Correction: Dutch cops wiretap about 2.5 times as much as U.S.

(flickr: scruffy dan and breanne)

Data on Dutch wiretaps has been released for the first time. National police tapped roughly 25,000 phones in 2007. Those are taps authorized by a judge, not counting intelligence agency taps.

Because we have so little information from the Justice Ministry*, it's very hard to say how the Netherlands _ reputedly the "most tappingest" country on Earth _ stacks up.

There were 2,119 such tapping orders granted in the United States in 2007.

However, each U.S. tap requests led to ON AVERAGE 94 individual phones being tapped. That's presumably because they are often going after gangs and/or tapping everybody even tangentially related to a case.

So the equivalent number of U.S. phones tapped by cops would be (whips out pocket calculator) 94*2,119 =200,000.

Considering that the U.S. population is roughly 20 times bigger than the Dutch population, Dutch cops are, in proportion, tapping about 2.5 as often as U.S. cops.

I got it wildly wrong on my previous post because, of course, I didn't have the actual data from Dutch justice yet, and relied on ANP.
Most Dutch papers are still running the story today comparing apples to oranges, as I did in my previous post.

Still, it's interesting that the Dutch tap more than twice as much as Americans, and I'm very curious to know if there will ever be data released on what their conviction rate is.

(full text of Justice Ministry statement translated after the "More" below)

(vaguely artistic)



In my letter of 13 November 2007 I promised to send you tapping statistics about the second half of 2007.
With this letter I would like to fulfill that promise.

The National Interception Unit of the Corps of National Police Services (KLPD) carries out interceptions for all police corps, the Special Investigation services and the Royal Marechaussee (border police) and has functioned since mid-2007 as the only center for interception of telecommunications for use in investigations.

In the second half of 2007 there were orders given by the Public Prosecutor's Office for tapping 12,491 telephone numbers.
These were 84 percent on mobile phones and 16 percent on fixed lines.

In the period concerned there were a daily average of 1,681 taps running.

The full year figures will be named in the budgeting cycle and in that way will be made knowable to you.

Yours,

Ernie (Ernst Hirsch Ballin)

MORE

Dutch wiretapping bonanza - more than 200x the U.S. rate

(flickr: scruffy dan and breanne)

UPDATE: This post, from Wednesday, was so wrong and needed such a major correction that I'm leaving the original below for historical purposes. The corrected version, Thursday, is above.

Freaking holy crap!

Data on Dutch wiretaps has been released for the first time. National police tapped roughly 25,000 phones in 2007*. Those are taps authorized by a judge, not counting intelligence agency taps.

By comparison, there were 2,119 such taps in the United States in 2007.

But considering that the U.S. population is roughly 20 times bigger than the Dutch population, Dutch cops are, like, (whips out pocket calculator) 235 times more tap-happy here than U.S. cops are.

Am I missing something here?

*The figures are according to a letter the Justice minister reportedly sent to parliament today. I'm deeply aggravated that I can't find the document myself, so have to rely on reports by ANP...grrrr...


(vaguely artistic)

U.S. law enforcement also gives a breakdown of how many arrests per wiretap they average. Somewhat surprisingly, if I read the table right, that figure is about 2 arrests per wiretap.

This may be somewhat misleading, since U.S. wiretaps involve 94 people on average (!), which I guess means that they are often going after gangs and/or tapping everybody even tangentially related.

Anyhow. I really hope that when the Dutch data is published we can compare their success rate.

The Oracle of Amsterdam predicts: it's going to turn out to be much lower here, because with no public scrutiny, the Dutch cops have been going on fishing expeditions, in lieu of actual investigative work.

That's my instinct. We'll see.

MORE

The journalist's ode to a ship hijacked by Somali pirates

A journalist's ode to a freight ship hijacked by Somali pirates somewhere in the Gulf of Aden on a sunny Sunday in May:

The Lady Amiya Scan
is a ship in a jam
and could use some help on the double.

She's a freighter you know,
with an oil rig cargo,
in deep multicultural trouble.

Owned by the Dutch but chartered by Danes,
she was pinching the pennies but risking the flames,
crewed by four Russians and five Filipinos.

She set sail from Kenya last week,
her flag Panamanian (not Greek),
due in Romania today, mas o menos

But somewhere in the Gulf of Aden,
Somali pirates struck yet again,
outmanning her crew oh so greatly.

Said Cap. Pottengal Mukundan,
an (Indian) expert based in London,
"It's been happening quite often lately."

What do you think, do I make a chance at getting into Versal?

MORE

Dutch Culture Wars II - KLM the 'appeasers'

(flickr: darkpatator)

De Telegraaf reports that on a KLM flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam recently, a Muslim woman asked if the (Dutch) non-Muslim man sitting next to her could be moved to another seat.

There was another (better) seat open, so they moved him.

That's the story.

You might think: why is it news when an airline does a small courtesy to a woman traveling alone? You'd be missing the nuance. This is pure appeasement, proof that creeping Islamism is on the brink of destroying Dutch society!

De Telegraaf's headline reads "KLM Bows To Muslim Sex[ist] Demand"

The story drew more than 900 comments on De Telegraaf's website _ about a third of them so venomous that they had to be removed. The first comment that wasn't censored, the fifth, reads:

"Yeah, just wait a little longer and we will only be able to do what our Muslim brothers and sisters say we can. We just have to adjust in our own country."

That sets the tone. Comment after comment rails about the impending Islamic state in the Netherlands, the outrageousness of the woman's request, religion is stupid, this is the world upside down, etc., etc.



But just look at the story closely and it falls apart.

(bogers)

The only way we even know it happened at all is that the guy who changed seats, Lex van Drooge, happens to be a politician for the Christian Democrat party in Amsterdam.

More on that in a moment.

Funny enough, it's not clear whether he is sure it happened at all. He says he didn't speak a word to the woman he was next to and at first didn't know why the flight attendant asked him to move. "Later it emerged that this was at the request of my original neighbor with a headscarf," the paper quoted him saying. (A headscarf, the horror! We know what *that* means. What kind of backward people would wear a headscarf?)



But:
-He doesn't actually say her objection was religious _ he just suggests it.
-No other passengers noticed the incident.
-KLM staff say they don't know about it either.

A KLM spokesperson quoted in the story says their seating change policy is that if someone wants a change, flight attendants accommodate them when possible, and otherwise not. (sure sounds true to my experience). No special Muslims policy.

Lex van Drooge is also quoted saying he 'telephoned around' and no one else has heard of this kind of thing happening on other airlines, not even Turkish ones.

I believe the incident did happen in some form, so I'm not questioning Van Drooge's word per se.

But as a critical person you have to look at the situation:

1) Van Drooge is an opposition politician in left-leaning Amsterdam. He has something to gain by playing up this story. It didn't make its way into the paper without his help. (THINK, people!).

(CDA Amsterdam website)

2) Is it not possible that the woman didn't want to sit next to Drooge for some other reason? One person can take a dislike to another without exchanging a word _ it happens all the time.

(bs70)

So maybe she used religion as an excuse for having him moved; or maybe Drooge just assumed it was a question of religion.

***

My main interest in this story is really the double whammy of the incendiary way De Telegraaf cast it, and the nastiness of the reactions by the paper's readers.

On the readers: so many of them are concerned with Muslim intolerance and saying that Muslims should conform to 'Dutch' ways or not travel here.

But this didn't happen on the cheese train in Gouda. It happened on a flight between Istanbul and Amsterdam.

Turn the plane around, look in the mirror, and ask, why is this such a big deal?

Substitute "Catholic nun asks not to sit next to man on flight" for "Muslim woman," and I don't think anyone would have raised an eyebrow.



The defensiveness and over-reaction to a small perceived affront to Dutch culture is a sign of insecurity.

How DARE she tell us what to do! Why do WE have to be considerate to a foreigner in OUR country! Not fair!

Where's the sense of perspective here?

At one Dutch company I know of, they don't serve karnemelk (buttermilk) for lunch when Japanese guests are attending. Accommodating foreigners in this way is not a sign Dutch culture is about to collapse in the face of a Japanese onslaught.

On the contrary, making a small sacrifice for foreign visitors is usually considered 'nice,' or 'being polite'. I wish De Telegraaf's readers would try that thought out for a change.



On De Telegraaf: the use of the words "Bow" and "Demand" in the headline are unfair and indefensible, as far as I can see.

As in the previous two stories, the reporting is one-sided in the most basic sense of the word: no Muslim is quoted, let alone the "complainers."

One final thought on De Telegraaf. You'd think that a paper that was "wrong" in WWII would be a little more careful about slinging around accusations of "appeasement."
MORE

Dutch Culture Wars

(Ellen Vroegh's banished painting)

There's a breed of stories coming out in the Dutch press lately with the theme "man, can you believe how backward those Muslims are?!"

Personally, I have my doubts about how accurate these stories are: they are suspiciously well-suited to a readership eager to be outraged by anything un-Dutch done by Muslims.

The most recent is the story (Telegraaf, Dutch) of how the city hall of Huizen removed the painting above because of complaints from "Muslim men."

A week ago, when there was a heat wave, there was a similar story (Telegraaf, Dutch) that said _ or so the story goes _ several Muslim men asked (white) Dutch construction workers not to wear t-shirts and shorts to work. Too revealing.

The foreman "said there was a complaint from Islamic neighbors. They thought our clothes were too naked and too short." The well-muscled men registered the remark (i.e. and didn't act on it).

-Construction worker Robin Willemsen, as quoted by De Telegraaf.

I guess somewhat surprising if true.

The Telegraaf's wording ("well-muscled men") ensured that the basic tone of responses (23 pages worth on the paper's website) would focus on the sexual undertone here: how Muslim immigrant men must feel worried that their women will be led into temptation by the sight of white ma