British Police State: 'Pre-Crime' Punishment Policing

North Yorkshire Police Sexual Risk Order (SRO) LINK | Daily Mail 15 July 2016 Archive http://archive.is/JuknB Spiked Online 25 January 2016 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954  In Summary [Subjects of Sexual Risk Order (SRO)] must provide police with name, address and date of birth of anyone he plans to bed ‘at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place’ despite not being found guilty of a crime, he will still be treated as a criminal last for anything between two years and forever introduced in 2013, bring to life the dystopian idea of precrime given to people whom the authorities think ‘might commit an offence’ Britain in 2016 is policing ‘precrime’ entire, Magna Carta-derived basis of civilised law is called into question man has been deprived of rights even though he has not been convicted of a crime effectively been categorised as a pre-rapist Sexual Risk Orders bring sex under the purview of the law Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (+ replacements) control irritating habits [of those] not found guilty of an offence Extremism Disruption Orders are designed to police and punish ‘pre-terrorism’ controlling the ability of non-violent radicals to express their opinions society in which no zone of life exists independently of officialdom 25 January 2016 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954 UK Pre-Crime Law Enforcement Extremism Disruption Orders Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (+ replacements) Sexual Risk Order As this is taking place in a Britain that ignored sexual abuse of minors on a mass scale for years (Rotherham), why exactly is the British government and law enforcement intent on violating the rights of those that have not been found guilty of committing any crime, and violating the very principles upon which the law of the land is based? This is a massive incursion upon civil liberties that is taking place in the UK. These are state powers applied to persons who are not convicted of crime, and there are various other means to apply such 'pre-crime' constraint and punishment orders. ASBOs are most likely misused by British police, against Britons that the authorities wish to police politically. It would seem that these SROs are an expansion of existing expansive British state and law enforcement powers and reach.

Invasive USA Access to European Travel & Associated Data Also Involves Policing

Invasive USA Access to European Travel & Associated Data Also Involves Policing @WikiLeaks Passenger Name Record (PNR) -- computer database of travel reservation -- contains itinerary for passenger (or groups of passengers travelling together) United States–European Union -- Agreement on Passenger Name Records -- further agreement between USA & European union -- signed Dec 14, 2011 -- provides USA with information associated with air travel of Europeans -- data includes hotel bookings, car rental, train trips, transfers etc -- as well as credit card information, passport info & much more -- via access to Passenger Name Records (PNR) databases of Europeans -- subject to:  European Data Protection Law -- PNR transfer to take place to only countries with comparable data laws, according to:     -- Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD_         1980 Privacy Guidelines     -- 1995 European Union Directive on data protection   law enforcement supposedly permitted to access data only on set individual basis  -- standards defined by following organisations:     International Air Transport Association (ITA)     -- trade association of world's airlines     -- helps formulate industry standards     -- HQ Montreal, Canada     -- executive offices:  Geneva, Switzerland     Airlines for America (A4A)     -- formerly:  formerly known as Air Transport Association of America (ATA)     -- oldest & largest USA airline trade association     -- members & affiliates transport over 90% of US passenger & cargo traffic     -- based Washington DC     -- only org that represents main US airlines re lobbying Congress         Standards defined by AIRIMP     ie - ATA/IATA Reservations Interline Mesage Procedures - Passenger ('AIRIMP') Upon passenger booking travel -- travel agent / travel site will create PNR -- or, if made directly with airline, PNR created in database of airline CRS -- CRS = Computer Reservations System (where PNR database is hosted) -- CRS is an automated computer reserviation system (there's several systems/providers of these) -- the PNR referred to as 'Master PNR', re the passenger & relevant itenerary PNRs originally introduced for air travel -- airlines systems can now be used for booking:     -- hotels     -- car rental     -- airport transfers     -- train trips -- 2004 - US govt first obtains PNR of Europeans -- via '2004 Passenger Name Record Data Transfer' agreement with EU -- data usage supposedly limited to:      terrorism and related crimes      other serious crimes & interl organised crime      flight from warrants or custody      *agreement required Eurpean PNR to be supplied to USA -- agreement INVALIDATED by:  European Court of Justice (30 May 2006) -- reason:  lack of legal authority -- 2007:  new controversial PNR agreement between US  EU -- yet:  George W Bush - gave US Dept Homeland Security & others exemption from 1974 Privacy act 2008, Feb:  USA had signed in February 2008 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) -- with Czech Republic -- purpose:  exchange of visa waiver scheme -- did so without consent of Brussels -- USA also approached other European countries for MOU -- tensions b/w Washington & Brussels -- reason:  LESSER data protection laws in USA -- furthermore:  foreigners to not benefit from US Privacy Act of 1974 -- US 'Safe Harbour Arrangement' lacks data protection 2008, Nov:  new agreement re new agreement CRITICISM -- reductions of privacy rights Legal Service of the European Commission x2 academics [source, above:  Wikipedia] ____________________________________________________ -------/\/\/ EU-US PNR agreement found incompatible with human rights 29 Jun 2011 In a note sent on 16 May 2011 to the Director-General of DG Home Affairs, the Legal Service of the European Commission warns that the draft EU-US agreement on the exchange of PNR data is not compatible with fundamental rights. The EC’s lawyers found several areas of concern related to the planned agreement. Significant issues are the proportionality of the agreement which covers minor crimes as well, its extension to US border security “which is not linked to the purpose of preventing terrorism or serious crime”, a far too long (15 years) data retention period for the data collected for the agreement purpose, the lack of judicial redress for the data subjects, the lack of “guarantee of independent oversight”. After having reviewed the present draft, the Legal Service draws the attention over the fact that its earlier comments had not been considered in drafting the present variant of the agreement: “all (these) comments were already transmitted to your services in the course of the negotiations.” The Legal Service concludes that “despite certain presentational improvements, the draft agreement does not constitute a sufficiently substantial improvement of the agreement currently applied on a provisional basis, the conclusion of which was refused on data protection grounds by the European Parliament.” Moreover, the use of the PNR data for US border security is considered a step back from the point of view of data protection. The conclusion therefore related to the agreement is that “the Legal Service does not consider the agreement in its present form as compatible with fundamental rights.” Hopefully this opinion may weigh in the decision of the European Parliament which, according to the Lisbon Treaty, has the power to refuse it. “This Agreement does not meet EU data protection standards of proportionality or purpose limitation, nor does it provide judicial redress to data subjects or any guarantee of independent oversight” says Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Director who believes that it’s high time EU takes a firmer stand in the matter. “Secret Minutes of EU-US meetings since 2001 show that they have always been a one-way channel with the US setting the agenda by making demands on the EU. When the EU does make rare requests like on data protection, because US law only offers protection and redress to US citizens, they are bluntly told that the US is not going to change its data protection system”. MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, member of the European parliament’s civil liberties committee, believes that by pushing forward this agreement, EU is acting against its own legal advice. “The commission cannot simply continue to stick its fingers in its ears, and it is high time that it dropped its obsession with PNR. This means going back to the drawing board and renegotiating the draft agreements with the US, Australia and Canada on passenger record retention, ensuring these agreements are in line with EU data protection law. It also means dropping the proposed legislation on the retention of passenger data within the EU.” As regards the EU PNR proposal, this has been slammed also by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The Agency has issued an opinion on the Proposal for a Directive on the use of PNR data, identifying a series of issues regarding the compliance of the proposal with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. FRA is concerned by the risk of direct discrimination related to PNR data transmitted by air carriers, which may include sensitive or special data. “It would therefore be useful to introduce a prohibition on the transmission of such data by air carriers.” Regarding the limitation of fundamental rights covered by the proposal, FRA is concerned by the vagueness of several formulations and believes the explanatory memorandum of the proposal “does not sufficiently substantiate the necessity of the limitation for all crimes covered,” and that “the necessity and proportionality of the PNR system would need to be demonstrated.” For the compliance with the right to protection of personal data, FRA suggests the control should be provided by fully independent supervisory authorities that “can take action on their own initiative to protect proactively and effectively the interests of data subjects and have sufficient resources to do so in practice.” https://edri.org/edrigramnumber9-13us-eu-pnr-breaches-human-rights/ EDRi -- association of civil and human rights organisations from across Europe -- We defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT   What was supposed to monitor travellers to supposedly prevent terrorism in USA, has become a massive policing and invasion of privacy operation, that appears to have created something of one-sided world police arrangement, where the US is the cop and the EU meekly gives over European citizens' data to the Americans, who have inadequate data protection laws per se and Americans who deny Europeans the poor protections they offer their own citizens.  Americans with an exceedingly poor attitude to accommodating the legal requirements of the Europeans.  Americans who can do what they like with data that they've most likely bullied the European cretins into giving them. Why would anybody enter into agreements with those that are so arrogant they refuse to consider adapting their laws to provide like privacy protections for foreigners, let alone those that do not reciprocate when it comes to data sharing? The EU needs to get a backbone. Canada and Australia are also party to the EU PNR agreement.  But I'm not sure why.   Is the EU such a hive of terrorism that the Australians and Canadians have had to jump on the US data demanding bandwagon? European Union (EU)-Australia Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement. The PNR Agreement will allow for information about travellers flying into Australia on airlines using EU-based IT service providers to be disclosed to Australian Customs officials. The ability to access this key information on airline passengers is a vital border security tool for Australia.  It will assist in the fight against terrorism and serious crimes.  http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s080701.html It looks like Europe is Terrorist Central.  Gee, wonder why? Not sure if any of the points raised by the Legal Service of the European Union Commission were remedied in the final draft.  Doubt it. I think the issue of the moment is that this is a one-sided contract, where the European Union leaves European citizens wide open to violation of their privacy as well as their basic rights.   But, meanwhile, the US is not subject to the same terms & is not providing the European Union like access to American data. So the same Americans who make sure they cannot be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for criminal acts of war they have performed (and intent to continue to perform), are the very same party that demands to violate European privacy and rights and, it appears, also to insist on engaging in law enforcement pertaining to Europeans. It's creepy thinking how extensive US interference and reach across the globe is. It's a world-wide corporate dictatorship, headed by USA. The travel data sharing was first obtained by the Americans from the Europeans in 2004. So this probably explains the 'disappearance' of Assange's equipment: "... likely unlawful seizure of property belonging to me and to WikiLeaks while it was under the control of the airport authorities of Arlanda (Stockholm) or Tegel (Berlin) on 27 September 2010, inter alia three encrypted laptops containing privileged journalistic and legal materials  including evidence of a war crime; and this affidavit sets forth facts that form the basis of my belief that the aforementioned  property was the subject of an unlawful search and seizure and that the monitoring of my activities in Germany was also illegal." [1] "The suspected seizure or theft occurred at a time of intense attempts by the US to stop WikiLeaks' publications of 2010." [1] airline carrier refused to cooperate with Assange [2]  Assange Swedish lawyer request to prosecutor's office regarding seizure or theft received no reply [2] [1] Affidavit [2] https://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html

SURVEILLANCE - Blackberry 9720 - Messages Decrypted by Netherlands Criminologists - Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) Technique (works on Smartphones & some PGP)

ꕤ Article SOURCE (via VK) https://xakep.ru/2016/01/12/cops-hjacked-pgp-blackberry/ SURVEILLANCE - Blackberry 9720 - Messages Decrypted by Netherlands Criminologists - Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) Technique (works on Smartphones & some PGP) Google Translation Russian to English Dutch police said that cracked the encryption Blackberry Maria Nefedova https://xakep.ru/2016/01/12/cops-hjacked-pgp-blackberry/ In December 2015 the Dutch blog misdaadnieuws.com (Crime News) published in its pages the document, according to which law enforcement authorities of the Netherlands have found a way to recover deleted messages and read emails and encryption on devices BlackBerry. Historically, the company BlackBerry stake on the security of their devices. Smartphones companies have traditionally come with a built-PGP-encrypted, which, in particular, used for e-mail client. Protecting BlackBerry devices considered to be very reliable, so misdaadnieuws.com published in the pages of the report of the Dutch Institute of Criminology (Netherlands Forensic Institute, NFI) has caused considerable surprise among experts and journalists. Publication Vice Motherboard contacted representatives of NFI, to confirm or refute the information published in the blog. January 11, 2016 criminologists finally answered and said that they do often have to assist the police in the investigation of criminal offenses, but it needs to recover and extract data from a variety of devices. NFI staff confirmed that a private company using the software Cellebrite, they have found a way to recover deleted messages and read emails on smartphones BlackBerry, PGP-protected encryption. According to a report published misdaadnieuws.com, when working with the BlackBerry 9720 criminologists were able to recover 325 encrypted messages, but were able to decipher only 279 of them. Which techniques are used to circumvent the encryption criminologists tell refused. Probably, they were able to guess the password, based on memory dump, but for the application of this technique usually requires removal of the chip from the motherboard, which is unacceptable when dealing with evidence. However, it is reported that the Dutch forensic technique it requires physical access to a device that can serve as some consolation for the owners of protected devices. In addition, NFI imperfect technique: it works not with all models of smartphones and implementations of PGP, for example, has no effect on GhostPGP.   Source | English Translation ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Encryption sounds crap if it can readily be decrypted. The 297 out of 325 encrypted messages broken success rate is massive. Blackberry might need to work on their security? It sounds like GhostPGP is the only way to go ... unless it's a double-cross.  lol I don't have to worry about any of it, because I have no fancy devices. The most excitement I get is the text reminder to recharge the old fashioned prepaid mobile. ꕤ

Suppressive Police State - USA

SOURCE http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-09-04/apd-tracks-social-media/ APD Tracks Social Media Local social media monitoring software company met with shady digital spying group By John Anderson, Fri., Sept. 4, 2015 Snaptrends software can assign a geographical digital boundary which allows the user "to see conversation clusters and activity heat maps" within the defined area, according to Snap Trends' Matthew Hammer. As the world increasingly becomes glued to social media, it comes as little surprise that law enforcement would join in. But what some Facebook users or Twitter followers may not be aware of is how local law enforcement is using software to monitor their posts and tweets. Founded in 2012 as a private company and located just off Capital of Texas High­way, Snap Trends develops software that aggregates public information collected from social media. The company's website claims their software "builds a clear view of social conversations when and where they occur, the influencers driving them, and why." A Feb. 13 letter from Snap Trends Director of Sales Ken Ross to APD Sgt. Jeff Greenwalt, discovered in a Chron­icle open records request to APD and DPS, asserts that Snap Trends "developed its software intelligence system to serve public safety organization [sic] and national intelligence agencies in the United States." Ross further explained the "system uses advance [sic] algorithms and processes to procure this high density social data footprint." Other documents reveal that both APD and DPS have current subscriptions to Snaptrends software, spending $6,370 and $24,200 respectively in the past year. APD Public Information Specialist Jenni­fer Herber informed the Chronicle that APD began using Snaptrends software on March 1, 2013. DPS began using it one month later, according to DPS Public Information Officer Tom Vinger. DPS currently has 13 employees licensed to use the software, while APD has 25 officers with access. Emails obtained from APD demonstrate the Snaptrends software "makes it easy to share profiles, groups and persons-of-interests" and "can even integrate custom Facebook accounts." But its main feature is using geolocation to narrow a search using a "Poly Tool" which, according to a Snap Trends email, allows law enforcement "to gather pertinent information from social media platforms over specific areas without drawing in irrelevant content from unwanted areas .... This allows you to monitor precise locations such as parade routes, major highways or areas where protests are occurring." When asked if APD purchased the software for such events, Herber explained: "Real­-time analysis of open sources such as social media has been used to predict crimes and to help law enforcement respond more quickly as needed including, for example, stopping active shooters, tracking gang activity, and anticipating public protests that could escalate into violence." Additionally, she said the mission of the Austin Regional Intelligence Center (ARIC), where the software is used, "is to maximize the region's ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal/terrorist activity." Other documents show Snap Trends partnered with a private company called Esri, which develops mapping software called ArcGIS and has also been used by APD in the past. According to internal emails obtained via open records request, APD Senior Crime Analyst Tess Sherman used the Esri software to monitor Occupy Austin's first demonstration at City Hall in October 2011. Sherman pointed out the mapping function "would be neat-o to try. Although it may just end up as a bunch of dots downtown since a lot of it is real-time comments from the scene." Despite receiving tech support from the company, APD Police Planner Nora Evans replied to Sherman, "I don't know a lot about Twitter so maybe you can figure it out." But Snap Trends' emails indicate the company offered to provide tech support for its own software to at least 16 APD employees. What were the police looking for? In one email, Snap Trends Account Manager Mark Klasson sent APD a document titled "Keywords." Assist­ant City Attorney Cary Grace has asked the Texas Attorney General's office to exempt that document and others from public disclosure. As of press time, the AG's office has not made a decision regarding the exemption. Expanded surveillance remains a possibility, and a hack in July of the Italian surveillance software company Hacking Team gave hints of what could be on the horizon. The hack shed light on some of the darker sides of digital spying, including conversations between Hacking Team and Snap Trends that revolved around a potential partnership. Instead of monitoring public information, Hacking Team's Remote Control Sys­tem software infects remote computers and mobile phones, allowing control over them. Reporters Without Borders has called Hacking Team "digital mercenaries" and "corporate enemies of the Internet." According to the hacked emails, available on the Wikileaks website, in March, Snap Trends CEO Eric Klasson met in Dubai for the "first exploratory meeting" with members of Hacking Team. Emails show the Dubai meeting was also attended by Snap Trends' partner Chenega, which resells Snap Trends' software internationally. After the meeting, Hacking Team's Philippe Vinci summarized: "The combination of each parties [sic] capabilities, Massive Social Media monitoring and Tactical Targets' Device interception, could bring a lot of value to customers and prospective customers of each party." Replying to that email, Klasson wrote, "I agree that a joint effort to sort this is something the market will respond to favorably (and quickly)." The three companies kept up their contact through at least early June, including a meeting in Prague, but the emails lack specific details about the collaboration. Asked by the Chronicle to describe Snap Trends' relationship with Hacking Team, however, Snap­ Trends Marketing Director Matthew Ham­mer wrote via email that "Snap Trends knows of the Hacking Team, but has no relationship with them, and we don't plan on doing any business with them in the future." Open records requests did not yield documents indicating that APD or DPS have purchased Hacking Team's software; nor is there is any evidence that Snaptrends software currently operates as malware. A LexisNexis 2014 "Social Media Use in Law Enforcement" report (available on the Snap Trends' website) which surveyed "federal, state and local law enforcement professionals" found that 81% "actively use social media as a tool in investigations," and 78% of current users plan "to use it even more in the coming year." Snap Trends' Hammer claims "hundreds" of U.S. law enforcement departments or agencies have bought their software. But raising questions about the effectiveness and accountability of this type of monitoring, the LexisNexis study also concluded that "52% of agencies still don't have a formal process for using social media for investigations." SOURCE http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-09-04/apd-tracks-social-media/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT APD = Austin Police Dept DPS = Dept of Public Safety (I'm guessing) Check out the policing techniques at work in totalitarian, surveillance & militarised police-state, USA:  straight out of the Czarist-Russia style suppression tools manual -- with a modern, digital technology, mapping & harnessing social media data, twist. The power to grossly violate the civil liberties of ordinary Americans is at the disposal of Texas police (and has been exercised since 2013).  But it is not limited to Texas:  many other US law enforcement agencies have adopted these same practices.  It's primarily for maintenance of plutocratic power, although law enforcement representatives will, of course, argue otherwise ... while they make application, seeking to hide their violations of freedom and democracy. Note, particularly, the intention to keep this secret police monitoring from public knowledge. So much for what is supposed to be accountability and democratic government transparency -- which is intended to also extend to government agencies, such as the police.  Abuses of civil liberties such as this go a long way towards explaining why resistant activists, hacktivists, whistleblowers, and whistleblower journalists and publishers, such as WikiLeaks, are so vital. I Imagine that this information would be relevant to protesters, activists, unionists, political groups, students, and all and any other persons exercising rightful political freedoms, in what is supposed to be democratic society. PS In case you think this is limited to USA and doesn't apply to you, think again ... and maybe do some Freedom of Information applications.  lol ꕤ