What annoys me most about the data retention legilation is the potential for abuse. It is like saying Vodafone are obliged to take 10,000 or everybody and keep it in their building. Guess what is going to happen - people are going to break in and dip in. A lot of people for a lot of reasons.

Also, companies are not permitted to retain data on you, such as the location of your mobile phone at all times. They are obliged to keep this data.

Forget the fascists (whoever the they might be, the nebulous little buggers); its the industrial espionage people, the blackmailers, the criminals, the private investigators, the divorce snoops, the banks, the revenue (residence provisions), the health insurance industry and the (evil of all evil) marketing and advertising peofessionals who will use this information to rob our privacy and dignity.

Also, it is not the fact of the invasion of privacy that does the most damage. It is the fear of invasion of privacy and how this impacts on our view of freedom that is the most damaging result of all this. Already, I am paranoid about what I type on this board, what texts I send to friends and so on. If I were on a stag and people went into a strip club I would be reluctant to go with them if I had a phone on me. Well and good you say? Well then it's well and good to controlling people's legal behaviour by monitoring their every move.

I remember years ago - really years ago, reading an Arthur Halley blockbuster about snuff movies or something and the bad guy was caught via his credit card details - which could actually say what size hiking boots he'd bought on a given day. Creeped me out more than the fate of the prostitutes for whom sex with the bad guy was more than le petit mort.

What's the alternative, ZE? What should be permitted - because it's unrealistic to think we can go back to the days of Hercule Poirot figuring out who committed the crime while he potters among his vegetable marrows.

I'm concerned about this too - but not sure where the lines should be drawn.

My problem with this kind of thing has always been the 'proportionality' - a discussion I have with FT from time to time. It's not sufficient to say that it is useful in solving crimes - it must be sufficiently useful in a sufficiently large number of cases that the benefits of it to the citizen outweigh the drawbacks. Do we feel that this is the case here?

If we are to have this kind of data retention, it should be under the aegis of someone like the Data Protection Commissioner - an independent third party whose instinctive reaction should be to refuse access, and who is immediately identifiable as accountable.

I don't see why it is necessary to record everybody's movements or everybody's internet and phone activity.

I don't see any appreciable improvement in the crime detection rate as a result of this technology. The people who commit serious crimes figure out ways to get around it. Those who are supposed to detect crime do not have the resourcs to exploit the data.

If this data is going to be harvested and kept, and I see no justification for that, then it should be only be kept by trustworthy specialist civil servants who are sworn to keep it properly, and who will suffer grave penalties for abusing their position in the civil service. I also think that the penalties for anyone procuring the abuse of such information should be extreme. This is going to be the new white collar crime. It will not just be acase of who you know but also what they know and what they have acces to. At the moment there are way too many stable lads floating about, hungry for cash.

A very succinct argument ZE. And it's true, it will be abused. I suppose it would be fair to concede that my opinion regarding abuse being the purpose of the legislation is a moot issue, when it's so obvious that it will be abused.

I think Kate makes an interesting point, when she asks where do we draw the line. I don't mean my response to sound glib, but I must suggest, that we must stop drawing lines and take some action. Crime in Ireland is disgusting and is at totally unacceptable levels. Our laws are already being ignored wholesale and I seriously believe that drafting new ones, misses this point completely.

I say get the machine functional before you go tinkering with it. That way if its broken after your efforts, you have a good idea what caused it.

Surely legislation, as one of its root purposes, should be to facilitate cohesion? Not fear and separation.

ibis wrote:

My problem with this kind of thing has always been the 'proportionality' - a discussion I have with FT from time to time. It's not sufficient to say that it is useful in solving crimes - it must be sufficiently useful in a sufficiently large number of cases that the benefits of it to the citizen outweigh the drawbacks. Do we feel that this is the case here?

If we are to have this kind of data retention, it should be under the aegis of someone like the Data Protection Commissioner - an independent third party whose instinctive reaction should be to refuse access, and who is immediately identifiable as accountable.

But Ibis, this is exactly the problem in Ireland. Nobody, but nobody, ever gets appointed to posiitons like that of the Data Protection Commissioner except those who are trusted to make the 'right' decisions. These appointments are decided by small groups of politically chosen people and are taken outside of the democratic process. Besides, the idea that a single person can wear the responsibility for the rights and freedoms of the entire country is, to say the least, a worrying possibility. The proposed legislation is an affront to everything that anyone who is remotely concerned with true democracy could possibly support.

Well Hermes, I am all for using technology for fighting crime.
I think money the first step should be to educate the Gardai and vastly improve the surveillance technologies and methods used to target the known criminals. Only when the Gardai can show their competence in catching known criminals and using technology should we consider giving them access to the ordinary citizen's data.

Also, I thnk it is a fundamental aspect of freedom that the state should not be in the business of recording the ordinary individual's movements and communications until that citizen is suspected of a crime or the state is in danger of being attacked. That is my view of freedom. That is why I will never be a member of FG.

As a matter of interest, are other people here conscious of the fact that their movements are recorded and all communications are recorded? I don't mean are you aware that it happens but rather does it affect how you carry on? Are you ever worried about being involved in a Squidgy-gate type affair later in life if you send your girlfriend a cheeky text?

Aragon wrote:

ibis wrote:

My problem with this kind of thing has always been the 'proportionality' - a discussion I have with FT from time to time. It's not sufficient to say that it is useful in solving crimes - it must be sufficiently useful in a sufficiently large number of cases that the benefits of it to the citizen outweigh the drawbacks. Do we feel that this is the case here?

If we are to have this kind of data retention, it should be under the aegis of someone like the Data Protection Commissioner - an independent third party whose instinctive reaction should be to refuse access, and who is immediately identifiable as accountable.

But Ibis, this is exactly the problem in Ireland. Nobody, but nobody, ever gets appointed to posiitons like that of the Data Protection Commissioner except those who are trusted to make the 'right' decisions. These appointments are decided by small groups of politically chosen people and are taken outside of the democratic process. Besides, the idea that a single person can wear the responsibility for the rights and freedoms of the entire country is, to say the least, a worrying possibility. The proposed legislation is an affront to everything that anyone who is remotely concerned with true democracy could possibly support.

There's certainly an issue - and a wider one - of how appointments are made in this country.

I agree overall about the legislation. I think it's silly to claim fascism, but it's undeniable that this is a disproportionate level of surveillance.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Well Hermes, I am all for using technology for fighting crime...

As a matter of interest, are other people here conscious of the fact that their movements are recorded and all communications are recorded? I don't mean are you aware that it happens but rather does it affect how you carry on? Are you ever worried about being involved in a Squidgy-gate type affair later in life if you send your girlfriend a cheeky text?

I worry about what my children might put on Facebook or Bebo.....

ibis wrote:

There's certainly an issue - and a wider one - of how appointments are made in this country.

Plenty of thread space on this site for discussions/information gathering on this

Quote :

I agree overall about the legislation. I think it's silly to claim fascism, but it's undeniable that this is a disproportionate level of surveillance.

The word certainly grabbed my attention. Isn't it always worth being mindful of the extreme implications of any policies we make? That's how we test them, isn't it? Because afterwards you get Statutory Instruments and other caveats which make adjustments to laws and policies in order to fit them into the reality. Better to imagine the worst Brave New Orwellian horror that could be result from this and tick it off when found possibly not to be a conclusion.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

There's certainly an issue - and a wider one - of how appointments are made in this country.

Plenty of thread space on this site for discussions/information gathering on this

That would be useful - the FG report might be a starting point.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

I agree overall about the legislation. I think it's silly to claim fascism, but it's undeniable that this is a disproportionate level of surveillance.

The word certainly grabbed my attention. Isn't it always worth being mindful of the extreme implications of any policies we make? That's how we test them, isn't it? Because afterwards you get Statutory Instruments and other caveats which make adjustments to laws and policies in order to fit them into the reality. Better to imagine the worst Brave New Orwellian horror that could be result from this and tick it off when found possibly not to be a conclusion.

Yes - if the government turns nasty, the powers you handed them become weapons against you.

You can already get software to encrypt your text messages so that they cannot be intercepted. Link:
http://www.insideview.ie/irisheyes/2006/03/encrypt_your_sm.html

The Gardaí would know that you sent a text to a particular phone but would not be able to decrypt it.

DeGaulle wrote:

You can already get software to encrypt your text messages so that they cannot be intercepted. Link:
http://www.insideview.ie/irisheyes/2006/03/encrypt_your_sm.html

The Gardaí would know that you sent a text to a particular phone but would not be able to decrypt it.

Good old Bernie - there are times when his CIA roots really show!

youngdans LINK
(auditor mod)
I came across this and watched the first 30 minutes. Is this new constitution 3000 pages. There is not that many pages in the bible. Is this video accurate before I continue because if it is then it is easy to know which way to vote.

The new constitution is not 3000 pages - more like 300

youngdan wrote:

youngdans LINK
(auditor mod)
I came across this and watched the first 30 minutes. Is this new constitution 3000 pages. There is not that many pages in the bible. Is this video accurate before I continue because if it is then it is easy to know which way to vote.

Accurate? No, not even slightly. Whatever about genuine deficiencies in the Treaty, that video is an exercise in complete fantasy. Even the initial claim, that they set out to "make a video about the pros and cons of the Treaty" is false - they were against it before it even came out.

Well definately they were against it and I would be taking that into account. They say the amendments are 300 pages onto 3000 pages but even 300 pages is a lot but could be read by anyone. Here the Parriot Act was so many pages that it turned out that only Feingold of the senators had read it. The rest got summaries from their staff. Another question, the main parties are for the treaty so is everyone even councilers subject to a party whip as surely all could not agree.

DeGaulle wrote:

The Gardaí would know that you sent a text to a
particular phone but would not be able to decrypt it.

Surely
that would flag the phone as belonging to or being used by a person
that could be up to something?

The funniest thing about the Data Retention legislation was that it was
presented to the Seanad in Irish by McDowell. All the journalists
missed it by months. Incidentally, it followed in the tradition of the
introduction of security legislation.

State access to this data is one thing. However the legislation seems
to be a recognition that commerical intelligence and data is far more
widespread than most people even know.

Regards...jmcc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&feature=related
A bit of bad language but worth watching

jmcc wrote:

DeGaulle wrote:

The Gardaí would know that you sent a text to a
particular phone but would not be able to decrypt it.

Surely
that would flag the phone as belonging to or being used by a person
that could be up to something?

The funniest thing about the Data Retention legislation was that it was
presented to the Seanad in Irish by McDowell. All the journalists
missed it by months. Incidentally, it followed in the tradition of the
introduction of security legislation.

State access to this data is one thing. However the legislation seems
to be a recognition that commerical intelligence and data is far more
widespread than most people even know.

Regards...jmcc

I think I'm drifting off topic, but if you look at what has happened in Beirut (Aragon's useful links) Hizbollah had an independent cable/wired telecom system as mobile phones are seen by them as a sure way of getting bombed to smithereens by the Israelis, and totally open to hacking as well. When government moved to close down Hizbollah's land lines in the middle of a general strike over wages and inflation, Hizbollah viewed that as on a par with a military attack.

They should have called Rivada Networks who say they can supply a hand held secure interoperable field use network based on your own Blackberry.