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
1…34689…65

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    zagmund
    Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    The comment in the Dail about the UK phone tower showing up in the middle of Dublin city centre reminded me of this scene from RepoMan.

    Yeah, sure, we have foreign mobile networks pop up all over the place. Every day, with no explanation. It just happens. Just last week a Bolivian analog network appeared briefly in Tallaght. It would have been tracked down to some back packer returned from South America, but we didn't bother investigating it.

    And of course we've been told for the last few days that creating a fake tower is impossibly expensive . . . . so how did this fake UK one get there?

    z


  • Options
    #153
    maxwell smart
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭maxwell smart


    zagmund wrote: »
    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

    Thought that is the way any notification would have worked.....


  • Options
    #154
    zagmund
    Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    maxwell smart wrote: »
    Thought that is the way any notification would have worked.....

    Yes, and they may not have wanted to follow that route.

    z


  • Options
    #155
    maxwell smart
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭maxwell smart


    zagmund wrote: »
    Yes, and they may not have wanted to follow that route.

    z

    indeed


  • Options
    #156
    raymon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    zagmund wrote: »
    The comment in the Dail about the UK phone tower showing up in the middle of Dublin city centre reminded me of this scene from RepoMan.

    Yeah, sure, we have foreign mobile networks pop up all over the place. Every day, with no explanation. It just happens. Just last week a Bolivian analog network appeared briefly in Tallaght. It would have been tracked down to some back packer returned from South America, but we didn't bother investigating it.

    And of course we've been told for the last few days that creating a fake tower is impossibly expensive . . . . so how did this fake UK one get there?

    z

    All you would need is a Vodafone Sure signal hardware ( or a bolivian equivalent) and a proxy server or VPN to translate you IP address to a UK one (or bolivian) .

    http://www.vodafone.co.uk/our-network-and-coverage/what-affects-your-coverage/sure-signal/

    Doesn't look impossibly expensive to me - looks like some British expat trying to save a few quid on his roaming charges.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    Very upfront interview with GSOC on Primetime.


  • Options
    #158
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,925 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Think he made it pretty clear on Prime Time that there was bugging.


  • Options
    #159
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Think he made it pretty clear on Prime Time that there was bugging.

    How did he do that?


  • Options
    #160
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    charlie14 wrote:
    Think he made it pretty clear on Prime Time that there was bugging.

    Not really.

    He was asked repeatedly if there was any specific event that lead to the security sweep, he had lots of opportunities to say if they had any specific suspicions, and he didn't mention any. Gave a vague reference to 2012 (even though the sweep was in Sept 2013 or so) and said they had concerns about some details in media articles and that they wanted to become more certain of their electronic security.

    Seems like the Sunday Times article was very, very exaggerated.


  • Options
    #161
    raymon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Think he made it pretty clear on Prime Time that there was bugging.

    The bugging story is a puff of smoke to quote Miriam . I think he made it clear there was no evidence of bugging. Just a lot of distrust .

    Not a very good working relationship

    Shatter better get these people working together again


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    zagmund
    Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    Err, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you can't find definitive proof that it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Going by the RTE mafias approach over the last few days the News of the World phone hacking thing would have been a puff of smoke. Sure you can't prove anyone hacked a persons voicemail, can you?

    The whole thing is still astonishing. Consider a scenario where there was no bugging - GSOC feel that they should check for bugging (duty of care for their data and all that), they check for bugging, they find nothing, they have nothing to report. Meantime the Minister, the government, the various Garda bodies attack them for *checking* and not telling them that nothing was found. Then consider a scenario where there was bugging - they find something and maybe they feel they can't report it to the relevant authorities (as they are entitled to do, per the Act), and they point the finger *away* from a body when the issue is raised by someone other than them . . . . and they get attacked again.

    z


  • Options
    #163
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Think he made it pretty clear on Prime Time that there was bugging.

    I've watched over it again to transcribe some bits... and to be honest I was a bit distracted the first time I saw it, and re-watching it, the conference phone claims are astonishing. (my emphasis below)

    GSOC: What we got were credible threats to our own security, we hired credible international experts to consider those for us, to examine, to test them. At the conclusion of their testing, and their security sweeps, they were able to tell us that certain things did not look likely and other things they could not be definitively sure.

    Miriam: What were the credible threats?

    GOSC: The credible threats were threefold, one was a piece of equipment which was connecting to an external network, a WiFi device. It should have been activated by a password, in actual fact it was activating without seeming to have the need for a password, and transmitting. It did not compromise our data. It did not connect with our internal security but having found it, we certainly needed to take it 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. That was tested and the tests 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 co-incidental, it could have been explained away, but they rated in their report the possibility of it being co-incidental of being close to zero.

    The third one was a sophisticated piece of equipment that does sweeps of building from external if you like, if doesn't have to be in the vicinity, and it can attack mobile phones and other ....

    Miriam: So, it sounds like still, like your statement last night from GSOC, which more or less confirmed what you're saying now, that you still believed there could have been bugging of your building? And that is not what the minister is saying.

    GSOC: Well, we have no disagreement at all with the Minister


  • Options
    #164
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    He also said something curious about 'certain things in the public discourse made them sensitive to their vunerability' (or words to that effect) which Miriam didn't follow up on unfortunately.

    Wonder would that be, people using info they couldn't have gotten any other way?


  • Options
    #165
    Rawhead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Rawhead


    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.


  • Options
    #166
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    @rawhead - you're way behind this story.
    Have you read the GSOC findings presented by the Minister today?


  • Options
    #167
    Rawhead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Rawhead


    Phoebas wrote: »
    @rawhead - you're way behind this story.
    Have you read the GSOC findings presented by the Minister today?

    Have you listened to the GSOC chairman on Primetime?


  • Options
    #168
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Rawhead wrote: »
    Have you listened to the GSOC chairman on Primetime?
    I did.
    Kieran Fitzgerald wrote:
    The Ombudsman Commissioner said he had no disagreement with Justice Minister Alan Shatter who said that GSOC told him there was no evidence that its offices had been under technical or electronic surveillance


  • Options
    #169
    tomdempsey200
    Registered Users Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭tomdempsey200


    was the 18k just for a sweep

    or might they also have been testing security and making recommendations in the report


  • Options
    #170
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    zagmund wrote: »
    Err, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you can't find definitive proof that it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Going by the RTE mafias approach over the last few days the News of the World phone hacking thing would have been a puff of smoke. Sure you can't prove anyone hacked a persons voicemail, can you?

    The whole thing is still astonishing. Consider a scenario where there was no bugging - GSOC feel that they should check for bugging (duty of care for their data and all that), they check for bugging, they find nothing, they have nothing to report. Meantime the Minister, the government, the various Garda bodies attack them for *checking* and not telling them that nothing was found. Then consider a scenario where there was bugging - they find something and maybe they feel they can't report it to the relevant authorities (as they are entitled to do, per the Act), and they point the finger *away* from a body when the issue is raised by someone other than them . . . . and they get attacked again.

    z


    Indeed I can't prove you're a murder but clearly that doesn't prove you haven't murdered.

    Mother Ireland is breeding em yet.


  • Options
    #171
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    maxwell smart wrote: »
    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)


    A crime has potentially been committed against a government agency.

    The correct response from the state and Garda would have been to launch a full investigation, inc if necessary working with UK Police to establish more about the IP address etc.

    The govt and Garda response stinks.

    Potentially a group of individuals has attempted to corrupt a govt agency, yet they only seem bothered about their reputations.

    They seem more interested in deflecting blame.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Happened to catch the very tail end of an interview with Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 just now. John Mooney, the Sunday Times journalist who first broke the story about suspected bugging, seemed to be saying that there's a discrepancy between what Simon O'Brien reported to Alan Shatter and what Kieran Fitzgerald said on Prime Time last night. If I understood correctly Mooney is claiming that someone is holding something back, and that the full story has not been revealed.

    It'll be a while before this "bottle of smoke" dissipates entirely.

    I guess Mooney himself is holding something back, until Sunday...


  • Options
    #173
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Mooney made it very clear on RTÉ 1 that the Minister lied to the Dáil yesterday based on the comments that the GSOC Commissioner made on Prime Time last night. Mooney is the first person I have heard say that Minister Shatter's position is now untenable.

    One gets the feeling that Mooney is very confident with his story. It wouldn't surprise me if the security report surfaced over the next few days, and I suspect it will effectively confirm that bugging occurred - and that will put any person who dismissed GSOC's concerns earlier this week in a difficult position.


  • Options
    #174
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Mooney was saying exactly that in his earlier interview with Newstalk breakfast. One observation that the Newstalk presenter had was that every paragraph in Shatters statement yesterday was prefaced with "on the basis of the information given to me by GSOC..." which was a fairly transparent attempt to cover his own behind, such that if any information does happen to come out that contradicts him, he can fall back on his "well, that's what GSOC told me" defense.

    The thing is, Fitzgerald made it clear on Prime Time that the Minister is in possession of the full report from the security consultants which concluded that the only explanation for the test results on the conference phone was a malicious one. To emphasise, a world renowned privacy protection consultancy firm concluded that the phone had been compromised.

    Even though he was in possession of that report, Shatter then claimed in the Dáil that there was no evidence of any bugging. What kind of evidence does he need, the actual tapes?!


  • Options
    #175
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Getting a handle on this story is like trying to pick up mercury with chopsticks.

    I wouldn't dream of predicting where this is ultimately heading.

    The GSOC are quoting what Verrimus told them, and Shatter is citing the GSOC.


  • Options
    #176
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    It's a bit of a case of 'we can't prove that a crime was committed without a body'. I'm guessing that circumstantial evidence points to their offices having been bugged, but with the absence of any physical evidence or proof, well then of course they can't say that they can definitively say either way!

    As for the commissioner, he'd be wise to keep his mouth shut for the foreseeable until he engages his brain. Blustering fool in my opinion.


  • Options
    #177
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    edanto wrote: »
    Even though he was in possession of that report, Shatter then claimed in the Dáil that there was no evidence of any bugging. What kind of evidence does he need, the actual tapes?!


    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.


  • Options
    #178
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    edanto wrote: »
    Mooney was saying exactly that in his earlier interview with Newstalk breakfast. One observation that the Newstalk presenter had was that every paragraph in Shatters statement yesterday was prefaced with "on the basis of the information given to me by GSOC..." which was a fairly transparent attempt to cover his own behind, such that if any information does happen to come out that contradicts him, he can fall back on his "well, that's what GSOC told me" defense.

    Yes exactly, the Minister chose his words very carefully and always brought it back to the GSOC statement.


  • Options
    #179
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Rawhead wrote: »
    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.



    The problem with your analysis is that 1, 2 and 3 are not linked to 4. The check was the second carried out by the GSOC.

    Then there is the point that 4 didn't happen. 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.


    zagmund wrote: »
    Err, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you can't find definitive proof that it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Going by the RTE mafias approach over the last few days the News of the World phone hacking thing would have been a puff of smoke. Sure you can't prove anyone hacked a persons voicemail, can you?

    The whole thing is still astonishing. Consider a scenario where there was no bugging - GSOC feel that they should check for bugging (duty of care for their data and all that), they check for bugging, they find nothing, they have nothing to report. Meantime the Minister, the government, the various Garda bodies attack them for *checking* and not telling them that nothing was found. Then consider a scenario where there was bugging - they find something and maybe they feel they can't report it to the relevant authorities (as they are entitled to do, per the Act), and they point the finger *away* from a body when the issue is raised by someone other than them . . . . and they get attacked again.

    z

    I can't prove that the world was flat a million years ago but nobody was around to say different so that doesn't mean it wasn't.

    If the GSOC found credible evidence of bugging, they should have reported it to the Gardai. They are not above the law. If they didn't find credible evidence, they shouldn't have leaked blaming the Gardai.

    Shatter's statement is devastating to those conspiracy theorists who believed the Gardai were bugging the GSOC. I am surprised the Ombudsman is still in his job this morning.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fionnan-sheahan-gsoc-is-damaged-goods-after-this-mess-30001122.html


  • Options
    #180
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    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.

    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?"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Godge, there are so many 'anomolies' in your post that I'd be here until tomorrow picking your post apart! It is pointless arguing a point with some people though.


Advertisement