MI5, MI6, GCHQ want official real time access to all communications.

The British government has dusted off previously shelved plans to create huge databases, enabling spy agencies to monitor every phone call, email and text message as well as websites visited by everyone in the country.

The Telegraph reports that under the plans, the government will force every communications network to store the data for one year. The plans also extend to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and gaming sites.

The plans, drawn up by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, the government’s secret eavesdropping agency, may be officially announced as soon as May, according to details seen by the Telegraph. Those agencies would have real time access to the records kept by companies such as Vodafone and British Telecom.

The records would allow the spy agencies to monitor the “who, when and where” of every phone call, text message and email sent, while also allowing for internet browsing histories to be matched to IP addresses.

Unassumingly titled the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP), the new scheme is set to be implemented under anti-terrorism laws, with the spy agencies saying it will allow them to more closely monitor suspects ahead of the London 2012 Olympics in July.

Critics and civil liberties advocates are calling for mass opposition to the plans, noting that the scheme is open to abuse not only by spy agencies and communications companies themselves, but also by hackers and online criminals.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet. Written by Steve Watson.

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Kurt Nimmo.

Once again, the corporate media rolls out a scary story about Islamists threatening the state, this time represented by the British royal family.

“Police are concerned about two extreme groups which are planning protests during the Royal Wedding,” Sky News reports today.

Sky News reports that Muslims Against the Crusades has decided to protest outside of Westminster Abbey where the Archbishop of Canterbury will marry Prince William of Wales and Miss Catherine Middleton on Friday. The group was told it would not be allowed to protest there.

Muslims Against Crusades wants a general Muslim uprising on Friday and has reportedly told Princes William and Harry to “watch your backs,” apparently a thinly veiled threat.

The royal wedding will be guarded by a massive security operation, including around 5,000 police officers and hundreds of soldiers in uniform. Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens of the London Metropolitan Police sounded a lot like Janet Napolitano. “We want the public to be our eyes and ears and report anything suspicious or unusual.”

The mention of Muslims Against Crusades and its leader, Anjem Choudary, should set off alarm bells. Choudary founded another Islamic group, al-Muhajiroun, with Omar Bakri Muhammed, who admitted in 1998 he shares a special relationship with British intelligence. “I think now we have something called public immunity,” he said during an interview.

Authors Sean O’Neill and Daniel McGrory have documented a special relationship between Islamist leaders, including Abu Hamza al-Masri and Abu Qatada, and British intelligence.

The British Secret Service, MI6, protected Haroon Rashid Aswat, the alleged mastermind of the 7/7 London bombings, according to counterterrorism expert John Loftus. Aswat was affiliated with al-Muhajiroun.

Loftus said Aswat’s relationship with British intelligence began in the late 1990s with the war in Kosovo and the recruitment of the so-called Afghan Arabs, also known as the CIA-supported Mujahideen, in the concerted effort to undermine Yugoslavia. (See Andrew Gavin Marshall’sEmpire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The Anglo-American Terror Network: The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda, Part II.) The late Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda also worked in the Balkans and received financial and military assistance from the United States and NATO, according to Isabel Vincent, writing for the National Post.

In 2004, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said British intelligence handles all Islamist groups of note in the United Kingdom.

“I believe Britain is harboring most of the Islamic opposition leaders of the Muslim world.… Because the British elites are very clever, they are not stupid like the Americans. Remember these people used to rule half of the world.… The British are not like the French and the Germans, they don’t slap you in the face, they stab you in the back. They want to buy some of these Islamic groups,” he said in 2004.

Mohammed said British intelligence has compromised the Muslim Brotherhood, the UK Islamic Mission, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Iranian opposition groups, and the Iranian Ahlul Bait groups in Britain.

The Muslim Brotherhood was corrupted early on by British intelligence, and later by the CIA. According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the agency began working with the Brotherhood in the 1950s. This signaled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Arab nationalism. The Israelis also exploited radical Islam in its war against Arab national movements, specifically Palestinian nationalist movement.

Muslims Against Crusades and Anjem Choudary appear to be ready to violate the ban on protesting and the British police on Friday. Considering the history of radical Islamists in the United Kingdom, it is entirely possible the confrontation now unfolding was designed by British intelligence.

The English Defense League, a reactionary group opposed to the spread of Islam, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England, has promised to confront Muslims Against Crusades during the royal wedding later this week.

*Taken from InfoWars. Written by Steve Watson.

Law enforcement agencies in Washington D.C. have begun to use technology that they say can predict when crimes will be committed and who will commit them, before they actually happen.

The Minority Report like pre-crime software has been developed by Richard Berk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Previous incarnations of the software, already being used in Baltimore and Philadelphia were limited to predictions of murders by and among parolees and offenders on probation.

According to a report by ABC News, however, the latest version, to be implemented in Washington D.C., can predict other future crimes as well.

“When a person goes on probation or parole they are supervised by an officer. The question that officer has to answer is ‘what level of supervision do you provide?’” Berk told ABC News, intimating that the program could have a bearing on the length of sentences and/or bail amounts.

The technology sifts through a database of thousands of crimes and uses algorithms and different variables, such as geographical location, criminal records and ages of previous offenders, to come up with predictions of where, when, and how a crime could possibly be committed and by who.

The program operates without any direct evidence that a crime will be committed, it simply takes datasets and computes possibilities.

“People assume that if someone murdered then they will murder in the future,” Berk also states, “But what really matters is what that person did as a young individual. If they committed armed robbery at age 14 that’s a good predictor. If they committed the same crime at age 30, that doesn’t predict very much.”

Critics have urged that the program encourages categorizing individuals on a risk scale via computer mathematics, rather than on real life, and that monitoring those people based on such a premise is antithetic to a justice system founded on the premise of the presumption of innocence.

Other police departments and law agencies across the country have begun to look into and use similar predictive technologies. The Memphis Police Department, for example uses a program called Operation Blue CRUSH, which uses predictive analytics developed by IBM.

Other forms of pre-crime technology in use or under development include surveillance cameras that can predict when a crime is about to occur and alert police, and even neurological brain scanners that can read people’s intentions before they act, thus detecting whether or not a person has “hostile intent”.

It is not too far fetched to imagine all these forms of the technology being used together in the future by law enforcement bodies.

The British government has previously debated introducing pre-crime laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The government even has plans to collect lifelong records on all residents starting at the age of five, in order to screen for those who might be more likely to commit crimes in the future.

Another disturbing possibility for such technology comes in the form of a financial alliance of sorts between Internet search engine giant Google and the investment arm of the CIA and the wider U.S. intelligence network.

Google and In-Q-Tel have recently injected a sum of up to $10 million each into a company called Recorded Future, which uses analytics to scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information, which is used to “assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.”

The company describes its analytics as “the ultimate tool for open-source intelligence” and says it can also “predict the future”.

Recorded Future takes in vast amounts of personal information such as employment changes, personal education and family relations. Promotional material also shows categories covering pretty much everything else, including entertainment, music and movie releases, as well as other innocuous things like patent filings and product recalls.

Those detached from any kind of moral reality will say “If you’ve got nothing to hide then what is the problem with being scanned for pre-crime? If it keeps us all safe from murderers, rapists and terrorists I’m all for it”.

How far towards a literal technological big brother police state will we slip before people wake up to the fact?