Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:59AM

joeguevara wrote: »

If you are walking down the street with a baseball bat, you are presumed to be using it for an illegal purpose until you prove you are not.

With the proceeds of crime you are presumed to know, believe or reckless to same to launder it until you prove that you are innocent.

The first isn't true.

The second is different to what you originally said, the proceeds of crime arent yours to keep in the first place.

Again please provide links.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 05:05AM

joeguevara wrote: »

I am more talking about 'how to' guides...such as terrorist cookbooks, making bombs, bringing things on planes....everyone on the watchlist is there for those things rather than watching a beheading. How about we start with that.

I'm in favour of questioning anyone who is downloading detailed instructions on how to make a bomb, regardless of religion.

^ Questioning!*

Even then I'd hazard a guess that millions of kids/teenagers worldwide have googled how to make a bomb or home-made RPG out of curiosity after watching some war movie.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:05AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Neither of those are true.
As I said please provide links.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/

Look under defence...they will be acquitted if they can show they had the item for a reasonable purpose i.e. For work or in my example they played baseball....if they can't show that the assumption is it is for an illegal purpose.

Hold on and I will get the money laundering link.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:09AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

The first isn't true.

The second is different to what you originally said, the proceeds of crime arent yours to keep in the first place.

Again please provide links.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/6/section/11/enacted/en/html

11 (2) guilty of money laundering until you prove otherwise. Once it has been shown that it is the proceeds of crime you are guilty of money laundering until you discharge the burden.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 05:10AM

joeguevara wrote: »

If you are walking down the street with a baseball bat, you are presumed to be using it for an illegal purpose until you prove you are not.

Um. No.

That's just not true on any level.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:11AM

joeguevara wrote: »

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/

Look under defence...they will be acquitted if they can show they had the item for a reasonable purpose i.e. For work or in my example they played baseball....if they can't show that the assumption is it is for an illegal purpose.

Hold on and I will get the money laundering link.

That doesn't at all show that the person is guilty until proven innocent.

It literally says that can give their case and will be aquitted unless the prosecution evidence contradicts them, that's how the law works the defendant gets to give their side.

Honestly stop. It's a human right to be presumed innocent!

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:14AM

joeguevara wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/6/section/11/enacted/en/html

11 (2) guilty of money laundering until you prove otherwise. Once it has been shown that it is the proceeds of crime you are guilty of money laundering until you discharge the burden.

Firstly we are talking about England and secondly as I've already stated the proceeds of crime arent yours to keep and are subject to different rules.

Your original claim was that money laundering itself was guilty until proven innocent not that it has to be proven not to be the proceeds of crime.
Two very different scenarios, you need to accept you were wrong.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:16AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Firstly we are talking about England and secondly as I've already stated the proceeds of crime arent yours to keep and are subject to different rules.

Your original claim was that money laundering itself was guilty until proven innocent not that it has to be proven not to be the proceeds of crime.
Two very different scenarios, you need to accept you were wrong.

Not necessarily true....if you believe it is the proceeds of crime, you can be guilty of a money laundering offence even if it is not the proceeds of crime.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:18AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

That doesn't at all show that the person is guilty until proven innocent.

It literally says that can give their case and will be aquitted unless the prosecution evidence contradicts them, that's how the law works the defends gets to give their side.

Honestly stop. It's a human right to be presumed innocent!

No it isn't. In most crimes the defence never has to give their side. In this case they will be found guilty unless they show the reason was legitimate.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:19AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Not necessarily true....if you believe it is the proceeds of crime, you can be guilty of a money laundering offence even if it is not the proceeds of crime.

What isn't true?

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:20AM

joeguevara wrote: »

No it isn't. In most crimes the defence never has to give their side. In this case they will be found guilty unless they show the reason was legitimate.

You're talking complete and utter rubbish.

The defence doesn't give their side....

What on earth are all those defence barristers actually doing then??

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:21AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

What isn't true?

It doesn't have to be the proceeds of crime to be a money laundering offence.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:23AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

You're talking complete and utter rubbish.

The defence doesn't give their side....

Ok....if the prosecution shows that you were caught on the street with a machete, concealed in your coat pocket, and the defence gives no evidence..what happens?

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:25AM

joeguevara wrote: »

It doesn't have to be the proceeds of crime to be a money laundering offence.

I know that.

You're original post said money laundering was am offence in which one was presumed guilty in the UK.
Whem asked to prove that with a link you started rambling about proceeds of crime and produced an Irish link.

Anyway it's nothing to do with the thread so forget it.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 05:27AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Ok....if the prosecution shows that you were caught on the street with a machete, concealed in your coat pocket, and the defence gives no evidence..what happens?

You are the one who said the defence doesn't give evidence. Not me!!
It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!!

I'm not discussing this any further it's nothing to do with the topic.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 05:36AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

You're talking complete and utter rubbish.

The defence doesn't give their side....
What on earth are all those defence barristers actually doing then??

In most cases, barristers try and pick holes in prosecution such as a defective search warrant or undue pressure in an interview...it is rare enough that we call the defendant to give evidence.

But if it was for possession of a weapon we have to show it was for a legitimate purpose. For example, I got a butcher off for walking down the street with a cleaver in his bag. If I didn't show he was a butcher, coming home from work he would have been found guilty. The prosecution did not have to show he was going to use it for anything, only evidence that he had it.

But, sure keep thinking I'm talking absolute rubbish. But back to my original point, if someone accesses terrorist paraphernalia, how about letting them show it was for a legitimate purpose rather than the prosecution or police showing it was the contra...it is a thought, not sure why you are so against it.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 06:01AM

I'm not against it, it's impractical, it's a breach of human rights and it wouldn't work.
As another poster said all it would do is drive them further underground,make them harder to catch.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 06:05AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

I'm not against it, it's impractical, it's a breach of human rights and it wouldn't work.
As another poster said all it would do is drive them further underground,make them harder to catch.

But it wouldn't....if that was the case people would never be caught with child pornography on their computers. I have seen first hand the sophistication of surveillance in Ireland and the UK. This is the reason they are on the watchlist in the first place. And also, (I am not sure if it was you or another poster) they are reading whatsapp group chats. A recent law was brought in to make administrators of whatsapp group chats criminally liable for what's posted in a supposed secret and private chat

njs030 · 28-05-2017 06:22AM

joeguevara wrote: »

But it wouldn't....if that was the case people would never be caught with child pornography on their computers. I have seen first hand the sophistication of surveillance in Ireland and the UK. This is the reason they are on the watchlist in the first place. And also, (I am not sure if it was you or another poster) they are reading whatsapp group chats. A recent law was brought in to make administrators of whatsapp group chats criminally liable for what's posted in a supposed secret and private chat

What???

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 06:29AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

What???

Apologies, this is a new law in India. I had skimmed read it last week and I thought it was Europe.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/whatsapp-group-admins-could-be-sent-to-prison-over-messages-sent-in-chat-35642209.html

But, that's not to say it still isn't true. As an administrator, similar to a forum, it could be argued is responsible for content. What it does show is that private whatsapp groups are being monitored.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 06:37AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Apologies, this is a new law in India. I had skimmed read it last week and I thought it was Europe.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/whatsapp-group-admins-could-be-sent-to-prison-over-messages-sent-in-chat-35642209.html

But, that's not to say it still isn't true. As an administrator, similar to a forum, it could be argued is responsible for content. What it does show is that private whatsapp groups are being monitored.

I had a read of a few news articles there, it seems to be that if someone within the group is offended on religious grounds the admin is responsible.
Perhaps I misunderstood but that sounds like the person would be reporting it?

Whatsapp can't be monitored as its encrypted, the British government are trying to get access to it but it's unlikely they will be allowed.
I think eventually they will ban it the same way it's banned occasionally in other countries- Brazil randomly ban it now and then!!

Good article about it
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/27/amber-rudd-call-backdoor-access-hazy-grasp-encryption

GT_TDI_150 · 28-05-2017 08:05AM

To those that say that they dont agree that with arresting or interogating or detaining people that are found to be watching ISIS propaganda and visit jihad related forums/sites('could be a journalist') and travel(led) to syria('could be a doctor or healthcare volunteer') and maý have ties to an ISIS recruiter ('could be childhood friend') and have been reported by family and friend for radical view/ comments, are in possession of perroxide (could be a trainie hairdresser)..

At what point do you think this person can be questioned/arrested/held?

Whèn the bomb has gone off?

There are plausable explanations for each item listed above but when some one ticks multiple boxes they become a problem... also some one googling 'what is ISIS' is miles apart from 'how do i join ISIS'. Or loòking on wikipedia for jihad vs debating the merit of jehad on forums'

ilkhanid · 28-05-2017 08:45AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

24/7 surveillance on 1 target involves upwards of 60 people to do it properly, including 30 officers/agents on the ground trailing him 24/7 in shifts - that's according to FBI counter-terrorism experts.

To watch all 1,000 people on the watch-list, you'd need at least 60,000 trained officers at the cost of hundreds of millions.

No police force in the entire world can conduct around-the-clock surveillance on that many people.

The only security service that managed a level of surveillance even approaching that was the Stasi, and we don't want any state going down that road, surely?

homerjay2005 · 28-05-2017 08:50AM

Claim in this mornings papers that the bomber was made known as a threat to UK security by US intelligence several months ago and nothing was done about it. He had been plotting the attack for a year.

And yet weve posters on here defending the lack of activity from the police which is quite frankly disgraceful.

28-05-2017 10:43AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The bottom line is if there's 1,000 people on a watch-list, what do you hope for the police/intelligence services to actually do?

24/7 surveillance on 1 target involves upwards of 60 people to do it properly, including 30 officers/agents on the ground trailing him 24/7 in shifts - that's according to FBI counter-terrorism experts.

TL;DR - It only looks negligent/sloppy/lazy because Abedi committed an act of terrorism but the truth is the police have nightmarish difficult choices on who to conduct surveillance on and they do their very best - for the past 12 years their very best was good enough to prevent any major incident.

Why do you assume that all 1,000 people would require round the clock surveillance?

wonderfullife wrote: »

You really need this explained?

Ok.......

I ring the police:

"Listen my friend Homeyjay2005 left his laptop open and I saw he was watching a few ISIS beheading videos online. He's also been yapping lately about how those Western pigs need teaching a lesson. I also believe he went on a holiday to Turkey recently".

So you're cool with the police locking you up based on my/other people reporting concerns?

The word "intern" means locked up without trial.

They can investigate all they want but if you haven't, ya know, actually broken any laws then they can't just throw you in prison.

Which is exactly what you're calling for here.

Watching ISIS videos, thinking the West are pigs and travelling to known terrorist countries are not actually crimes. You're aware they're not crimes right?

Yeah, my attitude IS "ah sure you can't be locking people up who didn't commit a crime based on a suspicion they might one day commit a crime".

Absolute unreal nonsense.

I want to live in a country where if you break laws, you're arrested, presumed innocent and given a day in court.

You seem to want to live in a country where they throw people in jail on the off chance they might some day commit a crime.

It's not "political correctness" to hold that view, it's actually just correct.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

I also want to live in a Country where if you break laws, you're arrested, tried, and convicted where guilty.

Here's the question:

There's a law against membership of a terrorist organisation in this Country.

Is there a British equivalent? (I'm pretty sure there is!).

If not, why not?

wonderfullife wrote: »

But the ones that were actually thinking about committing an attack will now know the police are on to them and take even extra care about who they talk to, where they go, how they plan it etc.

The ones that weren't thinking about ever doing an attack will now think they've been persecuted due to their religion.

If you want my 2 cents on extreme solutions that might help that they need to do more of...

If I was the UK government I would recruit the very best hackers in the country and constantly disrupt, bring down, disable, crash every known server/website that spreads ISIS propaganda. Put more money into doing that.

I'd try 'flip' some extreme preachers with devoted followings into softening their message into one of peace or plant some long-term spies with the intention of them becoming preachers, who can then try disseminate that message.

Most of all, and I know for a fact this isn't done enough, I would counter-program ISIS propaganda. For every ISIS video or tweet sent out, there should be a dozen anti-ISIS videos and tweets swamping out their message.

For every video of an ISIS fighter with hot girls on his arm and looking powerful, I'd counter-program it a video of a before/after picture of an ISIS fighter alive, then dead.

21st century warfare isn't gonna be about nation states and storming the trenches. It's going to be an information war as much as a ground war.

Defeat ISIS online. Constantly drown out, subvert and diminish their capabilities of spreading hate.

It's no good just dropping MOAB's on these people, you have to defeat the message and appeal of extremism.

It's nothing to do with their religion. It's clearly related to terrorism.

I would strongly agree with your suggestions about internet surveillance.

notjustsweet wrote: »

I had a read of a few news articles there, it seems to be that if someone within the group is offended on religious grounds the admin is responsible.
Perhaps I misunderstood but that sounds like the person would be reporting it?

Whatsapp can't be monitored as its encrypted, the British government are trying to get access to it but it's unlikely they will be allowed.
I think eventually they will ban it the same way it's banned occasionally in other countries- Brazil randomly ban it now and then!!

Good article about it
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/27/amber-rudd-call-backdoor-access-hazy-grasp-encryption

Whatsapp can't currently be monitored.

I don't claim to be an expert on encryption, but does anyone remember various high profile cases about encrypted satellite tv signals being hacked?

I believe one of the most successful hackers was tried, convicted - and subsequently ended up creating a new encryption method, which, afaik - has never been hacked.

Now, I know that particular encryption method required the chips you see on your Sky card.

I find it very hard to believe that it would be impossible to apply a similar encryption method to whatsapp, or whatever other app.

Security personnel could use the chipped cards, linked to encryption on the server, to access the online activity of persons of interest.

The obvious drawbacks are that it would take time to install such a system, and that there would probably need to be new legislation passed (pretty much worldwide:() - to ensure that servers applied the encryption.

I have very little doubt that it would be difficult - but I also have little doubt that it's achievable.

In conjunction with this - there would probably need to be some form of licensing approval for new apps, or a method of ensuring that encrypted chat could be intercepted at enough servers to prove effective.

Not easy, by any means, I think - but where existing solutions are not proving effective enough, then maybe it's time for new technological solutions to be found?

Christy42 · 28-05-2017 10:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you assume that all 1,000 people would require round the clock surveillance?

That's an interesting viewpoint.

I also want to live in a Country where if you break laws, you're arrested, tried, and convicted where guilty.

Here's the question:

There's a law against membership of a terrorist organisation in this Country.

Is there a British equivalent? (I'm pretty sure there is!).

If not, why not?

It's nothing to do with their religion. It's clearly related to terrorism.

I would strongly agree with your suggestions about internet surveillance.

Whatsapp can't currently be monitored.

I don't claim to be an expert on encryption, but does anyone remember various high profile cases about encrypted satellite tv signals being hacked?

I believe one of the most successful hackers was tried, convicted - and subsequently ended up creating a new encryption method, which, afaik - has never been hacked.

Now, I know that particular encryption method required the chips you see on your Sky card.

I find it very hard to believe that it would be impossible to apply a similar encryption method to whatsapp, or whatever other app.

Security personnel could use the chipped cards, linked to encryption on the server, to access the online activity of persons of interest.

The obvious drawbacks are that it would take time to install such a system, and that there would probably need to be new legislation passed (pretty much worldwide:() - to ensure that servers applied the encryption.

I have very little doubt that it would be difficult - but I also have little doubt that it's achievable.

In conjunction with this - there would probably need to be some form of licensing approval for new apps, or a method of ensuring that encrypted chat could be intercepted at enough servers to prove effective.

Not easy, by any means, I think - but where existing solutions are not proving effective enough, then maybe it's time for new technological solutions to be found?

I am pretty sure that watching ISIS videos does not make a member of ISIS. I am sure there are security services and academics interested in these things. Maybe you could make it illegal without a special license or something. I am not too sure how you prove membership (though you can certainly have a decent idea).

For what's app the easiest would be to make a deal with the owner to build in a back door. It is what the US had going to let them spy on e-mails and the like. Actual decryption tends to require someone on the encryption end being stupid, lazy or corrupt these days (though generally speaking there is no shortage of those types of people in the world, hence hacking).

Samaris · 28-05-2017 11:14AM

Part of the issue with the internet when it comes to combatting this sort of thing is that our laws aren't really designed for something like the internet and most internet-users have adamantly opposed any restrictions on the internet.

As a side-note, there is a thread on basically exactly this in Politics Cafe at the moment.

28-05-2017 11:23AM

Christy42 wrote: »

I am pretty sure that watching ISIS videos does not make a member of ISIS. I am sure there are security services and academics interested in these things. Maybe you could make it illegal without a special license or something. I am not too sure how you prove membership (though you can certainly have a decent idea).

For what's app the easiest would be to make a deal with the owner to build in a back door. It is what the US had going to let them spy on e-mails and the like. Actual decryption tends to require someone on the encryption end being stupid, lazy or corrupt these days (though generally speaking there is no shortage of those types of people in the world, hence hacking).

I'm very sure that it doesn't. I actually followed a link on this forum once - and I've taken care never to do it again. Vile doesn't even come close to describing it.

However, membership of illegal organisations has been legally proven in this Country, so, it is certainly possible.

I'd agree that the easiest method of accessing Whatsapp (and other apps) encryption would be through a back door.

Unfortunately, I don't think that would be enough.

We know that ISIS have members that are very tech savvy. That one video I watched looked professional, and I've read various news reports, and, indeed, posts on here, that have commented on that fact.

That being the case, it's reasonable to assume that members either have, or could, in future, acquire the ability to create new, encrypted, apps.

For that matter, what's to stop them paying some naive young programmer to create an app, without knowing what its intended use would be?

That being the case, it really wouldn't matter what back doors were written into existing apps!

Hence the suggestion that encryption would have to be on the servers, since, afaik, (and this is where my lack of knowledge is a distinct hindrance!) once something is posted, it can bounce around a lot of servers before actually getting to the intended recipient?

In other words, once something is posted, there is no control over where the individual packets of information go, before being delivered?

It seems to me, perhaps incorrectly, that that is potentially an exploitable weakness in any programme/app - and therefore one security services could be taking advantage of?

I genuinely believe that 24/7 surveillance is not the way to go anymore.
I'm sure it's useful in some circumstances - but where people are communicating across vast distances, it's never going to be adequate - in my (admittedly, ill-informed, and inexperienced) opinion!

Samaris · 28-05-2017 11:52AM

Eh, when it comes to the internet, it's a constant war between the white hats and the black hats. They'll absolutely find a way around it, and another method will have to be figured out, and they'll adapt to that too, etc. That's inevitable and happens to everyone else.

Back doors is always tricky as how do you stop someone finding it and exploiting it? It'll be in the code, it'll be figured out eventually and used.

Richard Hillman · 28-05-2017 12:12PM

There is no way they cannot read WhatsApp messages. It's just what they want the terrorists to believe. There have been many times when I was talking to friends about a subject and suddenly, in between conversations, I'm getting Facebook and Google ads on the subject.

I was talking to a friend recently that told me that he was accepted into a course. I asked where was it and went into Facebook before he answers. Up popped an Ad for NCI. 5 minutes later he responds with NCI.

There is absolutely no way Facebook would have been able to resist the temptation of analysing WhatsApp conversations to suit their ad service.

Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

Comments