Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

steddyeddy · 12-02-2014 08:27AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why do you distrust any guard at all just because they're a guard?

Completely ludicrous to view them all as being corrupt/potentially corrupt.

I would be of a similar mindset to be honest. I don't distrust the individual I distrust the orginisation. I think they do nothing to weed out corruption in the force and as a result I try to keep away from them.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 08:27AM

EireGun wrote: »

Verrimus (UK security firm) says the likelihood of what they found at GSOC HQ being innocent was "close to zero", according to GSOC Commissioner Kieran Fitzgerald...
[URL="http://"][/URL]

Not quite.
He said the single instance of the phone ringing after the test being carried out being coincidental was 'close to zero'. Which leaves the possibility that the phone rang as a direct but unexpected result of the test itself.

sopretty · 12-02-2014 08:42AM

My understanding of the whole wifi thing is that something similar to the following occurred:

I set up a wireless broadband account. I put the modem in the vicinity of the office of the ombudsman. I name it something like GSOC or WORK. I do not password protect this connection. I hope that A) GSOC employees have their smartphones set to 'automatically connect to wifi' or some such similar setting, or that

GSOC employees when logging online with their iphones/smartphones go 'Oh - we must have wifi now! It's showing up as 'GSOC' here - can you see it? - ye? - cool'.
I can then hack into whatever they get up to while logged into my secret spying wifi?

Am I way off the mark here?

aloyisious · 12-02-2014 10:16AM

Mischevious Vincent Browne last night discussing this with SF member, bring's up Stormont bugging LOL. What with the elephant in the corner not being mentioned by anyone, incl the Gardai and the Minister (they probably like to forget Sean, Charlie and the illegal bugging by GS of journalists phones) history provided reasonable grounds for the GSOC to be alert to such activity. IMO, given the duty of the GSOC, they'd be failing in their task if they took all the GS responses at face value.

As for the Comm, he's been long enough in the job to know that any police officer worth his/her salt will start off an investigation with a narrow group of suspects, and widen it when the initial group are eliminated from the investigation. I hope he would have expected the GSOC to follow that truism by looking at a small group first, eliminate those people likely to be able to carry out the suspected activities and whatever remains (however strange) is likely to be the cause.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 11:04AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Not quite.
He said the single instance of the phone ringing after the test being carried out being coincidental was 'close to zero'. Which leaves the possibility that the phone rang as a direct but unexpected result of the test itself.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/12/contradictions-in-terms/

There's the whole thing for you...

Hard to take EK at his word when he downplayed the entire thing.. considering what's being said here...

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 11:09AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/12/contradictions-in-terms/

There's the whole thing for you...

Hard to take EK at his word when he downplayed the entire thing.. considering what's being said here...

So we are now accusing The Taoiseach of downplaying it when the GSOC made the decision not to notify anyone....you can't win with some people.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 11:16AM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

So we are now accusing The Taoiseach of downplaying it when the GSOC made the decision not to notify anyone....you can't win with some people.

We all know he repeatedly lied about the legislation, Section 80, to the press and to other TDs.

We also know that GSOC didn't do it because they didn't want to cause trouble... hardly a great reason to keep an anomaly which had close to zero percent chance of being coincidental from others...

GSOC and the Taoiseach - neither looking particularly great in this mess.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 11:20AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/12/contradictions-in-terms/

There's the whole thing for you...

Hard to take EK at his word when he downplayed the entire thing.. considering what's being said here...

Yeah thanks - I've already read the whole thing.

There isn't a whole lot to be downplayed anyway, because it turns out there isn't that much too it in the first place. People who were pushing the 'government level' technology line a couple of days ago are left wiping the egg from their faces.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 11:31AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah thanks - I've already read the whole thing.

There isn't a whole lot to be downplayed anyway, because it turns out there isn't that much too it in the first place. People who were pushing the 'government level' technology line a couple of days ago are left wiping the egg from their faces.

Yeah, the people using the "sophisticated piece of equipment that does sweeps of buildings," to "attack mobile phones and mobile devices” were probably using something they bought at Tesco.

I guess you should read it again.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 11:43AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yeah, the people using the "sophisticated piece of equipment that does sweeps of buildings," to "attack mobile phones and mobile devices” were probably using something they bought at Tesco.

I guess you should read it again.

This equipment wasn't linked to GSOC at all and was no threat to GSOC.

The third issue related to the security firm reporting the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network in the area in the locality of the GSOC offices which suggested that UK phones registered to that network making calls would be vulnerable to interception. Importantly, I am advised that neither the Chairman nor any other member of GSOC or its employees use UK-registered mobile phones, so that the presence of any such device in the locality would not seem to have posed a threat to the integrity of GSOC’s communications systems. There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC

By accounts, it could have been located miles away from the GSOC building.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 12:00PM

Phoebas wrote: »

This equipment wasn't linked to GSOC at all and was no threat to GSOC.

Phoebas wrote: »

By accounts, it could have been located miles away from the GSOC building.

LOL.

For someone that's so determined to stick to the facts you don't have any problem making **** up when it suits you.

How do YOU know either of these claims are true?

First you claimed there was no government level technology, and everyone was wrong about that.

Then, when it was pointed out to you - again - that there was in fact advanced technology in use, in the area, you claim it was unrelated and posed no threat.

Which is hilarious, as no one else is saying that, are they?

Let's see what Shatter said:

The third issue related to the security firm reporting the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network in the area in the locality of the GSOC offices which suggested that UK phones registered to that network making calls would be vulnerable to interception. Importantly, I am advised that neither the Chairman nor any other member of GSOC or its employees use UK-registered mobile phones, so that the presence of any such device in the locality would not seem to have posed a threat to the integrity of GSOC’s communications systems. There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC.

So did he say it was unrelated to GSOC? Nope. Did he say it wasn't a threat? Nope. HE said they had no evidence to suggest it was. They also have no evidence of who set it up or why. So. Claiming it was no threat or unrelated is untrue. You're starting to sound just as ridiculous as EK.

What else has the government said:

The investigation was completed on 17 December, 2013. 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.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/02/security-at-and-surveillance-of-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission/

Of course, the sentence you bolded, which you think somehow makes you look clever, actually contradicts the point you think you've made.

There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC.

"Appears to be" is different from "is". "No evidence" is not evidence of there being no connection. It's "no evidence".

bu-bu-but evidence is so important to you... unless you want to prove a point, in which case "no evidence" will do just fine.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:22PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

How do YOU know either of these claims are true?

The first comes directly from the Minister based on the GSOC briefing.
The second was an account that was posted here last night, and I've presented it as an account, not a fact.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

First you claimed there was no government level technology, and everyone was wrong about that.

Eh, no I didn't - but it doesn't look now like there was.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Then, when it was pointed out to you - again - that there was in fact advanced technology in use, in the area, you claim it was unrelated and posed no threat.

That's the finding presented by the Minister:

There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course, the sentence you bolded, which you think somehow makes you look clever, actually contradicts the point you think you've made.

No it doesn't - it says that certain phones would be vulnerable, if they existed, - which they didn't.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 12:35PM

Phoebas wrote: »

The first comes directly from the Minister based on the GSOC briefing.
The second was an account that was posted here last night, and I've presented it as an account, not a fact.

Eh, no I didn't - but it doesn't look now like there was.

That's the finding presented by the Minister:

No it doesn't - it says that certain phones would be vulnerable, if they existed, - which they didn't.

The minister never said they weren't related or a threat. He said there was no evidence and no appearance of a threat.

Those aren't the same things.

You still claim that a 3G network designed to eavesdrop on phones is just some off the shelf tech?

Which is why people that claim other wise "have egg on their face"?

You're being wilfully disingenuous.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

They found three unexplainable issues, one using advanced technology.

They can neither prove or disapprove any of it was part of an intelligence operation aimed at GSOC. They were worried it might be. Clearly.

Enda Kenny repeatedly lied about the legislation related to GSOC. His obvious downplaying of what he was told, as evidenced by what the commissioner said, is pathetic.

Put another way:

I have no evidence you're not a government employee, trying to spread misinformation online.

No evidence at all.

I have no evidence you're honest.

I have no evidence that you're even a decent human being.

You'd take that lack of evidence to mean, you DO work for the government, you ARE deliberately spreading misinformation and you are NOT a decent human being.

I'm less sure. But I'll defer to you.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:43PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The minister never said they weren't related or a threat. He said there was no evidence and no appearance of a threat.

Those aren't the same things.

Oh ffs - pedantic much?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

[... some other stuff ...]

You'd take that lack of evidence to mean, you DO work for the government, you ARE deliberately spreading misinformation and you are NOT a decent human being.

Go back to bed and get up again on the right side. :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 12:49PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Oh ffs - pedantic much?

This comment from you is all I need to assure me that you clearly have absolutely no idea how important precision of language is when dealing with statements made by politicians.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 01:03PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This comment from you is all I need to assure me that you clearly have absolutely no idea how important precision of language is when dealing with statements made by politicians.

I'm crushed by your lack of confidence in me.;)

hatrickpatrick wrote:

The opinions expressed in my post may represent a slightly deranged and warped view of the world.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 01:11PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm crushed by your lack of confidence in me.;)

He's not alone.

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 01:13PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm crushed by your lack of confidence in me.;)

Precision of language - "MAY represent a slightly deranged and warped view of the world"

Seriously though, look at Shatter's remarks and then look at GSOC's remarks on Prime Time last night. In light of what was revealed on Prime Time, either Shatter was being willfully misleading, or else using clever language to try and brush the whole incident under the carpet without technically lying.

The security company stated that there was almost no possibility of the anomaly with regard to the phone line being an innocent coincidence. Shatter told the Dail that there was no evidence of bugging.

In my view, that's a misleading statement from Shatter. What do you think of it?

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 01:15PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Precision of language - "MAY indicate a slightly warped and deranged view of the world"

Seriously though, look at Shatter's remarks and then look at GSOC's remarks on Prime Time last night. In light of what was revealed on Prime Time, either Shatter was being willfully misleading, or else using clever language to try and brush the whole incident under the carpet without technically lying.

The security company stated that there was almost no possibility of the anomaly with regard to the phone line being an innocent coincidence. Shatter told the Dail that there was no evidence of bugging.

In my view, that's a misleading statement from Shatter. What do you think of it?

Where did you pull the word 'innocent' from (seeing that precision is so important to you)?

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 01:20PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Where did you pull the word 'innocent' from (seeing that precision is so important to you)?

Was reading from the transcript but actually you're right - innocent is the word Miriam O'Callaghan used in her question:

O’Callaghan: “OK but on one of the anomalies you just mentioned, you said the likelihood, you know, that it’s an innocent thing was remote to zero, the possibility?”

Fitzgerald: “Well that’s what was reported to us, exactly.”

To be fair, GSOC has used the word "coincidental".

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 01:33PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Was reading from the transcript but actually you're right - innocent is the word Miriam O'Callaghan used in her question:

To be fair, GSOC has used the word "coincidental".

Here's the context of the word coincidental:

The second was more worrying, it was a conference call telephone, a conference call facility that we use, not infrequently, and that was tested, and the test 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 coincidental, it could be accidental, it could be explained away but they rated in their report the possibility of it being coincidental as close to zero.”

So it's used to say, it could be coincidental, but there's basically "close to zero" chance that it was coincidental.

If a garda finds me over your dead body, pulling a knife out of your chest, covered in your blood, I may not have killed you... it could be a coincidence, but the chances would be "close to zero".

Juries convict on lower probability.

But sure, I'm probably just being pedantic, by stating the facts correctly.

EDIT:

To be perfectly clear, in the above stabbing example, you could honestly claim that there was NO EVIDENCE that I stabbed you.

Pulling the knife out is evidence of pulling the knife out, not stabbing.
Covered in your blood is evidence of being covered in your blood, not stabbing.

Now, would ANYONE (except maybe Phoebas) not consider me a prime suspect, because of the lack of evidence?

Should we go through all the people convicted of murder, simply by being at the scene, with a victims blood on them, and with the murder weapon in their possession?

EVIDENCE of absence is NOT the same as absence of evidence.

When a security team is brought in, due to suspicions of a bug, and they find some anomalies, well... it's worth repeating that they haven't found evidence which makes it clear they weren't being bugged... far from it. They also haven't found any evidence which makes it clear the high tech 3G snooping device was unrelated to GSOC. They also haven't found evidence that the Garda aren't in some way responsible for these anomalies.

We do have evidence, however, that Enda Kenny has, repeatedly - even after the media called him on it - lied about what the GSOC legislation says. That evidence we DO have.

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 01:42PM

Phoebas, you haven't answered my previous question - comparing the remarks made by Shatter in the Dail and the remarks made by GSOC on Prime Time, what conclusions do you arrive at?

Femme_Fatale · 12-02-2014 02:34PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would be of a similar mindset to be honest. I don't distrust the individual I distrust the orginisation. I think they do nothing to weed out corruption in the force and as a result I try to keep away from them.

Mob mentality. It's staggering the way people enjoy blaming everyone for the minority.
Corruption is of course dreadful but so is witch-hunting.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 02:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Phoebas, you haven't answered my previous question - comparing the remarks made by Shatter in the Dail and the remarks made by GSOC on Prime Time, what conclusions do you arrive at?

Their accounts are substantially the same (naturally enough since the Minister's information comes straight from GSOC), so I agree with what the commissioner said last night on Prime Time:

Kieran Fitzgerald wrote:

Well, we’ve no disagreement at all with the minister and we…

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 02:50PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Their accounts are substantially the same (naturally enough since the Minister's information comes straight from GSOC), so I agree with what the commissioner said last night on Prime Time:

Alright, but specifically regarding the phone, the commissioner said on Prime Time that the chances of it being a coincidence were next to zero, as quoted from the security company who checked the line. The minister made no mention of this but has effectively moved to dismiss the whole story.

What do you make of it? In my own view the minister doesn't come out of it looking too good but that's just me. There's no evidence that the office was actually bugged, but there certainly seems to be evidence that someone tampered with a phone line with a view to compromising it, and the minister was in possession of this information and chose to omit it from his statement.

Of course there are different ways of interpreting this story, but it smacks of the minister attempting to sweep this aside, while the commission are saying (from the security report prepared for them) that something dodgy happened with regard to that phone line and that there's almost no chance of a coincidental explanation for it.

From where I'm sitting, Shatter comes across as wanting everyone to "move on" from this story as quickly as possible without getting deeper into the specifics of it.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 03:07PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Alright, but specifically regarding the phone, the commissioner said on Prime Time that the chances of it being a coincidence were next to zero, as quoted from the security company who checked the line. The minister made no mention of this but has effectively moved to dismiss the whole story.

What do you make of it? In my own view the minister doesn't come out of it looking too good but that's just me. There's no evidence that the office was actually bugged, but there certainly seems to be evidence that someone tampered with a phone line with a view to compromising it, and the minister was in possession of this information and chose to omit it from his statement.

Of course there are different ways of interpreting this story, but it smacks of the minister attempting to sweep this aside, while the commission are saying (from the security report prepared for them) that something dodgy happened with regard to that phone line and that there's almost no chance of a coincidental explanation for it.

From where I'm sitting, Shatter comes across as wanting everyone to "move on" from this story as quickly as possible without getting deeper into the specifics of it.

I don't see a conflict. Just because it wasn't a coincidence, that doesn't make it is evidence of bugging or anything malicious.

The anomaly (the phone rang) happened immediately after the test was run on the line, so I'd say they should look at the possibility that the anomaly was not a coincidence, but was a direct but unexpected artifact of the test itself.

tomwaterford · 12-02-2014 03:15PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't see a conflict. Just because it wasn't a coincidence, that doesn't make it is evidence of bugging or anything malicious.

The anomaly (the phone rang) happened immediately after the test was run on the line, so I'd say they should look at the possibility that the anomaly was not a coincidence, but was a direct but unexpected artifact of the test itself.[/QUOTE]

im sure the team which compiled the security report know what there at:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 03:19PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

im sure the team which compiled the security report know what there at:rolleyes::rolleyes:

They've ruled out this explanation, have they? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

WilyCoyote · 12-02-2014 03:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

............................................................
....................................................................................................
..............................................................................

From where I'm sitting, Shatter comes across as wanting everyone to "move on" from this story as quickly as possible without getting deeper into the specifics of it.

Was he quoting Ray Burke on this? Draw a line in the sand like? Watch Bertie swallowing spittle as he rails about low standards in high places. History repeats itself.

http://www.frequency.com/video/ray-burke-td-draws-his-line-in-sand-in/69116021

tomwaterford · 12-02-2014 03:32PM

Phoebas wrote: »

They've ruled out this explanation, have they? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

they would be some dopes if they haven't :pac::pac:
they would never get work in this field again if they complied a report without basic research like this....sure they could have rerun the test again...if it happened again it would be from the test

this with other coincidences would seem to imply someone/some organisation was indeed listening into the gsoc offices

though shutdown of wi-fi and phone tower/network almost immediately is a strange coincidence

now its only a matter of figuring out whom would gain from an undetected complete electronic bugging of gsoc....there is most likely hood of being behind it....
either way there no way this should be swept aside as a non story as some would have you believe

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments