"Cessation of mobile communications services where necessary"

Grolschevik

The Criminal Justice Act 2013 amends the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 to provide for the cessation of mobile communications services where necessary for the aversion of serious threats.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2013/a1913.pdf

The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are:

that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a serious threat exists;

that there is a reasonable prospect that the cessation of a mobile communications service within a geographical area would be of material assistance in averting that threat;

What "serious threats" might these be? Are we talking Die Hard plot here, or something much more prosaic?

Cody Pomeray

It's a copy of the British MTPAS scheme which operated for the July 7th bombings, to disastrous effect.

The function is to maintain access to the mobile telephone infrastructure for emergency services during a major emergency.

It didn't work on July 7th because a lot of emergency service workers were cut off when the network shut down. So now, in the UK, emergency services are supposed to register with their provider so they can retain access.

I don't know what the situation is with Irish emergency service workers, or whether provisions have been made for them to retain access when a crisis unfolds which requires that the mobile phone network be prioritized.

Pro Hoc Vice

Grolschevik wrote: »

The Criminal Justice Act 2013 amends the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 to provide for the cessation of mobile communications services where necessary for the aversion of serious threats.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2013/a1913.pdf



What "serious threats" might these be? Are we talking Die Hard plot here, or something much more prosaic?

Its defined in the Act,

"“serious threat” means an imminent threat that—
(a) an explosive or other lethal device will be activated by use of a mobile communications service provided in the State by an undertaking, and
(b) the activation of that explosive or other lethal device is likely to cause— (i) death of a person,
(ii) serious bodily injury to a person, or (iii) substantial damage to property;"

Also in section 25

"(3) An undertaking to which a direction is issued shall endeavour to continue to provide such a mobile communications service as is necessary to enable emergency service calls to be made and received in the geographical area and during the cessation period to which the direction relates, provided that the continued provision of such a service does not prevent the undertaking from ceasing to provide the mobile communications service, or the specific type of mobile communications service, specified in the direction."

Grolschevik

infosys wrote: »

Its defined in the Act,

"“serious threat” means an imminent threat that—
(a) an explosive or other lethal device will be activated by use of a mobile communications service provided in the State by an undertaking, and
(b) the activation of that explosive or other lethal device is likely to cause— (i) death of a person,
(ii) serious bodily injury to a person, or (iii) substantial damage to property;"

Aye, I saw that. It just struck me that terrorist organisations rarely inform the authorities in advance, thereby enabling those authorities to get a ministerial order shutting down the network.

The entire premise reminded me of a Bruce Willis film I saw once.

Pro Hoc Vice

Grolschevik wrote: »

Aye, I saw that. It just struck me that terrorist organisations rarely inform the authorities in advance, thereby enabling those authorities to get a ministerial order shutting down the network.

The entire premise reminded me of a Bruce Willis film I saw once.

A certain organisation used to give warnings, but I assume the Act is aimed at situations of what is called chatter,where there is intel that a certain place is to be targeted by a bomb. It is as pointed out a risky solution as it can cut off emergency services at the time of most need, the Act deals with that and requires the decision maker to weigh up the risks and benefits.

As in section 20 2 (c)

(c) that having regard to all the circumstances, including the importance of maintaining the availability of the mobile communications service in the geographical area concerned and the effect of a cessation on users, the giving of an authorisation is necessary and proportionate to its objectives.

Carawaystick

Does imminent have the same meaning as in weather forecasts? i.e. within the next 6 hours?

Would there be a constitutional clash if someone died or had a poorer outcome due to inability to get a ambulance in an area where the govt had ordered the cessation of communications to prevent substantial damage to property?

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does imminent have the same meaning as in weather forecasts? i.e. within the next 6 hours?

Would there be a constitutional clash if someone died or had a poorer outcome due to inability to get a ambulance in an area where the govt had ordered the cessation of communications to prevent substantial damage to property?

Imminent would be up to the Minister to decide, but I doubt turning off the phones for weeks on end would pass muster.

I'm not sure how there is a constitutional issue or even damages if a person could not ring the emergency services because mobile net work down. The Act does not effect landline services.

Timfy

I used to work at Vodafone HQ in the UK as an Incident Manager... We hit the red button during the 7/7 bombings, shutting down mobile comms over a large swathe of London.

Del2005

infosys wrote: »

Imminent would be up to the Minister to decide, but I doubt turning off the phones for weeks on end would pass muster.

I'm not sure how there is a constitutional issue or even damages if a person could not ring the emergency services because mobile net work down. The Act does not effect landline services.

Not many homes have land lines these days.

Did they shut down the networks for the G8 up North?

BornToKill

I would think what is envisaged is shutting down mobile signals after a first explosion in order to foil additional devices being triggered by telephones. This was done recently in Boston.

Victor

The scope of this seems quite narrow and the chain of authorisation potentially arduous.

It doesn't seem to deal with potential hostage / barricade situations.

Losty Dublin

Timfy wrote: »

I used to work at Vodafone HQ in the UK as an Incident Manager... We hit the red button during the 7/7 bombings, shutting down mobile comms over a large swathe of London.

Can they not do that over the coming weeks when Facebook and Twitter get swamped with posts about X Factor?

Carawaystick

infosys wrote: »

Imminent would be up to the Minister to decide, but I doubt turning off the phones for weeks on end would pass muster.

Surely legislation should be clear, and the Oireachtas has decided. THis use of vague language seems like it is for the high court to decide....

infosys wrote: »

I'm not sure how there is a constitutional issue or even damages if a person could not ring the emergency services because mobile net work down. The Act does not effect landline services.

If a person was relying on mobile services and they were turned of only to protect property, rather than the life or health of some people, then the law is prioritising private property over the right to life.



(Where is youth defence now I ask ya )

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

Surely legislation should be clear, and the Oireachtas has decided. THis use of vague language seems like it is for the high court to decide....


If a person was relying on mobile services and they were turned of only to protect property, rather than the life or health of some people, then the law is prioritising private property over the right to life.



(Where is youth defence now I ask ya )

In relation to the first point as I said I don't think the legislation is broadly drafted but if a minister decided he had powers he did not have in the Act then the Courts would intervene.

Your second point, well unless the minister knows for a fact his action is going to kill someone his trying to protect property would trump a maybe someone will have a heart attack and maybe that someone will not be able to contact the ES because the network is down. What if a network needs to take a service down for repair are they liable if someone dies because they could not contact ES. To claim the the right to a working smart phone some how is a right to life is a bit OTT.