Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

its a pity anglo irish and the rest of them werent bugged!!!

riffmongous wrote: »

You should seriously complain to the category moderator or someone about that.

Why? It's very much a political issue not something about the Gardaí or serving Gardaí, I mean it belongs there about as much as some story about a HSE admin screw up belongs in Health Sciences as opposed to Politics. As Seamus points out, yes the Gardaí might have an interest in bugging but it's really not a hard stretch to see how having blackmail material on a senior Garda would be of interest to many different groups.

What's possibly most interesting is that the Ombudsman got a British firm to do the check which could be interpreted as them not ruling out anybody here.

EireGun wrote: »

The only two agencies in Ireland that would be able to carry this out would be the Garda CSB (Crime & Security Branch) or the Defence Forces G2 (Directorate of Intelligence).

Special Branch has previously been suspected of hacking journos' phones and computers to reveal their sources... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Detective_Unit

G2 and the Army CIS (Communication and Information Services Corps) have the technology also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Intelligence_(Ireland)

If you think organised crime groups aren't capable of bugging phones...

EireGun wrote: »

"government-level technology" is what the report stated (I happened to read it yesterday morning in the Sunday Times broadsheet). It also said the GSOC "had an idea" as to who was responsible, but couldn't prove it to the extent where they would say who...

"Government-level technology" you mean like pencils on my desk that wouldn't look out-of-place in any office? This phrase is meaningless. Any high end bugging device is "government-level technology," the State has no more a monopoly on this as it does automatic weapons in this country.

EireGun wrote: »

"the equipment used was so sophisticated that it is not commercially available or sold to non-government agencies" according to this http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-watchdog-to-be-grilled-over-failure-to-report-spying-probe-29994518.html

If you were to monitor a number of mobile phones, offices with a number of people in them for at least 8 hours daily, e-mails, internet activity, computer data, reports and eavesdrop on meeting rooms and a conference phone, that would require a lot of manpower. We are talking dozens of people listening and watching in. That would be a government agency here or overseas surely...?

I'm not saying who it was/wasn't, only who is capable. (If these news reports are correct!).

Yes, and I'm not saying the equipment was commercially available only that not just Government agencies can access restricted goods like these.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not even necessarily "couldn't trust" in the sense that they might have been behind the bugging, but in the sense that internal leaks within the DoJ might have alerted the buggers*.

It's interesting that the "why didn't the Ombudsman Commission tell their 'bosses'" seems to be the line some papers are taking. First, that's not the most important issue by a long chalk, and second, it displays a very Irish attitude to the idea of an independent watchdog - every Irish watchdog has a master.

The only reasoning we're given for not informing the Gardai or the Minister isn't because of any lack of trust, but because their own investigations weren't conclusive enough.

It is understood because Gsoc was unable to determine when the surveillance had begun, how long it had gone on for, what area of its work was targeted and who may have been behind it; it decided it would not take its findings to Mr Shatter or the Garda, which would normally investigate matters of this nature.

I could understand them keeping it to themselves while investigations were ongoing, but it looks like they've decided just to drop the investigation when it hit a wall and then decided to keep a secret something of serious public concern.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If there's nothing further to investigate due to a lack of leads... what's the benefit?

Public oversight to provide public confidence.

nesf wrote: »

"Government-level technology" you mean like pencils on my desk that wouldn't look out-of-place in any office?

No, I think this phrase is referring to the fake GSM cell set up to intercept mobile calls in the vicinity of the GSOC offices.

GSM interception equipment is only made commercially available to governmental agencies and costs upwards of €500K.

While there are techniques around to set up your own fake GSM cell, it's an area that's requires some serious expertise and is far removed from the script-kiddy world.

The GSM hack, in conjunction with the wifi and speakerphone/PBX hack would suggest some serious expertise was in action here.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would there be any reason for UK Intelligence services to take an interest in the GSOC?

The murders of Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan and the recent Smithwick tribunal into Garda-IRA collusion.

MI5/MI6 have previous in this regard. In the mid-1970's they recruited garda Detective Sergeant Patrick Crinnion who was working as a registry clerk in the counter terrorism group within the Special Branch.

nesf wrote: »

I am keeping it open to the possibility of a well financed criminal group or similar.

I wouldn't rule it out, considering the weirdness surrounding the Fr. Molloy case, but such a suspect group would be at the bottom of my list.

The recent deterioration in relations between AGS and GSOC would have presented the perfect smokescreen for a British intelligence agency to carry out such an operation.

The recent investigations into Garda-IRA collusion and the fact that MI5 & MI6 have previous form on infiltrating the guards would, to me, suggest that it was them.

sparky42 wrote: »

Perhaps because they believe that those people might be the ones that have been conducting the illegal surveillance? Nobody outside the state is going to go after the ombudsman, they'd go after the Gardaí themselves and criminal gangs/dissidents are also more likely to go after the Gardaí, the only people interested in what the GSOC is doing are the ones that have be extremely reluctant to engage with them since they were set up.

That's the conclusion that people have been jumping to. If it is the case then this is a bigger scandal even than the phone tapping scandal of the 80s - which eventually brought down Haughey.

Even if its true that GSOC hold a belief that the Minister for Justice would even consider bugging them or knowingly allow it to happen, that's a pretty huge issue itself.

Phoebas wrote: »

That's the conclusion that people have been jumping to. If it is the case then this is a bigger scandal even than the phone tapping scandal of the 80s - which eventually brought down Haughey.

Even if its true that GSOC hold a belief that the Minister for Justice would even consider bugging them or knowingly allow it to happen, that's a pretty huge issue itself.

While there is plenty of unknowns in this, I'm more than inclined to look at the Gardaí, I just don't see why any other organisation would go to the effort and cost, GSOC only investigates certain matters, so if you were foreign intelligence or criminals it would make more sense and offer a higher likelihood of success to go after the Gardaí not the ombudsman. On the otherhand there is a history of the Gardaí not responding to the ombudsman, dragging its heels in engaging and as seen from the penalty points scandal, a bad culture of covering things up, I could easily see someone "without being told" deciding this was a good way to keep ahead of the ombudsman.

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm more than inclined to look at the Gardaí, I just don't see why any other organisation would go to the effort and cost

I think it all points to MI5/MI6 in relation to Garda-IRA collusion. As I've said, there's been one discovered incident of them turning a Detective Sergeant working in Special Branch.

Just think about the logistics involved in this.

We're not talking about some guy with a laptop sitting in the adjacent Spar drinking coffee all day.

This would have required some very sophisticated equipment being housed for a minimum of months in possibly one of the very nearby serviced apartments, with at least a three person team to operate.

Mounting something like this would be very costly in terms of man-power. That's an awful lot of potential overtime that would be difficult to keep off the book.

I'm guessing that the counter-surveillance specialists they engaged from the UK must have pee'd themselves laughing when they saw where GSOC's offices were located.

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think it all points to MI5/MI6 in relation to Garda-IRA collusion. As I've said, there's been one discovered incident of them turning a Detective Sergeant working in Special Branch.

Just think about the logistics involved in this.

We're not talking about some guy with a laptop sitting in the adjacent Spar drinking coffee all day.

This would have required some very sophisticated equipment being housed for a minimum of months in possibly one of the very nearby serviced apartments, with at least a three person team to operate.

Mounting something like this would be very costly in terms of man-power. That's an awful lot of potential overtime that would be difficult to keep off the book.

I'm guessing that the counter-surveillance specialists they engaged from the UK must have pee'd themselves laughing when they saw where GSOC's offices were located.

First, MI5/6 could gather their information via GCHQ, and that would probably be a couple of levels of sophistication further up.

Second, evidence of Garda/IRA collusion is unlikely to come before the Garda Ombudsman, definitely not on a routine basis - the system is fundamentally for complaints about individual Gardai.

Third, nothing in the findings requires a team of people in close physical proximity. The trail led to an IP address in the UK via the net.

Not impossible (no organisation can be ruled out), but highly unlikely.

cordially,
Scofflaw