Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

raymon · 13-02-2014 03:51PM

Is anyone concerned that someone in the ombudsman's office is leaking secret documents? is this a good thing or a bad thing?

My own opinion is that it is a bad thing.

At least one document was leaked.

renegademaster · 13-02-2014 03:55PM

raymon wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that someone in the ombudsman's office is leaking secret documents? is this a good thing or a bad thing?

At least one document was leaked.

the whole world needs more whistleblowers!! i'm more copncerned at the leaks than the leakers tbh

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:01PM

renegademaster wrote: »

the whole world needs more whistleblowers!! i'm more copncerned at the leaks than the leakers tbh

Thats assuming that the source is a whistleblower and not someone out to make a few quid.

edanto · 13-02-2014 04:05PM

raymon wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that someone in the ombudsman's office is leaking secret documents?

You should take some of your own medicine.

There is obviously no conclusive proof that the leak came from GSOC. Obviously the small number of people that are known to have possessed the document are suspects, but let's not forget that the leaked document is only a single event in the context of a potentially electronically compromised office. Verrimus were als in possession of the document.

All that being said, who stands to benefit from such a leak? You'd have to suspect that GSOC are the only agency that might benefit - so obviously speculation is rife in that direction, but remember to stay inside the lines of proven facts.

For the record, I am concerned about the leak. But on a scale of 1-10 I'll rate my concern at about 3. My concern that GSOC may have been surveilled by persons unknown would be closer to a 10.

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2014 04:05PM

bajer101 wrote: »

This stifles debate too much IMO. The Late Debate on RTE Radio 1 last night was some of the best Radio I have ever heard. Part of the reason it was so good was that John Mooney did attack Michelle Mulherin for holding those opinions. If its ok to do it on RTE, it should be ok here.

To be fair, there's a difference between attacking certain opinions (debate) and attacking the person who holds them (personal abuse).

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:08PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No.

Nice try, but no.

The leak in this case has NOTHING to do with a GSOC case. There's a pretty decent explanation to springs to mind as to why someone in GSOC leaked this report. A whistleblower perhaps.

However, if the Gardai or the State is spying on the state watchdog, it's MUCH bigger than one office of the government leaking one report.

Except that this is not the first time that GSOC information has appeared in a newspaper.

Garda representatives have previously expressed concern about the security of GSOC information and reports.

Nobody can have any confidence in the GSOC until the mole is discovered.

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2014 04:09PM

edanto wrote: »

All that being said, who stands to benefit from such a leak? You'd have to suspect that GSOC are the only agency that might benefit - so obviously speculation is rife in that direction, but remember to stay inside the lines of proven facts.

This is actually what makes me seriously doubt that it was someone in GSOC - GSOC have nothing to gain from this at all, it's been an absolute nightmare from them for the whole week and is a bunch of unwanted attention at an already incredibly busy time. They're not happy about it, and you can see that even just watching them in their various appearances over the last few days. They didn't want this, and they certainly didn't want to have to deal with it just at this exact moment.

Whoever it was, they seem unlikely to have been acting in GSOC's interests. Unless maybe they felt that GSOC hadn't done enough about this and it needed to go further, but even then, they could have waited and picked a time when there wasn't already a huge amount of work to me done and the stress that comes with that.

I don't see how anyone in GSOC benefits from this incident.

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:09PM

edanto wrote: »

You should take some of your own medicine.

There is obviously no conclusive proof that the leak came from GSOC. Obviously the small number of people that are known to have possessed the document are suspects, but let's not forget that the leaked document is only a single event in the context of a potentially electronically compromised office. Verrimus were als in possession of the document.

All that being said, who stands to benefit from such a leak? You'd have to suspect that GSOC are the only agency that might benefit - so obviously speculation is rife in that direction, but remember to stay inside the lines of proven facts.

For the record, I am concerned about the leak. But on a scale of 1-10 I'll rate my concern at about 3. My concern that GSOC may have been surveilled by persons unknown would be closer to a 10.

This is true - there is no proof that any particular group leaked it. All we know is that the document ended up with a journalist .

you see - I am agreeing

bajer101 · 13-02-2014 04:12PM

raymon wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that someone in the ombudsman's office is leaking secret documents? is this a good thing or a bad thing?

My own opinion is that it is a bad thing.

At least one document was leaked.

raymon wrote: »

Thats assuming that the source is a whistleblower and not someone out to make a few quid.

Oh dear god, you have to be having a laugh! Look, here is what happened. I'll break it down into simple, easy to understand pieces.

GSOC were bugged with the most likely suspects being AGS.
After internal discussions within GSOC, The Chairman decided that there was not much that could be done, as they could not effect a prosecution. He decided that the only action they could take was to increase the levels of their internal security.
Other parties in GSOC disagreed with this approach, as they felt that the issue was big that it had to be acted upon. Presumably, one of these people leaked it to The Sunday Times.

GSOC was bugged by AGS. That is the main issue here and the issue which needs to be focused on. Anyone who tries to deflect away from this is either a fool or is serving a different agenda.

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:14PM

edanto wrote: »

You should take some of your own medicine.

There is obviously no conclusive proof that the leak came from GSOC. Obviously the small number of people that are known to have possessed the document are suspects, but let's not forget that the leaked document is only a single event in the context of a potentially electronically compromised office. Verrimus were als in possession of the document.

All that being said, who stands to benefit from such a leak? You'd have to suspect that GSOC are the only agency that might benefit - so obviously speculation is rife in that direction, but remember to stay inside the lines of proven facts.

For the record, I am concerned about the leak. But on a scale of 1-10 I'll rate my concern at about 3. My concern that GSOC may have been surveilled by persons unknown would be closer to a 10.

Remember was it last May when concerns the GSOC held about the co-operation being received from the Gardai were also leaked to the press. This is therefore not the first time that GSOC information has appeared in the press.

I have already explained earlier in the thread how it is likely that the only people who would leak the Verrimus report is someone within the GSOC. Any other explanation implies stupidity and naivety on the part of Verrimus to an extent which compromises their report.

You cannot have leaks from a State watchdog.

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:16PM

bajer101 wrote: »

GSOC was bugged by AGS. .

That is not a fact .

Phoebas · 13-02-2014 04:21PM

bajer101 wrote: »

GSOC was bugged by AGS. That is the main issue here and the issue which needs to be focused on.

That hasn't been established at all.

bajer101 wrote: »

Anyone who tries to deflect away from this is either a fool or is serving a different agenda.

And how would you categorise someone who was pushing something that hasn't been established as a fact as if it was a fact.

Iwannahurl · 13-02-2014 04:21PM

raymon wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that someone in the ombudsman's office is leaking secret documents? is this a good thing or a bad thing?

My own opinion is that it is a bad thing.

At least one document was leaked.

Could it have been leaked by someone in Verrimus?

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:24PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Could it have been leaked by someone in Verrimus?

yes - true

It could have been leaked by other people - I stand corrected .

GSOC , Verrimus , or someone else could have leaked it.

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is actually what makes me seriously doubt that it was someone in GSOC - GSOC have nothing to gain from this at all, it's been an absolute nightmare from them for the whole week and is a bunch of unwanted attention at an already incredibly busy time. They're not happy about it, and you can see that even just watching them in their various appearances over the last few days. They didn't want this, and they certainly didn't want to have to deal with it just at this exact moment.

Whoever it was, they seem unlikely to have been acting in GSOC's interests. Unless maybe they felt that GSOC hadn't done enough about this and it needed to go further, but even then, they could have waited and picked a time when there wasn't already a huge amount of work to me done and the stress that comes with that.

I don't see how anyone in GSOC benefits from this incident.

Very shortsighted and blinkered view of what happened.

If you look back to last year, there were leaks from the GSOC about lack of co-operation from the Gardai that resulted in good publicity for the GSOC and public criticism of the gardai.

If you were in GSOC and responsible for that leak, it is clear that you would do it again. What you mightn't expect is that your senior bosses wouldn't like it as O'Brien made clear yesterday in the Committee.

The only organisation who could potentially benefit from the leak is the GSOC.

bajer101 wrote: »

Oh dear god, you have to be having a laugh! Look, here is what happened. I'll break it down into simple, easy to understand pieces.

GSOC was bugged by AGS. .

Maybe you could provide a link to the bit in bold where it has been established as fact?

Phoebas · 13-02-2014 04:26PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Could it have been leaked by someone in Verrimus?

Possible but very doubtful. Its most likely source is GSOC - and that's the assumption that GSOC themselves are following.

You could understand a GSOC employee concerned that a potential serious surveillance wasn't been followed up and deciding to blow the whistle. I can't think of any motive from Verrimus.

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:28PM

raymon wrote: »

yes - true

It could have been leaked by other people - I stand corrected .

GSOC , Verrimus , or someone else could have leaked it.

Who are the potential "someone else"? Nobody else held the document.

Explain to me how likely it is that Verrimus would risk their worldwide reputation by leaking a document about a small investigation into a small organisation in a small country?

I can say with 95% confidence that the leak of the report came from within GSOC.

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Who are the potential "someone else"? Nobody else held the document.

Explain to me how likely it is that Verrimus would risk their worldwide reputation by leaking a document about a small investigation into a small organisation in a small country?

I can say with 95% confidence that the leak of the report came from within GSOC.

I dont know who the " someone else" would be . Improbable that there would be a "someone else " But they couldnt be ruled out at this stage.
Also Verrimus is unlikely but cant be ruled out .

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2014 04:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Very shortsighted and blinkered view of what happened.

Cheers

If you look back to last year, there were leaks from the GSOC about lack of co-operation from the Gardai that resulted in good publicity for the GSOC and public criticism of the gardai.

Sure, but in this case the publicity was never going to be good. Best case scenario, even if no one had attacked GSOC in the way that they have, there would have been a chilling effect on people sending in complaints, especially complaints about bullying or harassment. If people don't feel that GSOC is secure, they're not going to make those complaints.

If you were in GSOC and responsible for that leak, it is clear that you would do it again.

Again though why in this case? GSOC have literally gained absolutely nothing from this except bad press and headaches.

What you mightn't expect is that your senior bosses wouldn't like it as O'Brien made clear yesterday in the Committee.

Again I would have thought it'd be obvious, bringing unwanted and negative media storms to the organization would obviously not sit well with those running it. Why wouldn't one expect that?

The only organisation who could potentially benefit from the leak is the GSOC.

How exactly could they benefit from it? All it's achieved is bad publicity and harsh questions.

Maybe you could provide a link to the bit in bold where it has been established as fact?

That AGS did it has not been established, sure, but in my view the security experts' view that the incident with the phone couldn't have been coincidental is enough to say that they were, in all probability, surveilled in some way by someone.

Sierra Oscar · 13-02-2014 04:37PM

It is absolute rubbish to try and suggest that GSOC's public image has benefited as a result of its conflict with AGS (which we know is a hard fact) and the leaking of this bugging incident.

GSOC has been hugely damaged by these revelations. What whistle blower would dream of contacting GSOC after these revelations? Would you contact them if you believed that your conversations with them might be under surveillance by those you are seeking to blow the whistle against?

Lets get real here. Are people still surprised that lower ranking members of An Garda Síochána were reluctant to co-operate with GSOC inquiries, such as the Kieran Boylan case, given what we have heard in recent months? Would you co-operate with in knowledge that the information you give, which is given in the strictest confidence, may find its way back to your superiors?

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2014 04:37PM

raymon wrote: »

I watched it already - it reinforced my belief that the original newspaper article was bogus and that it is unlikely that bugging occurred at all.

What's your interpretation of the phone test then? Someone trying to phone an office conference phone at 1AM at exactly the moment the security company expected it to ring if it was being bugged?
Come on.

Phoebas · 13-02-2014 04:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What's your interpretation of the phone test then? Someone trying to phone an office conference phone at 1AM at exactly the moment the security company expected it to ring if it was being bugged?

I must be missing out on a lot of the breaking news.
Who said that the phone ringing was a positive indication of a bugging? The last I heard on that one was that they didn't know why it rang.

raymon · 13-02-2014 04:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What's your interpretation of the phone test then? Someone trying to phone an office conference phone at 1AM at exactly the moment the security company expected it to ring if it was being bugged?
Come on.

Without the actual full technical report of the test they did ( and not a sensationalized jazzed up journalistic dramatisation) I dont know.

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Cheers
Sure, but in this case the publicity was never going to be good. Best case scenario, even if no one had attacked GSOC in the way that they have, there would have been a chilling effect on people sending in complaints, especially complaints about bullying or harassment. If people don't feel that GSOC is secure, they're not going to make those complaints.

Again though why in this case? GSOC have literally gained absolutely nothing from this except bad press and headaches.

Again I would have thought it'd be obvious, bringing unwanted and negative media storms to the organization would obviously not sit well with those running it. Why wouldn't one expect that?

How exactly could they benefit from it? All it's achieved is bad publicity and harsh questions..

Your rebuttal only makes sense if you can distinguish the two cases.

Given the previous experience, the person who leaked would have expected the media to focus immediately on the gardai as responsible for the surveillance leading to criticism of the gardai and sympathy for the GSOC. Initially this is what happened. It only seems to have changed following the 2-hour meeting between Callinan and O'Brien. Following that meeting, even O'Brien is focussed on a internal mole.

(Now to put on my tinfoil hat). You know, one possible explanation is that the surveillance was legal, authorised by the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, because of legitimate concerns about previous leaks, and that it identified a member of staff of the GSOC as responsible for leaking documents on a number of occasions. Once O'Brien heard about the state of that investigation from Callinan he changed tack and talked about the possibility of an internal mole. It would also explain his refusal to go into certain details yesterday due to an ongoing investigation as well as him being equivocal on garda involvement. It fits with all of the facts. (Taking off tinfoil hat).

I do not believe in this day and age that the Gardai have a level of technology above that available on the black market or to large media organisations. Ireland does not have technology equivalent to MI5 or the CIA or FBI.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That AGS did it has not been established, sure, but in my view the security experts' view that the incident with the phone couldn't have been coincidental is enough to say that they were, in all probability, surveilled in some way by someone.

But why the AGS?

Suddenly, everyone on this thread who wants to believe that AGS are responsible, are affording them the ability to eavesdrop and spy at a technological level above that of, say, Microsoft or Verrimus.

I don't have that kind of confidence in the technological capability of AGS, sorry. For a start, they would have brought Anglo prosecutions years ago if they had that technological capability.

zagmund · 13-02-2014 04:47PM

Godge wrote: »

You cannot have leaks from a State watchdog.

Or from other state bodies charged with upholding the law. The poor oul journalists will just have to start hitting the streets and doing some of their own work so.

You cannot have bodies being "watched" challenging the integrity of the watchdog without presenting any actual evidence. It's akin to someone in court refusing to accept the authority of the court - you can do it alright, but for the 99.9% of the population who do accept the authority of the court it puts a slant on their perception of you.

z

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 04:47PM

I am going to ask the question that might be stupid but nevertheless.

Why would garda intelligence bug the offices of the Ombudsman?

The reason I ask this is that i heard on radio that the garda commissioner is outside the remit of any ombudsman investigations.
As most of their cases seem to be about bottom rung garda members i can't see why the garda intelligence people would be deployed to find out how their cases are going.
The Boylan case is really old news and happened years ago, 2005. The bugging or whatever is suspected to be occurring is very recent.

So what is the story here?

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:49PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is absolute rubbish to try and suggest that GSOC's public image has benefited as a result of its conflict with AGS (which we know is a hard fact) and the leaking of this bugging incident.

GSOC has been hugely damaged by these revelations. What whistle blower would dream of contacting GSOC after these revelations? Would you contact them if you believed that your conversations with them might be under surveillance by those you are seeking to blow the whistle against?

Lets get real here. Are people still surprised that lower ranking members of An Garda Síochána were reluctant to co-operate with GSOC inquiries, such as the Kieran Boylan case, given what we have heard in recent months? Would you co-operate with in knowledge that the information you give, which is given in the strictest confidence, may find its way back to your superiors?

Which is why the biggest issue is who leaked the Verrimus document from inside the GSOC.

As for leaking the document benefitting the GSOC, exposing garda surveillance to ensure it stops is a clear motive for anyone within GSOC.

Godge · 13-02-2014 04:51PM

zagmund wrote: »

Or from other state bodies charged with upholding the law. The poor oul journalists will just have to start hitting the streets and doing some of their own work so.

You cannot have bodies being "watched" challenging the integrity of the watchdog without presenting any actual evidence. It's akin to someone in court refusing to accept the authority of the court - you can do it alright, but for the 99.9% of the population who do accept the authority of the court it puts a slant on their perception of you.

z

Who watches the watchdog?

Didn't we learn from the Central Bank and Financial Regulator fiascos over the last few years that the watchdogs are not above mistakes?

And nobody is above the law. Leaking a document from the GSOC is a breach of the Official Secrets Act and possibly the FOI Act and Garda Act as well.

zagmund · 13-02-2014 04:52PM

Godge wrote: »

(Now to put on my tinfoil hat). You know, one possible explanation is that the surveillance was legal, authorised by the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, because of legitimate concerns about previous leaks, and that it identified a member of staff of the GSOC as responsible for leaking documents on a number of occasions. Once O'Brien heard about the state of that investigation from Callinan he changed tack and talked about the possibility of an internal mole. It would also explain his refusal to go into certain details yesterday due to an ongoing investigation as well as him being equivocal on garda involvement. It fits with all of the facts. (Taking off tinfoil hat).

This bit is less tinfoil than you might think. It's certainly consistent with the behaviour observed for the last few days.

Except for the bit where the assorted Garda bodies kept on calling for his resignation for a few days. In this sort of scenario you expect everyone who has been brought up to date with the real state of play to keep a lid on it, stop stirring, and keep things looking normal. I note they have gone quiet in the last day or so.

z

Phoebas · 13-02-2014 04:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That AGS did it has not been established, sure, but in my view the security experts' view that the incident with the phone couldn't have been coincidental is enough to say that they were, in all probability, surveilled in some way by someone.

If I remember the evidence given by GSOC to the committee yesterday, they said that of the phone ringing that the likelihood of a coincidental 'wrong number being called' was close to zero. I don't think they joined the same dots that you're joining.

Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

Comments