Gardaí can examine calls, texts, social media, photos, videos on journalist’s phone,

bobbyy gee

Gardaí can examine calls, texts, social media, photos, videos on journalist’s phone, court rules
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda%C3%AD-can-examine-calls-texts-social-media-photos-videos-on-journalist-s-phone-court-rules-1.4352512?mode=amp

Gael23

GDPR regulations would say different.

Quantum Erasure

Would they though?

Wanderer78

Quantum Erasure wrote:

Would they though?

I've had the experience of a guard searching through my phone, and it was illegal at the time

Jim Root

Are you trying to make a point?

Mrs OBumble

Gael23 wrote: »

GDPR regulations would say different.

Since when did GDPR apply to criminal investigations?

Jim Root

Gael23 wrote: »

GDPR regulations would say different.

What does the R in GDPR stand for?

blade1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Since when did GDPR apply to criminal investigations?

No need for an alibi anymore. :pac:

JustAThought

Jim Root wrote: »

What does the R in GDPR stand for?

regulation.

OP this has been the case for YEARS and yes - gardaíuse it casually and without consequence.

NUJ have known and gad complaints about it for years and do nothing. Not even an article ... go figure...

Gael23

Gael23 wrote: »

GDPR regulations would say different.

How and why considering the high court has found the district court warrant to be valid?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've had the experience of a guard searching through my phone, and it was illegal at the time

And how does this relate to the case in question?

Wanderer78

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How and why considering the high court has found the district court warrant to be valid?




And how does this relate to the case in question?

we both have superpowers, or something

bobbyy gee

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Gardaí can examine calls, texts, social media, photos, videos on journalist’s phone, court rules
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda%C3%AD-can-examine-calls-texts-social-media-photos-videos-on-journalist-s-phone-court-rules-1.4352512?mode=amp

On ONE journalists phone and only between specific dates, in the investigation of suspected criminal activity.

This ruling is subject to judicial review.

If it’s an iPhone he can remote wipe it if he really wanted to stop them getting access.

Capt'n Midnight

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Gardaí can examine calls, texts, social media, photos, videos on journalist’s phone, court rules
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda%C3%AD-can-examine-calls-texts-social-media-photos-videos-on-journalist-s-phone-court-rules-1.4352512?mode=amp

It's a very limited ruling. They can only look at one particular week on one particular phone.
And it's a High Court ruling.

A High Court judge has ruled gardaí are entitled to carry out a limited examination of the contents of a mobile phone seized from the home of a provincial newspaper editor as part of their investigation into a violent incident at a repossessed house in Co Roscommon.

The ruling means gardaí can access calls, texts, social media messages, photos, videos and other information on the phone between December 11th and 17th 2018.

Meanwhile Google/Apple, the mobile phone maker, the telco's, and many of the apps get 24/7 access to practically everything they can access. Five eyes and Huawei and Cisco and Ericisson and other network people also get to look at the traffic.

JasonStatham

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Gardaí can examine calls, texts, social media, photos, videos on journalist’s phone, court rules
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda%C3%AD-can-examine-calls-texts-social-media-photos-videos-on-journalist-s-phone-court-rules-1.4352512?mode=amp

This is why you have two phones, one without a sim card so you can keep that separate from your official phone ....and your wife

Ah just kidding about that last bit haha.

SnowyMay

Coen Delightful Termination wrote: »

If it’s an iPhone he can remote wipe it if he really wanted to stop them getting access.

He can’t actually. The phone is turned off, and would be forensically imaged without it ever getting connected to a network. The image of whatever is in scope within the relevant date period would be examined.

mynamejeff

why should a person be allowed to be involved in a crime or criminality just be case they claim to be a journalist (the guy I the article is a shyster and well known as such )

depends on why the phone was seized also ,

section 10 warrant CLA or section 26 MDA warrant or even a search under section 23 MDA means that anything hat is found can be searched or seized .

the problem is that security on phones is gone to the point that law enforcement cant get access with out the owners assistance

without police access to cellsite tech there would be quite a few murderers walking the streets who are locked up now

help full in missing persons cases also

Potential-Monke

Yeah, to me it sounds like he was trying to use journalistic privilege to hide some dodgy content on his phone. That's just what it reads like to me anyway...

Rod82

I recently read an article about this and from what it said I think what happened was:

Journalist got phone call either before or as damage was being done to house
Journalist took his phone out and started recording incident
He later claimed privilege over phone contents but supplied copy of footage to Gardaí
Gardaí obviously wanted/needed original footage for investigation
Court ruled they could access information limited to very specific time of incident.

GarIT

If the journalist isn't suspected of a crime it doesn't seem right to me.

jimmycrackcorm

GarIT wrote: »

If the journalist isn't suspected of a crime it doesn't seem right to me.

He had knowledge of a crime about to be committed.

Rod82

GarIT wrote: »

If the journalist isn't suspected of a crime it doesn't seem right to me.

In my opinion, someone's property was damaged, the merits of the incident itself is up for debate. I presume due to the public nature of what happened, the guards have to be seen to be following the correct procedure in relation to gathering evidence. They knew this journalist had video evidence of the crime being committed and they therefore used a valid procedure i.e the search warrant, to gather that evidence in the correct manner. I think when people read into the way it was done then I don't think there is much to complain about. If this was years ago and he took the footage with a camcorder and the camcorder was seized I don't think there would be any issue.

GarIT

Rod82 wrote: »

In my opinion, someone's property was damaged, the merits of the incident itself is up for debate. I presume due to the public nature of what happened, the guards have to be seen to be following the correct procedure in relation to gathering evidence. They knew this journalist had video evidence of the crime being committed and they therefore used a valid procedure i.e the search warrant, to gather that evidence in the correct manner. I think when people read into the way it was done then I don't think there is much to complain about. If this was years ago and he took the footage with a camcorder and the camcorder was seized I don't think there would be any issue.

I can understand why it was done. I'm not sure I agree with it being done. I accept that is is within the law. I don't accept that it should be within the law.



I keep highly personal things on my phone. If my phone was searched tomorrow the gardaí would find nudes from a woman who hasn't consented to those nudes being seen by anyone else and details of the sexual interests of the same person else which I'm sure she doesn't want being read.


A phone is a highly personal thing. I don't agree that a warrant should be allowed be applied to the phone of someone who isn't suspected of a crime.


I'd be less sensitive about a camcorder but I guess that could have similar content. I don't think anyone should be seizable from someone who isn't a suspect, if they offer it, great, if not evidence needs to be found elsewhere or not if that's the case.

SnowyMay

SnowyMay wrote: »

He can’t actually. The phone is turned off, and would be forensically imaged without it ever getting connected to a network. The image of whatever is in scope within the relevant date period would be examined.

They won’t, not if it’s an iPhone anyway as they are encrypted and impossible to access like this. Apple have rightly refused requests from CIA, FBI etc to decrypt phones in the US so no chance the Gardai can access it.

Even If the phone has a keypad lock they will be unable to access nothing anything but they could force him to unlock it but if it’s remote wiped it will be erased once turned on.

It’s not the movies police cannot just magically access devices in seconds.

GarIT

SnowyMay wrote: »

He can’t actually. The phone is turned off, and would be forensically imaged without it ever getting connected to a network. The image of whatever is in scope within the relevant date period would be examined.

Yeah that's Sci-Fi talk, there isn't really any such thing. For hard drives sure, but almost all phones in the last couple of years have encryption chips that prevent anything on the storage being copied. Even if they didn't have that, standard encryption is enough to keep the Gardaí out.



The gardai don't have access to any technonology that isn't available to the public.

SnowyMay

Coen Delightful Termination wrote: »

They won’t, not if it’s an iPhone anyway as they are encrypted and impossible to access like this. Apple have rightly refused requests from CIA, FBI etc to decrypt phones in the US so no chance the Gardai can access it.

Even If the phone has a keypad lock they will be unable to access nothing anything but they could force him to unlock it but if it’s remote wiped it will be erased once turned on.

It’s not the movies police cannot just magically access devices in seconds.

GarIT wrote: »

Yeah that's Sci-Fi talk, there isn't really any such thing. For hard drives sure, but almost all phones in the last couple of years have encryption chips that prevent anything on the storage being copied. Even if they didn't have that, standard encryption is enough to keep the Gardaí out.



The gardai don't have access to any technonology that isn't available to the public.

Guys. I was responding to a post saying that the phone can be wiped remotely. This isn’t a possibility unless the phone can get onto a digital network.

iPhones are notoriously difficult to access without the passcode (although from iOS 11, the iTunes backup password means nothing as it can be reset through the phone’s settings). But, we would need the passcode for the phone generally (unless is it has a Mobile Device Management Profile controlled by an accepted and willing entity, in which case, in a controlled environment, the passcode may (and I say *may*) be removed.)

Excepting a situation where a device may need its passcode removed (if possible), any initial actions will be taken in a Faraday enclosure until we are sure that the phone has no access to the outside world.

If you’re interested, feel free to ask me some questions. I work in digital forensics and have imaged more phones than I care to remember.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

The gardai don't have access to any technonology that isn't available to the public.

yes, yes they do. All law enforcement have access restricted to that field.

Apple however being assholes, charge a lot for it

SnowyMay

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

yes, yes they do. All law enforcement have access restricted to that field.

Apple however being assholes, charge a lot for it

In fairness, it’s not Apple doing the charging (albeit, they don’t make it easy). Good specialized hard and software for imaging tools is expensive. I could buy some for my own personal use if I felt like dropping ~€60k.

Apple doesn’t share its encryption tactics, so it’s like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass - running as hard as you can to keep up.

Not just Apple. WhatsApp, Threema, many applications with built in encryption have to be broken by the imaging tools. Until the next update.

SnowyMay

SnowyMay wrote: »

In fairness, it’s not Apple doing the charging (albeit, they don’t make it easy). Good specialized hard and software for imaging tools is expensive. I could buy some for my own personal use if I felt like dropping ~€60k.

Apple doesn’t share its encryption tactics, so it’s like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass - running as hard as you can to keep up.

Not just Apple. WhatsApp, Threema, many applications with built in encryption have to be broken by the imaging tools. Until the next update.

Apple will grant certain access through their encryption for a price though. Whereas Android systems offer an annual law enforcement license, apple restrict the license and charge based on the amount of access requests.

Major cases only as a result. In Ireland anyway, the us might not be so restricted financially.

SnowyMay

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Apple will grant certain access through their encryption for a price though. Whereas Android systems offer an annual law enforcement license, apple restrict the license and charge based on the amount of access requests.

Major cases only as a result. In Ireland anyway, the us might not be so restricted financially.

You must know more than me Niner! Any examples re. Apple? Talking about device passcode encryption.

Dempo1

Good, I've long been fascinated at why Journalists feel they have a unique position in society, above reproach, sense of entitlement etc. Why aren't they subject to the same laws and rules as us humble ordinary citizens Whilst I have reservations about carte blanch garda accessing anyone's private information, I don't have an issue if proven and court orders applicable, why Gardai can't access what's required in the course of a ligitimate investigation.