18 ms·

Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

• notliketherest 9y ago
  London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.
  • harry8 9y ago
    Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects rather than running a criminal conspiracy. If the law is inconvenient or wrong, they can lobby to change it, same as everyone else. Break it, and they really ought to be in jail, same as anyone else.
    • duncan_bayne 9y ago
      > Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects I'm now 38 years old and have seen little evidence to support your statement, either in the UK or elsewhere. Most people seem _totally_ okay with members of their ruling class being drone-murdering, tax-thieving, law-breaking, crotch-grabbing assholes.
      • mmjaa 9y ago
        You forgot: pedophiles.
        • duncan_bayne 9y ago
          Oh, right - although one could argue that's a subclass of crotch-grabbers.
          • mmjaa 9y ago
            Yeah, but I think its a little more serious than Trumps' crotch-grabbing sexism, when such a significant swathe of UK politicians is embroiled in child-sex scandals, that it becomes a frickin' National Security issue to prosecute them. If only the subjects of the UK had a spine, as a people, and the willingness to confront the dire evil that has usurped their political infrastructure .. alas, they don't. A nation of cowards, really.
            • noir_lord 9y ago
              > A nation of cowards, really. A nation of sheep perhaps but not a nation of cowards.
              • mmjaa 9y ago
                Until the people of the UK stand up and do something about the criminal factions that have usurped their government, I remain of the view that it is really a very cowardly society. There is simply no other excuse for the inaction and disregard for these heinous crimes. Not to mention a significant portion of the society appears to be perfectly aligned with the need for a total surveillance state, due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost..
                • noir_lord 9y ago
                  > due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost.. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, most people I know don't know much about what we did during the age of empire and the rest broadly think Empire was a good thing for the countries we conquered.
                  • mmjaa 9y ago
                    I'm not talking about some foregone era of the foggy, distant past. I'm talking about here and now. But you're right, nobody knows about that, either.
      • ethics_gradient 9y ago
        It's not that they don't care, it's that they're conditioned to think it's too hopeless and complicated. The common people have the power, they only need to understand they do.
    • JimDabell 9y ago
      > British subjects Virtually nobody is a British subject, we are citizens. There are only two cases where you can be a British subject: if you were born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949 and claimed British subject status before 1983, or if you were born in a British colony that gained independence but you didn't become a citizen of the new country.
  • devoply 9y ago
    Expectation of privacy is quite a bit different from breaking locks to steal information without judicial oversight.
  • dirtbox 9y ago
    The camera surveillance stuff hasn't been true since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 when much of it was scrapped. I'm not sure I've never heard of surveillance vans on every block though, that's certainly not true.
    • Ntrails 9y ago
      There are a lot of fucking cameras in London - they didn't get taken down in 2012. Of course I'm fine with the cameras so ymmv. Also, plenty of police vans with ANPR systems to check on cars etc as they drive about. As for the rest, sometimes I wonder if people on HN have forgotten what the real world is like. Is encryption evil? Clearly not. Does it being prevalent cause issues with intercepting terrorist/criminal communications? Probably. So, sure, the prime minister said something which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - as have most politicians and indeed people. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that they've ill intentions.
      • th4dv 9y ago
        "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - just sayin'
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  • qqg3 9y ago
    London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.
    • SamUK96 9y ago
      > London doesn't have "blocks". I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the general sense, that is: "an area". > Surveillance vans are a myth. Simply Wrong. Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and connect to, which has like 3 password fields (I've tried when I was passing one in Canary Wharf). > Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated No evidence for this, and I think the parent comment meant "street-level" CCTV, not in buildings, and i'de be pushed to say it's more weighted towards public CCTV (govt.) rather than private.
      • vidarh 9y ago
        Most of the "street level" cameras are council owned and operated, outside of a few areas where the police operate them. City certainly has a lot of police operated surveillance. But venture outside the most central areas and there's not much street-level CCTV. As I've mentioned elsewhere, where I live in London it's about a 20 minute walk in any direction to see one. There are many parts of London where that is true once you venture outside of zone 1. In zone 1, yes, you'll be on camera a lot unless you sneak around back streets and on purpose try to avoid them.
    • ciaranm 9y ago
      There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.
      • vidarh 9y ago
        City is "special", and City has its own police force, which is why they don't venture further out - City of London Police does not generally have any business venturing out of City unless cooperating with the Metropolitan Police on something or following a suspect. City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom. (for the non-Lononders, City of London is one of the financial districts of London, on the site of the historical site of the original settlement of London, and makes up a tiny portion of London; it's got its own police force, and a government that's entirely unlike anything else in the UK)
  • k-mcgrady 9y ago
    >> Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? Because article 8 of the ECHR guarantees it and the courts generally uphold it. I haven't researched beyond this article but it clearly says what the Met is/was doing is/was illegal.
    • tremon 9y ago
      Which is why PM May has been saying she wants the UK to leave both the EU and the Council of Europe.
  • orf 9y ago
    Lots of cameras, sure, but so what? Can you elaborate why this is bad, in relation to how they are deployed and operated in London? I was involved with a long trial that relied heavily on CCTV evidence and I'm interested to read how you think they are operated or owned.
    • halloij 9y ago
      Americans would rather the freedom to get shot at in private...
      • halloij 9y ago
        * Privacy * Safety Pick one.
  • vidarh 9y ago
    > This is the city with police cameras on every block No, it is not. It is a city where tiny portions have police cameras. Somewhat larger areas have council-controlled cameras that it's fairly easy for police to gain access to. The vast majority of CCTV in London - and in the UK - is privately controlled, and most of it is not networked. Police can get access to it if/when something has happened, but most of them also either don't record or record only on a 24h loop, and access is often enough of a hassle that police does not even bother. Certainly there is a lot of surveillance in London, and especially the central areas and around important buildings, but it's nowhere near as bad as you imply. I live in London - I'd have about a 20 minutes walk to the nearest networked, police controlled camera, and about 10-15 minutes walk to any camera. In any direction. > surveillance vans Yes, but how many of them do you think there are? They are a rare sight, and they are obvious. I'm sure the Met would like more of them, but they don't have the budget to use them all over the place.
    • georgespencer 9y ago
      > [surveillance vans] are a rare sight I see them often. But equally often I ask myself what the point is. What are the odds of catching a crime? Or do they work in tandem with dispatchers from the police, moving around in areas near reported crimes to try to capture footage?
      • vidarh 9y ago
        I only ever see them when I go in towards the centre. I'm assuming they are moving them around known crime hotspots.
  • halloij 9y ago
    It's scary to hear such ridiculous propaganda. This is just as bad as Trump labeling areas in the UK "no go zones". It's just garbage.
    • halloij 9y ago
      shrug downvote away. It's complete fantasy. It doesn't exist.
• dbcooper 9y ago
  That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower-police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investigates-claims-police-used-hackers-to-read-protesters-emails-jenny-jones https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investi...
  • nailer 9y ago
    Original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 (or dang could change this one)
    • andy_ppp 9y ago
      I personally prefer the currently linked article, it has more information.
  • andy_ppp 9y ago
    You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at the Guardian, liable for prosecution—with up to 14 years in jail. It seems totally futile to stand up to these people.
    • Kenji 9y ago
      If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.
      • andy_ppp 9y ago
        And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.
• Darthy 9y ago
  This is utterly unacceptable. Time for the electorate to put their foot down and set an example by disbanding the entire force and replace it with a new one. But guess what the electorate will say? "They only came for the Socialists. I'm not a Socialist". Sad times.
  • droopyEyelids 9y ago
    Actually the proper way to refer to people in GB is "subjects". Not Citizens, not "the electorate," rather "Her Majesty's Subjects". Edit- Superficially wrong about this (the requirement for this nomenclature changed, but it's still acceptable usage). However, I think I'm right in the effect, as: >The concept of a subject remains in the law, and the terms the Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects, etc., remain in use in British legal discourse.
    • blibble 9y ago
      this hasn't been true since 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983
  • sien 9y ago
    The intelligence services have been doing this forever in most countries. If you don't know about it you're not paying attention. Here is PJ O'Rourke writing about this in the 1960s in the US. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&ots=cq0fdzd2DY&dq=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&f=false https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&... People don't just don't care that much. It is worth worrying about though. With the NSA and computer surviellance we've created a 'turn-key tyranny'. And people have been worrying about that since at least the 1970s: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-senator-warned-in-1975-the-national-security-agencys-capability-at-any-time-could-be-turned-around-on-the-american-people-and-no-american-would-have-any-privacy-left.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-senator-w...
    • 9y ago
• dovdovdov 9y ago
  Almost makes you think we only have terrorism just so the countermeasures can be exploited to keep the masses under total control. ;)
  • SamUK96 9y ago
    I Don't know what you mean by leaked western links to terrorist organisations that go all the way up to the CIA, FBI, and NSA, Tony Blair (and the missiles he sold), etc...
  • alexandercrohde 9y ago
    I don't know if I believe that, however the spectre of terrorism is WAY overblown (more people die slipping and falling in the shower). So I do find it really unreasonable that it's used as an excuse to monitor our communication...
    • ethics_gradient 9y ago
      Exactly this - it exists. It's just overblown, as states have forever recognized that they can use fear for conformity and submission. But we should be careful to not say it's fabricated unless in specific cases where there is good evidence for it.
    • noir_lord 9y ago
      If you asked me which I fear more, the government (I'm British) slowly inching towards 'soft' totalitarianism or terrorism I'd have to say the former not the latter. However I don't really fear either though I think the former is the more likely thing to affect me.
    • passivepinetree 9y ago
      That's a super interesting stat. Do you have a source for it that I can use if I want to steal your quote?
      • alexandercrohde 9y ago
• necessity 9y ago
  Doesn't seem like a reputable source.
  • lolc 9y ago
    Why?
    • nailer 9y ago
      It's a secondary source on a hard left news site
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  • cryptarch 9y ago
    Still an interesting suggestion to look into, init? You might not believe it is fact, but I for one think it's reasonable to give The Guardian the benefit of the doubt here and have a long hard look at these programs, if only because it has a non-zero chance of being true and only costs time to look into.
    • nailer 9y ago
      Definitely, but I think most of us would rather read it directly from The Gaurdian.
      • cryptarch 9y ago
        Fair enough. Perhaps it'd make sense to have a primary link and a list of alternative sources built into HN. (By which I mean, posters provide an ordered list of links, and perhaps users could add additional links which are moderated.)
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Outrageous. I worry we in the USA are going this direction too.
  • bkkssnn 9y ago
    Hate to break it to you but you've been there for some time now.
  • coldtea 9y ago
    Have you seen the FBI files on people like MLK and Malcom X? In fact this goes as far back as the 19th century if not more, with workers rights activists, human rights activists and others. And doesn't stop at collecting data.
    • toyg 9y ago
      As a technique, it goes waay back. There is some reason to believe even the Gunpowder Plot was engineered by authorities.
    • SubiculumCode 9y ago
      You are correct to point those cases out, and I am aware of them. It was also outrageous to infiltrate the MLK movement. Not to downplay those cases, but there is a distinction between these cases with the FBI and the current case with London police: The London police is a local enforcement agency. When local police forces start actively hacking citizens there is a different kind of danger than when a federal agency does so, mainly because they have different enforcement interests and powers. When a local enforcement agency begins to spy and hack, that is a new level of harassment and violation of civil liberties.
  • mmjaa 9y ago
    You've been there for a hell of a long time. For over 50 years your government has been subverting its own citizens movements which it finds unsavoury...
  • ak4g 9y ago
    My siblings in this thread need to learn about the reforms that were done post-Watergate. The rule of law governs everyone, especially law enforcement, in the USA. If you don't believe that, why do you think lawmakers bother with getting laws passed to allow surveillance in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Either LEO follow the letter of the law and we're not in some 1984 scenario (because there are, in fact, substantial protections for privacy under the law), or they do not, and we're left with this mystery of why things like the USA PATRIOT Act exist, which now needs to be explained.
• Theodores 9y ago
  This is a new chapter to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle-redirec... "'Undercover lays bare the deceit, betrayal and cold-blooded violation practised again and again by undercover police officers - troubling, timely and brilliantly executed.' Henry Porter The gripping stories of a group of police spies - written by the award-winning investigative journalists who exposed the Mark Kennedy scandal - and the uncovering of forty years of state espionage. This was an undercover operation so secret that some of our most senior police officers had no idea it existed. The job of the clandestine unit was to monitor British 'subversives' - environmental activists, anti-racist groups, animal rights campaigners. Police stole the identities of dead people to create fake passports, driving licences and bank accounts. They then went deep undercover for years, inventing whole new lives so that they could live incognito among the people they were spying on. They used sex, intimate relationships and drugs to build their credibility. They betrayed friends, deceived lovers, even fathered children. And their operations continue today. Undercover reveals the truth about secret police operations - the emotional turmoil, the psychological challenges and the human cost of a lifetime of deception - and asks whether such tactics can ever be justified." - this book I read in three days, it was that thrilling!
• cies 9y ago
  > police hacking of journalists and protestors Because they are the real terrorists. I seriously think they had dissidents in mind when pushing for all those "anti-terror" surveillance laws.
  • ak4g 9y ago
    If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws. This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy. Frankly we should wait to see what the IPCC says. This could easily be entirely fabricated, the only corroboration was information that would be accessible to cybercriminals, not anything that implicates law enforcement specifically.
    • cies 9y ago
      > The UK is hardly an autocracy. Not only autocracies do this kind of evil. Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists mainly of capitalist, you can see that the police targeting dissidents fits a clear motive.
      • richmarr 9y ago
        > Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists ... Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists (even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state" EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons that I necessarily agree with"
        • TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
          And those reasons would be... what? These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are not organising or threatening acts of public violence. This is entirely a free speech issue.
• mmjaa 9y ago
  Anti-Establishment == Terrorist. (If you're a member of the Establishment, that is..)
• acd 9y ago
  Its an issue when you self censor opinions which deviate from the mass. It also an issue of freedom of press. The government know who you talk to through metadata collection even if you use encryption.
  • ak4g 9y ago
    I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I (don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username. Meanwhile, there are places that are living in a dystopia, and the single most important goal of the powers that be in those places is undermining the rule of law. So I can't help but be skeptical of stories like this. We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this, and where criminals can be kept out of the public sphere, and these are good things. There. And hey, tonight at least, for once, I won't go to a throwaway to say so.
    • scribu 9y ago
      > We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this What's the use of being able to freely discuss any story if the people who's job is to uncover sensitive stories are silenced?
    • dagenleg 9y ago
      Very good post, comrade! Remember to use your primary account when your comments are ideologically sound, this will ensure your Good Citizen points will get properly calculated.
    • alexandercrohde 9y ago
      This is the point. Many societies have devolved into autocracies with no freedom of speech, proving that it is a constant possibility for us too. We like to think our Western countries somehow are immune, but without any particular reason. In reality we should worry more due to our technology. If lack of free speech combines with the ability to monitor everyone's speech (through phones, TV, breaking ssl) we will have recreated 1984 quite well.
• nepotism2016 9y ago
  I'm really shocked, not. How else do you control society lol
• webmonkeyuk 9y ago
  Yet another good reason to have 2FA enabled
• FireRat666 9y ago
  It is so unfortunate this has been happening and that I am not at all surprised by it, Thanks
• bbcbasic 9y ago
  Poor man's PRISM
• dTal 9y ago
  >The Bindmans LLP law firm, acting on behalf of Jones, contacted six of those listed to verify their passwords (the others could not be traced). In response, five of the six gave passwords that matched those given in the letter, and the sixth was nearly a match. Well jeez no wonder they were hacked if they're that easy to socially engineer. "Verify my password? That's funny, you're the third one this month..."
  • RubenSandwich 9y ago
    I think your selling the victims short here. The law firm could of been more discrete. e.g. "Hello X, We are investigating a case involving the government hacking journalists. You are a person of interest in this case. The government records show that your password is Y. Can you confirm or deny that this was your password around the dates Z?"
    • dTal 9y ago
      Well, at the very least, "the sixth was nearly a match" is pretty damning. "Nono, you've got it wrong, MY password is hunterTHREE - you see there was this incident..."
      • RubenSandwich 9y ago
        I'm gonna continue to play Devils advocate here and that person in question could of merely confirmed that it was close. But realistically I think your right. People will gladly handout passwords to people who sound authoritative. It's amazing to me how many DEFCON talks begin with: "So we just pretended to be X and asked for their password and got it."
        • pritambaral 9y ago
          OT: I see you've used "could of" multiple times. Just wanted to say it's "could have". Cheers.
          • 9y ago
• NumberCruncher 9y ago
  >> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as direct agencies of the ruling elite, overriding other bodies. No comments needed.
  • ue_ 9y ago
    >government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.
    • sametmax 9y ago
      Oligarchy is the word you are looking for.
    • BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.
      • ue_ 9y ago
        This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be unjustified authority no matter which way it's taken. Edit: can people please explain why they are downvoting? It would be nice to know so I can improve the quality of my posts in future.
• OliverJones 9y ago
  When secure passwords are outlawed, only radical activists will have secure passwords. No, wait ....
• afoot 9y ago
  So the Met asked the indian police, who in turn reached out to groups (!) of local hackers to carry out the work, who then presumably passed the data back through the chain to the Met. Hard to believe someone found out with such a watertight process...
• dghughes 9y ago
  I'm not anti police or law but some chilling recent events worry me. A similar thing happened in Quebec, Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists-police-spying-1.3833507 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalis... And in Newfoundland a man who made comments on Twitter criticizing the police was tracked down then hauled off to a psychiatric hospital. He was admitted against his will and using suspicious methods. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/court-defends-political-dissent-after-n-l-man-sent-to-psychiatric-hospital-for-criticizing-police-shooting http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=new...
• balthamael 9y ago
  V for Vendetta was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual or goalpost. Britain really has gone to shit. Probably one of the last countries I'd want to move to.
  • dijit 9y ago
    Agreed, I am British and got out just before the full power of the Conservatives was realised. I would not plan on going back any time soon, I'm sure I'm not a minority in thinking this.
    • developerdanny 9y ago
      I'm British and I'm scared I'm going to be worse off staying in Britain - how did you come to be able to leave?
      • dijit 9y ago
        Ironically because we are in the EU I was able to find a job very easily.
• samuel23 9y ago
  UK Police subcontract Hackers in India to do something illegal. You do realize this is stupid fake news?? If you do something colossally illegal, you'd usually try to hide it rather than subcontract to people you've never met...
• samuel23 9y ago
  You do realize this is stupid fake news?? If you do something colossally illegal, why let the world know by subcontracting it to people you've never met?