Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

1…3435373940…64

Comments

  • #1082
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Auguste Comte wrote: »
    I would think that all communication devices used by the head of the Guards who is also the head of the state security service should be logged and stored securely when they are no longer needed.
    You're confusing AGS with a functional and accountable policing body.


  • #1083
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    The sad thing is that some Gardai must know what really happened to these missing phones but they also know what happens to whistleblowers and will be too scared or corrupt to tell the truth. It's a cycle of rot led by senior management.


  • #1084
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I can see that. But you'd use the same SIM unless it was damaged. I've had the same sim card for near ten years.
    Are we to believe they started from scratch with every new phone?
    It will be interesting if the phones retrieved only have texts to and from Garda Patrol.

    The only possibility is if those on the other end of the calls, texts, have theirs. The phone company should have some kind of logs.

    Depends on the upgrade phone. Sim may need to have been replaced to fit. Old one would likely be destroyed or wiped for security. Provider may have sent new ones when contract renewed. Have they actually had anyone ion from the communications section to advise on what the procedure usually was?
    Auguste Comte wrote: »
    I would think that all communication devices used by the head of the Guards who is also the head of the state security service should be logged and stored securely when they are no longer needed.

    Why? It's old equipment. I'm surprised they didn't try sell them.


  • #1085
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Depends on the upgrade phone. Sim may need to have been replaced to fit. Old one would likely be destroyed or wiped for security. Provider may have sent new ones when contract renewed. Have they actually had anyone ion from the communications section to advise on what the procedure usually was?....


    I've drifted to and from Apples to Samsungs and another brand I can't remember. I've changed contracts maybe three times. Same Sim card, (still have the previous phone for back up).

    I suppose it's just another case of the self interested favouring bumbling incompetence over possible criminal or unseemly activity. Great little country to do business.


  • #1086
    Auguste Comte
    Registered Users Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭Auguste Comte


    Captain Obvious wrote: »



    Why? It's old equipment. I'm surprised they didn't try sell them.

    So that they don't fall into the wrong hands and compromise state security. God knows what data could be recovered from phones even if they were "wiped"


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Auguste Comte wrote: »
    God knows what data could be recovered from phones even if they were "wiped"

    Sure isn't that exactly why they have gone missing.


  • #1088
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RustyNut wrote: »
    Sure isn't that exactly why they have gone missing.

    Phone records however can't be altered,

    Billing records from her [former Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan’s] mobile phone will show numerous contacts between her and well-known crime and security journalists between July 2012 and May 2014 when she was deputy commissioner.

    “She made 33 phone calls to well-known reporter Paul Williams including conversations lasting up to 20 minutes. The tribunal is expected to ask her to explain ten contacts made with Williams in February, March and April 2014.

    “In March that year, Williams wrote two articles after interviewing Ms D, the daughter of the garda who made the sexual allegation against McCabe in 2006, later found by the DPP to be groundless.

    “…The former commissioner’s phone records for the same time period show further media contacts. Over the 23-month period, she called RTɒs crime correspondent Paul Reynolds 20 times and Tom Brady, security editor with the Irish Independent, 74 times.”

    No phones make proving anything dodgy was going on by anything other than oral conversation (the contents of text messages, and maybe secret email accounts etc) pretty difficult to prove.


  • #1089
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    No phones make proving anything dodgy was going on by anything other than oral conversation (the contents of text messages, and maybe secret email accounts etc) pretty difficult to prove.
    Hopefully the tribunal remembers to check her Gmail account given its confirmed use in emailing garda info!


  • #1090
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Auguste Comte wrote: »
    I would think that all communication devices used by the head of the Guards who is also the head of the state security service should be logged and stored securely when they are no longer needed.


    Maybe they should, but I very much doubt that they were.


  • #1091
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    On the phones issue I think that if they were not supposed to hand them back then I have no issue with them giving them to charities.
    Where i work i have always given old phones to charities.

    The thing that should be done is to make it compulsory to hand them in from now on.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    tayto lover wrote: »
    On the phones issue I think that if they were not supposed to hand them back then I have no issue with them giving them to charities.
    Where i work i have always given old phones to charities.

    The thing that should be done is to make it compulsory to hand them in from now on.

    Personally I think the story that they were given to charity is slightly less believable than that of the tooth fairy.


  • #1093
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Personally I think the story that they were given to charity is slightly less believable than that of the tooth fairy.
    Maybe BUT if they were no regulations to keep them or give them back then what law have they broken?
    They should make it compulsory from now on.


  • #1094
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Maybe BUT if they were no regulations to keep them or give them back then what law have they broken?
    They should make it compulsory from now on.

    Loopholes shouldn't be excused.

    It could be argued that the phones contained crucial evidence.

    If it could be proved that they were disposed of in full knowledge that they did indeed contain crucial evidence, they should be prosecuted.

    Like the personal papers being shredded, 10 x bags full sir - according to reports, then the phones became 'Unretrievable'.

    Of course it is too late now to prove anything, but the optics point to one thing and one thing only.

    I can't believe some people would defend their actions tbh.


  • #1095
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Loopholes shouldn't be excused.

    It could be argued that the phones contained crucial evidence.

    If it could be proved that they were disposed of in full knowledge that they did indeed contain crucial evidence, they should be prosecuted.

    Like the personal papers being shredded, 10 x bags full sir - according to reports, then the phones became 'Unretrievable'.

    Of course it is too late now to prove anything, but the optics point to one thing and one thing only.

    I can't believe some people would defend their actions tbh.

    Ah would you stop. If there's no requirement on you to do something that's not a loophole.


  • #1096
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Maybe BUT if they were no regulations to keep them or give them back then what law have they broken?
    They should make it compulsory from now on.
    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Ah would you stop. If there's no requirement on you to do something that's not a loophole.
    If those overseeing national security don't have rules and procedures in place to protect national security then what use are they?
    The giving of the phones to anyone outside of AGS is a disgrace.

    I once was involved in the development and support of an app used by a pharma company on Motorola hand held devices. These had patient info on them. Before decommissioning the instruction by the pharma was to wipe each device and then have the devices professionally destroyed with certificates if destruction to be given back to the pharma company.
    ...and AGS hand devices over to a charity?


  • #1097
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    If those overseeing national security don't have rules and procedures in place to protect national security then what use are they?
    The giving of the phones to anyone outside of AGS is a disgrace.

    I once was involved in the development and support of an app used by a pharma company on Motorola hand held devices. These had patient info on them. Before decommissioning the instruction by the pharma was to wipe each device and then have the devices professionally destroyed with certificates if destruction to be given back to the pharma company.
    ...and AGS hand devices over to a charity?
    Brilliant for them and you BUT again if it wasn't the procedure then there was nothing stopping them from giving the phones to charity.

    It should be rectified now though.


  • #1098
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Ah would you stop. If there's no requirement on you to do something that's not a loophole.

    tayto lover wrote: »
    Brilliant for them and you BUT again if it wasn't the procedure then there was nothing stopping them from giving the phones to charity.

    It should be rectified now though.


    Do both of you believe the phones were given to charity?

    Simple yes or no.


  • #1099
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Do both of you believe the phones were given to charity?

    Simple yes or no.

    I don't know.
    Our entire team at work gave our old phones to charity anyway.
    The point of the matter is that they hand them in from now on.


  • #1100
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I don't know.
    Our entire team at work gave our old phones to charity anyway.
    The point of the matter is that they hand them in from now on.

    I don't think you believe it Tayto, I know you're more savvy than that.

    But just on your team at work that give their old phones to charity, do these old phones have potentially sensitive data on them, possibly relating to official police business, state security, and possible sensitive information on individuals, private citizen or otherwise?


  • #1101
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I don't think you believe it Tayto, I know you're more savvy than that.

    But just on your team at work that give their old phones to charity, do these old phones have potentially sensitive data on them, possibly relating to official police business, state security, and possible sensitive information on individuals, private citizen or otherwise?
    No. BUT that's not the point now.
    The garda phones didn't have to be handed in and weren't.
    It should now be made compulsory to do so. They should have been handed in all along but it was not the case that it was done so whether there was anything that implicated them in anything is irrelevent as they're gone now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    tayto lover wrote: »
    No. BUT that's not the point now.
    The garda phones didn't have to be handed in and weren't.
    It should now be made compulsory to do so. They should have been handed in all along but it was not the case that it was done so whether there was anything that implicated them in anything is irrelevent as they're gone now.

    You cannot really blame someone for not following best practice if best practice was not the policy that was in place. Then to attribute it to deception afterwards is an even bigger stretch with nothing at all to support it.


  • #1103
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Brilliant for them and you BUT again if it wasn't the procedure then there was nothing stopping them from giving the phones to charity.

    It should be rectified now though.

    How many phones outside of these highly significant phones do you think are usually given to charity?!

    And why are phones even being given away?! Why weren't they simply redistributed to staff. You know why though.


  • #1104
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    ...and AGS hand devices over to a charity?

    Allegedly......


  • #1105
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    givyjoe wrote: »
    How many phones outside of these highly significant phones do you think are usually given to charity?!

    And why are phones even being given away?! Why weren't they simply redistributed to staff. You know why though.

    I don't know why. I know ours were given to charity as charities wrote to our firm looking for them.
    We can all guess, suspect or even believe why they weren't kept in the garda but the fact is it's irrelevent now as it was not compulsory to keep them. It's a bit like all the RTE presenters asking Gerry Adams if he was in the IRA. Irrelevent what they thought.


  • #1106
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I don't know why. I know ours were given to charity as charities wrote to our firm looking for them.
    We can all guess, suspect or even believe why they weren't kept in the garda but the fact is it's irrelevent now as it was not compulsory to keep them. It's a bit like all the RTE presenters asking Gerry Adams if he was in the IRA. Irrelevent what they thought.

    Irrelevant?! Ha, whatever you say.


  • #1107
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Irrelevant?! Ha, whatever you say.

    That's the point. The phones are gone and cannot be retrieved so what they held is now irrelevent as such.


  • #1108
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    tayto lover wrote: »
    That's the point. The phones are gone and cannot be retrieved so what they held is now irrelevent as such.

    The point is clearly how and why they were disposed of!


  • #1109
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,065 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    givyjoe wrote: »
    The point is clearly how and why they were disposed of!

    But they have told why -- charity. Handed over I suspect or placed in a charity shop container.
    Whether anyone believes it or not is neither here nor there.
    Bye the way i'm not taking their side in this i'm just stating what we know.


  • #1110
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    tayto lover wrote: »
    But they have told why -- charity. Handed over I suspect or placed in a charity shop container.
    Whether anyone believes it or not is neither here nor there.
    Bye the way i'm not taking their side in this i'm just stating what we know.

    Ah sure that explains everything so!


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    tayto lover wrote: »
    But they have told why -- charity. Handed over I suspect or placed in a charity shop container.
    Whether anyone believes it or not is neither here nor there.
    Bye the way i'm not taking their side in this i'm just stating what we know.

    Who did?
    While it was suggested some phones went to the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation for recycling, Supt Flynn said there was no evidence the 12 missing phones went to the charity.


Advertisement