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

Cost of English riots much higher than first thought.

| Local Authority News, Police News, Public Sector News | October 25, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Cost of English riots much higher than first thought, Met police report suggests” was written by Vikram Dodd, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 24th October 2011 13.06 UTC

The cost of the riots in England this summer could be much higher than first thought, with claims for compensation in London alone totalling as much as £300m.

A report from the Metropolitan police on the initial findings of its review of the mass disorder, said that “liabilities are currently estimated to be between £200m and £300m” for claims covering damage and loss.

In September, MPs from the Commons home affairs committee were told that the figure for compensation and policing costs nationwide had been put at £133m. Policing costs in London were put at £74m.

In London alone 3,844 claims for damages have been lodged and the Metropolitan Police Authority hopes to “fully recover all costs from the Home Office via special grant”, the report notes.

In its report, the Met also appears to reject claims officers were ordered to stand and watch as rioters trashed shops and other property: “At this stage the review has found no evidence of senior commanders requiring local commanders to not make arrests if offences were taking place; indeed, 450 arrests were made over the three nights of disorder.”

The Met admits what to many was obvious, that it did not have enough officers available on the first night of disorder, when disturbances in Tottenham, north London, stretched the police, and looting in Wood Green went on for several hours with no officers intervening.

The Met said: “With hindsight the MPS did not have enough officers available on the first night, despite the service mobilisation plan being activated and fully implemented, and the additional officers did not arrive quickly enough.”

The review says procedures will be changed so that more riot-trained officers can be deployed more quickly.

The Met will also “fully cost” the use of water cannon, but the review appears cool on this option, stating that the nature of the riots, involving small and highly mobile crowds, may have restricted its usefulness. “The use of water cannon requires a precise environment. It works most effectively against large, static crowds that are (for example) throwing missiles at police or other communities. As such it does have its tactical limitations; however, if available it could have been considered as a tactical option during this disorder.”

On baton rounds, the review says the force may have used them if more teams trained to fire them had been available across London: “Baton rounds are discriminate weapons that are fired at individuals who pose a violent threat where life is at risk. As a contingency, baton rounds were made available throughout the disorder. However, due to the fast-moving nature of the disorder and the availability of other tactical options, they were discounted.

“The review has identified that a more localised availability of this resource … might have resulted in the deployment of baton rounds. This is being further explored in the review.”

The report also said that more work would be undertaken with the government’s Centre for Applied Science and Technology to “examine new technologies” to deal with riots, but did not go into specifics.

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

Top Met officer announces retirement days after Hogan-Howe’s appointment

| Police News, Public Sector News | September 16, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Top Met officer announces retirement days after Hogan-Howe’s appointment” was written by Sandra Laville, crime correspondent, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 14th September 2011 12.09 UTC

One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers has announced his decision to retire within days of the incoming commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, taking over.

The assistant commissioner Ian McPherson said he would stand down at the end of this year to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

McPherson was in charge of territorial policing, and leaves at a time when burglary and robbery are on the rise, despite a number of initiatives he has introduced to target these crimes.

He was brought in by Sir Paul Stephenson and joined the Met from the Norfolk constabulary.

His departure leaves a gap at the top of Scotland Yard, where the senior management team has already been reshuffled following the departure of John Yates as head of counter-terrorism.

Rumours that McPherson was going to resign a few weeks ago were denied at the time. But McPherson said on Wednesday he would be retiring by the end of the year.

He added: “I’d like to thank my team and the men and women of my command who every day go out to protect and serve the public – often putting their own lives at risk.”

Hogan-Howe, who was selected as the new commissioner on Monday, said McPherson would be “sorely missed” and commended him for initiatives to cut red tape and waste at the Met.

McPherson is one of many officers who have reached their retirement age. His departure comes a less than a year before the London 2012 Olympics.

Fedorcio ‘did not ask Neil Wallis about phone hacking before appointing him’

| Police News, Public Sector News | July 19, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Fedorcio ‘did not ask Neil Wallis about phone hacking before appointing him’” was written by Peter Walker, for guardian.co.uk on Tuesday 19th July 2011 10.57 UTC

Dick Fedorcio, the head of communications at the Metropolitan police, never asked the News of the World’s former deputy editor Neil Wallis about phone hacking before giving him a contract to assist the force with PR, Fedorcio has told a parliamentary committee.

Fedorcio – who was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) over the his dealings with Wallis shortly before giving evidence to the House of Commons home affairs select committee – said he left any checks over the appointment to John Yates, who has stepped down as an assistant commissioner.

“He said to me that as far as he was concerned, having spoken to Mr Wallis, there was nothing that could embarrass us in this appointment,” he said. Fedorcio, 58, told the MPs he did this despite knowing that Yates was a friend of Wallis, who was arrested and bailed last week by detectives investigating hacking. He told the MPs: “I had no reason to doubt Mr Yates’s integrity.”

Giving evidence directly afterwards, Yates said he had merely “sought assurances” in a single phone call to Wallis that nothing would come to light implicating him in the hacking scandal. “What I did was not due diligence in the truest sense,” he said. Yates added that he was not a close friend of Wallis but merely saw him “two or three times a year”, mainly to go to sporting events.

Wallis was deputy editor of the News of the World under Andy Coulson when the paper was alleged to have been engaged in large-scale phone hacking, before leaving to set up his own PR consultancy, Chamy Media. Shortly afterwards, in October 2009, he won a two-day-per-month contract to assist the force, worth £24,000 a year.

Fedorcio said he needed assistance with corporate PR as his deputy was on long-term sick leave. Following advice from the force’s procurement department he requested three tenders for the contract, with Chamy submitting “by far” the lowest bid. Even though the Met had recently re-investigated alleged phone hacking at the News of the World, Fedorcio said, he had no worries about giving Wallis the contract given that Yates carried out “due diligence”.

Facing questioning from the MPs, Fedorcio said Yates appeared well placed to carry out this role as “he had been leading the work on phone hacking”. He told the committee that he had only “in the past few years” learned of the pair’s friendship. He added: “I knew he (Yates) had contact with Mr Wallis but I did not know he was a close friend of Mr Wallis.”

Fedorcio said he had met Wallis previously “on a number of occasions” but they were not friends. He added that he could not recall who suggested the ex-journalist as someone from whom to request a tender bid, but that he “did not believe” it was someone from News International.

The contract with Wallis ended in September 2010 following the publication of a New York Times article making new allegations about phone hacking.

Keith Vaz, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, warned Fedorcio he could well be called back to give more evidence, saying: “I’m not sure if we’re any clearer about matters than before we started.”

Before Fedorcio gave evidence a brief Scotland Yard statement said the force had referred Fedorcio to the IPCC. It added: “The context of this referral is in connection with the ongoing high-level public interest in the relationship between News International and the MPS [Metropolitan police service] and, in particular, the relationship between Neil Wallis and Mr Fedorcio and the circumstances under which the contract was awarded to Chamy Media.”

Fedorcio took over as the Met’s director of public affairs in September 1997, after a career mainly spent in local government PR.

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Tomlinson police officer to face manslaughter trial

| Police News, Public Sector News | May 24, 2011

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Tomlinson police officer to face manslaughter trial” was written by Paul Lewis, for The Guardian on Tuesday 24th May 2011 10.07 UTC

A police officer will face trial for manslaughter over the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.

PC Simon Harwood, 43, a Metropolitan police officer, will face a criminal prosecution for striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him to the ground in April 2009.

Tomlinson, 47, had been trying to make his way home from work through demonstrations near the Bank of England when he was pushed from behind. He collapsed and died three minutes later.

Three weeks ago an inquest jury decided Tomlinson was “unlawfully killed”.

The director of public prosections, Keir Starmer, had announced in July last year that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution due to complications relating to medical evidence.

However, he said in a statement today that new information had emerged during the inquest and, while difficulties remained, he now believed there was sufficient evidence to bring criminal proceedings.

“Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson,” he said. “That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

“Accordingly, a summons charging PC Harwood with the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson has been obtained from the City of Westminster magistrates court. He will appear before that court on 20 June 2011.”

The DPP said the inquest had allowed “a degree of clarity” to emerge and had resolved some complications relating to medical evidence.

The judge presiding over the inquest as assistant deputy coroner had reminded jurors repeatedly that the five-week hearing was not a criminal trial or designed to apportion blame for Tomlinson’s death.

Judge Peter Thornton QC said on the opening day of proceedings: “An inquest is very different from cases in other courts. Nobody is on trial. No organisation is on trial. You, as the jury, will not decide any question of criminal or civil liability. That is why you are a jury of 11, for example, a historically different number to a jury in criminal cases.”

Jurors were told there were two possible explanations for Tomlinson’s death. The first pathologist to examine his body, Dr Freddy Patel, concluded that he died of coronary artery disease.

However, three other forensic pathologists disagreed, concluding that he died of internal bleeding.

On 3 May, the inquest jury returned a verdict of “unlawful killing”, stating that Tomlinson died as a result of internal bleeding in the abdomen. The Crown Prosecution Service immediately said it would review its earlier decision not to bring criminal proceedings against Harwood.

In a detailed statement setting out the reversal of his earlier decision, Starmer said: “The difficulty facing any prosecution in relation to the death of Mr Tomlinson lies in the conflicting medical evidence about the cause of death. That difficulty remains.

“A criminal trial is different to an inquest and it is my duty to ensure that a prosecution is only brought where there is evidence available to the prosecution that provides a realistic prospect of a jury being able to satisfy themselves beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. For that reason very careful consideration is required where there is conflicting medical evidence.

“However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered.”

The DPP indicated that the inquest process had itself been important. “But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge.”

He added: “We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed.

“Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain.”

Starmer reminded the media that care should be taken to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings against Harwood. “He has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial.”

Ian Tomlinson’s son Paul King said in a statement on behalf of the family: “We welcome today’s decision to bring a charge of manslaughter against the officer. We believe this is the right decision. What we have always wanted is to achieve justice for Ian and to show that police officers are not above the law.”

Responding to the CPS decision, Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said: “This is clearly a very, very serious matter for all concerned.

“I have got to be very, very concerned at an inquest verdict that returns a verdict of unlawful killing involving, as the inquest did, one of my police officers. My sympathies continue to be with the Tomlinson family.”

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