Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

Options
13567…65

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    First, MI5/6 could gather their information via GCHQ

    Not if it's the type of electronic surveillance mentioned by the Irish Independent.

    There were three specific methods mentioned : GSM Cell Tower spoofing, the existence of a shadow wifi network and the hack of a conference phone.

    GSM Cell Tower spoofing and wifi network shadowing require close physical target proximity.

    The IP trail to the UK I believe was only in relation to the PBX hack on the conference phone.


  • Options
    #63
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sparky42 wrote: »
    I'd agree with that, if you are looking for information on any Garda activities their IT systems are the ones to go after to insure you get the information, not the ombudsman. And if it was MI5/6 going after the Gardaí is unlikely to be much harder.

    Yes, if you look for "cui bono", the number of those who might be interested in the inside track/forewarning on complaints against the Gardai doesn't really look like very big.

    You could cook up a theory that someone might be interested in dodgy Gardai for potential blackmail, but by the time the Gard is being investigated by the Ombudsman they're already compromised from that perspective.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #64
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I posted this in the Emergency Services forum but it was deemed as being irrelevant to the Garda Siochana etc, and so the thread was locked, with Politics being recommended as the most appropriate forum.

    According to today's Sunday Times, the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) was subject to a sophisticated surveillance operation using “government-level technology”.

    Link: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...ard-2014_02_08

    It seems the surveillance was detected last year after the GSOC engaged security consultants in the UK to investigate whether its HQ was bugged.

    The consultants allegedly discovered that a phone in the GSOC offices was bugged. The bugged room was "regularly used to hold case conferences on sensitive investigations".

    "A test of the line confirmed the phone was being used to eavesdrop on meetings", according to the Sunday Times sources.

    Very odd. Who might be motivated to put the GSOC under surveillance? And who would have the technology and expertise?



    Occrams razor states : The simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one.

    In this case, it points to the Garda.

    Ireland was the last country in the EU to get an independent Police complaints commission the Garda fought against it tooth and nail, they previously investigated themselves.

    The Garda are still one of the least accountable Police forces in western Europe.

    The fact they bug their adversary is no great surprise.



    The Met Police in the UK have been outed as bugging their critics.


  • Options
    #65
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    cruasder777 wrote: »
    Occrams razor states : The simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one.

    In this case, it points to the Garda.

    Ireland was the last country in the EU to get an independent Police complaints commission the Garda fought against it tooth and nail, they previously investigated themselves.

    The Garda are still one of the least accountable Police forces in western Europe.

    The fact they bug their adversary is no great surprise.

    You could well be right there. There may be plenty of little rackets that need to be kept under wraps. We have seen the debacle with the penalty points, the tipping off, of the IRA, to kill 2 policemen, the Donegal thing with the McBreartys. Still waiting to get to the bottom of the Ian Bailey thing. So one could be cynical in pointing the finger at an Garda.


  • Options
    #66
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    cruasder777 wrote: »
    Occrams razor states : The simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one.

    In this case, it points to the Garda.

    Ireland was the last country in the EU to get an independent Police complaints commission the Garda fought against it tooth and nail, they previously investigated themselves.

    The Garda are still one of the least accountable Police forces in western Europe.

    The fact they bug their adversary is no great surprise.



    The Met Police in the UK have been outed as bugging their critics.

    Has 'Occrams' razor upgraded this to fact now!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    renegademaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    cruasder777 wrote: »
    Occrams razor states : The simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one.

    In this case, it points to the Garda.

    Ireland was the last country in the EU to get an independent Police complaints commission the Garda fought against it tooth and nail, they previously investigated themselves.

    The Garda are still one of the least accountable Police forces in western Europe.

    The fact they bug their adversary is no great surprise.



    The Met Police in the UK have been outed as bugging their critics.
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    You could well be right there. There may be plenty of little rackets that need to be kept under wraps. We have seen the debacle with the penalty points, the tipping off, of the IRA, to kill 2 policemen, the Donegal thing with the McBreartys. Still waiting to get to the bottom of the Ian Bailey thing. So one could be cynical in pointing the finger at an Garda.

    those who think they can get away with anything will usually do what they like


  • Options
    #68
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The GSOC Chairman Simon O'Brien looked distinctly uncomfortable on RTE 1 this evening. Looked very tense to me, as if he was sweating and had lost sleep.


    Will this turn out to be a cock-up rather than a conspiracy?


    Talk now is of "threats" rather than actual surveillance. If this turns out to be a bit of an over-reaction on their part, GSOC will not look good perhaps.


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If gsoc has been 'bugged' then perhaps yes the gardai have the technology to do this.
    I suppose the question would be who authorised such activity and why?

    Having thought about this, and the silence of gsoc on this matter, has it occurred to ANYONE in the country that maybe this surveillance was legal?

    Everyone has decided this was illegal 'bugging' but, maybe there was a good reason for it? Maybe someone in that office is corrupt? Maybe someone is selling info, taking bribes? Its not beyond the impossible. There is corruption everywhere in the country now it seems.

    Perhaps a legal investigation was being conducted, therefore, no reporting the surveillance.

    It is another possibility.


  • Options
    #70
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The GSOC Chairman Simon O'Brien looked distinctly uncomfortable on RTE 1 this evening. Looked very tense to me, as if he was sweating and had lost sleep.


    Will this turn out to be a cock-up rather than a conspiracy?


    Talk now is of "threats" rather than actual surveillance. If this turns out to be a bit of an over-reaction on their part, GSOC will not look good perhaps.



    Prepare for a week of spin and disinformation on RTE, whos main concern so far is if the Brit firm engaged had the correct paperwork for carrying out such a role in Ireland.

    All this happened 6 months ago and was leaked via the UK Sunday Times, did the security firm involved tip them off ? For a nice drink of course.

    Why would GSOC reveal this to a journalist then backtrack like that ?






    GSOC STATE : "No evidence of Garda wrongdoing."

    So, why the heck didn't they report the crime to the Garda? Makes no sense. Why the backtracking, if it was they who leaked the story ?


  • Options
    #71
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The GSOC Chairman Simon O'Brien looked distinctly uncomfortable on RTE 1 this evening. Looked very tense to me, as if he was sweating and had lost sleep.


    Will this turn out to be a cock-up rather than a conspiracy?


    Talk now is of "threats" rather than actual surveillance. If this turns out to be a bit of an over-reaction on their part, GSOC will not look good perhaps.

    Actually, it looks more as if the GSOC had decided when their own investigation concluded not to make very much of it because they didn't have any smoking guns, whatever suspicions they may have had. The ST journalist seems to have seen a copy, or been told about the details of the report, and has made rather more of it. The alleged findings of the sweep are pretty specific - sufficiently so that one can actually tell quite a bit about the comms arrangement of the Ombudsman's office from them - and if one is making stuff up it's generally better not to be that exact. Date wise, the GSOC investigation finished in mid-December last year, not 6 months ago or a year ago as some sources have it.

    He may have had his information from someone who felt more should have been made of it all along.

    The GSOC is holding by its previous decision not make much of it, the Minister is naturally enough very annoyed that they decided not only not to make much of it, but to keep it to themselves entirely, which they're apologised for.

    However, the Minister's reaction, and the general reaction of the government, has not been good. They were not entitled to be told, but act as if they were, while rather too visibly ignoring the substantive issue of the actual "anomalies".

    All terrifically unedifying, and that's without considering the actual security issue itself.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    renegademaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Actually, it looks more as if the GSOC had decided when their own investigation concluded not to make very much of it because they didn't have any smoking guns, whatever suspicions they may have had. The ST journalist seems to have seen a copy, or been told about the details of the report, and has made rather more of it. The alleged findings of the sweep are pretty specific - sufficiently so that one can actually tell quite a bit about the comms arrangement of the Ombudsman's office from them - and if one is making stuff up it's generally better not to be that exact. Date wise, the GSOC investigation finished in mid-December last year, not 6 months ago or a year ago as some sources have it.

    He may have had his information from someone who felt more should have been made of it all along.

    The GSOC is holding by its previous decision not make much of it, the Minister is naturally enough very annoyed that they decided not only not to make much of it, but to keep it to themselves entirely, which they're apologised for.

    However, the Minister's reaction, and the general reaction of the government, has not been good. They were not entitled to be told, but act as if they were, while rather too visibly ignoring the substantive issue of the actual "anomalies".

    All terrifically unedifying, and that's without considering the actual security issue itself.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    stick around, cos if we continue to do nothing to hold these people to account there's so much more to come down the line


  • Options
    #73
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    cruasder777 wrote: »

    GSOC STATE : "No evidence of Garda wrongdoing."

    So, why the heck didn't they report the crime to the Garda? Makes no sense. Why the backtracking, if it was they who leaked the story ?

    They didn't trust the Gaurds.
    Nor the Minister by the looks of things.

    They were correct given the Minister's blatantly foolish/sinister? attempt to deflect attention away from the substantive issues.

    The Minister and the Taoiseach's responses basically state that GSOC has compromised itself when this is not the case.

    Why are they not addressing the obvious question?


  • Options
    #74
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    renegademaster wrote: »
    stick around, cos if we continue to do nothing to hold these people to account there's so much more to come down the line

    Luckily for those of us entertained by such things, but sadly for those of us who care about good governance, we will almost certainly do nothing.

    sadly entertained,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #75
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Actually, it looks more as if the GSOC had decided when their own investigation concluded not to make very much of it because they didn't have any smoking guns, whatever suspicions they may have had. The ST journalist seems to have seen a copy, or been told about the details of the report, and has made rather more of it. The alleged findings of the sweep are pretty specific - sufficiently so that one can actually tell quite a bit about the comms arrangement of the Ombudsman's office from them - and if one is making stuff up it's generally better not to be that exact. Date wise, the GSOC investigation finished in mid-December last year, not 6 months ago or a year ago as some sources have it.

    He may have had his information from someone who felt more should have been made of it all along.

    The GSOC is holding by its previous decision not make much of it, the Minister is naturally enough very annoyed that they decided not only not to make much of it, but to keep it to themselves entirely, which they're apologised for.

    However, the Minister's reaction, and the general reaction of the government, has not been good. They were not entitled to be told, but act as if they were, while rather too visibly ignoring the substantive issue of the actual "anomalies".

    All terrifically unedifying, and that's without considering the actual security issue itself.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw



    Observing the GSOC Chairman last night the thought crossed my mind that he is on a very sticky wicket.

    I was beginning to doubt that any 'proper' surveillance had actually occurred, but the allegation was repeated by John Mooney on Prime Time last night, and seems to be regarded as fact by the media today.

    Interesting editorial in today's Irish Times, focusing on the distrust that prompted the GSOC to go outside the jurisdiction for help and emphasising accountability and the need for reform within AGS, as opposed to homing in on GSOC's inadequacies.


  • Options
    #76
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Any word on whether it was a routine security sweep that found the bugs or had something specifically alerted them that they may have a leak. If it was the later, surely it would give some indication to who might have perpetrated it.


  • Options
    #77
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Luckily for those of us entertained by such things, but sadly for those of us who care about good governance, we will almost certainly do nothing.

    sadly entertained,
    Scofflaw
    And it appears that GSOC were quite prepared to do nothing, except for someone leaking the information which might prompt something to be done.


  • Options
    #78
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Any word on whether it was a routine security sweep that found the bugs or had something specifically alerted them that they may have a leak. If it was the later, surely it would give some indication to who might have perpetrated it.


    There's pressure on the GSOC now to reveal what led them to suspect they were being bugged.

    The GSOC's only role in life is oversight of AGS. Whatever they were concerned about, it was by definition something to do with AGS.

    From an opinion piece by Stephen Collins in today's IT:
    It appears that when the commission was established in 2006, it was advised that, on the basis of international experience, it should expect to be placed under surveillance, whether in the form of double agents, phone-tapping or data- interception.

    While this was regarded as a bit far-fetched at the time, precautions were taken by the commission and one floor of its headquarters on Abbey Street was designed with security in mind.

    FWIW, here's a reference to another John Mooney story I found by chance (AH, so linking only the OP): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84548001&postcount=1


  • Options
    #79
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    I cant blame the GSOC for going outside the state. This state has a horrendus record of policing our public bodies. The Gardai have brought this distrust on themselves with their continuous attempts to twart GSOC when they are dealing with complaints against the Gardai.


  • Options
    #80
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Floppybits wrote: »
    I cant blame the GSOC for going outside the state. This state has a horrendus record of policing our public bodies. The Gardai have brought this distrust on themselves with their continuous attempts to twart GSOC when they are dealing with complaints against the Gardai.

    I don't blame them either. In the past they could have went to G2 in the Defence Forces with somewhat confidence, but considering the government chose to merge the Department of Justice with the Department of Defence under the one ministry likely means that effective counter-surveillance could not occur.

    And we all knew that it was a bad idea to let one Minister have control of both the army and the Gardai. The Gardai and army used to have a healthy counter intelligence setup whereby they kept a discreet eye on one another, but that whole policy is in disarray now that they are both under the same ministry.


  • Options
    #81
    tomdempsey200
    Registered Users Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭tomdempsey200


    some ex bigshot gard was just on the Sean o'rourke show

    he described them as a 'necessary evil'

    Says it all for me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    raymon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    It is astounding that this story got this far.

    We don't even know if there were bugs.
    This story is likely to be

    1) State agency with no technical skills calls in consultants to review their security.
    2) Consultants reveal some standard ambiguous technical flaws. Get paid.
    3) Various vested interests make hay. Newspapers, politicians,reporters.

    I don't believe there were bugs.


  • Options
    #83
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    raymon wrote: »
    It is astounding that this story got this far.

    We don't even know if there were bugs.
    This story is likely to be

    1) State agency with no technical skills calls in consultants to review their security.
    2) Consultants reveal some standard ambiguous technical flaws. Get paid.
    3) Various vested interests make hay. Newspapers, politicians,reporters.

    I don't believe there were bugs.
    That could well be the upshot.
    The question will then be where did the idea that 'government level' technology was used and I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was that because if the flaws were ambiguous the consultants may have provided a range of possible explanations that included some fantastic ones.


  • Options
    #84
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    raymon wrote: »
    It is astounding that this story got this far.

    We don't even know if there were bugs.
    This story is likely to be

    1) State agency with no technical skills calls in consultants to review their security.
    2) Consultants reveal some standard ambiguous technical flaws. Get paid.
    3) Various vested interests make hay. Newspapers, politicians,reporters.

    I don't believe there were bugs.

    Do you think that Verrimus (the consultancy firm) would come out in such a way and confirm their involvement, if the original article was filled with inaccuracies?


  • Options
    #85
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Do you think that Verrimus (the consultancy firm) would come out in such a way and confirm their involvement, if the original article was filled with inaccuracies?
    A security firm isn't going to start revealing any details of what they found (or even revealing what they didn't find) - its very surprising that they even confirmed any involvement.


  • Options
    #86
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    raymon wrote: »
    I don't believe there were bugs.

    Why don't you? I think it was made very clear in the media report that someone with sophisticated knowledge and expertise attempted to infiltrate GSOC. Who that was, or what organization they were acting on behalf of, is unknown.

    GSOC are in a difficult position because they are unable to prove the 'bugging' at this time as they cannot carry out their own investigation. They cannot confirm that bugging occured, hence the reference to anomalies. Whats worse is that we have government Ministers coming out and demanding that GSOC state categorically whether bugging occurred or not. However these Ministers know well that GSOC just cannot do that, as it is not their responsibility to investigate these matters - it is a Garda matter. Ministers know this, and it makes me suspicious when they make demands on an organization that they know cannot be complied with.

    The real story is that GSOC did not have enough confidence to approach the Minister on this matter. Also, what is with the attempts to turn this into a story about how bad GSOC is? They are the ones that have been targeted by the bugging afterall.

    We have had Enda Kenny claiming that GSOC are required by law to report these sort of incidents. However he is misquoting the law, they are NOT required to report such incidents. It is interesting that, upon leaving the meeting with Minister Shatter, the chairman of GSOC stated that he would be releasing a prepared media statement within an hour ...


  • Options
    #87
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Phoebas wrote: »
    A security firm isn't going to start revealing any details of what they found (or even revealing what they didn't find) - its very surprising that they even confirmed any involvement.

    Well they can't discuss details of any individual client for obvious reasons, but why is it surprising that they confirmed involvement at all? That's not something which is uncommon at all after a story like this breaks.

    Do you think they'd confirm it in such a way if the article breaking the news was full of lies? They publicly replied to John Mooney on Twitter, positively confirming that it was them who carried out the task. There's no way they would have done that if Mooney was talking shite.


  • Options
    #88
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Well they can't discuss details of any individual client for obvious reasons, but why is it surprising that they confirmed involvement at all? That's not something which is uncommon at all after a story like this breaks.

    Do you think they'd confirm it in such a way if the article breaking the news was full of lies? They publicly replied to John Mooney on Twitter, positively confirming that it was them who carried out the task. There's no way they would have done that if Mooney was talking shite.

    A security firm that even confirms that they did work has given an attacker an advantage.

    Lets say I was a 'government level' attacker with active bugs in GSOC - the security firm have just indicated to me that they missed my bugs in their sweep. Advantage me.


  • Options
    #89
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Why don't you? I think it was made very clear in the media report that someone with sophisticated knowledge and expertise attempted to infiltrate GSOC. Who that was, or what organization they were acting on behalf of, is unknown.
    That was from an unidentified source - we have no inkling of the quality of the source.


  • Options
    #90
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Phoebas wrote: »
    That was from an unidentified source - we have no inkling of the quality of the source.

    I am not worried about that. The journalist who broke this story has said there are more revelations to come.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    raymon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Why don't you? I think it was made very clear in the media report that someone with sophisticated knowledge and expertise attempted to infiltrate GSOC. Who that was, or what organization they were acting on behalf of, is unknown. ...

    Where were the bugs , what was the nature of them ?

    Government level surveillance - these are journalistic words , not a technical specification.

    Do you know that there were bugs ? How do you know ?


Advertisement