Sweeping new powers for Gardai (and no opposition)

paw patrol · 15-06-2021 12:45pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The password is the only new power so tell me, does it keep you awake at night worrying that the Gardai are going to seize and forensically examine your laptop?

not really, more worried about the penalties tbh for refusing to cooperate which I believe should be a fundamental right.

I'd rather live in a society where we had less rules. Privacy is important to me or tbh less subjection to authority.

people always say this stuff will only be applied to criminals but that's the wrong measure. the measure is - would you like this to happen to you ? cos the law applies to all citizens and the gardai often get it wrong.

then on a lesser but still important note, the gardai (like all people tbf) aren't immune the pleasures of whatsapp groups and we've seen in the past stuff being shared about. My nudes would enrage half the nation if they were ever leaked.:pac:

15-06-2021 1:07pm

Grab All Association wrote: »

There was a case recently where unsolicited child pornography was sent via WhatsApp and a woman went to prison for it iirc. She deleted the conversation but the image(s) were unknowingly stored in her gallery.

She distributed them.
Knew full well what she was at

"A former crèche worker who admitted distributing child pornography videos she received in a WhatsApp group has been sentenced to nine months in prison"

"Judge Kelleher said that the matter was extremely serious. He stated that the defendant "knew exactly what she was doing" and that it was not a once-off incident. "

https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0308/1202735-court-creche-worker/

15-06-2021 1:26pm

paw patrol wrote: »

more worried about the penalties tbh for refusing to cooperate which I believe should be a fundamental right.

Again, you presumable believe that it should be your right to refuse to private a breath sample under drink driving law? You should have the right to physically resist Garda entry upon a search warrant and the right to physically resist a lawful body search? This would be great in a world where criminals didnt exist. A land where people dont inflict pain and suffering on others. Not out world though

paw patrol wrote: »

would you like this to happen to you ? cos the law applies to all citizens and the gardai often get it wrong.

A, That applies to absolutely every single law on the books and the answer is no, I wouldnt like to be detained, questioned and have my bodily samples taken but I understand the need for such a power.

Arguements like this one are so dishonest. They arent being truthful and deliberately try to sidestep the issues at play by claiming some form of speciality that does not exist.

B, No, they dont often get it wrong and the small number of succesful claims proves that.

Nermal wrote: »

None of them are testimony, a password is.

Gibberish. Less US law and order shows for you.

nonethepfizer wrote: »

aren't finger prints and bodily fluids?

e.g.: drunk driver gives sample but says nothing in interview or court...

finger prints tie them to the car, urine test proves over the limit...

testimony of guilt

edit: account of actions too... that's verbal testimony of possible guilty actions

Save your fingers, the comment you are replying to is a rubbish attempt.

nonethepfizer wrote: »

ah come off it now....you've ruined the thread with the facts and truth

Yeah, my apologies. I will stop now and let the biased and uniformed flow free now because we all know this thread isnt a discussion about the ACTUAL laws and powers

Nermal · 15-06-2021 2:03pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You should have the right to physically resist Garda entry upon a search warrant?

I must let you in, but I have no obligation to tell you where in the house I've secreted this hypothetical evidence of wrongdoing.

Parallel: You have seized my phone. You can image the data on it and analyse to your heart's content. But why on earth would I be obliged to help you in doing so?

The development and dissemination of near-uncrackable encryption doesn't justify the setting aside of rights that have existed for centuries.

Normal One · 15-06-2021 2:07pm

I’ve changed my passwords to “GoF*ckYourself” just in case.

Fiery mutant · 15-06-2021 3:08pm

Nermal wrote: »

I must let you in, but I have no obligation to tell you where in the house I've secreted this hypothetical evidence of wrongdoing.

Parallel: You have seized my phone. You can image the data on it and analyse to your heart's content. But why on earth would I be obliged to help you in doing so?

The development and dissemination of near-uncrackable encryption doesn't justify the setting aside of rights that have existed for centuries.

For centuries??? Dear boy, your whinging about rights that would have been beaten out of you in a police cell less than a century ago, for no reason other than they didn’t like your attitude.

Life is a verifiable utopia for most of the western world right now. The last 70 odd years haves even the quality of life and rights that would have been unimaginable in years gone by. The slight changes you are moaning will have little to no relevance to you, unless of course you’re up to your tits in ****.

ineedeuro · 15-06-2021 3:15pm

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

I can think of few things sadder than someone cheerleading their rights being eroded but hey, keep on smiling

More s*umb*gs off the street. Haoppy days

Rights eroded :P you need to stop watching American TV. Next you will be talking about the Fifth amendment :-)

Grab All Association · 15-06-2021 3:17pm

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

She distributed them.
Knew full well what she was at

"A former crèche worker who admitted distributing child pornography videos she received in a WhatsApp group has been sentenced to nine months in prison"

"Judge Kelleher said that the matter was extremely serious. He stated that the defendant "knew exactly what she was doing" and that it was not a once-off incident. "

https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0308/1202735-court-creche-worker/

No it was a different case, I’ll try find it but there was no distribution at all. Would have happened in 2018/19.

15-06-2021 3:59pm

There have been some huge fines handed out to people who use peer to peer software to share pirated music, videos and software and many people stream premier League football on dodgy websites.

Microsoft especially does not mess about and the premier League are looking for ways to come down hard on the streaming of live games illegally.

I'd say most people on here under 40 have done one of the above on more than one occasion so we have a thread full of criminals who now have to help incriminate themselves.

15-06-2021 4:07pm

whatnow! wrote: »

There have been some huge fines handed out to people who use peer to peer software to share pirated music, videos and software and many people stream premier League football on dodgy websites.

Microsoft especially does not mess about and the premier League are looking for ways to come down hard on the streaming of live games illegally.

I'd say most people on here under 40 have done one of the above on more than one occasion so we have a thread full of criminals who now have to help incriminate themselves.

It's probably best to pay for the things you consume.

BluePlanet · 15-06-2021 4:41pm

Civil Liberties organization expresses concern.
It gives huge powers to the Gards without additional safeguards.

'Exceptionally weak on safeguards'

That statement was disputed strongly by Dr Conway, who said the proposed bill as it stands is “exceptionally weak on safeguards”.

“There are about 20 of them which are absent. The more powers you give the gardaí the more safeguards you should have,” she said, adding that one of the “more shocking” absent safeguards is “that the presence of a lawyer at an interview is no longer guaranteed”.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40313759.html

It's a bad law, proposed by a bad Minister for Justice and bad Government, to benefit a bad police force.

hatrickpatrick · 15-06-2021 5:02pm

I'll just leave this here...

Hangdogroad · 15-06-2021 5:26pm

Nermal wrote: »

I couldn't have been forced to show the police where the paper records were. It's up to the police to find them, I don't have to help.

These powers amount to forcible self-incrimination. Seems to me they'll fail as soon as they are tested.

Expecting a visit?

BluePlanet · 15-06-2021 6:04pm

They have form with phones alright:

Garda Síochána refuses to disclose figures on officers’ lost phones
12 of the 15 mobile phones being sought by Charleton tribunal cannot be recovered

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-s%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na-refuses-to-disclose-figures-on-officers-lost-phones-1.3487130

Gotta like this bit:
It was not policy that officers had to return their old phones when being issued with new ones, he said.

Um, no security concerns there right?

AndrewJRenko · 15-06-2021 8:19pm

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

As I said earlier, no issue at all if it is used in serious crimes and only serious crimes with limitations - not in a scenario that a random stop by a Garda would allow him to scroll through your phone.

I don't think it arises with a random stop - only with a search warrant.

But (and it's a big but) - my concern is that it is included by default with EVERY search warrant. So the judge or the supt doesn't have to make a conscious decision to say 'yes, the phone should be included here'. For every search warrant for every offence, the phone, and every app and every photo and every piece of information in there is up for grabs.

The Gardai have shown fairly poor official and unofficial data management practices. We had the video of the naked Dara Quigley, person with serious mental health issues, being passed round the Garda WhatsApp groups for a laugh. She died by suicide shortly afterwards. We've had their own poor treatment of whistleblowers - just imagine that you're involved in a whistleblowing situation and they land with a search warrant for a minor issue.

This power as currently structured is far too broad and far too invasive, with no controls over use or abuse.

Potential-Monke · 15-06-2021 9:20pm

I had a read through the bill (auto download of the PDF, you can get it yourself by searching "General Scheme of the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill"), and aside from the password bit, it seems just like a general updating of the law to be in line with the current society. As people have noted, the password is only a requirement during a search on foot of a search warrant, and they don't get a search warrant because someone may have a small bag of weed, it's usually because there is evidence and information there that said person is involved in something bigger. Adding the request for phone passwords to that was a no brainer tbh. As long as you don't have anything illegal on your phone, you're grand.

As for the solicitor in interview, it's only if said solicitor is causing a disturbance or interfering with the investigation can they be removed, and only by a member of Inspector rank or higher.

"Where a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector reasonably believes
that the presence of a legal representative referred to in subhead (5), would prejudice any
investigation or criminal proceedings regarding the offence, or, owing to the behaviour of the
person, would be unduly disruptive, the member may require that the person concerned absent
himself or herself from the interview"

Similarily, the Super can only issue a warrant without the courts input if it's basically urgent. It's very hard to get a judge at 3am on a Sunday morning, so in exceptional circumstances the Super can issue it, these being that the crime may happen in the interim of trying to get a judge issued warrant. I know from experience, Supers don't hand them out willy nilly.

I wouldn't be too worried. The way Harris is clamping down on the scummy guards will stop a lot of what has previously happened. It would take a fair thick Garda to share/pass around any videos or images after the Dara Quigley incident.

BluePlanet · 15-06-2021 10:19pm

But why should Gards have the power to remove a person's right to legal representation during an interview?

AndrewJRenko · 15-06-2021 11:14pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I wouldn't be too worried. The way Harris is clamping down on the scummy guards will stop a lot of what has previously happened. It would take a fair thick Garda to share/pass around any videos or images after the Dara Quigley incident.

There was no clampdown on the scummy guards who released the video of Dara Quigley.

Potential-Monke · 15-06-2021 11:22pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

But why should Gards have the power to remove a person's right to legal representation during an interview?

It inserts legislation to remove disruptive legal representation, but also includes that the suspect can then request someone else. It doesn't remove a persons right at all, just removes the disruptive ones and offers an alternative. What that disruption entails, I can't say, I'm out of the game 6 or so years now.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was no clampdown on the scummy guards who released the video of Dara Quigley.

I'll take your word for it, I didn't follow it.

This thread is the same as every thread involving Gardai, people dead set against it because they don't like the guards for x reason, and people who don't mind as they believe it won't affect them and allows the Gardai to investigate further/better (the intent), and these people are usually (but not always) pro-Garda.

16-06-2021 7:34am

I'm pro Garda but with harsh punishments given to those the ombudsman finds to have acted outside what is expected.

I'm against the idea of someone having to self incriminate or remove their solicitor of choice.

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 7:35am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It inserts legislation to remove disruptive legal representation, but also includes that the suspect can then request someone else. It doesn't remove a persons right at all, just removes the disruptive ones and offers an alternative. What that disruption entails, I can't say, I'm out of the game 6 or so years now.

What is "disruptive legal representation"?

And if exists, why don't we have legislation to make "disruptive legal representation" a crime so the Gards could just charge the solicitor on the spot?
Why would it be necessary or prudent that a Garda Inspector is judge and jury over the manner of a persons solicitor and not a more objective 3rd party?
The Gards have a poor record of holding their own to account.

16-06-2021 7:37am

Basically if this comes to a vote with a simple yes or no in its current format, it's a no.

Hadron Collider · 16-06-2021 8:21am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But (and it's a big but) - my concern is that it is included by default with EVERY search warrant. So the judge or the supt doesn't have to make a conscious decision to say 'yes, the phone should be included here'. For every search warrant for every offence, the phone, and every app and every photo and every piece of information in there is up for grabs.

It's not just the information in the phone or the computer, either; it's all services connected to those devices as well. E.g., if you had a password manager on the computer/phone, you'd have to hand that password over too, and then the Guards could sift through every single online account you have. Medical records, financial records, personal email, social media, nude pictures of a girlfriend/wife ... they could access and make copies of it all. There is no requirement in the bill that the information collected by the Gardai even has to be pertinent to the investigation. So, someone accused of a minor offence could be obliged to hand over the keys to his entire digital life and decrypt every private file to make it accessible.

It's an enormously sweeping and intrusive bill that contains virtually no protections for anyone subjected to search warrants.

Hadron Collider · 16-06-2021 8:25am

BluePlanet wrote: »

What is "disruptive legal representation"?

Good question. A solicitor who vigorously defends his or her client during an interrogation could easily be defined as "disruptive" and removed.

It's appalling.

And as has been said, there is no political opposition to this.

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 9:58am

Hadron Collider wrote: »

It's not just the information in the phone or the computer, either; it's all services connected to those devices as well. E.g., if you had a password manager on the computer/phone, you'd have to hand that password over too, and then the Guards could sift through every single online account you have. Medical records, financial records, personal email, social media, nude pictures of a girlfriend/wife ... they could access and make copies of it all. There is no requirement in the bill that the information collected by the Gardai even has to be pertinent to the investigation. So, someone accused of a minor offence could be obliged to hand over the keys to his entire digital life and decrypt every private file to make it accessible.

It's an enormously sweeping and intrusive bill that contains virtually no protections for anyone subjected to search warrants.

The time to shift through all of that data would take days if not weeks. Do you really think the Gardai are going to bother doing any of that for minor offences?

Why would they bother? why would they look on your phone for naked pictures of someone when they can go to www.youknowtheone.com and see everything they ever wanted to see?

Hadron Collider · 16-06-2021 10:11am

ineedeuro wrote: »

The time to shift through all of that data would take days if not weeks. Do you really think the Gardai are going to bother doing any of that for minor offences?

Why would they bother? why would they look on your phone for naked pictures of someone when they can go to and see everything they ever wanted to see?

That's really missing the point, because it's still a gross invasion of privacy.

Would you be happy to hand over copies of all your emails, documents, financial records, medical records, personal photos and videos, browsing history, etc., to the Guards, and reassure yourself that they probably won't take the time to sift through it all anyway?

All of your data still remains with the Guards for an unspecified period of time, and who knows who will look at it or where it will wind up?

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 10:17am

Hadron Collider wrote: »

That's really missing the point, because it's still a gross invasion of privacy.

Would you be happy to hand over copies of all your emails, documents, financial records, medical records, personal photos and videos, browsing history, etc., to the Guards, and reassure yourself that they probably won't take the time to sift through it all anyway?

All of your data still remains with the Guards for an unspecified period of time, and who knows who will look at it or where it will wind up?

To be honest I couldn't care less.
If they want to troll over it all they can, f**k all that exciting in it. Believe me.

Keep it for an unspecified time? do you think the Gardai have billions flowing out of them? the quantity of data on one person alone would be in the TB's, they have to keep it onsite and that would costs thousands per month. SO if they tried to keep data on lets say criminals which would be hundreds in Dublin alone you are suddenly at nearly a Petabyte, then you are going to try and pick random people and just storing data? who is going to pay for it?

Hadron Collider · 16-06-2021 10:46am

ineedeuro wrote: »

To be honest I couldn't care less.
If they want to troll over it all they can, f**k all that exciting in it. Believe me.

Ah, the old "nothing to hide" argument. No point in rebutting that one yet again.

do you think the Gardai have billions flowing out of them?

I don't think so -- I know so. An Garda Síochána was allocated a budget of €1.952 billion for 2021.

who is going to pay for it?

Who do you think will pay for it? We will.

Mike Murdock · 16-06-2021 10:59am

ineedeuro wrote: »

To be honest I couldn't care less.
If they want to troll over it all they can, f**k all that exciting in it. Believe me.

Keep it for an unspecified time? do you think the Gardai have billions flowing out of them? the quantity of data on one person alone would be in the TB's, they have to keep it onsite and that would costs thousands per month. SO if they tried to keep data on lets say criminals which would be hundreds in Dublin alone you are suddenly at nearly a Petabyte, then you are going to try and pick random people and just storing data? who is going to pay for it?

Sure just give them the keys to your house and let them wander around there while you are at it....

Eire392 · 16-06-2021 11:00am

Hadron Collider wrote: »

Good question. A solicitor who vigorously defends his or her client during an interrogation could easily be defined as "disruptive" and removed.

It's appalling.

And as has been said, there is no political opposition to this.

You do realise this is already something that can happen. I have never, ever heard of a solicitor being removed from interview in any station in the country.

The way you're posting you'd think a solicitor that advises their client to go no comment will be removed

Also it is not a solicitor's place to 'vigorously defend' their client in interview, that is for court. That would be disruptive of the interview

monseiur · 16-06-2021 11:58am

Unfortunatley police corruption is not confined to Ireland, it's also ripe in the UK The horrifying axe murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan which is yet unsolved makes spine chilling reading and the police were up to their necks in it.
At the time of his murder Daniel was investigating ......very serious police corruption !

Fandymo · 16-06-2021 1:37pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

What is "disruptive legal representation"?

And if exists, why don't we have legislation to make "disruptive legal representation" a crime so the Gards could just charge the solicitor on the spot?
Why would it be necessary or prudent that a Garda Inspector is judge and jury over the manner of a persons solicitor and not a more objective 3rd party?
The Gards have a poor record of holding their own to account.

I wonder would a solicitor who tells his client to answer “no comment”, be classed as “prejudicing any investigation or criminal proceedings regarding the offence”

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 1:46pm

Once in possession of someone's phone, including their unlock codes, the attacker can use the phone to gain access to whatever online sites and services that person has the number or device registered with.

That's a pretty big net.

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 1:48pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Once in possession of someone's phone, including their unlock codes, the attacker can use the phone to gain access to whatever online sites and services that person has the number or device registered with.

That's a pretty big net.

Yes I am sure they are after my netflix account the bastids
Time to roll out the old 3310. Won't get much off that baby

Unless you are a criminal why would you have to worry? do people honestly believe the Gardai will be going around taking everyone phones and reading them?

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 2:15pm

ineedeuro wrote: »

Yes I am sure they are after my netflix account the bastids
Time to roll out the old 3310. Won't get much off that baby

Unless you are a criminal why would you have to worry? do people honestly believe the Gardai will be going around taking everyone phones and reading them?

If i use a cypto wallet on my device and have currency stored there, and then the Gards gain access to my phone including unlock codes, and when i get my phone back I find the wallet empty, does anybody actually believe the Gards would be held to account?

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 2:30pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

If i use a cypto wallet on my device and have currency stored there, and then the Gards gain access to my phone including unlock codes, and when i get my phone back I find the wallet empty, does anybody actually believe the Gards would be held to account?

A lot of if's and but's.
Cypto is traceable the same as banking. What if I give them my phone with my mobile banking and it is empty when I get it back? well I ring the bank and they contact their fraud department to work out who/where/when the transactions happened to empty my account.

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 2:44pm

ineedeuro wrote: »

A lot of if's and but's.
Cypto is traceable the same as banking. What if I give them my phone with my mobile banking and it is empty when I get it back? well I ring the bank and they contact their fraud department to work out who/where/when the transactions happened to empty my account.

No it is NOT nearly as traceable as a bank transfer.
There are privacy coins that are built to be untraceable and are.
It's just that criminals prefer Bitcoin because it's the biggest and most common.
Good luck ringing "Bitcoin" to ask for your coins back.

And by the way, attackers gaining access to your phone, or just your phone number have stolen millions upon millions of USD of crypto currency. This is not some far fetched fantasy.

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 2:45pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

No it is NOT nearly as traceable as a bank transfer.
There are privacy coins that are built to be untraceable and are.
It's just that criminals prefer Bitcoin because it's the biggest and most common.

Well if it is not traceable I wouldn't be putting your money into it

The Gardai are least of your worries, hackers are getting access to everything at the moment.

Eire392 · 16-06-2021 2:48pm

Fandymo wrote: »

I wonder would a solicitor who tells his client to answer “no comment”, be classed as “prejudicing any investigation or criminal proceedings regarding the offence”

As already touched on, it isn't and wouldn't be. But don't let facts get in the way of your hypothetical outrage.

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 2:53pm

ineedeuro wrote: »

Well if it is not traceable I wouldn't be putting your money into it

The Gardai are least of your worries, hackers are getting access to everything at the moment.

Only if you are gullible.

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 3:10pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Only if you are gullible.

You said the Gardai are going to rob it off you, hardly the cyber experts in the World or even know what a cryto currency is.

BluePlanet · 16-06-2021 3:23pm

ineedeuro wrote: »

You said the Gardai are going to rob it off you, hardly the cyber experts in the World or even know what a cryto currency is.

They figured out how to share naked images of that girl to one another, so yeah they could probably figure out how to open an app and transfer funds.

hatrickpatrick · 16-06-2021 5:59pm

ineedeuro wrote: »

The time to shift through all of that data would take days if not weeks. Do you really think the Gardai are going to bother doing any of that for minor offences?

Why would they bother? why would they look on your phone for naked pictures of someone when they can go to www.youknowtheone.com and see everything they ever wanted to see?

Remember when they had Maurice McCabe falsely accused of child molestation? Remember when they selectively leaked information about Mick Wallace to Alan Shatter in order to discredit him? Remember when they colluded with the department of justice to rubbish Maurice McCabe at the Disclosures Tribunal?

There's absolutely no possibility that these powers wouldn't have been used against the aforementioned had they existed at the time. Absolutely no question about it.

Witcher · 16-06-2021 6:04pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Remember when they had Maurice McCabe falsely accused of child molestation? Remember when they selectively leaked information about Mick Wallace to Alan Shatter in order to discredit him? Remember when they colluded with the department of justice to rubbish Maurice McCabe at the Disclosures Tribunal?

There's absolutely no possibility that these powers wouldn't have been used against the aforementioned had they existed at the time. Absolutely no question about it.

How could any of these powers have been used in those situations?

hatrickpatrick · 16-06-2021 6:12pm

Witcher wrote: »

How could any of these powers have been used in those situations?

They could very easily have obtained a warrant to search McCabe's residence given the allegation that he committed an offence in downloading information from Pulse in the course of his whistleblowing. Get hold of his phone or laptop, leak any embarrassing information they find to the public to discredit the guy. Anything remotely taboo which showed up in his internet history or emails - mental health counselling, gambling, unusual sexual interests, anything related to alcohol issues, etc - would have found themselves splashed literally all over the media and used by both Callinan and Shatter to do one of those "obviously a troubled man with personal issues" hatchet jobs on his character.

The bottom line here is that this is an organisation which has form - repeated form, indeed - for breaking the rules in order to bully anyone who challenges its ability to break or bend the rules at will. That is not an organisation which should have any right to access every little detail of a person's private life unless they can demonstrate a specific, explicit need for that information. This law does not give them the right to demand passwords in only a limited set of circumstances, it allows them to do so on foot of any search warrant.

The organisation has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted with this kind of power.

Witcher · 16-06-2021 6:18pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They could very easily have obtained a warrant to search McCabe's residence given the allegation that he committed an offence in downloading information from Pulse in the course of his whistleblowing. Get hold of his phone or laptop, leak any embarrassing information they find to the public to discredit the guy. Anything remotely taboo which showed up in his internet history or emails - mental health counselling, gambling, unusual sexual interests, anything related to alcohol issues, etc - would have found themselves splashed literally all over the media and used by both Callinan and Shatter to do one of those "obviously a troubled man with personal issues" hatchet jobs on his character.

The bottom line here is that this is an organisation which has form - repeated form, indeed - for breaking the rules in order to bully anyone who challenges its ability to break or bend the rules at will. That is not an organisation which should have any right to access every little detail of a person's private life unless they can demonstrate a specific, explicit need for that information. This law does not give them the right to demand passwords in only a limited set of circumstances, it allows them to do so on foot of any search warrant.

The organisation has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted with this kind of power.

How would these new powers have made any difference in that case?

They still could have got the warrant, seized his phone and opened the phone themselves using the existing process.

The extension of this power, which already exists with some warrants was suggested by both the Law Reform Commission and the Garda Inspectorate.

This isn't enabling something, the Gardai always had the power to seize devices and have them brute force opened and the data retrieved. It just simplifies the process and gets cases before the Courts faster.

Hadron Collider · 16-06-2021 7:01pm

Witcher wrote: »

How would these new powers have made any difference in that case?

They still could have got the warrant, seized his phone and opened the phone themselves using the existing process.

Under the previous process, a judge would have had to approve a warrant specifically to search a phone or computer, and for a specific purpose. In the case of CRH, Irish Cement and Lynch v. Competition and Consumer Protection Commissioner, discussing the seizure of an email account under a search warrant, the High Court ruled that there had to be specificity about what was seized and how those files were subsequently examined.

Under the new process, the Gardai can have a Superintendent (i.e., a Garda insider) approve a general search warrant, under which they could demand all passwords and search/copy all devices and online accounts, seemingly without limit.

ineedeuro · 16-06-2021 7:10pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They could very easily have obtained a warrant to search McCabe's residence given the allegation that he committed an offence in downloading information from Pulse in the course of his whistleblowing. Get hold of his phone or laptop, leak any embarrassing information they find to the public to discredit the guy. Anything remotely taboo which showed up in his internet history or emails - mental health counselling, gambling, unusual sexual interests, anything related to alcohol issues, etc - would have found themselves splashed literally all over the media and used by both Callinan and Shatter to do one of those "obviously a troubled man with personal issues" hatchet jobs on his character.

The bottom line here is that this is an organisation which has form - repeated form, indeed - for breaking the rules in order to bully anyone who challenges its ability to break or bend the rules at will. That is not an organisation which should have any right to access every little detail of a person's private life unless they can demonstrate a specific, explicit need for that information. This law does not give them the right to demand passwords in only a limited set of circumstances, it allows them to do so on foot of any search warrant.

The organisation has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted with this kind of power.

The only reason the Gardai need these additional powers is because the public are no help to them
So the only people to blame is the public. They hinder the Gardai at every turn, then turn around and complain about crime rates.

Witcher · 16-06-2021 7:11pm

Hadron Collider wrote: »

Under the previous process, a judge would have had to approve a warrant specifically to search a phone or computer, and for a specific purpose. In the case of CRH, Irish Cement and Lynch v. Competition and Consumer Protection Commissioner, discussing the seizure of an email account under a search warrant, the High Court ruled that there had to be specificity about what was seized and how those files were subsequently examined.

Under the new process, the Gardai can have a Superintendent (i.e., a Garda insider) approve a general search warrant, under which they could demand all passwords and search/copy all devices and online accounts, seemingly without limit.

The Gardai do not require a warrant to open a phone or other device seized as evidence of an indictable offence.

Except that the new process doesn't allow that, only a warrant issued under Head 15 of the new bill, i.e. a warrant issued by a District Court judge will come with the power (Head 16) for Gardai to demand passwords. In any other circumstances the phone will have to be seized and opened as per the existing procedure.

16-06-2021 7:14pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Remember when they had Maurice McCabe falsely accused of child molestation? .

That didn't happen.

Sweeping new powers for Gardai (and no opposition)

Comments