Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Authorities Accused of Inciting Illegal Protest

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the stirring-the-pot dept.

Government 371

jarran writes "Questions are being asked about the tactics being employed by UK authorities to monitor and control protest groups. Schnews reports on evidence that government IP addresses are posting messages to sites like indymedia, attempting to provoke activists into taking illegal direct action. Evidence has emerged recently that the police consider sex to be a legitimate tool for extracting information from targets, and senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents at protests."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait, Sex with Activists? (4, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978648)

Sign me up! I mean, I'm an activist with information relevant to the UK Police's Interests! Really!... Just don't send the guy in the article my way, he's really creepy...

Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (4, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978860)

Yea, we lock you up with Bubba here, and he'll be having sex with you until you're ready to reveal all the information.

Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979274)

It's the American way!

Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978942)

Do ya give reach-arounds?

Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979222)

Don't hold your breath. ... well, it may be a good idea to hold your breath. If you pass out, you may not be awake for the worst parts.

Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979138)

Judging by the pictured guy, you might not want to sleep with the activists.

Now the animal rights activists, PETA, they generally seem more attractive and concerned with hygiene. Plus I'd feel less bad about lying to get in bed with one of them. On average. I'm sure there are plenty of environmentalists who are doing it just to feel holier than thou, but it seems like -all- the animal rights activists are.

It should make stuff legal... (5, Interesting)

rastilin (752802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978666)

Here's a new rule. If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal. That will rapidly put a stop to this kind of underhanded stuff. Also, weren't there all these laws in European countries regarding lying about your identity when you're sleeping around; or does that also just not apply when the police do it?

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978710)

Those laws are in Sweden, not UK.

If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal.

No. Otherwise you'll have situation like "police told someone to kill someone else"... Anyway, nice try but please think before writing stuff.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978778)

No. Otherwise you'll have situation like "police told someone to kill someone else"... Anyway, nice try but please think before writing stuff.

I think the GP was just slightly misworded. If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you. That doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't go to jail for giving the order.

In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).

Re:It should make stuff legal... (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978836)

it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure

      Dude you are just begging for Godwin's law to be invoked for this comment.

      This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?

Re:It should make stuff legal... (3, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978960)

Because its 60 years later?

Re:It should make stuff legal... (2)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979178)

I don't think excuses ripen with age.

Although with what old people get away with, I could be very wrong.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979184)

Maybe because the Nuremberg trials only apply to those who lose?

Nuremburg is a subset of the rule - Do as I say, Not as I do....

Re:It should make stuff legal... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979304)

Because the Nuremberg trials weren't convened by the same government that sanctioned the behaviour.

If the police (as representatives of the UK government) tell someone to do something illegal, and they do it, then it seems reasonable that the police (as representatives of the UK government) shouldn't be able to arrest them, and the courts (as representatives of the UK government) shouldn't allow them to be convicted. Any other courts can do what they like, provided it's within their jurisdiction.

Of course, the idea wouldn't work anyway because all it means is that the police wouldn't leave a paper trail.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979422)

This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?

Because the referenced acts are likely not deadly or even harmful to people. Most protesters don't try to harm people, just property. There are only a few that like to harm people, and they are scattered in the more violent groups, and the groups referenced here aren't violent, just anti-government.

Following an order to kill someone should land both the person giving the order in jail as well as the actor (especially if the person giving the order was a cop). But a cop suggesting or in any way agreeing to, say, burn down a factory should land the cop in jail and the department on the hook for the bill and the actor (provided they acted in good faith to not harm anyone) should be given a medal and a large check for having to deal with corrupt cops.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979148)

At this jury trial, you'd have to convince a bunch of people that you had good reason to trust this "order." I'm guessing "because he said so" wouldn't cut it. Even if Obama himself showed up on my doorstep and asked me to kill someone, I would still ask "why?" first. Perhaps, there is a reason (or 2) I didn't join the military.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (3, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979192)

Obama isnt your direct superior, if he wanted to order you to kill someone, you would have to be in the armed forces, or he would have to pass some kind of law. If Obama comes to your door and says 'do X', and you don't, you dont get in trouble. If the a policeman does the same, you get to spend the night in jail for not complying.

I agree with your 'good reason to trust' argument though, and killing someone obviously doesnt work in this situation, but i bet there are plenty of "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situations

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

rishistar (662278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979410)

This is why we need Sarah Palin as president - she would do it herself!

(*hoping that gets taken as humourous)

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979180)

You mean murder being illegal isn't enough reason to reject the order? I thought Police anywhere could only kill either in self defence or in direct defense of others - not just for implied dangers. They're not hitmen.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (5, Informative)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978722)

Actually, the police officer that made the post is now part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. No need to even come up with new laws to properly convict these idiot police.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979296)

Technically, that may be true, but the police (and, for that matter, most people employed in the public sector) in the UK have developed a remarkable way of avoiding criminal liability for these things.

It works something like this: If one person does something illegal, that will be prosecuted within the law. OK?

If a whole bunch of people are involved in something illegal as part of their job, and those people are employed in the public sector, that is never a crime. It is - at most - a "concern" which may result in an investigation, a report, and maybe even a full-blown inquiry. At no point will any individual (or, for that matter, group of individuals) be singled out for punishment. The most they can expect is some harsh criticism in the resulting report, but that criticism will in no way harm their career.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979326)

Well, of course! How could that ever possibly be abused?

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979424)

Maybe someone should pass a law that says government officials are subject to laws... wait a sec...

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978746)

Here's a new rule. If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal. That will rapidly put a stop to this kind of underhanded stuff.

There's a really big loophole: that also allows the police to tell each other to do stuff, or (if we write the new rule so that police-to-police instructions don't count) they'll tell civilians to do what they want to do, and then we lose 100% of our civil liberties. No search warrant? Tell someone else to raid the house! Don't want to get in trouble for beating a suspect? Find the nearest sadist and tell him it's his job! Et cetera, et cetera. I like your idea, but I think in practice the cure would end up being worse than the disease.

Also, weren't there all these laws in European countries regarding lying about your identity when you're sleeping around; or does that also just not apply when the police do it?

Too bad "sex by surprise" and "rape by deception" don't exist in the UK, those charges would really come in handy here.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978768)

"Rape by deception" laws, i.e. if you misrepresent yourself to get sex, you've committed a crime, would put every single liar looking to get laid on the wrong side of the law. While that isn't necessarily a bad idea, I happen to disagree with any law that makes most of the population into instant criminals, especially if it's only prosecuted selectively.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979208)

I think going to a rape by deception law like that would be a terrible idea and lead to all sorts of trivial and meritless cases clogging up the courts. For a start I'm sure there a lot of men who woke up with someone significantly less attractive than they thought they went to bed with...

On a less flippant note though, I fully support the right of the women involved here to be morally outraged, and for the police to be banned from this sort of behaviour in future.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, nor does it mean it should be ok for the police to behave like the worst sort of scoundrels so long as they stay within the letter of the law.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978838)

Breaking the law is not a loophole. That the rest of the government is looking the other way when the police do it is a different matter.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979032)

Who modded me "troll"? Fuck da mods!

Re:It should make stuff legal... (5, Interesting)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978750)

Nah, that just exposes all new loopholes.

A better option is this: If a cop instructs or incites illegal action, that officer is potentially an accomplice/co-conspirator and the department they work for is liable. Note "instructs/incites" would only count when the officer was A) acting in his or her professional capacity, since otherwise they're just another civilian breaking the law on their own time and B) actually started something instead of going along with other criminal elements as part of their cover. This would mean that the victims of riots instigated by undercover cops would be able to sue the department.

So Officer Bob working for the EXPD posing undercover as an anarchist throws the first stone during a protest, which then sparks a riot. Under these changed rules, the shopkeeper whose window was smashed or the insurance company of the car that was set on fire has a surefire lawsuit against the EXPD, who of course wise up and tell all of Officer Bob's coworkers to never, ever pull this kind of crap again. Ol' Bob himself is, of course, given his pink slip, and might face charges if the local prosecutor has the stones.

Plus, added bonus, the actual victims of the riot get compensation - and by "actual victims" I mean the folks who caught in the crossfire, whose homes, neighbourhoods or places of business were turned into a warzone by overzealous cops and the violent assholes who enjoy rioting.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979284)

    The way it usually works is this. The undercover officer isn't inciting the action, they are simply playing the part of someone friendly to such actions. Anything they do is by their own free will, and he was monitoring, and doing what it took to maintain his cover. If the organizers ordered him, for example, to acquire explosives, to maintain his cover he would need to acquire the requested materials. If he was unaware of the purpose for the materials, it would be impossible to introduce decoy materials. For example, if they were to use a portion to test or practice with, the decoy would be exposed prior to the commission of the major crime. In that, the operative would be considered useless and would likely be removed from the group.

    That's not to say I agree with it. A government operative who facilitates a group to do something they would otherwise be unable to do is simply exposing a non-threat, and prosecuting people for something that they would have not managed to do on their own.

    There have been recent cases here in the US, where "potential terrorists" were identified, and organized by undercover FBI agent(s). On their own, they would have just been a bunch of idiots talking shit and unable to form a viable plan on their own. With the organization and supplies provided by the FBI (or other government agencies), they created the viable threat, and then were able to prosecute that threat.

    I'm surprised how dumb potential threats are. They are unable to figure out how to make explosives, or carry on a tactical threat. It's good that those who want to commit such crimes are too dumb to do it on their own.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979324)

Thing is, in the scenario you describe it is vanishingly unlikely that Officer Bob will ever be caught in the first place.

Firstly, he'll be wearing a balaclava and nondescript clothes which he'll dispose of immediately after he gets home.

Secondly, anything which might provide direct evidence of Bob throwing the first stone (eg. CCTV) will mysteriously "not be working" on the day of the riot. (This doesn't work so well now that virtually everyone's got a phone that can record video).

Thirdly, it's a riot FFS. It's never going to be particularly clear what the exact sequence of events was, which means it's whatever those in power say it is.

Fourthly, note that Bob was acting in a professional capacity. He may have gone a little too far, but he was instructed to be there by his superiors. While they could hang him out to dry, that could easily backfire - why did they put him in that position in the first place? Far easier (and rather safer) to close ranks against any investigation. In fact, I'd argue that this is more likely in the States because of the number of officials you guys elect. Our police chiefs aren't elected.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979428)

And if it were the US, the case would be shut down because it is a "state security matter" and the cops or secret service agents, or secret police procedures might be exposed. When those enforcing the law can act beyond it, you have terror and opression only a few steps away.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978788)

Wouldn't help anyway, it's .gov IP addresses involved, not police force addresses. The police can access the network in question, but they can't proxy through it (and would be stupid to do so when public proxies are available).

The police are government funded, but otherwise independent - at least in theory. The idea is similar to the separation of the executive and judicial branches in the US - if the police were functionally a part of the government, they would have their hands tied trying to investigate breaches of law involving government officials, and would be in a position where .gov could force them to reveal information on investigations that would compromise those same investigations.

Obviously there are problems in that structure, but any policing structure is inherently a compromise.

Worth remembering that governments (and police) are made up of people, and sometimes the views of those people will run contrary to the organisation. The posts could be from an agent provocateur, but could just as easily be from a temp or secretary who actually holds those views, and didn't realise a posts source could be tracked. Slashdot of all places should know how clueless general internet users can be - that they might work in a government post doesn't automatically negate that.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979038)

That's an old rule: entrapment.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979170)

There is no positive proof that it is the police were posting all the comments. All the comments are coming from the governments internet gateway that the police have access to but you cant actually prove it was them.

Re:It should make stuff legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979320)

I think you mean something more in the line of this: If the police tell you to do something, whatever it is, and you do it, most of the responsibility should be put in the cop's side.

the word you're looking for is (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978678)

Agent provocateur [wikipedia.org]

Re:the word you're looking for is (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978932)

In America, we call those Sting Operations.

Re:the word you're looking for is (1)

rishistar (662278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979412)

In Britain its a lingerie shop [wikipedia.org] . We win!!!!

Re:the word you're looking for is (2)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978940)

Agent provocateur [wikipedia.org]

Not to be confused with the Enfant Provocateur [hutman.net] , who bears some similarity, but who generally lacks an overarching goal or purpose.

Re:the word you're looking for is (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979134)

Because sometimes waiting for terrorist or activist groups to come up with their own illegal activities is just boring.

Re:the word you're looking for is (1)

pacinpm (631330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979356)

It's half measure. They should just release a virus in Blackwater and be done with it.

Government IPs? Why don't they just use Tor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978694)

I thought one of the reasons behind using Tor [torproject.org] was to aid people in government? If the story is true, how/why are government official's IP addresses being traced back to them? Learn and use Tor!

Re:Government IPs? Why don't they just use Tor? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979218)

Or rent a home in suburbia with a some consumer ip on copper/optical line.
The government official's IP addresses could be hidden from end users, so only the sites admins could see them?
A great protest is the video exposure of UK Police not wearing ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRgmn-n5ls [youtube.com]

freedom in the UK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978714)

I fear the UK is removing freedom more and more.
the bad thing for me is that UK is part of europe, so their decisions about freedom ruining stuff has more influence on my country then for example chinas decisions.

All according to the guiding principles of Ingsoc. (4, Insightful)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978736)

War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!

Re:All according to the guiding principles of Ings (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979152)

All hail the Emperor!

Re:All according to the guiding principles of Ings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979280)

Trial by Stone!

No offense (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978754)

"senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents"

But, it does sound like he was doing his job well. How could possibly lying to politicians be an offense?

Re:No offense (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978810)

"senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents"

But, it does sound like he was doing his job well. How could possibly lying to politicians be an offense?

If you want to outright lie legally, you have to be a politician.
All the others are allowed to try "putting a spin" - the quickest way: present it as a positive. Like: "this demonstrates just how good the undercover agents were: not even their senior knew what were they doing. You think their targets had any chance?"

A bit slanted (1, Insightful)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978766)

I only RTFA with "sex" in the link text, but that one seemed a little bit ho-hum. I mean, if they're trying to infiltrate an organization (and accompanying social milieu) where there's a lot of sex, why wouldn't having sex be a legitimate part of their task? Like, duh? Next up, articles about how shocking it is that undercover cops infiltrating drug gangs sometimes handle drugs! And this is considered an appropriate police activitiy! Scandalous!

How addicted to the sinister police narrative do you have to be to have a problem with this? I mean, I like to criticize The Man as much as the next bloke, but I at least wait 'til there's something to criticize.

Now, off to read the other two articles...hopefully there's more meat to those stories.

Re:A bit slanted (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978800)

If its about that guy who was embedded in UK environmental organisations then I don't think he had to be having sex to be involved. Either that or I never got invited to the right demonstrations.

Re:A bit slanted (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979034)

I suppose it's really how they want to define embedded :)

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978808)

I suppose it's something about getting paid for it that makes people wonder...

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978854)

It was probably just cold-war propaganda, but at one time it would have been considered scandalous for the police to infiltrate organizations. After all, them were commie and fascist tactics. You know, that whole line about not having to be paranoid if your next door neighbor or the chap sitting next to you at an illegal free speech meeting that brought together more than five people (also illegal) was a KGB spy.

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978866)

Shows you've never been involved in these sorts of organisations. They're just pretty normal people and surprise, surprise some intercourse occurs! To paint them as wild sex parties where promiscuity is the name of the game is simply wrong. Straight up, most of what counts in these groups is your ideological bent not your licentiousness.

Slanted? As in "slippery slope", I'd say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978936)

Next up, articles about how shocking it is that undercover cops infiltrating drug gangs sometimes handle drugs! And this is considered an appropriate police activitiy! Scandalous!

Actually, like using, or selling drugs. And yes, this would be scandalous.

Re:A bit slanted (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979008)

It comes down to sex by deception.

Do you not agree that the women involved are allowed to feel lied to and betrayed?

And these are not big, international, espionage type things, these are police infiltrating environmentalist and animal rights groups. Legitimate citizen groups, convening, meeting and (for the largest part) engaging on totally legal protest. That they have people coming in, lying about who they are and what they do and then sleeping with people specifically to rat them out...

I don't know about you but I find the idea of the police doing this to civillian groups in peacetime (hell, any time) morally repugnant.

Re:A bit slanted (3, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979212)

Do you not agree that the women involved are allowed to feel lied to and betrayed?

sure, but if lying to get laid is a crime, you might as well lock up every male on the planet..

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979352)

Not me.

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979376)

Lots of the women too. Wonderbras, makeup, figure-enhancing tight jeans.. all lies.

Not disclosing psychotic levels of jealousy just because there's another woman working in your office.. lies.

Re:A bit slanted (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979382)

I didn't say it was a crime, i said it was morally repugnant and not an acceptable tactic for the police to use.

Re:A bit slanted (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979226)

Well, it's usually considered unethical to trick someone into sex under false pretenses. It's a bit impractical to actually make that illegal in most cases. But one might still want agents of the government to avoid doing it as part of their official duties.

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979380)

First, just because you CAN do it does not mean you SHOULD. The ends don't justify the means. Cops have the opportunity to infiltrate groups. Ok, but if that comes at the cost of having sex or doing drugs, maybe the right thing to do is to pass on that opportunity. Yeah, it sucks, but you don't always get what you want in life.

Second, I personally don't approve of undercover cops doing drugs either. If that's what it comes to, maybe they shouldn't go undercover in the first place. That would make it a bit easier for drug dealers, but see my first point.
You see, just because these guys are cops they don't magically become immune to the negative side-effects of drugs. Many of those who do drugs as part of their cover get addicted. Addiction fucks up their life, fucks up their family and likely makes them lose their job.
"Sorry that your daddy yells all the time and hits mommy, but he's a police officer and he's doing it to stop criminals. I'm sure you can understand" Is that the attitude we're supposed to adopt?

Also, if doing drugs is OK in some circumstances for cops, then why is not OK in some special circumstances for civilians? I know a guy who has a serious medical condition and LSD helps him well (nothing else works). LSD could hardly make his life worse than it is anyway.
If you want to have principles you need to uphold them no matter what. If a cop is suddenly presented with the choice to try drugs to protect his cover or not try drugs and put his cover at risk, and he decides to take the drugs, I can excuse that. It's a decision made on the spot and the cop is only a human after all. But the system should not green light taking drugs ahead of time. The rule should be "If it is believed your cover will require you to take drugs, the infiltration must stop immediately." but instead it's "If you have to take drugs at one point to continue infiltrating this group, it's OK. We can flush our principles down the toilet in order to stop criminals, that's perfectly fine".

Re:A bit slanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979416)

Better idea: make drugs legal. Attempting (and failing) to stop people from hurting themselves is a waste of time, resources, and tax payer money.

so... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978806)

So it's part of their job to have sex? as in, they are getting paid to have sex? I wish there was a name for that...

Re:so... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978862)

It's not quite prostitution because the parties don't quite line up.

But at least when the undercover cop had to go back to headquarters for a meeting or something he could just tell the bad guys that he's going for a meeting with his pimp.

Re:so... (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979026)

It's just a prostitute hired by a 3rd party to the sex act. You've never heard of getting someone a hooker for their birthday?

Either way, it's someone engaging in sex acts because they were paid to do it.

Re:so... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979160)

It's just a prostitute hired by a 3rd party to the sex act. You've never heard of getting someone a hooker for their birthday?

Either way, it's someone engaging in sex acts because they were paid to do it.

If that were the legal definition, then all the people in porno films would be convicted of prostitution.

Re:so... (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979302)

Porn is generally in another category legally because BOTH parties are paid, neither solicits the other, and it's purpose is "artistic expression".

Many people don't really consider either to be particularly moral and wouldn't want law enforcement to be an active participant. I have to wonder what the police would do if one of their beat cops moonlighted as a porn star?

The police are honestly in a worse moral and ethical position than porn actors or prostitutes since they are also toying with others emotionally and sexually under false pretenses as well as performing sex for hire.

Old old news... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978816)

Fact is, the police have been at this game since Victorian times,

My father, being an old communist, used to tell tales of the 'strange' characters that tried to infiltrate the local party, forgetting that this is a small town and that your history, and that of your family, were easily found out, and, if not, you were suspect.

Best laugh, one character turned down by the party on the grounds of 'known police informer', the next week joined the SNP, worked his way right in there as well, pity no-one from the SNP asked any of his neighbours about him and his background, you know, pertinant things like him being a member of the Orange order and a unionist...

Know for a fact, Dundee Uni vegetarian society in the mid '80s was infiltrated by the plods, and if I was a member of any animal rights group in the UK I'd want to do a deep background check on some of my fellow members...

A final parting note, at a Reading festival, was approached by a rather suspect character wanting to know if I had any acid for sale, next day, same character wanted to know if I wanted to buy any drugs..now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that as the number of arrests for possession on day 1 were too low this was a.plod selling stuff so that a.n.other.plod could then arrest the poor sap who bought it, but...

Being fair to the plods, this infiltration mularkey works both ways..

Re:Old old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978958)

You can infiltrate but unless you can reach the level that can held accountable for the actions being acceptable you are only frying small fish. You need to catch out the whales and fry their asses.

Re:Old old news... (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979094)

You can infiltrate but unless you can reach the level that can held accountable for the actions being acceptable you are only frying small fish. You need to catch out the whales and fry their asses.

I don't think vegetarians would be terribly interested in fried whale ass.

Vegetarians get that sometimes (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979036)

Know for a fact, Dundee Uni vegetarian society in the mid '80s was infiltrated by the plods

Who cares if some vegetarians at some UK uni got diarrhea?

Re:Old old news... (3, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979132)

Well, a lot of organiations don't have a problem with police infiltrators. Their politics may be extreme but many of them stay well within the law. A police informant has a lot more time to spend helping with the campaigning because he doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to find a job to supprt himself. They have a full-timer paid for by the police.

Re:Old old news... (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979328)

I seem to recall a documentary on the BBC a couple of years back that stated as fact the british miner's union was infiltrated by either the police or MI5, can't remember which, back in the '70s-'80s. So like you say this doesn't seem like much of a shocker to me.

Agent provocateur? (1)

noz (253073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978878)

Agent provocateur?

It's called democracy in action.

Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978928)

Gee, wow!

Who would have thought! Fucking asshole power hungry cops inciting violence so they have a reason to ask for additional power and MONEY.

It's almost like they really DON'T care about who gets hurt or takes losses, so long as they get the authority and money.

The best part is that this HAS to be an INSTITUTIONAL action, approved from on high because none of the rank and file would risk their jobs doing anything this stupid just to get to crack heads. This is about the money and power folks. It's time to take the police management to task and find out exactly why they think that they are entitled to incite violence and disorder for their own gain.

cnqiaoshi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978944)

chain link fence [fencepost.cc] Chain Link Wire Mesh,Diammond Wire Mesh,Chain Link Netting,Chain Link Wire,Chain Link Mesh,Fence Netting.It was extensively used as fences for playground and gardens,super highway,railway,airport,port,residence,etc. T Post(Euro Post) [fencepost.cc] Main market is in European Countries,such as Canada,Russia,Italy,France,etc. Chain-link_fencing [fencepost.cc] QiaoShi fence supply all kinds of products using in fence. fence posts [starpicket.com] QiaoShi Star Picket Factory,established in2003,specialized in all kinds of fence posts and related fence products. metal fencing [starpicket.com] Professional on manufacturing and suppling products using in garden. metal fence [starpicket.com] Professional on manufacturing and suppling products using in garden. Chain wire/Chain Fence [wiremesh.de] Material:Low carbon steel wire,stainless steel wire,electro-galvanized wire,hot-dipped galvanized wire,PVC wire. Chain link fence [wiremesh.de] Material:Low carbon steel wire,stainless steel wire,electro-galvanized wire,hot-dipped galvanized wire,PVC wire. Gabion/Reno Mattress [wiremesh.de] are filled with stones at the project site to form flexible, permeable, monolithic structures such as retaining walls, channel linings, and weirs for erosion control projects. photo etching [metaletching.biz] Qiaoshi Precision Metal Etching Factory with the import and export authority,It has its own producing and processing factories, mainly dealing with:Electronic and lndustrial Etchings,Metal Codedisc,screen of Headphone,Screen-of-Razor,Juice Extractor Strainer,Craftwork,Bookmarks,Wire Mesh,They are mainly used in construction,chemical,mining,defense,petroleum,textile,agriculture and chemical etc. metal etching [metaletching.biz] Qiaoshi Precision Metal Etching Factory with the import and export authority,It has its own producing and processing factories, mainly dealing with:Electronic and lndustrial Etchings,Metal Codedisc,screen of Headphone,Screen-of-Razor,Juice Extractor Strainer,Craftwork,Bookmarks,Wire Mesh,They are mainly used in construction,chemical,mining,defense,petroleum,textile,agriculture and chemical etc. Chemical etching [metaletching.biz] Gabion products [gabionbasket.biz] Gabion Technical Support Services [gabionbasket.biz] Gabion structures can be built with speed and economy in all circumstances and are particularly suitable for landslide control in mountainous countries and in areas with persistently bad ground conditions. Gabion box [gabionbasket.biz] Gabion Mesh Sack [gabiony.cn] Gabiony [gabiony.cn] Heavy Type Hexagonal Mesh [gabiony.cn] Heavy hexagonal mesh , also called big type hexagonal mesh. Enjoys wide applications. Heavy type hexagonal wire mesh can be made into gabion boxes used in control and guide of water or flood, flood bank or guiding bank, proventing of rock breaking, water and soil protection, bridge protection, strengthening structure of soil, protection engineering of seaside area, seaport engineering, isolation walls, protection of road, etc. grasslandfence [grasslandfence.com] fieldfence [fieldfence.com] chain Link Fence [fence.hk] Chain Link Fence was extensively used as fences for playground and gardens, super highway, railway, airport, port, residence, etc. Also can be used for breeding of animals. Detail specifications as listed below. garden fencing [fence.hk] fence posts [fence.hk] fencing [fieldfence.com] invisible Fence [metaletching.biz] chain link fence [fence.hk] Chemical etching [wiremesh.de]

Cost (5, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34978946)

The irksome part about the police using agents provocateur is that the police are always complaining that they have insufficient funds to police the streets. If the police can spare a man to infiltrate a bunch of hippies for a number of years, how many undercover police are there in all the more disruptive groups? The figure of £250,000 a year was mentioned as the cost of running one agent, which is infuriating to anyone who has been told that the police have insufficient resources to visit their house when it has been burgled.

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979040)

The irksome part about the police using agents provocateur is that the police are always complaining that they have insufficient funds to police the streets. If the police can spare a man to infiltrate a bunch of hippies for a number of years, how many undercover police are there in all the more disruptive groups? The figure of £250,000 a year was mentioned as the cost of running one agent, which is infuriating to anyone who has been told that the police have insufficient resources to visit their house when it has been burgled.

Single best comment in this thread.

Re:Cost (1)

data2 (1382587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979048)

Even more so for infiltrating a group, which at worst seems to have done some non-violent direct action. I do not really see this as a threat at all, more akin to civil disobedience.

Subjects (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34978950)

They are British Subjects. They don't have inalienable Rights. Their privileges are whatever the government thinks they should be. So whether the government is having sex with protesters, or doing crack cocaine to be cool, and bombing their own cafe's to "expose" the bad people. One thing is certain. They aren't helping anyone when they are the problem. But, it doesn't matter. Entrapment only matters when you have the Rights. They don't.

Re:Subjects (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979060)

They are British Subjects. They don't have inalienable Rights. Their privileges are whatever the government thinks they should be.

LOL. I suppose it's totally different where you live because a few hundred years ago some guys in wigs signed a piece of paper?

So what? Why should we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979090)

There was a case in Germany where a case against a party accused of being nazist collapsed because there were so many government agents in the leadership that it was impossible to distinguish between what they had produced and what the accused have. One government agent wrote a detailed anti-semitic tract. Haven't heard a single peep about that. Hence everyone knows that although this is a case where leftist individuals are opposed to infiltration, they would very much welcome and applaud the same tactics if applied to someone they dislike.

Also, the argument seems to be based on a rule-based criteria model where the rule to apply is that infiltrators in any organisation should not incite illegal action, or something bad has been done. This is a wordsmith trick - if the criteria is accepted generally it would obviously be impossible for all time to infiltrate organisations. The infiltrator would have to be a passive observer even in person, and all the genuine members would have to do would be to ask people to say something illegal or screen in those who have used the most criminal language. Hence a completely unworkable criteria presuming you are going to use infiltration as a method against any group, and just a specialist rule intended to reach a particular moral conclusion in this very particular case.

Re:So what? Why should we care? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979182)

Tell me you can see a major difference between a german nazi-resurgence group and an animal rights or environmentalist group, please?

Re:So what? Why should we care? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979252)

Freedom of speech means that you have to accept all groups' peaceful demonstration - be it the KKK, Nazis, Environmental groups and the Hugging-People-Randomly-Association.

If being a nazi was illegal (which it is in some countries) - you could just go and arrest them - you wouldn't need a riot.

Re:So what? Why should we care? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979390)

Who's talking about freedom of speech?

We're talking about secret infiltration by the police, not restriction of freedom of speech.

Re:So what? Why should we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979358)

To the best of my knowledge, "animal rights activists" (a word similar to 'Unborn Child Rights Activists' in the US, those that kill abortion doctors) have placed more bombs in Europe than neo-nazis over the last 20 years.

The similarities become more clear if you are talking about 'antifascist' and 'antiracist' protesters.

Why don't they simply say "We have no problem with this tactic in itself, we only have a problem with that it's being used against us."?

Pretty much because the wordsmith aggression here as in many other cases is to protest against a certain method IN ITSELF by creating rules that you claim ALWAYS apply, so as to engage people who don't really care about you or your case but might be swayed by your power of speech, whilst in reality your Kantian categorial imperative is simply crafted for the sole purpose of reaching a particular conclusion in a particular case and will be promptly forgotten by yourself subsequently.

I also haven't seen anyone complain about Indymedia logging IPs despite claiming that they don't. I guess that is "OKAY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH NICE PEOPLE".

Re:So what? Why should we care? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979414)

I'm sorry I don't follow you. If you're trying to turn this into some sort of partisan debate I suggest you go fuck yourself.

If the groups were violent, fine, but I see no record of that in the articles from the UK on this particular scandal.

And if you seriously don't see the difference between protest for animal rights or environmental issues and a group that stands explicitly for racism and death? Well, ok, fine. Whatever.

Now expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979092)

1. A bit of outrage and indignation
2. More stories by media pumping this story
3. Lots more outrage and parliament talking about rules and restricting police powers.
4. A Terrorist attack
5. More powers for the police not less.

Not just the police (2)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979116)

In at least one of the demonstrations I have attended I have seen journalists pay people to incite a disturbance. This was an anti-Nazi league demonstration with money been given to a set of skinheads to break it up.

Hidden evidence (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979202)

The police also have been shown to hide the evidence collected by the undercover agents if it does not help them lead to convictions or even shows that they are lying to the prosecution. http://policestate.co.uk/articles/109 [policestate.co.uk] As well as the undercover police inciting violence the normal police often do it as well at protests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo&feature=related [youtube.com] As well as intimidating protestors with FIT teams and questionable tactics including ketteling.

Agent Provocateur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979238)

This is an old tactic called Agent Provocateur [wikipedia.org]

IMHO, this should be illegal. IANAL, so maybe it already is illegal and they do it anyway. I wouldn't be surprised.

New way to seize servers (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979240)

Now I guess that the police can anonymously post comments to a site then go in and seize their servers because of comments posted to that site and get information on all the commentators.

historical ref: camden28 (4, Interesting)

jdogalt (961241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34979316)

For those of you unfamiliar with the 'Camden 28', a good example of a US Agent Provocateur can be found in this story-

camden28.org (film shown on PBS independent lens from time to time)

"
In the early-morning hours of Sunday, August 22, 1971, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Attorney General John Mitchell announced that FBI agents had arrested 20 antiwar activists in and near a draft board office in Camden, New Jersey. ...

They also asked the jury to acquit on the grounds that the raid would not have taken place without the help of a self-admitted FBI informer and provocateur. The defendants emphasized that they had given up their plan, for lack of a practical means, until the informer-provocateur had resurrected it and provided them with the encouragement and tools to carry it out.
"

Re:historical ref: camden28 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979336)

There appears to be something wrong with your word processor. It has replaced the word 'claimed' with the word 'emphasized'.

Similar things are happening in Germany (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34979340)

German police has been caught doing similar things. They dress up as protesters and start fights with their own colleges.
This way the government can point at all those violent protesters and their misguided cause.

Oh well just like most other western governments. By the sheep for the sheep.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?