Thursday
Dec152011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Norfolk Vice
Dec 15, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: other Suddenly, as if by magic, Norfolk Constabulary, asleep atop their haystacks, have been transformed into something out of Miami Vice. Tallbloke reports:
An Englishman’s home is his castle they say. Not when six detectives from the Metropolitan Police, the Norfolk Constabulary and the Computer Crime division arrive on your doorstep with a warrant to search it though.
I waved the first three in and bid them head through to the sitting room, where there was less of an chill near the woodburner. Then they kept coming, being introduced by the lead detective from Norfolk as they trooped in. I thought I’d been chosen to host the secret policemen’s ball or something.
Reader Comments (160)
Mac and others
See - BH agrees. Now all calm down.
BTW where did this meme come from about the police 'forcing' their way into TB's house? His own account is that they rang or knocked and he waved them in.
Reported at the Register (almost MSM) by Andrew Orlowski
Cops target climate-sceptic bloggers in three countries
Hardware seized in UK, feds request evidence in America
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/15/climategate_police_action/
@:BBD: if you think the knickers are twisting here, read some of the comments at WUWT. Rather excitable, our American cousins.
Dec 15, 2011 at 12:23 PM | Latimer Alder
"'intelligence-led' policing?"
Surely the words "intelligece" as "policing" are mutually exclusive? ;- )
BBD
"they rang or knocked and he waved them in"
You think they'd have gone away if he hadn't?
Here's a thing. I use a logon password to boot my laptop and the hard drive is also password-protected. If the police took my laptop away, would I be obliged to (under pain of what...?) to supply said passwords? Or could they crack 'em?
"Or could they crack 'em?"
Snotrocketscience
Bish, the reason this matters is that it could increase publicity for CG2, which has until now largely been ignored by the media.
... the story is up at the guardian and the BBC.
Tallbloke has been 'outed' but I think his identity was never a secret.
The Guardian has some nice quotes from him:
BBD, I agree with you about keeping it in perspective, but don't underestimate the shock you would feel if 6 of our Finest turned up at your door. (There is an interesting question about police numbers here, SIX policemen would in my day have constituted a riot). And yes they forced their way in, he had no choice because they had a search warrant. What I'm pondering is what they were searching for, what did they tell the judge they wanted to get from his house when he's not suspected, according to the plod that is, of any crime.
Maybe we can get it from them under an FOIA request. (Ho, ho)
Could the Police crack your passwords ? Well maybe not. I once had a go at a crossword puzzle (The Sun's Two-Way-Teaser) that had been started by a member of Special Branch no less. There was a problem with 3 down, the answer to which was Libya. I checked the clue to 1 across which was "Nocturnal predatory bird". The copper had written, in a confident hand, "Bat". I kid you not.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -TJ
This is why, over here, 80 million+ over here of us have guns.
Andrew
If the Police will eventually possess images of Tallbloke's computer drives can they disclose them to other organisations?
For example, if Norfolk obtain evidence as part of a 'criminal' investigation can they then let UEA pick over them to try and find their leak? Or at the very least if Norfolk discover say, some intriguing ip addresses but do not investigate them themselves, can they pass them on to UEA?
From the Gruaniad today:
'A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said today: "We are pleased to hear that the police are continuing to actively pursue the case following the release last month of a second tranche of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit. We hope this will result in the arrest of those responsible for the theft of the emails and for distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change."'
And who exactly, Mr UEA spokesman, is responsible for 'distorting the debate' - the 'thieves', or the authors of the emails?
Hickman at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire
`has a tiny scoop in the form of a quote from A spokesman for the University of East Anglia:
"We are pleased to hear that the police are continuing to actively pursue the case following the release last month of a second tranche of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit. We hope this will result in the arrest of those responsible for the theft of the emails and for distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change."
The spokesman seems to think that “distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change" is an arrestable offence. They should be careful what they wish for.
BBD
"Stop winding people up, it's irresponsible"
Have you ever heard of (C)AGW, or is that a new concept to you?
UEA
"...distorting the debate..."
What, by having TWO sides?
This is a gigantic set of civil liberties and privacy issues for dissenting citizens in any country. I believe there are a couple of vital issues that most people are hardly noticing here (I'm not at all suggesting the other issues aren't worthy of discussion, just that the following points are being neglected so far):
Assuming (big 'if') that the search and seizure as conducted is legal under the relevant laws where 'Tallbloke' lives,
1) think about what a huge change this is from traditional concepts of privacy, that nowadays with the web you could be subject to legal search (potentially) if you had any kind of digital contact at all with a total stranger(s) anywhere in the world, and/or police even suspect (imagine??) there might, possibly, somehow be digital evidence of anything on your hard drive;
2) a 'blogger' or any 'ordinary' citizen is subject at any instant to total disclosure to the police of every digital activity he's ever conducted via said hard drive(s).
Even 'if' the police are acting within their legal rights and responsibilities it does not take a conspiratorial mind to worry about the perilous state of modern privacy here, especially for political dissenters. I don't (in general) reject the right and duty of police to collect evidence of crimes, but unless they already had a "smoking gun" of a crime committed BY Mr. 'Tallbloke' (which has not been suggested anywhere and has been denied directly by a police rep to Tallbloke), what we have is a massive anti-privacy fishing expedition of police (legally) combing through all aspects of a person's digital life for potential evidence of SOMEONE ELSE's alleged crime.
I think this should give everyone serious pause, especially that political dissidence itself has become much more dangerous. I don't think I'm conspiracy oriented but I would not (hypothetically) want to entrust anything of value to the kinds of scumbags we have seen in the CG1 and CG2 emails, or to the kinds of people running the CAGW scams.
Does anyone think that govt agencies in the UK, USA, and worldwide have not become thoroughly seeded with bureaucrats who have no respect for the privacy rights or well-being of CAGW dissenters?
Does anyone reading this really want to provide all of your personal digital info to the police and to the CAGW enforcers, simply because as an informed citizen you have opinions and judgments of your own?
The UEA press release, like BBD's 'move along nothing to see coment' are both laughable for the same reasons:
UEA is whining because their control of the debate slipped when non-insdiers got a glimpse of how they make climate sausage.
BBD wants us to move on as quietly as possible to keep the entire show under control and allow the AGW hypesters to regain control of the agenda.
Ain't gonna happen, BBD.
Cheers,
just wind back everyone and recall when that lovely man, Blair, was telling everyone how the police should be able to hold people for questioning, while they searched their computers, for 90 days....and how the people who disagreed with this were told they were soft on terrorism and therefore should be subject to forcible rendition.
Some idiots voted and kept voting for Blair...and this is how it ends up! Once a government takes powers, it rarely relaxes them.
I never knew West Yorkshire was a province of North Korea
hunter
Rational as ever, I see.
We are all Tallblokes now.
Hunter
'The UEA press release, like BBD's 'move along nothing to see coment' are both laughable for the same reasons.'
There has been no press release from the UEA - at least not on their website. The only 'release' from the UEA has been an anonymous/unattributed comment to a reporter at a pro-AGW rag.
Gawd.
One would like to know what this is all in aid of.
The DoJ and the police here cannot possibly think that Tallbloke is FOIA, can they?
Be that as it may, one point struck me: this raid took place at the same day Parliament broke up for Christmas. So his MP cannot ask a question in the House.
However, perhaps we can use the time to get some MPs seriously interested.
Or would questioning the help our plod gives to the DoJ mean we'll be even more "isolated'?
Dec 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM | Salopian
"continuing to actively pursue the case" - is this sloppy grammar the UEA's or the Grauniad's
Roger Longstaff
Not at all. Plod went to see Tallbloke because he was among the first to blog about the emails because someone posted a link to the download in comments at his site (here, I think.).
It's not much, but it's what they've got. As BH says upthread. And that's it, as far as I can see.
Hunter,
You are mischaracterizing BBD's comment(s). He's saying the same thing I am - that while this is interesting and may provide fallout of even greater interest, let us not allow our imaginations to run loose when there is little factual basis yet to draw any sort of conclusion.
Otherwise we all start sounding like we believe in the 2nd gunman, that the USAF has alien bodies and spaceship parts in storage and that the "man" is out to get us. Most of what is getting posted borders on the outlandish - except maybe for all the legal analysis by folks who are neither lawyers or (in sone cases) citizens of Great Britain.
FOIA needs a legend for a girl.
No BBD, not you, only those who do not hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
HuhneMustGo;
' "continuing to actively pursue the case" - is this sloppy grammar the UEA's or the Grauniad's'
Well, obviously, the Grauniad has form for this sort of stuff, but the again it could have been the UEA's Creative wRiting Unit. But as it's an anonymous quote - who knows?
Sometimes, you hate being proved right. If you haven't done it already, get over to Tallbloke's and register your support for him there.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/skeptic-blogger-raided-by-the-police-because-he-was-sent-a-link-to-the-climategate-2-release/
Pointman
@BBD
@timg56
If you cannot begin to see the vast potential for abuses already present then you are truly myopic.
So what if this particular raid does not seem to affect you personally.
If at any time any "suspicious" item of digital info appears on your hard drive(s), even with no knowledge or intention on your part (it may be from an anonymous or deceptive source, you may click a link thinking you are downloading something else, etc.) then your hard drive(s) may have become subject to police interest.
It may only be an IP address or an email address or a file you never wanted in the first place. If authorities have (can purport to claim) any basis for securing a warrant to find "evidence" in an ongoing investigation, your hard drive(s) may have that evidence.
Your hard drive(s) may not even contain such evidence, but your entire digital life may be opened up to police inquiry simply because someone was able to get a warrant while imagining you might have such evidence. Or not. One does not need to give the CAGW fanatics too much credit: some of them certainly will push "investigation" of critics with no basis whatsoever, just as some wanted to sic an "investigative journalist" on Steve McIntyre for daring to "audit" their data.
"It's not much..."
Hmmm...entering someone's home and taking their property... obviously nothing to worry about.
Andrew
Roger
And here I was, assuming that 'Roger Longstaff' was a rather Falstaffian joke. My apologies if it is your real name. No offence intended.
If plod turn over BH, they will have all our email addresses. The cloak of anonymity is rather flimsy. This should bother no one here because no one here is doing anything other than exercising free speech.
Tallbloke should have expected the police and probably did. I'm unpersuaded that anyone's getting persecuted or that this is the beginning of a 'war on sceptics' etc. That's all.
No offence taken BBD, and I hope that you are right.
BA
You are twisting my words. The police haven't got much to go on. So they follow up the not much that they've got to Tallbloke's front door. I did not say - or imply - that having six plod turn up and take your machines away is 'not much'.
I would like to be clear about that.
According to my router (I have it set to email me) , I have had 3 "hack" attempts in the last couple of hours from here.
http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/174.127.67.96
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/15/390511/climategate-swiftboaters-under-criminal-investigation-for-hacking/
More brilliant analysis from a crypto-fascist shill.
As I told Peter Sinclair of "Climate Denial Crocks" fame, the one thing this episode will definitely be showing is what an unpleasant, hate-filled bunch the CAGWers are.
BBD
The police, under threat of violence, entered Tallbloke's home and appropriated his property.
There is no misrepresentation there. And this in response to an alleged 'crime' whose worst consequence was that reinstating the order to a situation as if previous and real crimes and transgressions hadn't been committed. Or at least where they can't be hidden anymore ..
And no: You never claimed that:
"six plod turn up and take your machines away is 'not much' "
But, you definitely never said anything to the contrary, and it is hard to interpret your comments very ,uch differently as to that 'which you never said' ... or something quite close to that!
Just to show sceptic solidarity, nothing to add to the many previous comments. As a daily reader of the main sceptic blogs I am thrilled at last to be considered a subversive by the establishment.
My bet is that big money rather than big government (tautologous?) is behind the sudden exertions of the Norfolk police.
Regards Dr T G Watkins.
Former ambassador, human right activist, and self professed believer in AGW, Craig Murray
weighs in on the Tallbloke raiding of a climate scare dissenter
BBD
"Tallbloke should have expected the police"
Really? You may be right, but somehow that doesn't comfort me.
lots of comments, can't see anyone linking this to US solar scam - Solyndra? This explains the USA's DoJ involvement: either looking to crap on a Solyndra fraudster or clean up after Obama's mates, who are obviously comprmised by its collapse - the very people who would be tangentially linked to the Hockey Team.
Skiphil,
As someone who spent a fair amount of time boring holes through the ocean to help ensure freedom and individual rights, I am very concerned about unwarranted search and seizure. And I think it is good for you to point out the dangers. What I am saying is lets not go off half cocked. First off, the seizure of Roger's computers was done under a warrant. Comments about unwarranted and "under threat of violence" are foolish, even stupid.
Second, defending the rights of the individual is not synomonous with "There's a conspiracy to silence the skeptics." , which is another theme being bandied about.
Assuming the search of Roger's data turns up nothing in aid of the investigation, then it becomes time to question and challenge the police and the court as to what evidence they had.
I never said this was not serious or to just move along and forget about it. I simply suggested we let this play out.
@timg56
ok I'm sorry I read you as dismissive of all concerns, although I do think your previous post gave that impression. Thank you for the explanations.
About a legal warrant (which I have no reason to doubt was obtained in this case), there is a great deal of discretion with police and judges about when to search or not. There is always a potential 'chilling' effect on free expression, among other issues. Search and seizure executed against a blogger may not yet have much resonance within the media and public, but it should.
For instance, consider the contrast with recognized 'media' entities: even if there were a sound basis for believing that there's some bit of digital evidence of a crime on servers which are utliized by the BBC or the Guardian or the London Times, what are the chances of a search warrant being executed against them for something like the CG2 email issue? If the Guardian had broken the story first in the UK or if the link to the Russian server had shown up first on one of their comments pages, would we even be having this discussion right now? I doubt it.
I don't claim to know all or even very many relevant facts here, and I don't have any conspiracy theory about a "war on skeptics" or whatever. I do think that this *seems* like hitting a small nut with a huge implement, that the powers of the state are being used mainly to intimidate and harass skeptic bloggers rather than for a reasonable law enforcement purpose.
.... and I *know* that the double-standards between how this issue is handled and how all sorts of politically correct malefactors (politicians, CAGW scientists, journalists, NGO officials etc.) are handled is jarring.
hope you are right on this, but not sure myself.
the net (not just climate) in general & blogs in particular must scare the s--t out the "masters of the universe" aka message control freaks.
they will be looking for ways to bring this arena back under their control & if that means blocking/moding they will go for it (hope i'm wrong & paranoid)
Jonas N
Balls.
James P
If I had been among the first to download and blog the CG2 emails (because someone posted a link to them in comments on my blog) I would have expected a visit from plod at some point. Wouldn't you?
This doesn't comfort me either. But it's not the start of a war on sceptics.