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

Sweeping new powers for Gardai (and no opposition)

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    paw patrol wrote: »
    The bill is draconian it's more police state stuff on top of the covid emergency laws that are still in place makes for grim reading

    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?


  • Options
    #33
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    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?

    Implying that the people who are concerned about this have something to hide is just wrong, it's an overreach of power and should in no way be allowed for anything but serious crimes.


  • Options
    #34
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Implying that the people who are concerned about this have something to hide is just wrong, it's an overreach of power and should in no way be allowed for anything but serious crimes.

    No, any crime it should be allowed.


  • Options
    #35
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    ineedeuro wrote: »
    No, any crime it should be allowed.

    Absolutely not. Terrorism, Child Abuse, Funding of terror organisations etc yes absolutely if the investigation cannot progress due to suspected information being stored on a device.

    Outside of those circumstances, no way.


  • Options
    #36
    85603
    Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭85603


    I dont like it, but Ill have to go along with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Absolutely not. Terrorism, Child Abuse, Funding of terror organisations etc yes absolutely if the investigation cannot progress due to suspected information being stored on a device.

    Outside of those circumstances, no way.

    Well thats not what the new law says so happy days for me :-)


  • Options
    #38
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    It's pretty standard for this country, the police lack the required competence so just make it easier for them


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Implying that the people who are concerned about this have something to hide is just wrong, it's an overreach of power and should in no way be allowed for anything but serious crimes.

    Where did I imply that? Poor effort.

    I asked if he, a law abiding citizen fears the current powers pertaining to his laptop.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bambi wrote: »
    It's pretty standard for this country, the police lack the required competence so just make it easier for them

    The required competency to guess passwords? Or to forensically access digital devices? You may recall the FBI and apple case?


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Absolutely not. Terrorism, Child Abuse, Funding of terror organisations etc yes absolutely if the investigation cannot progress due to suspected information being stored on a device.

    Outside of those circumstances, no way.

    So you are ok with it then as it requires a warrant and must be a serious offence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    So you are ok with it then as it requires a warrant and must be a serious offence?

    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.


  • Options
    #43
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    ineedeuro wrote: »
    Well thats not what the new law says so happy days for me :-)

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


  • Options
    #44
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    The required competency to guess passwords? Or to forensically access digital devices? You may recall the FBI and apple case?


    The required competency to secure convictions without removing individual civil liberties inherent in a free society

    Anyone remember the old canard that the SCC would only be used for those pesky provos who were too smart and too organised to convict in a regular court?

    That's how it goes.


  • Options
    #45
    monseiur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭monseiur


    Most laws are drafted, amended and updated in good faith and with good intentions.
    It's not the proper use of these laws that's the problem - it's the wholesale abuse of these laws by the garda that is of serious concern.
    As events in Donegal and elsewhere throught the country have shown over the last 20+ years there's a very corrupt element in the garda that must be weeded out before they are given any extra powers. Perhaps it's so engrained by now that this 'weeding' is a mission impossible.
    As we all know power corrupts


  • Options
    #46
    Chinasea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭Chinasea


    Good.


  • Options
    #47
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,658 ✭✭✭Nermal


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    The power to demand a password is absolutely identical to the current powers for Gardai to demand;

    Drivers license
    Insurance
    Fingerprints
    DNA sample
    Photograph
    Breath sample
    Urine sample
    Blood sample
    Account for actions
    Entry to property
    Bodily search

    So, of all of those can be demanded, why do you think a password is different?

    None of them are testimony, a password is.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I wouldn't worry, going to prison is almost impossible in this country anyway.


  • Options
    #49
    nonethepfizer
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭nonethepfizer


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Been a long time since I read such an incorrect post. The op pretty much got every single part wrong.

    Primarily, this bill just takes a lot of different laws al/ court decisions and places them in the one spot with clear guidelines. Like the UK PACE did for them

    The new password power requires a warrant. Gardai can currently get a warrant to seize and forensically access your laptop.

    Self incrimination. The power compels ACCESS just as Gardai have powers to demand intimate samples and fingerprints. Gardai can demand your breath sample. Compelling suspects to provide something is not new.

    Superintendent warrant. Has existed since 1939 and yet it's only a concern now for some reason. Only applies in certain circumstances and situations. If the difference between a victim being alive or dead is waiting for a judge at 3am then it's on your conscience to deny this.

    Restriction of solicitor. Well your just twisting now. At present the courts have said that solicitors should be present. This bill will actually make it a legal right.

    Recording of interviews. All interviews and digitally recorded on DVD but Gardai still need to make hand written notes. A 30 minute interview is a 90 minute interview and not fluid as a result. This bill places garda interviews in line with pretty much the entire world by moving from the 19th century into the 21st.

    The liability of Gardai from personal claims is established already. You sue the organization, not the person. The bill does not in any manner way allow Gardai to knowingly break the law or avoid Criminal prosecution.

    Admission of evidence. The supreme court itself made this rule. What Gardai acting in good faith obtain evidence and that action is found too be outside the technical specifications of the warrant, the evidence may be allowed if the transgression is minor, not directly involved and Gardai could have obtained the evidence legally to begin with.

    The op either hasn't read the bill or has a clear anti garda bias

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


  • Options
    #50
    nonethepfizer
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭nonethepfizer


    Nermal wrote: »
    None of them are testimony, a password is.

    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


  • Options
    #51
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,920 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    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. The old adage that if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to worry about could end up with you getting a custodial sentence.

    Apple recently settled in the USA with a woman whose nude photos were leaked by an Apple Authorised repair company. This be the same Apple lobbying states against third party repair claiming TikTok could be installed unknowingly on a customers device.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    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:


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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/


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #55
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,658 ✭✭✭Nermal


    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.


  • Options
    #56
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


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


  • Options
    #57
    Fiery mutant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Fiery mutant


    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 ****.

    We should defend our way of life to an extent that any attempt on it is crushed, so that any adversary will never make such an attempt in the future.



  • Options
    #58
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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 :-)


  • Options
    #59
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,920 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    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.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement