Welcome, visitor! [ Register | Loginrss  |  tw

Met police using surveillance system to monitor mobile phones

| Police News, Public Sector News | November 1, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Met police using surveillance system to monitor mobile phones” was written by Ryan Gallagher and Rajeev Syal, for The Guardian on Sunday 30th October 2011 18.36 UTC

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: “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,” he said. “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,” he said.

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 last 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 seen by the Guardian shows the Metropolitan police paid £143,455 to Datong for “ICT hardware” in 2008/09. In 2010 the 37-year-old company, which has been publicly listed since October 2005, reported its pro forma revenue in the UK was £3.9m, and noted that “a good position is being established with new law enforcement customer groups”. In February 2011 it was paid £8,373 by Hertfordshire Constabulary according to a transaction report released under freedom of information.

Between 2004 and 2009 Datong won over $1.6 (£1.03m) in contracts with US government agencies, including the Secret Service, Special Operations Command and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In February 2010 the company won a £750,000 order to supply tracking and location technology to the US defence sector. 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.

“How can a device which invades any number of people’s privacy be proportionate?” he said. “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. 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. If you can’t do that, and the collateral implications far outweigh the evidence you’re going to get, well then you just don’t contemplate it.”

In May the Guardian revealed the Met had purchased software used to map suspects’ digital movements using data gathered from social networking sites, satnav equipment, mobile phones, financial transactions and IP network logs. The force said the software was being tested using “dummy data” to explore how it could be used to examine “police vehicle movements, crime patterns and telephone investigations.”

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 MPS [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 added: “Law enforcement agencies are required to act in accordance with the law and with the appropriate levels of authorisation for their activity.”

Datong declined to comment.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011

Care home abuse: ministers move to restore confidence

| Local Authority News, NHS News, Public Sector News | June 3, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Care home abuse: ministers move to restore confidence” was written by David Brindle and Polly Curtis, for The Guardian on Wednesday 1st June 2011 20.19 UTC

Downing Street moved to prevent a collapse of public confidence in the care of Britain’s most vulnerable citizens amid fears about the solvency of the country’s biggest residential home operator for the elderly and widespread horror at revelations of abuse in a private facility for people with learning disabilities.

Ministers abandoned their insistence that these were local issues by announcing a “guarantee” that 31,000 elderly residents of the care home chain Southern Cross would be found alternative accommodation if the company went under.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said Downing Street was in touch with Southern Cross. “Our role is to ensure we keep in close contact with what is going on and keep monitoring the situation. We will do what we can to ensure there is protection for anyone affected by this.”

The move amounted to an effective repudiation of the government’s commitment to localism.

Local authority leaders, who had been told the Southern Cross problem was a contractual issue for them to resolve, were unaware of the nature of the guarantee, but they issued their own assurance that all the company’s residents – including those who pay their own care fees – would be looked after.

Meanwhile, No 10 has demanded a full report following the disclosure by the BBC Panorama programme of systematic abuse at a unit for people with learning disabilities near Bristol run by the Castlebeck company, a firm ultimately owned by Irish tycoons JP McManus, John Magnier and Dermot Desmond.

The Department of Health had been insisting behind the scenes that it was an issue purely for the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the care sector regulator, and the local authorities and NHS primary care trusts that paid the £3,500-a-week fees for the young adults they referred there.

But the health department found itself obliged to step in. No 10 has asked for a detailed account of what the various agencies knew and did about the regime at the unit. The CQC, which failed to follow up tip-offs from a whistleblower who then contacted Panorama, has admitted its mistakes were “unforgivable”.

For ministers, there were unnerving signs that controversy over social care was seamlessly taking over from controversy over the government’s becalmed NHS shakeup, now that its “listening exercise” on complaints about the reforms has concluded pending a report. The clear link between the two in the public eye is that the NHS plans include outsourcing NHS care to “any qualified provider”.

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, who has been under increasing pressure over his NHS bill, said today he was ready to accept “substantial and significant” changes to his NHS plans. He wrote in the Daily Telegraph that sticking with the status quo was “not an option” and, without change, the NHS faced “enormous financial pressures” due to an ageing population and rising treatment costs which will undermine the health service.

“We have always been clear that we are ready to accept any changes – substantial and significant – if they help us improve care for patients,” he wrote. “When the health and social care bill comes back to parliament, people should have every confidence that we will make the changes necessary to ensure the NHS is protected for our future generations.

“We will never privatise our NHS. But if we choose to ignore the pressures on it, the health service will face a financial crisis within a matter of years that will threaten the very values we hold so dear – of a comprehensive health service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not the ability to pay. I will not allow that to happen.”

Stephen Dorrell, the former Tory health secretary who chairs the Commons health select committee, outlined arrangements for a wide-ranging inquiry by his committee in the autumn.

He said the inquiry would look broadly at the process of commissioning care and support for vulnerable adults, following a report due next month from a government commission on the funding of social care, led by the economist Andrew Dilnot.

“The questions will be about how can these stories of abuse arise,” Dorrell said. “There was Panorama yesterday, but also the report last week on care of the elderly in NHS hospitals, all the issues around Southern Cross and the CQC in particular.

“We are talking about 70% of patient load of the health service, that is people with long-term needs and conditions, and so often we focus on waiting times for elective operations. This is a far bigger issue.”

Referring to the Castlebeck case, Dorrell said: “Someone had to sign the cheque that the care home operator was being paid to provide a service of £3,000 per week. I presume the majority of those cases were paid for with public funds. The people who signed the cheque have a duty to make certain that standards are of an adequate nature.”

The Department of Health said last night: “No one will find themselves out on the street – we will not let that happen. We are ensuring, through our discussions with Southern Cross, landlords, banks and others, that everyone involved understands their collective responsibility towards the residents and works together to support the plans set out by Southern Cross. All parties involved – including other government departments and local authorities – are ready to take decisive action, if the current plans do not create a viable platform for the future.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Police buy software to map suspects’ digital movements

| Police News, Public Sector News | May 12, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Police buy software to map suspects’ digital movements” was written by Ryan Gallagher and Rajeev Syal, for The Guardian on Wednesday 11th May 2011 11.00 UTC

Britain’s largest police force is using software that can map nearly every move suspects and their associates make in the digital world, prompting an outcry from civil liberties groups.

The Metropolitan police has bought Geotime, a security programme used by the US military, which shows an individual’s movements and communications with other people on a three-dimensional graphic. It can be used to collate information gathered from social networking sites, satellite navigation equipment, mobile phones, financial transactions and IP network logs.

Police have confirmed its purchase and declined to rule out its use in investigating public order disturbances.

Campaigners and lawyers have expressed concern at how the software could be used to monitor innocent parties such as protesters in breach of data protection legislation.

Alex Hanff, the campaigns manager at Privacy International, called on the police to explain who will decide how this software will be used in future.

“Once millions and millions of pieces of microdata are aggregated, you end up with this very high-resolution picture of somebody, and this is effectively what they are doing here.

“We shouldn’t be tracked and traced and have pictures built by our own government and police for the benefit of commercial gain,” he said.

Sarah McSherry, a partner at Christian Khan Solicitors, which represents several protesters in cases against the Metropolitan police, said: “We have already seen the utilisation of a number of tactics which infringe the right to peaceful protest, privacy and freedom of expression, assembly and movement. All of these have a chilling effect on participation in peaceful protest. This latest tool could also be used in a wholly invasive way and could fly in the face of the role of the police to facilitate rather than impede the activities of democratic protesters.”

Hugh Tomlinson QC, a specialist in privacy, said a public body such as the police must be able to justify the lawfulness of how it uses the information it collects and retains.

“Storing data because it’s potentially interesting or potentially useful is not good enough. There has got to be some specific justification,” he said.

According to Geotime’s website, the programme displays data from a variety of sources, allowing the user to navigate the data with a timeline and animated display. The website claims it can also throw up previously unseen connections between individuals.

“Links between entities can represent communications, relationships, transactions, message logs, etc and are visualised over time to reveal temporal patterns and behaviours,” it reads.

The software was displayed in Britain earlier this month at the defence industry Counter Terror exhibition in Olympia, west London. Curtis Garton, product management director for Oculus, the company that markets the programme, said the Metropolitan police was the only UK police force to have purchased the software. “[There are] a few countries that we don’t sell to, but in terms of commercial sales pretty much anybody can buy,” he said.

The issue of data retention and how it is used has become a major political and judicial issue. The European justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, said in March that data protection rules also applied to data retention. “Individuals must be informed about which data is collected and for what purposes,” she said. “To be effective, data protection rights need to actually be enforced.”

The Guardian disclosed last week that an 86-year-old man had been granted permission to take legal action against police chiefs who kept a detailed record of his political activities on a clandestine database.

John Catt, who has no criminal record, is bringing the high court action against a secretive police unit that systematically logged his presence at more than 55 peace and human rights protests over a four-year period.

Some academics have praised the software as a positive move for the police in their fight against terrorist groups and organised crime.

Professor Anthony Glees, director of the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, said he was aware of tracking software such as Geotime, the use of which he described as “absolutely right”.

“There are these dangerous people out there and we need to stay ahead of the game in order to deal with the threat that they pose,” he said. “My feeling is: if it can be done, and if its purpose is the protection of the ordinary citizen that wants to go about their lawful business … then it’s absolutely fine.”

A spokesman for the Met confirmed that Geotime had been paid for, and said several possible uses for it were being assessed, including as a tool in “telephone investigations”.

He declined to clarify what a telephone investigation might be or how much the software cost. Neither could he comment on whether the software might be used during investigations into public order offences in the future.

“We are in the process of evaluating the Geotime software to explore how it could possibly be used to assist us in understanding patterns in data relating to both space and time. A decision has yet to be made as to whether we will adopt the technology [permanently]. We have used dummy data to look at how the software works and have explored how we could use it to examine police vehicle movements, crime patterns and telephone investigations,” he wrote in an email.

Alongside the Met, the Ministry of Defence is also examining Geotime. A spokesman said: “The MoD is assessing Geotime as part of its research programme but it is not currently being used on operations.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Submit an article

We welcome and actively encourage article submissions from any professional who works with, or within, the public sector which they feel may be of interest to our readers.

Submit your article here