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
Comments
-
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Remember when they had Maurice McCabe falsely accused of child molestation? .
That didn't happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
So what's the point in including it in the new legislation?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.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?
Sure then - post the username and password of your email account here when you get a chance please. You're not a criminal, so you've nothing to hide, right? No confidential medical data - no sensitive family documents - no private, intimate photos or letters - no whistleblowing activity - no political activity.
All absolutely legal activities there, of course.
Haaahaahaa - the bank will tell you the transactions were done using your password, so it's you're problem not theirs.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.0 -
-
-
No.it didnt.
Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all).
Subsequently, Tusla just *happened* to "accidentally* upgrade the allegation to a crime of the most serious, evil nature, through a "copy and pasting error", and record that on McCabe's file.
Oh, and Gardaí up to the highest level including then Commissioner Martin Callinan and his press secretary Dave Taylor just *happened* to be told about this allegation in detail, from a supposedly confidential Tusla file, so as they could smear it around among very well respected and well known journalists such as Mick Clifford, who testified that they had been told of this allegation by senior Gardaí.
https://www.thejournal.ie/disclosures-tribunal-reynolds-4052548-Jun2018/
I ask again: Can you imagine the untold additional damage they might have been able to do to this man if they'd been able to access his mobile phone or laptop? Almost everyone has something legal but very taboo in their life, and they use their personal devices to access information about it with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If it was a requirement for a judge to specifically order a defendant to open a specific app to show specific information to investigating officers about a specific case, this would make a lot of sense. A blanket, indiscriminate rule giving access to every single piece of digital information about a person, on foot of a search warrant which can be signed not by a judge but by a senior Garda, about any alleged crime? No specificity, no meaningful oversight, etc?
No thanks.
Garda malpractice in living memory has shown time and time again why they should not be endowed with powers such as this. Frankly, the fact that a superintended can sign any kind of search warrant without judicial oversight is an abomination, justifications be damned.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all).
Subsequently, Tusla just *happened* to "accidentally* upgrade the allegation to a crime of the most serious, evil nature, through a "copy and pasting error", and record that on McCabe's file.
Oh, and Gardaí up to the highest level including then Commissioner Martin Callinan and his press secretary Dave Taylor just *happened* to be told about this allegation in detail, from a supposedly confidential Tusla file, so as they could smear it around among very well respected and well known journalists such as Mick Clifford, who testified that they had been told of this allegation by senior Gardaí.
https://www.thejournal.ie/disclosures-tribunal-reynolds-4052548-Jun2018/
I ask again: Can you imagine the untold additional damage they might have been able to do to this man if they'd been able to access his mobile phone or laptop? Almost everyone has something legal but very taboo in their life, and they use their personal devices to access information about it with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If it was a requirement for a judge to specifically order a defendant to open a specific app to show specific information to investigating officers about a specific case, this would make a lot of sense. A blanket, indiscriminate rule giving access to every single piece of digital information about a person, on foot of a search warrant which can be signed not by a judge but by a senior Garda, about any alleged crime? No specificity, no meaningful oversight, etc?
No thanks.
Garda malpractice in living memory has shown time and time again why they should not be endowed with powers such as this. Frankly, the fact that a superintended can sign any kind of search warrant without judicial oversight is an abomination, justifications be damned.
It has already been explained that this is not possible.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all). .
I think you need to get your facts straight.
A child made some allegations, those allegations were investigated and the DPP directed that no charges be brought.
That happens, a lot.
There was never ever any allegation that the child had fabricated any allegations. I think it's disgraceful that the whole country turned against a child. A child who had something happen to her that she felt bad about. That's not saying anything about anyone else.
What happened years later with the tusla file, I do not know, but as far as I am aware, the tribunal found that there was no deliberate attempt to discredit Maurice McCabe, by tusla.
That child who is now an adult, has to live with the whole country making assumptions about her, that's not right. People need to leave her alone.0 -
I think you need to get your facts straight.
A child made some allegations, those allegations were investigated and the DPP directed that no charges be brought.
That happens, a lot.
There was never ever any allegation that the child had fabricated any allegations. I think it's disgraceful that the whole country turned against a child. A child who had something happen to her that she felt bad about. That's not saying anything about anyone else.
What happened years later with the tusla file, I do not know, but as far as I am aware, the tribunal found that there was no deliberate attempt to discredit Maurice McCabe, by tusla.
That child who is now an adult, has to live with the whole country making assumptions about her, that's not right. People need to leave her alone.
Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.
Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.
That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.
If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.
The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.
If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.
Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.
That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.
If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.
The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.
If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.
Yes, let's leave the child out of it, thank you.
I think you will find that Maurice McCabe stated he had nothing but help from his coworkers, that is in the reports.
When it comes to search warrants, there are certain warrants that need to be issued by a judge, some others that have always been allowed to be issued by high ranking gardai or peace commissioners. As by law.
Any warrants issued by supers or PCs have always been evidence admissible in court, therefore open to question in court. The superintendent or peace commissioner is open to questioning by defence and prosecution.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.
Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.
That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.
If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.
The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.
If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.
Once again, no it cannot.0 -
Under no circumstances should questioning be conducted after the removal of the person's chosen solicitor.
Prove your case another way.
Can someone point out the part of the bill that relates to this?0 -
Advertisement
-
Under no circumstances should questioning be conducted after the removal of the person's chosen solicitor.
Prove your case another way.
Can someone point out the part of the bill that relates to this?
It’s in head 42.
Subs (1) - person in custody has a right to consult a legal representative (in private) and, if asked, the custody officer must notify a legal rep ASAP.
Subs (2) - No questioning or taking of statements until person in custody has had opportunity to consult legal rep. (But note that this is subject to exceptions in head 43, outlined below.)
Subs (3) - If person in custody asks for a legal rep, no further questioning and no taking of statements until they have had an opportunity to consult.
Subs (5) - If person is detained in a Garda custody facility, legal rep may accompany them at any interview conducted.
(So if the guards interview you at home, they have to give you an opportunity to consult your legal rep but, when you’ve done that, they can go ahead without the legal rep being present for the interview. Of course, you can decline to be interviewed, which is probably what your legal rep will have advised you to do when you consulted him.)
Subs (6) - Inspector or higher can require a legal rep to absent himself from interview at station if he reasonably believes (a) legal rep’s presence would prejudice investigation/proceedings, or (b) owing to legal rep’s behaviour, his presence would be unduly disruptive.
[Situation (a) would be rare but might arise if, e.g., your chosen legal rep is himself a witness, suspect or person of interest, and it would be problematic if he knew what questions were being put to you and/or what answers you were giving. Honestly not sure what situation (b) is intended to cover. Legal rep is drunk? Legal rep is belligerent?]
Subs (7) - If legal rep is excluded, person in custody must be told that he still has a right to be accompanied by a legal rep, and guards must make necessary arrangements for another legal rep.
Head 43 creates various exceptions to the rule which forbids questioning/statements before person in custody has had opportunity to consult legal rep. These cover:
- Person in custody, having been informed of right to consult, waives that right.
- Person in custody refuses to consult legal rep who makes himself available.
- Inspector or higher reasonably believes that delaying questioning would involve risk of interference with or injury to other persons, serious loss/damage to property, destruction of evidence, accomplices being alerted, etc.
[In the latter case, the inspector has to give you a written notice that he has authorised questioning in advance of consultation opportunity. But he doesn’t have to tell you the grounds on which he has done so.]0 -
I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.
Get out while you can.0 -
RulesOfNature wrote: »I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.
Get out while you can.
In Spain you can be held in custody without charge for upto 2 years.
Many us states have the death penalty
Many Arabic countries have flogging and the death penalty
Many Asian countries will lock you up in horrible conditions for life unless you bribe them.
South American countries have such huge corruption problems that they can't sack all the corrupt cops
As for Africa......
Yeah, Ireland is the pits.0 -
RulesOfNature wrote:I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.
Best of luck, Ireland isn't too bad at all0 -
RulesOfNature wrote: »I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.
Get out while you can.
Close the door on the way out please0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »In Spain you can be held in custody without charge for upto 2 years.
Many us states have the death penalty
Many Arabic countries have flogging and the death penalty
Many Asian countries will lock you up in horrible conditions for life unless you bribe them.
South American countries have such huge corruption problems that they can't sack all the corrupt cops
As for Africa......
Yeah, Ireland is the pits.
Congratulations, you now realize other people have it worse.
Now compare Ireland to places that have it better.
You think because North Korea exists its okay for Ireland to get worse? You people are so fvcked in ways you wont even believe. In ways you dont want to believe.
Look around you.0 -
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.
Was it the public who made €9k disappear from Balbriggan Garda stations evidence room? Was it the public who made €25k disappear from Malahide Garda stations evidence room? Is it members of the public whinging and crying that Gardai should not be subject to random drugs tests? (If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about) Was it members of the public who recorded and released Dara Quigleys video?
AGS needs proper reform. The criminals in uniform need proper punishment.
Maybe then, the public will have faith in them and will trust them enough to help them.0 -
I, for one, welcome these new powers for Gardai.
If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about. If, however, you've done morally dubious things like watch copious amounts of porn on your mobile device you'll get over the embarrassment...eventually. :pac:0 -
Was it the public who made €9k disappear from Balbriggan Garda stations evidence room? Was it the public who made €25k disappear from Malahide Garda stations evidence room? Is it members of the public whinging and crying that Gardai should not be subject to random drugs tests? (If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about) Was it members of the public who recorded and released Dara Quigleys video?
AGS needs proper reform. The criminals in uniform need proper punishment.
Maybe then, the public will have faith in them and will trust them enough to help them.
As of last month , over 70 Gardai are currently suspended and in the last three years 17 have been dismissed. So it does suggest there is some form of accountability and disciplinary procedures being in use.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tip of the iceberg i'd saycorner of hells wrote: »As of last month , over 70 Gardai are currently suspended and in the last three years 17 have been dismissed. So it does suggest there is some form of accountability and disciplinary procedures being in use.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement