Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild
politico.eu
politico.eu
This sounds like "parallel construction" with fewer steps.
The world seems to be moving away from long-established (and established slowly over a long time) rules and regulations around law and due process due to it feeling slow and inconvenient.
Haven't crime rates been declining in the West for quite a while now?
Yes but not for the reasons you think. More crime is going unreported, unsolved, unenforced than ever before. It started during Covid and hasn’t really gotten any better. The Leo’s that are die hard are now out there wearing masks looking for people of a specific skin color.
Many say the opposite. Crimes are more often reported especially if suspects have a „specific skin color“.
It suggests that around a third of violent crimes are not recorded by police - but, contrary to the gp's assertion, that proportion doesn't seem to have changed significantly since the BCS began in 1982.
Well then its even sillier to make the claim in the first place, isn't it?
> “We don’t do things like that here at all. So, Vauxhall [MI6] will almost never outsource meaningful intelligence work to the private sector,” they said.
That one explains that "Vauxhall" is a metonym for MI6, whose headquarters is in Vauxhall.
> Still, trading in knowledge is commonplace. The same person added that there is a “lot of frustration from both sides of the river [Thames] that the old boys’ network was getting a bit too informal, with people telling their clients that they can call their old buddies.”
That one completely fails to explain that "both sides of the river" means MI6 and MI5 (whose headquarters are on different sides of the Thames).
Isn't that just stalking? Why didn't they just call the cops?
I don’t know why people have a mental model of the world that is so incompatible with reality that they’ll post skeptical takes to HN when we live in a world where so much data is available at the tip of our fingers.
For example, "infiltrating an organization" is also just joining it, which is quite dissimilar to say, stalking if all they did was not actually believe in the organization, rather the say, menacingly post men and machines outside of someone's residence for the purpose of intimidation via threat of violence.
Did you find any of that? Specifically in the UK, by private investigation organizations, specifically providing stalking for hire? Confirmed by more evidence then "well someone totally said it happened but we won't say who or by who?"
I'm certainly not trusting what a random person on the Internet says it came up with.
That isn't to say the core assertion is wrong, but that I'll immediately dismiss one for which "chatGPT said" is the primary evidence.
Again, the only reason we’re having this conversation as though there’s a debate here is that people have decided to believe in one inaccurate version of the world instead of using the extensive tools available to figure out what’s going on. This level of conversation is fine for Reddit, it’s embarrassing for HN where having an accurate mental model of the world (and a willingness to learn an update) is kind of essential.
I genuinely don’t care about being right on the Internet or HN karma, I would be genuinely happy if one reader/participant in this argument came out of it thinking “huh, I can actually do better than this.”
> so I visited ChatGPT and asked if there are documented cases in the UK where these things have happened, and I was met with a deluge of well-documented cases
does indeed sound exactly like you were using chatGPT as a primary source rather than a search engine, and thus are being met with cynicism.
Please have better faith in your interlocutor. We are not ostriches with our heads in the sand. Say your piece, so that then if we ignore it, you may find fault in good faith after. You're beating around the bush now, as you've been asked for sources plainly and directly, and have refused, which leads me to deploy the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
> Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor that serves as a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims. It states:
> > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> The razor is credited to author and journalist Christopher Hitchens, although its provenance can be traced to the Latin Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur ("What is asserted gratuitously is denied gratuitously"). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
I'll post one such case to corroborate the article, since it was big news in my community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Hong_Kong_trade_office_sp...
Allegedly involved are Hong Kong government, multiple private security and private investigators from the UK with ex-military/law enforcement background, and a mysterious death after the whole scandal was exposed.
Which sounds exactly like what the article is describing.
The behaviors described are mostly criminal, they have legal recourse, it's not like civil cases where they would be buried from the other sides legal team.
And speaking of the other side they are private companies employing ex intelligence people they don't have the immense backing of a state behind them, if they get caught doing illegal things a few times thats it their whole business could be under threat.
I am guessing they are very chummy with law enforcement, have good lawyers and may be in bed with politicians but the whole thing looks extremely precarious it would only take a couple of cases to stick for real prison time for these folks.
> don't have the immense backing of a state
They had backing of a foreign state power, in this case Hong Kong (and by implication China)
> it would only take a couple of cases to stick for real prison time for these folks
The guy just died a mysterious death once the thing was exposed. He must have wished for prison time.
The private security companies in the case in your link are in my opinion incidental.
In your link a state actor recruited a bunch of people to do it's dirty work. Typical state sponsored intelligence stuff. The security companies were really a former marine and a couple of former Hong Kong cops. They could have been hired ad hoc.
In the politico article it discusses shops run from groups of former intelligence agencies (MI5 and MI6 presumably) running intelligence operations for companies.
It's an entire different kind of thing in my opinion.
Sure if a van rolls up across your home with a bunch of dudes in it you can't know which case you are dealing with, but either way calling the cops is the right way to go.
"In the last year, government ministers and intelligence agencies have warned that foreign states are using the industry to “carry out their dirty work” in the U.K. — sometimes through the surveillance and harassment of dissidents that have fled to Britain as a safe haven."
I guess the article discusses other things too, but even if your argument makes sense here, it doesn't negate the fact that once powerful foreign entities are involved, ones that have enough resources and motivation to hire ex-spies to do dirty work, calling the police can lead to disastrous outcomes.
I guess you're lucky in a sense since apparently you haven't experienced the situations where you know there are times where the normal law enforcement / emergency services process won't work.
Intelligence agency staff leave their roles, just like anyone else does. Unregulated? They're as regulated as the rest of us. Then you have the article casting aspersions on them for doing so, it must be about money and malign foreign influences. Of course foreign states use proxies; so does the UK. Why's that even mentioned as if it's implying ex-intel staff are the proxies - which as far as I'm aware, they're not?
Should we ban these people from working again, or ensure they only flip burgers for the rest of their lives for daring to leave the public sector?
ETA: the argument “what, do you expect these people not to keep engaging in work that we traditionally reserve for governments, how will they feed their kids?” also leaves me quite cold.
There are people offering their services to find kidnapped children, I struggle to see that as a bad thing. Private investigatory work has a long history in the country of Sherlock Holmes (or at least Dr Joseph Bell). You have figures as far back as Harry Philby flirting with foreign governments after their time within the UK government.
They're not offering government services, they're offering their own capabilities.
That sounds like more or less the opposite of finding kidnapped children.
> Providing home addresses to Russian oligarchs who have a history of topping people — particularly journalists
Australia introduced a less onerous 1/5/10 year permission period but for anybody with "training in military tactics and use of software or technology with military applications" https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2024-05-07/new-l...
Most famously due to a former US citizen turned Australian citizen awaiting extradiction back to the US for allegedly training chinese fighter pilots (although this seems to be more of an ITAR violation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Daniel_Duggan
Retired military personnel, not all veterans.
What is the difference between "veterans" and "retired military personnel"?
https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/emoluments_clause_ap... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250422185437/https://dodsoco.o...
> WHITE PAPER
> APPLICATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE TO DoD CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND MILITARY PERSONNEL
[The following paragraph is from the conclusion, and I think this might be Justice Department interpretations, as I don't think these issues have been tested before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, nor do I speak for the military or Justice Department.]
> The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution applies to all Federal personnel. The Clause prohibits receipt of foreign gifts unless Congress consents such as in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342. For retired military personnel, the Emoluments Clause continues to apply to them because they are subject to recall. The Justice Department opinions referred to in this paper construe the Emoluments Clause broadly. Specifically, the Justice Department construes the Clause to include not only gifts of travel and food, but also payments such as proportionate profit-sharing. To avoid an Emoluments Clause problem resulting in suspension of retired pay, retired military personnel should seek advance consent through their respective Service consistent with 37 U.S.C. § 908. It is prudent for retired military personnel to obtain advance approval even when there is uncertainty about the Clause’s applicability.
Perhaps there's some nuanced reading of "veterans" that includes folks who aren't armed services, although I think they would likely still fall under the purview of this clause, though I am curious about the factors at play here.
Edit: I think that if you are retired and fail to comply to the Gov's liking, all foreign payments are able to be counted against any military pension you may receive. I am less certain about how non-officers who have no pension are treated, or if they are still beholden to the clause after leaving the armed forces.
Here is additional material from the Commissioned Corps Personnel Manual:
https://dcp.psc.gov/ccmis/ccis/documents/CCPM26_9_1.pdf | https://web.archive.org/web/20250529163709/https://dcp.psc.g...
Found this slideshow that has this test:
https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/A7C0E4D79F3F6D07852585B600... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250505113229/https://www.oge.g...
> 4-Part test to Determine if the Emoluments Clause Does Not Apply:
> 1. U.S. cannot be a member of a foreign state
> 2. Organization must carry out U.S. foreign policy
> 3. U.S. participates in governance of organization
> 4. Congress approved participation, no concern about divided loyalty
Veterans is just another word for retired military personnel. If you were in the military and are not dishonorably discharged you are a veteran. Whether you do 2,3 or 20 years.
I am pretty sure the rule though applies to all regardless of discharge status.
A sergeant who leaves after a three-year enlistment is a veteran, but not a retiree.
The distinction matters because military retirees retain some privileges from their service, most importantly, a pension. Those privileges mean retirees fall under the emoluments clause.
However, a veteran not receiving retired pay is not subject to the emoluments clause as they have no relationship with the federal government. The Congressional Research Service states:
> Former servicemembers with no military status and not entitled to military retired pay can perform [foreign military service] on the same basis as a U.S. national who never served in the armed services. [1]
Interestingly, this implies a retiree could forfeit their retired pay to avoid being subject to the emoluments clause.
Not sure which country this looks bad on given that
Run their articles through NLP and ask about facts and cited evidence to support those facts and most of the time their will be 'very' little. Ask which type of audience the articles are written for, and you will find the writing style alligns with an audience driven by emotional appeal rather than fact or reason.
And yes, most of our media has devolved in the same way, but nearly every time I come across a POLITICO article, it seems to go out of its way to confirm this and then some.
Get paid 300-2000$+ each for 1 hr calls? I'd be shocked if expert networks weren't being used for subterfuge.
(Just finished a Chuck rewatch)