Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

Iwannahurl

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?

Nodin

Well, "Government level technology" puts at the high end so I'd imagine its the Gardaí or another state body.

My name is URL

Nodin wrote: »

Well, "Government level technology" puts at the high end so I'd imagine its the Gardaí or another state body.

Could just be a bit of old fashioned sensationalism. Anyone with the right connections and enough money could get their hands on technology that wouldn't otherwise be readily available to the public.

steddyeddy

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?

That is literally one of the stupidest things I have heard.

Fred Cohen

G.U.B.P. just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I wonder what section in AGS has enough sh1t on everyone to ensure this goes nowhere?

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

Could just be a bit of old fashioned sensationalism. Anyone with the right connections and enough money could get their hands on technology that wouldn't otherwise be readily available to the public.

Not really. Some things are tightly controlled.

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

Could just be a bit of old fashioned sensationalism. Anyone with the right connections and enough money could get their hands on technology that wouldn't otherwise be readily available to the public.

Agreed.

The insinuation from using that phrase is that the Times believes the bugging was done by a Governmental source.
There is basically no technology beyond the reach of private individuals. Even military hardware costing hundreds of millions is accessible to people with the right money and connections.
Surveillance and bugging technology by comparison is not that expensive. The Gardai themselves would seem to be the most likely culprits, having ready access to that kind of stuff, no questions asked.

Basically, who else gives a sh1t what the GSOC are at? Although it could also be someone who uses the information gleaned to blackmail/bribe/extort money and favours from senior Gardai. That could be anyone, government minister, criminal etc.

mitosis

Nodin wrote: »

Well, "Government level technology" puts at the high end so I'd imagine its the Gardaí or another state body.

Bus Eireann. Bound to be, sure who else would have the motive?

steddyeddy

Bury your head in the sand people.

Manach

Worrying if it was a state agency should the tech surveillance be true. However based on the characters of the various ministers (Justice etc) it would be unlikely they'd have known of it. Whilst I'd disagree with them politically, it much would be more plausible they would follow the same pattern from last year - they'd simply ignore the ombudsman.

steddyeddy

It is definitely in keeping with the gaurds as an institution unfortunately.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

The Gardai themselves would seem to be the most likely culprits, having ready access to that kind of stuff, no questions asked.

Basically, who else gives a sh1t what the GSOC are at? Although it could also be someone who uses the information gleaned to blackmail/bribe/extort money and favours from senior Gardai. That could be anyone, government minister, criminal etc.

Well, as a citizen of this adolescent republic I give a large democratic sh:t.

As with all such GUBU shenanigans, you have to consider motive, modus operandi and opportunity.

Would anyone who supports the work of the GSOC put them under covert surveillance? They might if they believed the GSOC to be corrupt, perhaps. I'm not aware that any such accusation has ever been made, and it seems more likely that suspicions of that nature would be aired in public rather than pursued in secret.

The term "Government-level technology" clearly points us in the direction of institutional expertise and objectives. The most likely culprit, it would appear, is a person or organisation who regards the GSOC as some sort of enemy or threat.

Thirty years ago we had Ireland's own Watergate-type scandal, in which a Minister for Justice and the Garda Commissioner colluded in secretly taping other Ministers' (and journalists') conversations, for party-political reasons.

So who wants to gain advantage over the GSOC by whatever means necessary? Does anyone in Government feel threatened by the GSOC, and if so, why?

IIRC the only organisation that has experienced any high-level tension in its dealings with the GSOC is An Garda Siochana itself. The row over access to the Pulse database springs to mind.

Mycroft H

Now, I'm not the one to be jumping to conclusions but the man down the pub may be a little quicker than I.

However, when you put this to the news yesterday that Commissioner Callinan vetoed a complaint against his office and the recent silencing of the Gardai who went to the Public Accounts Committee, today's news is only going to further the distrust towards Garda management that's growing in the mind of the public.

There needs to be questions asked before this gets out of hand.

Phoebas

This is a pretty serious story if there is any substance to it, but I'm sceptical that there doesn't seem to have been any official confirmation at all and the article (only part of it is viewable via the link provided) relies on unnamed 'sources'.

The weirdest bit (from Irish Times secondary reporting):

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

This doesn't ring true for me. If they found they've been subject to a range of different attacks and evidence of 'government level technology' (whatever the hell that is) it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't report it up the line.

There's something not right about this story.

My name is URL

Phoebas wrote: »

This doesn't ring true for me. If they found they've been subject to a range of different attacks and evidence of 'government level technology' (whatever the hell that is) it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't report it up the line.

There's something not right about this story.

Why wouldn't that make sense?

Phoebas

My name is URL wrote: »

Why wouldn't that make sense?

Because, the Garda and Minister for Justice, according to the IT, would normally investigate matters of this nature.
It doesn't make sense not to report something to the people who would normally investigate it.

steddyeddy

Phoebas wrote: »

Because, the Garda and Minister for Justice, according to the IT, would normally investigate matters of this nature.
It doesn't make sense not to report something to the people who would normally investigate it.

What?

Iwannahurl

Phoebas wrote: »

This is a pretty serious story if there is any substance to it, but I'm sceptical that there doesn't seem to have been any official confirmation at all and the article (only part of it is viewable via the link provided) relies on unnamed 'sources'.

The weirdest bit (from Irish Times secondary reporting):

This doesn't ring true for me. If they found they've been subject to a range of different attacks and evidence of 'government level technology' (whatever the hell that is) it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't report it up the line.

There's something not right about this story.

The GSOC has powers equivalent to those of AGS, although I don't know for certain whether they can operate with complete independence when it comes to criminal investigations.

They chose to consult a private security agency in another jurisdiction, which suggests that they wanted to assert their independence and/or did not trust the DoJ/AGS. That does ring true, imo.

syklops

For once we can rule the NSA out for this one.

Also didn't like the phrase "government level surveillance". There is not a lot that can not be obtained without money and desire.

In some cases wireless networks can be cracked in, depending on the level of encryption anything from 20 minutes to a few hours or days using a consumer laptop and freely downloadable software. I've done it myself(legally). Cracking aside, its amazing how easy it is to get pass phrases out of people.

Bugs can be bought online, You can build a long distance, line-of-sight microphone using an audio tape, a laser pointer and some stuff from a quick trip to Maplin.

The emergency services forum saying they weren't interested just makes it even more laughable.

Who benefits most from knowing whats happening in the Ombudsmans office? Someone at risk of going to be in front of the Ombudsman I would have thought.

Phoebas

steddyeddy wrote: »

What?

I think you need to be more specific

syklops

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you need to be more specific

He's not the one who needs to be more specific.

A flow chart might help a bit.

Phoebas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The GSOC has powers equivalent to those of AGS, although I don't know for certain whether they can operate with complete independence when it comes to criminal investigations.

They chose to consult a private security agency in another jurisdiction, which suggests that they wanted to assert their independence and/or did not trust the DoJ/AGS. That does ring true, imo.

The idea that the GSOC doesn't trust the Minister for Justice with this kind of information is getting into CT territory. If that was true then we are looking at the story of the year.

I'll await further details before I'll buy that.

Phoebas

syklops wrote: »

He's not the one who needs to be more specific.

A flow chart might help a bit.

I honestly have no idea what he was asking (or what you're saying).
What specifics are you looking for from me?

riffmongous

Phoebas wrote: »

Because, the Garda and Minister for Justice, according to the IT, would normally investigate matters of this nature.
It doesn't make sense not to report something to the people who would normally investigate it.

Unless you thought they were involved maybe

Iwannahurl

Phoebas wrote: »

The idea that the GSOC doesn't trust the Minister for Justice with this kind of information is getting into CT territory. If that was true then we are looking at the story of the year.

I'll await further details before I'll buy that.

It's the story of the year so far anyway. Beats the penalty points debacle hands down.

The GSOC is an independent agency of the State. They first consulted their UK counterpart, and following their advice presumably, then engaged the services of a private security firm.

I'd be more alarmed if they showed less independence.

Phoebas

riffmongous wrote: »

Unless you thought they were involved maybe

The Minister for Justice involved in bugging the GSOC? That would be the story of the decade.

Its a bit too CT for me given the very limited information available so far.

syklops

Phoebas wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what he was asking (or what you're saying).
What specifics are you looking for from me?

More than one of us here does not understand the point you are trying to make.

This doesn't ring true for me. If they found they've been subject to a range of different attacks and evidence of 'government level technology' (whatever the hell that is) it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't report it up the line.

Because, the Garda and Minister for Justice, according to the IT, would normally investigate matters of this nature.
It doesn't make sense not to report something to the people who would normally investigate it.

Phoebas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's the story of the year so far anyway.

Its a story based on unnamed sources with no official response. I'd give it a day or two before I promote it to story of the year.

riffmongous

Phoebas wrote: »

The Minister for Justice involved in bugging the GSOC? That would be the story of the decade.

Its a bit too CT for me given the very limited information available so far.

I wouldn't say the minister, but rogue garda members..

And the whole thing is pretty much a conspiracy theory already

syklops

Phoebas wrote: »

Its a story based on unnamed sources with no official response. I'd give it a day or too before I promote it to story of the year.

Its story of the year, thus far in the year.

Victor

I wouldn't go pointing fingers at Shatter just yet.

If they felt they couldn't go to Shatter, it may have been that the felt they couldn't trust the Department of Justice, not that either Shatter or DoJ did the bugging.