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
Comments
-
Its not safe to assume that at all unless you can provide some explanation about how their emails could be compromised via any of the 3 vulnerabilities that were identified.
We have to depart from everything that we do know in order to assume that their emails were compromised.oscarBravo wrote: »No, that's not safe to assume. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the conference room phone was bugged. That would indicate surveillance; it would not indicate that emails were compromised.
I disagree completely. I am talking about assumptions here - not proof. If I discovered that I had been surveilled, and that it was obvious that the person who had carried out the surveillance possessed the type of skillsets that are suggested here, then I would assume that my emails had also been intercepted.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »They never explicitly said that this was the inaccuracy, and furthermore on Prime Time they said that information had appeared "in the public discourse" which gave rise to concern, and that this contributed towards the reasons for the sweep.
"In the public discourse" is open to wide interpretation, the obvious interpretation is that it means the media but that's just the conclusion everyone's jumping to, at its base it simply means "outside the group it was supposed to be confined to". Furthermore, Simon O'Brien said in committee that he certainly believed, or potentially believed, that they were under surveillance (direct quote) and that there was reason to believe a Garda might have been involved.
Many things are not being explicitly stated except by Callinan, which is rather strange as he would have no way to definitively rule out Garda involvement unless he knows exactly who was involved somehow outside the Gardai. I think it's very obvious that everyone else, GSOC included, are very carefully wording all statements to make sure nothing is presented as a definitive fact.
Let's just get to something very basic here though. The insinuation that it's unreasonable for the public to regard the Gardai (senior, rogue, whatever) as responsible is utterly ridiculous. They have both motive and means, which nobody else has to the same extent. If you couple that with what's coming out this week about the whistleblower, it's entirely reasonable for average Joe to have an incredible level of suspicion and skepticism of Garda management and the department of justice. Do you agree or disagree with this? Those at the top of both organizations over the last two weeks have painted themselves in an extremely bad light, and while I don't expect everyone to share the suspicion of them, to imply that it's completely baseless is just wildly fanciful. They've given us, the public, every reason to suspect that they are engaged in widespread cover ups and political dodgery in the last fortnight - I honestly don't think anyone can claim otherwise. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Oh and don't anyone try to use the usual "you're anti Garda" crap to respond to this, I've stated twice in this and the other thread about the whistleblower that I have the utmost respect for rank and file Gardai, and am only having a go at the senior management of the Gardai and the Department of Justice.
Thank`s for clearing that up for me.
So basically the answer to the question I was asking Phoebas is no, the GSOC have never issued a statement denying media reports that an item or items in a draft document that were not included in the final report to Callinan were subsequently mentioned by him in a meeting with GSOC.0 -
Thank`s for clearing that up for me.
So basically the answer to the question I was asking Phoebas is no, the GSOC have never issued a statement denying media reports that an item or items in a draft document that were not included in the final report to Callinan were subsequently mentioned by him in a meeting with GSOC.
I think they have. Their report from verrimus cites this apparently as the reason. GSOC stated it was incorrect and possibly a misinterpretation by verrimus of a joke made by Simon o brien0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »They never explicitly said that this was the inaccuracy [...]
Its probably worth looking at what they did say:Simon O'Brien wrote:I must point out there is an inaccuracy referenced in three separate places in a report that may come into the public domain. I pointed out the presence of inaccuracies to the Minister. I laid out to him that, in view of the amount
of detail in the public domain last Sunday, the commission strongly suspects that a copy of a section of a report which is marked secret was possibly
in the hands of a journalist. I expressed my regret to the Minister that he had been blindsided by the appearance of this information in the media.
I must explain to the committee my clear recollection of the reasons and the thinking to retain Verrimus, the UK specialist company. The final investigation report and the Verrimus documentation make reference to reasons for the sweep that do not accord with my recollection of those reasons.
This is a matter that I identified in my own notes shortly after receiving and considering the final investigation report. I can only assume this
arose because of a misunderstanding and I make no criticism of the authors. However, I am categorical in my recollection of the reasons but it is,
nevertheless, important in the interest of clarity that this is brought to the attention of the committee.0 -
The public don't have the information they need to arrive at that conclusion. If you believe it's reasonable to arrive at a conclusion - worse still, to act on that conclusion in a way that's potentially extremely damaging to someone - on the basis of a best guess pieced together from rumour and speculation, I hope you're never called for jury duty.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Let's just get to something very basic here though. The insinuation that it's unreasonable for the public to regard the Gardai (senior, rogue, whatever) as responsible is utterly ridiculous.
Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups.I disagree completely. I am talking about assumptions here - not proof.
You can assume what you want; it's what you do with the assumption that matters. If you suspect you've been under surveillance, it's good practice to assume there's a risk your emails have been intercepted and to tighten up security around your email system.If I discovered that I had been surveilled, and that it was obvious that the person who had carried out the surveillance possessed the type of skillsets that are suggested here, then I would assume that my emails had also been intercepted.
If, on the other hand, you assume that you've been under surveillance, and assume on that basis that your emails have been intercepted, and assume that it must have been AGS that did the intercepting, and decide on the basis of those combined assumptions that people need to be fired and an entire police force brought into disrepute... that's not so reasonable.
If it is found that AGS had GSOC under surveillance, I'll be leading the demands for heads to roll. But demanding scalps on the basis that maybe something might have done something... that's not the sort of society I want to live in.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »The public don't have the information they need to arrive at that conclusion. If you believe it's reasonable to arrive at a conclusion - worse still, to act on that conclusion in a way that's potentially extremely damaging to someone - on the basis of a best guess pieced together from rumour and speculation, I hope you're never called for jury duty.
Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups. You can assume what you want; it's what you do with the assumption that matters. If you suspect you've been under surveillance, it's good practice to assume there's a risk your emails have been intercepted and to tighten up security around your email system.
If, on the other hand, you assume that you've been under surveillance, and assume on that basis that your emails have been intercepted, and assume that it must have been AGS that did the intercepting, and decide on the basis of those combined assumptions that people need to be fired and an entire police force brought into disrepute... that's not so reasonable.
If it is found that AGS had GSOC under surveillance, I'll be leading the demands for heads to roll. But demanding scalps on the basis that maybe something might have done something... that's not the sort of society I want to live in.
Ah here, this has departed drastically from the point I originally made. I was responding to a post that said "we now know that emails weren't hacked". We know no such thing.0 -
-
Thank`s for clearing that up for me.
So basically the answer to the question I was asking Phoebas is no, the GSOC have never issued a statement denying media reports that an item or items in a draft document that were not included in the final report to Callinan were subsequently mentioned by him in a meeting with GSOC.
They said in committee that what was written on the final report didn't tally with their recollections of why they had asked for the sweep, but seeing as John Mooney didn't even reference that report in his article, we don't know for sure that this is what they meant.
There's no definitive proof one way or the other.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The public don't have the information they need to arrive at that conclusion. If you believe it's reasonable to arrive at a conclusion - worse still, to act on that conclusion in a way that's potentially extremely damaging to someone - on the basis of a best guess pieced together from rumour and speculation, I hope you're never called for jury duty.
I'm not talking about arriving at a conclusion, I'm talking about having suspicions. I do not believe that we can state that the Gardai bugged GSOC and I do not believe that we can state that they did not.
But I do believe that if GSOC were in fact bugged, it is entirely reasonable for people to place the Gardai at the top of the list of potential suspects based on means and motive.
Considering someone a potential suspect is far removed from finding them guilty of a crime, as a jury would - I'm not sure you're comparing like with like there. I'm merely saying that this whole hysterical "ZOMG how DARE anyone insinuate that the Gardai might have done something like this!!!" is completely unreasonable.0 -
If we`re to take Callinan`s word such a short time after the Sunday Times article was published, a man who has sat on his hands over reports of mis-conduct in the Garda, and who in front of a Dail committee called whistleblowers discusting, that there was no Garda involvement, then should we not extend the same curtesy to Verrimus`s statement?
Seems only fair. .
We can't take Verrimus' word on anything because we have no idea what they have said because we haven't seen their report!
We know what Callinan has said so we can judge him on that.As to GSOC being unaware of any information having got out, was one of the reasons for them hiring Verrimus not because in a meeting with Callinan, he mentioned certain items that had been included in a GSOC draft but weren`t in the final report given to him by GSOC.
Where have you got that rubbish from? Here is what O'Brien told the Dail. Are you accusing him of lying to the Dail?
"I must explain to the committee my clear recollection of the reasons and the thinking to retain Verrimus, the UK specialist company. The final investigation report and the Verrimus documentation make reference to reasons for the sweep that do not accord with my recollection of those reasons. This is a matter that I identified in my own notes shortly after receiving and considering the final investigation report. I can only assume this arose because of a misunderstanding and I make no criticism of the authors. However, I am categorical in my recollection of the reasons but it is, nevertheless, important in the interest of clarity that this is brought to the attention of the committee."
"Why did we conduct this inquiry? As a brief background, I will outline the work in which GSOC has been engaged for the past few years. We were appointed in December 2011. From the earliest days of our tenure, we were conscious that in the context of organisational risk management, it is prudent for the purposes of good governance that precautionary measures are utilised to allay fears of unauthorised penetration of assets, physical or electronic. GSOC has, since its commencement of operations in 2007, taken seriously all aspects of its security and carries out ongoing testing, as well as reviewing, of its systems and procedures. Part of this ongoing monitoring includes penetration testing of electronic systems and security sweeps. The staging of these test procedures is sensitive and it is, therefore, closely guarded in the context of information control. This, as members will appreciate, is a standard operating procedure for organisations holding sensitive data.
In the early days after our appointment, we decided that a security sweep of our building, which had not been undertaken since 2007, was something that we would undertake. We did not progress this immediately at that time. Security checks, albeit part of standard procedures, should always be predicated on the level of risk that exists at any time. Risk assessment should be dynamic as time and circumstances change. The work of GSOC is high profile. The work we are engaged in can accrue great interest and it is wise to put risk assessment in that context.
Throughout 2012, we spent considerable time negotiating privately with the Garda Síochána around our operational protocols, addressing issues of timelines and other issues of interagency co-operation. Towards the end of 2012, we took a strategic decision that we needed to air publicly some dissatisfaction with the level of co-operation we were getting from the Garda Síochána. This resulted in us making very public comment around the publication of one report following a sensitive investigation. For example, on 9 May 2013, we took the unusual step of submitting to the Minister a special report in accordance with section 80(5) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. That special report contained some highly critical comments on our relationship with the Garda Síochána. A few weeks later, on 23 May 2013, we also made some further criticism of the Garda Síochána’s adherence to our operational protocols in our annual report. Members may recall that this committee invited us to attend to discuss these reports on 3 July 2013. This was a level of publicity and controversy which was unusual for the commission. In the context of this public profile, we did then have heightened concerns about confidentiality, particularly in light of some public discourse appearing to be exceptionally well-informed. For that reason, consideration was given to the engagement of the Irish firm which had previously undertaken such a security sweep for this organisation."0 -
Advertisement
-
The members of the government should take note of this. It is their intention to confuse.
“If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary. That we should regard as a matter of no moment, or, at any rate, of very secondary consequence; but, as things are, it is the main concern. Our innate vanity, which is particularly sensitive in reference to our intellectual powers, will not suffer us to allow that our first position was wrong and our adversary’s right. The way out of this difficulty would be simply to take the trouble always to form a correct judgment. For this a man would have to think before he spoke. But, with most men, innate vanity is accompanied by loquacity and innate dishonesty. They speak before they think; and even though they may afterwards perceive that they are wrong, and that what they assert is false, they want it to seem thecontrary. The interest in truth, which may be presumed to have been their only motive when they stated the proposition alleged to be true, now gives way to the interests of vanity: and so, for the sake of vanity, what is true must seem false, and what is false must seem true.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Always Being Right0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I'm not talking about arriving at a conclusion, I'm talking about having suspicions. I do not believe that we can state that the Gardai bugged GSOC and I do not believe that we can state that they did not..
We cannot even state that the GSOC was bugged. That is the problem with statements like that.
Imagine you had an enemy, someone who had done you great harm in the past. Say you own a shotgun. Say that person is now missing. Would it be reasonable for someone to say that we cannot state whether you have murdered that person and we cannot state whether you have not. Those people are making a connection between a missing person and a motive for you murdering that person to a veiled accusation of murder.
In fact, some people on this thread would use the logic of GSOC to accuse you of murder.hatrickpatrick wrote: »I
But I do believe that if GSOC were in fact bugged, it is entirely reasonable for people to place the Gardai at the top of the list of potential suspects based on means and motive..
If that person was murdered (rather than disappearing by themself) then it is entirely reasonable to place you at the top of the list of potential suspects based on means and motive.hatrickpatrick wrote: »I
Considering someone a potential suspect is far removed from finding them guilty of a crime, as a jury would - I'm not sure you're comparing like with like there. I'm merely saying that this whole hysterical "ZOMG how DARE anyone insinuate that the Gardai might have done something like this!!!" is completely unreasonable.
You see you have to have a crime to have a potential suspect.
If we had a crime and if posters were treating Gardai as a potential suspect, then you might have a reasonable point. But instead there is no crime, posters are openly saying the Gardai must have been behind it and that Callinan and Shatter must resign. All based on nothing.
It is possible that a crime has been committed and it is possible that rogue elements of the Gardai are behind it, even possible it was an authorised dark ops (thought we are getting to very low percentage chances here) but there is no evidence for any of the above that anyone here has seen.
The hysterical calls for resignations and casting of blame at the gardai is rather silly.0 -
Fair enough. Would you agree that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that their emails were hacked, contrary to the bald assertion in the original article which claimed that they were?Ah here, this has departed drastically from the point I originally made. I was responding to a post that said "we now know that emails weren't hacked". We know no such thing.
Leaving aside the fact that I haven't seen any such hysterical reaction, I think it's only fair to establish the fact of wrongdoing before rounding up the usual suspects.hatrickpatrick wrote: »I'm not talking about arriving at a conclusion, I'm talking about having suspicions. I do not believe that we can state that the Gardai bugged GSOC and I do not believe that we can state that they did not.
But I do believe that if GSOC were in fact bugged, it is entirely reasonable for people to place the Gardai at the top of the list of potential suspects based on means and motive.
Considering someone a potential suspect is far removed from finding them guilty of a crime, as a jury would - I'm not sure you're comparing like with like there. I'm merely saying that this whole hysterical "ZOMG how DARE anyone insinuate that the Gardai might have done something like this!!!" is completely unreasonable.
As it is, we have calls for root-and-branch reform of AGS. There may be reasons for such reform; if so, let's do it on the basis of those reasons, but doing it because the public suspects the force of something we haven't definitively established even took place - that's ridiculous.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
If it is found that AGS had GSOC under surveillance, I'll be leading the demands for heads to roll. But demanding scalps on the basis that maybe something might have done something... that's not the sort of society I want to live in.
This is the absolutely key point that most people here are missing.0 -
Thank`s for clearing that up for me.
So basically the answer to the question I was asking Phoebas is no, the GSOC have never issued a statement denying media reports that an item or items in a draft document that were not included in the final report to Callinan were subsequently mentioned by him in a meeting with GSOC.
Incredible. Absurd.
John Lennon never issued a statement that he wasn't on the grassy knoll when JFK was killed so it must have been him.0 -
Oscar Bravo, i can see your point, but I think a lot of the speculation has come from the fact that it`s GSOC thats involved, whose sole function is as an oversight body of the Garda, and that the equptment to carry out such an elaborate operation as suggested would require specialist and very expensive equiptment that apparently the Garda have, and by its nature in the hands of people trained in its use, will leave very little trail back to who uses it as regard definitive evidence.
There is some speculation that the army may also have such equiptment, but it`s unlikely they would have any interest in what`s going on in GSOC.
There is also speculation that anyone with half a brain could assemble the required equipment for a five figure sum, putting the so-called operation, if there ever was one, within the capacity of half the population.0 -
-
Its probably worth looking at what they did say:
So GSOC has not expressly stated the rumours about Callinan were untrue? That is what you claimed earlier if I picked you up correctly. I think it was a journalist that wrote it was a senior Garda and not Callinan, maybe quoting GSOC sources.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Fair enough. Would you agree that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that their emails were hacked, contrary to the bald assertion in the original article which claimed that they were?
Not really - and here's why. And I am talking about balance of probabilities here - as I previously argued, if they were surveilled, it would be a very reasonable assumption to believe that their emails were compromised. Then there is the fact that we know that John Mooney isn't regarded as the type of journo who sexes up his articles. We also know that he saw the full Verrimus report. We also know that the MoJ saw the full Verrimus report, and yet in his statement to the Dail, he chose not to say anything about emails, but instead chose to say that the DB wasn't compromised. A lie of omission?
Of course, you are right, there is no evidence in the public domain and we are all trying to make up our own minds about what likely happened, based on what we know so far. I've flip-flopped a couple of times on different aspects as new facts have emerged. I'm actually currently leaning towards there being a possible explanation to the 1am call back based on recent developments. But there is no way we really be any the wiser until the review is completed. And even then, that could turn out to be a waste of time. I would love to see an independent counter-surveillance expert, who knows telephony inside out, review the evidence and investigate GSOC's PABX.0 -
So GSOC has not expressly stated the rumours about Callinan were untrue? That is what you claimed earlier if I picked you up correctly. I think it was a journalist that wrote it was a senior Garda and not Callinan, maybe quoting GSOC sources.
A journalist, having read the leaked Verrimus report, said it was a senior Garda. Others jumped to the conclusion that this meant Callinan.
O'Brien saidin evidence to the Dail Committee that "the final investigation report and the Verrimus documentation make reference to reasons for the sweep that do not accord with my recollection of those reasons."
So using a higher level of proof than any of the other assumptions floating around on this thread, then we can certainly assume that the rumours about Callinan are untrue.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really - and here's why. And I am talking about balance of probabilities here - as I previously argued, if they were surveilled, it would be a very reasonable assumption to believe that their emails were compromised. Then there is the fact that we know that John Mooney isn't regarded as the type of journo who sexes up his articles. We also know that he saw the full Verrimus report. We also know that the MoJ saw the full Verrimus report, and yet in his statement to the Dail, he chose not to say anything about emails, but instead chose to say that the DB wasn't compromised. A lie of omission?
Of course, you are right, there is no evidence in the public domain and we are all trying to make up our own minds about what likely happened, based on what we know so far. I've flip-flopped a couple of times on different aspects as new facts have emerged. I'm actually currently leaning towards there being a possible explanation to the 1am call back based on recent developments. But there is no way we really be any the wiser until the review is completed. And even then, that could turn out to be a waste of time. I would love to see an independent counter-surveillance expert, who knows telephony inside out, review the evidence and investigate GSOC's PABX.
Balance of probabilities?????
Let us assume that all of the external threats identified by Verrimus were real.
Let us assume that there was a bug on the conference phone.
Let us assume that there was a false O2 phone mast thingie that enabled someone to listen in on calls.
How the hell does that mean that their emails were hacked?
Balance of probabilities? More like fantasy.0 -
golfball37 wrote: »On the bugging allegation you are probably correct but it has moved well beyond that now.
Well, this thread is about the GSOC bugging allegation.
There is a separate one for the whistleblower stuff.0 -
Incredible. Absurd.
John Lennon never issued a statement that he wasn't on the grassy knoll when JFK was killed so it must have been him.
I think you may have jumped in there witout following the thread.
Phoebas had inferred that GSOC had denied there was any truth in the reports that Callinan refered to an item or items in a draft report being prepared by GSOC that were not included in the final report he was given.
He didn`t come back to me, so reading the post that you take my quote from, then the answer was no, contrary to the inference by Phoebas, GSOC have not denied this. Simple as that.0 -
Balance of probabilities?????
Let us assume that all of the external threats identified by Verrimus were real.
Let us assume that there was a bug on the conference phone.
Let us assume that there was a false O2 phone mast thingie that enabled someone to listen in on calls.
How the hell does that mean that their emails were hacked?
Balance of probabilities? More like fantasy.
The logic is obvious. If someone had the skillset and equipment necessary to undertake the alleged surveillance, you can bet that they would also be able to hack your emails - and probably did, as it was your communications that they were interested in.0 -
A journalist, having read the leaked Verrimus report, said it was a senior Garda. Others jumped to the conclusion that this meant Callinan.
O'Brien saidin evidence to the Dail Committee that "the final investigation report and the Verrimus documentation make reference to reasons for the sweep that do not accord with my recollection of those reasons."
So using a higher level of proof than any of the other assumptions floating around on this thread, then we can certainly assume that the rumours about Callinan are untrue.
Well stating the most senior Garda in the country would be a bit specific! Seriously, I doubt it is Callinan but seeing the standard of proof expected by some, GSOC has not confirmed it wasn't Callinan, as earlier claimed.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
So GSOC has not expressly stated the rumours about Callinan were untrue? That is what you claimed earlier if I picked you up correctly. I think it was a journalist that wrote it was a senior Garda and not Callinan, maybe quoting GSOC sources.
Well, not exactly - I was responding to this (with the important qualification - that was later dispensed with - bolded).As to GSOC being unaware of any information having got out, was one of the reasons for them hiring Verrimus not because in a meeting with Callinan, he mentioned certain items that had been included in a GSOC draft but weren`t in the final report given to him by GSOC.
Callinan's name wasn't brought into this in any of the official accounts, so I don't think anyone would expect GSOC to to mention him by name at all.
But they have made it explicitly clear, in the briefing document and at the oversight committee, that there was an inaccuracy 'as to the commencement of the investigation' included in the Verrimus report.0 -
The logic is obvious. If someone had the skillset and equipment necessary to undertake the alleged surveillance, you can bet that they would also be able to hack your emails - and probably did, as it was your communications that they were interested in.
On the one side of a continuum there is extrapolation of known facts which is a logical scientific exercise and on the other there is conspiracy theory.
Your point is much closer to CT territory than logic.0 -
Well stating the most senior Garda in the country would be a bit specific! Seriously, I doubt it is Callinan but seeing the standard of proof expected by some, GSOC has not confirmed it wasn't Callinan, as earlier claimed.Well, not exactly - I was responding to this (with the important qualification - that was later dispensed with - bolded).
Callinan's name wasn't brought into this in any of the official accounts, so I don't think anyone would expect GSOC to to mention him by name at all.
But they have made it explicitly clear, in the briefing document and at the oversight committee, that there was an inaccuracy 'as to the commencement of the investigation' included in the Verrimus report.
The statement to the Dail Committee is clearer than anything else on this issue.0 -
There is also speculation that anyone with half a brain could assemble the required equipment for a five figure sum, putting the so-called operation, if there ever was one, within the capacity of half the population.
That may or not be true, but the problem a lot of people are having is that GSOCs only function is as an oversight authority of the Garda
.Not unreasonable that people are asking who would gain from using such equiptment. If this was a criminal investigation by the Garda would`they not put themselves high on the suspect list?0 -
Advertisement
-
One of the suspicious things about all this is how gsoc avoid making any allegation themselves. they don't have to take responibility for or stand over any individual piece of the jigsaw. Yet conveniently each piece appearing in perfect choreography in the public domain. Great plausable deniability.0
Advertisement