UKC

If a blue-chip company makes an obscene amount of money then is it above the law when obtaining information illegally?

The Serious Organised Crime Agency want to keep such information secret.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-bigger-than-phone-hack...

In reply to The Lemming:

Interesting story, thanks for linking. I'd be surprised if much a debate is sparked though, who on earth could defend the actions either of the big businesses and big individuals, or of SOCA. Arseholes, the lot.

In reply to The Lemming: Interesting, and coming along with the recent news at 27% of all Stop and Searches are illegal, and the news yesterday that the Police borke the law with regards to ANPR cameras (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23433138 ) it doesn't really help public confidence in our police force.

No doubt our official Police Public Relations Spokesperson will be along soon to explain why these stories don't matter and the police would never, ever do anything wrong.

In reply to owlart:

They can't do anything wrong because they are the police. If you have an issue with their decisions then you probably have something to hide.

In reply to The Lemming:

Strikes me as a total non-story. My firm’s hired private investigators – everyone does. If it turns out the firms we use were going too far on occasion, what exactly am I supposed to do about that? It’s no different from employing a builder who turns out to breach health and safety regulations.

As to the police ‘breaking the law’ about cameras, AIUI the police are entitled to place these cameras if it’s in the public interest, basically. If someone complains, then this IOC fellow decides whether he agrees the public interest is being served by a given camera/set of cameras. It’d be a strange thing if his view didn’t sometimes differ from the police’s.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Did you try reading the article?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So you don't find SOCA's sitting on this while the whole phone-hacking scandal kicked off an absolute f^cking disgrace then?

Your expectations of the integrity of those we pay to serve us are either remarkably low (and you don't see why they should be higher), or you have failed to grasp what has happened.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Yes. What's your point?

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>So you don't find SOCA's sitting on this while the whole phone-hacking scandal kicked off an absolute f^cking disgrace then?

No, not really.

>Your expectations of the integrity of those we pay to serve us are either remarkably low (and you don't see why they should be higher)

Eh? I thought we were talking about companies who employ private investigators?

>or you have failed to grasp what has happened.

One of us has, certainly. Why, what do you think has happened?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Well, having read the article and glancing back at the headline, it could be summed as

Soca sat on blue-chip dirty tricks evidence for years

Am I surprised at the illegal behaviour for commercial gain? Not really, that's what capitalism is all about (and no, I'm not an anti-capitalist).

Do I think that effective regulation is crucial to keep the greed and lack of responsibility that's integral to the behaviour of corporations in check? Yes I do.

And do I feel disgusted when the authorities we pay to do the regulation and enforcement collude with corporations in law-breaking? Yes, I certainly f^cking do! It's fundamental corruption of democracy, just like the whole politicians-cutting-deals-with-media-magnate scandal. It undermines the whole role government. It's a f^cking disgrace.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well, hang on, where's the evidence that these companies were law-breaking? All the article says is that they contracted with PIs who turned out to be law-breaking. Well, hell, I could have done that. Any litigation lawyer could.

You do realise that PIs are independent contractors and not employees, right?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If the PI you hire turns out to be using illegal methods to obtain the information for you, and this is known to the police, what would you expect to happen, the police to say "oh well, they're working for jcm so we'll turn a blind eye", or them to prosecute the illegal behaviour? Also, if you (hypothetically, of course!) hired them knowing full well that the information they provided was obtained (and could only be obtained) by illegal methods, doesn't that make you rather involved in the scandal too?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Without putting words in JCMs mouth I suspect his point is that there is a massive difference between "Evil Blue Chip" breaking the law and "Evil Blue Chip" paying to contractor to find something out, who subsequently broke the law:

If you hired a contractor to dispose of some rubbish and he fly tipped it without your knowledge then you haven't done anything wrong, unless you actually told them to fly tip it or had reason to suspect he would.

You have to be able to prove intent in a court, so unless SOCA has evidence that the "Evil Blue Chip" either was complicit in or actually ordered the dodgy PIs activities then any charges won't stick.

In reply to owlart:

>If the PI you hire turns out to be using illegal methods to obtain the information for you, and this is known to the police, what would you expect to happen, the police to say "oh well, they're working for jcm so we'll turn a blind eye", or them to prosecute the illegal behaviour?

I'd expect them to prosecute the PI, of course. Why on earth should they prosecute me? I'm the client, not an employer.

>Also, if you (hypothetically, of course!) hired them knowing full well that the information they provided was obtained (and could only be obtained) by illegal methods, doesn't that make you rather involved in the scandal too?

Oh, agreed. But is there any evidence that the information provided in these cases fell into that category?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

And that Soca were interested enough to be compiling a list of such companies but did not take any action to develop the intelligence they held into evidence. It seems entirely incongruous to me that Soca thought that there was no wrong-doing on behalf of the companies.


So that makes it all about who knew what when, right? And who thought, "yeah, what they're doing is clearly illegal, but I don't reckon I'll be held responsible, so f^ck it, it makes me money, let's carry on".

Just guessing, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Soca interest was entirely vindictive against these poor corporations, and there is no intelligence (which could be taken forward into evidence should anyone care to do their job on behalf of the public) that these corporations intended to benefit from illegal activities.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

But they haven't, hence the uproar.


Well, the fact the SOCA were compling lists of companies employing these criminal "PIs" rather than just lists of criminal PIs suggests that they thought it was worth looking further back up the chain to some degree. They ust have known that some of the information coming back was obtained by dubious if not illegal methods?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Or SOCA took the information to CPS who said "We'll never make this stick and will probably end up getting sued if we try"?

There is a huge difference between having grounds to believe something illegal has happened and actually having a prosecutable case. There doesn't seem to be enough information in the public domain to decide if this is the case.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Strikes me as journos still sore about Leveson and riding the public wave of banks-are-bad nonsense.

There's not a shred of evidence in the article, that's for sure - nothing but quotes from rent-a-gobshites like Keith Vaz (is he really still getting elected?!).

jcm

In reply to aln:


No of course not FFS. When you hire a builder, are you his employer?

Come to that, when whoever hires me hires me, are they my employer?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John boy at his finest!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Kinda, yes.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>It seems entirely incongruous to me that Soca thought that there was no wrong-doing on behalf of the companies.

En passant, but you mean of course 'on the *part* of the companies. It's common ground that there's been wrong-doing on their *behalf*.

I always enjoy the way journos call PIs who go too far 'corrupt'. They're not of course. 'Corrupt' has a meaning, and this isn't it.

jcm

In reply to The Lemming: It's a funny one. I take it you're self-employed? As am I. So we employ ourselves, but when we work for a client we're working for them.

In reply to aln:

I'm afraid 'kinda' isn't enough.

'Employer' is a word with a specific meaning. So are 'vicariously' and 'liable'.

I assure you that I, builders, and PIs are none of us employees. We're all independent contractors, and that means that whoever hires us is not liable for what we do unless it can be shown that they instructed us to do it.

jcm

In reply to aln:
Kinda, yes.

Or more accurately: No, not at all.

There is a vast difference between the legal relationship.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

OK. I take your reply and accept it. You're correct, thanks.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yes, ta.

In reply to owlart:

>But they haven't, hence the uproar.

That's not the Independent's uproar. They're concerned that poor Rebekah et al are getting done for phone hacking and bankers aren't. They're not fussed whether the PIs are.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There's no evidence because the intel was never acted on! What is your explanation for the Soca interest in these companies?

Clearly intelligence was held and not acted on (or do you dispute that?). What makes you think that this intel was bunk?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>Clearly intelligence was held and not acted on (or do you dispute that?). What makes you think that this intel was bunk?


Why is that clear? SOCA say (in the questions at the end) that they didn't have enough intelligence to prosecute the PIs clients. What makes you think that isn't true, or that it would have been a good use of public money to investigate further?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

An intelligence agency is asked why it didn't take forward investigations, when the motives look like collusion in order not to rock a very big and important boat. Intelligence agency says "oh, we didn't have enough to go on". Well, I don't know about you, but I don't find it terribly convincing. As the article points out, police are prosecuting certain media organisatoins.

As regards the use of public money, that argument has already gone out of the window once a crackdown on the tabloid press has begun. I entirely agree that we cannot have a system that selectively applies the law depending on whether the government feels like rocking big business' boat or not.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well perhaps I hadn't considered throwing the "jcm contrary card" into the equation!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's not what you know. It's what you can prove.

Some local alledged gangsters where I live were under investigation for years for organised crime and when it eventually went to court the full case fell apart. I hate to think how much money was sank into the failed prosecution. It isn't always in the public's interest to make a prosecution that won't be successful.

Up the road from me there is a Tanning Salon which has about 4 members of permanant staff and occasional visitors (from my observation) paying a couple of quid a time for some sun bed use, but the salon can afford to pay 4 members of staff, plus building rent, electricity and everything else. Everyone knows who owns it, Everyone knows where the money comes from, and everyone knows what the true purpose of the salon is..... no one can prove it unless you are going to stake it out 27/4 for months on end, do in depth account and books auditing all of which will have had accountant help around various loop holes where ever possible, CCTV camera (if they exist) viewing.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>An intelligence agency is asked why it didn't take forward investigations

Not so. The main thing SOCA has been asked is why it hasn't revealed publicly the details of investigations which it has carried out which have not revealed any, or at least sufficient, evidence of wrongdoing. Their answer seems pretty plausible to me - it would be wrong if they did that for lots of reasons. Your own no-smoke-without-fire response is good evidence of how right SOCA were, frankly.

It may or may not be true that the companies did actually know, but if Professor Charlie Whatnot can't grasp that this is the crucial point and that the difference between this and the newspaper prosecutions is that in the former case the authorities can't prove it and in the latter case they reckon they can, then he's a moron who should stop teaching our young.

jcm

In reply to Milesy:

Decent corrupt PI'll sort that out for you in no time....

jcm

In reply to Milesy:

God yeah, I used to work in intelligence for Immigration and turning what you blatantly know into evidence that will stand up in court is a mission and a half.

The point here is that it's proven doable for the papers but not the corporations, funny that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

One battle at a time maybe? And is isn't proven anything for the papers yet. Have you seen any big convictions come out of this? The phone hacking scandal has grew roots into all sorts of places. It is going to take more time, money and effort to even bring this one to justice.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I kind of like your open-minded interpretation of the events described in the article. Call me a cynic, but I think that the motivation for prosecuting the papers following the emotional public outcry about Ms Dowler's phone and the motivation for prosecuting these companies are rather different, as is the treatment of the intel surrounding them. Might just be a coincidence that one was easier to take forward than the other...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I do sympathise with Socs's view on disclosure. But their response doesn't appear to be, "Yes, there are ongoing investigations but we cannot disclose details at the current time" it appears to be a reluctance to act until forced:

Illegal practices identified by Soca investigators went well beyond the relatively simple crime of voicemail hacking and also included police corruption, computer hacking and perverting the course of justice.


My own "no-smoke-without-fire" view comes from having worked with Soca in the past and believing that they do not wile away the days pointlessly collecting intel on investigations that aren't going anywhere.

In reply to Milesy:

Aye the night's are fair drawing in.... and getting longer apparently. The weeks on the other hand are getting shorter.

In reply to The Lemming: To answer the OP. Yes.

In reply to The Lemming: contrary to the above opinion, in answer to the thread title: no, but they are organised enough to find loopholes/make power plays and embeded enough to effectivly bargain/blackmail their way around these things. It's not black and white, but a bit of a grey area.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You can actually read the correspondence - pdf copies of the letters - via the SOCA Homepage.
Doesn't really appear that there is much brushing under the carpet going on.