Comment: Christmas Day Plot, Part I (Update)

The Telegraph has published a story today claiming that US Customs and Border Protection had singled out Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab based on the human intelligence submitted by the State Department and were waiting to bring him in for interrogation in Detroit. This claim seems to take some steam out of the argument that US intelligence failed to “connect the dots.” This raises the question whether, under the circumstances, some other operative action should have been taken while the flight was in the air. Given what was known, would it have been appropriate to order the flight to turn back around to Amsterdam? Suppose Abdulmutallab caught on to what was happening and decided to detonate over Amsterdam upon the return. Would it have been appropriate to order the flight crew to restrain him? Think of the standards that would apply if the “suspect” were simply someone standing on a public street. Should different standards apply on airplanes?

The article also features an interesting quote from a “senior Homeland Security official” who indicated that “in-depth vetting only begins once the flight manifest has been generated, a few hours before takeoff.” This statement suggests that passenger name records are not submitted on a rolling basis as reservations are made but only once the list of passengers on any one flight has been relatively solidified.

News: UK Environment Agency's use of RIPA Slammed

The Daily Telegraph reports that government officials investigating 'illegal disposal of waste' improperly tracked cars and trespassed on private property under home office advice. The Office of Surveillance Commissioners found evidence of the breeches last year, but the tactics continued to be used until the Environment Agency recently announced a suspension of their use 'pending a legal judgement':

Reports from recent inspections show that “fundamental flaws” were discovered in some of its operations. The surveillance commissioner has also repeatedly raised concerns over the proportionality of the Environment Agency’s operations.
The reports – marked “restricted” - show that in 2007 the Home Office advised officials that “affixing a magnetic device to a vehicle on the public highway” was “not a criminal offence” and “putting an arm into a wheel arch or under the frame of a vehicle is straining the concept of trespass.”

The Environment Agency continues to trial a network of informants and intends to contruct 'a national spy network' the Commissioner reported.

Teacher Training

The Telegraph reports that MI5 are actively targeting teachers in a new recruitment drive. In the latest Times Educational Supplement they have an advert that urges school staff to apply on the grounds that they can "build trust and relationships with all sorts of individuals".

Recruiting Informants

Another report of uk police pressuring people to become informants. Last week I blogged about the case of Martin Winters, a friend of a suspected Real IRA leader. Despite Winters continued refusals, he claims police harrassed him for years trying to get him to inform. At the weekend the Guardian broke the story of environmentalist protesters from Plane Stupid being pursued as potential informants. The protester secretly taped the conversation (more sousveillance?) and now anyone can have a listen over at the guardian's website.

In both cases there seem to have been a combination of bribes and threats in play. What do you think of this behaviour? Is snitching so objectionable that police should never seek informants? Should they only use the carrot rather than the stick? Does the answer depend on whether you're pursuing terrorists or not? Or is the police's behaviour fine in both these cases?

The Company You Keep

An absolutely facinating story from the Sunday Tribune at the weekend. A man by the name of Martin Winters claims to have been continually approached by the British Security Services with offers of 6 figure sums and a home abroad to inform on 'X', a leader of the Real IRA.

The continued approaches already amounted to harrassment before Winters found a bug and GPS tracker under his car bumper last August. Winters admits knowing X, but claims to be completely uninvolved in any Real IRA activities, indeed, completely uninterested in politics in general. He says all he wants now, is for him and his family to be left alone.

Even if this were a completely fictional story the scenario alone raises some interesting questions. At the outset there is the moral dilemma of what one ought to do faced with evidence that one's friend is involved in wrongdoing on a large scale (a main theme of my favourite film). But I think that even if you agree that one does have an obligation to turn a friend in in such circumstances, that this isn't the sort of obligation any one else could demand from you.

Another set of questions this raises relates to Winter's right to privacy here. Many would affirm the right of authorities to place a tracker or bug on X's car, given that there were evidence that he has been involved in wrongdoing. But could you justify such intrusions into the privacy of an innocent man? Should we affirm a principle that association with the wrong crowd in itself, regardless of intention, forfeits one's right to privacy?