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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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.


  • Options
    #63
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I'll just leave this here...

    ylcaz6ohse571.png


  • Options
    #64
    Hangdogroad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭Hangdogroad


    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?


  • Options
    #65
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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?


  • Options
    #66
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,114 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 14,093 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    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.


  • Options
    #68
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


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


  • Options
    #69
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,114 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.


  • Options
    #70
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 14,093 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    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.


  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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.


  • Options
    #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


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


  • Options
    #74
    Hadron Collider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭Hadron Collider


    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.


  • Options
    #75
    Hadron Collider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭Hadron Collider


    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.


  • Options
    #76
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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?


  • Options
    #77
    Hadron Collider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭Hadron Collider


    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?


  • Options
    #78
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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?


  • Options
    #79
    Hadron Collider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭Hadron Collider


    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.


  • Options
    #80
    Mike Murdock
    Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    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....


  • Options
    #81
    Eire392
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭Eire392


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    monseiur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭monseiur


    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 !


  • Options
    #83
    Fandymo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    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”


  • Options
    #84
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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.


  • Options
    #85
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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?


  • Options
    #86
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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?


  • Options
    #87
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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.


  • Options
    #88
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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.


  • Options
    #89
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    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.


  • Options
    #90
    Eire392
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭Eire392


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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.


Advertisement