wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:44:03 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


assuming that he is the actual wanted person and not just some random
person of the correct ethnicity (as in - the Birmingham Six)

I wonder if they identified him as a potential suspect:

a) from a name
b) from facial recognition
c) his general demeanor
d) a failed attempt to travel on false documents

anything else?

tim



I think police methods are now far more sophisticated.

ESP?

My question really is

did they pick him up because they had managed to get a name/face for the
person they were looking for

or did he give himself away

tim


Look at Train CCTV of man with with bag getting on at station xxx
look at CCTV at station xxx for the time period you expect someone on
that train to have entered the station and see same man with same bag
touching in.
Strike lucky and find he used a registered Oyster card.

Yes I do know how they could have found out the identity of the person

my question is

did they in fact manage this in the time available before they stopped the
guy at Dover

or

did they just get lucky because he gave himself away, some other way

My interest here (as a tech professional) is in assessing the state of the
art of the technology to do this in 12 hours, where previously it might have
taken them 3 weeks (or more)

tim

tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:44:03 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


assuming that he is the actual wanted person and not just some random
person of the correct ethnicity (as in - the Birmingham Six)

I wonder if they identified him as a potential suspect:

a) from a name
b) from facial recognition
c) his general demeanor
d) a failed attempt to travel on false documents

anything else?

tim



I think police methods are now far more sophisticated.

ESP?

My question really is

did they pick him up because they had managed to get a name/face for the
person they were looking for

or did he give himself away

tim


Look at Train CCTV of man with with bag getting on at station xxx
look at CCTV at station xxx for the time period you expect someone on
that train to have entered the station and see same man with same bag
touching in.
Strike lucky and find he used a registered Oyster card.

Yes I do know how they could have found out the identity of the person

my question is

did they in fact manage this in the time available before they stopped the
guy at Dover

or

did they just get lucky because he gave himself away, some other way

My interest here (as a tech professional) is in assessing the state of the
art of the technology to do this in 12 hours, where previously it might have
taken them 3 weeks (or more)

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing. So they got lucky.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:44:03 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


assuming that he is the actual wanted person and not just some random
person of the correct ethnicity (as in - the Birmingham Six)

I wonder if they identified him as a potential suspect:

a) from a name
b) from facial recognition
c) his general demeanor
d) a failed attempt to travel on false documents

anything else?

tim



I think police methods are now far more sophisticated.

ESP?

My question really is

did they pick him up because they had managed to get a name/face for
the
person they were looking for

or did he give himself away

tim


Look at Train CCTV of man with with bag getting on at station xxx
look at CCTV at station xxx for the time period you expect someone on
that train to have entered the station and see same man with same bag
touching in.
Strike lucky and find he used a registered Oyster card.

Yes I do know how they could have found out the identity of the person

my question is

did they in fact manage this in the time available before they stopped
the
guy at Dover

or

did they just get lucky because he gave himself away, some other way

My interest here (as a tech professional) is in assessing the state of
the
art of the technology to do this in 12 hours, where previously it might
have
taken them 3 weeks (or more)

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing. So they got lucky.

Thanks

I had half expected that would be the answer (but had seen nothing to
suggest it was)

tim

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 12:34:55 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
my question is

did they in fact manage this in the time available before they stopped the
guy at Dover

or

did they just get lucky because he gave himself away, some other way

My interest here (as a tech professional) is in assessing the state of the
art of the technology to do this in 12 hours, where previously it might have
taken them 3 weeks (or more)

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds.

No, or forged, passport/ticket?

Only later did they discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.
So they got lucky.

--
Roland Perry

On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through lucky
accident.

On 18/09/2017 22:01, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through lucky
accident.

They don't need to look smart, just to get the right person. There might
be less paperwork and fewer awkward questions if it was seemingly lucky
chance, rather than something which could give some vague clue as to how
they knew.

ISTR once reading about an aircraft being sent to fly past a major
German warship, in the hope that when the ship came under attack shortly
afterwards the Kriegsmarine would think that the plane had happened to
stumble across it, rather than suspect that someone might be reading
their messages and finding them that way.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
news
On 18/09/2017 22:01, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through
lucky
accident.

They don't need to look smart, just to get the right person. There might
be less paperwork and fewer awkward questions if it was seemingly lucky
chance, rather than something which could give some vague clue as to how
they knew.

the "vague clue" to how it might be achieved was fully explained on
"Breakfast" the day after the incident

tim

In article , Arthur
Figgis writes
ISTR once reading about an aircraft being sent to fly past a major
German warship, in the hope that when the ship came under attack shortly
afterwards the Kriegsmarine would think that the plane had happened to
stumble across it, rather than suspect that someone might be reading
their messages and finding them that way.

That was part of standard policy for "Ultra".

Basically, no information from Enigma decrypts could be used in the
field unless there was a plausible non-crypto-related explanation that
the Germans would believe. Of course, the information could be used to
generate that "explanation".

So, in the example I think you're thinking of, a decrypt would indicate
where and when an attack submarine was meeting with a tanker submarine
to refuel - this had to be done on the surface and neither could
submerge during the process. So a reconnaisance squadron was instructed
to send a plane out in that specific area. To their surprise, they would
find the two subs sitting there and could whistle up some bombers. If
the submariners survived the experience, they would report that they got
spotted by a plane.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

I'm inclined to think that the alternative is the greater deterrent, to be
honest.

Announcing that they did, in fact, manage to identify the perp's name using
normal policing looking at CCTV is going to worry them into stopping
attacking such targets - after all it's no secret that the CCTV is there,
and I doubt that any of theses copycat cells have the resources to disable
it.

Keeping it secret that they can do this, is no deterrent at all.

and it is the deterrent that we need here. Catching the perf after he has
killed 100 people is not a successful outcome.