Slashdot Mirror
Bank Accounts of 5,000 UK Terror Suspects Tracked
Juha-Matti Laurio writes to mention an article over at the Guardian, reporting on the surveillance of over 5,000 bank accounts in the interests of terrorist tracking. Accounts at such reputable British banks as HSBC, Barclay, and Lloyds TSB are having their activity tracked for 'suspicious activity'. Financial details from these banks, it turns out, was part of the trail of evidence used to apprehend terrorism suspects in a plot to bomb airplanes last month. From the article: "However, the extent of the banks' involvement in neutering the terrorist threat has sparked a fierce backlash from some British Muslims amid claims of mistaken identities and the persecution of innocent account-holders. Ahmed Salama was stunned when his HSBC account was frozen nine days ago. He received a letter informing him that HSBC wished to end their relationship after 11 years. The decision left Salama unable to pay 12 bills and his mortgage. Despite repeatedly asking for an explanation, HSBC has only told him it detected 'suspicious' payments in his account."
I'd rather have a 0.00000001% chance of being blown up by terrorist events organized by the government, than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.
Some people assume that fascism is something that happened in Italy pre WW2 or something. They never entertain the thought that germans, italians and spanish people didn't see it coming until it was too late to do anything about it. Why do the british/american people delude themselves under the false assumption that it could never happen with them?
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist. The leaders generally work towards that state, however well intentioned they might be.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
And here we see the consequences of a shoot-first, ask-questions-later policy to fighting crime/terrorism/whatever we're calling it today. The law should protect people from this kind of mistake, not encourage it.
The really insidious thing, of course, isn't that the mistake happened -- no-one's perfect, certainly not banks and government departments -- but that there is little the victim of such a mistake can do, since the system is designed to stonewall them on the basis that they're in the wrong. In other words, the system assumes it is perfect. This sort of situation, where the little guy is being screwed by the big guy with the government's blessing, is exactly why things like constitutional safeguards, civil liberties and due process are important.
And yes, I am bitter. I have had problems of a similar type, in my case by a random civil service staffer making a simple mistake in entering an ID number on their system, fluking my number instead of someone else's, and leaving me with several months of being out of pocket and wasting hours trying to get the problem fixed. That was not long after I started my first job, when I had precious little in the way of savings and a very tight budget, and it nearly left me unable to pay my rent.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Can't pay your bills, can't pay your mortgage, have your credit rating plummet, forget about renewing your mortgage, forget about getting that loan.
Who needs terror from abroad when there's enough domestic terror?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Both the account holder and the financial institution have the right to terminate the commercial relationship. The financial institution is limited by discrimination laws in the United States, and presumably there are limitations in the United Kingdom as well. Criminal investigation is an excellent reason to terminate the relationship.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Being Free means living with the risks.
When you're terrified of Gatorade On A Plane, you're not Free.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
References? Evidence? Figures picked out of your arse?
Looks like you need to do some homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
You do know that Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842-1997, right?
It was set up by a Scot, is based in London and don't forget that Hong Kong was under British rule until 1997. I think that qualifies as British.
In the othe news: "87.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot"
Oh, yes...the 'liquid explosive' plot.
I really hate comments like this. Do you have any real evidence proving that there was no plot?
It's like the people who still think that 9/11 was a setup so the US could invade the Middle East.
Why don't you go and preach your crap to the families of the victims?
Summation 2
The last terrorist attack in London cost around £3,000 to finance. Think about that for a second. Ten people could each have paid £300. You can withdraw that much from a cash machine over a couple of weeks without raising any alarms.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
25% believe that the 7/7 bombings were justified. Ok, this one looks bad. It can be explained by the U.K's collaboration with the U.S regarding the war in Iraq. Many muslims don't stomach all those tens of thousands of deaths due to collateral damage and will hold countries responsible. And maybe lash out in a poll. Doesn't mean they'll actually support terrorism. Only an idiot would think that. 45%+ of quebec residents favored secession, yet they never demolished bridges and blocked streets with burning tires. Opinion does not equal action. And 75% of muslims were against the attacks. That's a bigger percentage than the number of europeans who are against racism according to the last french and austrian elections among others. And racism is a much, much , MUCH bigger problem than terrorism. We don't freeze THOSE people's bank accounts though, do we?
Only one in four think Britain is their country? So what? You think those people are going to simply renounce their country of origin? People are proud, even those that come from third world countries. Who CARES if they view GB as their country. Their children will. And that'll be the end of that. That's the way it ALWAYS works with immigrants.
30% of muslims would prefer to live under sharia law? Meaning islamic law? ONLY 30%? Wow, that's great. Isn't it? 70% of muslims PREFER A SECULAR GOVERNMENT! What's the problem?
15% of muslims say that given the choice, they'd move to a country governed by shari'a laws. Well then, they are lying. There is nothing stopping them. Here's Morocco, here's Algeria, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, ad infinitum, why don't they move there? I know for a fact they don't need visas to go there. What does that say about the 30% that'd prefer a sharia government? Might they ALSO be lying? *GASP*. Hard to believe, but people lie in polls. Google that and find out for yourself.
28% hope for the U.K to become an islamic state. And these are muslims we're talking about. How many christians do you think would be in favor of living in a christian state? EH? Should we monitor THEIR bank accounts? What a stupid question to ask. This is trolling if i've ever seen it
That poll was designed to make muslims look bad. Stop spreading FUD.
Err, as is their perfect right?
You do remember that 'democracy' thing? That 'freedom' thing we're apparently fighting for? Who the fuck are you to say that they don't have a perfect right to desire Sharia Law in Britain? And if they get a majority in power, can't implement it?
Or is it only /your/ brand of democracy and freedom that's acceptable?
I'd be surprised if you replaced Muslim with "Baptist" in the US, and Islamic with "Christian", you wouldn't come up with the same result.
Again, their perfect right. If they are able to win a majority support in parliament, so /should/ Britain become a fundamentalist Islamic state.
You are aware that people are allowed to live lifes with different beliefs to you, aren't you?
That stinks. In the USA, 100% is covered up to 100,000.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What happens to the 70% or so when the 30% or so start beheading those who disagree with them?
I dunno, what happens when the 70% say, "fuck that" and don't let a 2:1 minority start beheading them?
Or maybe you could pay attention to the point the OP was making about how 30% expressing a preference in a poll is one helluva different thing than going around beheading people?
The younger generation is more alienated and radicalized than the older generation. The 7/7 bombers were born and raised in the UK.
Young men across the world are always more alienated and radicalized than their parents. It's part of being "young, dumb and full of cum." When they get to the age of their parents, they will have mellowed, just like their parents did, and their parents before them all the way back throught history of mankind.
While most Muslims may not be terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim.
Really?
A) You are wrong - more terrorists are catholic - irish and basque to start with.
B) So what? Do you really think it is reasonable to draw conclusions about a group of people based on less than one in a 100,000? There are more klansmen than their are muslim terrorists, does that say anything meaningful about white christians?
Critical Thinking, it could be your best friend, so get some.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Of course. My goal was to err on the side of overstatement, just to show that even overstating the risk, you're more likely to win the lottery than to be a terrorism victim.
Also I've added that it's a quick guesstimate. For example I didn't include specific events like Lockerbie (I didn't find the specific number of UK casualties - out of the 270 victims there were 189 americans so not relevant for UK statistics) and I didn't project my estimate to the future, where higher average life expectancy will be achieved, so increasing the terrorists' chances. I also didn't compensate for the fact that The Troubles were varying in intensity greatly, 479 dead in 1972 and slowly decreasing numbers of deaths up until 2001 with 16 dead. It would mean that doubling the length of the conflict most likely wouldn't mean doubling the number of victims either. So that's another source of overstatement.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Err, as is their perfect right?
WRONG! The reason we put in "rights" and other limitations on laws is so that mob rule does not ensue. No one has the right to beat Jews just because they are in the minority - and Sharia has far more severe rules included in it as well.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Not that I agree with the parent...but after being told there are weapons of mass destruction, that we do not use methods of torture, that there are not secret prisons around the world where we ferry detainees at our whim to keep them out of the reach of the Red Cross and international observers, that in just a few weeks or months the Iraqi security force will be strong enough to successfully take over, and that prisoners in the war on terror will be treated according to international law...and then finding out that all of that was lies, one can begin to see why some sectors of America and the UK doubt the veracity of the claims made by their governing officials.
I really hate comments like this. Do you have any real evidence proving that there was no plot?
No. And I don't have any real evidence proving you are not a terrorist.
GUARDS!
(Doesn't the government have a case to prove first? Or do you just believe everything they say?)
Lies about crimes