Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

kippy · 12-02-2014 07:29PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

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

A bit harsh......I have some 2g spoofing technology in the porch that I got on offer in LIDL.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 08:33PM

I see Phoebas has now disappeared. I assume he's off tracking down the employees of that UK security firm to tell them they have egg on their faces.

mikom · 12-02-2014 08:34PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I see Phoebas has now disappeared. I assume he's off tracking down the employees of that UK security firm to tell them they have egg on their faces.

Clocked off for the night.

ygolometsipe · 12-02-2014 08:34PM

I wonder what will be printed in the Sunday Times this week.

2012paddy2012 · 12-02-2014 08:36PM

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Those who have been following things will know that there is an obvious suspect, the Garda! More and more corruption coming into view, obviously this carry on is massively illegal

Wanna delete this??? Inside mole

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 08:37PM

2012paddy2012 wrote: »

Wanna delete this??? Inside mole

It's probable a mole leaked the report to the ST. Not that they set up a spoof 3G tower.

Just so we're clear.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 08:56PM

John Mooney (the journo who first published the story) from the Sunday Times is on RTE Radio 1 Late Debate tonight, at around 10pm I think. He's been proven correct in just about every aspect of his article, and he's gained my respect for first breaking this story. Will be interesting to hear what he has to say tonight, more "revelations" to come this weekend from the ST apparently...

Banjo String · 12-02-2014 09:02PM

2012paddy2012 wrote: »

Wanna delete this??? Inside mole

Ah but an inside mole for whom?

Who would this mole be reporting to? AGS? Govt? Media? Crime Lords?

I think there will be so much more to emerge from this story over over the next few weeks. This week's ST will make for interesting reading.

ygolometsipe · 12-02-2014 09:03PM

EireGun wrote: »

John Mooney (the journo who first published the story) from the Sunday Times is on RTE Radio 1 Late Debate tonight, at around 10pm I think. He's been proven correct in just about every aspect of his article, and he's gained my respect for first breaking this story. Will be interesting to hear what he has to say tonight, more "revelations" to come this weekend from the ST apparently...

I kinda got the feeling that he is playing everyone on this. I mean he released the story, kept low key, waited to see what all the characters would say, which would be undeniable later, then BAM (this Sunday) he hits them with some sort or irrefutable information, maybe the report or something.

If that the way it plays, its unreal.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 09:10PM

Banjo String wrote: »

Ah but an inside mole for whom?

Who would this mole be reporting to? AGS? Govt? Media? Crime Lords?

I think there will be so much more to emerge from this story over over the next few weeks. This week's ST will make for interesting reading.

Look at the relevant facts:

- the security report seems to have stated unequivocally that there was an attempt at state surveillance of some sort
- the head of GSOC, on his own, decided to not share this info with the gov
- the head of GSOC also thought that the report was too definitive in it's conclusions - which is odd to say the least - especially considering how often he and everyone deferred to the firms expertise in today's hearing
- and especially when they took it seriously enough to meet outside of their office, and ditch their mobiles
- no further sweeps, such as one during business hours, were undertaken

Now.

Why would someone leak a report to the press, forcing this issue into the light?

One reason MIGHT be that someone in GSOC thought that GSOC was ignoring the bottom line of the report: someone with state surveillance equipment was more likely than not spying on the Garda watchdog.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 09:12PM

EireGun wrote: »

John Mooney (the journo who first published the story) from the Sunday Times is on RTE Radio 1 Late Debate tonight, at around 10pm I think. He's been proven correct in just about every aspect of his article, and he's gained my respect for first breaking this story. Will be interesting to hear what he has to say tonight, more "revelations" to come this weekend from the ST apparently...

I expect that if he is asked any hard questions he will revert to the old "legal reasons" line. From the article:

GSOC took the decision to "integrity test" it's communications network after concerns were raised about internal security. The Sunday Times is unable to reveal what prompted the concerns, for legal reasons.

That paragraph told me exactly nothing. What does integrity test mean? What does concerns were raised mean. And what sort of legal reasons could he be writing about, I think we should be told.

The whole article is couched in this sort of vague jargon and I think it's time he began to name names or admit that it looks like he bought a hoax, probably generated by some Garda elements.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 09:12PM

ygolometsipe wrote: »

I kinda got the feeling that he is playing everyone on this. I mean he released the story, kept low key, waited to see what all the characters would say, which would be undeniable later, then BAM (this Sunday) he hits them with some sort or irrefutable information, maybe the report or something.

If that the way it plays, its unreal.

To that end the GSOC was today saying they "can't recall" certain points they've seen in secret reports.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 09:17PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I expect that if he is asked any hard questions he will revert to the old "legal reasons" line. From the article:

GSOC took the decision to "integrity test" it's communications network after concerns were raised about internal security. The Sunday Times is unable to reveal what prompted the concerns, for legal reasons.

That paragraph told me exactly nothing. What does integrity test mean? What does concerns were raised mean. And what sort of legal reasons could he be writing about, I think we should be told.

The whole article is couched in this sort of vague jargon and I think it's time he began to name names or admit that it looks like he bought a hoax, probably generated by some Garda elements.

There's nothing John Mooney has reported that is incorrect so far. Nothing. GSOC vaguely confirmed the 3 "anomalies", before Alan Shatter explained them further in the Dail, basically repeating the original Sunday Times article, but adding the line "there was no conclusive evidence", etc. after each point. I'd say we will know a lot more this Sunday.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 09:18PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I expect that if he is asked any hard questions he will revert to the old "legal reasons" line. From the article:

GSOC took the decision to "integrity test" it's communications network after concerns were raised about internal security. The Sunday Times is unable to reveal what prompted the concerns, for legal reasons.

That paragraph told me exactly nothing. What does integrity test mean? What does concerns were raised mean. And what sort of legal reasons could he be writing about, I think we should be told.

The whole article is couched in this sort of vague jargon and I think it's time he began to name names or admit that it looks like he bought a hoax, probably generated by some Garda elements.

I think you haven't been paying attention.

This whole post is very odd to say the least.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 09:24PM

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.

Two points:
1. Nobody in GSOC has said what the nature of the unexpected UK 3G network is, so speculation that it is government level or claiming all sorts of monetary values for it or who could lay their hands on it are in the realms of speculation. So I really couldn't say who might be able to set up this kind of network, because there really isn't any clarity - but lots of speculation - about what kind of equipment would be necessary.
2. The 3g network wasn't any threat to GSOC in any case since none of its employees used UK registered phones. The conclusion was that "There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC.". You'd have to wonder why these government level actors would invest so much in using technology that was useless against GSOC. You'd think they might use a fake Irish network if they were targeting GSOC.

So that's why I'm inclined to think it looks more like something lower down ladder than 'government level'. Obviously people are free to disagree with this analysis, but they aren't free to post lies about what I claimed.

This is a lie:

MilanPan!c wrote:

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

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 09:25PM

EireGun wrote: »

There's nothing John Mooney has reported that is incorrect so far. Nothing. GSOC vaguely confirmed the 3 "anomalies", before Alan Shatter explained them further in the Dail, basically repeating the original Sunday Times article, but adding the line "there was no conclusive evidence", etc. after each point. I'd say we will know a lot more this Sunday.

He also said in the article:

Senior security and military sources said last night (that would be Saturday night) that no government agency would mount surveillance against another. Other security sources said it would be impossible for a private individual to organise such surveillance.

How can anyone disprove this sort of vague non-information unless he tells us who he spoke to? What are "other security sources"? That's just complete gobbledygook. I simply do not believe that he spoke to these sorts of people last Saturday night, I think he just made that up to pad out the story.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 09:31PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

He also said in the article:

Senior security and military sources said last night (that would be Saturday night) that no government agency would mount surveillance against another. Other security sources said it would be impossible for a private individual to organise such surveillance.

How can anyone disprove this sort of vague non-information unless he tells us who he spoke to? What are "other security sources"? That's just complete gobbledygook. I simply do not believe that he spoke to these sorts of people last Saturday night, I think he just made that up to pad out the story.

This is John Mooney's last big story: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/10/black-ops-being-run-off-the-books/ which resulted in a GSOC investigation. He's not the sort to make anything up.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 09:42PM

EireGun wrote: »

This is John Mooney's last big story: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/10/black-ops-being-run-off-the-books/ which resulted in a GSOC investigation. He's not the sort to make anything up.

I know about his history of Gardai stories. That would make him the perfect foil to be fed a rumour , which had previously been fed to the GSOC that they were being bugged. Causing them to tie themselves up in knots but to find nothing because there was nothing there.

Except a physical bug? in a speaker phone in a room regularly used for conferences. What else am I meant to understand from this " The consultants.....found a phone on the upper floor of the GSOC building was bugged" How convenient. BTW the story is very light on detail about this aspect. What sort of bug was it, had the consultants suggested where it came from, who would have had the opportunity to plant it?

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 09:47PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Two points:
1. Nobody in GSOC has said what the nature of the unexpected UK 3G network is, so speculation that it is government level or claiming all sorts of monetary values for it or who could lay their hands on it are in the realms of speculation. So I really couldn't say who might be able to set up this kind of network, because there really isn't any clarity - but lots of speculation - about what kind of equipment would be necessary.
2. The 3g network wasn't any threat to GSOC in any case since none of its employees used UK registered phones. The conclusion was that "There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC.". You'd have to wonder why these government level actors would invest so much in using technology that was useless against GSOC. You'd think they might use a fake Irish network if they were targeting GSOC.

So that's why I'm inclined to think it looks more like something lower down ladder than 'government level'. Obviously people are free to disagree with this analysis, but they aren't free to post lies about what I claimed.

This is a lie:

At this point you need to go argue with the UK security firm. All the info in the ST came from their report, as confirmed in the hearings today.

If you want to continue to claim it's not state level tech (with no evidence, as we all know) then attack the source. A source which GSOC, and the TDs, and and the Garda Commissioner all trusted used that term to describe it.

As for your belief that the 3G network posed no threat, well - it worried them enough to stop them using their mobiles.

But sure sure, the security firm is wrong.

Will just trust your expertise. Lol.

At this point everyone not desperate to defend their previous silly attacks on the ST will realise that the ST article has been confirmed.

MilanPan!c · 12-02-2014 09:49PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I know about his history of Gardai stories. That would make him the perfect foil to be fed a rumour , which had previously been fed to the GSOC that they were being bugged. Causing them to tie themselves up in knots but to find nothing because there was nothing there.

Except a physical bug? in a speaker phone in a room regularly used for conferences. What else am I meant to understand from this " The consultants.....found a phone on the upper floor of the GSOC building was bugged" How convenient. BTW the story is very light on detail about this aspect. What sort of bug was it, had the consultants suggested where it came from, who would have had the opportunity to plant it?

You REALLY are about two days behind the curve here.

Seriously. You're not making sense.

aloyisious · 12-02-2014 10:47PM

I like the news piece on RTE TV 1 that GSOC has set up an internal inquiry about a leak of parts of the report (I'm presuming the UK Security Co one) and that the eight (8) people to be questioned include the man who ordered the inquiry, the gent who's been giving interviews to the Dail committee and the media. It really is gettiing like a game of Snakes and Ladders.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 11:24PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I like the news piece on RTE TV 1 that GSOC has set up an internal inquiry about a leak of parts of the report (I'm presuming the UK Security Co one) and that the eight (8) people to be questioned include the man who ordered the inquiry, the gent who's been giving interviews to the Dail committee and the media. It really is gettiing like a game of Snakes and Ladders.

It's quite obvious the place is leaking like a sieve. Whoever was releasing the information about the GSOC being unhappy with Garda delay in co-operating would be the party with the most interest in generating a rumour about bugging. Which in the end did not amount to a hill of beans.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/full-text-of-gsoc-presentation-to-oireachtas-committee-1.1689223?page=3

This is the bit showing that they were concerned with leaks to the media:

In the context of this public profile, we did then have heightened concerns about confidentiality, particularly in light of some public discourse appearing to be exceptionally well-informed.

This is the bit which shows the whole bugging investigation was inconclusive, their way of saying we spent €18,000 so we have to say something. Whoever started the rumour has got their desired reaction.

What did the inquiry find?

Preliminary Results:

Analysis of these threats was inconclusive. GSOC was operating at the limits of its technical knowledge and on information only from security professionals. The Commission did not rule out that there could be reasonable explanations for any/all of these issues.

· Connection by the Wi-Fi device in the conference room with an external Wi-Fi network was occurring randomly and with no discernible pattern or agent apparent.

· The anomaly in the telephone unit in the Chairman’s office could not be repeated – the Commission could not rule out the possibility that an innocent call was made to the office at 1am. Telecoms data could not identify a number from which the call originated or even that a call had been made.

· Concerning the device scanning for mobile phones, the Commission could not rule out that such a device was being lawfully used in the vicinity of our building or that it was not directed at our building.

Final Test:

Absent any further clarification, the Commission could not simply proceed on the basis that these issues were purely innocent or coincidental. Accordingly, the Commission conducted a specific operational test, on 19 November 2013; this was coordinated by the security firm and involved a GSOC investigation team. It also involved the three Commissioners to test these issues. This operational test yielded no results and added no clarity to the threats identified above.

And bizarrely the top man in the GSOC is pre-empting what will probably be in the next Sunday Times by saying that the consultants have put something in the report which is a lie (does not accord with his recollection).

I must explain to the Committee my clear recollection of the reasons and the thinking to retain a UK specialist company. I should inform the Committee that the final investigation report and the UK specialist company documentation make reference to reasons for the sweep that do not accord with my recollection of those reasons. This is a matter that I identified in my own notes short after receiving and considering the final investigation report.

DistanceVector · 12-02-2014 11:29PM

Explosive stuff on the late debate.

The guards protecting a big drug dealer who hauls Heroin in his garda licensed haulage trucks.

Said gangster has a ton of dirt on the guards.

Here we have it folks, the nub of the whole farce.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 11:35PM

DistanceVector wrote: »

Explosive stuff on the late debate.

The guards protecting a big drug dealer who hauls Heroin in his garda licensed haulage trucks.

Said gangster has a ton of dirt on the guards.

Here we have it folks, the nub of the whole farce.

Very old news which Mooney has been running in the Sunday Times for years as if it is the biggest thing since Watergate.

DistanceVector · 12-02-2014 11:37PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Very old news which Mooney has been running in the Sunday Times for years as if it is the biggest thing since Watergate.

Its been spelt out in black and white by Mr. Mooney, he may not see another sunrise me thinks.

He is one of the few good men in this.

Stavros Murphy · 12-02-2014 11:38PM

DistanceVector wrote: »

Explosive stuff on the late debate.

The guards protecting a big drug dealer who hauls Heroin in his garda licensed haulage trucks.

Said gangster has a ton of dirt on the guards.

Here we have it folks, the nub of the whole farce.

I have heard this first hand from someone I consider to be pretty clued in. I wonder is there any truth in this? He has also commented to me on whether I ever wondered why there was such open dealing in the City center. I'm no expert on that though. This has the potential to be an awful scandal. Is this a possibility??

DistanceVector · 12-02-2014 11:39PM

''Are Fine Gael pursuing a policy of silencing the press?''

Mooney to Mulherrin

tayto lover · 12-02-2014 11:42PM

DistanceVector wrote: »

Explosive stuff on the late debate.

The guards protecting a big drug dealer who hauls Heroin in his garda licensed haulage trucks.

Said gangster has a ton of dirt on the guards.

Here we have it folks, the nub of the whole farce.

Were you in Mars for the last 4 years.
Even I read all about that.
Its old news.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 11:43PM

DistanceVector wrote: »

''Are Fine Gael pursuing a policy of silencing the press?''

Mooney to Mulherrin

Certainly not Mooney. He has been publishing stories about the Gardai for years. Who is Mulherrin?

Dyr · 12-02-2014 11:46PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You REALLY are about two days behind the curve here.

Seriously. You're not making sense.

When you're busy circling the wagons you can lose track of things

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments