Phone tapping without a court order.

I first wrote about the digital masts or government added towers to monitor people over 4 years ago on a different site, I was called names, the usual names, tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, you name it they called it me. Now fast forward to today, and the open silencing of criticism in the UK at least by the NPCC, that stands for national police chiefs council. (UK only) These people or this institution more like, rebranded in 2015 from the ACPO. The ACPO was accountable for it's action, under the freedom of information act, the latter version is not, meaning they have zero accountability to anyone.

They admit to doing this, though refuse to give any details regards who, when, or why?.

Allow me to give you a full article, that is open to sharing as stated on it's page.

When carrying out some freedom of information requests, Privacy International received a worrying response from the National Police Chief’s Council – it’s no longer open to scrutiny.
Here Privacy International Legal Officer Scarlet Kim explains why this needs to be urgently corrected.
In order to uphold the law and keep us safe, the police can seriously interfere with a range of fundamental human rights. And so transparency and public scrutiny of their actions are essential to protect against misconduct and abuse.

So why is the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) now permitted to operate in secret?

We all have the right to seek information from most public bodies – including the police – under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. When the law was first proposed, it was recognised that “unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making” and that “the perception of excessive secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence in government.”

And when it comes to police surveillance, FOIA is particularly crucial because surveillance is conducted in secret, heightening the risk of misconduct and abuse.
People who have been placed under surveillance have no right to know they have been watched, even if the surveillance has breached their human rights. Evidence obtained from certain surveillance activities, like phone-tapping, can’t be used in court. And strict gagging provisions prevent companies ordered to facilitate surveillance from revealing their assistance to the public.

So FOIA is often the only remaining avenue for seeking transparency and redress – but not anymore if you want answers from the NPCC.
In 2015, the NPCC replaced the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) – which was very much subject to freedom of information (FOI) requests. And since its inception, the NPCC has also acted as if subject to FOIA. That is until it performed a dangerous U-turn when Privacy International recently asked it for information on ‘IMSI catchers’.

IMSI catchers are surveillance tools, which mimic mobile phone towers, tricking phones into connecting with them and revealing personal data. Some IMSI catchers can also intercept data, including the content of calls, text messages and internet traffic. In November 2016, we sent FOI requests to a number of police forces and law enforcement policy-making bodies – including the NPCC – regarding their use and regulation.
The NPCC – like all the other bodies – responded to say it could neither confirm nor deny it held the requested information. It assigned us an ‘FOI request reference number’ and said we could seek a review of its decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as required by FOIA.

In other words, the NPCC clearly believed itself to be governed by FOIA.
Yet when Privacy International notified the NPCC that it would indeed be seeking a review from the ICO, the NPCC responded that ACPO’s designation under FOIA did not actually pass to the NPCC – so it can now operate in secret.
The NPCC did go on to say it should “clearly be open to the same level of scrutiny and transparency as its predecessor and it is anticipated that an Order to bring the NPCC under the auspices of FOIA will be forthcoming”. It also said it was working with the Cabinet Office to make this a reality.

But there is unfortunately reason to doubt the NPCC’s support for bringing forward such an Order. On 1 May 2018 – six months after it pledged its support – 15 new public authorities were designated as subject to FOIA as a result of a Cabinet Office order. Strikingly, the NPCC was absent from that list.
On 18 May 2018, Liberty – which is representing Privacy International with respect to its IMSI catcher FOI requests – wrote to the Home Office and Cabinet Office to request an immediate order designating the NPCC as a public authority subject to FOIA.
The Freedom of Information Act serves as an essential mechanism to facilitate public scrutiny of law enforcement activities but remains inadequate in its coverage. The immediate designation of the NPCC as subject to FOIA is a small but easy step for the government to undertake.
Liberty has given the Home Office and Cabinet Office until 26 June to respond with a timeline for when this will be done. We eagerly await their response.

Full source here

Over reaching privacy intrusion.

The UK is the single most surveilled country in the world, full stop, it is second to none. Adding this phone and mobile internet usage plus text message monitoring into the mix exasperates this problem.

It may be one of the most remote spots in Britain yet it’s almost impossible to set foot in Lerwick, the capital of the Shetland Islands, without having your every step recorded on CCTV. From the harbour stretching all the way to the town centre, a £240,000 network of 14 CCTV cameras records locals’ movements from almost the very moment that they leave their homes.

Full source

UK public must wake up to risks of CCTV, says surveillance commissioner
Tony Porter says Britons are blind to extent of monitoring and wants public bodies to be more open about use of cameras.
Tony Porter, the surveillance commissioner, says the public is complacent about being watched.
The increasing use of surveillance technology – including body-worn video, drones and number plate recognition systems – risks changing the “psyche of the community” by reducing individuals to trackable numbers in a database, the government’s CCTV watchdog has warned.

In his full first interview as surveillance commissioner, Tony Porter – a former senior counter-terrorism officer – said the public was complacent about encroaching surveillance and urged public bodies, including the police, to be more transparent about how they are increasingly using smart cameras to monitor people.
Porter stressed that he was not anti-surveillance and insisted he was helping to improve standards by encouraging the adoption of a voluntary code. But he added: “The lack of public awareness about the nature of surveillance troubles me.”

Full source link.

Why does nobody care?

I have no idea, hence why I left. In Birmingham where I lived, we were on camera and being recorded just about everywhere anyone went, it is worse than that if you drive, automatic cameras are everywhere that read number plates, if you have done anything wrong, it is reported where you are via a central computer, the police also have these cameras in their cars, and they read number plates on auto, so anyone driving without road tax, insurance, or a government once a year car safety test, is automatically detected.

Crushing!

Is what they do to your vehicle if you are caught without insurance, even if you drive a million $ Ferrari, you think I am kidding now don't you? wrong.

This is the moment a millionaire's beloved £200,000 Ferrari was crushed by police.
Zahid Khan was stopped by West Midlands Police officers on April 5 last year and his white 458 Spider seized.
Mr Khan said police stopped him because they suspected the car was stolen, reports the Birmingham Mail .

But he said he had legitimately bought the car at auction, via a middleman, and had spent “a lot of time and money" on the vehicle.
West Midlands Police officers seized the white Ferrari 458 Spider - Officers said the Ferrari was crushed because it had no valid insurance and was a Category B vehicle.
West Midlands Police later stated the Ferrari was crushed because it had no valid insurance and was a Category B vehicle - which are officially classed as unroadworthy, meaning the shell had to be destroyed.
Mr Khan has now obtained the dramatic video of the Ferrari being crushed from West Midlands Police and posted it on his Facebook page.
He claimed: “This is my Ferrari the police crushed unlawfully!
"It has taken them almost 1 year to release the video..."

full source here

It happens everyday in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442085/Lamborghini-worth-400k-seized-police-crackdown-uninsured-vehicles.html

And another? 'No insurance' £300,000 Lamborghini faces crusher after it was seized in London
Purple high-performance machine currently on display outside New Scotland Yard.

full source

Deliberators verdict = The UK is a police state.

Images CC0 pixabay.