Prison Whistleblower Next, >>>> Alleges personnel/prisoners being bugged.

McMurphy

Mick Clifford on this, so expect it to have a decent amount of substance behind the claims.

He claims Charlie Flanagan has been handed a sworn affidavit from a serving prison officer with various claims such as solicitors and prisoners being bugged, unknown to either person. Private individuals vehicles having being tracked, and various other surveillance tactics were carried out without the required legal permits and requirements.

From the examiner.

• Tracking devices were placed on a number of prison service vehicles and in the private cars of prison officers;
• The drivers of the prison vehicles, and the prison officers whose private cars were tracked, were unaware of the surveillance;
• Some of these devices remained in place over a long period and intelligence gathered passed onto An Garda Sh;
• Listening devices were placed in the visitor area of one prison to gather information. These devices were in situ for extended periods. In some instances, these devices were in place when prisoners had conversations with their solicitors;
• The private detective agency was employed to install listening and tracking devices in order to shield the prison service from any legal repercussions that would attach if it had been done directly;
• A van containing drugs and telephones, associated with a major criminal gang, was allowed into prison campus without the knowledge of the governor and staff in that prison. The personnel in the van were subsequently arrested but the covert operation was contrary to all security procedure at the prison;
• Personnel from the private detective agency were provided with false identities to enter the prison and install covert surveillance cameras. The images from the cameras were beamed to another location despite obvious security concerns about such images falling into the hands of criminals.

Full story here

I wonder who sanctioned these surveillance operations (If true)?

This could be extremely serious stuff.

uptherebels

Just wondering, how much of difference is there in the prison service doing it themselves v getting someone to do it on their behalf?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Mick Clifford on this, so expect it to have a decent amount of substance behind the claims.

He claims Charlie Flanagan has been handed a sworn affidavit from a serving prison officer with various claims such as solicitors and prisoners being bugged, unknown to either person. Private individuals vehicles having being tracked, and various other surveillance tactics were carried out without the required legal permits and requirements.

From the examiner.

• Tracking devices were placed on a number of prison service vehicles and in the private cars of prison officers;
• The drivers of the prison vehicles, and the prison officers whose private cars were tracked, were unaware of the surveillance;
• Some of these devices remained in place over a long period and intelligence gathered passed onto An Garda Sh;
• Listening devices were placed in the visitor area of one prison to gather information. These devices were in situ for extended periods. In some instances, these devices were in place when prisoners had conversations with their solicitors;
• The private detective agency was employed to install listening and tracking devices in order to shield the prison service from any legal repercussions that would attach if it had been done directly;
• A van containing drugs and telephones, associated with a major criminal gang, was allowed into prison campus without the knowledge of the governor and staff in that prison. The personnel in the van were subsequently arrested but the covert operation was contrary to all security procedure at the prison;
• Personnel from the private detective agency were provided with false identities to enter the prison and install covert surveillance cameras. The images from the cameras were beamed to another location despite obvious security concerns about such images falling into the hands of criminals.

Full story here

I wonder who sanctioned these surveillance operations (If true)?

This could be extremely serious stuff.

Is it Garda Harrison stuff or Garda McCabe stuff?

Grayson

That's a weird URL.
Edit: seems to be a mobile url generator the companies use.

gctest50

Grayson wrote: »

That's a weird URL.
Edit: seems to be a mobile url generator the companies use.

Google AMP

AMP allows Google to basically take over hosting the web as well. The Google AMP Cache will serve AMP pages instead of a website’s own hosting environment, and also allow Google to perform their own optimisations to further enhance user experience.

As a side benefit, it also allows Google full control over content monetisation. No more rogue ad networks, no more malicious ads, all monetisation approved and regulated by Google. If anything happens that falls outside of the AMP standard’s restrictions, the page in question simply becomes AMP-invalid and is ejected from the AMP cache – and subsequently from Google’s results. At that point the page might as well not exist any mor

cursai

blanch152 wrote: »

Is it Garda Harrison stuff or Garda McCabe stuff?

One and the same. No substance.