UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #14

Polo · Jan 8, 2017

db09striker said:
I am not sure where the roadside searches took place, but would assume it was at least along the likeliest route he would have walked home. It's probably 50% hedgerow and 50% open fields.

On top of everything leading up to it I doubt that he got hit by a car and is lying in a ditch or hidden somewhere and hasn't been found yet.

I drive the most likely route every day and it has been searched and searched again, both by Police and Sulsar. In the main it is just roadside verges with a few hedges. IMO he would be obvious if hit by a car, and that's without the searching taking place.

Shiressleuth · Jan 8, 2017

Clevercat said:
My daughters and I were the victims of a fairly minor crime last year and after the event, when we and other witnesses were giving statements to the police, it became apparent that there were two undercover policemen or security services of some kind who were in the vicinity but did not break their cover (in public anyway) as it was more important for them to not compromise the job they were there to do.
With there being a high level of terrorist threat and the incident occurring in central London during the rush hour it was quite understandable. I'm not sure how this compares to a similar scenario playing out in a sleepy market town in the middle of the night though.
However, with the presence of so many servicemen, maybe there was something going down and our homeless man wasn't who he seemed. I'm just not convinced that he would compromise his position/operation by chatting to/sharing food/ getting involved in some other kind of interaction with Corrie.

I'm also thinking that it's the middle of the night now and my imagination is probably running away with me but the references to the homeless man tonight made me see potential parallels.

This is what I am alluding too. C may have known him. Remember where the homeless man was supposedly? So what would he have been observing until 3a.m? We can't go back and check the reports cos they're not available anymore. I just think it's not impossible that surveillance was happening that night.

Purplepixii · Jan 8, 2017

earthspirit said:
this would imply that they can access data of mobile phone providers? if they are going to work out where corries phone ended up plus the others near him? well this if found out could crack the case? assuming that the phone never left corrie's pockets? i believe this is the case and wishing them good luck in doing this. how tho, do they legally access this data? how do they get permission to find out every person say within a mile of where corrie was? it will help the more remote as obviously they would want to know what people were doing in the middle of a night close to where a missing person was last seen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-38536126

"I'm very interested in what other phones were co-located with Corrie's phone."

Am I the only person worried about infringement of right to privacy? If MIS can access private citizens' mobile phone location data then to me that is bang out of order and goes against privacy laws that we should hold dear.

Blueazman74 · Jan 8, 2017

Purplepixii said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-38536126

"I'm very interested in what other phones were co-located with Corrie's phone."

Am I the only person worried about infringement of right to privacy? If MIS can access private citizens' mobile phone location data then to me that is bang out of order and goes against privacy laws that we should hold dear.

It is worrying, I would be surprised if they had free reign to all data. It would be interesting to see how much info the police will share if any?!?

Deleted member 178385 · Jan 8, 2017

Purplepixii said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-38536126

"I'm very interested in what other phones were co-located with Corrie's phone."

Am I the only person worried about infringement of right to privacy? If MIS can access private citizens' mobile phone location data then to me that is bang out of order and goes against privacy laws that we should hold dear.

And particularly in the case of a missing person, which is still what this case is. I am hoping that they're bluffing with this, as I really can't see how they could get past the data protection / privacy regulations. They aren't above the law, as far as I'm aware

Clevercat · Jan 8, 2017

Shiressleuth said:
This is what I am alluding too. C may have known him. Remember where the homeless man was supposedly? So what would he have been observing until 3a.m? We can't go back and check the reports cos they're not available anymore. I just think it's not impossible that surveillance was happening that night.

Not impossible I agree but unlikely IMO

Scorpio1 · Jan 8, 2017

cj357 said:
And particularly in the case of a missing person, which is still what this case is. I am hoping that they're bluffing with this, as I really can't see how they could get past the data protection / privacy regulations. They aren't above the law, as far as I'm aware

next we will have pi team arrested for breach of phone data law if they are not carefull

Ironside · Jan 8, 2017

I think they may have got the data by saying terrorism was an option so it was deemed exceptional circumstances.

Ironside · Jan 8, 2017

If they were illegally obtaining data they wouldn't be blabbing about it!

suzyjackson · Jan 8, 2017

Purplepixii said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-38536126

"I'm very interested in what other phones were co-located with Corrie's phone."

Am I the only person worried about infringement of right to privacy? If MIS can access private citizens' mobile phone location data then to me that is bang out of order and goes against privacy laws that we should hold dear.

No, not the only one at all, I posted a similar concern upthread but I thought I was a lone voice.

I hope that this is not the case, in fact I can't believe they could be allowed to have access to that kind of information

suzyjackson · Jan 8, 2017

Ironside said:
I think they may have got the data by saying terrorism was an option so it was deemed exceptional circumstances.

That doesn't sound right, these are private individuals why should they ever be allowed access to our data. I can see that government agencies could have a reason to have the data but not a private company

suzyjackson · Jan 8, 2017

Ironside said:
If they were illegally obtaining data they wouldn't be blabbing about it!

Good point, I'm going to have to look up the rules protecting our private data

RocketFuel · Jan 8, 2017

I can't see the homeless guy being undercover as the police wouldn't have mentioned him at all. They would have just taken the intell without need of mentioning the homeless guy to the media.

Edited to add - if he was an undercover police officer then the police have procedure in these kind of circs. Hope this makes sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DanceCard · Jan 8, 2017

Purplepixii said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-38536126

"I'm very interested in what other phones were co-located with Corrie's phone."

Am I the only person worried about infringement of right to privacy? If MIS can access private citizens' mobile phone location data then to me that is bang out of order and goes against privacy laws that we should hold dear.

Coming out of lurkdom to say no, you're not the only one.
Unless this turns out to be an extremely serious threat to national security I'm extremely concerned about it.

Back to lurkdom.

Ironside · Jan 8, 2017

suzyjackson said:
That doesn't sound right, these are private individuals why should they ever be allowed access to our data. I can see that government agencies could have a reason to have the data but not a private company

The private company would be given data by police or government agency rather than being handed it directly. They would be working alongside police to analyse it rather than doing it themselves thus it's all perfectly legal.

I think the phone data in the area at the time is hugely important to the case and it's right it should be analysed.

Deleted member 178385 · Jan 8, 2017

Ironside said:
I think they may have got the data by saying terrorism was an option so it was deemed exceptional circumstances.

I did wonder if that's why Marham and Aldershot are being pushed again as possible links.

But I agree with suzyjackson as well about the fact they are a private company - they shouldn't have this data. It would be different if they were being contracted by the government specifically to do this analysis, but they aren't - they've been hired privately by the family.

Ironside · Jan 8, 2017

cj357 said:
I did wonder if that's why Marham and Aldershot are being pushed again as possible links.

But I agree with suzyjackson as well about the fact they are a private company - they shouldn't have this data. It would be different if they were being contracted by the government specifically to do this analysis, but they aren't - they've been hired privately by the family.

The private company are working with the police and not on their own.

suzyjackson · Jan 8, 2017

Ironside said:
The private company would be given data by police or government agency rather than being handed it directly. They would be working alongside police to analyse it rather than doing it themselves thus it's all perfectly legal.

I think the phone data in the area at the time is hugely important to the case and it's right it should be analysed.

Nope, still not happy about that as anyone with some kind of grudge and enough money could theoretically hire someone to "work alongside the police" and get access to all kinds of personal data that is frankly none of their business, what would the controls over all of the data that isn't relevant to the case. I would have no faith in the security measures.

I totally understand that the police might outsource data analysis to their own private contractors but that's not what we have here, in essence we have a family with access to a large amount of money essentially putting themselves above the data protection laws and possibly getting access to vast amounts of very personal and possibily sensitive information

I really really hope that can't happen

Bedouin · Jan 8, 2017

suzyjackson said:
That doesn't sound right, these are private individuals why should they ever be allowed access to our data. I can see that government agencies could have a reason to have the data but not a private company

We know that the family have access to Corries sm/dating accounts, if they have been able to determine that he was logged on or using a certain one during the night, ( one which used location services). Could it be that they are able to get information from a company like that, regarding who else was in the same area? sometimes it's surprising what you agree to in terms of service.

suzyjackson · Jan 8, 2017

Ironside said:
The private company are working with the police and not on their own.

It would be interesting to know what Suffolk Police think about this, why should a tax payer funded police force have to work with random private companies however well intentioned, how would that even work?

UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #14

New Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 178385

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 178385

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics