You are in:
- Archives » 2008 » January 2008
Britain's Stasi State
British papers are leading with the news that every day, the security services and other agencies request permission to carry out 1,000 bugging and phone tap operations. 653 state bodies, including 474 local councils, have the power to intercept private communications.
The Daily Mail says the intelligence services, plus police forces, local authorities and agencies such as the serious fraud office made 253,500 requests for phone taps, the interception of emails or post in the final nine months of 2006.
"Those being bugged range from suspected terrorists to potential illegal flytippers who are being monitored by councils using increasingly sophisticated surveillance to catch them breaking the law."
The Mail adds that perhaps 1,000 of these operations had been "flawed" and thanks to administrative errors, "innocent people" have had their phones tapped.
Of the remaining quarter million, well we have no evidence of whether the unsuspecting subjects were guilty or innocent, as the law does not allow phone tapping evidence to be used in court. Security services claim that a change in the law making surveillance gathering admissible would compromise their operations by giving away techniques - but at least it would prove to the public the necessity of carrying out such unprecedented numbers of "intercepts."
The police, instead, say that interceptions have been used to trap paedophiles and terrorists, and expect Brits to shrug their shoulders and say "well, that's alright then."
According to the Telegraph,
"A total of 653 state bodies — including 474 councils — have the power to intercept private communications.
"Bugging is usually carried out by MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police and most people are targeted on suspicion of terrorism or serious crime.
"But under laws that came into force eight years ago hundreds of public bodies can carry out surveillance.
"These include the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service and local fire authorities and prison governors."
What would local councils require such information for?
