New Garda powers to allow access to mobile phones, changes to ‘stop and search’

pioneerpro

sprucemoose wrote: »

i was waiting till someone threw out one of these quotes which are usually either out of context or just made up https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1623677475480 have a read of that

'One of these quotes' 'Usually made up' - God save us from the NPR 'Intellectuals'

It's a derivation of a quote in Poor Richard's Almanac, for which Franklin was the editor. The 1738 Poor Richard's precursor was:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

All the "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." has to do with is Franklin pointing out that the people on the frontier don't want them to do more than provide arms and ammunition so that they can defend themselves instead of becoming subject to a Hegemony in terms of safety.

It's a perfectly apt and appropriate analogy - particularly in the context of this thread.

pioneerpro

ratracer wrote: »

Should we align the Gardai with the rest of Europe in terms of being fully armed? How about body cams, which again the ICCL seem against but because the gardai might abuse it, rather than use it for evidence gathering, like the rest of European forces?

Fully armed? No. Improving oversight and training to the point where we can stop guns falling out of the boots of Gardai cars? Yes

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0711/977864-gardai-gun/

As per Bodycams, given the incredibly frequency which Gardai perjure themselves in court without any civil recourse for their victims, it only makes sense. I doubt the ICCL would have any issue with widespread use of bodycams by Gardai as long as any case where the DPP is the plaintiff and footage 'disappears' or a bodycam is 'accidentally turned off' is immediately thrown out.

I better organise an emergency prison bag to sit beside my emergency hospital bag.

sprucemoose

pioneerpro wrote: »

God save us from the NPR 'Intellectuals'

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANiqA9WR6VV34njTSudK12nn9u7mM4_XMM8qk44RCPoTysAJgSC4hyTm6xODJBCwR7g_YMDHCVQgmZc_qmgPccDCp-pkkyGx0t0GWwFHPitiKLJSsQ1veHtjA-j9iC5DG5R3lBbBUUshMF3mJ6JRIyy7zu8AgfmBLFIwdO0IU7i2 is that okay for you so if NPR isnt good enough?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said or what about that?

put the quote into google with nothing else and the majority of the first page of results will be how the quote is misinterpreted

Witcher

pioneerpro wrote: »

Fully armed? No. Improving oversight and training to the point where we can stop guns falling out of the boots of Gardai cars? Yes

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0711/977864-gardai-gun/

As per Bodycams, given the incredibly frequency which Gardai perjure themselves in court without any civil recourse for their victims, it only makes sense. I doubt the ICCL would have any issue with widespread use of bodycams by Gardai as long as any case where the DPP is the plaintiff and footage 'disappears' or a bodycam is 'accidentally turned off' is immediately thrown out.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Jerry Attrick

pioneerpro wrote: »

The saddest thing is the arguments from the hoi polloi on basic questions of governance and society that were indisputably answered centuries ago. Case in point.



If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
- Cardinal Richelieu



Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
- Ben Franklin

Yup, anyone can churn out that kind of rubbish to oppose any proposed laws that they don't like. Shucks, I could have done it myself, if I wanted to.

How about: Give me liberty or give me death! So away you go - I'll send a wreath.

However, unlike you, I'm anti-scumbag and anti-criminal and anti any libertarian half wit who supports only the kind of legislation that makes it easier for the crims to beat the system!

As for me, I believe that the scales of justice are far too loaded in favour of the crims and the smartass, taxpayer-paid, free legal aid lawyers as it is.

Fritzbox

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Well that's a pretty lame newspaper article especially when the civil liberties guy is referencing the alleged experience of US police forces with bodycams - surely there are a dozen police forces in Europe whose experience with bodycams can be cited instead?

How many police forces in Europe don't use bodycams for regular police members?

pioneerpro

sprucemoose wrote: »

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANiqA9WR6VV34njTSudK12nn9u7mM4_XMM8qk44RCPoTysAJgSC4hyTm6xODJBCwR7g_YMDHCVQgmZc_qmgPccDCp-pkkyGx0t0GWwFHPitiKLJSsQ1veHtjA-j9iC5DG5R3lBbBUUshMF3mJ6JRIyy7zu8AgfmBLFIwdO0IU7i2 is that okay for you so if NPR isnt good enough?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said or what about that?

put the quote into google with nothing else and the majority of the first page of results will be how the quote is misinterpreted

Again, I was around in 2014 when this FUD was originally going around. I dispute it then and dispute it now in the strongest possible terms.

To start with the obvious - all three of your posts are the same source - something that you already know since you're arguing in bad faith - Brookings Institute’s Benjamin Wittes (who also runs lawfareblog) and the original instance of the oft-cited and prejudiced viewpoint.

And no, Techcrunch using Google Ngram as 'evidence' is nowhere near good enough, my god

More to the point, Franklin has used this quote repeatedly in the exact same context over the years - most notably in reference to the Boston Tea Party. In both cases he was clearly saying the colonies should not be willing to give up their essential liberties simply to temporarily appease the crown.

For anyone with a basic ability to read source materials, here's the original text so you can make up your own mind. I'm not letting you drag me down in the mud over pedantry - address the OP or keep your nascent Dunning-Kruger tendencies to yourself.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107

tl;dr - One media-savvy Political analyst in a Think Thank made a brief name for himself in 2014 via a media-agency and a clever bit of SEO with a fairly hot-take on a 250 year old piece of text.

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

That's a rather measured statement from the ICCL. The Director isn't dismissing bodycams out of hand, rather taking the stance that the public is being oversold on their benefits and that safeguards may allay concerns - that's a rather reasonable stance to take.

pioneerpro

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Yeah that article sums it up nicely

"But the real issue that we have with body-worn cameras specifically is that the move to introduce them, particularly coming in the United States, was based on the belief they would improve police behaviour, reduce crime and give an accurate record of what happens in policing incidents.

But that belief is contextual on the Gardai actually behaving themselves and not acting in a criminal fashion just because they've effective immunity to prosecution (as per Drew Harris and the policing inquiry).

Like any policing tool, you need to have sufficient oversight and penalties in place to ensure that it's being used appropriately. If not - like guns, or tasers, or pepper spray - then they end up being utilised as a tool of civil oppression or worse.

I think my suggestion above is one that the ICCL would be on-board with. As it stands, introducing bodycams in a legislative scenario whereby only the Gardai would benefit would only serve to make the problem worse - something I definitely agree with that article and the ICCL on.

Witcher

Yurt! wrote: »

That's a rather measured statement from the ICCL. The Director isn't dismissing bodycams out of hand, rather taking the stance that the public is being oversold on their benefits and that safeguards may allay concerns - that's a rather reasonable stance to take.

Here they are calling for a halt to their rollout.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICCL-Body-Worn-Cameras-DoJ-submission.pdf

pioneerpro

Fritzbox wrote: »

How many police forces in Europe don't use bodycams for regular police members?

Not just that, but its the de facto standard for just about any private security role above a certain grade - some insurance policies actually mandate it.

ALL french police are supposed to be wearing them by next month

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/All-police-in-France-will-wear-body-cameras-by-July-2021-says-Gerald-Darmanin-minister-interior

Indeed the bouncers and the security industry as a whole massively welcome it as it indemnifies them against false claims and general scumbaggery, and has been in use by years. It's saved Supermacs guy on multiple occasions for security claims. And yet the Gardai want to control the narrative of the camera. Why might that be?

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

Here they are calling for a halt to their rollout.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICCL-Body-Worn-Cameras-DoJ-submission.pdf

Indeed, that was in 2019, and many of the concerns outlined are very real and genuine ones, including ones for victims.

The 2021 quote outlines them calling for safeguards to allay concerns. These are reasonable stances.

Feel free to come back to me on this, but I'd put it to you that this is a maximalist argument you're making. You'll get people here advocating arming AGS like Robocop with 8k night vision predator drone helmets because that'll sort the crims once and for all with little thought given as to the consequences.

The ICCL are not some soft-c*cks that want inveterate house burglars running the country, they're posing honestly framed questions. Indeed, they were among the organisations that sounded the alarm bells about the data retention legislation that has led to the Dwyer mess. Perhaps if people at the time listened with open ears instead of cheerleading maximalist legislation that was clearly badly written, we could have had a regime that empowered AGS to construct cases between the legal ditches. Alternatively, we could keep lambasting them as some sort of criminal lobby group when they are anything but and people wilfully miss the point of a civil liberties org keeping an eye on the State losing the run of itself when it sometimes has the impulse to go full Judge Dredd without thought for the fallout.

Witcher

Yurt! wrote: »

Indeed, that was in 2019, and many of the concerns outlined are very real and genuine ones, including ones for victims.

The 2021 quote outlines them calling for safeguards to allay concerns. These are reasonable stances.

Feel free to come back to me on this, but I'd put it to you that this is a maximalist argument you're making. You'll get people here advocating arming AGS like Robocop with 8k night vision predator drone helmets because that'll sort the crims once and for all with little thought given as to the consequences.

The ICCL are not some soft-c*cks that want inveterate house burglars running the country, they're posing honestly framed questions. Indeed, they were among the organisations that sounded the alarm bells about the data retention legislation that has led to the Dwyer mess. Perhaps if people at the time listened with open ears instead of cheerleading maximalist legislation that was clearly badly written, we could have had a regime that empowered AGS to construct cases between the legal ditches. Alternatively, we could keep lambasting them as some sort of criminal lobby group when they are anything but and people wilfully miss the point of a civil liberties org keeping an eye on the State losing the run of itself when it sometimes has the impulse to go full Judge Dredd without thought for the fallout.

I think it's you that isn't listening to the ICCL on this, they're dead set against bodycams.

The proposed introduction of the bodycams is "invasive and unnecessary", according to the ICCL. There is no good evidence for the positive impact of their use and therefore no good reason for their introduction in Ireland, the group added.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-will-wear-body-cameras-under-new-laws-40272488.html

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

I think it's you that isn't listening to the ICCL on this, they're dead set against bodycams.



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-will-wear-body-cameras-under-new-laws-40272488.html

The Director is on record on several publications, including the one you posted, calling for a balance to be found and oversights put it in. (Like a complete smartar*e, I have another link him quoted as such loaded and ready to go for when you ask).

That's not dead set against in any reasonable definition.

spring lane jack

tayto lover wrote: »

This is great news in the battle against criminals.

Cannabis. FYP

KevRossi

There's a provisional overview of the legislation here from Vicky Conway. It lays out some of the pros and cons, the good and the bad of the legislation and where it needs to be worked on. Worth a read IMO:


https://twitter.com/drvconway/status/1404375191648620545

pioneerpro

KevRossi wrote: »

There's a provisional overview of the legislation here from Vicky Conway. It lays out some of the pros and cons, the good and the bad of the legislation and where it needs to be worked on. Worth a read IMO:

Been through it. Negatives are chilling and Positives can broadly be described as paying lip service to civil liberties, i.e.



Increased powers without any reciprocal increase in the responsibility needed to wield these powers, and no civil or criminal avenues for remediation if they do.



The Gardai have never needed this. They use Peace Commissioners to obtain search warrants for anything they know a judge will reject them for, or when they're just bored at the weekends/late at night.



I will note that *all* of these powers are secondary in the Irish context to the enshrined belief that the Garda in question 'thought they were doing right' - e.g. the subject of Justice Hardiman's last dissent

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0415/694274-evidence-supreme-court/

However, in a strongly worded dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman criticised the decision, which he said could give the gardaí effective immunity from judicial oversight.

The judge said he believed this was "utterly unwise" in the wake of two tribunals concerning the gardaí and unresolved disquiet over the oversight and administration of justice.

The exclusionary rule was set down by a key case in 1990 known as the Kenny case and affects the circumstances in which evidence can be excluded from a criminal trial.

Up to now, the rule had the effect of excluding evidence if an accused person's constitutional rights were breached during the gathering of such evidence, whether or not those rights were breached by mistake or unknowingly.

It was invoked in a criminal case at the circuit court, resulting in the collapse of a trial of a man accused of burglary.

The DPP had appealed the case under the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows her to appeal a case where it is claimed that compelling evidence was erroneously excluded. This morning the court allowed the appeal in a four to three majority verdict and set down a new test for the admissibility of such evidence.

Witcher

pioneerpro wrote: »

The Gardai have never needed this. They use Peace Commissioners to obtain search warrants for anything they know a judge will reject them for, or when they're just bored at the weekends/late at night.

The only warrant a PC can issue is a S.26 warrant under the MDA 1977/84.

They can't issue S.48/S.10 warrants.

Yurt2

pioneerpro wrote: »

I will note that *all* of these powers are secondary in the Irish context to the enshrined belief that the Garda in question 'thought they were doing right' - e.g. the subject of Justice Hardiman's last dissent

A legal eagle friend of mine called the striking down of Kenny as the creation of a "Father Dougal clause" for AGS in evidence collection.

pioneerpro

Witcher wrote: »

The only warrant a PC can issue is a S.26 warrant under the MDA 1977/84.

They can't issue S.48/S.10 warrants.

Not going to engage with pedants twice in one thread - you know exactly what I mean and what it entails to the current discussion.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1924/act/10/section/88/enacted/en/html#sec88

OP wrote:

Garda sources said the pandemic had accelerated the commission of large numbers of crimes, including minor offences such as low-value drugs transactions, on messaging apps as in-person contact became restricted. They believed that trend would remain long after the pandemic and that the new power was vital to strengthen Garda searches to include access to mobile phones and other devices.

Peregrinus

pioneerpro wrote: »

Not going to engage with pedants twice in one thread - you know exactly what I mean and what it entails to the current discussion.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1924/act/10/section/88/enacted/en/html#sec88

I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).

tayto lover

Yurt! wrote: »

A legal eagle friend of mine called the striking down of Kenny as the creation of a "Father Dougal clause" for AGS in evidence collection.

Your legal eagle friend makes more money from crime than most criminals.
You pay them far too much heed.

pioneerpro

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).

The point that search warrants in relation to drug offences (i.e. the establishment of grounds for a warrant based on the incontrovertible 'opinion' of a guard that he 'smelt something') was traditionally the purview of not just a DJ but also a PC, or a Super.

These laws are basically going to end up with flipping low-level drug offenders into confidential informants against their will and without any of the requisite protections or benefits in place.

Sound alarmist and unprecedented? Bookmark this post.

Yurt2

tayto lover wrote: »

Your legal eagle friend makes more money from crime than most criminals.
You pay them far too much heed.

Let's get rid of barristers altogether. tHeY gET pAId fOr RePResEntInG CrimInALS.

(He doesn't specialise in criminal law but carry on regardless.)

pioneerpro

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).

Actually, more to the point - and far more in line with Garda misuse of powers in the past:



Head 9 grants this stop-and-search power on the discretionary and non-verifiable ability of the Garda in question to 'smell cannabis' in any case. This has never, in the history of the MDA, been successfully challenged.

purplefields

purplefields wrote: »

Also from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobiles-and-other-devices-1141159.html :


Ireland really need some kind of civil liberties organisation like they have in other countries.
After Covid, I can't see myself staying in Ireland for much longer. (Especially now with the corp tax changes and facebook remote working.)

Most of Europe has pretty strong police powers. Not sure how facebooks decision affects you unless you work there.

Padre_Pio

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide, and unlike Herrick or the Data Protection Commissioner I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

Everyone has something to hide.
Everyone has some secrets or some skeleton that best kept in the past.

It's important to recognise how much personal information is kept on personal devices now compared to 20 years ago, and how someone with a little bit of access can uncover whole troves of information.

The Gardai are just people, same as you and me, and are bound to start snooping on someones phone if they have access.

Leo Varadkar makes plea to family of Irish journalist who died by suicide after a garda leaked nude images

No one was ever punished for this.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/leo-varadkar-makes-plea-family-20874298

Yurt2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The Gardai are just people, same as you and me, and are bound to start snooping on someones phone if they have access.

When thinking of civil liberties concerns, laws like these are only as good as the dumbest or most malevolent Guard in the force with the powers to use them.

AGS is staffed by people, and when you have people, you have a percentage of them that will bound to be malevolent or bad actors. That's a law of nature.

Eventually, someone will have their life badly damaged by poorly conceived and applied law put in the hands of an individual who simply shouldn't have them. Oversight should always be to the fore, not a shrug of the shoulders with the reflexive and naive impulse to say 'shur Gardai always do the right thing, you only should be afraid if you have something to hide.'

pioneerpro

There's only really one argument here from people in relation to the erosion of civil liberties - that it would somehow result in a drop in crime or at least an increase in prosecution rates.

Historically and demonstrably, however, the erosion of civil liberties in just about any culture leads to increased criminality at best, and societal collapse at worse.

Empowering a historically corrupt state body with a host of broad-ranging discretionary powers, stated with purposeful ambiguity and lacking any oversight reciprocal to the shift in power dynamic, will lead to one outcome and one outcome only - increased criminality.