Data Retention? Look over there! Shiny Paper on a Stick!
Why is it that I don't get a coherent view of what's happening from my papers and telly? I want to see dots joined up- stories in one part of a paper make reference to related stories in another part. And I want to see a clear presentation of cause and effect- if you let x happen then Y will occur.
For example, Karlin Lillington has done great work revealing the level of information retained by telecoms firms at the order of the government.
As you can read here, Michael McDowell first announced that he had plans to bring in legislation to force companies to store info on people's phone, mobile and internet use for years longer than any other european country. He justified this plan by saying that Europe was making him do it. Though Ireland was one of the most pushy members trying to get the EU Telecommunications Council to propose such changes in the first place.
The Bill was said to be at a consultative stage, though the only people the Department of Justice actually consulted while drafting the Bill were the Garda Siochana. That consultation, it was swiftly clear, was a sham. (Though the same really could be said about any 'consultation' period between a state body and the rest of the world.)
Then a new twist. It turned out that the Bill was really just a method of putting on the statute books an already existing data retention regime.
And now today I see, in the Times again, that our attempt to export this kind of plan to the rest of the EU has floundered on the grounds that it "could contravene the European Convention on Human Rights".
Now that the Morris tribual has shown us what a trustworthy, transparent and reliable police force we have, why doesn't anyone ask if we still have no fear of them misusing the Rights-breaking powers the Minister for Justice has given them?
Where is my joined up thinking here?
(As a post script, am I the only one in the world who wonders what the source was of the Evening Herald's story that criminals had put a €300,000 contract out on the garda in the recent Post Office shooting? It helpfully drowns out criticism of the force to switch attention to an alleged crminal menace, plotting against the sturdy yeomen of the state. Particularly as Crime Correspondants haven't been anything other than Garda Spokesmen for years anyway.)
For example, Karlin Lillington has done great work revealing the level of information retained by telecoms firms at the order of the government.
As you can read here, Michael McDowell first announced that he had plans to bring in legislation to force companies to store info on people's phone, mobile and internet use for years longer than any other european country. He justified this plan by saying that Europe was making him do it. Though Ireland was one of the most pushy members trying to get the EU Telecommunications Council to propose such changes in the first place.
The Bill was said to be at a consultative stage, though the only people the Department of Justice actually consulted while drafting the Bill were the Garda Siochana. That consultation, it was swiftly clear, was a sham. (Though the same really could be said about any 'consultation' period between a state body and the rest of the world.)
Then a new twist. It turned out that the Bill was really just a method of putting on the statute books an already existing data retention regime.
The State has had a secret data retention regime for almost a year, after the Cabinet confidentially instructed telecommunications operators to store traffic information about every phone, fax and mobile call for three years. "The Data Protection Commissioner, Mr Joe Meade, revealed that the former minister for public enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, issued secret directions for data retention when a dispute arose between the operators and his office over how long they should hold such data.
(from Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times, sub required.)
And now today I see, in the Times again, that our attempt to export this kind of plan to the rest of the EU has floundered on the grounds that it "could contravene the European Convention on Human Rights".
Now that the Morris tribual has shown us what a trustworthy, transparent and reliable police force we have, why doesn't anyone ask if we still have no fear of them misusing the Rights-breaking powers the Minister for Justice has given them?
Where is my joined up thinking here?
(As a post script, am I the only one in the world who wonders what the source was of the Evening Herald's story that criminals had put a €300,000 contract out on the garda in the recent Post Office shooting? It helpfully drowns out criticism of the force to switch attention to an alleged crminal menace, plotting against the sturdy yeomen of the state. Particularly as Crime Correspondants haven't been anything other than Garda Spokesmen for years anyway.)
1 Comments:
The editor knows how to wave a red rag in front of this bull...
Notwithstanding the Ed's valid concerns about the slip-shod and shennanigan-riddled way in which the government have gone about this issue, frankly there is a need for clarity about how long a telco can retain traffic data (the record of what call was made, by whom, to whom and for how long).
The Statue of Limitations on a debt is 7 years - far in excess of the 3 year retention period of retention that is being sought for national security reasons. Data Protection regulations relating to telecommunications traffic data require data only be held for as long as reasonably necessary and place controls over the uses that telcos can put that data to. The entire area is a shambles of conflicting rulings and legislation that needs clarification. This is where the joined up thinking is required - define a single duration for all purposes and have done with it (and make my job as a manager of data in a telco a bit easier!).
Of course, the back-door methods adopted don't help the public perception of a Justice Minister losing the run of himself or a government intent on creating a police state. Perhaps it is time for a good strong shot of open government on this issue rather than the smoke & mirrors/cloak & dagger approach to date?
Of course, by dragging in a reference to the nasty & unfortunate events in Lusk recently, the Ed. (imho) has fallen into the same trap as the venerable Minister - he's lost the run of himself slightly.
Two groups of people went out to do a job that morning. Things didn't go according to either group's plan. Two people died. That is regretable, but I am sure that the full facts will show it was unavoidable). That the associates of the criminal gang involved have felt it appropriate to issue threats against the officers involved (who at the end of the day are just ordinary people doing a challenging job) speaks volumes for the nature of the beast in question. It is unlikely that they will respond to calls to deploy 'less lethal weaponry' on their next bank job.
What the Morris tribunal has shown is that the Gardai, like any organisation, are prone to having 'bad apples' and that in small groups, it is easy for groupthink to override sound judgement. It also shows that rewarding people for the quantity of their work (like arms dumps found etc.) rather than the quality (was it the same arms dump each time?) is a bad idea. I'm sure, of course, that the Editor's profession is, of course, pristine without the hint of unethical or questionable behaviour in isolated pockets.
As for the journalistic policy of the Herald, imho the reason for the shift to the gun crime menace is simple - the story of the shoot-to-kill cops died on the vine once the evidence mounted and witnesses gave interviews saying that the officers had identified themselves and had asked the raiders to drop their guns. At the end of the day, the Herald needs headlines to sell papers and we are heading into a slow news month...
Post a Comment
<< Home