Sinn Féin and The Anglo Tapes

Blue Crystal

What's the odds these were held on to for release after "The Disappeared" programme aired to make them look like the good guys? :cool:

Scofflaw

For those who might want more information: http://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-more-anglo-tapes-1162734-Nov2013/

SINN FÉIN HAS claimed that it has been anonymously sent a copy of more recordings involving senior officials at Anglo Irish Bank, many of which are not currently in the public domain.

The party says that the tapes cover the period between February and September 2008.

The tapes will not be released at this time and the party says that they have been made available to the gardaí and to the Governor of the Central Bank.

Copies of the tapes have also been retained with a solicitor for the party with a view to releasing them at a future date.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Copies of the tapes have also been retained with a solicitor for the party with a view to releasing them at a future date.

Does anyone know what the data protection act has to say on keeping copies of tapes that aren't yours and that turn up unsolicited?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Does anyone know what the data protection act has to say on keeping copies of tapes that aren't yours and that turn up unsolicited?

I imagine that the tapes are legal under the Act, as long as the fact that they were recorded was known by the people being recorded. As far as I know, the recording of bank internal phone calls was known to all the people involved. From the Act (emphasis added):

Confidentiality of communications

5. (1) Without prejudice to section 98 of the Act of 1983 and section 2 of the Act of 1993 and except where legally authorised under a provision adopted in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications, the listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications and the related traffic data by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned, is prohibited.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

I imagine that the tapes are legal under the Act, as long as the fact that they were recorded was known by the people being recorded. As far as I know, the recording of bank internal phone calls was known to all the people involved. From the Act (emphasis added):



cordially,
Scofflaw

It isn't the legality of the original tapes that I am querying.

It is the legality of keeping COPIES of those tapes that I am wondering about particularly as, unlike the Regulator or the Gardaí, SF was hardly intended to be an "official" recipient of those tapes under the terms of the act.

serfboard

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-more-anglo-tapes-1162734-Nov2013/

From that link

the party says that they have been made available to the gardaí and to the Governor of the Central Bank.

Which is total bullsh1t. The Gardai and Central Bank have them already, as SF well know.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It isn't the legality of the original tapes that I am querying.

It is the legality of keeping COPIES of those tapes that I am wondering about particularly as, unlike the Regulator or the Gardaí, SF was hardly intended to be an "official" recipient of those tapes under the terms of the act.

Sure, but I think the Act basically stopped applying at all once the recordings were authorised. Everything after that is really a question of property transfer, and I think that the issue for SF would be whether they are in receipt of something that counts as stolen property. The same question presumably applies to the Indo, and it's a very large question indeed - 'leaked' material presumably is in general stolen property, but does 'public interest' effectively neutralise the charge?

And if 'public interest' does somehow trump 'stolen property', should a political party benefit from it, or retain it with the expectation of political benefit? Are we at such a low stage of trust in government and/or mainstream parties that government would be afraid to prosecute?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

serfboard wrote: »

From that link Which is total bullsh1t. The Gardai and Central Bank have them already, as SF well know.

I would not be so sure about that. The central bank appears to be playing catch up and does not appear to know much. Round 1 of the Anglo tapes were a surprise to it as well. Nice to see that the Central Bank is on the ball, just like it never was. It does not bode well for any future trials of ex Anglo types, with all these tapes going around, in the hands of several parties. One might almost think, its done on purpose, to delay any trials, or give grounds against a fair trial?? The cynic in me.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, but I think the Act basically stopped applying at all once the recordings were authorised.

I am not sure it does. I am fairly certain the "users concerned" referred to in the act didn't consent to the storage of copies of recordings of their conversations by political parties or other unauthorised users.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if 'public interest' does somehow trump 'stolen property', should a political party benefit from it, or retain it with the expectation of political benefit?

Well the retention of unauthorised copies of such tape would appear to be for the benefit of SF - I am not sure deriving a benefit from such copies can be counted as a "public interest" and, perhaps, more importantly the act concerned probably doesn't allow for claims of such an interest to trump the terms of the act as all breeches of the legislation would then be claimed to be "public interest" exceptions.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

I am not sure it does. I am fairly certain the "users concerned" referred to in the act didn't consent to the storage of copies of recordings of their conversations by political parties or other unauthorised users.

Funnily enough, I'm not sure that matters. They consented to having the recordings made, and recordings of phone calls are treated slightly differently in the acts - essentially, they're covered by a 'confidentiality of communication' section, but not, as far as I can see, otherwise. And the 'confidentiality of communication' applies only where the recordings are made without the knowledge of the participants.

In a sense, that's kind of reasonable - recordings of phone calls aren't the kind of data intended to be covered by data protection acts, because they're not personal information belonging to an individual.

View wrote: »

Well the retention of unauthorised copies of such tape would appear to be for the benefit of SF - I am not sure deriving a benefit from such copies can be counted as a "public interest" and, perhaps, more importantly the act concerned probably doesn't allow for claims of such an interest to trump the terms of the act as all breeches of the legislation would then be claimed to be "public interest" exceptions.

I'm not sure to what extent that has really been resolved - the UK government required the destruction of Guardian hard drives on the basis that they were stolen property, but that's both unusual and pointless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Seaneh

serfboard wrote: »

From that link Which is total bullsh1t. The Gardai and Central Bank have them already, as SF well know.

Funny that, because any report I've read state that theses tapes were previously unknown to the Gardai.

first doyle

Blue Crystal wrote: »

What's the odds these were held on to for release after "The Disappeared" programme aired to make them look like the good guys? :cool:

The disappearance of 30 billion euro worth of tax payers money is more relevant than the disappearance of British agents during the troubles.

Why should the Irish public be thought any different?

Happyman42

Blue Crystal wrote: »

What's the odds these were held on to for release after "The Disappeared" programme aired to make them look like the good guys? :cool:

What had they to fear from a programme that presented nothing new?