Recent searches
Search options
As predicted by @tjmcintyre in Mary Carolan’s Irish Times Page 1 story last Friday, the Department of Justice went in before the High Court today and applied for an order to surveil the whole population by mass retention of traffic (internet) and location (mobile) data.
The hearing of the application was in secret (‘In Camera’) and nobody else was told about it (‘ex parte’).
The Court granted the Dept’s uncontested application.
https://twitter.com/tjmcintyre/status/1673419718667956243?s=46&t=a9PpjfJKqt6UQE_nXQlsDQ
This Tweet deliberately left blank so as not to break the thread.
This also was happening from the Dept of Justice at the same time.
And here is Friday’s front page story from the Irish Times:
In other news, the Dept of Justice, this very day, has confirmed that complainants will be constrained from discussing anything arising in a DPC complaint if the DPC issues a gagging order deeming it confidential.
Because, you know, all the world has been complaining that the problem with DPC investigations is that they are too transparent.
The Department’s statement spends considerable time denying a bunch of things that are not what anyone says, before finally admitting that the things that people have said it would do (allow the DPC to issue gagging orders of people making complaints) are actually true.
If you are wondering what gives the Minister for Justice the power to apply to the High Court for such a staggeringly broad surveillance regime, well, the answer is that Section 4 of the Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act [You know, the one that may not actually be in effect because they forgot to put it through TRIS] inserts a whole sequence of steps around such an application.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2022/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec4
So, firstly, it appears that the Minister for Justice has decided to gamble. The stakes here are all future prosecutions of serious crimes which rely on the evidence gathered using this data retention regime.
Nobody is making the Minister and her Dept do this.
These are the stakes they decided they would play with, rather than admit any error.
Nobody made them stick to the last ,2011, law either. They chose to do that in the face of warnings that it might weaken otherwise strong prosecution cases. They refused to change it after case after case in the CJEU confirmed it was illegal. Then they finally lost in the SC in the Dwyer case.
Nobody made the Dept or it’s Ministers do any of that either.
But let us imagine that the 2022 Act that didn’t go through TRIS in time is actually valid.
It has a number of requirements that have to accompany an application of this sort.
1- a “serious and genuine, present or foreseeable threat to the security of the State”
*Looks Around*
I, um, don’t know what that might be today.
Maybe the Minister will explain it?
It feels like something the Oireachtas should know about if it has occurred.
In order for the Minister to form that opinion, she is obliged by Section 3A(2) inserted into the old 2011 Act by this slightly TRIS- tarnished 2022 Act to do a lot of analysis.
She has to consider if mass surveillance of the population’s internet and mobile data is necessary. And *even if she thinks it is necessary* she has to weigh it against the intervention into the rights and freedoms of every single internet and mobile user in the country.
If you would like to help, please can you
1) Boost this thread?
2) Contact *your* local TD. This is especially important if you have a Green Party TD. The Green Party blocked the insertion of facial recognition tech into a recent bill. They are open to hearing your concerns.
But any and all TD contacts by their voters are invaluable.
Contact details: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/members/
Some approaches you could take with your TDs:
Outline facts you’re writing about
- Minister made application in secret
- Law the Minister relied on wasn’t put through TRIS before it was enacted
- Application likely invalid, as a result
- Evidence gathered could undermine future prosecutions if held under illegal Act
- Express concern
Request publication of the Minister’s assessment of the necessity and proportionality of mass surveillance of everyone’s internet and mobile use.
You may think contacting your TD is a thing other people do, but it’s actually a pretty direct and effective method of being a citizen in a democracy.
TDs react to hearing from voters the way weathervanes react to hearing from wind.
Be the wind!
@Tupp_ed If you were to suggest a few points to make in such a contact to a TD, what would they be?
@conor good question! I’ll add a bit to the thread.
@Tupp_ed My local TDs are Leo Varadkar, Jack Chambers, and Roderic O’Gorman. I need to move to a different constituency.
@kevinteljeur You have a Green TD! Extra potential! Every TD contact is an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Voter.
@Tupp_ed Haha, I’ve tried in the past!
@Tupp_ed email sent to Neasa Hourigan, hopefully they will kick up about this absolute madness
@Tupp_ed the same minister who got her arse handed to her by a 14 year old Somalian girl today, should have no problem considering and weighting this alright
@Tupp_ed To be fair to the Minister, when that gamble fails, given the timeframes involved in such cases, it'll be the next guy or gal in the office who's the Minister for Finding Out after this Minister for Fecking Around has left.
So she gets to Do Something About The Bad Men Behind Desks but not actually pay any penalty for when the EU, the SC, and anyone with the impetus to take a lawsuit comes calling.
It's like GUBU is our official motto now.