Slashdot Log In
Bank Accounts of 5,000 UK Terror Suspects Tracked
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Sep 11, 2006 07:02 AM
from the privacy-is-so-twentieth-century dept.
from the privacy-is-so-twentieth-century dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
BBC Reports UK-U.S. Terror Plot Foiled 1792 comments
j823777 was one of several readers to point out a BBC report that "A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the U.S. has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate up to three explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested 21 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months. Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are reported. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical — the highest possible."
spo0nman adds a link to the Associated Press's coverage.
Update: 08/10 12:57 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out new restrictions imposed as a result of this plot on passengers' carry-on luggage. In the UK, nearly all possession (including laptop computers) must be carried in the cargo hold; while their rules don't yet go quite as far, U.S. airlines are stepping up their enforcement of carry-on-restrictions, including banning substances like toothpaste.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
mastercard (Score:5, Funny)
Gas £90
Electric £45
Sky £37
Guns_r_us £917
Telephone £67
Getting your name on the no fly list, priceless.
So remember... (Score:4, Funny)
I'll take my chances. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'll take my chances. (Score:5, Insightful)
True. But what do we do about it? Sure we can protest about it, which helps to an extent, but to a disturbingly large number of people, this sounds like a hysterical overreaction (which is ironic considering how much the support hysterical overreactions to terrorism).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll take my chances. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that the majority of the US and UK population even realise that there are any parallels to be drawn between the two situations? I suspect that the vast majority see their government taking (to them) common-sense measures to protect their safety, and nothing else. Should anyone dare to challenge these measures, the replies will be along the lines of "If you're doing nothing wrong...", "No smoke without fire" and "But they're terrorists, why shouldn't they be watched?"
I've heard people express the opinion that Charles de Menezes deserved to be shot, because he was acting suspiciously and ran from the police - "He must've been up to something!". I've also heard the opinion that the odd innocent death is worth it to protect the majority. Well, maybe it is to some people, but it isn't to me; friendly fire is still fire, and they're still just as dead.
The leaders generally work towards that state, however well intentioned they might be.
I think that in the vast majority of cases, it is not intentional, that the leaders sincerely believe that they are acting in the best interests of the country and the population as a whole. They tell themselves that desperate threats require strong measures, that *of course* the powers will never be used for bad, that the means justify the ends, etc. I don't think so much that power corrupts, as that it blinds you to certain considerations. Or perhaps I'm just being naive. It doesn't really matter either way; some of the powers being claimed in the name of the war on terror are just plain scary. There is too much scope for abuse - perhaps not by this government, but what of the next, or the one after that? Just what sort of world is my daughter going to grow up in?
Parent
Re:I'll take my chances. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's assume that The Troubles [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Reputable? Don't make me laugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hang on a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [craigmurray.co.uk].
The 'plot' which alledeg the terrorists' intentions to synthesize TATP on board an airplane...a procedure that is ridiculously farfetched and manifestly impossible. [theregister.co.uk]
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!
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Guilty Until Proven Innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?)
Parent
How to ruin lives (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs terror from abroad when there's enough domestic terror?
Sent money to Afghanistan (Score:5, Informative)
Did he do something suspicious, sure as hell he did. Is he innocent, quite possibly. However that does not change the fact that banks can and do routinely suspend accounts that have suspicious activity on them, and it does not just extend to terrorism. It happens all the time due to specious fraudulant activity, sometimes comited by random third party crimials.
Re:Sent money to Afghanistan (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sent money to Afghanistan (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the article?
Salama said the only cross-border payment he is aware of making is £20 a month to a British-based charity, which sponsors children in Afghanistan.
Parent
We Are Not BRAVE Enough to BE FREE Anymore. (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're terrified of Gatorade On A Plane, you're not Free.
Own Goal (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Own Goal (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Own Goal (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Cash withdrawal (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. In the UK, 99% of employers will only pay wages into a bank account. It's also quite common to pay bills, mortgage etc. through direct debit - because our banks are quite tightly regulated, this isn't a huge concern to most. A direct debit taken in error can be revoked on a moment's notice - and it's not unknown for some organisations (including mortgage lenders) to stipluate that they're paid by direct debit.
So if you happen to be a normal person with a job, a car, a house and a mortgage - having your bank account frozen is a MAJOR pain in the backside.
Besides which, if you're account is frozen, how are you supposed to withdraw cash?
Parent
Re:Cash withdrawal (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Duh. It's in Scandinavia!
Slashdotters are really bad at geometry.
Re:swiss banks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent