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."

Comments

Hang on a minute...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

Oh, yes...the 'liquid explosive' plot.

The 'plot' where the alleged terrorists had no plane tickets and no bombs, and some of them didn't even have passports .

The 'plot' which alledeg the terrorists' intentions to synthesize TATP on board an airplane...a procedure that is ridiculously farfetched and manifestly impossible.

Ah, yes...that plot. I feel much safer now, now that some poor slob who has the misfortune of having an Arab name won't be able to pay his mortgage. That'll show those terrists the strength of our resolve!

Credit reports

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you're in the UK, then unless something's changed fairly recently, the fact that you were turned down shouldn't appear on the report. It should only indicate that a check was made. You don't want to have a whole string of checks listed in rapid succession, for obvious reasons, but a single extra check could be anything and shouldn't count against you.

That said, the last time I checked my credit report (also after someone else's screw-up affected my ability to do something) it was a joke, with probably more inaccurate records than accurate ones, and the attitude of the credit agency when I called to get it fixed was similarly unimpressive.

Also, if your credit report has been damaged because O2 made a mistake, you should ask O2 to remove the relevant details from the report. Failing that, you can (yourself) add an explanatory note to the report. That's not ideal, because automated systems won't understand it, but again, unless things have changed fairly recently, you're allowed by law to compel any business that makes automated decisions based on your credit report to undertake a manual review of those decisions by a real person who can see the notes.

Isn't it odd how the usual data protection principles don't seem to apply to the credit reference agencies? (I'm not aware of any legal reason why they shouldn't, but they certainly seem to be violated with remarkable frequency and little consequence.)

Own Goal

[PHAEDRU5]

25% of British Muslims believe the 7/7 bombings were justified.

When asked, "Is Britain my country?" only one in four British Muslims it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia law than under British law. Half of those British Muslims who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws.

Twenty-eight percent of Brirish Muslims hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Enough said. Keep monitoring those bank accounts.

Re:Own Goal

[xtracto]

My question would then be,

WHY THE FUCK HAVENT THEY MOVED OUT OF HERE?

If you dont like the country, government or whatever, then just go away. I am talking as a immigrant. I have lived in the UK, and even tough I whine a lot abou their unreasonable laws, their tax-everything mentality, their awful food and their stupid sense of humour, I am having a great time and I am enjoying my life here a lot.

There was a reason why I prefered to do my PhD on UK rather than going to a USA University, and it was that I really do not want to be in the USA, I dont like their government, I dont like the perjudices against Latins (I am Mexican) I dont like to live in fear or thinking at some racist will just beat myself if I get out and I hate Mr. Bush policies.

So, what did I do?, I did not go bombing the school or whatever. I go on with my life. As some philosopher said "I do not agree with your point of view but I would give my life to make sure that you can say it" (or something like that). I only stay away from USA and continue with my life, and get people over there continue with their lives.

Re:I'll take my chances.

[A beautiful mind]

I've made a rough appoximation of the chance:

Let's assume that The Troubles is an accurate representation of most terrorism in the UK between 1969 and 2001. Let's also assume that the average life expectancy has been 70 years in that period (It has been 50 in the first half of the 20th century and is 80 at the moment in Europe).

The period is 32 years and the total number of victims is 3,523, including both sides, civilian and military personnel aswell.

The current population of the UK in 2001 has been 58,789,194. Let's assume that if the conflict would have lasted for roughly twice as long, for 70 years, which is roughly the average life expectancy, then the number of victims were doubled.

This gives us (3523*2)/58789194 * 100 = 0.0119851957827488% chance of being killed in an average lifetime by terrorism.
(For reference, the chance of winning the UK National Lottery is 0.0193366388688181%, if we assume that you play for 52 years in your life, every week.)

And that is real terrorism. We didn't take it into account that the current terrorism threat is not seriously proven. There are other things we didn't take into account, like growing life expectancy, etc. in this guesstimate, but it was just a thought exercise of what kind of numbers can I come up with in five minutes.

My take (take it or leave it)

[Elrac]

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims leading peaceful lives somewhere, who have no interest in blowing us Westerners up. But there is also a significant and growing number who are highly determined to force Islam on the entire world, introduce the Sharia as law globally and set up everything under religious rule in something they envision as the "Caliphate." This idea is nearly as nonsensical as Germany's one-time plans of the Thousand Year Reich, but that doesn't stop them from trying. These people fully believe they are acting on orders from Allah, and their religious leaders encourage them in that belief. These people believe their cause is more important than their own life, let alone the lives of an arbitrary number of infidels.

Wake up, folks! We're not talking about a handful of misguided individuals, like a Unabomber, nor a tiny sect like the Branch Davidian or whatever. We're talking about a loosely flung organization of thousands, with millions of supporters or at least sympathizers behind them. Their goal isn't to blow up a few people; while many view 9/11 as a global disaster, I consider it little more than a minor skirmish in an ongoing cultural war with much bigger stakes. 9/11 was successful beyond the wildest expectations of its perpetrators, and directly affected maybe 10,000 or 20,000 people - the victims and their families. But Islamic fundamentalists plan nothing short of overthrowing our governments and replacing them with the rule of foaming-at-the mouth religious zealots even worse than the ones currently ruling the US. This would affect hundreds of millions of people, perhaps for generations. Or, to put it into terms even your mouth-breathing neighbor would understand: They want to take away your booze and your porn and make you pray and bang your head on the ground five times a day! You could keep your guns, though, because killing each other seems to be an important facet of Muslim life.

In view of this danger, I have no problem with the government

• monitoring bank transactions
• tapping phones
• deporting known radicals
• sending spies into mosques and Qu'ran schools

and generally taking a tough stance. I believe that the stakes are nothing less than the continued existence of Western civilization as we know it.

At the same time, I expect our governments to proceed fairly and appropriately. That sounds very wishy-washy, so I'll add some clarifying examples:

• investigations should be discreet, and have no effect on individuals under investigation. My blood boils at the thought of some innocent observee being driven into bankruptcy just by virtue of being under observation;
• investigations and their results must not be cross-purposed: If a terrorist investigation reveals an individual to be a drug dealer / kiddie pornster / wife beater / would-be presidential assassin / music downloader, then any evidence turned up by such an investigation must be null and void. Not to protect criminals, but to protect our civil liberties. Investigations into state-threatening activities should receive special privileges, which must never be abused for other purposes, as seems to be common in the US;
• even if confirmed to be enemies of the state, those thus discovered must receive a fair trial and due process. While I'm all for dealing decisively with people who threaten my way of life, I see no reason why we should drop principles held sacred to that way of life.

At the same time, I recommend dealing severely with attempts by anyone: politicians, law makers or law enforcers to commandeer for unrelated purposes those special powers implemented for dealing with national threats. I'm talking loss of office, heavy fines, even imprisonment for such abuses. The danger of our system being destroyed from within is just as grave as from without, and must be resisted. If we drop all the accomplishments of centuries of civilization and justice at the mention of the word "terrorist" then –to quote a

Re:British banks ?

[DjReagan]

Hongkong and Shanghai were British colonies when the bank was founded.

Re:Cash withdrawal

[legoburner]

The parent is correct and I would go as far as saying the UK banking system is more mature than the banking system in the US (having banked in the UK and US and knowing many people from both). When it comes to moving money around, everybody needs a bank account in the UK. Many services will allow cash payments but only through a long-winded payment process which typically incurs charges, whereas direct debit (basically a rapid, regulated, consistent bank transfer) will normally get you discounts. Credit cards are accepted by a lot of places for paying bills, but if you want to pay rent or a mortgage, 90% of the time there is no choice other than a direct debit (or a very hefty processing charge for cheques/money orders). There are many convenient things about having such an integrated banking system (no charges for cash withdrawals from the vast majority of ATMs, regardless of your bank and the bank of the ATM for one), but losing the ability to use cash to much of a degree is one of the downsides.

Re:and we cant do the same? deposits arent gurante

[IamTheRealMike]

A good place to start is this article, which does a good job of explaining the history behind how this system evolved. An interesting quote for Americans:

If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.

Said by Thomas Jefferson.

They cannot.

[khasim]

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims leading peaceful lives somewhere, who have no interest in blowing us Westerners up.

The number is more like "over a billion".

But there is also a significant and growing number who are highly determined to force Islam on the entire world, introduce the Sharia as law globally and set up everything under religious rule in something they envision as the "Caliphate."

"Significant and growing number"?

Wake up, folks! We're not talking about a handful of misguided individuals, like a Unabomber, nor a tiny sect like the Branch Davidian or whatever. We're talking about a loosely flung organization of thousands, with millions of supporters or at least sympathizers behind them.

"Thousands" out of over a billion does NOT sound like a "significant and growing number".

These people fully believe they are acting on orders from Allah, and their religious leaders encourage them in that belief. These people believe their cause is more important than their own life, let alone the lives of an arbitrary number of infidels.

And Bush also believes that God has given him a Mission.

Their goal isn't to blow up a few people; while many view 9/11 as a global disaster, I consider it little more than a minor skirmish in an ongoing cultural war with much bigger stakes.

What their "goal" is does not matter if they cannot achieve it.

And they cannot achieve it.

Or, to put it into terms even your mouth-breathing neighbor would understand: They want to take away your booze and your porn and make you pray and bang your head on the ground five times a day!

Again, what they "want" does not matter if they cannot achieve it.

But Islamic fundamentalists plan nothing short of overthrowing our governments and replacing them with the rule of foaming-at-the mouth religious zealots even worse than the ones currently ruling the US.

Here, let me put it in terms that you can understand.

How many people would those evil Muslims have to kill in order to get YOU to convert or vote for Osama?

If you would not vote for Osama, then it really does Not MATTER WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THEM.

The danger of our system being destroyed from within is just as grave as from without, and must be resisted.

No. The danger of our system being destroyed from within IS FAR GREATER THAN FROM WITHOUT.

In the US, statistically, you are more likely to kill YOURSELF than to be killed by a terrorist.

I advocate dealing in a no-nonsense, firm manner with individuals hell-bent on doing us harm, while still not demolishing our own civic structure in the process.

You put an amazing amount of faith in your government.

Who will/can verify that the "terrorists" found are actually terrorists?

Instead, why not just realize that there is a certain danger in living every day and that no amount of Big Brother will ever protect you from that?

I believe this is (part of) an optimal strategy for dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Wrong.

The "optimal strategy" for "dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" does NOT include elevating it to an issue of "national security".

You deal with it by supporting the liberal and moderate elements and treating the extremists as the criminals that they are. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them.

But do NOT plaster it all over every paper in the world and make travellers dump their shampoo before they can fly.

This overstates the risk from terrorism

[njdj]

There are several problems with your analysis.

1. The total number of victims is used, without regard to whether these are civilian or military deaths. Soldiers operating against terrorists are at much higher risk than the general population
2. It also includes "members of paramilitary groups" - broadly speaking, 2 different gangs of terrorists (though of course each group would claim that only the other group were terrorists), some of whom were killed while conducting terrorist attacks

So I think that the number of "civilians" killed (excluding the above groups) is more relevant. This number is given in Wikipedia as 1857. Giving a chance of about 0.006% of being killed by terrorism in a lifetime.

For comparison with chances of dying from a range of other causes, see here. For example, an American has about a 1.3% chance of dying by suicide.

If it's a choice between giving up civil liberties to the government, and putting up with a risk of dying because of some terrorist attack, I'll take the risk of being killed by terrorists, thanks.