The irrelevance of collaterel damage

In the article A Series of Wrong Turns the actions of the Metropolitan police were covered in their response to a domestic terror attack in Finsbury Park, London. The potential for actionable intelligence to have been overlooked is established by the absence of any details publicised regarding mobile telephone subscriber information from either Darren Osbourne or his two accomplices. From the details available in the press articles written at the time (and since) the general perception is that the Metropolitan police were not in possession of any actionable intelligence which could have prevented the attack. Applying the principle of mobile phone usage being a default surveillance mechanism, shines a light into the actions of numerous criminal elements active in the UK and who may know about them.

Excerpt from Manchester Evening News: 19 September 2012

On August 17 police offered a £25,000 reward for information leading to the capture of Mr Cregan as they said several hundred officers were involved in the operation to find him.

A week later and Greater Manchester Police said officers from several other forces had been called up to join the search.

On August 29 the reward for information was upped to £50,000.

Clearly there was a substantial incentive attached to apprehending Mr Cregan which would undoubtedly inspire interest from professionals in the clandestine community. When Kevin Mitnick disappeared into the American heartland the image portrayed of him was that of the most dangerous man alive. Quotes from the administration included such hilarious propaganda as

"He could start a third world war by whistling down the telephone"

Despite being hailed as the Bond villain to end all Bond villains, Kevin Mitnick was tracked down and 'brought to justice'. This herculean effort was accomplished  not by ex special forces, steroid madman SloeDawg the Bounty Hunter but by Tsutomu Shimomura, an IT specialist with a penchant for fine dining. As an IT specialist (hacker, maven,etc.) Mr Shimomura used his understanding of social engineering and digital footprints to discover the whereabouts of Mitnick and his family. He also did it in such a brazenly casual way as to seriously embarrass the FBI, NSA, the Raleigh North Carolina sheriffs department and basically anyone who had ever thought about the whereabouts of Kevin Mitnick.

It seems disproportionate that a single individual can represent such a major obstacle for highly trained law enforcement. In the case of Raoul Thomas Moat, a substantial number of personnel from various governmental and military organisations were deployed to capture him. Likewise the number of police officers involved in the manhunt for Dale Cregan is stated as several hundred. The data being acquired by the phones carried in the possession of these men was critically relevant in terms of locating them before they committed any further crimes. Even more pertinent is the data being acquired by other people's phones. In both cases there are details of individuals who were in contact with them during their eluding of the police. Exactly who these types of men are in contact with during their flights from justice is generally not made overly public, but the chances are quite high that they would probably own a smartphone. Again, all critically relevant to location of subjects and prevention of further crime. In both cases it would seem that there is a discrepancy between the capability of surveillance and the effective application of this capability.

It has become commonplace for most people to accept that their digital products are spying on them. However this complacency represents more of a lack of resistance to being controlled than a credible display of acquiescence. These people would probably prefer not to be spied on at all, but they rightfully feel that their actions are so insignificant that nobody would care enough to intercept information about their average and normal existence. This is a straight up confidence trick. These people have not been lulled into but herded well beyond a false sense of security. Generally speaking the average punter lacks the technical understanding to conceive of digital systems being expansive or sophisticated enough to record what everybody is saying all the time. Again, this is just a total and utter con. Basing an impression of clandestine surveillance abilities on consumer level technology is just inaccurate. It would be the equivalent of assuming that the technology utilised by Predator UAV operations is comparable to the technology used in the Skyhawk Ariel Drone 4K HD . On very general level, they are both remote operated aerial vehicles with some form of surveillance capability. But that's where the similarities end. It's not even so much the scale or the range of the physical device that is most prominent in terms of technological disparity. It's the communication medium employed between the operator and the device which represents the greatest difference. The hardware, firmware and software are selected and implemented using a bespoke methodology which is not open to any major peer review. Consequently the methods of architecture adhere to guidelines and compliance regulations which are 'unacknowledged'.

Following some precedent forming legal cases in the 1980's and 1990's, there was a watershed in the telecommunication surveillance landscape. Due to certain prosecution cases hinging on telco details, there were a series of rulings which essentially made any information obtained through mobile phone monitoring (without a court order) completely inadmissible in a court of law. However it also made any information obtained through unwarranted mobile phone surveillance fair game for 'intelligence' usage.  Keeping in mind that this was over thirty years ago, the advances in algorithmic analysis of audio data, natural language processing and voice recognition have undoubtedly accelerated at an exponential rate since Queen Victoria announced 'Bands across the tea' to US President James Buchanan in 1858. The technological advances in the consumer world are impossible to ignore and as a result it would be dire folly to ignore the equivalent in the clandestine world.

Since the pantomime of Roswell and Philip Corso ripped through the exopolitical community, the idea of technological dissemination has become well established. Consequently the state of technological surveillance must be considered to be much, much more sophisticated than Alexa picking up a conversation about a new anti-macassar set. This assumption was just as valid thirty years ago. Projects such as Carnivore and Echelon were undoubtedly consuming vast amounts of telco data on a minute by minute basis. The algorithms analysing the raw data of massive intercepts is constantly being updated with new rule sets and watch words. In the same way that we see Google Apps and Microsoft Office evolving their methods of anticipating what the users want, the providers of these unacknowledged systems are also regularly rolling out updates. Consequently, there is an ongoing disparity of awareness between the users of these systems and the individuals they target. In the early 21st century it was possible to drive with fraudulent documents and get away with it due to the confusion between the Police networks, the DVLA and the insurance company networks. Since then, ANPR (automatic numberplate recognition) systems have been fitted to many police vehicles. This allows for an instant notification on the dashboard screen of the system which alerts the police to any unauthorised drivers or vehicles. There was no amnesty or even announcement of the ANPR roll out and this lack of awareness undoubtedly netted considerable numbers of arrests. Furthermore it undoubtedly facilitated a substantial amount of intelligence gathering.

The questions being asked at the beginning of the 21st Century regarding the privacy of mobile phones were well founded. Unfortunately they were some years behind the curve. The use of electromagnetic surveillance dates back much, much further. At some point, any pragmatic researcher has to look at the quite alarming reality that the mobile phone surveillance paradigm is operating at really quite a low level. There is evidence of much more sophisticated surveillance having been in place for many years prior. However for the moment we will re-focus on the mobile phone surveillance which may have captured relevant information or actionable intelligence on September 18, 2012.

In 2012 Android handsets were well established. There had been several revisions of the operating system and many major manufacturers had committed to the Google developed kernel. At the time of Dale Cregan's deranged, psychopathic assault on two WPC's with a Glock pistol and a grenade, the EULA of any Android handset was in effect. The EULA clearly states that information acquired by the product is not considered to be the intellectual property of the device owner. Futhermore said information could be forwarded to the relevant authorities without notification of the handset owner. This EULA extends beyond the contract duration. Even the owners of older handsets which have been paid off through their monthly subscriptions, are still subject to this EULA.

In 2012 the concept of browser and search history being used by commercial entities for targeted advertising was already well into the popular consciousness. The algorithmic analysis of voice data captured by smartphones would be as advanced as that of an Amazon Alexa. The technology behind Alexa was sold to Amazon in 2013 and had been under development by the Polish developers of Spiker since 2002. This establishes the fact that in 2012 algorithmic analysis of speech was more than capable of detecting keywords. The rumours and accusations regarding Echelon and Carnivore had been circulating since the 1980's. This chronological disparity would be in line with the 30-50 year dissemination model quoted at the time. This raises questions as to the number of serious crimes that have been committed since there has been technology available that could intercept them. Many victims and families of victims have suffered tragic events. Events which appear to have had mobile phones involved which could have potentially forwarded information that could well have averted said tragedies. The fact that these tragedies were not averted indicates that someone had something to gain from them going ahead. The most likely candidates are those who profit from disparity.

Possessing or even handling material information relating to intended acts of a criminal nature is quite a contentious matter. If any of these intended criminal acts result in damage to person or property (or ultimately the loss of life) then things begin to look much worse in terms of accountability for those holding such data. Network operators will claim that it's not their responsibility and operating system manufacturers will claim that they forward information on request only. This highly elaborate game of pass the buck provides a 'grey area' where accountability can be argued indefinitely. Once again we see the familiar head of avarice emerging from the gloom. With such a vast market of disparity available there are those who would perceive a laissez-faire attitude to represent the best approach in terms of getting the best value. One thing is however, completely crystal clear. When there's targeted advertising involved then the accountability chain is enforced rigorously, otherwise someone might lose out on value. However when it's the lives of innocent bystanders, hostages, informants or officers in the line of duty, value seems to mean something really quite different. In this case of the cold blooded murder of two WPC's clearly held value to someone.

The manhunt for Dale Cregan had been ongoing for 42 days prior to this calculated attack. After the fatal shooting of David Short, Greater Manchester Police announced that they were looking for Cregan in connection with both the murder of David Short and the 2012 shooting of his son Mark Short. That's almost a month and a half spent eluding capture by the second largest metropolitan police force in Britain. The reality of being a fugitive from justice is distinctly unlike the romantic swashbuckling adventures of Annie Machon and much more like the works of her colleague Eric Arthur Blair. Being unable to be seen in supermarkets, post offices, petrol stations or basically any public place is a serious limitation on anyone.

It seems highly probably that Dale Cregan not only had an active mobile phone during this time, but that he may in fact have used several mobile phones during this time. Going beyond this quite apparent discrepancy, there is also the fact that according to many reports, technology exists for surveillance of any electromagnetic source anywhere on the planet at any time. This is evidenced by the tracking of suspected nuclear weaponry and the EMP shielding used in all nuclear missile silos. The precise nature of the weaponry gives off a unique electromagnetic signature and can be tracked by various military groups. This capability was voiced publicly by NATO to counter fears of nuclear terrorism after the fall of communism and the resulting chaotic asset stripping in the former Soviet military.

Humans produce a range of electromagnetic fields and represent a series of unique signatures. If there are methods available to track any individual anywhere on the planet then this solitary, inelegant truth indicates that Dale Cregans actions could well have been known about. At any point his 42 day flight from justice could have been ended and his subsequent targeting of two WPC's could have been completely negated. But it wasn't.

Furthermore, if this technology has been available to those with clearance for surveillance methods categorised as 'black' or Unacknowledged Special Access Programs, then there appears to be massive scope for conflict of interest. The entire point of mass surveillance is security. If surveillance is being selectively ignored to serve other agendas, it calls into question the qualification of the party conducting the surveillance. In essence if they have proven that they will only act on matters which suit their agenda then they have proven that they are not qualified to conduct the surveillance in the first place. Selective blindness for the purposes of material gain is nothing to do with security. It's the other thing.

The number of victims of these far reaching policies is impossible to calculate. The WPC's sent into a confrontation with a grenade throwing live shooter with nothing more than tazers and pepper spray represent two victims of a failure to communicate actionable intelligence. The various other 'Person of Interest'  articles from TEFLONRABBIT also feature fatalities. Using the exact same logic, these cases were also subject to catastrophic lapses in the communication of actionable intelligence. Continuing on from this, the vast majority of all violent crimes occurring across the planet on an hourly basis could probably be avoided as a result of advances in modern surveillance methods. Looking at the magnitude of such a reality, it would be difficult to consider that those possessing the capabilities to intervene would simply ignore these millions of incidents. More likely that they would seek to capitalise on them.

If Mr. A has access to an unacknowledged surveillance platform and he discovers that Mr B. has been making methamphetamine in his garden shed, he may monitor the situation with a view to profiting in some way. If Mr B. blows the shed up and kills his neighbours as a result of a stereotypical industry accident, it seems unlikely that Mr. A would inform on him. The incident investigators would be on site doing what they do, establishing evidence as to the nature of the explosion. It would be incredibly easy to pass on material information relating  to a fatal incident. Yet this would not be in Mr A.'s interests as far as his access to the unacknowledged surveillance platform is concerned. This is clearly a major problem

There have been sentiments raised in various echo chambers of bias confirmation regarding the concept of a disclosure of technology. Most are fervent advocates of this going ahead. They rightfully believe that the gap between consumer technology and the military industrial complex accomplishments should be narrowed. Some are clearly in opposition to the disclosure of such technology. There have been rumours that those possessing such technology fear a major backlash. It is claimed that there have probably been considerable wrongs done in the name of protecting the technology from being disclosed. 

This technological schism is undoubtedly reflected in the highly contentious arena of surveillance. Whether it's mass surveillance or that of a more granular nature, the negative aspects of a considerable disparity can not be ignored. This has lead to the understanding that some seriously far reaching policies have shaped society in order to prevent disclosure occurring in an organic way. So pervasive is this narrative that there are now some questionably motivated, whistle blowing abductees who have undoubtedly been victimised by some form of so called 'MILAB' operations.  These individuals regularly appear in social media campaigns and some claim that their abductors want an amnesty. Despite this narrative representing some extensive perception management, the concept of an amnesty appears to have a degree of veracity attached to it.

In many ways the clandestine community behave like an out of control repeat offender. They persist in the deployment of actions which signal blatant deception. It is well understood by law enforcement that repeat offenders become careless. Psychologists go further and say that it's more like goading their opponent. The causality is linked to a plea for help. It is however by it's very nature, an insidious and disingenuous methodology. The most pragmatic interpretation is that any request for a so called 'amnesty' is a frank admission of atrocities. Furthermore it's highly likely that the motives behind many of these acts of malevolence were (and are) nothing to do with protecting the technology and are simply instances of avaricious and criminal activity. The shorting of United Airlines stocks on the run up to the WTC incident in 2001 indicates that there were / are those in the intelligence and security industries who will protect their right to capitalise on events which may incur the loss of life.

While some victims relatives have forgiven the perpetrators of crimes which have robbed them of their family members, most have not and never will. They endure lengthy legal proceedings which surely cause considerable distress as they are repeatedly confronted with the nature of the crimes. As members of a society which promotes the concept of civic responsibility, the average person looks to the police and the judiciary to act in the interests of the public. When they endure tragedies at the hands of those who have chosen to operate outside of the boundaries of societal cooperation, they are rightfully aggrieved.

In terms of an amnesty, it would seem appropriate for that decision to be made by the relatives of those who have lost their lives due to failures in the communication of actionable intelligence. Unfortunately the list of those who have lost their lives in this way would be far too long for any commemorative obelisk.

It seems unlikely that any amnesty will ever be forthcoming. Therefore those requesting it know perfectly well that it would be rejected. They have already accepted this and have acted accordingly. Global society would not be prepared to overlook the innumerable atrocities committed against it. Especially by those who live among us but consider themselves above the law, while infiltrating it at every level. Consequently these disingenuous, separatist extremists will continue to radically alter society to suit their own requirements. Their greatest asset is also the source of their greatest vulnerability. That being the silence of those whom they have wronged.

If society truly does want to see an end to needless, vicious and unwarranted crimes such as those committed by Dale Cregan, we must first being an end to the motivations of those who profit from them.