Telephone taps

[Oneeyedvic]

Recently, the conservatives, the lib dems and even Liberty agreed that they are not oposed to phone taps, so why won't Charles Clarke allow phone taps to be used in court?

[El D]

Presumably so that when we are locked up at home without trial they cannot listen in to us planning our bombings. So considerate . . .

[Ducati]

I really don't understand this...........surely this is a no brainer (horrid expression, but apt in the circumstances)if ever there was one: if an al Qaeda or IRA faction is taped arranging a bombing of Krazy Ken at County Hall (unlikely as he loves both - I, ahem, hear), why on earth can't this evidence be relied on in court, particularly when virtually all other civilised (and some uncivilised) countries do.

 

Bananas.

 

No doubt there will be a typical politician reason why they don't, but clearly this will be beyond my comprehension otherwise surely it would be obvious!

[ck1]

There was a discussino on the radio last week about this, apparently the primary reason was because technology changes so fast that by the time suitable devices had been developed (obviously these are not available anywhere already so would have to be made from scratch...) they would be out of date and should the bugs be found then the terrorists etc would have a good insight into what technology is being used to track them. I think we should all count ourselves lucky that our government is not prepared to divulge such information to our resident baddies otherwise we might find ourselves in real trouble, unusual to hear such a credible excuse for anything from them too

[Oneeyedvic]

ck1 - not sure that nay of that is actually true:

a) technology changes too fast......can't be true, unless we are only taping the phones of hyper intelligent terrorists - seems to work fine for all the other countries - specially the states (who are technologically superior)

b) terrorists would have a good insight.......again not ture - most tapping is no longer done by breaking into a house and inserting a bug - it is done by listening posts and computers etc (or so I am led to believe)

c) and why are all the other governements in the world prepared to 'give' this technology to terrorists then?

[ck1]

oneeyedvic - thats exactly right, I was surprised to hear such absolute rubbish being broadcast, surely the companies who would research and develop the required technologies would be ahead of the game as far as "keeping up" with technology was concerned. I assume it is more likely that the said terrrorists would get to court on the basis of phone evidence and claim their human rights had been violated, be referred to Europe and dismissed with a nice cash payout!

[Oneeyedvic]

Can't see that as all the European countries use phone taps anyway!

[kick3m0n]

one reason I heard given was that it would give information "on what sorts of people were having their phones tapped".  Uh-huh....that would be bad, scary people who might do wrong.   Since the evidence would only be used if a case came to trial, the "sorts of people having their phones tapped" would ostensibly be those charged with crimes.  That wouldn't necessarily tell us (or the bad guys) an awful lot about who else was having their phone tapped.  I'd guess (or maybe I've watched too much 24 and the like) that most baddies would expect phone tapping, especially if they were up to no good on a global scale.

The only time this might be a problem, is if a case comes to court, and phone tapping evidence, that would convict, is available from the phone of someone that no one expects to be tapped eg a member of Parliament.  The CPP etc may all press for this evidence to be used to secure a conviction, but obviously the 'secret services' would want this kept under wraps, as it would immediately spark furore - especially if devices were then found in other MPs phones etc.

Not sure Charles Clarke has put forward any convincing arguments on this topic.  Which doesn't inspire much confidence in me that he knows what he's doing.

[Hippy]

The crux of this matter is that the phone tap evidence, a recording of the incriminating conversation, could be faked or altered to make it incriminating with no way for the defence to detect or determine such tampering. Tape recording, except by the police, is usually inadmissible as evidence for this reason. Video is more acceptable due to its being more difficult to fake.

The covert and routine surveillance of telephone conversations is surely a matter of record. Much technology is directed towards detecting the current trigger words in multitudes of otherwise innocent conversations. When the spy masters detect the sinister use of the telephone system they may very well apply for a Court Order to listen more closely and persistently to a particular line.

Information gleaned from the phone conversations is then supposed to lead to further detective work to uncover the illegal or intended illegal activity for which more concrete proof can be obtained.

It seems to me that this is a most useful safeguard against the possibility of innocent or unconnected to the crime suspects from being "stitched up" by false evidence.

[Oneeyedvic]

Hippy, have I misinterpreted the law?

AS far as I can work out, NO phone conversations can be used in court full stop, but if I am incorrect in that assumption, I will be interested to know.

Regarding faking, I again am not convinced of this argument - to fake a conversation would be very difficult - every voice is unique and there are plenty of studios out there that can prove this. On the other hand, photographic evidence can and is used on a daily basis, and a 10 year old child can fake these nowadays!

Also, since Liberty agree to it, they must be convinced that people won't be stitched up as it were - they would be the first to protest otherwise.

[Hippy]

OneeyedVic - I think you skip to a hasty and wrong grasp of my necessarily brief words. When I wrote, "Tape recording, except by the police, is usually inadmissible..." I meant just that. I did not mean to imply and did not say that such tapes would be of telephone conversations. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the police are permitted to make tape recordings of interviews that can then become the basis for written transcript evidence, or in certain circumstances evidence in their own right if required, to demonstrate a particular manner that would escape the transcript process, or to establish an error in the transcript process.

You are quite right, no taped phone conversations can be used as evidence in themselves, but the information gleaned from listening in to phone conversations, or even by being one of the parties to a conversation can lead to further and more accurately directed investigation with the intention of bringing a properly proved case to court.

Tape recordings, other than those covered by PACE, are most unlikely to be admissible, and the long held opinion is that these can be faked or tampered with such that a court could be fooled. I agree, modern technology can root out most fakes these days, but the courts are notorious for being just a little cautious when it comes to being "with it".