London bomber called accomplices
- Thread starter q_w_e_r_t_y
- Start date
scalyboy said:
Echelon can track and listen in on mobile phone calls.
eg. here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,911860,00.html
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Hasib Hussein; I am still wondering why he couldn't get on a train.
Thinking about the 3 tube bombers - the Aldgate/Liverpool St one and the Edgware Rd one are both 4 to 5 stops away from King's X. So, assuming they all split up and entered the Underground at the same time (which is an assumption, admitedly), was the King's X/Russell Square one delayed also? Perhaps that bomber intended to detonate at Leicester Square/Piccadilly Circus (again, 4-5 stops away from King's Cross), but was delayed, since the bomb went off only half a stop away from King's X (King's X/Russell Square).
Could it be that because of the earlier unconnected delays on the Piccadilly Line (line closed between Arnos Grove and King's X due to suspect fire at Cally Rd, reopened 8.28AM according to Transport for London), it was extra crowded and he had difficulty getting aboard a train?
But how this relates to the bus bomber I am not sure - it has been said that he was attempting to get on the Northern Line, but how is this known? Maybe the police have evidence of this - CCTV, eyewitnesses? Or maybe its just more media supposition. Suppose he was intending to get on the Piccadilly Line also? Couldn't get on several trains due to overcrowding, then at 9AM the station was evacuated so he came up to the surface and the McDonalds?
Thinking about the 3 tube bombers - the Aldgate/Liverpool St one and the Edgware Rd one are both 4 to 5 stops away from King's X. So, assuming they all split up and entered the Underground at the same time (which is an assumption, admitedly), was the King's X/Russell Square one delayed also? Perhaps that bomber intended to detonate at Leicester Square/Piccadilly Circus (again, 4-5 stops away from King's Cross), but was delayed, since the bomb went off only half a stop away from King's X (King's X/Russell Square).
Could it be that because of the earlier unconnected delays on the Piccadilly Line (line closed between Arnos Grove and King's X due to suspect fire at Cally Rd, reopened 8.28AM according to Transport for London), it was extra crowded and he had difficulty getting aboard a train?
But how this relates to the bus bomber I am not sure - it has been said that he was attempting to get on the Northern Line, but how is this known? Maybe the police have evidence of this - CCTV, eyewitnesses? Or maybe its just more media supposition. Suppose he was intending to get on the Piccadilly Line also? Couldn't get on several trains due to overcrowding, then at 9AM the station was evacuated so he came up to the surface and the McDonalds?
Badger Kitten
oof
scalyboy said:
All Kings Cross trains were running late. I let 2 overcrowded trains go before boarding one at 8.40am. I had arrived at Finsbury Park at 8.30am. Normally there is a train every minute, but they were coming every 3 or 4 minutes. Therefore you had three times as many people attempting to board the trains as normal. So after waiting ten minutes I gave up and got onto the overcrowded train at 8.40am. And stood by the pole in the centre by the first set of double doors.
More people heaved on at each stop. Arsenal, Holloway Road, Caledonian Road, the train was now completely rammed. At Kings Cross the platform was 5 or 6 people deep. People surged onto the train. We could not believe that they were even trying to get on, but if you were at the front of a heaving platform you were pretty much shoved on by the crowd. Anyway, on they all squeezed. Including Germaine Lindsay.
And 30 seconds later he detonated his bomb.
Telephone communications can only be intercepted on a warrant issued under RIPA/Part III Police Act 1997 powers as appropriate. Any communication which the State wished to listen in to as it was taking place would fall in this category.laptop said:
Voicemail messages are not recorded at the instigation of the state but, by selection of the services they want on their mobile phone, by the consumer. They are not "intercepted" - they are complete communications just like a communication to any answerphone. They are therefore not covered AT ALL by the RIPA. Once recorded they cease to be communications requiring interception and become documents or property which can be examined under other, ordinary criminal legislation such as PACE. It is simply the same as the police taking the answerphone tape out of an (old-fashioned) drug dealer's answerphone and listening to it.
The storage time varies from company to company in my experience. It is usually a month or more if the owner of the phone does not delete them. As they are recorded digitally there is scope to retrieve some or all of them from hard drives even after deletion, just as with any other computer based information. Here I suspect they were just sitting there waiting to be listened to at the phone company HQ.
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Hi detective-boy. Do you have any views regarding this way this case is being reported, specifically the way that information is being released to the media? Someone (above) felt that we (the media-consuming public) are being 'drip-fed' information. Would you say that this is par for the course in any ongoing investigation? It has also been argued that this latest piece of info (Hasib Hussein's final movements and phone calls) may have been deliberately released as some form of distraction from the Stockwell shooting enquiry. I wonder how possible this would be - to 'manage' the media and release selective info when desired. Or is it more a case of a police 'source' making unguarded remarks to a journalist, without official sanction?
Cheers, Scalyboy.
Cheers, Scalyboy.
Loki said:
I don't think we'd be hearing about Echelon product this way... detectives texting the Beeb and/or or going for drinkies with journos seems to the the route.
In any case:
1) The actual information presented would come from who-called-whom records; the stuff about panic looks like "must have been..." infill to me
2) Echelon may be working on a large database (it's the search engine, yes?), but I doubt that that records every call made, just in case some cleanskins turn out to have done something. Does anyone have the patience to work out the data size of even a 24-hour buffer of all UK calls?
detective-boy said:
D'oh, of course,
Mine only last 3 days. Maybe I shouldn't have been so rude to those telesales people
Loki said:
Oh, the legality of the data gathering that feeds Echelon. It's always been suspected that there are blanket warrants granting the secret services intercept "rights" on whole classes of people... I think it's been denied, but Menwith Hill had 96k inbound lines back in the '80s and I know of no-one ever claiming there were that many warrants.
There's also legal wriggle-room for international communictions - for example those crossing the fence at Menwith
And there's the point that the secret services don't give a fuck.
Could be ay number of reasons. Senior investigators (of either the bombings or the shooting of Mr de Menezes) may have information which they wish to release to further their investigation in some way. Releasing new information is a recognised technique in regaining media interest (which otherwise is notoriously fickle) but there may be something new which is expected to bring additional evidence / information in to the enquiry.scalyboy said:
There are also some public interest issues - the investigators would not wish the media to go off on a flight of fancy and would consider releasing information to prevent a damaging "information vacuum" developing. This should be a positive step, however, not just a response to media requests. The fear of crime, the ability of the public to properly judge risk and to take crime prevention precautions, etc. all come into play, as does the bigger picture - the effect on life / economy in general.
There is no way an investigator would expect either the media / public to accept a zero release policy, nor would they expect one to last for more than a matter of milliseconds. The usual policy is therefore to release what can properly be released as soon as it can. Operational and legal constraints may work against this but good practice would be that the public are told unless there is a good reason not to (albeit there may be many good reasons especially at the start of an enquiry). It is quite common for more to be released as enquiries confirm that it is more correct / reliable.
But, on top of all this, journalists cultivate officers (of junior and senior rank) and hang round appropriate bars, etc. in the ope of picking up unguarded comments.
I was a copper, not a spy, so I don't know about the legal (or other) basis for their operations though it would not surprise me to find there was some exception or blanket authority for screening activity, upgraded to specific warrants when individually suspect lines were identified.Loki said:
Similar threads
