The Met commissioner: Tech giants make it impossible to stop terrorists(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The Met commissioner: Tech giants make it impossible to stop terrorists
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58537599
53 comments
Jean Charles de Menezes was 27 when he was murdered by police officers at Stockwell Station in London, a few weeks after the July 7th attacks in 2005.
He was wearing a suspiciously big jacket when he left his flat. He lived near someone who was being surveilled in relation to the attacks, and word went over the radios that a guy was coming - the guy is coming - he's going into the tube - look at the jacket, he must be wearing a bomb belt... he was rushed by cops, pinned to the ground(!) and shot in the head. That was that for Jean Charles. Another innocent fallen on the home front of the terror wars.
There was a dragged out, unsatisfactory investigation, and some grumbling, unconvincing placement of blame, no punishments and no change to procedures. All these years after it still makes me mad as hell.
He was wearing a suspiciously big jacket when he left his flat. He lived near someone who was being surveilled in relation to the attacks, and word went over the radios that a guy was coming - the guy is coming - he's going into the tube - look at the jacket, he must be wearing a bomb belt... he was rushed by cops, pinned to the ground(!) and shot in the head. That was that for Jean Charles. Another innocent fallen on the home front of the terror wars.
There was a dragged out, unsatisfactory investigation, and some grumbling, unconvincing placement of blame, no punishments and no change to procedures. All these years after it still makes me mad as hell.
He was not wearing a suspiciously big jacket. That was a lie propagated by the police, which evidently many people still believe.
See eg
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tube-shooting-wh...
See eg
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tube-shooting-wh...
I see. Thank you for that. I'm not English but I was there at the time and I remember most of these stories - that he jumped the barrier and looked Asian and all that, all crap.
I actually also heard that the police man shouted "yippie ki-yay, motherfucker" before firing, maybe I'll start repeating that one instead.
I actually also heard that the police man shouted "yippie ki-yay, motherfucker" before firing, maybe I'll start repeating that one instead.
The barrier/jacket lies quietly came out about a week or two after, I think.
I remember thinking at the time that whomever was in charge and responsible for the attempted coverup and the lies would have to be fired.
Still cant quite believe they'd be fully in charge and lecturing us about how to catch a terrorist a decade later.
I remember thinking at the time that whomever was in charge and responsible for the attempted coverup and the lies would have to be fired.
Still cant quite believe they'd be fully in charge and lecturing us about how to catch a terrorist a decade later.
> Her main achievement since becoming commissioner was obstructing an investigation into police corruption
I think you have your answer. She’s a “team player” as far as the police ans the government are concerned. As with any organisation, promotions are contingent not on doing a ‘good’ job, but on doing what the higher ups consider to be in their interests. It would seem the senior management in her department have made their priorities clear
I think you have your answer. She’s a “team player” as far as the police ans the government are concerned. As with any organisation, promotions are contingent not on doing a ‘good’ job, but on doing what the higher ups consider to be in their interests. It would seem the senior management in her department have made their priorities clear
You do what is a measured, not what is right. That's how you succeed in corporate America at least.
Skill in covering up failure is the key to success in British politics. Have you seen our Prime Minister?
I’ve noticed she always (at least publicly) backs her officers no matter how badly they mess up. I guess that makes her popular in the force.
[deleted]
That explains the massive number of terror attacks we’ve seen in London then.
The most effective way we reduced terror attacks in the past was with negotiated peace in Northern Ireland. Effectiveness of attacks was also reduced with physical security like cast iron/concrete bollards making truck bombs (or more recent developments like driving a van into lots of people) harder. Terror attacks in the U.K. today tend to come from poorly organised Islamists and neo-nazis who don’t really do significant amounts of harm (but maybe you would disagree with me on that—the IRA were mostly interested in harming property rather than people unlike today’s attackers) and I’m not really suggesting negotiated peace here. I suspect that increased prosperity (and people being optimistic about their futures) in the U.K. and perhaps certain places abroad would reduce attacks but obviously that is hard to achieve and any effect is hard to measure.
Perhaps technology companies and encryption would be a bigger deal if terrorists were more competent but at the moment their opsec seems poor with many foiled plots (apparently—maybe these plots were exaggerated or never really viable) and only minor successes.
The most effective way we reduced terror attacks in the past was with negotiated peace in Northern Ireland. Effectiveness of attacks was also reduced with physical security like cast iron/concrete bollards making truck bombs (or more recent developments like driving a van into lots of people) harder. Terror attacks in the U.K. today tend to come from poorly organised Islamists and neo-nazis who don’t really do significant amounts of harm (but maybe you would disagree with me on that—the IRA were mostly interested in harming property rather than people unlike today’s attackers) and I’m not really suggesting negotiated peace here. I suspect that increased prosperity (and people being optimistic about their futures) in the U.K. and perhaps certain places abroad would reduce attacks but obviously that is hard to achieve and any effect is hard to measure.
Perhaps technology companies and encryption would be a bigger deal if terrorists were more competent but at the moment their opsec seems poor with many foiled plots (apparently—maybe these plots were exaggerated or never really viable) and only minor successes.
> Perhaps technology companies and encryption would be a bigger deal if terrorists were more competent but at the moment their opsec seems poor with many foiled plots
Exactly, attackers usually have piss poor OpSec but the police is even more incompetent. That’s why even for the few successful attacks it’s usually later reported “the attacker was known to the police” or “under surveillance by security services “, and yet… not sure how more surveillance would help, it seems they already have more leads than they can act upon.
(Disclaimer: I don’t know how many unsuccessful attacks there are, so maybe they’re not as incompetent as it seems from outside.)
Exactly, attackers usually have piss poor OpSec but the police is even more incompetent. That’s why even for the few successful attacks it’s usually later reported “the attacker was known to the police” or “under surveillance by security services “, and yet… not sure how more surveillance would help, it seems they already have more leads than they can act upon.
(Disclaimer: I don’t know how many unsuccessful attacks there are, so maybe they’re not as incompetent as it seems from outside.)
I assume lone wolf attackers are harder to foil.
Personally I don’t really mind if security services are stretched a bit thin as it makes overreaching harder (but perhaps being stretched thin makes them want more mass surveillance)
Personally I don’t really mind if security services are stretched a bit thin as it makes overreaching harder (but perhaps being stretched thin makes them want more mass surveillance)
Do you have examples of the neo-nazi attacks?
Off the top of my head, broadly right-wing attacks include the murders of Jo Cox and Md Saleem. There was also this incident: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-stabbed-during-vio.... I may have forgotten some.
[deleted]
Not sure if by Neo-nazi you mean right wing terrorist attacks, but a growing number have been foiled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58512901
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58512901
>a growing number have been foiled
The lesson here being that plots are foiled without breaking encryption for everyone.
I'd sooner trust an honest police chief who just admitted "Look. What we really want is to be able to snoop thru your personal data anytime we like, preferably w/o any oversight."
The lesson here being that plots are foiled without breaking encryption for everyone.
I'd sooner trust an honest police chief who just admitted "Look. What we really want is to be able to snoop thru your personal data anytime we like, preferably w/o any oversight."
Right, Neo-nazi was too specific a word to use. I was generally referring to far-right (or often the mix of far-right and some psychological condition) attacks. A recentish example is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack
Is that a problem there?
Looking at this long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...
all I'm seeing is "a neo-Nazi with paranoid schizophrenia carried out nail bomb attacks over three weekends" in 1999.
Looking at this long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...
all I'm seeing is "a neo-Nazi with paranoid schizophrenia carried out nail bomb attacks over three weekends" in 1999.
Yes, there are a number of banned neo-Nazi organizations in the UK. Combat 18 is probably the most well-known (British Movement, White Wolves...there are a few).
These groups are offshoots of political parties, as fascist parties started to splinter in the 90s as it became less acceptable to be overly racist/fascist. Under Tyndall the BNP, which was a political party, was very violent (Combat 18 supposedly provided "protection" for their rallies). No terrorism but organising attacks on minority groups certainly (in the early 90s before Nazi groups went underground, there was a strong link with football hooliganism as certain clubs had groups that were overtly racist...Birmingham's firm is the only one I am aware of that wasn't racist). Tbh, these groups are more like criminal gangs in the US than anything else (and they had very little electoral success until Griffin moved the party away from overt fascism).
Also, it is worth pointing out that Copeland was a member of the BNP. He was obviously a nutjob but he was closely associated with the party, and the overt racism/violent rallies was still part of the BNP until the late 90s (and even after Griffin took over).
The UK also had a brief period in the early 2000s, before Islamic terrorism really took off and after right-wing groups started to really lose steam, where environmental terrorism was the main source of attacks. Environmental groups sent anthrax to academics who experimented with animals, and groups (iirc, ALF) were trying to bomb animal testing facilities (that is why animal testing facilities in the UK usually have multiple rings of barbed wire 20ft high, guard posts, cameras everywhere...I actually live near one of these places, and it was built when this was picking up: no signposts at all, tiny one-car road down to the facility, forest completely surrounds it so you can't see it from anywhere else, not built near any main road).
Btw, the whole premise of the original argument is ludicrous...these groups know they are being watched. I am sure that online communications are used after suspect has been identified but indoctrination is largely happening within in-person groups. With Islamic fundamentalism, it is same mosques, it is the same groups of people. I don't think any level of surveillance will stop lone wolf attacks either.
These groups are offshoots of political parties, as fascist parties started to splinter in the 90s as it became less acceptable to be overly racist/fascist. Under Tyndall the BNP, which was a political party, was very violent (Combat 18 supposedly provided "protection" for their rallies). No terrorism but organising attacks on minority groups certainly (in the early 90s before Nazi groups went underground, there was a strong link with football hooliganism as certain clubs had groups that were overtly racist...Birmingham's firm is the only one I am aware of that wasn't racist). Tbh, these groups are more like criminal gangs in the US than anything else (and they had very little electoral success until Griffin moved the party away from overt fascism).
Also, it is worth pointing out that Copeland was a member of the BNP. He was obviously a nutjob but he was closely associated with the party, and the overt racism/violent rallies was still part of the BNP until the late 90s (and even after Griffin took over).
The UK also had a brief period in the early 2000s, before Islamic terrorism really took off and after right-wing groups started to really lose steam, where environmental terrorism was the main source of attacks. Environmental groups sent anthrax to academics who experimented with animals, and groups (iirc, ALF) were trying to bomb animal testing facilities (that is why animal testing facilities in the UK usually have multiple rings of barbed wire 20ft high, guard posts, cameras everywhere...I actually live near one of these places, and it was built when this was picking up: no signposts at all, tiny one-car road down to the facility, forest completely surrounds it so you can't see it from anywhere else, not built near any main road).
Btw, the whole premise of the original argument is ludicrous...these groups know they are being watched. I am sure that online communications are used after suspect has been identified but indoctrination is largely happening within in-person groups. With Islamic fundamentalism, it is same mosques, it is the same groups of people. I don't think any level of surveillance will stop lone wolf attacks either.
That's a good answer, although the neo-Nazi groups appear more dangerous in terms of what they might do not what they do.
It seems to me that the real threat here isn't so much terrorism (or things that rhyme) but given the amount of surveillance in the UK just which sorts of terrorism are allowed by the government.
Groups that are allowed to do bad things become a sort of defacto government paramilitary. That's the case where there's a real force multiplier.
It seems to me that the real threat here isn't so much terrorism (or things that rhyme) but given the amount of surveillance in the UK just which sorts of terrorism are allowed by the government.
Groups that are allowed to do bad things become a sort of defacto government paramilitary. That's the case where there's a real force multiplier.
I grew up in this environment. These people are extraordinarily violent: football hooligans are violent, and English hooligans are notorious throughout Europe (someone was killed during Euro 2020). In the 90s, some grounds were genuinely unsafe. And I lived in London when Copeland was planting bombs...it went on for weeks, a guy running around the city planting nail bombs in crowded areas. Jo Cox murdered. Combat 18 were linked to the murder of a politician in Germany last year. As these groups have gone underground, they have become more dangerous not less.
Also, the reason why these groups exist is because they splintered out of political organizations. They weren't tolerated at any time but the BNP did not broadcast the violence or their links to it publicly. There is a distinction between a group like Britain First, which has people who are clearly dangerous but they retain a political profile, and Combat 18 who are active neo-Nazis like Atomwaffen in the US. Terrorist organizations are banned in the UK, there is a huge amount of surveillance of these groups.
Also, the reason why these groups exist is because they splintered out of political organizations. They weren't tolerated at any time but the BNP did not broadcast the violence or their links to it publicly. There is a distinction between a group like Britain First, which has people who are clearly dangerous but they retain a political profile, and Combat 18 who are active neo-Nazis like Atomwaffen in the US. Terrorist organizations are banned in the UK, there is a huge amount of surveillance of these groups.
> Effectiveness of attacks was also reduced with physical security like cast iron/concrete bollards making truck bombs.
Somewhat off topic, but I do wonder if some of these have been a net negative in terms of people injured. Shortly after someone drove a van along the pavement on Westminster Bridge all the major bridges had concrete barriers built between the road and pavement, and while I see the reasoning for it, it does seem to me that cyclists who could previously fall relatively harmlessly onto the pavement if caught alongside a bus or other vehicle are now going to be dragged along a concrete blockade instead.
Somewhat off topic, but I do wonder if some of these have been a net negative in terms of people injured. Shortly after someone drove a van along the pavement on Westminster Bridge all the major bridges had concrete barriers built between the road and pavement, and while I see the reasoning for it, it does seem to me that cyclists who could previously fall relatively harmlessly onto the pavement if caught alongside a bus or other vehicle are now going to be dragged along a concrete blockade instead.
Yeah I dislike a lot of the barriers on the bridges. Even the large iron/concrete barriers on the pavement are inconvenient for pedestrians (they are narrow choke points if a lot of people are crossing and must be particularly bad for those in wheelchairs.) I would much rather they were bollards that were easier for people to pass between but perhaps they would be insufficient at stopping motor vehicles.
There are some that think that cyclists should have their own separated ways the same way pedestrians do.
> the IRA were mostly interested in harming property rather than people unlike today’s attackers
I think this is an exaggeration. Some IRA bombs damaged only/mainly property but the IRA also killed hundreds of people and not by accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_A...
I don't really agree that IRA attacks were ended by a negotiated settlement (GFA) either. That's a bit like saying that the the USSR dissolved because the Berlin wall came down.
I think this is an exaggeration. Some IRA bombs damaged only/mainly property but the IRA also killed hundreds of people and not by accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_A...
I don't really agree that IRA attacks were ended by a negotiated settlement (GFA) either. That's a bit like saying that the the USSR dissolved because the Berlin wall came down.
The most revealing thing about all these calls for back doors "for the children" and "to stop terrorists is that I never truly realized that child exploitation and terrorism were invented around 1996. It is also interesting that we never caught any criminals involved in these things before 1996. Pay phones were a pretty hard thing to track and monitor back in the day and we never had calls to outlaw them.
Solarwinds gives me no incentive to trust in the technical competence of any law or government group.
Solarwinds gives me no incentive to trust in the technical competence of any law or government group.
This is nonsense. The word terrorism dates back to the French Revolution and Britain dealt with many bombings from the IRA before 1996 (as well as earlier Irish republicans, militant suffragettes, etc.)
Child exploitation has been a known problem for a long time too. I think it is easy to brush off as a problem that doesn’t really exist if it is very distant from your experience of the world (eg how many paedophiles do you know?) but my understanding is that tech companies with user-generated-content deal with an absolutely horrific amount of CSEM. I don’t think it is reasonable to simple talk about liberty and brush the problem away when it comes up.
Internet-based communication and encryption change the possibilities for communication and it seems hard for laws to be particularly helpful in achieving a state that is good for liberty and good for society.
Personally, I think it is a good thing that, end-to-end encrypted group chats are somewhat limited in size, 256 for WhatsApp and 1000 for signal. I think 1000 is too many. In liberal democracies, I think at some group size, free speech ought to be semi-public speech too (though I guess it can be with informants within the group)
Child exploitation has been a known problem for a long time too. I think it is easy to brush off as a problem that doesn’t really exist if it is very distant from your experience of the world (eg how many paedophiles do you know?) but my understanding is that tech companies with user-generated-content deal with an absolutely horrific amount of CSEM. I don’t think it is reasonable to simple talk about liberty and brush the problem away when it comes up.
Internet-based communication and encryption change the possibilities for communication and it seems hard for laws to be particularly helpful in achieving a state that is good for liberty and good for society.
Personally, I think it is a good thing that, end-to-end encrypted group chats are somewhat limited in size, 256 for WhatsApp and 1000 for signal. I think 1000 is too many. In liberal democracies, I think at some group size, free speech ought to be semi-public speech too (though I guess it can be with informants within the group)
while i agree that these are not new concepts entirely, them being wheeled out incessantly to support the developmemt of a much much wider survelliance state does seem semi novel in the 90's. the miltary-industrial-congressional complex needed new boogeymen to scare the nation with, to justify their existence over, after the collapse of the soviet union. terrorism & child molestation feel like a replacement terror, after the old one fell.
I'm sorry, but I would rather have the privacy encryption gives me than safety adding a backdoor would provide. Not to mention that authoritarian governments would abuse such a system left and right.
> I'm sorry
Don't be. It's the only sensible opinion on this.
Don't be. It's the only sensible opinion on this.
I agree with this except for the part where Safety and Backdoor are in the same sentence.
Cressida Dick was the one who gave the order to kill Carlos Mendes after MI5 wrongly identified him as a known terrorist on their watch list. In fact Carlos was innocent. Clowns to put it mildly.
Jean Charles de Menezes
I knew I should have checked the name, it's been years. But thanks.
The public's focus on refusing to install police cameras in every room of their home is making it impossible to stop The Terrorists and costing thousands of lives. Bookstores' and libraries' focus on selling any book they choose without our approval makes it so Radicals can recruit anyone, anywhere and at any time resulting in countless people thinking hateful or incorrect things.
Terrorism and violence has nothing to do with the police failing at their jobs or the upper classes gutting local communities, quality of life, art and spirituality or mismanaged and murderous foreign policy, or anything like that -- just give us more control and you will be happier and safer.
Terrorism and violence has nothing to do with the police failing at their jobs or the upper classes gutting local communities, quality of life, art and spirituality or mismanaged and murderous foreign policy, or anything like that -- just give us more control and you will be happier and safer.
CSAM is terrorism now? Did the BBC mix up their notes on what nonsense to push as they work to end encryption?
Dear LEO everywhere. Whatever safety you pretend I'd get by letting you break everyone's encryption, I am declining it.
The horsemen of the privacy Apocalypse. Its always kiddie porn, terrorists or drugs.
Zero legs to stand on with that one. Someone whose job is to manage crime has no interest in stopping or preventing it, and their only interest is using crime as leverage for more powers and budget authority. This person presides over the most invasive domestic surveillance panopticon in the history of the world. There's no moral case or basis in fact for new powers, the public comment is just a signal or tracer flare for something else.
If I had private security and my house were broken into, I'd fire the security people and find new ones who could do the job, not let them move into my living room. Given the tools and resources they already have, the government should reduce police budgets and workforce every time there is a purse snatching so that they have some skin in the game.
If I had private security and my house were broken into, I'd fire the security people and find new ones who could do the job, not let them move into my living room. Given the tools and resources they already have, the government should reduce police budgets and workforce every time there is a purse snatching so that they have some skin in the game.
"A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region."
This is an excellent synopsis of what drives LEO's anti-encryption propaganda.
Police like this person are lazy. They are interested in blanket wiretapping, because it is too much work to go to a judge to try to justify taking away someone's property (PC, phone etc.) to access encryption keys.
[deleted]
I am so tired of the lies. Encryption doesn't stop you from 'catching bad guys,' it only stops you from mass-spying.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the real 'bad guys' in the present day is LE its self. The acts that are punished these days are things like personal drug use, protesting, unfair tax evasion, human rights demonstrations, and whistle-blowing. All things that the people would like to engage in but the government wants to squash at all costs.
Again, who are the actual criminals??
Furthermore, I'd argue that the real 'bad guys' in the present day is LE its self. The acts that are punished these days are things like personal drug use, protesting, unfair tax evasion, human rights demonstrations, and whistle-blowing. All things that the people would like to engage in but the government wants to squash at all costs.
Again, who are the actual criminals??
Exactly how did they ever manage to catch all the bad guys before all this surveillance powers. I guess doing proper police work?
Her main achievement prior to becoming commissioner was heading up a botched anti-terrorism operation that ended up with an innocent Brazilian plumber being shot in the head.
Her main achievement since becoming commissioner was obstructing an investigation into police corruption: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/15/daniel-morga...