Comments on: SOCA: we just want your money? http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/ Security Research, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:15:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Matthew http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-21527 Matthew Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:18:29 +0000 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-21527 Has anyone noticed that all the LE agencies recently created have now be disbanded NCIS - Gone NCS - Gone ARA - Gone SOCA - Hmm one wonders how long before it is 'reviewed' Has anyone noticed that all the LE agencies recently created have now be disbanded
NCIS - Gone
NCS - Gone
ARA - Gone
SOCA - Hmm one wonders how long before it is ‘reviewed’

]]> By: giafly http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15767 giafly Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:43:28 +0000 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15767 Meanwhile another government department is doing the exact opposite - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2012502,00.html" rel="nofollow">The Guardian</a> <blockquote> Thousands of criminals who are dodging nearly £500m in fines are to escape a crackdown forcing them to pay up after ministers quietly dropped the initiative. The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed yesterday that it had abandoned Operation Payback, a high-profile campaign with radio and TV advertisements and even beer mats with a slogan warning criminals: "Fine dodgers: we are coming to collect." </blockquote> Meanwhile another government department is doing the exact opposite - The Guardian

Thousands of criminals who are dodging nearly £500m in fines are to escape a crackdown forcing them to pay up after ministers quietly dropped the initiative.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed yesterday that it had abandoned Operation Payback, a high-profile campaign with radio and TV advertisements and even beer mats with a slogan warning criminals: “Fine dodgers: we are coming to collect.”

]]> By: Surreptitious Evil http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15631 Surreptitious Evil Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:40:44 +0000 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15631 You'll note, of course, that the <a href="http://www.assetsrecovery.gov.uk/AboutARA/" rel="nofollow">Assets Recovery Agency</a> is being folded into <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251339.stm" rel="nofollow">SOCA</a>. I appreciate that this is being done for different reasons but it does rather pander to your essential premise. S-W You’ll note, of course, that the Assets Recovery Agency is being folded into SOCA. I appreciate that this is being done for different reasons but it does rather pander to your essential premise.

S-W

]]> By: Eth http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15552 Eth Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:14:32 +0000 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15552 ...the Scotts gave us the Computer Misuse Act, and now they giveth the E-Police to catch the E-Criminals. --fingers crossed Mr Reid and Mr Brown! …the Scotts gave us the Computer Misuse Act, and now they giveth the E-Police to catch the E-Criminals.

–fingers crossed Mr Reid and Mr Brown!

]]> By: Clive Robinson http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15446 Clive Robinson Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:48:23 +0000 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/02/11/soca-we-just-want-your-money/#comment-15446 Richard, It is a little more proof (if required) that we are moving away from a proactive Police force (prevention) into a reactive Police force (punative). Once upon a time the biggest fear a criminal had was getting "caught in the act" by members of the Police. This type of arrest generaly happend for two reasons chance and intelegance. Both of which are expensive in manpower resources. Now it looks like the Police have decided that it is (for whatever reason) not cost effective to prevent crime just chase after those with assets to be ceased after the crime. There are several problems with this attitude, The first is that neither the Police nor other Government Agencies have been any good at it in the past, in fact on one or two occasions humiliatingly so (Perhaps one of the reasons the SFO got nick-named the "Serious Farce Office", and has effectivly disappeared into the mists of time). Secondly it draws away Police attention from the types of crime that matter most to the voter such as street crime, house breaking etc. This is not a good political move, with the media already giving creadence to the notion that "offences are being created for back door taxes" any further down turn on Policing street crime etc will be seen very negativly by the voter. Thirdly it will only be the criminals with assets to "be ceased" that will overly worry about this. The bottom feeders (street crime etc) will most likley not have sufficient assets to make it worth while pursuing them for them. The top of the food chain criminals however will resort to new methods to keep their assets safe from the Police and HMG, oh and they will also be able to get/buy better legal minds to help them. I will stick my neck out a little bit here and make a prediction, "There will be one or two initial big successes then the policy will increasingly fail to return value for money" I could as I have in the past give a lot of arguments to support this view but it will be easier on the reader not to (unless people realy want me to ;) Richard,

It is a little more proof (if required) that we are moving away from a proactive Police force (prevention) into a reactive Police force (punative).

Once upon a time the biggest fear a criminal had was getting “caught in the act” by members of the Police. This type of arrest generaly happend for two reasons chance and intelegance. Both of which are expensive in manpower resources.

Now it looks like the Police have decided that it is (for whatever reason) not cost effective to prevent crime just chase after those with assets to be ceased after the crime.

There are several problems with this attitude,

The first is that neither the Police nor other Government Agencies have been any good at it in the past, in fact on one or two occasions humiliatingly so (Perhaps one of the reasons the SFO got nick-named the “Serious Farce Office”, and has effectivly disappeared into the mists of time).

Secondly it draws away Police attention from the types of crime that matter most to the voter such as street crime, house breaking etc. This is not a good political move, with the media already giving creadence to the notion that “offences are being created for back door taxes” any further down turn on Policing street crime etc will be seen very negativly by the voter.

Thirdly it will only be the criminals with assets to “be ceased” that will overly worry about this. The bottom feeders (street crime etc) will most likley not have sufficient assets to make it worth while pursuing them for them. The top of the food chain criminals however will resort to new methods to keep their assets safe from the Police and HMG, oh and they will also be able to get/buy better legal minds to help them.

I will stick my neck out a little bit here and make a prediction,

“There will be one or two initial big successes then the policy will increasingly fail to return value for money”

I could as I have in the past give a lot of arguments to support this view but it will be easier on the reader not to (unless people realy want me to ;)

]]>