Part 2
The Anderson Report (as it is known) was well covered at the time and I have selected three particular comments.
The first is a quote from the report:Link:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...david-andersonThe unpalatable lesson of London Bridge is that even priority subjects of interest in respect of whom sound decisions are being made ... may retain the ability to conceal their attack planning from the authorities.
Dan Lomas, an academic observer, commented:Yet headlines like these are misleading, neglecting the nuance in Anderson’s report that the decision to ignore or misinterpret the intelligence on Abedi was “understandable” in the circumstances, overlooking the complex nature of counter-terror investigations. So could the Manchester bombing really have been prevented?
Link:https://theconversation.com/the-manc...ht-bias-88708?
From a privacy pressure group:Link:https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/2017/...ch-terrorists/The report states that there is “certainly room for improvement in analysing and sharing data”, and identifies three potential changes as being particularly important:
- Improving “the ability of MI5 and the police to exploit data to detect activity of concern”: in particular, “a better strategy for acquiring, analysing and sharing data across intelligence and policing, for example through wider use of bulk personal datasets”;
- “Enhancement of tools” such as a process devised by MI5 “to identify activity of renewed intelligence interest conducted by [suspects]”, through “data exploitation and other automatic techniques”;
- Allowing intelligence agencies such as MI5 to share its knowledge “beyond intelligence
The security and intelligence services should make their decisions based on objective evidence, not algorithmic speculation which may result in UK citizens’ privacy rights being infringed.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks