Police Database on Protestors revealed

[SpookyFrank]

What gets me is that the spooks and cops really do belive that there is a hard core of committed trouble makers who organsie everything through shadowy networks giving orders to their troops in the field - a kind of 'dredds under the bed' paranoir.

The idea that people might behave spontaneously and randomly and/or 'make it up as they go along' through loose afiliations is one they just cant get there heads around at all.

One of the reasons I've never let this type of surveillance worry me too much. You can tell that a lot of what FIT teams get up to is concerned with identifying 'ringleaders' even when no such people are present. Another big motivation is intimidation obviously, and I'm not going to allow myself to be scared off by a bunch of people with cameras; only the police are afraid of cameras.

Some friends of mine once got lifted on the way to a demonstation, ie before they'd had the chance to do something that would have been legal anyway, and charged with 'conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass' or some such nonsense. The police had clearly used some form of surveillance to find out about the demo in advance as it hadn't been advertised anywhere and had been organised entirely amongst people who already knew each other. I daresay the pigs felt really clever about that one, at least until the judge threw the case out and told the coppers involved to stop inventing crimes to charge people with

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong.

unless they change the defintion of wrong to something which you do fear... of course...

 

[elbows]

Police & protesters having video camera standoffs is quite bemusing. The stuff about them paying particular attention to the media is interesting, though not that surprising I guess. The state in general is interested in people who influence the opinions of others.

If I recall correctly some of the local beat police have been fitted with cameras now, the local media insisted on referring to them as 'robocops'!

 

[Bakunin]

Police & protesters having video camera standoffs is quite bemusing. The stuff about them paying particular attention to the media is interesting, though not that surprising I guess. The state in general is interested in people who influence the opinions of others.

If I recall correctly some of the local beat police have been fitted with cameras now, the local media insisted on referring to them as 'robocops'!

They did a trial of the headcams with the Devon and Cornwall force a couple of years ago. It seems like pretty much standard issue kit for plod now.

 

[winjer]

"We accept that police should not have filmed legitimate journalists or camera crews, however it was a difficult task in these circumstances to clearly identify them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/10/climate-camp-surveillance

 

[brasicritique]

It isn't that simple at all; there is no direct line between the state and the media, just a shared class interest. This is why we have the illusion of choice and freedom of speech, it is much more effective than directly controlling the media - a certain amount of debate and dissent gives the state legitimacy.

to an extent however to say there is no direct line would be to say that there is no such thing as marriage or having relatives or best friends who went to oxbridge toghther and do not sit around the same dinner table. for example Clegg just turned down dinner with Camoron how many journos and hacks have not? or had 'dinner' with blair or brown i mean the idea that polly dillusoinal toynbee has never met any of newshamebore elite in an 'informal' setting to talk about issues of the day is a joke

 

[Bakunin]

"We accept that police should not have filmed legitimate journalists or camera crews, however it was a difficult task in these circumstances to clearly identify them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/10/climate-camp-surveillance

A little clue for all you doughnut-munchers out there:

The journalists are the ones carrying dirty great cameras of various sorts, carrying press cards that clearly identify them as media types, turn up in vehicles bearing the name of the organisation they're working for and often wear jackets or tabards with the word 'Press' on them IN FUCK OFF GREAT LETTERS!

There, that should clear things up, methinks.

 

[winjer]

Police surveillance of a peaceful protester was ruled unlawful today in a decison that lawyers say will change the way demonstrations and protests are policed.

Judges ruled that specialist *surveillance units from the Metropolitan police had breached the human rights of Andrew Wood, an arms trade campaigner, when they photographed him and stored the pictures on a police database.

One judge said there were *unresolved civil liberties questions about the way images were taken and retained in "the modern surveillance society". Lord *Justice Dyson said there were "very serious human rights issues which arise when the state obtains and retains the images of persons who have committed no offence and are not suspected of having *committed any offence".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/21/police-surveillance-ruling-andrew-wood
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/may/21/vigilant-against-big-brother

 

[winjer]

The police response:

Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas, who is responsible for the Met's public order branch, said: "The Metropolitan Police upholds people's right to lawful and peaceful demonstration, a right that we strive to fulfil.

"However, we also have to uphold the law. We know that some individuals and groups use the cover of protest to break the law and commit acts of disorder.

"Obviously that is unacceptable. It can endanger legitimate demonstrators and endanger and severely disrupt the public. We are duty bound to prevent that from happening.

"For our policing plan to be the most effective we need to have the fullest possible intelligence picture.

"Overt photography helps us build a picture of who is involved in planning and organising any potential disorder or crime. It may also provide us with evidence that would be beneficial to any legal proceedings.

"There is nothing secretive or covert about the way we do this, and this practice is very well known and understood in protester circles. The Metropolitan Police will continue to do everything necessary to maintain order on London's streets.

"The findings of this judgment provide a valuable set of guidelines for us to continue to work within and we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found our use of overt photography to be lawful."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43676&c=1

 

[Nigel]

Will these photos ever be released, make a great photo album

 

[Azrael]

The Superintendent is describing a dragnet, not focused intelligence.

Photos should only be taken if there's prior-intelligence of trouble or if trouble breaks out, and be destroyed immediately once the protest is done, or when they're no longer needed as evidence in an ongoing case. (This wouldn't apply to people who have relevant criminal records.)

 

[tombowler]

on a similar vein i wonder what happens to all the school pictures (one evry year you are at state school) go I saw them in school records we were moving, each childs file had a full set in it, when you leave secondary school where do they all go in the 5th year at school i was enlisted to help move the boxes of files to i think it was from the school office to another on the site i expect they would be shipped somewhere but did not know where this was circa 1985 i have nio reason to think this has stopped.

So would it be possible to use current software to compare the police pics from protests with the school file and id the person/? processing time may be quite high i suppose.

i am not surprised they keep the pics taken at protests im not saying it is right to do so i did not like having my pic taken without my consent but then this happens every time you leave your house on private and public cctv systems

 

[dylans]

You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong.

I think (hope to god) that you are being sarcastic

 

[detective-boy]

I can't see them having enough staff for this.

They don't. And facial recognition softeware is nowhere near good enough yet to pick faces out of crowds - it's only just good enough when you have people staring into a camera in a fixed position. Not sure it ever will be, to be honest, there are simply too many variables in a crwod situation.

Photos are used:

(a) in relation to a specific protest, to try and identify people responsible for serious offences committed during that protest (e.g. if someone heaves a bench through a shop window and ransacks it, the photos from elsewhere will be used to try and get good facial images of those involved if the footage of the incident itself is not good enough, or by matching descriptions, or by showing witnesses, if there was no footage of the incident itself).

(b) in relation to groups who are suspected of acting unlawfully at protests, to try and build intelligence on members of particular groups and their associates, to help try and identify those likely to ccause trouble at future events and try and either disrupt their activity, prevent them getting there and starting problems or more quickly recognising they are present and focusing police activity on them as a priority.

(c) building up current images of known / convicted suspects for serious crime / disorder by linking the new images to existing databases

Unless you are identified in connection with one of those three reasons, there will be no attempt made to identify you and no specific database entry about you - you will just be another face in footage which has to be retained as "unused material" for as long as any investigation / prosecutions related to the protest are ongoing.

As you imply, linking names to faces in still or moving images is a massively time consuming and expensive activity and it simply is not done unless there is a specific reason to do so.

 

[detective-boy]

... and be destroyed immediately once the protest is done, or when they're no longer needed as evidence in an ongoing case.

The law (the Criminal Proecdure and Investigations Act 1996) specifically prevents the destruction of anything which may turn out to be relevant to any criminal investigation or prosecution. This law is ENTIRELY intended to protect the rights of suspects by preventing the police destroying stuff which would have helped the defence case.

So if there is any investigation or prosecution arising from a protest, they police will probably have to retain ALL footage from it as "unused material", for as long as that investigation or prosecution is live, any appeal period and, possibly, for as long as the prosecution papers are retained in the case of a conviction (usually at least 7 years).

 

[winjer]

(b) in relation to groups who are suspected of acting unlawfully at protests, to try and build intelligence on members of particular groups and their associates, to help try and identify those likely to ccause trouble at future events and try and either disrupt their activity, prevent them getting there and starting problems or more quickly recognising they are present and focusing police activity on them as a priority.

'Their associates' can easily become a very broad group, as Mr Wood found out.

The judgment is now online: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/414.html

 

[SpookyFrank]

The law (the Criminal Proecdure and Investigations Act 1996) specifically prevents the destruction of anything which may turn out to be relevant to any criminal investigation or prosecution. This law is ENTIRELY intended to protect the rights of suspects by preventing the police destroying stuff which would have helped the defence case.

So if there is any investigation or prosecution arising from a protest, they police will probably have to retain ALL footage from it as "unused material", for as long as that investigation or prosecution is live, any appeal period and, possibly, for as long as the prosecution papers are retained in the case of a conviction (usually at least 7 years).

So if I get charged with something can I demand that the police provide me with every image/bit of footage/database entry/recording of me talking to my mum over a tapped phone line to use in my defence?

 

[laptop]

So if I get charged with something can I demand that the police provide me with every image/bit of footage/database entry/recording of me talking to my mum over a tapped phone line to use in my defence?

Yes, you can demand it.

Even if not arrested, you can demand footage of and notes about you under the Data Protection Act. "Everything on Mr Spooky" won't work; "everything on Spooky outside the Albert" may.

In either case, from friends' experiences, I'd bet against you getting everything you asked for, first time of asking.

 

[SpookyFrank]

In either case, from friends' experiences, I'd bet against you getting everything you asked for, first time of asking.

This would be my expectation too. I've known people fight tooth and nail just to be allowed to use footage/images the pigs confiscated from them in the first place as part of a defence.

 

[detective-boy]

So if I get charged with something can I demand that the police provide me with every image/bit of footage/database entry/recording of me talking to my mum over a tapped phone line to use in my defence?

Not only can you "demand" it, but schedules of all unused material are routinely prepared in every case and are served on the defence before they have to decide on a plea. If anything on the list is required by the defence they are either given access to it or provided with a copy. If there is anything the defence are aware of which is not listed they can request it or, if it comes to light later, it may be used as the basis for an appeal and has, on many occasions, led to a conviction being overturned.

It relates to everything gathered in the course of an investigation. There is a requirement to record and retain anything encountered during an investigation which may turn out to be relevant. This definition is very widely drawn.

If something is sensitive there are procedures in place for the CPS to go before the Court and get a judgment on whether or not it needs to be revealed to the defence. If they decide it must, the prosecution can only either (a) comply or (b) withdraw the case. This has happened in many sewrious cases, especially those involving informants. The defence now go "fishing" in this area as a matter of course in the hope of causing the prosecution to fold.

As you can probably imagine, this requirement is a very, very big part of the "bureaucracy" which now damages the ability of the police to patrol and which keeps them in the office / at the photocopier. On a typical murder enquiry there will now be one, maybe two, officers employed full-time, from day 1, maintaining the schedules and dealing with disclosure issues.

(This does not cover anything relating to intercept evidence (phone taps) though - by law that cannot be used in Court by either defence or prosecution)

 

[detective-boy]

I've known people fight tooth and nail just to be allowed to use footage/images the pigs confiscated from them in the first place as part of a defence.

You would have to provide more detail on what the issue was - there is absolutely no reason in general law why that would not be absolutely straightforward.

 

[smokedout]

(a) in relation to a specific protest, to try and identify people responsible for serious offences committed during that protest (e.g. if someone heaves a bench through a shop window and ransacks it, the photos from elsewhere will be used to try and get good facial images of those involved if the footage of the incident itself is not good enough, or by matching descriptions, or by showing witnesses, if there was no footage of the incident itself).

can you give one example of FIT Team evidence ever being used to successfully gain a conviction?

Unless you are identified in connection with one of those three reasons, there will be no attempt made to identify you and no specific database entry about you - you will just be another face in footage which has to be retained as "unused material" for as long as any investigation / prosecutions related to the protest are ongoing.

can you explain then, why after being held in a pen for five hours the completely legal and non-violent protesters against the BNP outside City Hall were only permitted to leave when they had been photographed and given their names and addresses?

thanks

 

[SpookyFrank]

You would have to provide more detail on what the issue was - there is absolutely no reason in general law why that would not be absolutely straightforward.

On one occasion a friend was charged with obstructing the plod in rightful pursuit of their attempts to kick some poor young lad's teeth down his throat by taking pictures of them. He had his camera confiscated when he got nicked obviously. The pictures stored on the camera would have shown that this chap was too far away from the plod in question to obstruct them in any way. The court case was postponed either two or three times, in each case the reason was that the police had failed to do as the judge had demanded and allow the defence access to the photographs on the camera.

The reason the police were stalling was that they had a case to answer themselves, having used excessive force in apprehending my friend and then denied him access to medical treatment when he was in their custody. I'm fairly sure I've discussed this case with you before in fact.

And back to using evidence collected by the police in one's defence, what about evidence acquired via covert surveillance and similarly unsporting behaviour? Say the police or someone else has tapped my phone but aren't showing their cards on the matter just yet. If I were to demand, for my defence, copies of any and all recordings of me talking on my phone that the police are in posession of, would they hand these over or would they simply say 'what recordings?'. I mean, I could be accused of robbing a twix from the local offie when the plod have a timed and dated record of me spending the whole of the evening in question at home chatting on the phone to some associates in Pakistan about blowing up Brentford football ground or something. In this case the phone recordings would exonerate my completely from all charges of twix theft. Are there any specific provisions for this sort of thing?

BTW Detective boy, believe it or not I'm glad you're back on the boards and, more importantly, back to your old informative and even-handed self

e2a: Just spotted your comment about wiretap evidence being inadmissable in court. Fair enough. What about other forms of covert surveillance though?

 

[detective-boy]

can you give one example of FIT Team evidence ever being used to successfully gain a conviction?

Yes. Loads. I was involved with the volume crime investigations after one May Day event, and with the serious crime investigations at the next. On both occasions FIT Team evidence was used in a variety of cases.

can you explain then, why after being held in a pen for five hours the completely legal and non-violent protesters against the BNP outside City Hall were only permitted to leave when they had been photographed and given their names and addresses?

Not without knowing the circumstances, no. But, as I am sure you know, whilst there is nothing to stop the police asking for your details, there is no obligation to provide them.

 

[detective-boy]

On one occasion a friend was charged with obstructing the plod

Absolutely no reason there why the evidence of photographs would be inadmissible ... but whether the police were able to find / produce the evidence promptly is another matter (not least due to inefficiency). I would have expected the Court to kick the case out if they did not believe the police's excuse for not producing it was good enough - it has happened enough times before.

And back to using evidence collected by the police in one's defence, what about evidence acquired via covert surveillance and similarly unsporting behaviour?

If the officers involved in the investigation were aware of the material, yes, it would be listed and subject to the disclosure rules. Any failure to reveal it would render lead to a successful appeal.

If the officers in possession of the material were aware of the investigation, yes too. They would be obliged to bring it to the attention of the investigating officers and it would be subject to disclosure rules. If they did not they would also be liable to prosecution for perverting the course of justice.

Even if the two parts of the organisation genuinely did not know of the existence of the other activities, if it later came to light it would lead to a successful appeal.

There is no magic wand, however, to ensure that all officers know everything that all other officers are doing. As there are tens of thousands of investigatons going on all the time, that is simply impossible. That said, proactive operations (where the suspect is targetted, rather than working back from the crime committed) are all subject to "flagging" on intelligence databases (not least to ensure that different departments are not working on the same subjects, leading to "blue on blue" situations) and those databases should be checked when people are chaged and prosecuted. This would mean that the vast number of situations you describe would come to light, at least as far as serious offences are concerned. There may, however, be some where very minor offences are charged without the existence of an ongoing proactive operation being known and, of course, there may be some cases where the identity of people in covert recordings simply are not known, at least for some time.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Not without knowing the circumstances, no. But, as I am sure you know, whilst there is nothing to stop the police asking for your details, there is no obligation to provide them.

Just as the police were apparently under no obligation to let those against whom there was no evidence of any wrongdoing go about their business. If you let the police detain large groups of people arbitrarily it only makes sense to place arbitrary conditions upon those who wish to leave I suppose.

You've heard the reports of people at the G20 being forced to delete photos form their cameras before being allowed to leave police kettles I take it? And just like the anti-BNP demonstrations someone mentioned earlier some folks at the G20 were required to provide names and addresses and to pose for photos before they were allowed to leave kettles. Maybe there is no lawful way the police can demand that anyone does this (afaik) but when the police have you at the mercy, like when you've been in a kettle for eight hours and you're dying for a piss and in desperate need of some warm clothing and a cup of tea, you're pretty much going to comply with any demands the police make of you, no matter how fatuous or downright illegal those demands may be. It's not a million miles away from a copper saying; "you don't have to say anything when you're under arrest but if you did it might convince us to remove the electrodes". The difference being, of course, that for you to be under arrest there must be some reason to suspect you of committing a crime. And you're fed and allowed to go to the toilet.

And lets not forget the other side of this catch 22; whilst people would have been free to tell the police to shove their requests for their names, adresses and photographs and opt to stay put in the kettle, those people would have been all too aware that the result of that decision could have been that they found themselves on the receiving end of a baton charge. Which was, lo and behold, exactly what happened at the G20 climate camp. Still, there was no obligation and that's the important thing.

Why, if your description of the motivations behind the police collecting information about activists and the use which that information is put to are accurate, would they be going to such lengths to get all these photos and match them to names and addresses?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Absolutely no reason there why the evidence of photographs would be inadmissible ... but whether the police were able to find / produce the evidence promptly is another matter (not least due to inefficiency).

It took over 18 months for the matter finally to be concluded. Surely it wouldn't have taken 18 months for someone to check the evidence room and say "oh look, there's that bloke's camera, right where we left it and labelled with his name". This is the police we're dealing with, not Heathrow airport baggage handlers.

 

[detective-boy]

Why, if your description of the motivations behind the police collecting information about activists and the use which that information is put to are accurate, would they be going to such lengths to get all these photos and match them to names and addresses?

As I have said, there are intelligence databases on which details of people suspected of involvment in criminal offences and disorder, and their associates, are retained. If details of people are obtained in circumstances which merit their inclusion on a database on that basis, they are retained but, as I said at the outset, otherwise they are not (unless one of the other reasons I outlined applies).

You choose to describe extreme examples and extrapolate them to the norm. That does not, however, mean that that is the norm.

But it is plain that you simply do not accept that any surveillance or proactive, preventative police activity, intended to disrupt or prevent criminal activity or serious disorder before it takes place can be justified. On that we simply disagree.

 

[detective-boy]

It took over 18 months for the matter finally to be concluded. Surely it wouldn't have taken 18 months for someone to check the evidence room and say "oh look, there's that bloke's camera, right where we left it and labelled with his name". This is the police we're dealing with, not Heathrow airport baggage handlers.

I can't comment further on a case where I do not know the exact details, can I? It seems unlikely that there is any good reason for that length of delay ... but, if that is the case, I do not see why the defence did not succeed in getting the case thrown out - there is no reason why that should not happen and, as I have said, that has happened in loads of cases.

I have also drawn a distinction between the original implication that the camera and the images it contained could not be used in evidence without a massive fight and what seems to be the case, i.e. that the police simply did not produce it promptly.

 

[smokedout]

You choose to describe extreme examples and extrapolate them to the norm. That does not, however, mean that that is the norm.

the ezample i gave about the anti-bnp demos was not extreme, it was standard policing of political events in london at the moment, perhaps your out of touch db

and if i wasnt going to be put on a databse then why would they photograph me and demand i give my names and address, and why would FIT coppers repeatedly refer to me by my name and hint at other details, such as we know where you live, when ive never been convicted of an offence