Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 03:47PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

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

Really? Tell me more - you seem to know a lot about the specifics of this test.

tomwaterford wrote: »

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

That not the conclusion that GSOC came to - how do you come to this conclusion if the people who have had sight of the report haven't. You seem to know more than everyone else.

tomwaterford wrote: »

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

Was the tower shut down immediately? Was it even identified as a 'tower'? You seem to have more information about this than anyone else.

tomwaterford wrote: »

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....

Was 'complete electronic bugging of gsoc' established? You seem to have more information than the rest of us.

tomwaterford wrote: »

either way there no way this should be swept aside as a non story as some would have you believe

Absolutely not. Your story is really good - so much better than the actual story.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 04:03PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Really? Tell me more - you seem to know a lot about the specifics of this test.

That not the conclusion that GSOC came to - how do you come to this conclusion if the people who have had sight of the report haven't. You seem to know more than everyone else.

Was the tower shut down immediately? Was it even identified as a 'tower'? You seem to have more information about this than anyone else.

Was 'complete electronic bugging of gsoc' established? You seem to have more information than the rest of us.

Absolutely not. Your story is really good - so much better than the actual story.

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks. And anyone that thinks otherwise has "egg on their face".

Of course you've also repeatedly claimed that no evidence that the anomalies done as part of an attempt to bug the GSOC is the same thing as saying they found evidence that no one was trying to bug the GSOC.

This post of yours ^^^ is more of your double standards approach to this story.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 04:07PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks.

Except I didn't make that claim at all. Not even once.
You're just making shít up again.

mikom · 12-02-2014 04:10PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks. And anyone that thinks otherwise has "egg on their face".

Phoebas wrote: »

Except I didn't make that claim at all. Not even once.
You're just making shít up again.

Rewind.......

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this is explained away as some low level common or garden hacking that wasn't serious enough to report up the line,

My name is URL · 12-02-2014 04:11PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So the best the GSOC can come up with is:

“electronic anomalies” which could not be “conclusively explained”.

And that the Gardai did nothing wrong. The Gardai themselves from the Commissioner down say they did nothing wrong. And the Minister for Justice says there is no evidence of bugging.

So who will you believe, all of those parties or a journalist? OK I know I shouldn't ask a question like that on AH.

This is the thing that's bugging me! People are basing their views on buzz-words and media spin and political speak.

It has been said that there was no evidence of eavesdropping, but what does that even mean? What is evidence in this case? Evidence is something that can be verified, and shown to be fact.

The consultancy firm here would not be looking for 'facts' in that sense. They would be looking for tell tale signs, and based on their expertise they would reach informed conclusions on the matter. The problem there is that no matter how informed, considered or expert those conclusions are; they remain only opinions.

By no 'concrete evidence', they could simply mean that they have nothing more to offer than their expert opinions (ie, no physical markers), and that shouldn't be written off so readily by Shatter.

It stinks of damage limitation when governments and state agencies react so angrily to issues that dare to put them in to question.

As I said earlier in the thread, skeptism, and a certain level of healthy distrust are attributes which every watchdog should be showing. And people shouldn't be demanding answers so doggedly, and calling for resignations when a watchdog dares to demonstrate such attributes.

The fact that the main focus of this whole thing is why the matter wasn't divulged to Shatter speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. They're more interested in protecting their image than striving for a good working relationship with the ombudsman. Gardai calling for him to resign because they may have been suspected.. utterly pathetic.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 04:12PM

mikom wrote: »

Rewind.......

I wasn't far off the mark there. Well done me

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 04:21PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Except I didn't make that claim at all. Not even once.

You're just making shít up again.

Vs

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.

Yep. I'm just making **** up again.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 04:29PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yep. I'm just making **** up again.

You sure are - you should quit it.

There is a world of difference between this:

what you claimed I said wrote:

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks.

and this:

what I said wrote:

People who were pushing the 'government level' technology line a couple of days ago are left wiping the egg from their faces.

So can you now point out where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 04:35PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You sure are - you should quit it.

There is a world of difference between this:

and this:

So can you now point out where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

Yes. Keep trying to make that point. Let's see how many people believe you. Incredible.

You think that exactly who can buy the tech to spoof a 3G mast and use it to monitor all the calls?

Think that's available to the public?

If you think that people that claimed it was only available to a state are ridiculously wrong (i.e. They have egg on their face) then who exactly do YOU think can buy this tech?

And where the proof you have for your belief?

Until you show us good reason to be so incredibly dismissive I'll stick by my original mocking tone.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 04:37PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes. Keep trying to make that point. Let's see how many people believe you. Incredible.

OK. I'll keep making it until you answer it or withdraw it.

So can you now point out where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

If I claimed it (I didn't), you should be able to point to where I claimed it.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 04:50PM

Phoebas wrote: »

OK. I'll keep making it until you answer it or withdraw it.

So can you now point out where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

If I claimed it (I didn't), you should be able to point to where I claimed it.

Answer my question then.

Who do you think can buy 3G spoofing and monitoring tech?

You said that people that claimed only states could, have egg on their face.

So.

Answer that question.

And provide proof for your answer.

tayto lover · 12-02-2014 04:54PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The one common thread between the major cases highlighted there, those leading to the Morris Tribunal and the Kieran Boylan affair is the journalist John Mooney. Mooney gave evidence to the Tribunal and was one of those parties to whom expenses were paid. In the Sunday Times he has been running stories for years about Boylan

Now Mooney turns up again with this latest story. He must have some very good contacts.

Maybe he has good equipment ?

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 05:02PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

[...]

Before we go any further, can you show me where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

Or just withdraw it.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks.

tayto lover · 12-02-2014 05:06PM

All this talk of bugging devices has me head astray.
I don't even know what wi-fi is and a bug is a creepy crawly.

One thing I do know from reading all this is --

The GSOC, the Minister, Commissioner and the Garda reps need to sit down and talk in order to end all this rubbish.
Every one of them has a job and a purpose all paid for by me and people like me and this silly carry-on has to stop.
AND again the Garda Commissioner should not be a political appointee. Independent board to select the commissioner should be a priority.

kippy · 12-02-2014 05:09PM

tayto lover wrote: »

All this talk of bugging devices has me head astray.
I don't even know what wi-fi is and a bug is a creepy crawly.

One thing I do know from reading all this is --

The GSOC, the Minister, Commissioner and the Garda reps need to sit down and talk in order to end all this rubbish.
Every one of them has a job and a purpose all paid for by me and people like me and this silly carry-on has to stop.
AND again the Garda Commissioner should not be a political appointee. Independent board to select the commissioner should be a priority.

100 percent correct.

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 05:22PM

The Oireachtas hearing has been changed from a public to a private sitting with no announcement or forewarning. Pretty strange, considering that up until this afternoon all media thought it would be public, and the Oireachtas website itself said it would be.

One has to wonder why.

tayto lover · 12-02-2014 05:27PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Oireachtas hearing has been changed from a public to a private sitting with no announcement or forewarning. Pretty strange, considering that up until this afternoon all media thought it would be public, and the Oireachtas website itself said it would be.

One has to wonder why.

Journalists would print details.
They probably wanted to make sure that any confidential information disclosed would remain private. I would agree with them.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 05:28PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Before we go any further, can you show me where I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

Or just withdraw it.

Exactly. You can't justify your claims and you deserved to be mocked. I mocked you, you deserved it and I won't withdraw it.

You are the one with the egg on your face until you prove that anyone other than a state agency can get 3G tech that was discovered.

And if you're now desperately googling to justify your claims, you should know, if you're honest, that you shouldn't have made them in the first place.

You know, because you shouldn't make claims without evidence. Which you have.

So.

kippy · 12-02-2014 05:40PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Journalists would print details.
They probably wanted to make sure that any confidential information disclosed would remain private. I would agree with them.

I wouldnt to be honest. As you said yourself....we are ultimately paying the bills.
I know certain things are confidential but this surely has to be as transparent as possible.

Shady Tady · 12-02-2014 06:03PM

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.

It was proballbly some guy in a call centre in India trying to sell a new phone package, they bug me too!!

Banjo String · 12-02-2014 06:06PM

Here ye go.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/DVR-Flash-Committee3.htm

tayto lover · 12-02-2014 06:10PM

kippy wrote: »

I wouldnt to be honest. As you said yourself....we are ultimately paying the bills.
I know certain things are confidential but this surely has to be as transparent as possible.

Not if it were to disclose anything that might interfere with a forthcoming trial or name someone who has a right to anonymity.

Shady Tady · 12-02-2014 06:29PM

This is getting very interesting with the committee, they are focusing on the leak from GSOC, it's down to 7 people who had the info, there's going to be a witch hunt?

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 06:39PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

[...]

Could show me exactly where you think I claimed that "anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks" ?

MilanPan!c wrote:

Not as good as your claim that anyone could just casually buy the tech to scan and listen into 3G networks.

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2014 07:01PM

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't doubt that something was going on, but you must admit that its starting to look more like the common kind of attacks that organisations are subjected to every day of the week than the 'government level' attack that some people were convinced of just yesterday.

I think this is the comment people are referring to when accusing you of suggesting that it's easy to falsify a 3G network, as well as your repeated use of quotes to describe government level technology - it could be construed as implying that such technology is available to non-government actors, although personally I'd say that's an unfair way of interpreting what you're saying without you explicitly saying that.

Let's look at this another way - do you believe that a non-state actor could have both the technology and expertise to set up this false 3G network? And if they did, that in and of itself would be a crime would it not? I'm pretty sure even if I had access to that technology it wouldn't be legal for me to just use it wherever I wanted.

who_ru · 12-02-2014 07:10PM

Shady Tady wrote: »

This is getting very interesting with the committee, they are focusing on the leak from GSOC, it's down to 7 people who had the info, there's going to be a witch hunt?

The leak is not the substantive issue here. Who carried out the surveillance is?

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 07:12PM

So now we have confirmation that the entire ST article was correct.

The only issues and confusion seems to be that the GSOC didn't agree with the conclusions of the security firm. They seemed more certain about issues than GSOC was willing to be.

GSOC needed to see TWO tests of 99% certainty to believe they were definitively being surveilled. The security form managed only one test of 99% certainty.

That was enough, however, to convince heads of GSOC to start meeting in public places and completely stop using all mobile phone technology.

No one and I mean no one thought the claim of state level technology had been proven to be false. All deferred to the security firm, which was the originator of the claim.

So.

ST basically vindicated.

The only other thing is that the original report contains a claim that some specific thing provoked the sweep. The GSOC doesn't seem to recall that specific event.

So it's in the report. But GSOC can't remember if it actually happened and doesn't think it did.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 07:16PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Phoebas

I think this is the comment people are referring to when accusing you of suggesting that it's easy to falsify a 3G network, as well as your repeated use of quotes to describe government level technology - it could be construed as implying that such technology is available to non-government actors, although personally I'd say that's an unfair way of interpreting what you're saying without you explicitly saying that.

Let's look at this another way - do you believe that a non-state actor could have both the technology and expertise to set up this false 3G network? And if they did, that in and of itself would be a crime would it not? I'm pretty sure even if I had access to that technology it wouldn't be legal for me to just use it wherever I wanted.

He refuses to answer that question. He's repeatedly mocked people which (it turns out) were using the term the security firm used.

He apparently knows more than they do about the attack.

And let's make it clear; the security firm believed it was an attack. An attempt to beech the security.

GSOC also admits that they NEVER swept for security breaches during the day. So. Who knows what may or may not have turned up had they swept during business hours.

mikom · 12-02-2014 07:19PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No one and I mean no one thought the claim of state level technology had been proven to be false.

"state level technology" or "low level common or garden hacking" as some brave soldiers on here like to call it.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 07:26PM

mikom wrote: »

"state level technology" or "low level common or garden hacking" as some brave soldiers on here like to call it.

Like I said earlier, some folks think you can buy 3G tower spoofing and monitoring equipment from Tesco. For your garden.

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments