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
-
I can't help wondering if Shatter's "no evidence of bugging" is just a clever play on words. "Bugging" in his context could mean active spying - what they found on the phone line could imply the mechanism is there, they just couldn't prove that somebody was actually using it at the time. Bit like if a gun was found mounted on a rooftop near a minister's office, but they could say "there's no evidence of a sniper" because they didn't find an actual person standing behind it at that moment. Just a theory, seems plausible enough though given what we now know.
If so, Shatter has effectively used clever language to mislead the Dail, probably in such a way that he can't be attacked for it, but sneakily all the same. I'm rapidly losing any ounce of respect I ever had for this guy, and the rest of the government not far behind. Their response to this whole mess has been absolutely outrageous.0 -
-
GSOC discovered nothing. The security company found no major anomalies and it is probable that there was no outside interference. In order to justify their 18k fee, they had to show they found some minor things that might need checking.
What happened after that was that GSOC used some minor information to blacken with innuendo the Garda Siochana.
What information do you have, superior to that found by Verrimus, that the "anomaly" found on the GSOC phone line was in fact due to chance or random factors?
Can you cite specific examples of where the GSOC tried to discredit AGS? Quotes please.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I can't help wondering if Shatter's "no evidence of bugging" is just a clever play on words. "Bugging" in his context could mean active spying - what they found on the phone line could imply the mechanism is there, they just couldn't prove that somebody was actually using it at the time. Bit like if a gun was found mounted on a rooftop near a minister's office, but they could say "there's no evidence of a sniper" because they didn't find an actual person standing behind it at that moment. Just a theory, seems plausible enough though given what we now know.
If so, Shatter has effectively used clever language to mislead the Dail, probably in such a way that he can't be attacked for it, but sneakily all the same. I'm rapidly losing any ounce of respect I ever had for this guy, and the rest of the government not far behind. Their response to this whole mess has been absolutely outrageous.
"could imply" is implausible at best, not likely in most people's language.
Yet you use this implausible scenario to conclude that Shatter has misled the Dail!! Incredible.
I am beginning to wonder when the politics board turned into the conspiracy theory board.0 -
The single instance of a call coming through on that line occurred just after Verrimus performed their test. They said there was virtually no chance that this single event was coincidental, which raises the simple question "Could it have been a direct result of the test they had just carried out?"
I presume Verrimus go about their business in a 'forensic' fashion, ie they use scientific hypothesis testing.
My understanding is that they tested the integrity of the phone line by simulating a fault. An incoming signal was received subsequently, the nature of which led them to conclude that it was most likely not a random occurrence (close to zero probability).
This level of doubt regarding the security of the GSOC phones was enough to cause concern.
Of course, now I'm wondering whether Verrimus also sells secure phone systems!0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about there - could you give some more detail about what you know please?
Sure.
So, one single anomaly (the phone actually ringing) immediately after the test.Alan Shatter wrote:The second potential issue related to the conference call telephone in the Chairman’s office which was subject to a number of tests. One of the tests involved sending an audio signal down the telephone line. Immediately after this transmission, the conference phone line rang. GSOC conducted a number of checks to establish the source of this telephone call, but was unable to do so. Further checks revealed no additional anomalies or matters of concern. There is no evidence of which I am aware from my meeting with the Chairman of GSOC of any phone call made or received being compromised.
And no further anomalies found.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »Depends on what you regard as evidence of bugging. The ultimate evidence would be something along the lines of tapes, transcripts etc.
Kieran Fitzgerald concurred with Alan Shatter regarding there being "no evidence". Saying there is no evidence is dryly factual. However, the key message, in my view, is that Verrimus concluded that there was close to zero probability that the "anomaly" on the phone line was due to chance or random factors.
I presume GSOC has no alternative but to rely on the Verrimus report.Iwannahurl wrote: »I presume Verrimus go about their business in a 'forensic' fashion, ie they use scientific hypothesis testing.
My understanding is that they tested the integrity of the phone line by simulating a fault. An incoming signal was received subsequently, the nature of which led them to conclude that it was most likely not a random occurrence (close to zero probability).
This level of doubt regarding the security of the GSOC phones was enough to cause concern.
Of course, now I'm wondering whether Verrimus also sells secure phone systems!
You presume and you understand about Verrimus but you haven't seen their report. You don't know their methods and you don't know whether they sell secure phone systems.
They do sell products
http://www.verrimus.co.uk/products/
You know their report could have been along the lines of we saw something strange but we are not sure what caused it, it is unlikely to be a random occurrence but in order to ensure that you are fully protected you should buy this product.
Now that is hardly evidence of bugging.0 -
If the GSOC found credible evidence of bugging, they should have reported it to the Gardai. They are not above the law.
As was pointed out on Prime Time last night, GSOC can, when it deems necessary, assume the same powers that the Gardai have. They had absolutely no obligation to inform the Gardai, and if they had, it would have been an utterly ridiculous law.If they didn't find credible evidence, they shouldn't have leaked blaming the Gardai.
Nobody knows who leaked it - GSOC would have no motivation for doing so. Furthermore, when the leak occurred, GSOC did not blame the Gardai.Shatter's statement is devastating to those conspiracy theorists who believed the Gardai were bugging the GSOC.
GSOC's remarks on Prime Time are devastating to those who take what Shatter said at face value, alternatively. Depends entirely on one's point of view.I am surprised the Ombudsman is still in his job this morning.
I'm astounded that Shatter is still in his job myself. This is the latest in a long line of incidents which raise serious questions about him - in my view, he should have been out the door over that outrageous Mick Wallace incident. In any civilized government, he would have been.0 -
"could imply" is implausible at best, not likely in most people's language.
Yet you use this implausible scenario to conclude that Shatter has misled the Dail!! Incredible.
I am beginning to wonder when the politics board turned into the conspiracy theory board.
I'm merely comparing the remarks made on Prime Time to the remarks made by Shatter. Do the same yourself - what conclusions do you arrive at?
EDIT: You accuse me of using an implausible scenario and then you go on to say that Verrimus misled the Ombudsman in order to con them into buying security products! Which one of us is making fanciful claims?0 -
1. GSOC complains that AGS are not cooperating with investigations.
2. Some members AGS found complicit by Smithwick in collusion with Provos.
3. GSOC investigating major cases including links with major drug dealers.
4. GSOC discover something serious enough to call in overseas security specialists to check offices.
4. Internationally recognised firm finds 3 major anomalies that point towards surveillance being carried out by government level equipment and expertise.
5. GSOC are left with the option of asking the people who they feel would have strong motives for carrying out the bugging to now investigate the bugging.
6. GSOC leak info to respected journalist and paper who have less links with AGS than some i.e. not former editors of Garda review etc.
7,8,9,10 government respond by ignoring alleged bugging and demand to know why they weren't told. AGS demand to know why they weren't informed of an alleged crime that they are suspected of committing. Indo demands to know why an English firm was used. Usual crime journos back the AGS by saying that it was some junkies from Fatima Mansions who done it. Independent inquiry called for by legal industry. GSOC to be relocated to Garda headquarters in Phoenix park so that AGS can better protect them from bugging in the future....
Ireland remains the most northly banana republic in the world.
Having spent time in Africa I completely agree with that assessment.0 -
Advertisement
-
You presume and you understand about Verrimus but you haven't seen their report. You don't know their methods and you don't know whether they sell secure phone systems.
They do sell products
http://www.verrimus.co.uk/products/
You know their report could have been along the lines of we saw something strange but we are not sure what caused it, it is unlikely to be a random occurrence but in order to ensure that you are fully protected you should buy this product.
Now that is hardly evidence of bugging.
To repeat my earlier questions:
What information do you have, superior to that found by Verrimus, that the "anomaly" found on the GSOC phone line was in fact due to chance or random factors?
Can you cite specific examples of where the GSOC tried to discredit AGS? Quotes please.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »To repeat my earlier questions:
What information do you have, superior to that found by Verrimus, that the "anomaly" found on the GSOC phone line was in fact due to chance or random factors?.
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/20140210PR.htm
"It confirmed the existence of three technical and electronic anomalies. These could not be conclusively explained and raised concerns among the investigation team in terms of the integrity of GSOC’s communications security. However GSOC is satisfied that its databases were not compromised. Since the investigation concluded, we have been working to review and enhance our security systems in the light of what the investigation revealed."
That is all that is in the public domain from the GSOC. For the rest we are reliant on leaks, rumours, allegations. Perhaps the Sunday Times and other newspapers have the report and are accurately quoting from it but without the full report there is no way of knowing whether it is selective quoting or whether the full context is being given.
Now we have Shatter's statement:
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/02/statement-by-the-minister-for-justice-and-equality-alan-shatter-td-on-allegations-of-surveillance-of-offices-of-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission/?cat=3
"In other words, it has not been established that the offices of the Ombudsman Commission were subject to surveillance. Some public comment has proceeded on the basis that it is an established fact that the offices of the Commission were bugged when clearly it is not."
Right so the established facts differ from what you are saying.
" I should emphasise that my understanding is that what was at issue were potential threats or vulnerabilities, not evidence that surveillance had, in fact, taken place."
So it was potential vulnerabilities. Similar to my wifi password not being strong enough. That is a potential vulnerability. If a security company came along and showed me that they could hack my wifi password in two minutes, that is evidence of a vulnerability, but not evidence that my wifi had been hacked.
"The second potential issue related to the conference call telephone in the Chairman’s office which was subject to a number of tests. One of the tests involved sending an audio signal down the telephone line. Immediately after this transmission, the conference phone line rang. GSOC conducted a number of checks to establish the source of this telephone call, but was unable to do so. Further checks revealed no additional anomalies or matters of concern. There is no evidence of which I am aware from my meeting with the Chairman of GSOC of any phone call made or received being compromised."
The Gardai could have traced the call if asked. If it turned out to be some randomer trying to order a snack box from the local chipper but dialling a wrong number, all of this could have been put to rest months ago. Now where, in any public statement, have you got the information on what was found by Verrimus?Iwannahurl wrote: »Can you cite specific examples of where the GSOC tried to discredit AGS? Quotes please.
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/20140210PR.htm
"There was no evidence of Garda misconduct"
If I had been writing this I would have written:
"There was no evidence of GSOC information having been accessed by any security services whether internal or external to this state. Neither can we conclude that there was any involvement by criminal elements".
We know that there are a number of agencies who could technically have accessed the vulnerabilities both ours and those in the North. We would suspect that certain cyber-criminals would also have the capability but that is an unknown number. Yet the GSOC singled out the Gardai in their statement. If they weren't trying to discredit the Gardai, they were either stupid, foolish or naive.
I would confidently state therefore that if the GSOC were not trying to discredit the Gardai, they were either stupid, foolish or naive, any of which gives rise to a level of incompetence that requires the resignation of the chairman.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »To repeat my earlier questions:
What information do you have, superior to that found by Verrimus, that the "anomaly" found on the GSOC phone line was in fact due to chance or random factors?
Can you cite specific examples of where the GSOC tried to discredit AGS? Quotes please.
Iwannahurl . What findings are you referring to? The consultants did not find anything conclusive.
Are you presenting guesswork as fact?0 -
I think the statement by GSOC - "There was no evidence of Garda misconduct" is the most telling statement of all.
They didn't say for e.g. 'There was never any suspicion of Garda misconduct'.0 -
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/20140210PR.htm
"It confirmed the existence of three technical and electronic anomalies. These could not be conclusively explained and raised concerns among the investigation team in terms of the integrity of GSOC’s communications security. However GSOC is satisfied that its databases were not compromised. Since the investigation concluded, we have been working to review and enhance our security systems in the light of what the investigation revealed."
That is all that is in the public domain from the GSOC. For the rest we are reliant on leaks, rumours, allegations.
I take it you missed Prime Time last night, then?O’Callaghan: “What were the credible threats?”
Fitzgerald: “The credible threats were three-fold. One was a piece of equipment which was connecting to an external network, a wi-fi device. Now it should have been activated by a password, in actual fact it was activated, seemingly, without the need for a password and transmitting. It did not compromise our data, it did not connect with out internal security. But, having found it, we certainly needed to take it very, very seriously. That was one. The second was more worrying, it was a conference call telephone, a conference call facility that we use, not infrequently, and that was tested, and the test showed up what we called, in our first report, an anomaly, but it showed up something that gave them cause for concern and their judgement was that the strange behaviour of this device, in response to their test, was such that, it could have been coincidental, it could be accidental, it could be explained away but they rated in their report the possibility of it being coincidental as close to zero.”
O’Callaghan: “And the third one?”
Fitzgerald: “And the third one was a sophisticated piece of equipment that does sweeps of buildings, from an external, it doesn’t have to be in a building, just in the vicinity and that can, if you like, attack mobile phones and mobile devices.”
And then the following:O’Callaghan: “OK but on one of the anomalies you just mentioned, you said the likelihood, you know, that it’s an innocent thing was remote to zero, the possibility?”
Fitzgerald: “Well that’s what was reported to us, exactly.”
That's substantially more in the public domain from GSOC than you were implying above. Either you didn't get a chance to watch Prime Time, you don't regard the commissioner's remarks as worthy of being attributed to GSOC, or you are willfully ignoring that interview.0 -
1.National newspaper with former editor of internal AGS magazine as it's current editor, who a car registered to had penalty points quashed and who fired a respected journalist because she had the temerity to question the commissioner over having points quashed comes out and blames GSOC for being bugged.
2. Security editor of said paper who's very lively hood is reliant on his ability to get info from Gardai comes out in support of AGS and blames GSOC.
3. Minister misquotes law and states that GSOC should have informed him that nothing had happened during a non routine security sweep that was done because they didn't suspect anything.
3. GSOC are now, just like the whistleblowers and dail deputies who dared question Gardai dragged through the mud and publicly ridiculed.
Lesson for GSOC is, yes we will tolerate you, yes you can prosecute the odd poor 5/8th who might use his baton once too often during a heated battle on a Saturday night, but if you decide to start investigating some of the brightest stars in Harcourt Square who were tipped for the top and who just protected a major drug importer to further their careers and numerous others, then we'll come after you.
It's probably just a coincidence that these senior Gardai being investigated would include former senior members of the national surveillance unit, one of the 2 units in the state with the ability to carry out the alleged bugging (the other being the military)
Despite all these coincidences though I still believe that rogue elements within the dept of agriculture carried out the bugging that didn't happen.0 -
.https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/20140210PR.htm
"It confirmed the existence of three technical and electronic anomalies. These could not be conclusively explained and raised concerns among the investigation team in terms of the integrity of GSOC’s communications security. However GSOC is satisfied that its databases were not compromised. Since the investigation concluded, we have been working to review and enhance our security systems in the light of what the investigation revealed."
That is all that is in the public domain from the GSOC. For the rest we are reliant on leaks, rumours, allegations. Perhaps the Sunday Times and other newspapers have the report and are accurately quoting from it but without the full report there is no way of knowing whether it is selective quoting or whether the full context is being given.
Now we have Shatter's statement:
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/02/statement-by-the-minister-for-justice-and-equality-alan-shatter-td-on-allegations-of-surveillance-of-offices-of-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission/?cat=3
"In other words, it has not been established that the offices of the Ombudsman Commission were subject to surveillance. Some public comment has proceeded on the basis that it is an established fact that the offices of the Commission were bugged when clearly it is not."
Right so the established facts differ from what you are saying.
" I should emphasise that my understanding is that what was at issue were potential threats or vulnerabilities, not evidence that surveillance had, in fact, taken place."
So it was potential vulnerabilities. Similar to my wifi password not being strong enough. That is a potential vulnerability. If a security company came along and showed me that they could hack my wifi password in two minutes, that is evidence of a vulnerability, but not evidence that my wifi had been hacked.
"The second potential issue related to the conference call telephone in the Chairman’s office which was subject to a number of tests. One of the tests involved sending an audio signal down the telephone line. Immediately after this transmission, the conference phone line rang. GSOC conducted a number of checks to establish the source of this telephone call, but was unable to do so. Further checks revealed no additional anomalies or matters of concern. There is no evidence of which I am aware from my meeting with the Chairman of GSOC of any phone call made or received being compromised."
The Gardai could have traced the call if asked. If it turned out to be some randomer trying to order a snack box from the local chipper but dialling a wrong number, all of this could have been put to rest months ago. Now where, in any public statement, have you got the information on what was found by Verrimus?
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/20140210PR.htm
"There was no evidence of Garda misconduct"
If I had been writing this I would have written:
"There was no evidence of GSOC information having been accessed by any security services whether internal or external to this state. Neither can we conclude that there was any involvement by criminal elements".
We know that there are a number of agencies who could technically have accessed the vulnerabilities both ours and those in the North. We would suspect that certain cyber-criminals would also have the capability but that is an unknown number. Yet the GSOC singled out the Gardai in their statement. If they weren't trying to discredit the Gardai, they were either stupid, foolish or naive.
I would confidently state therefore that if the GSOC were not trying to discredit the Gardai, they were either stupid, foolish or naive, any of which gives rise to a level of incompetence that requires the resignation of the chairman.
You go to the doctor with a lump on your neck and he tells you that all the signs point to it being cancer. You ask him what are the chances of all those signs being a coincidence, to which he replies, close to zero.
Do you go home thinking "I've probably got cancer" or "I'm glad he didn't tell me I had cancer".
Sorry about the morbid analogy but by ignoring the statement by the chairman last night you must be malicious in your intentions.0 -
^^ I usually find that when people choose to use analogy when the thing they are analogising is quite straightforward, its usually they that are malicious in their intentions.0
-
^^ I usually find that when people choose to use analogy when the thing they are analogising is quite straightforward, its usually they that are malicious in their intentions.
I usually find that when people choose to ignore a very obvious point in a debate they usually have a reason for doing so.0 -
.
You go to the doctor with a lump on your neck and he tells you that all the signs point to it being cancer. You ask him what are the chances of all those signs being a coincidence, to which he replies, close to zero.
Do you go home thinking "I've probably got cancer" or "I'm glad he didn't tell me I had cancer".
Sorry about the morbid analogy but by ignoring the statement by the chairman last night you must be malicious in your intentions.
I have another analogy - An office manager goes to a tech consultant and asks him to find evidence of bugging. He finds nothing conclusive but points out some security flaws in three different areas as you would expect in a standard office and for 17000Euro. The office manager asks "are you sure we weren't bugged" . The consultant says - "I wouldn't rule it out ". The story gets in the hands of vested interests (politicians , journalists , press officers for political parties ). Fake stories with no basis in fact start to appear all over the place.
Oops that's not an analogy -0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8079
Taoiseach Orders Report on ‘Confidential Recipient and Whistleblower Conversation’
This is all related. Explosive stuff if verified. It is totally unacceptable that the Confidential Recipient, who was appointed by Minister Shatter and is one of his political donors, would try and discourage a whistle-blower from coming forward.
A quote from the transcript that is doing the rounds:… if the stuff was to get out into the public, the print media, it must come with what happens in the courtroom. I’ll tell you something, Maurice, and this is just personal advice to you, if Shatter thinks you’re screwing him, you’re finished.0 -
I have another analogy - An office manager goes to a tech consultant and asks him to find evidence of bugging. He finds nothing conclusive but points out some security flaws in three different areas as you would expect in a standard office and for 17000Euro. The office manager asks "are you sure we weren't bugged" . The consultant says - "I wouldn't rule it out ". The story gets in the hands of vested interests (politicians , journalists , press officers for political parties ). Fake stories with no basis in fact start to appear all over the place.
Oops that's not an analogy -
Nor is it correct. The things pointed out were not security flaws, but anomalies - that is, things that shouldn't have been there, could have been used for surveillance, and had no other explanation.
Evidence that you have been under surveillance is almost impossible to get. Mostly, the only way you know you've been under surveillance is that the attacker tells you, one way or another, such as by releasing all your files into the public domain.
We're no longer in the era of physical bugs in most cases and places. Network intrusion, listening to mobile phones, line taps, none of these things are physical, none of them leave physical evidence. There isn't a little tape recorder under the desk any more.
There was wireless equipment in the GSOC office that should not have been transmitting, and was. There was a phone line which was almost certainly tapped. That's about as solid as it gets, but, again, once the data goes out onto the net, you can't really follow it beyond the first stop, so you can't show that there's anybody at the other end.
Asking for definite evidence of surveillance involves misunderstanding the technicalities of modern electronic surveillance. In some cases that misunderstanding may well be willful.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
What was said on Prime Time by the GSOC:"One was a piece of equipment that was connecting to an external network. A wifi device. It should have been activated by a password. In actual fact it activated without a password. And transmitting. It did not compromise our data, did not connect with our internal security but having found it we certainly needed to take it very very seriously.
The second was more worrying was a conference call telephone, a conference call facility, that we use not infrequently, and that was tested and the testing showed what we thought - our consultants thought were anomalies but it showed something that gave us cause for concern, and their judgment was the strange behaviour of this device - the response to the test - was that it could have been coincidental, could be accidental, could be explained away but they rated in their report the possibility of it being coincidental as close to zero.
And the third one was a sophisticated piece of equipment that sweeps the building from an external - it doesn't have to be in the building just in the vicinity and that can if you like attack mobile phones and other devices."
Those are not just potential security flaws which could, you know, do with tightening up at some future time, and which have other innocent explanations. You don't have IMSI-Catchers lying around the place. And when you have all three pieces together, the chances that each of them has a separate and innocent explanation drops to very close to zero. As they say, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
As mentioned earlier, I think some of the parties calling for evidence and reporting of any alleged crime are more than aware of the fact that physical evidence is non existent in these types cases.
I would also venture that the ST has vast experience in breaking major stories like this and would have solid evidence to back up all claims. I expect that next Sundays paper will provide further evidence and that minister Shatter will probably be returning to his private practice by the end of the month.0 -
-
There was a phone line which was almost certainly tapped.
This is the issue I am having with the discourse, there are points being presented as "almost certain" when there is no conclusive evidence of this at all.
Even the ombudsmen themselves are not consistent.
I am no fan of the Ombudsman, Shatter , the Gardaí, Journalists Enda Kenny, and definitely not FF all of whom are out of their depth in the technology,
The report should be published to remove all of the guessing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement