by charles the moderator
I received the following this morning,
Dear Mr Rotter
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Kind regards
Sean Baker
Sean Baker
Detective Constable
Joint Major Investigation Team
Norfolk Constabulary
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1PE
Tel: xxx
Mobile: xxxx
This e-mail carries a disclaimer [this was a dead link. Put here for reference. ~ ctm]
Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
I responded within a few hours with this:
I can be reached at xxx. I work nights so please don’t call before noon PST. I’m in San Francisco. Between noon and 1 PM is the best time to contact me.
I have previously posted my entire involvement with the CRU leaked emails and files online here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/climategate%E2%80%94the-ctm-story/
I’m not sure what else you would like to know. I’ll see if I can cover it in advance.
1. I have never received any money for my volunteer services at wattsupwiththat.com
2. I met Steve McIntyre once for dinner two years ago when he was in town for AGU. I paid for the dinner.
3. I read Climate Audit.
4. [personal info]
5. [personal info]
6. [personal info]
7. I am 51, turning 52 next month.
I understand that you are diligently performing your investigation, and I’m not sure how well you understand the perspective from this side of the fence.
The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request. The CRU began moving the goal posts, making up more and more unbelievable reasons why they should not give data to perceived critics, thus causing the subsequent FOI’s and escalation, in which I participated. It seems likely that soon after Steve McIntyre’s appeal was denied, someone at the University of East Anglia, disgusted by what he or she witnessed, subsequently leaked the files. I have no knowledge or direct evidence that this is the case, but it is the explanation that makes the most sense.
If you would like more information on the escalation of FOI requests and the obstruction by CRU, as confirmed by your own ICO, I can dig up the relevant threads.
Judging by the message to CTM, there is simply no way that they are ever going to catch the perp. I give it a 1% chance or less that the investigators (of their own efforts) will find any meaningful clues.
This is a job for the fabulous Inspector Clouseau.
Don’t panic, its just a DC. Detective Constable, the lowest rank of detective.
He is just making enquiries that his boss a DCI, an inspector, has given him to do. When the Superintendant starts chasing you and is looking for statements
then he is getting ready to pass it onto the CPS.
My response would have been expletives followed by personal insults.
“”””Phil. (17:54:20) : They call it a theft because that’s what it was (unless you think it was circulated by the owner of the material), it doesn’t meet the definition of a ‘whistleblower’.””””
Phil,
UEA alleged theft in their complaint to the police, so that is what the police are investigating. It does on mean that the finding will be theft. Are you saying that it is theft because that is what the UEA complaint was? Or do you have other reason to call it theft?
”””’Phil. (17:54:20) : Regarding jurisdiction, the US has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with the UK.”””’
But that mutual assistance does not mean the Norwich police would contact directly a US citizen at home in the US on a British police matter. In fact, I think it highly unlikely that direct contact by British police without prior notification of US police is the normal police protocol.
John
magicjava (16:36:22) :
[quote Pascvaks (16:03:00) :]
Sounds like the beginning of an Agatha Christy mystery.
[/quote]
And a new mystery cliche for the technology age:
The moderator did it!
Absolutely priceless, mate, but you now owe me for a new keyboard!
Sean Peake (16:19:48) :
You’re screwed! (Oy Inspecta’ !, I nicked the ‘acka. It’s this cheeky Yank over ‘ere), Just remember, in the UK, judges are referred to as “M’ Lord” not “Your Honour”—this might shave a few years off your sentence.
Come to Canada and you’ll be out in half an hour for good behaviour and an apology ( we’re polite 🙂 ) from the crown. Or do like our cops being charged and delay until the judge throws out the case for waiting too long.
I see a very different possibility. If there is legal and open access to the information by reason of a FOIA request, they may process this response and declare there was no theft here.
What I am saying they may have filed a theft hack report and that may be closed because this info is not secured. It is like stealing a free cup of coffee. Charges are dropped and a theft case is closed.
“Are you now, or have you ever been a denier? If not, who else might be? Know of any good crimes we might investigate? Not much fun doing these white wash investigations… Anything at all?”
The Computer Misuse Act 1990. (UK)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1
Note: the word “theft” does not appear in that Act, but the words “conspiracy”,
“incitement” and “extradition” do.
Henry chance
I see a very different possibility. If there is legal and open access to the information by reason of a FOIA request, they may process this response and declare there was no theft here>>
As I posted in another thread, there is a jurisdictional difference between the UK and Canada in terms of who owns an e-mail. In Canada and the US, the e-mail message is the “property” of the employer. In the UK it is the property of the employee. Drives compliance officers of multi-nationals nuts. So, I suspect that the FOIA request would apply to the data, but not to the e-mails themselves.
That said, I refuse to believe that the missing data/email/ what ever is not on a backup tape off site and it would be interesting to file an FOIA against THAT.
As lubos mentionbed. This whole climate thing has become way over the top both for skeptics and agw believers. Lets all move with our lives please….There is no AGW and being anti-AGW is becoming a joke. Please let meteorologists do their job.
Phil,
Go back under your bridge.
CTM, Obama decreed (illegally) that Interpol now is above the law in operating within these United States. Contact a lawyer. Trolls like Phil show that decency and legality isn’t necessarily the boundaries that the warmist conmen will limit themselves to.
Bill in Vigo (17:50:58) :
Not being familiar with British common law if that is what is involved here. Some years ago I was a police officer in Fl. U.S.A. When we received a report of a crime the report was treated as a statement of sworn fact. While it seems slow there at that time begins two investigations. 1. to determine if there actually was a crime committed. and 2. If a crime was committed who was the perpetrator.
I have a suspicion that this is more turning into a determination of did a crime actually occur. It seems that this was a publicly funded facility and by that definition “public facility” there is no right of privacy. It has already been determined that the blockage of the FOIA requests was a crime but beyond the statute of limitations. The release of the same information that was a crime to not release I would feel would not be a crime.
Actually no such determination has been made, certainly not for the bulk of the material (the statement by the ICO referred to by the BBC re one of the FOIA requests can’t be found on their site and no official determination has been posted). It’s not true that there is no right of privacy at a British university. Whoever released the information did not have the right to do so so a crime was committed. British law on whistleblowing would not cover this activity, and in any case would not absolve someone from breaking a law.
Me thinks that some one is in trouble at UEA but possibly for the reporting of a false accusation and statement. There is a possibility that the report of a crime will be determined as unfounded. This will have a by product of the possibility of an investigation of filing a false report at multiple levels.
The report was accurate, material was removed from CRU and circulated without the permission of the owner (copyright owner), the determination of what crime was committed doesn’t effect that.
The original charge of theft will be in use by the authorities until it is either falsified or the charge is dropped. if there is an arrest and conviction it will remain.
Even if no one is charged it will remain a theft (by person or persons unknown).
Re: Phil. (19:02:30) :
You can only state this if you know who released the information. There ARE people who have the legal right to release this information and until you can demonstrate it was none of these people, this statement, while probably true, can not be stated as a fact.
I’m not aware of any material being reported as having been “removed from CRU”. There is certainly evidence that material has been copied, though. Copying, however, is not “theft” per se, though it can breach copyright and intellectual property rights.
So, I’m not sure your stance regarding it remaining a theft is legally correct. A case can be made along those grounds, granted, but it’s not proven.
ctm…..
HA hahaaaaa!
your 18 months older than ME!!!!!
FFFE
Tim L
that’s a long fishing line they are using across the foam!!!!
fish away cocky arrogant beasts.
Why are they so slow to investigate? At this rate it will take decades to resolve the real issues behind the AGW fraud. In any other filed, such as finance, such allegations revealed in the CRU emails and elsewhere would have forced certain people in the AGW crowd to be investigated by various enforcement organizations, with some issued with charges by now to defend in a court of law. I smell a rat.
ctm said: “The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request.”
Way to set the record straight! In this case, the keyboard is mightier than the sword. WELL SAID.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
If anyone enjoyed the Battle for Germania scene in Gladiator, please tune in to Phildot’s always pompous postings on what he knows about California law.
People should know when they’re conquered:
John Whitman (18:14:24) :
New Topic – Anyone, is it normal for a British policeman to contact a US citizen at home in the US regarding a British police matter? Curious.
Wouldn’t the American Consulate be the party to contact a US citizen on behalf of a foreign government? I was contacted by the US Consulate in a foreign country and given the police numbers, and had to give permission for their local police to contact me directly.
I think this is a phish dressed in a wolf suit. A dead one that smells bad.
Good response CTM. Reduce the scope and make them dig.
Such a shame that the only record that really should be set straight is the scientific one, but the focus is continually steering towards the desired political one.
Norfolk Constabulary is probably pretty excited about putting on the SWAT gear, pouring a cup of tea, sitting down and sending out some emails.
I can just see Marc Wootton now…..To get to the bottom of the Climategate email scandal, Norfolk Constabulary employs world famous Shirley Ghostman…..
I am a lawyer.
1. Don’t talk to the cops.
2. Get a lawyer.
3. If somebody calls you and says he is a cop. Don’t talk to him.
4. Why would you believe an e-mail from somebody claiming he is a cop, and more than an e-mail claiming he is a Nigerian banker.
5. Don’t reply to the e-mails.
6. Even a fish cannot get in trouble if it keeps its mouth shut.
I’m no lawman, but have you considered this to be a prank ? Because I find it hard to believe that this is normal procedure. In any case, you can only lose if you talk (or write) to a cop.
cedarhill (16:46:30) :
Good advice. I wouldn’t have responded. If he really wants to ask questions, he can go through the U.S. legal system and I can get a lawyer…and not say anything…substantive (“Well, that looks like it might be my blog post…I’d have to compare it directly with my records at home”). Who the hell can navigate British law, ICC law, and U.S. law, without discovering that they broke one?
@ur momisugly wws (16:57:43) :
Worst advice every. Innocent people who listen to you end up in prison. I take it you are the investigator in question??
take a bow, anthony, charles, Big Mac!
Pew Research: “Climate-Gate” Re-Ignites the Blogosphere Debate
The blogosphere last week once again fixated on one of its most popular topics, global warming, following a BBC interview with Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the so-called “Climate-gate” controversy last year..
In the blogosphere from Feb. 15-19, the global warming debate received more than a third (34%) of the week’s links according to the New Media Index produced by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. This is the first time the subject has made the list of top five subjects among blogs since last December when global warming was a significant subject for three weeks in a row..
The previous discussions of climate in the blogs were mostly dominated by the voices of global warming skeptics. This past week, that viewpoint was still the predominant one, but supporters of global warming science were more visible than in previous weeks.
The subject of global warming has been of much greater interest in social media than it has been in the traditional press. Last week, the story was not among the top 10 subjects covered in the mainstream media, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index that monitors coverage in traditional media. ..
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1507/bloggers-focus-again-climate-gate-controversy