GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

An anonymous reader writes The Telegraph reports, "GCHQ has lost track of some of the most dangerous crime lords and has had to abort surveillance on others after Edward Snowden revealed their tactics ... The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals following the exposes by the former CIA contractor. Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks. One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations. More intense tracking of others has either been abandoned or not started because of fears the tactics are now too easy to spot and will force the criminals to "go dark" and be lost sight of completely."

Comments

Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing

[artlu]

As a former federal inmate (Read my story via The Market is Not Random), I was able to witness the expanding overcrowding of the system. The United States Sentencing Commission has been stating for many years that prison sentences are too long, and that non-violent criminals (like me) are prime candidates for alternative sentencing. In fact, regardless of crime, the majority of Americans believe a prison sentence of 2.6 years is long enough.

That said, I don't see that as the complete problem. Once released, federal inmates are subject to supervised release sometimes in excess of 10-15 years. The ability to track the ever expanding populous of inmates does a disservice to tracking the non-reformed. If one was to believe that prison did not lead to reform, then the proper conclusion is that all prisons (including myself) should be executed, regardless of crime.

What a load of bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

So the intelligence officers let three quarters of the UK's most harmful crime gangs operate peacefully in spite of being in on their communications? If they are not doing anything about them, it can't be that important.

At any rate: if the criminals avoid the eavesdropping anyway, how about stopping the eavesdropping on the law-abiding citizens?

Yes?

[bickerdyke]

a) They shouldn't have overdone the surveillance to an extent that made it neccessary to have a Snowden to restore protection of those who the three letter agencies are supposed to protect and

b) this is based on the fallacy that before Snowden, criminals did not know about the surveillance protocols. Well, obviously, SOME didn't know. But those criminals who managed to bribe or blackmail a someone on a Snowden-like position into sharing their Snowden-like knowledge wre never monitored by the GHCQ.

Mission Creep

[duckintheface]

The warrantless wiretap surveillance of citizens was originally justified as a national security necessity to fight terrorism. But it is ostensibly being used for a different purpose.... law enforcement against drug crimes. And you can be sure that it will also be used for surveillance of political enemies and for industrial espionage. There is a reason the Constitution guanantees that no search can be made without a warrant. It's because the power to snoop is a drug in itself, addicting those who have it to abuse those who don't.

Re: Mission Creep

[Anonymous Coward]

The warrant requirement originated in England. Although Parliamentary Supremacy means the political party due jour is able to gut hundreds of years of civil rights protections.

Even worse is the erosion of the House of Lords. Having a group of stodgy old men and women with veto power over such abuses is not such a bad thing. More often than not they'll go along with the House of Commons, but in the breech their veto can really matter.

Actually, the worst is the move of the Supreme Court from the House of Lords to a separate institutions. England never adopted the idea of judicial review. However, when the House of Lords wasn't the highest court you didn't need.the concept: the Lords through their judicial power could overrule the House of Commons on important matters of Constitutional law without violating Parliamentary Supremacy. Now that the highest court no longer rests with the Lords, there is no check on the power of the elected politicians. Except, of course, elections, because we all know elections are so effective...

Re:Am I missing something?

[Eunuchswear]

You must be thinking of the USA where the following offences merit mandatory jail time:

(1) driving while Black.
(2) walking while White.
(3) possession of a Penis.

You forgot that
(1) walking while black and
(2) selling loose cigarettes while black and, my favourite,
(3) carrying a toy gun in a toyshop while black
are punished by on-the-spot execution.

The hilarious part of (3) is that he was shot for carrying a toy rifle in an open carry state.