Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

edanto wrote: »

I've suggested some reasons to believe that there was a leak/bugging at GSOC. What do you make of them?

Hi Edanto

To answer your question : I agree with you that Gardai may be fearful of GSOC investigations or that criminals are hungry for information they could use for any reason.

But the whole story is based on a very weak foundation that bugging occurred, when the security company merely discovered what are probably standard vulnerabilities in any office.

So I think there is something else going on here. Some inaccurate info leaked to the newspapers to get the fake story going ? Certainly sold a few newspapers , and got a few politicians in front of the Television.

edanto wrote: »

Godge & raymon - go back to the start of the story - the bit that happened before the 'anomolies' were discovered. Something prompted GSOC to call in security consultants. We don't know what prompted that.

I speculate that it was a leak of information - what else could have prompted GSOC to call in backup? Do you consider it likely that GSOC did not have good enough reason to call in consultants?

I'm sure there is a mutual distrust there. They should fix that.
Send them on a team building session , maybepaintball in the woods.
But this story of bugging ,espionage and intrigue is bogus. Sells newspapers though.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The GSOC was meant to have secure facilities, so any vulnerabilities would not be "standard".

That said, you make a crucial distinction between detection of weaknesses and discovery of actual surveillance.

With regard to the substantive issue as described so far, what do you make of this specific claim, as reported in yesterday's Irish Times:

In my opinion eavesdropping did not happen . I also believe an anomaly that was created using specialised apparatus did not happen .

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you saying that is factually incorrect? Or do you accept that it did occur but did not constitute illicit surveillance of some sort?

I accept that anomalies were discovered . I have anomalies on my computer - you probably do too . Doesn't mean Im being bugged.

raymon wrote: »

But it is unlikely that eavesdropping even occurred

here is an extract from the GSOC statement :
"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.
"

How is it unlikely eavesdropping never occurred? Because technical & electronic anomalies certainly allude to something pretty unusually occurring. The following review and enhancement of security mentioned, again suggests the possibility of eavesdropping/surveillance taking place. Bringing in outside security specialists also suggest we are talking about more than computer malware here.

There also appears to be a clear lack of trust between the GSOC and the Gardaí and why is that? Now that's very worrying and it's the most important question here for me. Why does the GSOC apparently not trust The Gardaí? Did they take the view that involving them in any possible investigation, would be akin to giving the prisoners of Mountjoy the keys of the prison?

Hunter Mahan wrote: »

You may be right that it was AGS, but to say they are the only ones capable of doing it is ridiculous, anyone with a few quid and half a brain could do it. As for motive, I can think of 2 other groups who along with AGS would have motive.

Someone's head will roll over this I'd imagine, it will be interesting to see who.

Note I said motive and capability. Defence forces may be able to do it but why would they? Media outlets may have motive, but from what I read the technical means to do what has been alleged is far beyond any domestic operator. AGS has a clear motive (it's no secret that they do not trust the organisation set up to investigate members) and has the capability

edanto wrote: »

So in the Dáil just now Shatter has said that the security sweep was 'routine'. I personally think he's being misleading there, but if it was a routine sweep, why is he freaking out that he wasn't told?

Makes me think that the Garda Ombudsman does not trust the minister, or an Garda, the former would have told an Garda. A bit of a catch 22 situation? There is more to this, I would say than is being revealed. An Garda Siochana being dragged into the 21st century is proving painful, and having to live with the Ombudsman's office is clearly too much.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Garda Ombudsman Commissioner Kieran Fitzgerald will be live on Prime Time tonight.

I hope the first question that he answers is

"Tell us about the events that led GSOC to call in security consultants?"

Did I hear correctly today on the radio (not sure which station) that because the (alleged) shadow IP address was based in the UK that it can't actually be investigated by GSOC as they have no remit outside investigating AGS. So for example they can't ask Scotland Yard to check the IP address? If so it was very clever indeed on the part of the (alleged) perpetrator (s)

This is yet another bit of the puzzle that doesn't fit. An IP address is just an address. It does nothing. Just like a phone number.

For it to be of any interest it has to be part of a connection to something. For it to be identified as being of interest it has to be connected (I'm not using the technical terminology here deliberately) to something we are interested in and we have to observe it or observe a log of what it did. If it was connected to something and found to be of interest then . . . we have something to go on.

What I'm trying to say is that for someone to identify it and say "this IP address is an English address" or "this IP address belongs to Peoples Liberation Army Intelligence Unit #17 in Shanghai" we have to have a reason to consider this IP address instead of the several billion (I may be exaggerating) other IP addresses out there - like seen it actually doing something to the network we are interested in. And if we have seen it doing something of interest to our network then . . . we have some evidence. Maybe not evidence enough for a criminal trial, but evidence of someone doing something we don't expect.

To go back to the phone analogy - +44-7815-1234-5678 is a mobile number in the UK. However, I don't care about that phone number until I see it showing up in my call records, or until I start getting voicemails or TXTs from it, or whatever. It's just a number until it starts interacting with me at which point it becomes evidence.

To answer your question . . . I would be reasonably sure that such requests can be made to the UK authorities . . . by the Gardai. Or via Interpol . . . where the Garda liaison might be expected to hear about it.

z