produced by the government-appointed interception of communications commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, show there were 1,682 interception warrants approved by the home secretary in 2010. Public authorities can request other communications data, such as the date, time and location a phone call was made, without the authority of the home secretary. In 2010, 552,550 such requests were made, averaging around 1,500 per day.

Barrister Jonathan Lennon, who specialises in cases involving covert intelligence and Ripa, said the Met's use of the Datong surveillance system raised significant legislative questions about proportionality and intrusion into privacy. He said, "How can a device which invades any number of people's privacy be proportionate? There needs to be clarification on whether interception of multiple people's communications, when you can't even necessarily identify who the people are, is complaint with the act. It may be another case of the technology racing ahead of the legislation."

He added, "Because if this technology now allows multiple tracking and intercept to take place at the same time, I would have thought that was not what parliament had in mind when it drafted Ripa." Former detective superintendent Bob Helm, who had the authority to sign off Ripa requests for covert surveillance during 31 years of service with Lancashire Constabulary, said, "It's all very well placed in terms of legislation … when you can and can't do it. It's got to be legal and obviously proportionate and justified."

The Met would not comment on its use of Datong technology or give details of where or when it had been used. A spokesman said, "The Metropolitan police service may employ surveillance technology as part of our continuing efforts to ensure the safety of Londoners and detect criminality. It can be a vital and highly effective investigative tool. Although we do not discuss specific technology or tactics, we can re-assure those who live and work in London that any activity we undertake is in compliance with legislation and codes of practice."

A spokesman for the Home Office said covert surveillance was kept under "constant review" by the chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, who monitors the conduct of authorities and ensures they are complying with the appropriate legislation. He adde, "Law enforcement agencies are required to act in accordance with the law and with the appropriate levels of authorisation for their activity." (Source: The Guardian, Oct/11)

Police powers designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public. The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London. The measure, being pushed through by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will deploy some of the most powerful tools available to detectives against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders.

The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation. Paul McKeever said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate. An “explanatory memorandum” says that a swath of financial investigators attached to the newly empowered bodies will be accredited, trained and monitored by another quango, the National Policing Improvement Agency.

The memo adds that asset seizure will result in financial rewards: “Investigation bodies will receive a share of money recovered as additional funding to incentivise further work in recovering the proceeds of crime.” Councils and other bodies had access to asset recovery powers before but only with with the authorisation and involvement of the police. Now they will be able to act independently of any police force or law enforcement agency. The memo says councils and quangos will employ “trained internal financial investigators” and be “less reliant on more traditional law enforcement agencies, notably the police”. (Source: Times Online, Oct/09)

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act will mean there will be almost no offence where the police cannot make an arrest and insist on taking DNA and photographs. Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a balance was struck between police powers and the individual's rights. There was a clear distinction between non-arrestable offences, arrestable offences and serious arrestable offences. Everyone knew where they stood and the public was protected from officious or malevolently motivated police constables.

From 2006, there will be no such distinction. Every offence will be arrestable. That means motoring infringements, dropping litter, swearing and behaving loudly in a demonstration will very likely end in arrest. For all but a truly minor crime, the officer is empowered, using force, if necessary, to take a sample of the suspect's DNA from his mouth, to photograph and fingerprint him and, finally, to take impressions of his footwear.

Remember, at this stage, the suspect is just that, a suspect. He has not been found guilty by a court and, under British law, is therefore presumed innocent. And yet he has been forced to submit to a humiliating process as though he were about to enter prison. This goes against the tradition of Britain's regard for liberty and the sense that the public is largely well-meaning and well-behaved.

As important is the effect it will have on the police who, according to the white paper last year, requested this simplification with the unbelievable claim that officers found it difficult to make distinctions between non-arrestable and arrestable offences. Most solicitors who deal with the police on a daily basis are convinced that these new powers criminalise the public. Because every offence becomes arrestable, it is unlikely that someone held by the police will be able to make a case for an unlawful arrest. (Source: The Observer)

<<< Prev