You are on page 1of 389

In the wake of corruption of all

political' moves and Politician and Developers, Bankers, and Digicel


OBrien Phones of Lie, corruption, Betrayal and Treason Crash
Economy

Brendan Howlin: Taoiseach creating propaganda


unit with public money
Thursday, October 12, 2017

The leader of the Labour Party is accusing the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar
of using public money to create a propaganda unit.

Brendan Howlin has written to the Standards in Public Office


Commission asking it to investigate 5m allocated in Budget 2018 to
the Strategic Communications Unit.

"One of the greatest surprises contained in this Budget was the


allocation of 5m to fund the Strategic Communications Unit, or spin
operation that Leo Varadkar has created in his Department.

"The Taoiseach continues to argue that this will be cost neutral, but an
allocation of 5m to this area means some other area of public spending
is being denied those resources.

"This sum could have increased school book rental grants by a third,
funded an increase in personal assistant hours for people with
disabilities, or gone some way towards eliminating the waiting list for
home care packages. Instead, the Taoiseach has allocated himself this
funding to boost the popularity of the Fine Gael party."
The Taoiseach says the money was already being spent elsewhere in the
civil service and has simply been pulled together for the new unit in his
department.

However, Mr Howlin says SIPO should issue advice on the use of the
funding and the creation of the unit.

"I have asked SIPO to cl arify two points today. Firstly, whether the
deployment of a significant quantity of social media advertising by the
Taoiseach's Department amounts to an improper use of public funds for
political ends.

"And secondly, whether the staff recruited to serve in the Strategic


Communications Unit have been appropriately recruited under the
Public Service Management Act.

"This follows on from a letter to the Secretary General of the


Taoiseach's Department last week, where I have asked him to clarify the
level of expenditure planned for this unit, to outline the appropriateness
of a programme of tracking polls that have been commissioned, and the
intention of Government to continuing recruiting more communications
staff.

"While I have not yet received a response to that letter, I believe that the
events of the last 24 hours now require an intervention by the Standards
in Public Office Commission."

One of the greatest surprises contained in this Budget was the allocation of 5m to fund
the Strategic Communications Unit, or spin operation that Leo Varadkar has created in his
Department.
"The Taoiseach continues to argue that this will be cost neutral, but an allocation of 5m to
this area means some other area of public spending is being denied those resources.
"This sum could have increased school book rental grants by a third, funded an increase in
personal assistant hours for people with disabilities, or gone some way towards eliminating
the waiting list for home care packages. Instead, the Taoiseach has allocated himself this
funding to boost the popularity of the Fine Gael party."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brendan-howlin-
taoiseach-creating-propaganda-unit-with-public-money-809708.html

Michel Martin launches


blistering attack on Fine
Gael 'era of hype and
spin'

1
Micheal Martin TD speaking at the 78th Fianna Fail Ard Fheis in
the RDS .

October 13 2017 8:42 PM - Oh shut up we are tired of you and your FAKE
OUTRAGE #FlipFlopKing
FIANNA Fil leader Michel Martin has launched a blistering attack on
the new era of hype and spin which he claims Fine Gael are bringing to
government.
In his opening address to the partys Ard Fheis in Dublin, Mr Martin said
that since becoming Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has nothing whatsoever
to say about improving health services, developing education or
addressing his governments chronic lack of delivery but hes had lots
to say about what he claims is an urgent need to communicate
more.He told supporters there is more political communications in
government than at any time in our history and they now have a bigger
budget than at any time in history.
In Budget 2018 Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe set aside 5m for the
new Strategic Communications Unit which has caused huge controversy
since the Taoiseach originally told the Dil it would be cost neutral.
He has given up on trying to address chronic problems which have
arisen on his partys watch and he wants a relentless, politicised spin
campaign to try and sell their image, Mr Martin said.
He said Fine Gael, who government is propped by Fianna Fil courtesy
of a confidence and supply arrangement, are out of touch if they
believe spending public money on slogans and media ads is a good idea.
The Taoiseach says hes only concerned about telling people whats
going on. Well people know about the waiting lists.
They know about the 3000 children in emergency accommodation.
They know about the rents and houses they cant afford, Mr Martin
said.
He needs to understand no one is being fooled by his new era of
propaganda.
And we have no intention of changing our core beliefs to fit some
publicity campaign.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/article36225511.ece
YOU ( Michel Martin ) Just passed his FG Budget , Hypocrite !
Pot callingg the kettle blackarse

Former Irish PM Bertie


Ahern 'failed to give
truthful account of cash'
Fianna Fail set to expel former Irish prime minister
as a result of the Mahon inquiry into corrupt
practices
24 March 2012

The former Irish PM Bertie Ahern was found by the Mahon report to have
given an untrue explanation of money passing through accounts connected to
him

Bertie Ahern is set to be expelled from Fianna Fail - the party he led to three successive Irish
general election victories.

The party confirmed it was seeking his expulsion for "conduct unbecoming of a member of
Fianna Fail." The party will elaborate on its move at a press conference in Dublin on Friday. It
has been called in the light of the Mahon Report on political corruption in the Republic in
which it found that Ahern had been "untruthful" in his accounts of how large amounts of
monies were lodged into his bank account from wealthy supporters of Fianna Fail at the time
he was Irish Finance Minister.

The former prime minister defended his record tonight saying he had done nothing to
"demean" any office of the state in which he served.

Ahern, who was once Fianna Fil's greatest electoral asset as well as a key figure in achieving a
peace settlement in Northern Ireland, has been accused of failing to truthfully explain the
source of large sums of money that passed through his bank accounts.
The product of a 15-year inquiry costing more than 250m (210m) and running to more
than 3,000 pages, the Mahon report concluded Ahern failed to "truthfully account" for the
sources of money he lodged in his bank account when he was finance minister.

While stopping short of accusing him of outright corruption, the report questioned the
veracity of evidence that the then Taoiseach gave to the Mahon tribunal during at least four
sittings of the inquiry between September 2007 and early 2008.

The tribunal's final report noted that: "Much of the explanation provided by Mr Ahern as to
the source of the substantial funds identified and inquired into in the course of the tribunal's
public hearings was deemed by the tribunal to be untrue."

During the decade-and-a-half-long inquiry into the connections between Fianna Fil
politicians and developers seeking to have land rezoned in Dublin, Ahern explained that
several donations made by wealthy party supporters into his account were personal "dig-
outs"; they were donations from friends to help him cover legal bills after his divorce rather
than payments from developers who the party had helped out in controversial planning
applications.

But the report rejected Ahern's explanation. It focused on a payment of 165,000 that passed
through his accounts. The tribunal said Ahern had failed to "truthfully account" for how he
had obtained that sum.

The report highlighted another payment of 22,500 Irish punts into his bank account in
December 1993. Regarding the tribunal and his evidence, Ahern had "not provided with a
truthful account" the source of this money either.

A spokesman for Ahern said he was studying the report and would make a statement later.

A number of other senior Fianna Fil politicians are criticised for accepting inappropriate
payments from builders. Former EU commissioner and cabinet minister Pdraig Flynn is
accused of "wrongly and corruptly" seeking a donation from developer Tom Gilmartin. The
late Fianna Fil TD Liam Lawlor received "inappropriate and corrupt payments".

Councillors in greater Dublin, including several from the Fine Gael party as well as Fianna
Fil, are accused of corrupt practices in the report.

But the main attention of the findings has been on Ahern, who was the most successful Fianna
Fil leader in terms of election victories since the party's founder, Eamon de Valera.

While Judge Alan Mahon, who headed the tribunal, could not rule out or establish allegations
that Ahern had been paid off by any developer for favours in the planning process, the overall
conclusion that his evidence did not ring true has marred his place in history.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/22/bertie-ahern-mahon-
tribunal
Bertie Ahern resigns from
Fianna Fil
Former Irish PM steps down in wake of corruption
inquiry, but says decision was 'political' move
24 March 2012

Bertie Ahern, the former Irish prime minister, who has resigned from his
political party, Fianna Fil, in the wake of a corruption inquiry

Bertie Ahern, the former prime minister of Ireland, has resigned from his political party in the
wake of a corruption inquiry.

He said his decision to leave Fianna Fil was a "political" move rather than an admission that
he had lied about his past finances.
Ahern was on the brink of being thrown out of the party he led to three successive general
election victories after the inquiry, known as the Mahon tribunal, found money from
supporters had been deposited in his bank account.

Writing in Ireland's Sunday Independent newspaper, he said he was "deeply saddened" by a


motion to expel him, calling it a "grave injustice". He said he had decided to tender his
resignation to avoid becoming a source of political division.

"I appreciate the support that party members have pledged to me unprompted in the past
week," he said. "I have decided the best way that I can now serve Fianna Fil is to tender my
resignation as a member of the party."

Ahern's expulsion had been proposed by current party leader Michel Martin, who said the
former prime minister was guilty of a betrayal of trust.

The Mahon tribunal, which sat for more than 15 years, has shamed a series of senior figures in
Fianna Fil, once considered the dominant party in Irish politics.

It stopped short of accusing Ahern of corruption, but said he failed to "truthfully account" for
sources of money he lodged in his bank account when he was finance minister in the 1990s.

Ahern says donations he received from wealthy party supporters into his account were not
backhanders but "dig-outs" from friends to help him cover legal bills after his divorce.

But the report rejected Ahern's explanation. It said he had failed to "truthfully account" for
sums amounting to 250,000 Irish punts received between 1993 and 1995.

Ahern wrote in the Sunday Independent that he intended to challenge the tribunal's findings.
"I am hurt and disappointed by the findings of the Mahon Tribunal," he said. "At the outset, I
want to make it clear I have done nothing wrong or dishonest. I believe a grave injustice has
been done to me."

Irish reunification
referendum would be
dangerous, says Bertie
Ahern
30 April 2017

Ex-taoiseach, a key player in Good Friday


agreement, says a border poll could lead to trouble
in Northern Ireland

Former Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern has said a


referendum on Irish reunification would be dangerous and
could lead to fresh trouble in Northern Ireland. The ex-
taoiseach, a key partner for the British government during
the Good Friday negotiations, was reacting to the EUs
decision in Brussels on Saturday to allow for a united
Ireland that absorbed the north to join the EU if the
province voted to leave the UK.
On a possible border poll a key Sinn Fin demand
within Northern Ireland, Ahern said: If you want trouble
again in the north play that game. Its a dangerous game.
The three-time election-winning Fianna Fil leader said
the EUs decision to recognise the 1998 Good Friday
agreement, which contains clauses allowing for a future
border poll, was not a massive surprise. The fact that all
of Europe reiterates that the Good Friday agreement is an
international agreement Id be very disappointed if any
of them said it wasnt. No its not [a big deal]. Its a fact of
life, Ahern told the Newstalk radio show in Dublin on
Sunday.

Ahern, who was first elected taoiseach in 1997, worked


closely with Tony Blair to secure firstly the Good Friday
agreement and then the 2006 St Andrews agreement,
which led in turn to the power-sharing executive headed
by Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.
While the EU has recognised Northern Irelands right to
rejoin the union in the context of a united Ireland, the
Good Friday agreement stipulates that constitutional
change can come about only via a border poll. In last
Junes referendum, 56% of the Northern Irish electorate
voted to remain within the EU.
But successive opinion polls in the region have also
shown a consistent majority in favour of staying within the
UK rather than linking up with the Irish republic.
The Ulster Unionist party said on Sunday that the Good
Friday/Belfast agreement underpinned the principle of
consent on the regions constitutional status. UUP
assembly member Doug Beattie said: The Ulster Unionist
arty has been clear that the focus should be on ensuring
that the United Kingdom, and within that Northern Ireland,
gets the best deal possible through the UK governments
negotiations with the EU. It is sad that some are
opportunistically using Brexit to try and unpick the union.
The Belfast agreement put the future of Northern Ireland
in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland through the
principle of consent. Sinn Fin should reflect on that when
they talk about protecting the Belfast agreement. They can
try and claim a win, but these guidelines do not change
the fact that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the
United Kingdom while the majority of our citizens wish that
to be the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/30/irish-reunification-
referendum-bertie-ahern-good-friday-agreement-northern-ireland
Europe could allow a united Ireland to
join EU after Brexit
Leaders expected to discuss statement at weekend summit that if the island reunifies, the
north will automatically regain EU membership

European leaders may be preparing to recognise a united Ireland, in a declaration that would
pave the way for the north to swiftly rejoin the European Union. At their first Brexit summit
on Saturday, the EUs 27 leaders are expected to discuss a text stating that if Ireland unified,
the north would automatically become part of the EU.

The inclusion of the text is a victory for the Irish government, which had pressed for the
inclusion of a GDR clause, a reference to the integration of the former east German state
into the European Community after the fall of the Berlin wall. The declaration is bound to
raise fears that Brexit could trigger the unravelling of the UK, although there is no majority
in Northern Ireland for unification.

EU diplomats are braced for a fierce reaction from the UK,


given the angry tabloid headlines that followed speculation
about the status of Gibraltar. After lobbying from Madrid,
the EU agreed that the Spanish government would be
able to exclude the Rock from any EU-UK trade
agreement if it was not satisfied with the status of the
territory.
The Irish clause is informed by the Good Friday peace
agreement, which states that north and south of Ireland
have a right to unify if a majority agree north of the border.
Enda Kenny, the taoiseach, has argued that it is important
for the north of Ireland to have ease of access to rejoin
the EU if reunification were to occur.
A draft of the summit minutes seen by the Guardian refers
to the Good Friday provision for a united Ireland and adds
that this event would bring the north into the EU. The draft
says: The European Council acknowledges that, in
accordance with international law, the entire territory of
such a united Ireland would thus be part of the European
Union [in the event of Irish unification].
Brexit has put the issue of a united Ireland back into the
spotlight, but public support remains cool. In Northern
Ireland, a recent poll found that a clear majority of 62%
would vote for the territory to remain in the UK, while only
22% backed a united Ireland. Voters in the republic are
also sceptical, especially if reunification comes with a
price tag.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Enda Kenny has argued that it is important for Northern Ireland to have ease
of access to rejoin the EU in the event of reunification. Photograph: Michael
Kooren/Reuters
Asked how they would vote in a referendum if the cost of a
united Ireland was 9bn a year, only a third of Irish
respondents said they would vote yes, while a third would
vote against and the rest were undecided.
The GDR clause is contained in a text separate from the
EUs official negotiating guidelines, because it is seen as a
reflection of the Good Friday agreement, rather than an
issue to be negotiated with the UK.
Brussels insiders are expecting a short summit on
Saturday where EU leaders swiftly put their seal to the
Brexit negotiating guidelines, a document outlining the
EUs red lines, which have already been agreed at a
technical level.
However Owen Paterson, former Northern Ireland
secretary and Conservative MP, warned the EU against
any action over Irish unity : The UK voted democratically
to leave the EU last year and it would be quite
inappropriate for the EU to meddle with the integrity of the
UK during negotiations and very unwise, given the current
position in Northern Ireland.

It is really quite out of court and very unhelpful. Genuinely


really unwise. There is no threat to the peace process but
if they are going to do this, given the strength of feeling
about a border poll, it would be really unwise.
As the clock ticks down to the launch of formal
negotiations after the 8 June election, there are signs that
the EU is becoming increasingly exasperated with the UK.
On Thursday, Angela Merkel said British politicians were
living under the illusion that the UK would retain most of its
EU privileges once it leaves the bloc.
Shortly before giving this speech to the Bundestag, the
German chancellor spoke to the European commission
president, Jean-Claude Juncker. He reported on a dinner
the previous night at No 10 Downing Street, where he and
the EUs chief Brexit negotiator met Theresa May and her
top officials.
One EU diplomat said: I am deeply pessimistic that there
will be a positive outcome from this negotiation, putting
the chances of the UK crashing out of the EU without a
deal as higher than 50%.
The EU is frustrated that Mays team has not, as they see
it, engaged with reality on David Camerons promises to
pay into the EU budget until 2020 a promise Brussels
insists the British must stick to. They [the British] are not
just on a different planet, they are in a different galaxy,
said the source.

Human Rights Clause for the EU s International ... See also Negotiating ... all trade agreements
should contain clause
European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the European External
Action Service on the negotiations of the modernisation of the trade pillar of the EU-Chile Association
Agreement
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2017-0267+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Multilingual ... Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ... shall include
a separate chapter on social developments
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN
COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS Decision of 6 February 1996

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/127.pdf
Michael Ring let fly at Donohoe and Varadkar over
budget
Michael Ring, the Rural Affairs Minister, is understood to have launched
a ferocious broadside at Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe and
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at last Tuesdays Cabinet meeting, the Irish
Examiner can reveal.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Mr Ring, who is known to be very displeased at the lack of progress in
the formal establishment of his newly created department and the
budget it has, was a lone dissenting voice at Cabinet on the morning of
the budget.
According to several sources present, Mr Ring exploded towards the
end of the Cabinet meeting which had received a briefing on the budget
from Mr Donohoe when Mr Varadkar asked for feedback from
ministers.
While most ministers offered comments in support of the 1.2bn
budget package, Mr Ring broke ranks and let fly and made his
displeasure at the lack of a meaningful budget for his department
known.
It got 19m, or 12% of an increase.
When Leo went around the table to ask for views on the budget,
everyone said happy, happy and then it came to Ringer who let fly. He
was very angry, said one minister.
We were taken aback. If Shane Ross or Finian had said it, no one would
have been surprised because that is what they do to try and distinguish
themselves from the Fine Gaelers. But when Michael spoke out and
spoke out so harshly, you could see Leo sit up and notice.
It is not that rural Ireland is not a priority, but when you are putting out
fires in other areas, they have to be the priority. They are health and
housing.
It is also believed that Mr Rings unhappiness in recent weeks has been
mounting over the lack of progress in establishing his department.
He is known to have made the point that if he is not looked after, he will
see it as being thrown to the wolves of the opposition such as Fianna
Fails amon Cuv and Roscommon Independent Michael Fitzmaurice.
Mr Fitzmaurice told the Irish Examiner: Michael Ring was right to give
out. He has the smallest budget for a department that covers most of
the country. It is a token gesture to rural Ireland with the budget he has,
nothing else.
Several attempts to contact Mr Ring directly were not responded to.
However, a source close to Mr Ring insisted he was satisfied with his
budget increase, but did not deny he made his outburst at Cabinet on
Tuesday.
Throughout the budgetary process, Minister Ring worked very hard to
ensure increased Government investment in rural Ireland and is
delighted with the end result, the source told the Irish Examiner.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Mr Cuv said Mr Rings department is
a Cinderella department because of the tiny budget it has and very
limited functions.
What can he do for rural Ireland with a tiny budget and little or no
delegated functions? he said.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/michael-ring-let-fly-at-donohoe-and-
varadkar-over-budget-460865.html

Denis O'Brien loses bid to


establish identity of Red
Flag client
1Aodhan O'Faolain
October 13 2017

Businessman Denis O'Brien


"A three judge Court of Appeal today dismissed Mr O'Brien's appeals over the High Court
refusal of discovery. It also dismissed a cross-appeal by Red Flag against orders requiring
it to disclose documents relating to communications between it and the client
Denis OBrien has lost his appeal over the High Court's refusal to make orders
directing Red Flag Consulting to give him documents that might disclose the
identity of its client for a dossier about the businessman.

Mr OBriens counsel Michael Cush SC had argued he is entitled to know if the


client is the businessmans absolute sworn number one enemy in the world.
It was argued Mr OBrien needs the clients identity for proceedings over the
dossier, which he alleges contains defamatory material about him, including
describing him as Irelands Berlusconi.

A three judge Court of Appeal today dismissed Mr O'Brien's appeals over the
High Court refusal of discovery. It also dismissed a cross-appeal by Red Flag
against orders requiring it to disclose documents relating to communications
between it and the client.

The president of the COA, Mr Justice Sean Ryan, sitting with Mr Justice
Michael Peart and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, said the businessman's claim in
his case against Red Flag is one of conspiracy to damage him in a variety of
ways, including defamation.

His claim was pleaded in conspiracy, causing loss by unlawful means, and
defamation, and he was seeking damages, including exemplary damages.
The judge said the fundamental point is Red Flag's client was entitled to have
the dossier prepared, "even if this was done for the basest of motives".

That in itself was not sufficient to establish a conspiracy on the part of that
client, or to demonstrate that Red Flag itself was a co-conspirator with the
client.

If the dossier was actually published by Red Flag, and it has defamed Mr
O'Brien, then he had a remedy under the Defamation Act 2009, he said.

Mr O'Brien was not entitled, on the law, to ascertain the identity of that client
by means of seeking discovery from Red Flag, he ruled.

The High Court had correctly refused this discovery application having regard
to an earlier application by Mr O'Brien's aimed at getting the client's identity.
That earlier application was a "legitimate" application and was one that had
been considered and refused by the High Court.

After the judgment was handed down, Frank Beatty SC, for Mr O'Brien, said
his client would consider whether to seek permission to appeal the COA
decision to the Supreme Court.

Because the main appeals were by Mr O'Brien, and Red Flag's cross-appeal
was "relatively insignificant", the judge said the court had decided to award
costs against Mr O'Brien, with a stay on payment pending the final
determination of the case. If there was any objection to the costs order,
submissions could be filed on that within four weeks, he added.

When Mr Beatty said he was anxious an imaging order aimed at preserving


material from devices of Red Flag should remain in place, Mr Justice Ryan
said that was not a matter before the COA but he believed it would be unwise
to rush to alter the current position.

Michael Collins SC, for Red Flag, said he understood the imaging order
continues until all appeals are exhausted and Mr Beatty had signalled a
possible application to the Supreme Court.

In his appeal, Mr OBrien claimed the dossier was compiled for the hostile
motive of damaging him and he disputed Red Flag's claim it prepared the
dossier in the ordinary course of business for a client whose identity it is
entitled to keep confidential.

In opposing discovery, Red Flag argued Mr OBrien was engaged in a pure


fishing expedition and could in law seek a document that would disclose the
identity of a client to see if the identity is relevant.

The High Court found Mr O'Brien had failed to show the client's identity was
relevant and necessary for his case against Red Flag.

Mr OBrien had sought the documents for his action against Red Flag alleging
defamation and conspiracy in relation to certain contents of the dossier
including concerning the Siteserv sale and his charity activities in Haiti. He
also said he needs the documents to consider whether to also sue the client.

Red Flag denies defamation or conspiracy, denies Mr O'Brien had been


harmed or suffered loss and has also raised issues about how he got the
dossier. He has claimed he got it anonymously from a USB stick placed in an
envelope left in his Dublin offices in October 2015.

the judge said the court had decided to award costs against Mr O'Brien, with a stay on payment
pending the final determination of the case. If there was any objection to the costs order,
submissions could be filed on that within four weeks, he added." PAY UP and stop FISHING.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/denis-obrien-loses-bid-to-
establish-identity-of-red-flag-client-36223871.html

'I got a statue of the


Virgin Mary and minutes
later I was able to walk
for the first time in a
decade' - Pensioner
speaks of 'miracle'
Dean Gray
October 13 2017

A pensioner claims he could walk properly for the first time in years 10
minutes after obtaining a 4ft-tall statue of the Virgin Mary.

Grandfather Des Fitzgerald (82), of Greystones in Limerick city, recently


purchased the statue to mark the centenary of the first apparitions in Ftima,
Portugal.

He bought the blessed statue for 400 - but said he did not expect to receive a
"miracle" as his health dramatically improved.

After alternating between using a wheelchair and a walking aid for a decade,
he said his prayers had been answered.

"I hadn't the statue 10 minutes when I was able to walk fully. It was a miracle
straight away. To prove it to myself, I walked out of the house, down to the
gate and back up again. Before, I was barely able to stand up for a minute on
my own," he told the 'Limerick Leader'.

Mr Fitzgerald, who has been overcome with emotion given the change in his
circumstances, said he was afraid to wake up each morning in case he
suddenly finds that his mobility has been impaired again.

"The excitement of the whole thing this past week has been absolutely
unbelievable," said the former butcher and bookmaker.
A shrine, currently under construction, will be blessed by a number of priests
later today, while a decade of the Rosary will be said at the site.

Fr Joe Young, formerly parish priest in Southill and the chaplain with the
Brothers of Charity in Bawnmore, said while some people might be sceptical
of the possibility of miracles occurring, he urged them to keep an open mind.

"When we close ourselves to the infinite possibilities that exist, we close down
on a lot of areas of our lives that could do with rethinking. The unreflected life
is a life not worth living," said Fr Young.

Fr Tom Mangan, parish priest in Donaghmore and a friend of Mr Fitzgerald's,


said "any area of devotion or faith which is of help to people is worthy and
very encouraging

How did thousands of


women lose out on their
State pensions?
Q&A: Grievance relates to bonkers law that forced
women out of jobs decades ago
Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 17:51 Updated: Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 17:55
Dominic Coyle

The issue of womens pensions arose when Minister for Finance Paschal
Donohoe took questions on a radio programme the morning after the budget.
Photograph: Colin Keegan/Collins
Theres a lot of talk about women being denied
full pensions in the budget. Is this something
new?
Not at all. In fact, its a grievance that goes back decades
and relates originally to the marriage bar that forced
thousands of women out of their jobs in the Irish public
sector and other private companies, like the banks, when
they got married.
It also affects a lot of women who took time out of work
to raise a family or care for relatives.
And was this supposed to be addressed in the
budget?
It didnt feature in the budget and it was never expected
to. The issue reared its head when Minister for Finance
Paschal Donohoe took questions on a radio show the
morning after the budget.
But didnt he say it was bonkers?
He did. Referring to the marriage bar, he said: That was
a bonkers law. He added: The way those women were
treated was wrong. Were doing what we can to rectify
that.
So what is he doing?
Well, nothing. He says he doesnt have the money that it
would take to put it right about 290 million.
Im confused. Why are these women being
denied pensions in the first place?
Because they left or were forced out of the workplace for
a large number of years, they do not have the minimum
number of PRSI stamps or contributions to qualify for
a full State pension. Some may not qualify at all.
That all sounds messy. How do they work it out?
The rules on the State pension are quite rigid. In simple
terms, to determine whether you qualify, the
Department of Social and Family Affairs tots up the
number of PRSI payments or stamps that you have
paid, or had credited , during your working life. They
then divide the number of stamps by the number of
years you have worked.
And what then?
In order to get a full State pension, you need to have paid a minimum of
520 contributions over your working life, as well as an average of 48 PRSI
payments per year. People with a lower average can get a reduced pension
as long as they have an average of at least 10 payments a year .
And they count the time you were not even in the workforce?
They count everything. If you take a student job at 18, they will count every
year from then until you retire regardless of breaks you might take. With
the retirement age now 66, thats 48 years. Youd need to have worked at
least 10 full years to meet the minimum 520 contribution threshold and
over 44 years to get a maximum pension.
Arent women given a PRSI holiday for raising a family?
They are now, but that only came in in 1994. Since then, women can
discount up to 20 years of their working lifetime to raise children
removing those years form the averaging formula. Anyone raising kids
before 1994 lost out.
How many people are affected?
Its difficult to say. The National Womens Council of Ireland, which has
campaigned fairly tirelessly on their behalf, figured back in 2007 when
they were mulling a legal challenge that as many as 130,000 women were
affected altogether. Other figures suggest the number affected by the
marriage bar alone is about 47,000.
But if they were working in the public sector, they wouldnt have
been getting the State pension anyway?
Thats quite true for most of them. Public servants employed before 1995
were not entitled to the State pension, although they did receive a public-
sector pension. Clearly, a woman forced to give up her job early in her
career under a marriage bar would not have much public sector pension
entitlement built up.
And, of course, many women were forced out of private-sector jobs too,
especially in the banks.
And what happened in 2012? I keep reading about changes then
that made things worse.
Two things happened. First, the minimum number of contributions new
applicants for a pensions were required to have doubled to 520.
Second, even more importantly for women, a number of new bands for
reduced contributions were introduced effectively cutting up to 30 a
week of the State pension that some people had expected to receive.
Between them, these measures were projected to save the exchequer 45
million a year. But, according to Age Action, it means more than 22,000
women were worse off by up to 1,500 a year.
Why not reverse these measures at least?
Tnaiste and Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation Frances
Fitzgerald said in the Dil on Tuesday that reversing the changes would
cost 60 million next year and 10 million a year thereafter. Paying back
the money involved could cost 230 million, she said.
She said, however, that the issue was being studied as part of an overall
review of womens pay and access to pensions. She said there would some
recommendations later this year and a change in the method of pension
calculations would be implemented after 2020, though she didnt say what
that would be.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-
finance/how-did-thousands-of-women-lose-out-on-
their-state-pensions-
1.3254079#.WeBehox1C4A.facebook
TV3 last night that it would have been far better to reverse Joan Burton's changes in the budget
so people got the full pension, cost: 60 million, rather than give an extra 5 at a cost of 110
million. Doesn't make sense if figures are correct.
The greatest scam ever, I worked for 50 years but discovered that one of my early employers never paid
my PRSI (Called stamps in those days) The Company no longer existed and all the directors were dead by
the time I retired. Even though I averaged 35 contributions for 50 years I was offered a pension that was
24 Euro less than the Non Contributery Pension. In other words if I had never worked or contributed
PRSI or PAYE I would be more entitled under our screwed up Government directives.
wonder what would happen if all those being affected by this pension change went on
disability.. does anyone know if the rates are higher?

Im confused. Why are these women being denied pensions in the first place?
Because they left or were forced out of the workplace for a large number of years, they do not have
the minimum number of PRSI stamps or contributions to qualify for a full State pension. Some
may not qualify at all.
That all sounds messy. How do they work it out?
The rules on the State pension are quite rigid. In simple terms, to determine whether you qualify, the
Department of Social and Family Affairs tots up the number of PRSI payments or stamps that you
have paid, or had credited , during your working life. They then divide the number of stamps by the
number of years you have worked.
And what then?
In order to get a full State pension, you need to have paid a minimum of 520 contributions over your
working life and also a weekly average of 48 PRSI payments per year. People with a lower average
can get a reduced pension as long as they have an average of at least 10 payments a year .
And they count the time you were not even in the workforce?
They count everything. If you take a student job at 18, they will count every year from then until you
retire regardless of breaks you might take. With the retirement age now 66, thats 48 years. Youd
need to have worked at least 10 full years to meet the minimum 520 contribution threshold... and
over 44 years to get a maximum pension.
Arent women given a PRSI holiday for raising a family?
They are now, but that only came in in 1994. Since then, women can discount up to 20 years of their
working lifetime to raise children removing those years form the averaging formula. Anyone
raising kids before 1994 lost out.
How many people are affected?
Its difficult to say. The National Womens Council of Ireland, which has campaigned fairly
tirelessly on their behalf, figured back in 2007 when they were mulling a legal challenge that as
many as 130,000 women were affected altogether. Other figures suggest the number affected by the
marriage bar alone is around 47,000.
But if they were working in the public sector, they wouldnt have been getting the State pension
anyway?
Thats quite true for most of them . Public servants employed before 1995 were not entitled to the
State pension, although they did receive a public sector pension. Clearly, a woman forced to give up
her job early in her career under a marriage bar would not have much public sector pension
entitlement built up.
And, of course, many women were forced out of private sector jobs too, especially in the banks.""
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-got-a-statue-of-the-virgin-mary-and-
minutes-later-i-was-able-to-walk-for-the-first-time-in-a-decade-pensioner-
speaks-of-miracle-36222732.html
I know A Pensioner who Lost All when she Retired she didn't get nothing and was only entitle to 100
euro per week thats it, she has been cut by 109 euros a week

Did you know, that is was Joan Burton in her time as Minister for Social devastation was
responsible for the introduction of the National Id Card as it appears today. This info taken
from
Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012:
want to share this with others.
It is amazing how snippets like this are leaked bit by bit , we all know the politicians who will not be standing in the
next election and she is one of them , seems to me like some politicians and senior civil servants did some really
terrible things that the public will not stand for and certain political parties know this so it is time to get rid of the
DRY ROT and introduce some new blood , just look at f.g for instance enda out leo in , noonan out pascal in , of
course labour have done the same , as for f.f they just can't make up their minds. Just to add a foot note the NAZI
party did EXACTLY the same thing in 1930's Germany and we all know what that led to.

Whats going on with the banks looking for people to confirm their identity by sending in copies of driving
licence, passport, utility bill

Taoiseach: Banks that defrauded tracker customers


should pay money back 'yesterday'
Friday, October 13, 2017

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has called on banks who defrauded more
than 20,000 tracker mortgage customers to pay the money back
immediately.

Mr Varadkar said financial and health misery has been inflicted on


people and as far as he is concerned the deadline to fix it is yesterday.
Yesterday, four borrowers told the Oireachtas Finance Committee that
the banks' actions had a catastrophic impact on their lives.

Speaking in UCC in Cork city, Mr Varadkar revealed he has a tracker


mortgage and says he hates to think how it would have hit him had he
been taken off it.

He said: "I can only imagine what it would have been had it been 4%, 5%
or 6%, and there have been many people, many families, driven to
distraction and who endured enormous mental health traumas and
fears about what would happen to their family.

"Those things should never have happened. The deadline is yesterday,


any bank that wrongfully took somebody off a tracker, they should
apologise, they should pay all the money back, and they should do it
yesterday."
Taoiseach: Banks that defrauded tracker customers should pay money back 'yesterday'"
note the word DEFRAUDED.. hmm did the Taoiseach REALLY use that word? it doesn't
appear anywhere in the article either in the examiner which used that headline or the indo
which carried the same article.
http://www.irishexaminer.com//taoiseach-banks-that-defraud
and the indo... where amongst other comments he came out with ""I am not sure if we have
any plans to set a date or deadline or whether we can even do that within the powers that
we have as a Government," the Taoiseach said.
http://www.independent.ie//banks-should-repay-what-is-owed
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-banks-that-
defrauded-tracker-customers-should-pay-money-back-yesterday-809766.html
Three other borrowers sat alongside Thomas Ryan in Leinster
House and waived their anonymity to give emotional
testimony of the impact mortgage overcharging has had on
them.
Hazel Melbourne, a mother and wife and customer of
Permanent TSB, composed herself as she gave an insight
into the extent of the trauma visited on her and her family.
"There's one major consequence that has affected us but
unfortunately I don't want to disclose it in public - probably to
the delight of Permanent TSB," she said.

Mrs Melbourne told the Oireachtas Finance Committee that


the bank's actions had a catastrophic impact on her family.

"The consequences we have suffered purely at the hands of


Permanent TSB are devastating, heartbreaking and totally
unacceptable," she said.
"Permanent TSB will never be able to compensate us as a
family. They have taken a huge part of our lives away from
us."
Mrs Melbourne said her family fought for six years to get the
tracker dispute corrected and they still face turmoil.
"We are sick to the pit of our stomachs to think that all we had
been through was avoidable. There was no need for our future
to be changed," she told the committee.
"It just feels they are a giant cartel - you can turn nowhere for
help or resolve as someone is always compromised by the
banks. Where do the Irish people stand on this?"
Mrs Melbourne told committee chairman John McGuinness: "I
am literally begging you to not just help my family but to help
everyone out there who has suffered horrifically at the hands
of a bank."
Niamh Byrne, a teacher, was working on a temporary contract
when she drew down a mortgage in 2006 from Ulster Bank to
buy an apartment.
She was subsequently awarded 25,000 euro after being
refused to return to the tracker rate after fixing for a short-term
but the ruling did not force the bank to put her back on the low
rate.
"That does not restore me to the position I should have been
in," Ms Byrne said.
She added: "It is nine years, two months and 28 days since
this happened. The whole of my 30s has been spent in this
situation.
"It looks like there no end to it. It has been extremely stressful.
It has a huge impact on my finances.
"There was a suicide in my own family - if you have a direct
link to that the statistic is that your chances fall to one in 100
of it happening to yourself so I'm quite careful to look after my
mental health.
"This situation does not in any way help that."
Financial consultant Padraic Kissane said he won identical
cases to Ms Byrne's through the Financial Ombudsman's
office in 2011.
Helen Grogan told the committee of her experience of
borrowing from EBS and moving to a tracker in Permanent
TSB where she was offered special discount rate for one year
only to be shifted on to a standard variable rate.
Reflecting on her battle Ms Grogan fought back emotions and
said: "I'm just looking for justice.
"The one thing is the rage and frustration and anger that I was
ripped off by the bank and duped by the bank, into thinking I
had a product I could count on. That's the thing about this.
"It took me a couple of years to get over the fact that the
ombudsman had found against me."
Ms Grogan said she has paid off 40,000 euro more than she
should have and that by the end of the mortgage term she will
have paid 70 or 80,000 euro.
"I am coming up for retirement soon and I am going to have a
mortgage after I retire. That is something I was trying to
avoid," she said.
Ms Grogan added: "Isn't it such a disgrace that we are all
made to feel responsible for making a silly or stupid decision
or not getting the right advice or letting the banks ride
roughshod over us."

Banks should repay what


is owed and pay
compensation
immediately', says
Varadkar as he reveals he
has a tracker mortgage

1
An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar answers Chambers call for M20 route
to be completed, at Cork Chambers Business Breakfast at Pairc
Ui Chaoimh.
October 13 2017
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar revealed he holds a tracker mortgage as he angrily
warned that the deadline was yesterday for Irish banks to repay people who
they had wrongly taken off such mortgages.

Mr Varadkar, speaking as the Cabinet staged its first meeting in Cork in 12


years, hit out at the appalling manner in which banks had treated some
customers.

His comments came after tracker mortgage holders who had been wrongly
taken off the special lending rate addressed the Oireachtas.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Association (IMHA) warned that the tracker
scandal was the single biggest consumer rip-off in the history of the State.

Some of those who were wrongly taken off tracker mortgages said their health
and mental health had suffered as they faced massively increased mortgage
payments as a result.

A total of 20,000 cases have so far been detected but it is believed the final
total could reach 30,000 cases.

"I am not sure if we have any plans to set a date or deadline or whether we can
even do that within the powers that we have as a Government," the Taoiseach
said.

"But as far as I am concerned the date should be yesterday.

"Any bank, whether it is partly owned by the State or not, (that) took people
off tracker mortgages incorrectly should put that right and should have put
that right yesterday.

"They should repay what is owed, offer an apology and pay compensation.

I am somebody that has a tracker mortgage and in many ways it has been a
God-send.

"It has meant that my mortgage has been very affordable in years gone by

"I can only imagine what it would have been if it had been 4pc or 5pc or 6pc."

Mr Varadkar noted that some people have suffered very badly as a result of
the banks' wrongful actions.

"There are many people and many families driven to distraction and endured
enormous mental health traumas amid fears of what will happen to their
families," he said.
"Those things should never have happened."

"So as far as I am concerned the deadline (for repayment) is yesterday."

"Any bank that wrongfully took somebody off a tracker (mortgage), should
apologise, they should pay all the money back and they should do it
yesterday."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/banks-should-repay-what-is-owed-and-pay-
compensation-immediately-says-varadkar-as-he-reveals-he-has-a-tracker-mortgage-
36223946.html

What is the tracker


mortgage scandal and
who is affected?

October 13 2017
The tracker mortgage scandal has been making headlines again in recent days
as the issue is being examined by an Oireachtas committee. Here is everything
you need to know about tracker mortgages and what went wrong for many
who had them.

What are tracker mortgage rates?


Tracker mortgage rates are set at a percentage over the European Central
Bank, and tend to be far cheaper than variable or fixed rates.

Why are they in the news?


At the end of 2015 it emerged that thousands of mortgage customers were
denied a tracker interest rate on their mortgage which they were entitled to,
resulting in the Central Bank ordering 15 lenders to trawl through their
mortgage books to seek out all those who had been overcharged.

How many people have been affected?


The eventual number of mortgage accounts where the holders were wrongly
denied a cheap tracker could be 30,000 - double the current estimate,
financial adviser Padraic Kissane yesterday told TDs and senators.

Have people been compensated?


While most customers have now been restored to the correct tracker rate, the
majority of banks have yet to refund homeowners the overcharged interest
and compensate them.

What have been the consequences of the overcharging?


The consequences of overcharging are far reaching, with at least 100 families
having lost their homes due to the tracker overcharging scandal, it has been
estimated.

Yesterday the Dil heard from customers who had been impacted by the
overcharging, among them was homeowner Thomas Ryan who told the
Oireachtas Finance Committee he suffered a stroke at the age of 47. His wife
had a nervous breakdown.

When did the scandal become known?


Despite some people reporting the issue to the Financial Ombudsman back in
2008, it was a further seven years before the Central Bank conducted a serious
in depth-investigation and forced the banks into a redress programme.
The bank have taken a
huge part of our lives
away from us' - families
reveal devastation caused
by tracker scandal
Harrowing testimony is given to Oireachtas
about 'financial abuse' by banks, reports
Charlie Weston
1Charlie Weston
October 13 2017

(L to R)Thomas Ryan, Helen Grogan, Niamh Byrne, Hazel


Melbourne & Padraig Kissane following a Finance, Public
Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach committee meeting on
matters relating to the Banking Sector at Leinster House, Dublin.
People have died by suicide because banks took their tracker mortgages away,
forcing them to pay too much, it was claimed.

The stress and trauma imposed on people who had tracker mortgages taken
off them was spelled out in harrowing detail to politicians in the Dil.

TDs and senators heard from financial adviser Padraic Kissane that the
eventual number of mortgage accounts where the holders were wrongly
denied a cheap tracker could be 30,000 - double the current estimate.

Homeowner Thomas Ryan told the Oireachtas Finance Committee he suffered


a stroke at the age of 47.

His wife had a nervous breakdown.

An emotional Mr Ryan claimed both events were a result of losing his


Permanent TSB tracker rate.

"My family have suffered enormously. I myself suffered a stroke in 2013 with
lasting consequences to my life, family and work. My wife Claire suffered a
nervous breakdown in 2015, losing her ability to speak and being
hospitalised," he said.

"This was a horrific experience, not only for Claire herself but also our
children as she went through long periods nervously stuttering and
stammering without uttering an understandable word."

Mr Ryan was one of four customers of various banks who waived their
anonymity and appeared before the committee to outline the effects of the
tracker mortgage scandal, where they were charged the wrong interest rates.

Mr Ryan, from Wexford, told the committee that Permanent TSB had
withheld a tape recording of him asking the bank to have his tracker restored.
The recording was only produced under a discovery order as part of a High
Court case.

He said of banks: "They have destroyed lives all over the country. Some people
have [died by suicide]. It is appalling and an absolute disgrace." He said the
redress scheme the Central Bank has ordered 15 lenders to carry out was "a
joke".

Teacher Niamh Byrne took out a tracker mortgage with Ulster Bank in 2006.
Later that year she decided to fix her mortgage as she was a non-permanent
teacher at the time.

In 2008, when the fixed period ended, she contacted the bank and asked when
she would be put onto her tracker and it said it was putting her on a variable
rate.

She told committee chairman John McGuinness she argued for nine months
until May 2009, when she was on a variable rate of 3.85pc with Ulster Bank.

AIB had a rate of 2.5pc at the time. She has a MA in economics and could see
house prices were falling and knew that if she went into negative equity she
would not be able to move her mortgage. So she moved the mortgage to AIB.

Ulster Bank would not allow her to move back to the tracker. In 2012, she
realised Ulster Bank was allowing people to move with their tracker so she
ended up in a lengthy dispute with Ulster Bank through the Financial Services
Ombudsman.

She explained the difficulties she had with the bank: "Today, it's nine years,
two months and 28 days since this happened.

"The whole of my 30s has been spent in this situation and it looks like there is
no end to it. "It has been extremely stressful and had a huge impact on my
finances.

"There was a suicide in my own family. If you have a direct link to that, the
statistic is that your chances fall to one in 100 of it happening to yourself so
I'm quite careful to look after my mental health.
"This situation does not in any way help that."

She got a 25,000 award from Ulster Bank, but the bank will not put her back
on a tracker because she has since switched to another lender.

Another customer, Helen Grogan, who has a PhD in biology, said she would
now end up repaying her mortgage into her retirement because of the
overcharging.

She had hoped to have cleared the mortgage by the time she retires. She had
switched from Permanent TSB to EBS.

Dr Grogan estimates she will have overpaid around 80,000 by the end of the
mortgage term.

A mother and Permanent TSB customer, Hazel Melbourne, said the tracker
loss had a huge affect on her and her husband.

"The consequences we have suffered purely at the hands of Permanent TSB


are devastating, heart-breaking and totally unacceptable.

"Permanent TSB will never be able to compensate us as a family. They have


taken a huge part of our lives away from us," said Ms Melbourne.

She said her family fought for six years to get the tracker dispute corrected.

"We are sick to the pit of our stomachs to think that all we had been through
was avoidable. There was no need for our future to be changed," she told the
committee.

The customers are represented by Mr Kissane.

He said the tracker scandal "was financial abuse on a grand scale".

He estimated that a total of 30,000 mortgage accounts could have been


wrongly denied a tracker rate, double the present estimate.

Mr Kissane told the TDs and senators: "We have had enough of the banks
saying 'we are looking to do right by our customers'. Enough of hollow
apologies, enough of introducing rates that were never a tracker in the first
place and most of all we have had enough of banks holding money that does
not belong to them."

The Central Bank has ordered 15 lenders to review their books and restore
people to trackers if they should not have lost them. At least 100 families have
lost their homes due to the tracker overcharging scandal, it has been
estimated.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-
mortgages/the-bank-have-taken-a-huge-part-of-our-lives-away-from-us-
families-reveal-devastation-caused-by-tracker-scandal-36222891.html
'My wife had a nervous
breakdown' - TDs told
how tracker scandal led
some customers to take
their own lives
1
Charlie Weston
October 12 2017

(L TO R) Padraig Kissane, Thomas Ryan & Hazel Melbourne


following a Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and
Taoiseach committee meeting on matters relating to the Banking
Sector at Leinster House, Dublin
PEOPLE have taken their own lives because banks took their tracker
mortgages away, forcing them to pay too much, it has been claimed.

The stress and trauma imposed on people who had tracker mortgages taken
off them was spelled out in harrowing detail to politicians in the Dil.

TDs and senators heard from financial adviser, Padraic Kissane, that the
eventual number of mortgage accounts where the holders were wrongly
denied a cheap tracker could be 30,000 - double the current estimate.

Homeowner Thomas Ryan told the Oireachtas Finance Committee he suffered


a stroke at the age of 47.

His wife had a nervous breakdown.

An emotional Mr Ryan claimed both events were a result of losing his


Permanent TSB tracker rate.

My family have suffered enormously.


I myself suffered a stroke in 2013 with lasting consequences to my life family
and work. My wife Clare suffered a nervous breakdown in 2015, losing her
ability to speak and being hospitalised.

This was a horrific experience, not only for Claire herself but also our
children as she went through long periods nervously stuttering and
stammering without uttering an understandable word.

Mr Ryan was one of four customers of various banks who waived their
anonymity and appeared before the committee to outline the effects of the
tracker mortgage scandal, where they were charged the wrong interest rates.

Mr Ryan, from Wexford, told the committee that Permanent TSB had
withheld a tape recording of him asking the bank to have his tracker restored.
The recording was only produced under a discovery order as part of a High
Court case.

He said of banks: They have destroyed lives all over the country. Some people
have [taken their own life]. It is appalling and an absolute disgrace.

He said the redress scheme the Central Bank has ordered 15 lenders to carry
out was a joke.

Teacher Niamh Byrne took out a tracker mortgage with Ulster Bank in 2006.

Later that year she decided to fix her mortgage as she was a non-permanent
teacher at the time.

In 2008 when the fixed period ended, she contacted the bank and asked when
she would be put onto her tracker and they said they were putting her on a
variable rate.

She told committee chairman, John McGuinness, she argued for nine months
until May 2009, when she was on a variable rate of 3.85pc with Ulster Bank.

AIB had a rate of 2.5pc at the time.

She has a MA in economics and could see house prices were falling and knew
that if she went into negative equity she would not be able to move her
mortgage. So she moved the mortgage to AIB.

Ulster Bank would not allow her to move back to the tracker.

In 2012 she realised Ulster Bank was allowing people to move with their
tracker so she ended up in a lengthy dispute with Ulster Bank through the
Financial Services Ombudsman.

She explained the difficulties she had with the bank: Today, its nine years,
two months and 28 days since this happened.

The whole of my 30s has been spent in this situation and it looks like there is
no end to it.
It has been extremely stressful and had a huge impact on my finances.

There was a suicide in my own family. If you have a direct link to that, the
statistic is that your chances fall to one in 100 of it happening to yourself so
Im quite careful to look after my mental health.

This situation does not in any way help that.

She got a 25,000 award from Ulster Bank, but the bank will not put her back
on a tracker because she has since switched to another lender. Another
customer, Helen Grogan, who has a PhD in biology, said she would now end
up repaying her mortgage into her retirement because of the overcharging.

She had hoped to have cleared the mortgage by the time she retires. She had
switched from Permanent TSB to EBS.

Dr Grogan estimates she will have overpaid around 80,000 by the end of the
mortgage term.

A mother and Permanent TSB customer, Hazel Melbourne, said the tracker
loss had a huge impact on her and her husband.

The consequences we have suffered purely at the hands of Permanent TSB


are devastating, heart-breaking and totally unacceptable, she said.

Permanent TSB will never be able to compensate us as a family. They have


taken a huge part of our lives away from us.

Mrs Melbourne said her family fought for six years to get the tracker dispute
corrected.

We are sick to the pit of our stomachs to think that all we had been through
was avoidable. There was no need for our future to be changed, she told the
committee.

The customers are represented by Mr Kissane.

He said the tracker scandal was financial abuse on a grand scale.

He estimated that a total of 30,000 mortgage accounts could have been


wrongly denied a tracker rate, double the present estimate.

Mr Kissane told the TDs and senators: We have had enough of the banks
saying we are looking to do right by our customers. Enough of hollow
apologies, enough of introducing rates that were never a tracker in the first
place and most of all we have had enough of banks holding money that does
not belong to them.

The Central Bank has ordered 15 lenders to review their books and restore
people to trackers if they should not have lost them.
At least 100 families have lost their homes due to the tracker overcharging
scandal, it has been estimated.

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article you can
contact Pieta House on 1800 247 247 or the Samaritans on 116 123
(ROI).

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/article36221789.ece
The Irish Mortgage Holders Association says the tracker scandal is the
single biggest consumer rip off in the history of the state.

Some of those defrauded by Irish banks have told an Oireachtas


committee of the devastating medical and financial effects on their
families.

So far 20,000 cases have been uncovered, but it's estimated that could
reach 30,000.
hould pay the money back!! MAKE THEM DO IT IMMEDIATELY. Although they can never be
compensated for losing their homes, maybe moving out of their country and in some instances
the stress caused deaths which obviuosly can never be compensated. FG AND FF ARE TO
BLAME FOR THIS BY LETTING THE BANKS DO WHAT THEY WANT AFTER BEING
BAILED OUT BY US THE PEOPLE.
pay off their rich buddies but screw the people who bailed them out. this is a premeditated crime and
someone orchestrated this. they should go to jail.
INFORMATION SENT
An email was sent this afternoon (Friday, October 13th 2017) to several
senior public officials regarding tomorrow's National Demonstration in
the Republic of Ireland; and, mention was made of the important role
that the ROTHSCHILD BANKING DYNASTY -- in cahoots with our own
PETER SUTHERLAND and others -- are thought to be playing in the
financial difficulties that so many are experiencing at the present time.
Titled "Republic of Ireland National Demonstration Day", a full copy of
the message-text of the email can be viewed in the sections below.
There is also a slightly edited "rich text" copy of the full email at:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//13October2017/Gmail.html
In addition, there is an unedited "Gmail PDF" version of the email at:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/TheNorthernIr//Gmail.pdf
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
RE: Republic of Ireland National Demonstration Day on Saturday
October 14th 2017.
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
REMEMBERING THE "MOTION ON IRISH WATER"
(Video published on Oct 23rd, 2014)
===
Republic of Ireland Parliament Speech on "Motion on Irish Water"
(Email dated October 28th 2014)
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//Group1of2/28O/Email.htm
===
EMAIL MESSAGE TEXT:
Dear Deputy Keaveney,
Re: Speech on "Motion on Irish Water" by Republic of Ireland TD Colm
Keaveney (published on October 23rd, 2014) at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA7GHETW9Js&feature=youtu.be
In a very general sort of way, I feel you are much to be congratulated --
and encouraged -- regarding the contents of this recent speech of yours.
However, I also believe that the present overall set of problems which
"the people" of the Republic of Ireland now face runs much deeper, and
is far more serious than your speech suggests.
At its most basic (as I see things), "the people" of the Republic of Ireland
are LEGALLY entitled to a "government of the people, by the people,
for the people" type of democratic, republican government: thanks to
the FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE existence of Article 6.1 of Bunreacht
na hEireann (the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland)": which is of
course the core-part of the SUPREME LAW of the Republic of Ireland,
and the full text of which is set out just below (in full).
Article 6.1 of the SUPREME LAW of the Republic of Ireland:
"All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive,
under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of
the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy,
according to the requirements of the common good."
Related Search Engine Listing #1:
"Government of THE PEOPLE, by THE PEOPLE, for THE PEOPLE,
Human Rights Ireland ..."
http://tinyurl.com/jw26e7a
What we "the people" of the Republic of Ireland are at present saddled
with, is the style of government which many people all over the world
now think of as a fascist/totalitarian type of "government of the
banksters, by the banksters, for the banksters": thanks largely to the
fact that -- despite the very clear and very easy to understand contents
of Article 6.1 of our Constitution referred to above -- is what the vast
majority of the members of the three main branches of the Republic of
Ireland Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), and the
mostly Bankster owned/controlled "Main Stream Media", are at present
strongly supporting (often very underhandedly): both by deed, and by
omission.
This "Bankster" problem, I would argue, is our core-problem just now;
and, without wishing in any way to distract attention away from the
seriousness of the present "Irish Water" difficulties, it, the "Irish Water
Difficulty", is but one of several other equally serious, and some even
more serious symptoms of our core-problem: which leads to the belief
that it is the core-problem that now needs to be addressed as a matter
of urgency, and of top priority; and, that this core-problem (relating to
the banksters) now needs to be addressed by the entire membership of
the three main branches of the Republic of Ireland Government:
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Related Search Engine Listing #2:
"Government of the Banksters, by the Banksters, for the Banksters,
William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/m5sql9b
Related PREDICTION by former Republic of the United States of
America President Abraham Lincoln:
"Abraham Lincoln, DEMOCRACY will rise SUPERIOR to the MONEY
POWER, Human Rights Ireland ..."
http://tinyurl.com/ncgmktw
Related Search Engine Listing #3:
"Government Corruption, Crime, Cover Ups, Bullying, and Impunity,
Colm Keaveney TD ..."
http://tinyurl.com/p6pnowj
Later today (Friday, October 24th 2014) I will place a full copy of this e-
mail at the following www location:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/ColmKeaveneyTD//Email.htm
Yours sincerely,
William Finnerty.
Personal Web Site: http://www.humanrightsireland.com
=== === ===
RELATED GOOGLE LISTS:
Irish Water, Article 6.1, Human Rights Ireland:
https://goo.gl/Uyfo5F
=== === ===
UN AARHUS CONVENTION
Irish Water, United Nations Aarhus Convention, Human Rights Ireland:
https://goo.gl/Kk21BL
=== === ===
PHOTOS CONNECTED WITH IRISH WATER PROTESTS:
https://goo.gl/25J8aN
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
ROTHSCHILD BANKING DYNASTY
===
Video #1 (Approximately 56 minutes):
"The Dynasty of Rothschild -- The Only Trillionaires in the World -- Full
Documentary":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rtRL0vvUBQ&feature=share
===
Video #2 (Approximately 48 minutes):
"The Aristocrats: The Rothschilds (Documentary)":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKmmL_8C1sE&t=1231
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
"TAX HEAVENS AND THE MEN WHO STOLE THE WORLD"
(Related Book: "Treasure Islands", by Nicholas Shaxson)
===
"Billionaire Warren Buffet, currently the third wealthiest man in the
world, paid the lowest rate of tax among his office staff, including his
receptionist.
"In 2006 the world's three biggest banana companies did nearly 400
million worth of business in Britain but paid just 128,000 in tax
between them.
"In January 2009, US law enforcement fined Lloyds TSB $350 million
after it admitted secretly channelling Iranian and Sudanese money into
the US banking system.
"Tax havens are the most important single reason why poor people and
poor countries stay poor. They lie at the very heart of the global
economy, with over half the world trade processed through them. They
have been instrumental in nearly every major economic event, in every
big financial scandal, and in every financial crisis since the 1970s,
including the latest global economic downturn.
"In Treasure Islands, Nicholas Shaxson shows how this happened, and
what this means for you.
From: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Treasure-Islands-
Have//0099541726
===
GROWING TAX AVOIDANCE MONSTER
"The shape-shifting offshore monster is growing, as countries vie with
each other to attract the world's hot money with the latest and most
devious new secrecy facility ...":
https://goo.gl/Tqz9CV
===
RELATED GOOGLE LISTINGS
1) Nicholas Shaxson, Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty:
https://goo.gl/pCXqVM
2) Money Laundering, Rothschilds:
https://goo.gl/jk8QP8
3) Invisible Banking, Rothschilds:
https://goo.gl/8EnFnb
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
LORD JACOB ROTHSCHILD AND PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
"Jacob Rothschilds Goldman Sachs Takes over Trump, the White
House and thus the World again
"Posted on January 13, 2017 by Anders
"I have previously written repeatedly that Donald Trump is London
Citys, i.e. Rothschilds antithesis and that in any case the winner of
the US election always is Rothschild.
"As shown below by Global Research, Goldman Sachs -and thus Jacob
Rothschild has totally conquered Donald Trump as well as Obama
and Hillary Clinton just as Rothschild has conquered e.g. Denmark and
former EU Commission President, Jos Barroso.
"Wall Street on Parade 9 Jan. 2017: During his political campaign,
Donald Trump repeatedly railed against Wall Street with a specific focus
on Goldman Sachs. Its a global power structure that is responsible for
the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped
our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a
handful of large corporations and political entities. I will change that
"Trumps non-stop nominations and appointments of Goldman Sachs
alumni have left his supporters stunned.
1) Steven Mnuchin, a 17-year veteran of Goldman Sachs to be his
Treasury Secretary.
2) Stephen Bannon, another former Goldman Sachs banker, Chief
Strategist in the White House.
3) The sitting President of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn, Director of the
National Economic Council, which, according to its website, coordinates
policy-making for domestic and international economic issues.
4) Goldman Sachs outside lawyer, Jay Clayton as Wall Streets top cop
as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Claytons wife
currently works as a Vice President at Goldman Sachs.
5) Alexander Blankfein, the oldest son of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd
Blankfein had been Joshua Kushners (brother of Trumps Jewish son-in-
law) roommate at Harvard according to the New York Times.
6) Dina Powell, President of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, is Ivanka
Trumps top adviser on policy and staffing.
7) Erin Walsh: Since 2010 Executive Director and head of its Office of
Corporate Engagement for Asia PacificNow part of Trumps transition
landing team for the State Department (Jon Rappoport Activist Post 12
Jan. 2017).
8) Former Goldman Sachs banker, Anthony Scaramucci. Now on
Trumps transition team (Jon Rappoport Activist Post 12 Jan. 2017)
"So, no wonder that the Goldman Sachs shares went up by 32% after
Trumps victory!!
GOLDMAN SACHS IS AN UNSCRUPULOUS, IMMORAL NWO ROBBER
ONLY SURPASSED BY ROTHSCHILDS CENTRAL BANKS
It is the largest and most ruthless of of Rothschilds investment banks.
===
The text in the section just above is from the following www location:
http://new.euro-med.dk/20170113-rothschilds-goldman-sachs-t
===
RELATED GOOGLE LISTING
Lord Jacob Rothschild, President Donald Trump:
https://goo.gl/kkw4ge
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
PETER SUTHERLAND
"Who is Peter Sutherland beyond being a UN boss, and why should
anything he says matter anymore than the bloviations (empty,
pompous political speeches) of any other nattering nabobs (person of
conspicuous wealth or high status) at the UN?
"Sutherland is an Insiders insider who is well known worldwide in the
corridors of real power.
"The UN News Centre introduction about Sutherland:
1) A former Attorney General of (Republic of) Ireland.
2) EU Commissioner for competition policy, and
3) headed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and
4) the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Furthermore
5) Sutherland was chairman of Goldman Sachs International until this
past June, the vampire squid known for its predatory, corrupt
practices;
6) He is a regular attendee and former Steering Committee member of
the ultra-secretive, ultra-elite Bilderberg Group and here and here and
here.
7) He was European chairman of the Trilateral Commission;
8) He is past chairman of British Petroleum (BP);
9) He is honorary president of the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN),
one of the principal corporatist insider organizations promoting EU-U.S.
merger through the TTIP;
10) He has been hailed as the father of globalization as a principal
architect of the WTO,
11) as a top Eurocrat, he played a lead role in destroying national
sovereignty by replacing national currencies (and national monetary
control) with the euro, as well as engineering the borderless Europe,
which the current migrant crisis is now proving to have been so
destructive.
"On September 30, Sutherland was the main speaker at an event
sponsored by Rothschilds Jesuit Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
entitled, A Global Response to the Mediterranean Migration Crisis
(see video and transcript here).
I will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognise that sovereignty
is an illusion."
===
The above text (of October 15th 2015) has come from the the following
www location:
http://new.euro-med.dk/20151015-clues-to-the-destruction-of
===
RELATED GOOGLE LISTING
Peter Sutherland, William Finnerty:
https://goo.gl/mdgG3C
===
WIKIPEDIA
"Peter Denis Sutherland (born 25 April 1946) is an Irish international
businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland, associated with
the Fine Gael party. He is a barrister by profession and is a Senior
Counsel of the Irish Bar. He is known for serving in a variety of
international organisations, political and business roles."
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
RELATED EMAILS TO THE BELFAST OFFICE OF
THE NORTHERN IRELAND LAW CENTRE
AND TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF NORTHERN IRELAND
1) Email dated August 4th 2017:
(Titled: "Query to Northern Ireland Law Centre")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/TheNorthernI//Gmail.html
2) Email dated September 22nd 2017:
(Titled: "Request for a written response")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//22Setember20/Gmail.html
3) Email dated October 2nd 2017:
(Titled: "Guardians of EU rights also bound by Charter")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/TheNorthernI//Gmail.html
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
OUR CORE PROBLEM?
"HOW CORRUPTION CONTROLS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND":
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/index.htm#24September2017
===
THE BEST, AND POSSIBLY THE ONLY, REMEDY?:
"Democracy will rise superior to the money power":
(United States Senate Document 23, Page 91, 1865)
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//26/GeneralElection.htm
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
RELATED BREXIT ISSUE:
Second Republic of Ireland referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty was
unconstitutional, and consequently unlawful?
'Please note that the "mountain" of very diverse and serious crime
connected with the Global Security Fund appears to me to have
potentially huge, and possibly very dangerous implications (of a
tyrannous nature) for all of us: particularly if a second referendum is
held in the Republic of Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty during the coming
six months or so -- as several close observers of the situation are at the
present time publicly speculating will almost certainly happen.'
The excerpt immediately above is from an email dated September 16th
2008 to Ms Maire Nugent at the Northern Ireland Ombudsman's Office,
a full copy of which can be viewed at:
(Titled: "Specific allegations against PSNI (Police Service of Northern
Ireland) Chief Inspector Michael Winters at Omagh Police Station")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//16September20/Email.htm
===
RELATED EMAIL TO UK PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY MP
Email to UK Prime Minister The Rt Hon Theresa May MP dated
September 1st 2017:
(Titled: "BREXIT, and the validity in law of the EUROPEAN UNION?")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//1September20/Gmail.html
Related FACEBOOK Publications:
("EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AND BREXIT")
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/index.htm#TheresaMayMP
Related Google Listing:
"UK Prime Minister Theresa May, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty"
https://goo.gl/WDcBTX
===
RELATED FACEBOOK PUBLICATIONS:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/index.htm#1September2017
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
MORE ON THE ROTHSCHILD BANKING DYNASTY
Related Email #1 to President George W Bush dated December 20th
2008:
(Titled: 'The mysterious "Global Security Fund" & Lord Jacob
Rothschild')
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//20December2008/Email.htm
===
RELATED GOOGLE LISTING
Lord Jacob Rothschild, William Finnerty:
https://goo.gl/ZQodyR
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
RELATED LIST OF FACEBOOK PUBLICATIONS
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/index.htm#9October2017
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
RELATED PAGE (WITH EXTRA IMAGES) AT HUMAN RIGHTS IRELAND
DOT COM:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com//Repub/14October2017.htm
=== === === === === === === === === === === ===
ATTACHMENT:
(Republic of Ireland National Demonstration Day Image for Saturday
14th October 2017)
Helen Grogan, Hazel Melbourne, Padraig kissane, Thomas Ryan and
Niamh Byrne arrive at Leinster House in Dublin, to give evidence during
the Oireachtas Finance Committee. Photo: Niall Carson/PA Wire
Earlier: People have killed themselves after banks denied them their
entitlement to a low-cost tracker mortgage, victims of the scandal have
claimed.
It is estimated that at least 30,000 borrowers and their families have
been affected by the multimillion euro overcharging as 15 banks refused
to fulfil obligations to give customers the lowest interest rate in the
market.
Four borrowers have told their story to politicians in the Oireachtas
Finance Committee, including Thomas Ryan, who along with his wife
Claire, finally and successfully faced down their bank in the courts.
"It is absolutely appalling. They have destroyed lives all over this
country," he said.
"There are people no longer with us over this. They have committed
suicide. And they don't particularly give a damn.
"I have heard some of the submissions here in the last few weeks from
some of the banks - it is an absolute disgrace, the generic, legalistic
garbage they are churning out.
"It is appalling and an absolute disgrace. There's no other words for it."
Mr Ryan, aged in his late 40s and from Wexford, was a Permanent TSB
customer who challenged its refusal to give him the tracker rate. He said
the banks should be forced into making amends.
He suffered a stroke in 2013 and his wife Claire had a nervous
breakdown in 2015 and lost the power of speech under the pressure of
their fight to be restored to a tracker mortgage rate.
"As her husband I find it pitiful and so unjust to see my wife's previous
confident and bubbly nature stripped away from her," he said.
In an emotional address to the committee, Mr Ryan explained the
impact on his three children of the financial pressure and long-running
battle with the bank.
"The extreme stress effects on the mental wellbeing of our teenage
children is absolutely heartbreaking," he said.
"It can be so upsetting for us that I cannot begin to convey in words."
Scores of people and families were put out of their homes over the last
eight years after being refused their entitlement to a tracker. The
Central Bank previously put the number of directly related
repossessions at 100.
It also previously estimated that up to 15,000 borrowers were affected
by the issue across 15 lenders and is due to update the committee next
week.
Last week Ulster Bank said it will have to pay more than 100,000 euro to
some of its 3,500 customers caught up in the industry-wide
overcharging scandal.
Previously it was revealed that 2,100 Bank of Ireland mortgages were
restored to tracker rates when the issue was identified in that bank in
2010 and 2011.
There were also about 1,400 cases of customers being denied tracker
rates involving Springboard Mortgages, which was a subsidiary of
Permanent TSB.
The Central Bank cannot force banks to compensate home owners for
tracker issues prior to 2013.
The refusal of banks to allow customers to move on to trackers first
emerged as far back as 2010 - the year taxpayers were lumbered with a
multibillion-euro bailout of Ireland's banks.
Padraic Kissane, the financial advisor who has been leading the charge
to get customers restored to the correct rates, said customers had been
treated with arrogance by the banks, a condescending attitude and a
lack of empathy and understanding.
"What moral compass do they possess," he said.
"It is financial abuse on a grand scale, contrived to deceive customers of
their contractual rights."
Mr Kissane also warned he has a host of cases of bank staff and people
working for legal teams and auditors associated with the banks who
want to challenge the rates they have been put on but are worried
about the consequences for their careers.
He told the committee there was a cartel in operation in Ireland's
mortgage market. He compared one of the best rates on offer at the
minute - a 10 year fixed mortgage from KBC at 2.95% compared to a 10
year fixed rate in Germany of 1.15%.
He said he would shut the banks down if he was able to open a new
mortgage offering European Central Bank tracker interest rates and
long-term fixed rates.
"That's what needs to happen," he said.
"I guarantee you a tracker product would be back within a month."
Mr Kissane added that the low German rates are not in Ireland and said:
"The cartel wouldn't allow it."
He added: "Their figures show it. They come and they - I would describe
it as boast - about their profit levels and not realise the carnage."

Future of hostel used to


accommodate 65
homeless people
uncertain following High
Court ruling

The High Court, Dublin


Aodhan O'Faolain
October 11 2017
THE future of a south city Dublin hostel used as accommodation for homeless
people is uncertain following a ruling by the High Court.

Mr Justice Donald Binchy held that a decision by Dublin City Council to allow
Carmans Hall, Francis Street, to be used and converted into a hostel was in
material contravention of the area's local development plan.

The facility opened before Christmas 2016 and has been used as emergency
temporary accommodation for rough sleepers.

It has a capacity of 65 beds and has been run by the Simon Community and
the Salvation Army.

Local residents, through the Carmans Hall Community Interest Group,


Michael Mallin House Resident's Association and community worker
Elizabeth OConnor, brought High Court proceedings claiming the council was
not entitled to convert the building into a hostel for the homeless.
They alleged the councils decision of October 28, 2016, authorising change of
use and refurbishment of the building, was unlawful, in breach of the planning
laws and should be quashed.

They want the building, owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, to be


used as a community centre.

They claim the hall was used as a community centre for many years before it
was closed in 2013 over accessibility and fire safety concerns.

The council opposed the application arguing the hostel was opened to deal
with the humanitarian crisis of rough sleepers in Dublin.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Binchy said that it was accepted that the hall was
converted into a shelter for the homeless in order to deal with what is an
emergency situation.

However, he found the council's decision was in material contravention with


objectives as set out in the local development plan for the south inner city.

Proper consideration was not given to claims that the hostel would result in an
over concentration of such facilities for the homeless in the one the one area
and the effects that would have on the local economy and community, he said.

The court was satisfied to quash the orders made by council.

The Judge said he was conscious of the impact the court's decision will have
on the homeless situation.

He adjourned the matter to November 8 to allow the parties consider his


judgment.

The hostel will remain open pending any decision made by the court on that
date.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-
news/courts/future-of-hostel-used-to-
accommodate-65-homeless-people-
uncertain-following-high-court-ruling-
36217451.html
Friday October 13 2017 - NAMA
Nama is poised to pay off the last of its Government guaranteed debt, three years ahead of schedule.
It is understood that the move will not bring forward Nama's final timeline to shut after 10 years in
2020, but lifting the debt burden may free the agency to make greater use of funds it receives for
sales of assets, of which as much as 4bn remain to be sold.
It is understood the final 500m payment from the original 30.2bn of senior bonds will be paid
within weeks.
The senior bonds were used to buy vast numbers of property loans from the banks in the wake of the
financial crash.
Nama chairman Frank Daly said removing the so-called "contingent liability" for taxpayers means
the agency has delivered on its core objective.
"Today we have delivered on Nama's core objective - an objective many people thought
unachievable at the outset.
"This reflects the enormous progress that Nama has made since its first loan acquisition over seven
years ago," he said.
Finalisation of details on the last payment, which will go mainly to AIB and Bank of Ireland, is
expected within weeks.
A remaining 1.2bn of so-called subordinated debt will still be owed by Nama, but isn't due to be
repaid until 2020. Unlike the bulk of the Nama debt, the subordinated bonds were never guaranteed,
so if Nama had failed to pay that back taxpayers weren't on the hook.
A relatively small 56m is also owed to Nama shareholders.
Nama's debt repayments have accelerated rapidly in the past three years, as by 2013 just 7.5bn had
been paid back to the banks, from asset and loan sales and money raised in rents and interest on
Nama-controlled property and loans.
The remaining 20bn-plus has been raised and repaid in the interim.
Nama CEO Brendan McDonagh said redeeming the debt three years ahead of schedule was
significant, and that early repayment had boosted the State's ability to borrow on the markets. "The
progress made in reducing the guranteed senior debt by two-thirds between 2014 and 2016
contributed substantially to the strong performance of the Irish economy and to the ability of the
State to fund itself and to achieve reductions in the funding cost if Ireland's debt," Mr McDonagh
said.
He told the Irish Independent that Nama's decision in 2010 to substantially sell off overseas assets, in
particular in the UK, had been a significant move, and means the agency now has an exposure of just
500m to the UK housing market as it faces into Brexit.
Pumping more than 30bn back into the bailed-out Irish banks had helped AIB and Bank of Ireland
to move towards privatisation, he said.
While Nama has reduced the scale of assets it manages, and has shed significant staff numbers as a
result, the agency's chief expects that the final sales of assets and ongoing legal cases where the
agency is a party will run right to the end of its 10-year term.
In numbers
71.2bn
Total loans of 850 borrowers transferred from banks
30.2bn
Amount paid in Nama bonds for the loans representing haircut of 58pc
41bn
The hole left in the banks balance sheets to be filled by the taxpayer
299m
The amount advanced to Nama from the Central Fund (ie the taxpayer) by September 30, 2010.

It is understood the final 500m payment from the original 30.2bn of senior bonds will be paid within weeks !

Businessman wants
Garda boss O'Sullivan
jailed in row over truck

1
Garda Commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan

Shane Phelan
June 24 2017
The High Court has been asked to consider committing Garda Commissioner
Nirn O'Sullivan and a number of other garda to prison for contempt of
court.

The case involves allegations garda failed to abide by court orders directing
the return of an excavator and a truck seized from a Dublin businessman who
has been investigated by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB).

Lawyers representing articulated truck and car trader Fran McGuinness (56)
have alleged two garda deliberately ignored district court orders made in
2013 for the return of a Kobelco excavator and a Volvo truck.

It is alleged both the excavator and the truck were sold in contravention of
court orders last September as part of the enforcement of a tax demand by the
CAB against Mr McGuinness's Vehicle Tech Ltd company.

Mr McGuinness's legal team has claimed Ms O'Sullivan was responsible for


the actions of her subordinates and has either by act or omission permitted
various court orders to be ignored.
Following an application from barrister Alan Toal, for Mr McGuinness, Mr
Justice Seamus Noonan ordered that the ex-parte docket and an affidavit
containing the allegations be served on the Chief State Solicitor, as the
commissioner's legal representative.

The matter returns to the High Court next week.

Mr McGuinness, of Seatown Park, Swords, Co Dublin, has been engaged in a


long-running row with the force over the manner in which a company bank
account was frozen, a tax demand was raised against his business, and
expensive cars, trucks and plant hire equipment were seized.

The businessman has alleged at least eight seizures have been made by garda
since 2008.

He has alleged his premises near Swords has been targeted on several
occasions because his brother, who he says he is estranged from and has no
dealings with, is a notorious criminal.

The brother, Cyril McGuinness, also known as 'Dublin Jimmy', lives in Co


Fermanagh and has more than 50 convictions.

These include one in Belgium for leading a gang smuggling plant machinery
into Ireland.

Mr McGuinness denies any involvement in criminal activity.

Although he was arrested in May 2009 and held for 17 hours, he was released
and did not subsequently face any charges.

Earlier this year, a BMW seized in June 2008 was returned to Mr McGuinness
by order of High Court judge Richard Humphreys.

Payment

The judge also ordered the payment of 33,600 in special damages to Mr


McGuinness.

The order is being appealed by Mr McGuinness, who believes he should


receive more damages.

Among the vehicles seized from the businessman was a top of the range
Mercedes CL63 AMG, taken from his business premises three years ago.

Despite repeated requests, the whereabouts of the vehicle has not been
disclosed to Mr McGuinness.

In an affidavit, Mr McGuinness's solicitor John Geary said his client had been
beset, harassed and intimidated by garda. He said road traffic and money
laundering legislation had been abused to wreak havoc on Mr McGuinness's
life.
The solicitor said multiple courts had been told of pending prosecutions
against his client in relation to money laundering, but not a single indictable
prosecution had been initiated.

This is what ever barrister should be doing, if they were any good at all, gardai should go to
jail for lying and breaching court orders

The High Court has been asked to consider committing Garda Commissioner Nirn O'Sullivan
and a number of other garda to prison for contempt of court.

The case involves allegations garda failed to abide by court orders directing the return of an
excavator and a truck seized from a Dublin businessman who has been investigated by the Criminal
Assets Bureau (CAB).

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/businessman-wants-garda-boss-osullivan-jailed-
in-row-over-truck-35860812.html
"In an apparent slip of the tongue ... Mr Varadkar went on to say; I
discussed it with the secretary general obviously before I appointed him
as ... or before I ...or before I asked if he would be available to be
appointed.
The man's a bare faced liar, and a bad one at that as he's being caught out left right and centre. You'll not
see it in print though or on RTE..
Our money, but we have no say. A bit like giving money to charities, its a contribution. What they do with it
is their business.
They are in a coalition ,two cheeks same arse ,if Mehole is not happy pull the plug your sniveling piece of
scum
Labour FG FF Jail Jail Jail them all

Thursday October 12th 2017 - " FF ATTACKED FG "


Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has come under direct attack for opening a so-called
"propaganda unit" costing 5m.
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin said the Taoiseach had already told the Dil the new
Strategic Communications Unit would be "cost neutral". But the Budget showed it would in
fact cost 5m.
Mr Martin also questioned how the head of the unit, John Concannon, was appointed. He said the
project amounted to "a propaganda unit" and dubbed it "a very dangerous development".
"A blurring of boundaries has already occurred," Mr Martin warned, suggesting taxpayers' money
may be used to pursue Fine Gael interests.
The Taoiseach again insisted the project would not cost extra money. He said his own Department of
the Taoiseach was one of the few Government departments to have its 2018 budget cut. The new
unit would also undertake information campaigns to inform citizens of their entitlements, thereby
saving on other spending.
Mr Varadkar denied he had "handpicked" Mr Concannon, previously head of Creative Ireland and
responsible for projects like the Gathering, for the job. The Taoiseach said he had approached Mr
Concannon but it was the secretary general of his department, Martin Fraser, who made the
appointment.
"Mr Concannon wasn't appointed by me. I approached him and asked him would he be available. He
was appointed by the secretary general of the department," Mr Varadkar said.
The Fianna Fil leader said that sequence of events was difficult to believe.
"We understand your obsessions with communications but in essence there are important issues
about the politicisation of the civil service," he said.
Mr Varadkar also denied he suppressed a Brexit report on implications for the Border during
separate Dil exchanges. Mr Martin said it was "bad faith'' not to share the report drawn up by the
Revenue Commissioners which was leaked at the weekend.
All this superficial "rhubarbing" by the OTHER blueshirts, is steam, hot air, methane - they've just been
given a 6,500 per annum raise..

The government know they will not get away with implementing their
national ID cards by calliing them an innocuous sounding "public
services card". Yet they are ploughing ahead regardless and when the
chickens eventually come home to roost and they are forced to scrap
their ID card project, WE, the public will be left to foot the bill - as usual.
This has all the hallmarks of another Irish Water type cock-up.
Remember the disastrous water meter installation programme and how
Fine Gael and the Labour Party squandered a BILLION Euro? Their
meters are now rotting in a hole in the ground, approaching their
expirty date and as useful at tits on a bull. The only winner here was
Blueshirt Commander-in-Chief Denis O'Brien. How much longer will
Regina Doherty keep her head buried in the sand before she and
Varadkar and the other wasters in government face up to the reality
that they can NOT introduce a national ID card by stealth, that they can
NOT force citizens to hand over personal information with no
protection whatsoever and no regard for data privacy?
Maybe Doherty is trying to waste more of our money that her pal Fat
Phil Hogan or her Co Meath neighbour Noel "E-voting Machines"
Dempsey? But just remember Regina - this is not like your failed
business ventures. This is OUR money, so stop wasting millions on your
silly ID card and do something useful .. like providing homes for the
3000 homeless children in hotel rooms.

LikeComment

Brendan Howlin: Taoiseach creating propaganda


unit with public money

Thursday, October 12, 2017

The leader of the Labour Party is accusing the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar
of using public money to create a propaganda unit.

Brendan Howlin has written to the Standards in Public Office


Commission asking it to investigate 5m allocated in Budget 2018 to
the Strategic Communications Unit.

"One of the greatest surprises contained in this Budget was the


allocation of 5m to fund the Strategic Communications Unit, or spin
operation that Leo Varadkar has created in his Department.

"The Taoiseach continues to argue that this will be cost neutral, but an
allocation of 5m to this area means some other area of public spending
is being denied those resources.

"This sum could have increased school book rental grants by a third,
funded an increase in personal assistant hours for people with
disabilities, or gone some way towards eliminating the waiting list for
home care packages. Instead, the Taoiseach has allocated himself this
funding to boost the popularity of the Fine Gael party."

The Taoiseach says the money was already being spent elsewhere in the
civil service and has simply been pulled together for the new unit in his
department.

However, Mr Howlin says SIPO should issue advice on the use of the
funding and the creation of the unit.

"I have asked SIPO to cl arify two points today. Firstly, whether the
deployment of a significant quantity of social media advertising by the
Taoiseach's Department amounts to an improper use of public funds for
political ends.

"And secondly, whether the staff recruited to serve in the Strategic


Communications Unit have been appropriately recruited under the
Public Service Management Act.

"This follows on from a letter to the Secretary General of the


Taoiseach's Department last week, where I have asked him to clarify the
level of expenditure planned for this unit, to outline the appropriateness
of a programme of tracking polls that have been commissioned, and the
intention of Government to continuing recruiting more communications
staff.

"While I have not yet received a response to that letter, I believe that the
events of the last 24 hours now require an intervention by the Standards
in Public Office Commission."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brendan-howlin-
taoiseach-creating-propaganda-unit-with-public-money-809708.html
My complaint to SIPO regarding use of public
funds for Taoiseach's new communications unit
Bertie and the flip-flops go
when asked about his career , the only thing he said he wasnt happy with was that he never got
the bertie bowl , horrible corrupt bastard like the rest and dont forget this is the leech that told
his nation if there not happy the should kill themselves , distinguished ffs ok well set him on fire
first !
Friday October 13th 2017 -

Just when Michel Martin thought he had moved on to a new era - back comes Bertie
Ahern with reminders of those good old/bad old Fianna Fil days and all its legacies.

As 4,000 Fianna Fil delegates gather at the RDS in Dublin tonight for the party's rd
Fheis, the leadership faces a full-on call to give Mr Ahern a distinguished service award,
reinforced with a renewed demand to allow him to rejoin the party.

Let's recall that, in the wake of the Mahon Tribunal findings in March 2012, Mr Martin was
in the process of moving his old boss's expulsion when Mr Ahern felt obliged to resign from
the organisation he led for 14 years.

Now Mr Ahern's old Cumann O'Donovan Rossa in Drumcondra has written to party HQ
pointing to his long and distinguished service to Fianna Fil, which dates back to the 1965
General Election and includes leading the party into government on three successive
occasions. With a certain sting in the tail it also reminds the leader that "Bertie Ahern and
Michel Martin served in cabinet together for 10 years".

Fianna Fil leader Michal Martin. Photo: Gerry Mooney


Yet, Mr Martin faces into a very challenging party conference with a considerable track
record as leader for the past six years. He led Fianna Fil into the hell that was the
electoral meltdown of February 2016, slowly out of the political wasteland, to now find
himself as a potential Taoiseach after the next general election.
The two-day event is the first since its "recovery election" in February 2016 and comes
days after a Budget which has Fianna Fil's prints all over it. Mr Martin is keen to take a
markedly different stance from that of Fine Gael, whose minority coalition his party is
keeping in business for now at least.

While Leo Varadkar is clearly aiming for the middle-class vote, Fianna Fil is trying to be a
"voter catch-all" and the conference theme is 'An Ireland for All'.

Opinion polls last month gave the party members a jolt as they showed Fine Gael had
opened up a significant lead. But another poll last week showed the "big two" were near
enough tied with Fine Gael on 31pc and Fianna Fil on 29pc. That comes to a new
Taoiseach also benefiting from the summer Dil recess.

Expect lively debate tonight when members are urged to utterly rule out coalition with Sinn
Fin. And success here would copperfasten Mr Martin's stance, periodically challenged by
some TDs.

Tomorrow there will be clashing motions on the abortion issue. The London cumann
motion supports a woman's right to choose while Kildare North want to reaffirm the rights of
the unborn child.

There is surely a tongue-in-cheek motion from Dunmanway in Cork South-West which


urges a cut in the 160 per year television licence fee "to encourage more people to pay".
So WHO really believes Michael Martin when he says he has ruled out
coalitions with FG and SF.. personally i think he protests too much
about the topic and the only real truth in there might possibly be that
they wouldn't go into partnership with SF. But when push comes to
shove and if the numbers suit THEY WILL go into gov with any party
that will have them. The reality is They ARE in coalition with FG at the
moment, but readying themselves to pull the plug.
https://www.rte.ie//10/912043-fianna-fail-ard-fheis/Martin rules out
future coalition with Sinn Fin or Fine Gael
Don't know this kid apart from him being in a band but his tweet of the 'This Is Our Ireland'
speech has forty-six thousand shares. There is a tangible but unharnessed appetite for real
fucking change out there. #ThisIsOurIreland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zYyvMfkU2g

Why would the Government politicians change things?


They didnt (and dont) feel the pain of austerity, the stress of waiting
for hospital treatment nor the trauma of being homeless or the
constant anxiety of wondering how you will pay next months childcare,
childs birthday party, doctor, rent, mortgage or food bill?
(extract from Dr Rory Hearne's article in
Broadsheet.ie)http://www.broadsheet.ie//10/09/what-paschal-wont-
tell-you/
Thursday Oct 12th 2017 -

Sinn Fin president Gerry Adams has criticised Fianna Fils obsession with his party,
saying Michel Martin is terrified of the challenge Sinn Fin poses.

Mr Adams was responding to a report in The Irish Times about a motion to be debated at
the Fianna Fil ardfheis ruling out entering coalition with Sinn Fin in the future.

The motion will call on the ard comhairle, the party leadership and the parliamentary party
to explicitly outline their view that under no circumstances will Fianna Fil enter a coalition
government with Sinn Fin.

In a statement, Mr Adams said the party was putting the narrow self-interests of the
Fianna Fil leadership ahead of the country.

He said: Budget 2018 exposed the nonsense of Fianna Fil as an opposition party. The
reality is that Fine Gael and Fianna Fil are natural bedfellows with similar policies.
The first item on Fianna Fils ardfheis agenda should be how these two conservative
parties can set aside issues of ego and history, and amalgamate. Such an amalgamation
would be an entirely logical development.

Considered
Mr Martin has insisted Fianna Fil will not enter any arrangement with Sinn Fin, but many
of his TDs have said it must be considered in the future.

Carlow Kilkenny TD John McGuinness, Cork East TD Kevin OKeeffe, Roscommon TD


Eugene Murphy and James Lawless of Kildare North have all stated the party should be
open to such a coalition.

The partys justice spokesman, Jim OCallaghan, also raised the prospect of a confidence
and supply arrangement, but Mr Martin has insisted this is also not an option.
Mr Adams said the concentration of attacks on Sinn Fin is about trying to stifle alternative
parties.

He added: A Fine Gael/Fianna Fil merger would be healthy for politics in this State. It
would bring an end to what is clearly a sham and draw a clear ideological line in the sand.
In reality, Michel Martin and Leo Varadkar should be at the same ardfheis, speaking from
the same platform.

The Fianna Fil ardfheis, which takes place at the RDS this weekend, will also hear calls
for the party to field a candidate in the presidential election which is scheduled to take
place late next year.

Fianna Fil holding first Ard Fheis since election


Everything About Him Has To Be
Vetted And Proofed
Bodger at 1:10 pm October 12, 2017

Denis OBrien leaving the Four Courts last year after he lost his
case against the Dil and State over statements made by in the
Dil about his banking affairs; a tweet by former Communicorp
journalist Jessie Magee
Further to Denis OBrien-owned Communicorp banning all journalists
from The Irish Times contributing to its radio stations

Mark Tighe, in The Times Ireland edition, reports today about journalist
Jessie Magee, who worked for Communicorp stations for ten years,
deciding to quit last week.

He reports:

I was unhappy with the management culture there for a while, Ms


Magee said. Its not a happy work environment.

She also said that there was always extra concern about covering
stories about Denis OBrien on Newstalk or Today FM.

There have been stories over the years on Esat or OBrien


suing newspapers or the Dil and there is a fear about
covering them. Everything about him has to be vetted and
proofed . . . There was huge concern about how, or if, we
could cover those stories.

Denis OBrien leaving the Four Courts last year after he lost his
case against the Dil and State over statements made by in the
Dil about his banking affairs; a tweet by former Communicorp
journalist Jessie Magee

Further to Denis OBrien-owned Communicorp banning all journalists


from The Irish Times contributing to its radio stations

Mark Tighe, in The Times Ireland edition, reports today about journalist
Jessie Magee, who worked for Communicorp stations for ten years,
deciding to quit last week.

He reports:

I was unhappy with the management culture there for a while, Ms


Magee said. Its not a happy work environment.

She also said that there was always extra concern about covering
stories about Denis OBrien on Newstalk or Today FM.

There have been stories over the years on Esat or OBrien


suing newspapers or the Dil and there is a fear about
covering them. Everything about him has to be vetted and
proofed . . . There was huge concern about how, or if, we
could cover those stories.
FlippFloppers Budget18______
Michel Martin always the bridesmaid never the bride.
Him and FF are only along for the ride.
Waiting in the wings for his chance to shine.
Paschal and Leo in the Irish Examiner
It's about everything they have been doing... And not doing.. If you feel we are being
laughed at and taken as a fool and voting fodder by this shower of incompetent buffoons..
Water charges..
Health care..
Trolleys crisis..
Homelessness..
Waiting lists..
APPLE scandal..
Corruption..
Gardai scandals..
Banking scandals..
IMF and ecb loan repayments..
Disgraceful wages and pensions for the elite..
No childcare or proper care of the elderly..
Etcetc etcetc....
Try to be there.
THE RATE of welfare fraud among non-nationals is "worrying" and must be addressed before Ireland is
seen as "the soft touch of Europe".
Fraud perpetrated by non-nationals is 14pc of the total here, and it is costing Irish taxpayers "the
considerable sum" of 31.6m, according to the Labour Party.

Wed October 11 2017 -


Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has been accused of misleading the Dil after it emerged his controversial
Strategic Communications Unit will cost the taxpayer a massive 5m.
Mr Varadkar previously said the first-of-its-kind public relations division in the Taoiseach's office
would save the taxpayer money and also said the division would be cost neutral.
However, the Government's expenditure report for 2018 shows 5m has been budgeted for the
publicity unit next year.
Last night, Labour Party leader Brendan Howlin said the suggestion the new unit would not cost the
State any money was "utterly false".
"Clearly it is a major propaganda agency that is going to profligate for Leo and the Government at
the taxpayers' expense and we have been misled about this," Mr Howlin said.
He also noted the 5m assigned to the communications unit was more than the combined amount of
State funding given to Opposition parties. During the Dil budget debate, Fianna Fil public
expenditure spokesman Dara Calleary called the communications division the "Government's
cheerleading unit".
In response to parliamentary questions by Fianna Fil, Mr Varadkar previously said: "In fact, it (the
unit) is likely to give rise to a significant increase in value for money and a reduction in overall
expenditure, over time."
A spokesman for the Government yesterday said that the communications unit would be cost neutral
next year by "generating efficiencies across government departments and ensuring collaboration on
major campaigns".
"The spending will come from within existing resources," he added. "Furthermore, the overall
budget for the Department of the Taoiseach is 2pc lower in 2018."
Former Creative Ireland director John Concannon is heading up the division, along with five civil
servants who have been seconded to the new division in the Taoiseach's office.
Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe said the unit would make "more efficient use of resources" in
departments, but denied the 5m spend on publicity was going to waste before it was allocated to the
Taoiseach's department.
This country is governed by the out of control State owned Banks so perhaps the Minister should check
with the Banks before he makes decisions on cutting taxes.
Labour sold out the stay at home women Joan Burton hope people remember that at next election,
Discrimination
Against women workers
This is No given budget. They gave & took back in other ways. Like property tax. Once again they look
after themselfs. Leo is getting 21,000 pay increase this year. Just in time for Christmas.

Yeah not much of a budget the rich get richer and more insentives and the regular people get poorer and
less insentives at all and looks more of another type immigration budget as hard enough here already as it
is the budget of more take than give...it seems........
And only the start with the waster
Stealth tax to pay for TD and Ministers pay hikes should be the headline blaming it on the poor again, so
blame it on the people that have nothing for tax hikes.
The budget is always about taking the little bit some of us have left at the end of the month , these
charlatans just try to put a pretty bow on it . No surprise really as its always the same lies and misdirection.
I see ye have officially removed the ability to comment directly on articles online now, too many people
calling ye on (some of) your reporter's lies, easier to take a post of a Facebook page than expose it by
having to retract an actual article from your website, shameful lack of journalistic integrity.
Look at the Sunday Independent going full out to attack those on social welfare!!!!
Whoopie 5 increase to our backbone ....bet the TDs are getting that increase per hour @ bloody insult

They need to restore the telephone allowance, the fuel allowance scrap prescription charges give oap free hospital
parking and then the measly fiver, also fgs a 9 euro living alone allowance when they're spouse dies is an insult

nothing wrong with the country but severe problems with colleges,, as all simply educated people seem to have no
problems understanding but all the so called professionals who went to college such as government,, and all that,, well
that's a whole different story isn't it,, its clear college education doesn't work, because we have stupid govt ministers
who believe their own spin, and lies.and spin and lies is exactly what it is,, anything at all to get more for the rich,,
whilst allowing the freely jump through whatever loopholes they wish,, its lunacy..... and its time it was questioned
5? and TD's are getting how much?
A true patriot....130k a year retired patriot
A true West Brit!

How can he be called a Patriot ,as he did not care when Nationalists were abandoned when they were
getting BURNED OUT of their homes in the 6 Counties ...
He turned his back on the Nationalist population in the North ...he was a Partitionist Quisling .....and to
think that their Official name is ,FINE GAEL The United Ireland Party
Like father like son
A true patriot....130k a year retired patriot
A true West Brit!
It just goes to prove that we are being fleeced by our Health Ins.as well when they can reduce it in an
instant.
Enquiry needed for the cost of a bed for a night in hospital under insurance. 800 is ridiculous in any
body's language.
What child would want him as a father
Ross should resign now
Unfortunately Canada is experiencing the same issue!!!!!! E-mail, computers replacing "personal" mail.
Hard for seniors though. And I am a senior but still post cards etc., to home.
Crazy as is so important for elderly people in countryside and is more than a post office for elderly .

If the banks we own payed tax there would be a lot more money in the kitty but no take it off the poor
Neo-Liberalism (Extreme right wing capitalism at its worst)
ome heading when it's also noted AIB posted 800 million profit..and won't pay tax
he government are stealing our homes, make no bones about it and our grown up children will have
nothing from their parents. Scrap this home tax once and for all.
How will they prevent the hikes if property values are aligned from 2010-2012 to 2018 most will double,
Dublin Quadruple unless Government reduce the in the euro multiplier used to calculate the amount due
from the value of the property. Have not heard of or seen legislation to suggest amended property value
will end up with same bill? Revenue will implement legislation not sentiment.
Articles like this just add fuel to the hype. Not helping matters at all
Completely sustainable pace. Definitely nothing to worry about. Move along, nothing to see here.
Failed Budget by Minister for Finance Paschal
Donohoe
NEWS
October 13th 2017

Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe

Department of Finance. Any change in the draft meant


that a typist had to retype the whole budget speech from
scratch. Given this, it was not physically possible to
produce more than two or three drafts of the speech
prior to budget day. That concentrated civil service and
political minds.
Once the speech was agreed, a large number of
department staff had to run around tables to assemble
the hundreds of copies that needed to be distributed.
When word processors arrived, some of us working in
the department hoped they would ease the burden of
preparing for budget day.
However, the initial results were rather different. New
technology allowed endless drafting changes, most of
limited significance, which meant that there were more
likely to be 33 than three drafts of the speech.
Today, modern technology has greatly reduced the
burden of physically producing the budget. Instead, we
have become used to a full range of well-formatted
documents being released on the internet as soon as the
Minister finishes speaking.
This year there are some 30 documents published
alongside the budget speech, including some useful
reviews from the Irish Government Economic and
Evaluation Service.
For this years budget, most of the decisions were clearly
taken well in advance of budget day and widely leaked
to the media, as has now become the custom. While, at
official level, most issues bar minor details were resolved
early on, some political discussions continued right up to
the last minute.
Budget windfall from Central Bank profits drying up
Is Ireland heading for full employment?
Sterling shock: what will it mean for Irish manufacturers?
The political process of reaching agreement has become
more complex under our minority Government
arrangements.
A crucial factor in preparing the budget was that the
economy is growing very strongly. If anything, money
should have been taken out of the economy to reduce
pressures and make space for more resources to be
devoted to housing.
In the end, the budget did not act to reduce demand, but
its fiscal stance was broadly neutral. Ministers of finance
should adopt the doctors motto of do no harm, and
this budget largely delivered on that.
The cuts in taxes on income were, appropriately, very
limited. Higher wages will mean that the average tax
take will rise slightly. By contrast, welfare payments will
rise slightly faster than inflation.
Generally speaking, economists are against taxes on
economic transactions, as these deter the most efficient
use of resources. Normally it would be better to increase
property taxes, such as rates, rather than raise stamp
duty on commercial property transactions.
However, the Department of Finance has made a strong
argument that higher stamp duty is more likely to
disincentivise investment in commercial property, and
free construction resources to build homes.
Carbon tax
The decision not to raise carbon tax and diesel tax
substantially, something which would help reduce
Irelands greenhouse gas emissions and move us to a
more sustainable growth path, was a missed
opportunity. If the Government had done that, it would
have sent a clear message on the need to decarbonise our
economy. Better air quality would also result, especially
in urban areas, bringing significant health benefits.
Instead, the Government is commissioning yet another
study on carbon taxes. Since 1991, the ESRI has
published an average of one such study a year. All have
delivered the same message: raising the tax on carbon is
a crucial policy instrument to tackle climate change. We
need action, not further studies.
A second lost opportunity was the failure to raise the 9
per cent VAT rate on tourism accommodation and eating
out. This sector is booming, in spite of complaints about
Brexit. The early effects of Brexit are being offset by
growth in the EU and the US. Employment in the first
six months of 2017 was up 5.5 per cent on 2016.
Restoring the VAT rate would have brought in 500
million more in revenue, which could have been used
partly to cool an economy in danger of overheating, and
partly to fund additional worthwhile public spending on
health or housing.
The one major increase in expenditure in the budget is in
investment up by more than 800 million, or 16 per
cent. This reflects the fact that the stated overriding
budgetary objective is to tackle the housing crisis, a
priority that has been broadly welcomed.
A tighter budget would have been more prudent,
given the uncertainties ahead: by slowing the
economy, it would have given more headroom to
expand our housing output without overheating
the economy.
Varadkar urges banks to repay what is
owed immediately,Tracker mortgage
scandal
Urges, urges. Does this alleged head of government not know that he has a duty of care to protect the
people from predatory bankers.? Perhaps it is not his turn to use the party brain cell.
I just can't read this stuff anymore. Banks ripping people off and then politicians claiming they knew nothing or are
powerless to do anything about it.

Rinse, lather and repeat.

All the while it's tax payers getting shafted from all angles.
Now we know where Fine Gael got the budget from...
Two blatant criminals; one picks his nose in contempt of his constituents; the other thumbs his nose in
contempt of the ordinary people with policies that benefit the few at the expense of the rest.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has urged banks that wrongly


took home owners off tracker mortgages to apologise to
them and pay back money owed to them as a matter of
immediate priority.
Mr Varadkar said he didnt believe the government had
the power currently to set a deadline for banks to repay
those that they had wrongly taken off tracker mortgages
but he urged them to do the proper thing immediately
and repay them the money they are owed.
Im not sure if we have any plans to set a date or
deadline or even if we could do that (compel the banks to
repay the money by a certain date) within the powers
that we have as a government but as far as I am
concerned the date should be yesterday, he said.
Any banks whether they are partially owned by the
State or not took people off tracker mortgages
incorrectly should put that right and they should put it
right and they should repay what is owed, offer an
apology and also compensation, he said.
Ulster Bank to pay some overcharged customers over
100,000
I dont know what the tracker-mortgage scandal is about
Tracker rate scandal sees more families lose their homes
Speaking at University College Cork, just before he went
into a Cabinet meeting, Mr Varadkar expressed his
sympathies to those caught up in the tracker mortgage
scandal as he revealed he had a tracker mortgage.
As somebody who has a tracker mortgage and in many
ways its been a godsend, because its meant my
mortgage has been very affordable in years gone by and I
can only imagine what it would have been had it been 4
or 5 per cent or 6 per cent, he said.
There are many people and many families who have
been driven to distraction and endured enormous
mental health trauma with fears about what would
happen to their family and those things should never
have happened.
Mr Varadkar made his comments after the Oireachtas
Finance Committee heard evidence on Thursday from
four people who caught up in the tracker mortgage
scandal after Permanent TSB and Ulster Bank wrongly
switched them off their tracker mortgages.
The four homeowners, accompanied by solicitor Padraig
Kissane who has been campaigning on behalf of tracker
mortgage holders, told the Finance Committee how they
were forced to pay tens of thousands of euros more in
repayment than was necessary.
The four spoke of the huge stress that they had to endure
with one homeowner, Thomas Ryan telling the Finance
Committee that he had suffered a stroke in 2013 and his
wife suffered a nervous breakdown in 2015 over being
wrongly taken off a tracker mortgage.
where the fuk or what families get 600 a year
FINE GAELS TRANSPARENCY
ROW
Date: September 7, 2017 - Affairs of the Nation

Fiona McLoughlin Healy

THE Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has


launched an inquiry into the procurement of contracts
at the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training
Board (KWETB) following an audit of its finances
recently. This will come as something of an indirect
vindication of Fine Gael councillor

Landlord told to let family back into


rented home he boarded up
Woman lived in Mulhuddart with young children and her mother, who has
cancer
Tatiana Perju had been given notice by landlord Peter Wilson to quit a house
(boarded up, above) at Saddlers Avenue, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15. He has been
directed to allow them back into the property
A landlord who boarded up his rental property and locked out a mother
and two young children has been ordered to let them back in.
Tatiana Perju had been given notice by landlord Peter Wilson to quit the
house, at Saddlers Avenue, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15, but had referred her
case to the Residential Tenancies Board.
A sitting of the Dublin Circuit Court late on Thursday heard Ms Perju had
gone home to discover the house boarded up and that she was locked out,
and that some of her possessions had been put into bags, tied up and
placed outside the property.
Mr Wilson was allegedly inside the house and spoke to her through a
window, but refused to let her back in. Living at the house at the time with
35-year-old Ms Perju were her daughters aged 3 and 10 and her mother,
who acts as a babysitter and who has cancer.
Barrister Eoghan Cole, counsel for the Residential Tenancies Board,
explained the situation to Judge Francis Comerford at a special sitting of
the Circuit Civil Court, and today Mr Wilson was told to allow Ms Perju
and her family access to the house.
They were to be allowed to enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the
property.
No receipts
Ms Perju, a dental nurse in Mulhuddart, told Judge Comerford she had
paid Wilson a deposit of 1,875, part of which he now proposed
withholding towards refurbishment. She had paid him monthly rent of
1,250 in cash promptly, but had never received any receipts.
She also paid utility bills in cash without receipt of payment.
She said in June last she agreed a new tenancy for an increased rent of
1,300, and the parties proposed signing a new lease later.
Mr Wilson inspected the property at the end of July and noted proposed
repairs.
The court heard the family had been living at Saddlers Avenue (general view
above), at Mulhuddart, Dublin 15. File photograph: Google Street View
Mr Cole had told Judge Comerford that Ms Perju had
heard nothing more from her landlord until last
Monday, October 9th, after she had taken her 10-year-
old daughter to school, leaving her three-year-old with
her grandmother, Ms Perjus mother.
I believe my mother and my baby daughter left the
house at 12:45pm and when I went home on my lunch
break at 1:15pm I found the door and windows boarded
up with Mr Wilson and [his rent collector agent] John
Brooks inside, Ms Perju told the court.
Civil matter
Garda arrived but they told her the dispute was a civil
matter.
I left the area with some of my belongings in bags. . .
and I went to stay with a friend where I and my family
have lived since, she said.
Ms Perju said a number of important medical and
financial documents were still in the house. She denied
assertions by Mr Wilson that she rented just a single
room and that on Monday last she had six Romanians at
the house.
She said the only Romanian citizens were herself, her
mother and a friend.
ALL PART OF FINE GAEL'S "FAIRER IRELAND"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/landlord-told-to-let-family-
back-into-rented-home-he-boarded-up-1.3255005
Yet, She'll Allow Them To Continue To Abuse Their Victims. What If It Were One Of Her
Children? I Feel Nothing For This Trash.!!

IRISH WATER SLAMMED OVER POOR


COMMUNICATION
By Live95FM News Team
12 October 2017
One of the city's largest community centres has had to close today
due to works by Irish Water, with less than 24 hours notice.
Our Lady of Lourdes Community Services Group were first made
aware of the works at 5 pm yesterday evening.
The disruption has affected parents of 80 children at the centre's
creche, the local cafe which serves up to 150 meals a day, the local
sporting facility and local enterprise services.
Eimear O'Connor with the community group says Irish Water left a
voicemail yesterday evening and they have had no further contact.
https://www.live95fm.ie/news/irish-water-slammed-over-
poor-communication/#.WeC2sQTfAHQ.facebook

Tracker mortgage scandal the 'single biggest


consumer rip off in the history of the state'
The Irish Mortgage Holders Association says the tracker scandal is the
single biggest consumer rip off in the history of the state.
hursday, October 12, 2017

Some of those defrauded by Irish banks have told an Oireachtas


committee of the devastating medical and financial effects on their
families.

So far 20,000 cases have been uncovered, but it's estimated that could
reach 30,000.
Helen Grogan, Hazel Melbourne, Padraig kissane, Thomas Ryan and
Niamh Byrne arrive at Leinster House in Dublin, to give evidence during
the Oireachtas Finance Committee. Photo: Niall Carson/PA Wire

Earlier: People have killed themselves after banks denied them their
entitlement to a low-cost tracker mortgage, victims of the scandal have
claimed.
It is estimated that at least 30,000 borrowers and their families have
been affected by the multimillion euro overcharging as 15 banks refused
to fulfil obligations to give customers the lowest interest rate in the
market.
Four borrowers have told their story to politicians in the Oireachtas
Finance Committee, including Thomas Ryan, who along with his wife
Claire, finally and successfully faced down their bank in the courts.
"It is absolutely appalling. They have destroyed lives all over this
country," he said.
"There are people no longer with us over this. They have committed
suicide. And they don't particularly give a damn.
"I have heard some of the submissions here in the last few weeks from
some of the banks - it is an absolute disgrace, the generic, legalistic
garbage they are churning out.
"It is appalling and an absolute disgrace. There's no other words for it."
Mr Ryan, aged in his late 40s and from Wexford, was a Permanent TSB
customer who challenged its refusal to give him the tracker rate. He said
the banks should be forced into making amends.
He suffered a stroke in 2013 and his wife Claire had a nervous
breakdown in 2015 and lost the power of speech under the pressure of
their fight to be restored to a tracker mortgage rate.
"As her husband I find it pitiful and so unjust to see my wife's previous
confident and bubbly nature stripped away from her," he said.
In an emotional address to the committee, Mr Ryan explained the
impact on his three children of the financial pressure and long-running
battle with the bank.
"The extreme stress effects on the mental wellbeing of our teenage
children is absolutely heartbreaking," he said.
"It can be so upsetting for us that I cannot begin to convey in words."
Scores of people and families were put out of their homes over the last
eight years after being refused their entitlement to a tracker. The
Central Bank previously put the number of directly related
repossessions at 100.
It also previously estimated that up to 15,000 borrowers were affected
by the issue across 15 lenders and is due to update the committee next
week.
Last week Ulster Bank said it will have to pay more than 100,000 euro to
some of its 3,500 customers caught up in the industry-wide
overcharging scandal.
Previously it was revealed that 2,100 Bank of Ireland mortgages were
restored to tracker rates when the issue was identified in that bank in
2010 and 2011.
There were also about 1,400 cases of customers being denied tracker
rates involving Springboard Mortgages, which was a subsidiary of
Permanent TSB.
The Central Bank cannot force banks to compensate home owners for
tracker issues prior to 2013.
The refusal of banks to allow customers to move on to trackers first
emerged as far back as 2010 - the year taxpayers were lumbered with a
multibillion-euro bailout of Ireland's banks.
Padraic Kissane, the financial advisor who has been leading the charge
to get customers restored to the correct rates, said customers had been
treated with arrogance by the banks, a condescending attitude and a
lack of empathy and understanding.
"What moral compass do they possess," he said.
"It is financial abuse on a grand scale, contrived to deceive customers of
their contractual rights."
Mr Kissane also warned he has a host of cases of bank staff and people
working for legal teams and auditors associated with the banks who
want to challenge the rates they have been put on but are worried
about the consequences for their careers.
He told the committee there was a cartel in operation in Ireland's
mortgage market. He compared one of the best rates on offer at the
minute - a 10 year fixed mortgage from KBC at 2.95% compared to a 10
year fixed rate in Germany of 1.15%.
He said he would shut the banks down if he was able to open a new
mortgage offering European Central Bank tracker interest rates and
long-term fixed rates.
"That's what needs to happen," he said.
"I guarantee you a tracker product would be back within a month."
Mr Kissane added that the low German rates are not in Ireland and said:
"The cartel wouldn't allow it."
He added: "Their figures show it. They come and they - I would describe
it as boast - about their profit levels and not realise the carnage."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/latest-tracker-
mortgage-scandal-the-single-biggest-consumer-rip-off-in-the-history-of-the-
state-809709.html

20 Billion to be spent in 2018 benefiting two million people


5 Increase across all weekly payments (at max rate)
Increase of 2 in weekly payment for qualified dependent children
Working Family Payment (formerly FIS) thresholds increased by
10 p.w. for families of one, two or three children
National Minimum Wage to increase to 9.55 per hour in 2018
Income disregard for working lone parents to increase by 20 p.w.
Christmas Bonus of 85% to be paid in December 2017

Employment Affairs and Social Protection Minister, Regina Doherty, T.D.


has today (10th October 2017) secured a welfare package that prioritises
improvements to family incomes including lone parents.
The 2018 welfare package will deliver a 5 increase in the maximum rate
of all weekly payments for pensioners, lone parents, jobseekers, carers,
people with disabilities, widows, and people on employment programmes.
A 2 increase for each qualified dependent child will be made in all weekly
payments the first such increase since 2010. Dependent adult and
people on reduced rate payments will receive proportionate increases
while younger jobseekers, aged 26 and under, on reduced rates will
receive the full 5 increase. These measures take effect from the week
commencing 26 March 2018.
Minister Doherty said that todays Budget continues the process of building
a fairer and more inclusive society, incentivises and rewards work and
strengthens welfare supports for those who may need them.
The increase in the weekly rates of welfare payments announced in
todays Budget demonstrate the Governments commitment to a fair
society that supports work and enterprise, while creating opportunities and
improving the standards of living for all. The 5 increase across all weekly
payments, along with the increases for dependent adults and children
announced today, affirms this commitment.
Working families are the backbone of the Irish economy. A number of
Budget measures are designed to support working families, especially
those on lower incomes, including the increase in the minimum wage by 30
cent to 9.55 per hour, as well as increases in the earning threshold limits
for the Working Family Payment (which is the new name for FIS) for
families with up to 3 children.
Since becoming Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, I
have prioritised the needs of working families and lone parents. The Back
to Work Family Dividend, which was due to end in March 2018, is to be
retained and this will continue to support families in making the transition
from welfare to work. The income disregard applied to working lone
parents in receipt of either the One-Parent Family Payment or Jobseekers
Transition Payment, will increase by 20 per week. These measures
demonstrate this Governments commitment to supporting working
families, especially working lone parents and making sure that they are
always better off in work versus solely dependent on welfare.
Our young people are our future. No young person should be left behind.
With this in mind, people aged 26 and under (receiving a reduced rate of
Jobseekers Allowance) will receive a full 5 increase from March
2018. Furthermore, a new scheme called the Youth Employment Support
Scheme will be introduced in 2018 to support long-term unemployed young
people, back to the workplace.
Our pensioners have, and continue to make a significant contribution to
society and I am pleased to have secured the 5 weekly increase for
them. The Programme for Government commits to increases for people
with disabilities, who are among the most vulnerable in our society. This
Budget fulfils these commitments.
The extension of the Fuel Allowance to 27 weeks, into the first week of
April 2018, will benefit 375,000 households, particularly pensioners,
widows, people with disabilities, lone parents and long term
jobseekers. Pensioners and people with disabilities, who live alone, can
face particular challenges and can be at increased risk of social
isolation. The introduction of a new Telephone Support Allowance will
benefit over 124,000 people who receive the Living Alone Allowance (and
are eligible for the Fuel Allowance).
Supporting and sustaining rural Ireland is a key objective of this
Government. The 5 increase in the weekly Farm Assist payment, together
with an additional 250 places on the Rural Social Scheme increasing the
number to 3,350 in 2018 - and the introduction of an additional investment
of 10 million in the Free Travel Scheme is designed to encourage new
operators into the scheme and to broaden coverage in more remote parts
of rural Ireland.
This morning, I received Government approval for the payment of the
social welfare Christmas Bonus, to be paid in early December at a rate of
85%. This will benefit all recipients of long term social welfare payments
including carers, people with disabilities, pensioners and lone parents.
ENDS
Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection
http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr101017.aspx
Minister Doherty announces Social Welfare Budget for 2018 20 Billion to be
spent in 2018 benefiting two million people 5 Increase across all weekly
payments (at max rate)
http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/pdf/pr101017.pdf
ESTIMATES OF RECEIPTS and EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31
DECEMBER, 2018
http://www.finance.gov.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/White_Paper_2018.pdf

We were bad, what Ireland is doing is 10


times worse' - International experts
unimpressed with Public Services Card
A public meeting on the Public Services Card yesterday heard that the more data
protection in Ireland changes, the more it stays the same.
YESTERDAY, THE IRISH Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL)
held a public meeting in Dublin to discuss the Public
Services Card and the attendant national biometric
database.
The PSC has been garnering headlines for nearly nine
months now, with the governments plans to expand its uses
from beyond its Social Protection roots into the realms of
driving test and passport applications (for starters)
garnering heated criticism.
The ICCL event, held in Buswells Hotel across from Dil
ireann, brought something new to the table in the form of a
handful of international experts in privacy, whose
impression of Irelands privacy standards are far from
positive, with one speaker declaring Irelands plans for the
PSC to be 10 times worse than what occurred in Scotland
with that countrys National Entitlement Card.
Current anecdotal evidence suggests that the Department of
Social Protection is continuing an aggressive rollout of the
card to all citizens who use its services, as opposed to those
claiming welfare payments which was the cards initial remit
when first introduced back in 2012.
More recently, it emerged via a Freedom of Information
request by the Irish Times that the Data Protection
Commissioner had expressed concern over the PSC being
viewed as a form of national ID card, a fact that the
Department of Social Protection had initially declined to
divulge in the interests of not misinforming the public.
Meanwhile, former Chief Justice John Murray last week, in
his Review of the Law on the Retention of and Access to
Communications Data, declared that Irelands current
regime of data retention amounts to a form of mass
surveillance of virtually the entire population of the state.
That report was first produced last April. It was finally
published six months later. Data protection is a hot topic
issue in Ireland at present. And its a political hot potato.
National databases
Yesterdays event saw those who have been banging the
drum for a review of Irelands data protection regime,
namely Digital Rights Irelands TJ McIntyre and Simon
McGarr, reiterate their concerns both regarding the legal
basis (or lack thereof) for the PSCs expansion and Irelands
prickly legal history with State databases.
McGarr raised the fact that the Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform (which has responsibility for the
PSC project) previously suggested that all queries regarding
the cards expansion can be explained by the fact it is a
government decision.
Unfortunately labeling something a government decision,
whatever that is, does not make it any more legal, he said.
McIntyre suggested that history can show that Irelands
standards regarding the maintenance of national databases
are chequered at best the retention of 33 years worth of
baby blood DNA records via the National Newborn
Bloodspot Screening Programme (the heel prick test
administered to all newborns) being just one of the issues
raised.
The Public Services Card
Last month Minister for Health Simon Harris acknowledged
in the Dil not only that Ireland is in breach of both EU and
national law in maintaining the blood database, but also that
the State has no intention of destroying it, despite a 2009
resolution from the DPC indicating that it should do so.
What Scotland did
Irelands own recent struggles regarding the privacy of its
citizens are well documented what those watching from
afar think of it all are less so.

The talk brought two academic doctors from the UK, Tom
Fisher of Privacy International and John Welford of anti-
database group NO2ID, together to discuss their own take
on the Irish situation.
Welford, who has spent much of his retirement fighting the
establishment of the National Entitlement Card in Scotland,
was particularly strident.
I was highly motivated to come here today, Im horrified by
whats going on in Ireland, he said.
Whats going on in Scotland is bad, but Ireland is 10 times
worse.
Scotlands National Entitlement Card (NEC) was first
introduced in 2006.
This new bus pass was brought in 2006. Thats what people
call it, thats what they still call it. But the card itself doesnt
say what it is, said Welford.
He said that the NEC was first intended to replace the
existing bus pass, with the larger plan being to then link the
card to a citizens data account.
The pattern is always the same, he said, that is: a card with
an innocuous title, the gradual change of what the card is
primarily intended to be used for (mission creep), and then
the coercion of citizens into using it whether they wish to do
so or not (the need for someone to have a PSC in order to
apply for a passport for example).
Apart from anything else, he said, in the era of cyber crime
its suicide to create these large government databases.
It just gives criminals something to aim at.
Welford also found time to take a swipe at Minister for
Social Protection Regina Dohertys by-now notorious
declaration that the PSC is mandatory but not compulsory:
There will be confusion over whether a card is voluntary or
mandatory cards are often issued on a voluntary basis at
the start to make them less threatening.
Its not about who you trust now
Fisher, meanwhile, suggested that the introduction of
powerful databases are not a question of who you trust
now.
Its about who you can trust in 30 or 40 years. Who will be
in power then? Trump is a perfect example. You dont know
whos going to be in charge, he said.
These are things that should be debated officially if theyre
going to be introduced.

Department of Health Newborn Screening Cards


John Welford
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-09-
11a.2459&s=National+Newborn+Bloodspot+Screening+Programme#g2463.r
Review of the Law
on the
Retention of and Access to Communications Data
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_Access_to
_Communications_Data.pdf/Files/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_Acces
s_to_Communications_Data.pdf

Garda Surprised Their Illegal Mass Surveillance Of Public Not A Bigger Story:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/10/09/gardai-surprised-their-illegal-mass-
surveillance-of-public-not-a-bigger-story/

The latter point is particularly relevant for Ireland the


expansion of the PSC has of course been pursued without
any dedicated Oireachtas debate whatsoever.
He dismissed the idea that the PSC can be used to curb
wholesale welfare fraud.
Very little benefit fraud pertains to someone claiming to be
who they arent, he said.
It comes from people looking for things that theyre not
entitled to.
He hearkened back to the UKs second attempt at a national
ID card (the first was introduced in World War II and
rescinded in 1952), which took five years to be introduced by
Tony Blair (who became enamoured of the idea in the wake
of 9/11), which ended disastrously with the card being
abolished by now-Prime Minister Theresa May in 2010.
Tony Blair couldnt understand why the introduction of an
ID card should be so controversial. But it is.
http://www.thejournal.ie/iccl-public-services-card-3641440-
Oct2017/?utm_source=facebook_short
Privacy group says Ireland falling short as use of listening
and tracking devices jumps
Tue, May 16, 2017, 08:03
Conor Gallagher

There has been a large rise in Garda surveillance activities in the last year.
Photograph: The Irish Times
Privacy groups have expressed concern about a large rise
in surveillance activities by garda in the last year.
There has been a 150 per cent rise in the use of listening
and vehicle tracking devices by garda since 2015. It
understood much of this relates to intensive Garda
operations targeting the Kinahan and Hutch crime gangs
whose feud has claimed eleven lives so far.
Garda are believed to have invested heavily in
surveillance equipment and training over the last 18
months, particularly for members of the National
Surveillance Unit.
Under the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 the
use of such devices requires the permission of a District
Court judge. However, in emergency situations garda
can rely on temporary permission from a senior officer.
The use of this emergency provision, which circumvents
the court, has also increased in recent years from once in
2014 to five last year.
According to the latest report from Mr Justice Brian
McGovern there were 129 intrusive surveillance
operations between 2015 and July 2016. This compares
to 51 from the proceeding 12 month period.
Man and woman found dead at house in Co Fermanagh
O'Sullivan may go before special sitting of committee over
Templemore
Charleton tribunal appoints two investigators
This use of vehicle tracking devices increased
substantially from 12 to 83.
The vast majority of operations were carried out by
garda. Revenue officials used tracking devices on 26
occasions and military intelligence used a bugging device
once.
The regime governing the use of listening and tracking
devices is separate from the legislation governing live
phone-tapping operations, although both are reviewed
annually by a judge.
Antoin O Lachtnain of Digital Rights Ireland said the
rise is concerning because Ireland is not in line with
international best practice when it comes to surveillance
oversight.
Citizens should feel assured that their phones and
computers wont be interfered with except for a good,
lawful reason. Irish law does not provide them with the
protection they should expect. It falls way short of
international best practice, he said.

Supervision is always after the fact, and is carried out


by a single judge with no staff, no special expertise and
no resources.
The Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL) wants to see a
parliamentary oversight committee replacing the role of
a High Court judge.
Its concerning that the use of surveillance without
judicial oversight is increasing.
But even with judicial oversight, the level of oversight is
widely viewed as being inefficient, he said.
This is likely to become a great problem as time goes
on. We can anticipate as technology develops that new
and more invasive systems of surveillance are going to
be available to police.

https://www.irishtimes.com
/news/crime-and-
law/concern-over-sharp-
rise-in-garda-surveillance-
activities-1.3084663

Ireland must learn from UK


data protection and ID
disasters
Ditching of costly databases in UK suggests more care
needed with public services card
Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 05:00
TJ McIntyre
While authorities may push ahead with plans which ignore concerns about
privacy and data protection, the law will eventually catch up with them, usually
at significant cost to the taxpayer.
The growth of the public services card as a de facto
national ID card has attracted a lot of media attention
recently, with special credit due to Elaine Edwards of
this newspaper for her persistence in excavating the facts
on which most of the later reporting has been based.
The issue continues to rumble on, and the Data
Protection Commissioner has asked the Department of
Social Protection to explain the legal basis for the claim
that the card is mandatory. One month later, despite
repeated promises, the department has not yet done so.
More could be written about the public services card,
and the varying and sometimes contradictory claims put
forward to support it. But if we focus on the card we risk
missing the wider picture, which is that the card is not
an aberration but exemplifies a systematic disregard for
privacy and data protection throughout the State.
Consider the Department of Health. In a remarkable
statement to the Dil earlier this month, Minister for
Health Simon Harris admitted that Ireland remains in
breach of both European Union and national data
protection legislation by keeping a database of blood
samples from newborn children without the consent of
their parents. Following a complaint in 2009, the Data
Protection Commissioner ordered that these samples be
destroyed. However, the Department of Health has
failed to comply and is instead proceeding with plans to
retain the database and to open it up for research and
possible other uses.
Ignore with impunity
This defiance of the law raises significant questions for
the independence of the Data Protection Commissioner,
who has taken no enforcement action against this
challenge to her statutory authority. The message to the
State is that it can ignore data protection law with
impunity.
Since 2014, the Department of Health has also been
involved in developing health identification numbers
and electronic health records schemes, which present
significant issues of privacy and confidentiality. For
example, by requiring the use of health identification
numbers these schemes tie together potentially leak-
sensitive information about an individuals medical
history, despite an earlier promise that use of these
numbers would be voluntary. It is hard to trust
assurances from the department on this issue given that
it is already, by its own admission, in deliberate breach
of data protection law.

We see the same picture elsewhere.


In 2014, An Garda Sochna started using body-worn
cameras in an ad hoc way, without any legislation or
formal safeguards. The Garda five-year modernisation
plan says that the Garda will start taking video feeds
from the National Roads Authority, local authorities and
private car park operators to run automatic number
plate recognition systems creating a national database
of peoples travel to be stored for an unspecified period.
That plan also says that, from 2017, the Garda will start
using face-in-the-crowd and shape-in-the-crowd
biometrics to identify people on CCTV systems. Again,
all of this is to take place without any legal basis, in a
manner that appears to be contrary to data protection
law. It seems the Garda has not learned any institutional
lessons from the 2014 scandal around the recording of
calls to and from Garda stations, nor from the ongoing
concerns about abuse of the Pulse system.
Fundamental rights
The common pattern in these cases is that fundamental
rights are viewed as inconvenient obstacles. This is a
paternalistic view, in which the institution knows best
and public concern can be disregarded. However, this
approach merely stores up problems for the future.
There are lessons for Ireland from the UK, where many
of these issues have already been played out.
In 2002, the UK government launched a National Health
Service-wide electronic health records system which
failed to adequately address patient confidentiality. This
was eventually scrapped in 2011, in large part due to
concerns about privacy, and replaced with systems
which guarantee that patients can opt out of data
sharing. The ultimate cost was in the region of 10
billion.
The public services card has a parallel in the UK, where
ID cards and a National Identity Register were
introduced by legislation in 2006, only to be abandoned
and the data destroyed in 2011 following extensive public
opposition. Similar to the public services card, the UK ID
card had no clear rationale and was ultimately rejected
by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government as wasteful,
bureaucratic and intrusive, at an eventual cost of about
5 billion.
The increasing Garda use of CCTV, facial recognition
and number-plate recognition also echoes the UK, where
both the information commissioner and the independent
surveillance camera commissioner have described
similar practices by UK police forces as intrusive,
disproportionate and illegal.
Significant cost
The message from these UK examples is clear. While
state authorities may push ahead with plans which
ignore concerns about privacy and data protection, the
law will eventually catch up with them, usually at
significant cost to the taxpayer. Fundamental rights are
factors which must be taken into account at the outset,
not reluctantly considered when a scheme is already
being implemented.
As the Data Protection Commissioner put it in her most
recent annual report: Public-sector bodies and
Government departments are in many cases slow to
adjust to the reality that data-protection rights cannot
simply be legislated away without sufficient necessity
and proportionality analysis and prejudice tests being
applied.
The failure of the State to accept these points has already
squandered public trust in areas such as the public
services card, and seems likely to do so in other areas
such as electronic health records.
Dr TJ McIntyre is a lecturer in the UCD Sutherland
School of Law, a solicitor with FP Logue Solicitors and
the chair of Digital Rights Ireland
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/ireland-must-learn-from-uk-
data-protection-and-id-disasters-1.3236139
Just released under FOI: Irish Dept. of Justice response to EU questionnaire on criminal justice ni
cyberspace

Garda Surprised Their Illegal Mass


Surveillance Of Public Not A Bigger
Story
October 9, 2017
WITH the publication of a report by former chief justice John Murray relating
to GSOCs use of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 to identify
journalists sources, it has been confirmed the State in breach of European
law, however, the Garda have heaved a sigh of relief that no one seems to
care.

Huh, just look at that, you just never know with these things, do you? mused
Minister for Justice Flanagan, who figured at the very least hed have to resign
over this or the Garda would face fresh pressure to give in to reforms.

Like it says it right there in the report, that it basically amounts to the mass
surveillance of everyone in the country, added a garda spokesperson, who
cant get his head around what constitutes a major scandal anymore.

Falsify breath tests? Theyre mad as hell. Garda can access all the electronic
communications you have without a warrant? Ah, youre grand dont worry
about it. Im confused, confirmed the garda spokesperson.

Flanagan, along with other government officials held several crisis meetings
over the ongoing scandal, hoping to quell any clamour for further, wide scale
investigations and at the worst, fallout that could lead to the collapse of the
government.

Turns out it was a massive waste of time, no ones really all that fussed. Ha,
Flanagan said, the relief in his voice was clear as day.

Both the garda and the government confirmed the news was an opportunity
to contemplate what they could really get away with if they tried in earnest.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/10/09/gardai-surprised-their-
illegal-mass-surveillance-of-public-not-a-bigger-story/
Google offered to provide
cyber training for Irish
judges
Records show sustained lobbying by tech giants ahead of
new digital interception laws
Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 01:31
Ciarn D'Arcy

Googles Dublin HQ. Photograph: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton


AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to LinkedIn

Share to Pinterest

Share to Reddit

Share to Google+
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Email App

Google offered cybercrime training for the judiciary


ahead of the introduction of new digital interception
legislation, according to records of lobbying by
technology companies.
The search engine giant has expressed concern along
with other major tech firms about aspects of the new
law, and has argued that judges should have the final say
on allowing interceptions to combat crime or terrorism.
Notes of a meeting between Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald
and Google in July 2016 show that Google
representatives outlined a scheme of training support
offed [sic] by Google to prosecutors and judges in some
other. . . states in order to support their work in dealing
with cases involving technology/cybercrime etc. and
offered to provide support in Ireland.
The Tnaiste, who was at the time also the minister for
justice, initially welcomed the suggestion, according to
the official notes but this was promptly followed by an
observation from department assistant secretary Peter
Mullan that judges and prosecutors are independent in
the Irish legal system.
Mr Mullan was also present at a meeting attended by the
same Google representatives in April 2017 in which it
was suggested that judicial authorisation of messages
retrieved under the Interception of Postal Packets and
Telecommunications Messages (Regulation)
(Amendment) Bill would add to the transparency and
oversight of the legislation.
A source close to the search-engine giant indicated to
The Irish Times that any judicial training would be
administered by a body independent of Google but
would be given training and technical support by the
company.
Responding to a query from The Irish Times, a
spokesman for the Department of Justice said
consultation regarding the proposed legislation was
ongoing, and reiterated that the judiciary is
independent in the performance of its functions . . . and
judicial training is primarily a matter for the judiciary.
A spokeswoman for Google said it would not be
commenting on the meetings.

Steps finally being taken to change shameful data


retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
States approach to data privacy is a national scandal
The Bill, which will allow garda to intercept texts,
emails and social media messages of criminal suspects,
was granted Cabinet approval in July of last year, but
progress since then has been slow.
Sustained lobbying
The Government has been subject to a sustained
lobbying campaign from tech multinationals over the
proposals, and Google has discussed matters such as
data privacy and cybercrime with Ministers including
Paschal Donohoe, Denis Naughten and Frances
Fitzgerald on seven occasions over the past two years.
The Irish Times also attempted to obtain notes of
meetings held between tech companies and the
Department of Communications between January and
July of this year, but was informed that the records could
not be located.
In the summer of 2016, the Tnaiste addressed an
assembly of tech industry representatives at Farmleigh
House in Dublin, during which it was queried whether
the State would bear the cost of any new digital
surveillance regime that might affect software
companies.
Unnamed delegates proposed that citizens should be
notified where their information has been intercepted by
garda as part of a system similar to that which currently
operates in Sweden.
It was noted that facilitating access to encrypted user
data would necessitate the amendment of customer
contracts, thereby creating a commercial disadvantage
for providers located in the State vis-a-vis other
jurisdictions.
Representatives also complained that the cost of
implementing technical aspects of the new laws would
act as a barrier to smaller companies entering the
market, and as such could potentially conflict with
competition legislation.
The Tnaiste also heard concerns about the possibility of
companies finding that they have been accidentally
operating unlawfully due to poorly-drafted legislation,
and there were calls for the Bill once published to
pertain strictly to serious crime or threats to the security
of the State.
It was further proposed that a technical working group
be established for implementing the legislation, although
the possible membership or remit of this group was not
elaborated on.
In a meeting with the Department of Justice on
December 1st, Facebook vice-president Chris Sonderby
described a system of independent oversight for the
legislation as a necessity.
User notice of intercepted material was again brought up
in the April 2017 gathering, at which departmental
officials said they were targeting publication of the as-yet
unpublished amendments prior to the Dil rising for the
summer.
Overall, tech companies appeared supportive of the new
surveillance measures being proposed by the
Government over the course of the meetings.
Digital rights and privacy activists have previously
derided the changes as doomed to failure.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/google-offered-to-provide-
cyber-training-for-irish-judges-1.3248651

States approach to data


privacy is a national scandal
So deep are the problems that actions for damages may
be brought and convictions quashed
Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 01:00
TJ McIntyre
2
In almost every regard the Irish system fails to meet standards articulated in a
number of recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and the
European Court of Justice. Photograph: iStock
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to LinkedIn

Share to Pinterest

Share to Reddit

Share to Google+

AddThis Sharing Buttons


Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Email App

Its not every day that a Minister for Justice issues a


report describing their department as operating a
universal, indiscriminate and illegal system of mass
surveillance. Yet that is precisely what happened last
Tuesday with the publication of a damning report by
retired chief justice John Murray, which found that Irish
surveillance practices fail to comply with European law.
The background dates from January 2016, when it
emerged that Gsoc had been accessing journalists phone
records (without a clear legal basis) in order to identify
their sources within An Garda Sochna. In response,
then Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald appointed
the former chief justice to examine the legal framework
around State access to journalists communications data
- a remit he interpreted widely to include the underlying
data retention law.
That law the Communications (Retention of Data) Act
2011 forces telephone companies and ISPs to log
details of everyones communications and movements
and to store that information for up to two years. In
Murrays words it constitutes a form of mass
surveillance of virtually the entire population of the
State, involving the retention and storage of historic
data, other than actual content, pertaining to every
electronic communication, in any form, made by anyone
and everyone at any time In essence this means the
retention of all communication data not going explicitly
to content: in other words, data pertaining to such
matters such as the date, time and location of a
telephone call.
Vast store of personal info
The impact on the privacy of individuals is clear. As the
report puts it, a vast amount of private information
pertaining to the personal communications of virtually
everyone in the State is now retained without the
consent of those affected Although routinely referred
to in anodyne terms as data or retained data, this vast
store of private information touches every aspect of an
individuals private and professional communications
profile over a lengthy period.

By providing for universal rather than


targeted surveillance the system falls at
the first hurdle
Despite the intrusiveness of this system, Murray found
that in almost every regard it fails to meet standards
articulated in a number of recent judgments by the
European Court of Human Rights and the European
Court of Justice.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
Some of the main problems can be summarised. By
providing for universal rather than targeted surveillance
the system falls at the first hurdle: the report noted that
European case law effectively sweeps the ground from
under wholly indiscriminate mass surveillance schemes
of the kind established by the 2011 Act.
In the same way, the report found that Irish law fails to
meet European standards by allowing for
communications data to be accessed based purely on
internal procedures within An Garda Sochna, without
any court approval and without any protections for
journalists sources. Even the basic matter of keeping
this sensitive data secure was flunked: according to the
report the approach to data security [under the 2011
Act] can, at best, be described as nonchalant.
Indeed, in a remarkable postscript, Murray said that
because many of the features of the [2011 Act] are
precluded by EU law, State agencies should consider
whether they should continue to access data pending
the final resolution of issues pertaining to the status of
the Act and/or any amending legislation conforming
with EU law and obligations under the ECHR.
Translated from the polite language of the judiciary, this
is a strong warning that Irish law is so deficient that it is
dangerous to rely on it any further.
Scandalous lag
The report was delivered to the Department of Justice in
April this year and its tone and implications clearly
spurred urgent action in the following months.
Alongside the report, the Minister has published a
general scheme of a Bill to replace the 2011 Act, which
addresses most (though not all) of the criticisms made
by the former chief justice.
While the Minister must be commended for producing a
draft Bill that genuinely engages with privacy issues, it is
scandalous that it has taken this long to do so. The
department has sought to spin its actions as a response
to recent evolving case law coming from Europe. It is
true that the European courts have become stronger on
privacy issues in recent years, particularly after the
Snowden revelations, but the reality is that the
fundamental rights problems with data retention
schemes have been clear for over a decade.
Irish journalists and citizens have been
exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of
illegally obtained evidence
In 2005 the civil rights group Digital Rights Ireland
started High Court proceedings challenging Irish and
European data retention laws; in 2010 the High Court
agreed that the case raised important constitutional
issues; in 2014 Digital Rights Ireland succeeded in part
of that case before the European Court of Justice; and
the case has since returned to the High Court for a full
hearing. Each of these developments should have
prompted reform; instead, successive ministers
including Dermot Ahern, Alan Shatter and Frances
Fitzgerald adopted the ostrich position.
The result of this delay is that Irish journalists and
citizens have been exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of illegally obtained
evidence. Unfortunately it is possible that claims for
damages may be brought against the State and
convictions may be overturned as a result. If so, the
blame for this will lie squarely with the Department of
Justice and successive ministers.
Dr TJ McIntyre is a lecturer in the UCD
Sutherland School of Law, solicitor with FP
Logue Solicitors and chair of Digital Rights
Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-s-approach-to-data-
privacy-is-a-national-scandal-1.3246055

Former Irish Chief Justice


slams data retention as mass
surveillance and threat to
fundamental rights
On the plus side, at least Irish authorities will have to get juridical approval to
access retained data under proposed government amendments.
By Chris Duckett | October 4, 2017
Former Chief Justice of Ireland John L Murray has warned that retained
telecommunications data poses a threat to "fundamental rights and
freedoms" in a searing report [PDF] released on Tuesday alongside
proposed amendments by the government to Ireland's data retention
laws.
Murray said Ireland's data retention system touches every aspect of a
person's communications profile for a lengthy period of time.

"[Data retention] establishes a form of mass surveillance of virtually the


entire population of the state, involving the retention and storage of
historic data, other than actual content, pertaining to every electronic
communication, in any form, made by anyone and everyone at any time,"
he wrote.

"A vast amount of private information pertaining to the personal


communications of virtually everyone in the state is now retained without
the consent of those affected in databases maintained by each private
service provider in fulfillment of its statutory obligations."

Ireland's data retention regime, enacted in 2011, mandates that data


related to phone calls, text messages, and phone location be kept for two
years and IP addresses for internet connections for one year. Due to a
decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) striking down a European
Union data retention directive in 2014, Ireland's laws in the area need to be
modified to remain compliant.

The retained data is able to be currently accessed under a disclosure


request by Irish Defence Forces, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners,
the Garda Sochna (Irish Police), the Competition and Consumer
Protection Commission, or anyone with an appropriate court order or
authorisation by the Data Protection Commissioner. The legislation also
allows for individuals to request the data kept on them.

The former chief justice warned that safeguards in place for state
authorities to access retained data could be undermined by those agencies
believing they are entitled to the data if it is deemed useful by them.

"Access to a person's private historical communications data is an intrusion


on their rights and on data which is personal to them," Murray said. "Mere
utility or potential utility is not the test.

"The potential threat to fundamental rights and freedoms arising from the
statutory rights of access to retained data by state investigatory
authorities is especially concerning."

Under proposals released by the Irish Minister for Justice and Equality
Charlie Flanagan on Tuesday, the disclosure of data to the Garda Sochna
and other agencies would only occur after judicial authorisation is
acquired; however, the proposals also allow for the minister to unilaterally
extend the categories of data being retained.

"It is important that Ireland's data retention laws remain robust and are
updated in line with evolving case law coming from the ECJ," Flanagan
said. "The ECJ has identified difficulties with the model that EU member
states use to manage law enforcement access to communications data.

"All EU states will have to have regard to the evolving legislative


landscape, and I want Ireland to be in the vanguard."

UK HOME SECRETARY NOT DETERRED BY FAILING TO UNDERSTAND END-


TO-END ENCRYPTION
UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said that WhatsApp's end-to-end
encryption communication services allow paedophiles and organised
crime groups to operate beyond the reach of the law.

After four militant attacks in Britain killed 36 people this year, senior
ministers have repeatedly demanded internet companies do more to
suppress extremist content and allow access to encrypted
communications.

"I do not accept it is right that companies should allow them and other
criminals to operate beyond the reach of law enforcement," Rudd said.
"We must require the industry to move faster and more aggressively. They
have the resources and there must be greater urgency."

Rudd also called on technology giants such as Facebook , Google,


Microsoft, and Twitter to go further and faster to counter extremist
material.

According to a report by the BBC, Rudd responded to an audience


question on whether she understands end-to-end encryption by stating it
is "so easy" to be patronised in such areas, and that the government would
do its best to understand.

"We will take advice from other people, but I do feel that there is a sea of
criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas who will
automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right," the
BBC reported Rudd as saying.
"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's
helping ... the criminals."

For its part, the tech industry says it wants to help governments remove
extremist or criminal material but also has to balance the demands of state
security with the freedoms enshrined in democratic societies.

Britain's MI5 security service has said it needs access to encrypted


communications to foil attacks. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has pushed for full access to encrypted communications and
devices, but Congress has so far refused.

Australia is currently planning to create a national facial surveillance


database, and has previously said it wants to deny encryption to terrorists.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/former-irish-chief-justice-slams-data-retention-
as-mass-surveillance-and-threat-to-fundamental/

Facial surveillance on the


cards in the name of
Australia's national security
The federal government wants to add state and territory driver's licences to its
database of passport and immigration information to allow authorities to more
quickly identify people.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-is-now-big-business-on-the-dark-
web-and-malware-developers-are-cashing-in/
Former Chief Justice of Ireland John L Murray has warned that retained
telecommunications data poses a threat to "fundamental rights and
freedoms" in a searing report released a proposed amendments by the
government to Ireland's data retention laws.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_Access
_to_Communications_Data.pdf/Files/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_A
ccess_to_Communications_Data.pdf

The Court of Justice declares the Data Retention Directive to be invalid

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-
04/cp140054en.pdf
Google Home
Mini flaw left
smart speaker
recording
everything
Google has released a firmware update
to fix a Home Mini bug that made the
device a privacy threat.
October 11, 2017
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-home-mini-flaw-left-smart-speaker-
recording-everything/
Russakovskii has posted a video on YouTube showing the Home Mini
activating and recording when it detects almost any sound.
Google Home Mini self-triggering
Assistant over and over
Note: the sound is coming from Step Up movie playing nearby (not from the Sonos
speaker next to it). Want to sponsor the next Android Police video? Get in touch:
videosponsor@androidpolice.com.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hQPv6lyFtM
Google Home Mini touch controls
behaving incorrectly

Update

Top touch functionality


We've decided to permanently remove all top touch functionality on Google Home Mini. We made
this decision to avoid any confusion and give you complete peace of mind while using your Mini. The
update will be completely rolled out by end of day October 15, 2017.

The good news is you get the same functionality using your voice.

Say "Ok Google" or "Hey Google" instead of pressing and holding the top of Mini to
start a request.
Say "Ok Google" or "Hey Google <pause/play/stop>" instead of tapping the top of
Mini to control music, alarms, and timers.

Volume control
Mini's volume controls haven't changed. You can still control volume by side touch and voice.

Original issue
The Google Home team is aware of an issue impacting a small number of Google Home Mini devices
that could cause the touch control mechanism to behave incorrectly. We immediately rolled out a
software update on October 7 to mitigate the issue.

Who is affected: People who received an early release Google Home Mini device at recent Made by
Google events. Pre-ordered Google Home Mini purchases arent affected.

My Activity: We take user privacy very seriously. We've removed any activity/queries that were
created by long pressing the top of a Google Home Mini between October 4 and October 7, when the
software update was rolled out. That information will no longer be listed on your My Activity
page. You can also always go to your My Activity page and delete any past activity from your
account.

Next steps: If you're still having issues, please contact Google Home Support at 1-855-971-9121 to
get a replacement Google Home Mini.

https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7550221

Irelands Ex-Chief Justice Calls


Data Retention a Threat
In a report released last Tuesday, former Chief Justice of Ireland John L. Murray
strongly expressed his concerns on the issue of data retention, calling it a threat
to fundamental rights and freedoms.
He explained that it is akin to mass surveillance, since it leaves an individuals
private communications profile vulnerable for a long period of time. This retained
data can be accessed by various government authorities, or anyone with an
appropriate authorization or court order.
The countrys data retention regime was enacted in 2011. It mandates that phone
call data and location, as well as text messages, should be retained for up to 2
years, and 1 year for IP connections.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_Access
_to_Communications_Data.pdf/Files/Review_of_the_Law_on_Retention_of_and_A
ccess_to_Communications_Data.pdf

Irish data law amounts to


mass surveillance, says ex-
chief justice
John Murray says data is retained that could be used to
identify journalists sources
Tue, Oct 3, 2017, 21:54
Sarah Bardon

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan accepted there were difficulties with the
current legislation but denied it was unconstitutional. Photograph: Brian
Lawless/PA Wire
A report by the former chief justice John Murray has
found that current data-retention legislation amounts to
mass surveillance of the entire population of the State.
Mr Murrays 190-page review was published on Tuesday,
recommending a series of changes to the current
statutory framework, which he says is in breach of
European law.
The judge said the Communications (Retention of Data)
Act 2011 involves the retention and storage of historic
data pertaining to all electronic communication.
This includes communication via fixed line and mobile
telephone, internet communication and text messages
and is being done without the consent of those affected.
Mr Justice Murray said the arrangement is universal and
indiscriminate in application and scope. He said it
affects the retention and storage of journalists
communications data.
In relation to journalists, the judge said data pertaining
to the time, date, location, destination and frequency of a
journalists telephone calls is available and can identify
sources.
For example, location data linking a journalists
telephone calls with those of another caller in the vicinity
of, say, Leinster House before or after a sensitive
meeting in which that person was known to have been
involved, might well be thought crucial in this regard,
he said.
Not unconstitutional
Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan accepted there
were difficulties with the current legislation but denied it
was unconstitutional.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
Mr Flanagan said he accepted Mr Murrays
recommendation that the law should be repealed and he
produced the heads of a replacement Bill, which makes
no reference to journalists.
Mr Justice Murray recommended the data of journalists
should not be accessed by any State agency unless he or
she is the subject of a criminal investigation and cannot
be accessed for the purpose of investigating an offence
committed by another person.
That data should only be granted with the permission of
a High Court judge, and the journalist should be notified
of the request and its outcome, he said.

Mr Flanagans new legislation does not accept a number


of recommendations, including the limits to when the
data of a journalist can be accessed.
The Minister said: There may well be situations where
access to data will be required. What the legislation will
do is clearly define what these circumstances are.
The legislation proposes a District Court judge should
have the authority to disclose some data but does agree
notification should be given to a person if their data is
being accessed.
The Bill states a persons metadata, location and
subscription data can be accessed only by certain bodies
if the person is found to be involved in a serious offence
or is posing a serious threat to the State.
Striking a balance
Mr Flanagan said there was a balance to be struck
between a persons right to privacy and the need to
combat serious crime and terrorism.
The report by Mr Justice Murray was sought by the
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald in January 2016 in response
to allegations the Garda Sochna Ombudsman
Commission wrongfully intercepted the phone records of
three journalists.
The Minister stated he was not in a position to detail
how many journalists data had been accessed by
authorised bodies since 2011.
The Murray report also recommended the designation of
a supervisory authority, whether it be the Data
Protection Commission or another independent agency,
to ensure the legislation is not abused.
However this is not accepted by the Minister for Justice
in the new data retention Bill.
Mr Flanagan said overall oversight of the new legislation
will continue to be vested in a serving High Court judge
and with a serving judge of the Circuit Court
independently investigating complaints
Brendan Howlin My complaint to SIPO
regarding use of public funds for Taoiseach's
new communications unit

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-data-law-amounts-to-mass-
surveillance-says-ex-chief-justice-
1.3243354?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

EU Parliament Workshop
on Community Networks
and Telecom Regulation

Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 -
9:00am to 12:00pm
netCommons is proud to announce that it is co-organising
with Commons Network a workshop on Community
Networks at the European Parliament on October 17th,
2017. Here is the programme:
EU Parliament Workshop on
Community Networks and Telecom Regulation
17 October 2017 - 9h00-12h00 Room 5G315
European Parliament - Bt. Altiero Spinelli
60, rue Wiertz - B-1047 - Bruxelles
Community Networks (CNs) are a growing movement of
organizations that operate local communication
infrastructures, most of which give free or affordable access
to the global Internet. There are more than 150 of these
organisations across the EU, currently providing broadband
connectivity to tens of thousants of EU residents. These
networks are operated as a commons: Rather than being
driven by for-profit motives, their key focus is on providing
access to telecommunications while striving for democratic
governance, social inclusion, education, and human rights
with respect to digital technologies.
But despite their stunning achievements, policy-makers at
the national and European levels have so far mostly
neglected their existence and specific regulatory needs.
Worse, regulation is often hampering these initiatives, and
the draft of the European Electronic Communications
Code (EECC) risks worsening the situation. This workshop,
co-sponsored by MEPs Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D) and
Julia Reda (Greens/EFA), will gather CN practicioners,
policy-makers and researchers to discuss the way in which
EU policy can help European CNs thrive.
Due to space constraints, the event is on-invitation only.
9h00-9h15 : Introductory remarks by Miapetra Kumpula-
Natri (MEP, S&D) and Renato Lo Cigno (netCommons)
9h15-10h15 : Assessing the work of Community Networks in
light of EU broadband policy
Chair: Mlanie Dulong de Rosnay (CNRS)
Rural areas - Leandro Navarro (UPC)
Social inclusion - Jurgen Neumann (Freifunk)
Education on ICT & innovation - Leonardo Maccari (Ninux)
Discussant: Alexandre Polvora (European Commission,
Joint Research Centre)
10h15-11h45: Overcoming regulatory hurdles for the
telecom commons
Chair: Flix Trguer (CNRS)
EU broadband policy and CNs - Maria Michalis (University
of Westminster)
Legal liability - Christian Heise (Freifunk)
Landline networks and the commons - Ramon Roca (Guifi)
Amending the EU Code of Telecommunications -
Benjamin Bayart (FFDN)

Discussant: Jos Bov (MEP, Greens/EFA)


11h45-12h00: Closing remarks by Julia Reda (MEP,
Greens/EFA) and David Hammerstein (Commons Network)
https://netcommons.eu/?q=content/eu-parliament-workshop-community-
networks-and-telecom-regulation

State surveillance:
disturbing revelations
Department of Justice has allowed a range of surveillance
practices that are in clear breach of European law
Sat, Oct 7, 2017, 00:05

A report by former chief justice John Murray has found that the State is
operating a system of data-retention that amounts to mass surveillance of the
entire population. Photograph: Pawel Kopczynski/Reuters
The finding by former chief justice John Murray that the
State is operating a system of data-retention that
amounts to mass surveillance of the entire population is
extremely disturbing. His report published this week is a
damning indictment of the Department of Justice for
allowing a range of surveillance practices to develop that
are in clear breach of European law. It is entirely
unacceptable that this situation has arisen, and
successive governments must be held accountable for
allowing it to develop unchecked.
In his 190-page review of the data protection system,
which was presented to the Government in April but
only published on Tuesday, Murray is unequivocal in his
finding that the current statutory framework breaches
European law. The Communications (Retention of Data)
Act, which was passed as recently as 2011, involves the
retention and storage of historic data including fixed-
line and mobile telephone, internet communication and
text messages, and is being done without the consent of
those affected.
Murray discovered that the arrangement is universal and
indiscriminate and, as such, also affects the retention
and storage of journalists communications data. He
pointed out that data relating to the time, date, location,
destination and frequency of a journalists telephone
calls is available and could be used to identify sources.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
The current law forces telephone companies to log
details of everyones communications and store that
information for up to two years. It means that
information relating to the activities of most of the
population is retained without the consent of those
affected, covering private and professional
communications.
The report says that the system, by providing for
universal rather than targeted surveillance, fails to meet
the standards set out in a number of recent judgments
from both the European Court of Justice, which governs
EU law, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Another serious problem is that the law allows
communications data to be accessed by garda without
court approval and without any protections for
journalists sources.

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has moved to


rectify the situation since the report was received by his
department back in April. He has published the general
scheme of a Bill which will replace the 2011 Act, but
while most of the criticisms made by the former chief
justice are covered in the new draft legislation, some of
them have been ignored.
Garda need to have controlled access to
communications data to protect society against
terrorism and organised crime. But there is a need for a
full debate on all the implications of the Murray report
for society as a whole so that the replacement legislation
is fit for purpose and meets the requirements of
European law.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/state-
surveillance-disturbing-revelations-1.3247184
Leaders' Questions
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2017-10-
11a.169&s=available+to+be+appointed#g310
The government know they will not get away with implementing their national ID cards by calliing
them an innocuous sounding "public services card". Yet they are ploughing ahead regardless and
when the chickens eventually come home to roost and they are forced to scrap their ID card project,
WE, the public will be left to foot the bill - as usual. This has all the hallmarks of another Irish Water
type cock-up. Remember the disastrous water meter installation programme and how Fine Gael and
the Labour Party squandered a BILLION Euro? Their meters are now rotting in a hole in the ground,
approaching their expirty date and as useful at tits on a bull. The only winner here was Blueshirt
Commander-in-Chief Denis O'Brien. How much longer will Regina Doherty keep her head buried in
the sand before she and Varadkar and the other wasters in government face up to the reality that they
can NOT introduce a national ID card by stealth, that they can NOT force citizens to hand over
personal information with no protection whatsoever and no regard for data privacy?

Maybe Doherty is trying to waste more of our money that her pal Fat Phil Hogan or her Co Meath
neighbour Noel "E-voting Machines" Dempsey? But just remember Regina - this is not like your
failed business ventures. This is OUR money, so stop wasting millions on your silly ID card and do
something useful .. like providing homes for the 3000 homeless children in hotel rooms.
States approach to data
privacy is a national scandal
So deep are the problems that actions for damages may
be brought and convictions quashed
Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 01:00
TJ McIntyre

In almost every regard the Irish system fails to meet standards articulated in a
number of recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and the
European Court of Justice. Photograph: iStock
Its not every day that a Minister for Justice issues a
report describing their department as operating a
universal, indiscriminate and illegal system of mass
surveillance. Yet that is precisely what happened last
Tuesday with the publication of a damning report by
retired chief justice John Murray, which found that Irish
surveillance practices fail to comply with European law.
The background dates from January 2016, when it
emerged that Gsoc had been accessing journalists phone
records (without a clear legal basis) in order to identify
their sources within An Garda Sochna. In response,
then Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald appointed
the former chief justice to examine the legal framework
around State access to journalists communications data
- a remit he interpreted widely to include the underlying
data retention law.
That law the Communications (Retention of Data) Act
2011 forces telephone companies and ISPs to log
details of everyones communications and movements
and to store that information for up to two years. In
Murrays words it constitutes a form of mass
surveillance of virtually the entire population of the
State, involving the retention and storage of historic
data, other than actual content, pertaining to every
electronic communication, in any form, made by anyone
and everyone at any time In essence this means the
retention of all communication data not going explicitly
to content: in other words, data pertaining to such
matters such as the date, time and location of a
telephone call.
Vast store of personal info
The impact on the privacy of individuals is clear. As the
report puts it, a vast amount of private information
pertaining to the personal communications of virtually
everyone in the State is now retained without the
consent of those affected Although routinely referred
to in anodyne terms as data or retained data, this vast
store of private information touches every aspect of an
individuals private and professional communications
profile over a lengthy period.

By providing for universal rather than


targeted surveillance the system falls at
the first hurdle
Despite the intrusiveness of this system, Murray found
that in almost every regard it fails to meet standards
articulated in a number of recent judgments by the
European Court of Human Rights and the European
Court of Justice.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
Some of the main problems can be summarised. By
providing for universal rather than targeted surveillance
the system falls at the first hurdle: the report noted that
European case law effectively sweeps the ground from
under wholly indiscriminate mass surveillance schemes
of the kind established by the 2011 Act.
In the same way, the report found that Irish law fails to
meet European standards by allowing for
communications data to be accessed based purely on
internal procedures within An Garda Sochna, without
any court approval and without any protections for
journalists sources. Even the basic matter of keeping
this sensitive data secure was flunked: according to the
report the approach to data security [under the 2011
Act] can, at best, be described as nonchalant.
Indeed, in a remarkable postscript, Murray said that
because many of the features of the [2011 Act] are
precluded by EU law, State agencies should consider
whether they should continue to access data pending
the final resolution of issues pertaining to the status of
the Act and/or any amending legislation conforming
with EU law and obligations under the ECHR.
Translated from the polite language of the judiciary, this
is a strong warning that Irish law is so deficient that it is
dangerous to rely on it any further.
Scandalous lag
The report was delivered to the Department of Justice in
April this year and its tone and implications clearly
spurred urgent action in the following months.
Alongside the report, the Minister has published a
general scheme of a Bill to replace the 2011 Act, which
addresses most (though not all) of the criticisms made
by the former chief justice.
While the Minister must be commended for producing a
draft Bill that genuinely engages with privacy issues, it is
scandalous that it has taken this long to do so. The
department has sought to spin its actions as a response
to recent evolving case law coming from Europe. It is
true that the European courts have become stronger on
privacy issues in recent years, particularly after the
Snowden revelations, but the reality is that the
fundamental rights problems with data retention
schemes have been clear for over a decade.
Irish journalists and citizens have been
exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of
illegally obtained evidence
In 2005 the civil rights group Digital Rights Ireland
started High Court proceedings challenging Irish and
European data retention laws; in 2010 the High Court
agreed that the case raised important constitutional
issues; in 2014 Digital Rights Ireland succeeded in part
of that case before the European Court of Justice; and
the case has since returned to the High Court for a full
hearing. Each of these developments should have
prompted reform; instead, successive ministers
including Dermot Ahern, Alan Shatter and Frances
Fitzgerald adopted the ostrich position.
The result of this delay is that Irish journalists and
citizens have been exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of illegally obtained
evidence. Unfortunately it is possible that claims for
damages may be brought against the State and
convictions may be overturned as a result. If so, the
blame for this will lie squarely with the Department of
Justice and successive ministers.
Dr TJ McIntyre is a lecturer in the UCD
Sutherland School of Law, solicitor with FP
Logue Solicitors and chair of Digital Rights
Ireland
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-s-approach-to-data-privacy-is-a-
national-scandal-1.3246055

Ive seldom seen a report so directly contradict the minister who commissioned it.

udge Sofra O'Leary, BCL (University College Dublin), PhD (European University Institute) was
sworn in as a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights in July 2015.
Prior to joining the European Court of Human Rights, Judge OLeary worked for 18 years at the
Court of Justice of the European Union, where she served as a rfrendaire and Chef de cabinet
for Judges Aindrias Caoimh, Fidelma Macken and Federico Mancini. She later ran part of that
Courts Research Directorate.

Judge OLeary has been a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges for many years
where she has taught LLM courses on EU law and the individual, EU Social Law and Policy and
now a judicial workshop.

She has, in recent years, been a member of the Editorial Board of the Common Market Law
Review and is now a member of both its Advisory Board and the Board of the Irish Centre for
European Law. In 2016 she was elected an Honorary Bencher of the Honorable Society of Kings
Inns.

Before joining the Court of Justice of the European Union, Siofra OLeary was the Assistant
Director for the Centre of European Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of
Emmanuel College. She was previously a Visiting Fellow at the Faculty of Law, University
College Dublin, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Cdiz, Spain and a Research Associate
at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.

She is the author of two books entitled The Evolving Concept of Community Citizenship (Kluwer,
1996) and Employment Law at the European Court of Justice (Hart Publishing, 2001) and has
published extensively in academic journals and monographs on the protection of fundamental
rights, EU employment law, the free movement of persons and services and EU citizenship.

http://www.ucd.ie/law/newsandevents/events/walshlecture2017/

Public Meeting on Public Sector Cards and Biometric Database - 11am 11 Oct

Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Ireland will be hosting a public meeting on the
introduction of public service cards and the national biometric database. The meeting will take
place between 11am 1pm on Wednesday, 11th October 2017 at Buswells Hotel,
Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.

The meeting is aimed at drawing together leading experts from Ireland and abroad with a view
to identifying the key human rights issues arising from the introduction of the Public Service
Card scheme. Through a set of panel discussions, participants will be encouraged to agree on
the steps required to advance the protection of these human rights.

Karlin Lillington, journalist with The Irish Times will chair the meeting and panel speakers will
include:
Simon McGarr McGarr Solicitors
Dr TJ McIntyre University College Dublin and Digital Rights Ireland
Dr Maria Murphy Irish Council for Civil Liberties
Dr Tom Fisher Privacy International
Dr John Welford NO2ID
Elizabeth Farries International Network of Civil Liberties Organisations

Further details and information about the Irish Council for Civil Liberties are available here.

Registration for this is event is free, but places are limited and we request anyone
interested to please contact Roisin Giles at ICCL at info@iccl.ie

For Press Queries contact: David ODonnell, DHR Communications, Tel: 01-4200580 /
086-1081139

Monday, March 30, 2015

Two data retention cases pose questions for three


Ministers for Justice
Two cases have now been brought in Ireland seeking to take advantage of
the Digital Rights Ireland decision from the European Court of Justice in order to
exclude evidence in criminal trials. First, a case stated in the prosecution of a
detective garda alleged to have given false information to GSOC; second,
a challenge brought by convicted murderer Graham Dwyer - commenced in
January but made public only on his conviction last week.

Given how central internet and phone evidence is to many prosecutions, the only
surprise is that it's taken this long for these challenges to be brought and no
doubt more will come. Unfortunately it is possible that at least some convictions
will be overturned as a result - and the blame for this will lie squarely with the
Department of Justice and successive ministers.

Ministers Dermot Ahern, Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald in particular have
questions to answer.

Dermot Ahern knew in 2011 that data retention was on very shaky ground. By
then data retention laws had been struck down in Bulgaria (2008), Romania
(2009) and Germany (2010) - and the Irish challenge was pending before the
High Court which had decided that the case raised "important constitutional
questions". At this point the Irish law should have been reformed to provide
for data preservation and include adequate safeguards identified by those cases,
such as a requirement for a judge to approve access to data. Instead the law
adopted in 2011 was equally flawed.

Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald are equally if not more at fault. It was clear
from the Advocate General's opinion in December 2013 that the Data Retention
Directive would be struck down. But instead of replacing the
2011 law implementing the Directive both ministers adopted the ostrich position.
There has been nothing but radio silence from the Minister for Justice since the
Data Retention Directive was invalidated just under a year ago. It may be that she
hopes by ignoring the problem it will go away. But by doing so she is only
ensuring that many more prosecutions and convictions will be put at risk. As I
previously predicted, "by continuing to keep its head in the sand the State is only
storing up problems for the future".
Thoughts on the new Data Retention Bill
a judge to approve access to data. Instead the law adopted in 2011 was equally
flawed.
The Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009, published last week, has caused a bit of a stir
in this mornings newspapers. It will give effect to EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC of 15
March 2006 (blogged here) which recentlysurvived challenge by the Irish Government in
the European Court of Justice, and it will replace the radically misconceived and deeply flawed
stop-gap Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005 (also here) (blogged here).

In essence, the Bill requires telecommunications companies, internet service providers, and
the like, to retain data about communications (though not the content of the communications);
phone and mobile traffic data have to be retained for 2 years; internet communications have
to be retained for one year. This is better than it could have been, in that the Directive would
have allowed 2 years for all traffic data; but it is a lot worse than the minimum of 6 months
allowed by the Directive. This will impose significant costs on those obliged to retain and
secure the data, and those costs will be passed on to their already hard-pressed customers.
And it is likely to drive international telecommunications and internet companies to European
states which have introduced far less demanding regimes.

Traffic data retention (like any example of pre-emptive and widespread surveillance) is simply
a bad idea; it is a massive invasion of privacy; it is founded on the illiberal and anti-democratic
suspicion that someone somewhere might be doing something; and it is not good enough to
reply that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance. As the
prolific and challenging AC Grayling argues in his new book Liberty in the Age of Terror: A
Defence of Civil Society and Enlightenment Values (Bloomsbury, 2009; reviewed by The
Economist here), this pernicious assertion is one of the most seductive betrayals of liberty

imaginable; it assumes that


the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere
with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in
mission creep, with more and more uses to put their new powers and
capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or
views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which
people can be placed under suspicionand so considerably on.
The concerns might be met by strong protections coupled with meaningful oversight, but the
Bill is worryingly bereft on this score. Although it imposes obligations to retain data, and to
maintain it secure, and to prevent unauthorised access to data, it does not provide any
redress to someone whose data is retained insecurely or accessed without authorisation; and
the Data Protection Acts, 1988 (also here) and 2003 (also here) are inadequate to cope (for
example, they would provide no criminal sanction for the News of the Worlds recently-
disclosed shenanigans). Worse than that, large-scale databases are peculiarly vulnerable to
attack an investigation by More4 News for Channel 4 reported last week (in a story that should
give some pause to those planning a system to trace patients for Ireland) that more than 8,000

dangerous viruses have infected NHS computers in the last year, overloading networks, and
massively compromising large amounts of personal data.
It is appropriate to restrict individual privacy provided that there is a good reason to do so,
and the restrictions do not good too far. In the context of this Bill, the prevention of crime is a
good reason, but the restrictions seem to go very far indeed, especially in the absence of
proper protections and oversight. In S and Marper v UK 30562/04 [2008] ECHR 1581 (4

December 2008) one of the reasons given by the European Court of Human Rights for
holding that the UKs retention of innocent peoples DNA records on a criminal register
infringed their right to privacy was the lack of sufficiently strong safeguards. I am a Director
of Digital Rights Ireland; this is one aspect of our ongoing challenge to Irelands data retention

regime; and this flawed Bill does nothing to alleviate these concerns.
(Cross-posted from Eoin ODells blog, cearta.ie)
https://www.digitalrights.ie/thoughts-on-the-new-data-retention-bill/

Is the Public Services Card Mandatory


to access state services?
29 AUG 2017 DRI ID CARDS 0
Over the last week there has been much controversy over the decision
of the Department of Social Protection that the Public Services Card is
mandatory. It is mandatory, they say, not only to claim a social welfare
benefit, but to access any number of state services. In practice, this
means that to be an active, participating member of Irish society, you
would have to have this card.
We have been contacted by a number of people with concerns about
this issue, including a woman in her seventies who has had her pension
cut off because the Department demanded she enrol in the Public
Services Card scheme but refused. She asked that she be furnished
with clear documentation providing for the scheme being mandatory.
The Department failed to do this. Not only has her pension been cut off,
but she has been told that even if she accepts the card tomorrow, she
will not be allowed the pension payments she has accrued during the
period of non-payment. Whatever the legal situation might be, this
seems very heavy-handed way to treat a senior citizen. It does not
inspire trust or respect.
The Department of Social Protection feels that one particular section of
the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended) justifies its
policy. However, from our investigations, this section has a very
different and important purpose but has basically nothing to do with the
Public Services Card and does not in fact refer to the Public Services
Card at all.
At the outset, it has to be said that this law in relation to the Public
Services Card and the related Public Services Identity is spread out
over a number of different Acts. This makes the legislative framework
difficult to understand.
The Department claims to rely on Section 247C (which was introduced
by way of an amendment in 2013). The section is entitled
Disqualification from receipt of benefit where identity not
authenticated. The section provides for very reasonable measures in
connection with the prevention of social welfare personation fraud. It
allows the Department to ensure that social welfare benefits are only
paid to people that are entitled to them.
It is worth making the following specific notes about the section.
Firstly, the section indicates that the Minister (which in practice means
staff of the department) may do various things. This means that it is
something the Minister may do, not something the Minister must do.
The clear intent of the section is to prevent fraud, not to force people
whose identity is well known to the Department to register for a card
they dont need and dont want. As with all statutory discretions it must
be exercised reasonably and proportionally. It should not and cannot be
used as a blanket policy for the entire population. This would amount to
an unlawful fettering of discretion. Subsection (5) further highlights the
fact that the authentication process is not the exclusive means of
authentication and is intended for use with reasonable discretion. It is
not intended as a one size fits all.
Section 247 appears to have no relevance whatsoever for situations
other than social welfare claims.
Section 247C(3)(b) provides for a requirement for the social welfare
claimant to provide a document to prove that they are who they say they
are. This is not the same as a requirement to create or consent to
creation of a document like the Public Services Card.
Section 247C(3)(c) provides for a photograph to be taken for
authentication. The purpose of this photograph is solely for use for
authentication by the Minister, i..e, for use by the Department of Social
Protection only. It does not provide for other government departments to
use it for unrelated functions. This is at odds with the clear intent of the
Public Service Card and the Public Service Identity which is intended for
a wide range of uses by any number of government agencies.
Section 247C(4) allows for the Minister to retain the photo and this is
obviously required so that the next time the claimant visits the social
welfare office, the photograph can be used to check that the claimant is
the same person as was authenticated previously. However it does not
provide for the Minister to share the photo with other Departments or to
put it on the Public Services Card. Because the section has a clear and
limited intent, it is very hard to see how some wider meaning could be
inferred.
There is of course other legislation which provides for the Public
Services Card. However this legislation is not tied to Section 247C in
any direct or meaningful way. Section 263 of the Same Act gives the
Minister discretion to issue a card. But it does not provide that the
Minister must give everybody a card, nor does it require every person to
accept such a card. The clear sense of the section in its original context
is that it allows for the Minister to issue the card to anybody who wants
it. The section does not give the Department or the Minister the
automatic right to use a photograph that is on file for the purposes of
247C, a section that was not even envisaged when Section 263 was
enacted in 2005 to create a card. The original Public Services Card
envisaged by S 263 is quite different from todays, in that it did not
provide for a photo to be included. (What is envisaged was something
more like the Danish sundhedskort, a simple plastic card with the
name and identification number printed thereon. This was later
amended to include the possibility of a photograph at a later stage.)
Section 263(3) does provide for a government body to demand
production of the card where it is required for a transaction. Obviously,
this can only be invoked where a card has been lawfully issued. A PSC
cannot rationally be demanded from a person who does not have one.
(And obviously, a PSC as envisaged by section 263(c) is assumed to
have been lawfully created. A card and database created using
biometric data that was collected without a proper legal basis, or was
not collected with consent, or was collected from people who mistakenly
believed the collection was mandatory has a very weak legal basis
indeed.)
Subsection (5) of 247C reinforces the point, making clear that this is a
matter for discretion. The Minister is not required to put all DSP
claimants through this fraud-prevention process. The Minister is
obviously expected to use this act with discretion for the purpose which
is intended, i.e., to disqualify people who are claiming benefits where
they have not satisfied the Departments officials that they are entitled to
them.
Section 247C has a clear purpose and that is why the Oireachtas
provided for it. They didnt intend for it to be used to pursue pensioners
who do not want the card and have no use for it, and who already have
good identification in the form of a passport. It should not be used to
pursue people who are already well known and who have vouched for
their identity in order to pursue a project that only has a very thin
legislative basis.
If the Oireachtas had intended to make the Public Services Card
mandatory, or intended that every citizens photograph be stored on a
central registry accessible by all government bodies, it is not
unreasonable to think that it would have clearly provided for that in the
original legislation. The repealed National Identity Cards Act (2006)
gives you a clear idea what you would expect legislation for such a card
to look like. It provides in detail for the card being compulsory, the
means of registration and the procedure where a person fails to be
registered.
It is worth adding that there is no particular law requiring that you get a
PSC before you can get a driving licence or passport. This requirement
has been put in place through administrative fiat rather than through
any legislative process. The administrative fiat does not seem
altogether reasonable why insist on such a card, if there is another
satisfactory means for the citizen to affirm his or her identity? If the
collection of the data does not provide a proper foundation for the
Department to share data with these other bodies, the sharing of data
with other bodies is clearly legally problematic.
If we are to have a national identity card, we should have the proper
legislation and the proper safeguards. This is critical if we are to have
trust in and respect for our institutions. There should be no doubt what
the proposed identity card is for or how it is to be operated or to what
extent it is mandatory. This will require a proper investigation of the
matter and a proper debate on the issues.
Note: updated at 2017-08-29 17:31 to clarify situation in relation to
Section 263(3), at 17:44 to clarify situation in relation to the requirement
to hold a card, at 17:55 change to link and explication re UK Identity
Cards Act, and fix to incorrect numbering referring to 263(3); 21:55 to
clarify that 263 was amended.

https://www.digitalrights.ie/public-services-card-mandatory-access-
state-services/

Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Public Services Card. However


this legislation is not tied to Section 247C in any direct or meaningful
way. Section 263 of the Same Act

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/26/enacted/en/pdf

Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013


The Department claims to rely on Section 247C (which was introduced by way
of an amendment in 2013). The section is entitled Disqualification from
receipt of benefit where identity not authenticated.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/20/enacted/en/pdf

Submissions on the Data Protection


Bill
06 JUL 2017 DRI DATA PROTECTION, PRIVACY

What will future Irish data protection law look like? Many of the
decisions have already been made in Brussels and Strasbourg, but the
EU General Data Protection Regulation still leaves quite a bit of
discretion to individual Member States. The Department of Justice and
Equality has just published a draft Heads of Bill giving effect to aspects
of the GDPR,

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General_Scheme_of_Data_Protection_Bil
l_(May_2017).pdf/Files/General_Scheme_of_Data_Protection_Bill_(Ma
y_2017).pdf

and it is currently undergoing scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint


Committee on Justice and Equality. DRI was represented before the
Committee at a public hearing yesterday by TJ McIntyre and Simon
McGarr, and a summary of the submissions we made are set out in the
post below.
Introduction
Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) is grateful to the Committee for the
opportunity to make submissions in relation to the Heads of Bill. DRI is
the only Irish civil liberties group focusing on issues of technology and
fundamental rights and has extensive experience in the area of privacy
and data protection. DRI was the lead plaintiff in the judgment of the
European Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and
Others which invalidated the Data Retention Directive, was an amicus
curiae in Schrems , which found the Safe Harbor decision on data
transfers to the United States to be invalid, and was an amicus curiae in
Microsoft v. United States, which prohibited extraterritorial access by
the US Government to emails stored in Ireland. DRI continues to bring
litigation in this area, including an ongoing High Court challenge to Irish
data retention laws.
Structure of the Bill
Head 5 states that:
Article 2 (Material scope) of the GDPR provides that its
provisions do not apply to processing of personal data
in the course of activities that lie outside the scope of EU
law (e.g. national security) and those falling under the
common foreign and security policy. Discussions are
continuing on the question of whether and, if so, to
what extent, provisions in the 1988 and 2003 Acts may
need to be retained.
DRI shares the concerns expressed in previous testimony by the Data
Protection Commissioner and Dr. Denis Kelleher that retaining portions
of the earlier acts will result in a complicated and confusing patchwork
of laws in this area. If the earlier acts are not repealed, researching
some issues (particularly at the boundaries between public and private
processing of data) will require piecing together the GDPR itself, the
1988, 2003 and 2018 Acts, as well as any relevant statutory
instruments. This is entirely at odds with making the law accessible to
the public.
While there are still a number of areas covered by Convention 108
which fall outside the scope of the GDPR in particular, as Convention
108 applies to automated personal data files in the public sector
generally these areas are now considerably reduced as compared to
the previous position under the Data Protection Directive and will
require less work to identify and provide for. This is something which will
have to take place in the relatively near future in any event, as the
process for modernising Convention 108 (including aligning it to the
GDPR) nears its conclusion.
DRI recommends that the 1988 and 2003 Acts be repealed, with those
issues falling outside the scope of the GDPR included in a new,
standalone, bill to parallel, as far as possible, the GDPR. This repeal
and re-enactment should not undermine the additional rights provided
for by those acts.
DRI also recommends that consideration be given to carving out Part 4
of the Bill and enacting it as a standalone bill. As a practical matter,
including Part 4 in the Bill is likely to lead to confusion between the
similar but distinct systems which will apply under the GDPR and the
Law Enforcement Data Protection Directive. Readers without a legal
background may be confused by the many sections which might appear
to implement the GDPR, but in fact are limited to the law enforcement
context. Indeed, this may even trip up readers with a legal background.
For example, Head 20 provides for national security restrictions to be
made by ministerial regulation (in the context of the GDPR); however
national security is defined only in Head 26 (in the context of the
Directive) inviting blurring of the boundaries between the two parts.
Treating Part 4 as a separate bill would help to clarify the scope of
these provisions.
Representing Data Subjects
Article 80 GDPR provides for data subjects to be assisted in enforcing
their rights by not-for-profit bodies. To explain why this is necessary, it
may be helpful to refer to recently published research which examines
how data protection law has been undermined by practices making it
impossible for the average citizen to enforce their rights. For example,
in relation to subject access requests it found that:
To exercise their rights, citizens are faced with an
obstacle course: just to get to the starting line they need
to traverse a number of hurdles before they can exercise
their rights, many fall at the first hurdle because they
cannot even locate the legal entity to whom they must
make the request. Some fall at the second hurdle, when
they are authoritatively, but incorrectly, told that they
do not have the right. Those who manage to proceed
may still give up before the next, as they are worn out
by delays and administrative inefficiencies. But even
those who make it to the starting line and successfully
manage to submit a subject access request, are still
unlikely to know what data is collected about them,
with whom it is shared and how it is processed the
whole range of informal practices, situational
understanding, and non-legal norms come in to play to
systematically discourage and thwart data subjects in
successfully gaining access to their data and
information about how it is processed and shared.
Article 80 GDPR helps to remedy this power imbalance by permitting
qualified not-for-profit bodies (such as consumer rights organisations,
civil rights groups, or trade unions) to act on behalf of the data subject.
It provides that:
1. The data subject shall have the right to mandate a
not-for-profit body, organisation or association which
has been properly constituted in accordance with the
law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which
are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the
protection of data subjects rights and freedoms with
regard to the protection of their personal data to lodge
the complaint on his or her behalf, to exercise the rights
referred to in Articles 77 [right to lodge a complaint], 78
[right to an effective judicial remedy against a
supervisory authority] and 79 [right to an effective
judicial remedy against a controller or processor] on
his or her behalf, and to exercise the right to receive
compensation referred to in Article 82 on his or her
behalf where provided for by Member State law.
2. Member States may provide that any body,
organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1
of this Article, independently of a data subjects
mandate, has the right to lodge, in that Member State, a
complaint with the supervisory authority which is
competent pursuant to Article 77 and to exercise the
rights referred to in Articles 78 and 79 if it considers
that the rights of a data subject under this Regulation
have been infringed as a result of the processing.
To summarise, Article 80 has mandatory and discretionary parts:
Member States must give effect to the data subjects right to mandate
a non-profit to lodge complaints with a data protection authority and
seek a judicial remedy (such as an order that data be destroyed)
against a controller or processor.
Member States may provide that a non-profit can seek compensation
(damages) on behalf of a data subject.
Member States may provide that a non-profit can, of its own accord,
lodge a complaint with a data protection authority and seek a judicial
remedy (such as an order that data be destroyed) against a controller or
processor.
These Heads of Bill, however, fail to give effect to either of these two
discretionary parts of Article 80, without any explanation as to why this
narrow approach was chosen. This will both undermine fundamental
rights and lead to practical problems. In particular:
The ability of non-profits to assist individuals by bringing claims on
their behalf is hampered by the fact that non-profits will not be able to
seek compensation for those individuals. This creates a perverse
incentive those who are most harmed by an illegal practice will be the
least able to ask a non-profit to bring an action on their behalf, as by
doing so they will not be able to receive compensation. Instead they will
have to bring a claim themselves, if they have the knowledge to do so,
can afford to do so and can risk the legal costs involved.
A knock-on effect is that this will lead to an increased number of cases
before the courts, in a way which will be unmanageable for any large
scale data protection breaches given the lack of any general provision
for class-actions in Irish law.
The failure to allow non-profits to bring complaints of their own accord
means that illegal practices will go unchallenged unless a particular
victim is identified and willing to step forward. This is a particular
problem in areas of sensitive personal data where a complaint may be
embarrassing, humiliating or even dangerous.
The need for non-profits to be able to bring complaints of their own
accord has been recognised in our own litigation. In Digital Rights
Ireland Ltd v. The Minister for Communication, Marine and Natural
Resources & Ors. the High Court granted locus standi to DRI to
challenge data retention laws on behalf of the wider population on the
basis that the privacy interests affected by those laws were of great
importance to the public at large and without a representative action it
is unlikely that any given mobile communications user would bring the
case, given the costs that would be associated with any such
challenge. It is unfortunate that this point has been ignored in the
drafting of the Heads of Bill.
DRI recommends that the Heads of Bill be amended to provide that a
data subject can mandate a properly qualified not-for-profit body to seek
compensation on his/her behalf.
DRI recommends that the Heads of Bill be amended to provide that a
properly qualified not-for-profit body shall have the right to lodge a
complaint or seek an injunction against a controller/processor if it
considers that the rights of a data subject have been infringed.
Head 20 Restrictions on exercise of data subject rights
It seems to DRI that Head 20(1) by providing a largely open-ended
power to any Minister to make regulations in any area restricting any
data subject rights on the basis of any important objectives of general
public interest is extremely problematic.
As a matter of national law, Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oilina
[1980] IR 381 has established the well known test that to comply with
Article 15.2 of the Constitution any delegated legislative power must not
go further than filling in the details of principles and policies already
articulated in the parent statute. In this case, however, Head 20
provides for the restriction of data subject rights on the basis of an
intentionally non-exhaustive list which includes any important
objectives of general public interest. It is difficult to see that this open-
ended power meets the domestic constitutional requirements of Article
15.2, even before considering its compatibility with EU law.
Indeed, Head 20 is circular subhead 1 provides that regulations may
be made to protect important objectives of general public interest
referred to in subhead 2 while subhead 2 provides that [i]mportant
objectives of general public interest include (s) such other important
objectives of general public interest as may be prescribed in
regulations made in accordance with subhead 1. In effect, regulations
may be made to define a general public interest which then provides the
legal basis for making those same regulations. [Note that there is a typo
here subhead 2(s) appears twice on p.36 of the General Scheme.]
The Explanatory Notes at p.27 of the General Scheme acknowledge
that it would be desirable for all Departments to consider the need for
specific amendments to primary legislation; however in the view of DRI
the need for specific amendments goes beyond being merely desirable
and is necessary for there to be a sufficient legal basis for regulations
restricting data subject rights, bearing in mind that such rights are not
merely legislative but are protected under Article 8 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights.
DRI recommends that, where necessary, specific statutory powers
should be put in place to make regulations restricting data subject
rights, and that Head 20(1) should be deleted.
DRI recommends that in the event Head 20(1) is retained, it should be
modified to ensure that the power to make regulations under this
section is a residual one, to be used only where there is no other
specific statutory power (to avoid evasion of restrictions which might
apply under those other powers) and subject to additional safeguards
such as a requirement of a positive resolution of both Houses of the
Oireachtas before the regulations come into force, a sunset clause
limiting the duration of Head 20(1) to a transitional period following the
adoption of the Act, or a sunset clause limiting the duration of
regulations made under this provision.
Remedies in the case of retaliation against Data Protection
Officers
The GDPR recognises that Data Protection Officers (DPOs) are placed
in a difficult position where they must act independently of their
employer and Article 38(3) provides that the DPO shall not be
dismissed or penalised by the controller or the processor for performing
his tasks.
The GDPR does not, however, provide any specific remedy for a DPO
who is dismissed on this basis.
It is likely that an Irish court would treat the retaliatory dismissal of a
DPO as breaching an implied term in the contract of employment,
entitling the DPO to bring an action for wrongful dismissal in the courts.
However, such actions are slow, difficult and risky for individual
plaintiffs, particularly as it exposes them to the risk of significant legal
costs against them.
It would be desirable to enable DPOs who have been dismissed to
make a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts
19772015, enabling them to use the (comparatively) streamlined and
low cost procedure of a complaint to the Workplace Relations
Commission. There is precedent for doing this in section 11 of the
Protected Disclosures Act 2014, under which a dismissal for making a
protected disclosure is automatically treated as unfair. Indeed, this may
already apply to some dismissal of DPOs for example, where a DPO
is dismissed for providing information to the Data Protection
Commission.
DRI recommends that dismissal of a DPO contrary to Article 38(3)
GDPR be included as a ground for unfair dismissal under the Unfair
Dismissals Acts 19772015.
https://www.digitalrights.ie/submissions-on-the-data-protection-bill/

State on collision course


with EU court over data
sharing
Final submission to Oireachtas committee on proposed
Bill to implement EU regulation
Wed, Jul 5, 2017, 14:21
Elaine Edwards
An example of the public services card.
The State appears to be on a collision course with
European law over its handling of major projects
involving personal data, an Oireachtas committee has
heard.
Pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Data
Protection Bill 2017 concluded at the Joint Committee
on Justice and Equality on Wednesday.
The proposed legislation must be in place by May next
year to give effect to the new European Union general
data protection regulation and an associated directive on
sharing data for law-enforcement purposes.
Legal experts have been making submissions to the
committee over several sessions with a view to shaping
the draft legislation. The office of the Data Protection
Commissioner has also given its views.
Law lecturer and chair of Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) Dr
TJ McIntyre, and the organisations solicitor Simon
McGarr appeared before the committee on Wednesday.
Views
Independents 4 Change TD Mick Wallace asked the
delegations views on a number of issues, including
oversight of state surveillance, and the rollout of the
public services card project here.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
He also asked if the new legislation squared with the
ongoing health identifiers project being rolled out by the
Health Service Executive, which will assign each citizen a
number that will track them from birth to death.
Mr McGarr said the card needed to be considered as part
of the wider question of judgment by the Court of Justice
of the European Union, known as the Bara judgment.
In that 2015 case, the Romanian government was found
to have acted unlawfully by transferring a citizens
personal data from one public body to another without
notifying the citizen first.
Mr McGarr said the State had taken a lot of concrete
steps in recent years to build not merely an ID database,
of which the public services card was merely the physical
manifestation, but also to build a series of national
databases.

If it was the case that the legislation underpinning the


health identifiers did not comply with European law
following the Bara judgment, every single resident of the
State would have a claim on the State if their rights had
been breached, even if they had suffered no financial
loss.
Fines
I think that the risk that the IHI [Individual Health
Identifier] database poses to the exchequer and also
again to the relationship of trust between the State and
its citizens is such that it would be very valuable for the
matter to come under extremely close scrutiny between
now and the implementation of the GDPR [General Data
Protection Regulation] in May 2018, Mr McGarr said.
Independents 4 Change TD Clare Daly said she believed
Mr McGarrs comments were a polite way of saying:
Were on a collision course really and were out of kilter
with the rest of Europe on some of these issues.
DRI shared concerns also voiced by the Data Protection
Commissioner that the proposed Bill would seek to
exempt public bodies from substantial fines provided for
in the regulation.
It suggested explicit recognition of the right to
compensation for both material and non-material
damages should be written into the Bill, and also said the
Government should implement an option that would
allow individuals nominate not-for-profit bodies to take
a single action on their behalf where their data had been
abused.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/state-on-collision-course-with-eu-court-over-
data-sharing-1.3144218

Garda will keep accessing details despite warnings


Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Cormac OKeeffe and Fiachra Cionnaith
Garda are set to continue accessing communication data of individuals
despite warnings in the Murray report about the dangers of breaching
EU law.
As Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan admitted garda will continue in
certain circumstances to seek traffic data from service providers, legal
expert TJ McIntyre said they were storing up problems, including
convictions being possibly overturned and legal actions being taken by
individuals.
In his 190-page report, Mr Justice John Murray said that much of the
data retention system in Ireland was precluded by EU law.
He said consideration should be given to the extent that, if at all,
statutory bodies should continue to access data under the
Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 pending amending
legislation to conform the system with EU law and the European
Convention on Human Rights.
The former chief justice is very clearly saying that the legal regime is
inadequate and may be storing up problems in the future, for example,
convictions possibly being overturned, actions being taken by
individuals and investigations being pointless, said Mr McIntyre, Chair
of Digital Rights Ireland.
Mr Flanagan said amending legislation would be introduced in the
coming months. Asked if this would prevent the practice from
continuing, he said further cases may be allowed in certain
circumstances.
There may well be certain circumstances where access to data may be
required what this legislation will do will be to clearly define what
those circumstances are, he said.
The Murray report says either a panel of district court judges or a
tribunal must authorise all requests for data and the draft legislation
provides for the judicial option.
The draft Retention of Data Bill 2017 does not include key
recommendations in the report, including the establishment of an
independent monitoring body and special legal protections for
journalists.
The report said: Given the importance attached to the issue by
European law and jurisprudence, national legislation must also provide
for a robust form of monitoring and supervision of service providers by
an independent authority with a clearly defined role and expressly
associated powers and duties. Providing the necessary resources,
including expert personnel, for such effective monitoring and
supervision is essential.
Even though the Murray review was originally tasked by the
Government to examine the laws around accessing journalists traffic
data, the draft scheme contains no specific provisions in relation to
journalists.
This is despite Murray recommending that only a High Court judge deal
with data requests involving journalists as well as other
recommendations, including the prohibition of attempts to identify
sources.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gardai-will-keep-accessing-details-despite-warnings-
460274.html

Former Irish Chief Justice slams data retention as mass surveillance and threat to fundamental
rights
On the plus side, at least Irish authorities will have to get
juridical approval to access retained data under proposed
government amendments.
October 4, 2017
Former Chief Justice of Ireland John L Murray has warned that retained
telecommunications data poses a threat to "fundamental rights and
freedoms" in a searing report [PDF] released on Tuesday alongside
proposed amendments by the government to Ireland's data retention
laws.

Murray said Ireland's data retention system touches every aspect of a


person's communications profile for a lengthy period of time.
"[Data retention] establishes a form of mass surveillance of virtually the
entire population of the state, involving the retention and storage of
historic data, other than actual content, pertaining to every electronic
communication, in any form, made by anyone and everyone at any time,"
he wrote.

"A vast amount of private information pertaining to the personal


communications of virtually everyone in the state is now retained without
the consent of those affected in databases maintained by each private
service provider in fulfillment of its statutory obligations."

Ireland's data retention regime, enacted in 2011, mandates that data


related to phone calls, text messages, and phone location be kept for two
years and IP addresses for internet connections for one year. Due to a
decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) striking down a European
Union data retention directive in 2014, Ireland's laws in the area need to be
modified to remain compliant.

The retained data is able to be currently accessed under a disclosure


request by Irish Defence Forces, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners,
the Garda Sochna (Irish Police), the Competition and Consumer
Protection Commission, or anyone with an appropriate court order or
authorisation by the Data Protection Commissioner. The legislation also
allows for individuals to request the data kept on them.

The former chief justice warned that safeguards in place for state
authorities to access retained data could be undermined by those agencies
believing they are entitled to the data if it is deemed useful by them.

"Access to a person's private historical communications data is an intrusion


on their rights and on data which is personal to them," Murray said. "Mere
utility or potential utility is not the test.

"The potential threat to fundamental rights and freedoms arising from the
statutory rights of access to retained data by state investigatory
authorities is especially concerning."

Under proposals released by the Irish Minister for Justice and Equality
Charlie Flanagan on Tuesday, the disclosure of data to the Garda Sochna
and other agencies would only occur after judicial authorisation is
acquired; however, the proposals also allow for the minister to unilaterally
extend the categories of data being retained.
"It is important that Ireland's data retention laws remain robust and are
updated in line with evolving case law coming from the ECJ," Flanagan
said. "The ECJ has identified difficulties with the model that EU member
states use to manage law enforcement access to communications data.

"All EU states will have to have regard to the evolving legislative


landscape, and I want Ireland to be in the vanguard."

UK HOME SECRETARY NOT DETERRED BY FAILING TO UNDERSTAND END-


TO-END ENCRYPTION
UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said that WhatsApp's end-to-end
encryption communication services allow paedophiles and organised
crime groups to operate beyond the reach of the law.

After four militant attacks in Britain killed 36 people this year, senior
ministers have repeatedly demanded internet companies do more to
suppress extremist content and allow access to encrypted
communications.

"I do not accept it is right that companies should allow them and other
criminals to operate beyond the reach of law enforcement," Rudd said.
"We must require the industry to move faster and more aggressively. They
have the resources and there must be greater urgency."

Rudd also called on technology giants such as Facebook , Google,


Microsoft, and Twitter to go further and faster to counter extremist
material.

According to a report by the BBC, Rudd responded to an audience


question on whether she understands end-to-end encryption by stating it
is "so easy" to be patronised in such areas, and that the government would
do its best to understand.

"We will take advice from other people, but I do feel that there is a sea of
criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas who will
automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right," the
BBC reported Rudd as saying.

"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's
helping ... the criminals."
For its part, the tech industry says it wants to help governments remove
extremist or criminal material but also has to balance the demands of state
security with the freedoms enshrined in democratic societies.

Britain's MI5 security service has said it needs access to encrypted


communications to foil attacks. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has pushed for full access to encrypted communications and
devices, but Congress has so far refused.

Australia is currently planning to create a national facial surveillance


database, and has previously said it wants to deny encryption to terrorists.

Final para of retired Chief Justices Review of


Irish data retention law. Translated from
judicial-ese: This is radioactive. Stop it now.

further use of this law means investigations will fail, convictions will be overturned, and state
exposed to claims.
The bill also ignores this recommendation for an independent monitoring body:
The bill doesnt appear to give special treatment to journalists at all, and the general protections
fall short of the Murray recmndtns.
Particularly troubling is the attempt to put the new retention regime beyond challenge by
keeping secret whats retained and how long.

Dept of Justice site playing up? Here are mirrors of the data retention report and bill:
https://www.docdroid.net/UsyPY4B/general-scheme-communications-retention-of-data-bill.pdf
Unclear whether the Bill at

tempts to extend the retention obligation to e.g. URLs visited:

Heads of Bill give Minister discretion re which data to retain and for how long. This will be the
key battleground:
High Court asks ECJ to
examine Facebook case
Max Schrems case may have huge implications for EU
data privacy rights, says judge
Tue, Oct 3, 2017, 11:08 Updated: Tue, Oct 3, 2017, 14:13
Mary Carolan, Elaine Edwards

A High Court judge has asked the Court of Justice of the


EU (ECJ) to determine the validity or otherwise of
European Commission decisions approving EU-US data
transfer channels used by Facebook and others.
The case has potentially huge implications for billions of
euro worth of trade between the two blocs and the data
privacy rights of millions of EU citizens, as well as their
safety and security, Ms Justice Caroline Costello noted.
Facebook and the US government had opposed the Irish
Data Protection Commissioners application for a
referral but the judge agreed to refer, concurring with
the commissioner that there are well founded grounds
for believing European Commission decisions of 2001,
2004 and 2010 approving data transfer channels known
as Standard Contractual Clauses are invalid.
EU law guarantees a high level of protection to EU
citizens on the processing of their personal data within
the EU. Citizens are entitled to an equivalent high level
of protection when their personal data is transferred
outside the European Economic Area, she said.
The Data Protection Commissioner, Helen Dixon, had
raised well-founded concerns about the absence of an
effective remedy in US law compatible with the
requirements of Article 47 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the EU for an EU citizen whose
data is transferred to the US where it may be at risk of
being accessed and processed by US state agencies for
national security purposes in a manner incompatible
with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.
Having analysed evidence concerning US surveillance
programmes, it is clear there is mass, indiscriminate
processing of data by the US government agencies, she
said.
There were several very significant barriers to
individual EU citizens obtaining any remedy for
unlawful processing of their personal data by US
intelligence agencies. Judicial remedies are few and far
between and certainly not complete or comprehensive.

Ms Justice Costello said the European commissions July


2016 adoption of Privacy Shield with the US accepting
that there is adequate protection for data transferred to
the US under the protocol did not prevent her, as
Facebook and the US had argued, making a referral. The
ombudsman mechanism in the Privacy Shield does not
afford EU citizens judicial protection or eliminate the
data commissioners concerns, she added.
Law student tackling Facebook on privacy
European court rules companies must tell employees of
email checks
Governments and states playing fast and loose with our
data
An ECJ decision was necessary to determine whether the
Data Protection Commissioners exceptional
discretionary power under the 1995 Data Protection
Directive to suspend or ban transfer of data to a data
importer in a non-EU country on the basis of the legal
regime in that country is sufficient to secure the validity
of the Standard Contractual Clauses decisions.
It is important to have uniformity in the application of
the directive throughout the EU and only an ECJ
decision could resolve potential for inconsistent
applications of the directive.
The judge stressed that she was concerned primarily
with the Data Protection Directive and its focus on
whether third country protections for EU citizens data
privacy rights are adequate and involved no decision or
value judgment by her on the merits of data transfer
laws and choices of the EU and US.
Submissions will be made later concerning the precise
wording of questions to be decided by the European
court before the matter is formally referred.
Ms Dixon sought referral after reaching a draft view that
Austrian lawyer Max Schrems had raised well-founded
objections over the transfer of his personal data to the
US.
Mr Schrems complaint in 2013 alleging that the transfer
of his personal data by Facebook Ireland to its US
parent, Facebook Inc, was unlawful under Irish and EU
law previously lead to the High Court referring issues to
the ECJ, resulting in the European court striking down
the previous protocol - Safe Harbour for data
transfers.
Mr Schrems reformulated complaint concerning
transfer to and processing of his data in the US was then
investigated by the Data Protection Commissioner who,
in a draft finding of May 2016, held he had well-founded
objections to his data being transferred based on her
views about the adequacy of remedies available in the US
for EU citizens who allege breach of their data privacy
rights.
The commissioner then took proceedings for a referral,
saying she wanted the ECJ view on the validity of the
Standard Contractual Clauses decisions before she
finalised her decision on Mr Schrems complaint. Her
case was against Facebook Ireland because Facebooks
European headquarters are here and Mr Schrems, but
no orders were sought against them.
The US government, the Business Software Alliance,
Digital Europe and the Washington-based Electronic
Information Privacy Center were joined to the case to
assist the court on legal issues.
Mr Schrems opposed referral, arguing it was
unnecessary and that the commissioner had enough
information to finalise his complaint without it.
Facebook also opposed referral but on different grounds.
It and the US government argued US law, Privacy Shield
and other measures afford adequate protection for data
privacy rights of EU citizens.
Ms Dixon said she hoped the issues would be addressed
by the European court as soon as possible to provide
certainty for data subjects and controllers alike.
Mr Schrems said he was of the view that the standard
contractual clauses were perfectly valid and that the
European Commission decision allowed the
commissioner to suspend individual problematic data
flows, such as Facebooks.
Facebook said it was essential that the ECJ now consider
the extensive evidence demonstrating the robust
protections in place under standard contractual clauses
and US law, before it makes any decision that may
endanger the transfer of data across the Atlantic and
around the globe.

Liability for costs of the substantial case, which ran for


21 days, will be decided later.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/high-court-asks-ecj-to-examine-facebook-case-
1.3242468#.WdeY9Tzz2tw.twitter
As Justice tries to spin today's news, a reminder that every tech firm has concerns about Irish
surveillance laws:
New laws to protect data of citizens
Tuesday, October 03, 2017
By Cormac OKeeffe and Juno McEnroe
Stricter controls and enhanced protection of citizens data and
communications are set to be announced today with the release of the
long-awaited report on the accessing of communication data of
journalists.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan will propose new laws to restrict the
ways garda and other state agencies can monitor citizens
communications, including the type of data they can hold.
Government sources say the long-awaited Murray report into
the accessing of communication data of journalists phones by the Garda
Sochna Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) will be published while the
stricter data laws are also brought to Cabinet.
It is understood changes proposed will look at which firms or groups can
access data as well as the current method whereby applications are
made to a judge to monitor communications.
The 190-page Murray report is expected to highlight concerns about
how garda and other state agencies are obtaining the traffic data of
citizens generally.
The inquiry, conducted by former chief justice John Murray, is also
understood to raise concerns about Irelands adherence to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Legal sources have indicated this could have repercussions for current
and future prosecutions.
Unlike other forms of surveillance in Ireland which require either a
judicial or ministerial authorisation requests by garda, GSOC and
other agencies to access traffic data from mobile phone and internet
companies do not need any external permission.
In January 2016, the Government tasked Mr Justice Murray to conduct
an inquiry after concerns were raised about the legal basis for GSOCs
accessing of journalists phone records in the course of an inquiry.
The Murray report was submitted to the Department of Justice last April
and will be presented to Cabinet today alongside revised detention of
data legislation.
It comes amid growing legal concerns in Ireland about the system,
including submissions from the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission last year.
The Department of Justice said that officials were considering both the
report and legal advice on it.
Communication or traffic data includes extensive details of phone calls
(but not content) as well as use of websites and email.
It is understood the Murray report has expressed concerns about the use
of the power by garda and others and its compliance with the ECHR.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, speaking in Ireland last April,
said access to communication data should require a warrant.
The previous November, the IHREC said, ideally, law enforcement
agencies should have to seek a court order for such information.
In the current issue of the Irish Criminal Law Journal, Shane Kilcommins
and Eimear Stain of the School of Law at the University of Limerick
question the legal basis for GSOCs use of the powers and oversight of
them.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/new-laws-to-protect-data-of-citizens-460177.html
Interestingly, the US seems to be rejecting a number of MLATs on 1st amdt grounds

ECJ ruling on jurisdiction over Internet defamation coming 17th October. The first para of the
AG opinion is superb
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d5315eaf0e8ddd437d8c
bfd08a91e78419.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4PaN8Re0?text=&docid=192713&pageIndex=0&d
oclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=907456

Public Services Card reveals


State ignorance of data
privacy issues
Net Results: Government must be aware of citizen rights
when drafting database plans

The vast majority of politicians still do not understand, in depth or breadth, the
data protection and privacy issues that lie at the heart of a functional,
transparent democracy. Photograph: Pawel Kopczynski/Reuters

Karlin Lillington
Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 06:10

Concern over the now infamous Public Services Card has


been a slow build.
A very slow build.
The card was being discussed in the Dil in 2005 Fine
Gaels Olivia Mitchell asked then minister for social and
family affairs Samus Brennan when such a card might be
introduced. The card was formally launched in 2011.
About 2.8 million people now have one.
As Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection
Regina Doherty noted, the cards are now mandatory but
not compulsory, the difference between the two being
about as thin as the skin of the current US president.
But, as often with privacy issues, it took a real-life case
the major story by my colleague Elaine Edwards regarding
an elderly woman denied social welfare payments because
she refused to get a PSC to make abstract concerns
palpable to the general public.
And more surprisingly and alarmingly to lawmakers
as well.
Finally, a long list of needed questions about the PSC were
tabled by TDs in August and September, after Edwardss
stories. But what took them so long?
The Data Protection Commissioner and her office have
been asking the department for clarifications and
explanations on this scheme, and flagging worries, for a
long time. Most recently was before the Joint Oireachtas
Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform,
and the Taoiseach back in mid-May, during a discussion
on the draft general scheme of data-sharing and
governance Bill.
Sharing data
At that time, Dale Sunderland, deputy commissioner at
the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, noted:
[We] believe there is much greater need for transparency
about what is happening at the moment. A fundamental
part of data protection law is that the individual is fully
aware of what data bodies hold about them, how they are
using it, how they are protecting it and we are not
convinced there is enough transparency into how
Government itself is sharing data and for what purpose it
is being used.
He added: This is a matter which we have raised with the
department and with the Department of Social Protection
in particular, in relation to PPSN and the Public Services
Card.
Only days later, the Government revealed that people
would need to have a PSC in order to get a passport.
Chairman of privacy advocate Digital Rights Ireland TJ
McIntyre warned the PSC increasingly looked like an
identity card by stealth.
He highlighted the giant databases behind the card, the
ability to access and share information across government
departments and potentially, other places, and the
alarming how-long-is-a-piece-of-string approach to what
might go into it.
But Dil discussions and TD questions reveal almost no
one ever considered these obvious privacy, security and
data protection elements.
For a decade, TDs instead raised queries about how
quickly the scheme would be brought in, whether citizens
abroad might have difficulty renewing passports if they
didnt have a PSC, whether a minister could expedite the
PSC application of a constituent, and how much fraud the
cards prevented.
Even during May, when the joint committee meeting was
held, and when the passport issue made headlines, TDs
queried little other than possible passport delays.
Public bodies
To her credit, one of the few TDs probing for answers in
these areas was Galway West independent TD Catherine
Connolly who asked as early as April about the extent to
which other public bodies can authenticate the Public
Service Cards; the regulation involving such data sharing;
the level of privacy involved.
Then minister for social protection Leo Varadkar
responded that to ensure data protection compliance, a
Memorandum of Agreement is signed between each
specified body and my department regarding access to the
departments records and the obligations of the body with
regard to such access.
Except it isnt. According to a Freedom of Information
response received by Elaine Edwards, no such
memorandum exists yet between the Department of
Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the
Department of Foreign Affairs, regarding the exchange of
sensitive passport-related data.
Yet the PSC/passport scheme was implemented five
months ago, and planned long before that. Data protection
and privacy look to be an afterthought.
We still dont know because even the ODPC does not yet
know the full intent of the PSC, what data is being
collected in various departments and agencies for it now
or planned for it in the future, what firm legal grounds
there are for its rollout and use, or why it is supplanting
even a passport as acceptable identification.
What we do know is that the vast majority of politicians
still do not understand, in depth or breadth, the data
protection and privacy issues that lie at the heart of a
functional, transparent democracy.
Yes, journalists have an important role in scrutinising
projects like the PSC and holding politicians and
departments to account.
But lawmakers, across the political spectrum, must ensure
the citizens they represent are better protected by asking
relevant questions, and demanding clear answers, as these
large database schemes are proposed and drafted. Not
after too often, long after alarms are raised.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/public-services-card-reveals-state-ignorance-of-
data-privacy-issues-1.3228069?mode=amp

Fintan SwantonSenior Data Protection Consultant & MD at Cygnus Consulting


3w

The Government has published its legislative programme for Autumn 2017.
Included in the high-priority legislation for publication in the current Dil session is
the Data Protection Bill. What's remarkable is the number of other bills in the
programme which relate to large scale personal data processing, including: *
Criminal Records Information Systems Bill * National Claims Information
Database Bill * Data Sharing and Governance Bill * Communications (Retention
of Data) Bill * Adoption (Information and Tracing) (No. 2) Bill * Cyber Security Bill
* Health Information and Patient Safety Bill * Road Traffic (Master Licence
Record) Bill * Vehicle Registration Data (Automated Searching) Bill
Remarkable no. of bills relating to large scale personal data processing in Dil legislative prog
LEGISLATION PROGRAMME AUTUMN SESSION 2017

https://merrionstreet.ie/en/ImageLibrary/20170919_Legislative_Programme.pdf
PSC is up in Dail next week. Make your TDs
aware and ask them to make contact woth
@DRIalerts on this issue. Right now! Send an
email.
Proposed EU rules on TV & internet will violate free speech. Liberties policy note explains &
offers rights solution

News and Events

Events
o Walsh Lecture 2017
o The Common Law and Brexit: A New Frontier?
o Algorithmic Consumers
o UCD Institute of Criminology Lecture
o Rest Here Installation
o Professional Regulation Workshop
o Human Rights NI Seminar
o Inaugural Lecture Professor James Devenney
o Constitutional Law
o JM Kelly Annual Lecture 2017
o Consumer Protection and Competition Policy in a Changing World
o 2016 Adjudication Advocacy Course Nov 3
o Competition Law and Enforcement Priorities
o CEAM Arbitrational Tribunal Secretaries Course
o FATF Workshop
o The Workplace Relations Act 2015 - One Year On
o Stetson Advocacy Training
o School of Law to host four events including Brexit Debate
o McDowell Purcell Distinguished Guest Lecture
o JM Kelly Annual Lecture 2016
o Business Contracting Seminar with Max Abrahamson
News

Free Speech Under Threat from New


EU Rules - Policy Note
September 13, 201
Recommendations for the reform of the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07ejuhu6mZ5Zk5aUGJyTmt5OWM/view
EU governments and the European Parliament are finalising new rules
about television, on-demand and video sharing services. Our policy note
covers the main problems and offers some solutions to EU decision-
makers.

Liberties has published a policy note analysing the changes to the Audiovisual Media
Services Directive (AVMS Directive) that are reaching their final stages of
negotiation between the European Parliament and national governments in the
Council. Directives are used to create common minimum rules across the EU so that
companies and individuals only have to comply with one single standard when they
work in different EU countries, instead of 28 different standards from individual
countries.

This particular piece of legislation sets out certain rules that companies and
governments have to obey when providing and regulating television and similar
services passing from one EU country to another. The AVMS Directive only creates
rules about certain aspects of the media, such as advertisements, protection of
children, promotion and distribution of European-made TV programmes,
broadcasting of major events, like big football matches, accessibility for people with
disabilities and hate speech.

Our paper points out a number of problems with the current reforms that are being
debated. Certain proposals violate the right to freedom of expression, which the EU
and its member countries are obliged to protect, according to the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights. Our paper also suggests how these problematic provisions could
be altered to make sure governments and the EU comply with their legal obligations.

We identify four main issues:

First, in the new version of the AVMS Directive that's being proposed,
the EU decided to widen the scope of the Directive. This means that the
Directive will not only cover television and internet-based television
channels, but it will regulate video-sharing platforms as well, like
YouTube.

This is because EU decision-makers consider video-sharing platforms to be similar


services to television, and therefore that similar rules should apply. However, video-
sharing platforms and even on-demand services (like Netflix) are fundamentally
different from television services. On-demand and video-sharing services let us watch
what we want, whenever we want, on whatever device we have. Unlike with
television services, we never have to see anything that we havent consciously chosen
to watch. So there's no need to impose the same kinds of restrictions that are placed
on traditional television services, where you can easily watch something you haven't
chosen by accident. Putting the same kinds of heavy obligations on video-sharing
platforms will hamper the development of internet-based creative industries and
unduly restrict free speech.
Second, the new version of AVMS Directive requires at least 20% of
television companies programming to be made up of European-made
programmes. There is even a proposal to increase the figure to 30%.

The promotion of European cultures is an important task of the media, especially


when programmes from other countries, particularly the USA, dominate television
programming. However, even a 20% requirement puts a heavy burden on companies.
The result is unlikely to be that big companies, such as Netflix or smaller on-demand
services will actually produce European programmes themselves. Instead, these
companies will satisfy the 20% requirement by simply uploading existing European
works to their list of programmes. And because this isn't new original content, the
public is unlikely to want to watch it. So in the end, the rule will not succeed in
promoting European culture but it will place an extra financial burden on media
companies. Such a requirement is only justifiable for channels run by the public
service media. This is because it is part of the role of public service media to use
public money to promote national and European cultures.

Third, the proposal puts internet companies, such as Facebook or


Google in charge of deciding what people can say on the internet. This
is because the new law will allow governments to fine these kinds of
companies if they do not take down hate speech from their sites.

But it is left up to these companies to decide what amounts to hate speech. Liberties
warns decision makers against this solution. The problem is that it can be hard to
identify hate speech. Often people share controversial ideas that can shock or annoy
parts of the public but these are important to democratic debate and do not amount to
hate speech. Companies are very likely to be overly cautious in order to avoid the
possibility of fines. This is because businesses tend to be guided by the desire to
maximise profit rather than serve democracy by promoting a balanced public debate.
For business, the protection of human rights is not of primary importance. Instead of
putting these important decisions in the hands of companies, governments should
allow existing legal procedures to do their job. That is, allow the courts to decide what
kind of content should be taken down from websites.

Fourth, the Directive extends the scope of the term harmful content.
According to the European Commissions proposal, video-sharing
platforms should take measures to protect children from programmes
with harmful content. This solution would require video-sharing
platforms to label and even censor online content.

This is bad because companies will use filtering software, which will not be able to
distinguish between information that might be helpful from information that can be
harmful. For example, children might look for information about sex education or for
support dealing with sexual harassment on the internet. But this is likely to be blocked
by filtering software that is trying to prevent children accessing violent content. Just
to give you one ludicrous example: Essex city homepage was blocked by filtering
software because it contains the word sex.
https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/audiovisual-media-services-directive-avms-
liberties-policy-paper/12946

EU Governments Must Protect Rule


of Law in Poland: Joint Letter to EU
Council
September 25, 2017
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07ejuhu6mZ5cVhralhaVG15aUE/view
letter_Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Civil Liberties Union for Europe
September, 22, 2017, Warsaw-Brussels Dear Mr Matti Maasikas Deputy Minister
for European Affairs of Estonia Chairman of the General Affairs Council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07ejuhu6mZ5NU1uTmFYbU9rdEk/view
Firms involved in biometric database in India contracted by Irish government (via

Firms involved in biometric


database in India contracted
by Irish government
Morpho and Daon provide services for Irish public
services card and passport systems
Sat, Sep 9, 2017, 06:33
Elaine Edwards
Dermot Desmonds firm Daon has provided services to the Irish Government
for the public services card and passports.
Two tech firms one owned by businessman Dermot
Desmond involved in the creation of a controversial
biometric database in India, are providing services for
the Governments public services card and passports.
Known as the Aadhaar project, the Indian scheme is the
worlds largest ever biometric database involving 1.2
billion citizens. Initially voluntary, it became mandatory
for obtaining state services, for paying taxes and for
opening a bank account.
However, Indias supreme court ruled last month that
privacy was a fundamental right, following a challenge to
the mandatory nature of the huge biometric
identification system. The ruling is likely to test the
validity of the Aadhaar project.
Desmonds firm Daon produced software selected in
2010 for use in the Indian scheme. It has since provided
services to the Irish Government for the public services
card and passports.
Another firm Morpho described as a major contributor
to the Aadhar project, formed Biometric Card Services in
2009 along with DLRS Group and Conduit to produce
some three million Irish public services cards.
Daon, which describes itself as a biometric enabling
technology company was also awarded a 1.9 million
contract by the Department of Foreign Affairs last year
to provide a facial recognition solution for the passport
service.
Watchlists
Tender documents show the Department of Foreign
Affairs required software that would, among other
things, match photographs with other photos in its
database, allowing it to create one or more watchlists.
The Department of Social Protection also uses facial
identification management software provided by 3M
Ireland.
Privacy and technical experts have called for clarity
about the biometric software and hardware being used
by Irish officials after Minister for Social Protection
Regina Doherty said last weekend the Government was
not holding biometric data.
Dermot Casey, a former chief technology officer of
Storyful, said that if the Daon system was used to store
the data and carry out the facial matching then the
Government appears to have purchased a biometric
database system which can be extended to include voice,
fingerprint and iris identification at a moments notice.

Katherine OKeefe, a data protection consultant with


Castlebridge, said if the departments were using images
of peoples faces to single out or identify an individual,
they were by legal definition processing biometric data.
There was a much larger question of what other data is
being shared, she said.
There may be many potential benefits to having a
single view or universal identifier for interacting with
the State, but it would have to be extremely carefully
constructed with risks assessed and mitigated to ensure
it does not violate fundamental rights.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/firms-involved-in-biometric-
database-in-india-contracted-by-irish-government-1.3214640
Privacy law experts write to
Minister for Justice over
public services cards
Group concerned that State is sleepwalking into a
national identity database
Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 08:48 Updated: Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 09:03
Elaine Edwards

A group of privacy and data protection experts has written to Minister for
Justice Charlie Flanagan about the Public Services Card.
A group of academics specialising in privacy and data
protection law have said they are not aware of any legal
requirement for people in receipt of social welfare
payments to register for the public services card (PSC).
Eleven experts have written to Minister for Justice
Charlie Flanagan expressing concern about the
Governments card project after it emerged that a
woman in her 70s had her State pension cut off because
she refused to register for a card.
She has not been paid her pension for 18 months
because she refused to go through the registration and
identity-verification process as requested by the
Department of Social Protection. As a result she is owed
about 13,000.
The woman said she felt bullied following several
letters from the department inviting her to register. No
one had been able to demonstrate that the card was
mandatory, she added.
In a letter sent on Friday, the academics noted what they
said was the intent to turn the PSC, which was
originally intended to be used for specified public service
purposes only, into a general purpose identity card to be
used in a wide variety of contexts under the Social
Welfare and Pensions Bill 2017.
It would appear that the time has now come where a
national identity card is essentially on the table, and it is
time for policy decisions in relation to this matter, they
wrote.
They said that to date, there had been no public
engagement in relation to the development of policy for
a national identity card.
Our concern is that as a result, we are sleepwalking into
developing a national identity index and national
identity card in all else but name, and that we have not
considered the very important implications before doing
so.
They called on the minister to engage with the public
for the development of policy on this matter, and for
there to be a real debate on the issue.
Letter to Minister for Justice Re Public Services Card August 25 2017
A group of privacy and data protection experts has written to Minister for
Justice Charlie Flanagan about the Public Services Card.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3969352/Letter-to-
Minister-for-Justice-Re-Public.pdf
They asked that the minister recommend that further expansion of the
card be delayed and that the provision in the recent Social Welfare and
Pensions Bill extending its use not be enacted until the matter had been
aired and policy considered in depth.
The group also noted that in 2015, then minister for social protection Joan
Burton said the question of introducing a national identity card had not
been part of the remit for the so-called SAFE scheme to register welfare
recipients.
Ms Burton said in the Dil that such a measure would require due
consideration by the appropriate agencies before any policy decisions could
be formulated by Government and would require the development and
implementation of legislation to support any such policy.
The academics said it was now being made effectively compulsory to have
the PSC in order to carry on ordinary business in our society (for example
to get a driving licence or a passport).
They noted the Department of Social Protection was now writing to social
welfare recipients stating that registration for the card was now a legal
requirement for people in receipt of social welfare payments (including
Child Benefit) or free travel entitlements.
We are not aware of any such legal requirement, they said.
The group includes Dr Stephen Farrell of Trinity College Dublin, Dr Alan
Greene of Durham Law School, Prof Steve Hedley of UCC, Dr Rnn
Kennedy of NUI Galway, Prof Maeve McDonagh of UCC, Dr TJ McIntyre of
UCD, Dr Maria Helen Murphy of Maynooth University, Dr Patrick
OCallaghan of UCC, Dr Darius Whelan of UCC and Prof Robert Clark,
UCD emeritus professor, who wrote the first Irish book on data protection.
The Data Protection Commissioner said it had strongly conveyed its
views on the public services card project on numerous occasions to the
Department of Social Protection that there was a pressing need for
updated, clearer and more detailed information to be communicated to the
public and services users regarding the mandatory use of the PPSN and
PSC for the provision of public services.
Fianna Fil Seanad spokeswoman on social protection Catherine Ardagh
said it was essential that both houses of the Oireachtas were provided
with an opportunity to debate and consider the possible human rights
and/or data protection implications of introducing such a system of
national ID cards.
Any measure or initiative designed to effectively establish a State database
of citizens information requires a comprehensive debate, and the fact that
a public services card will soon be required for all passport applications,
driving licences and driver theory tests means that this debate needs to
happen once the Oireachtas returns, Ms Ardagh said.
The card was introduced to replace the old social welfare card and some
other cards used for State services and about 2.75 million have been issued
to date.
The Department of Social Protection has a target of 3 million cards to reach
by the end of this year.
It said on Friday the card did not have any of the typical characteristics of a
national identity card in that people were not required by law to register
for one and it was not compulsory or mandatory for individuals to hold or
carry one.
It said An Garda Sochna was specifically precluded from requesting an
individual to produce a PSC as proof of identity.
The public services card is exactly that a card is designed for the
purpose of safely, securely and efficiently providing public services.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/privacy-law-experts-write-to-
minister-for-justice-over-public-services-cards-1.3199487

State must justify


introduction of public
services card
Card project will fail unless mass harvesting of personal
data conforms to EU privacy laws
Thu, Sep 7, 2017, 07:00
Fred Logue
2

It appears that the public service card framework provides for the collection of
further information including PPSN, date of birth, fingerprint and iris scans.
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Pinterest

Share to Reddit

Share to Google+
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Email App

Share to LinkedIn

The public services card, introduced as a means of


combating welfare fraud, has turned into the standard
identity verification scheme to be used to access all
public services in Ireland. Through the card registration
process, detailed personal information is collected from
millions of people resident in Ireland and stored and
shared among at least 120 public-sector bodies.
During the registration process a photo of each
cardholder is taken in a format that allows automatic
software verification that the presenter is who they say
they are. It appears that the card framework provides for
the collection of further information including PPSN,
date of birth, fingerprint and iris scans. It also seems
likely that use of the card will expand beyond public
services into the private sphere and that legislation will
be passed to make failure to produce the card to a
member of An Garda Sochna a criminal offence.
A remarkable feature of the public services card project
and the systematic collection of vast amounts of personal
data on virtually the entire population is that it has been
introduced by stealth without any significant public
consultation or debate. Government Ministers are now
struggling to justify the rationale for the project and to
explain why public services are being denied to
individuals for refusing to register for a card that is
supposedly not mandatory.
Spurred by data-protection and privacy concerns, the
Data Protection Commissioner has intervened, calling
on the Department of Social Protection to set out in
detail the factual description of the public services card,
how personal data will be processed and shared, and the
specific legal basis for it.
So how can the processing of large amounts of personal
data be legally justified?
Data protection
The starting point is that the European Union places a
high value on fundamental rights to data protection and
privacy. Any processing of personal data is seen as a
limitation on these rights no matter whether the
information concerned is sensitive or whether
individuals have been inconvenienced in any way.

Commissioner feared potential for form of national ID


card
Public Services Card: More than semantics at play
No evidence public services card has cut fraud, says Fianna
Fil
While the rights to data protection and privacy are not
absolute, they may be limited only in certain
circumstances according to article 52 of the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights. If we assume that the public
services card is provided for under Irish law and that the
interference with fundamental rights is not so severe as
to entirely prevent individuals exercising their rights
then to be legally justified the framework for the card
must satisfy three strict criteria.
First, the processing of personal data must meet an
objective of general interest recognised by EU law. The
objective of general interest provides the background
against which the appropriateness of the card is
measured and requires a detailed factual analysis as well
as objective scientific evidence demonstrating the
problem to be addressed and the importance to society
that this problem be solved. The extent to which there is
a logical link between the card and the stated objective is
crucial to understanding whether it is legal or not.
Second, the necessity of the card must be demonstrated.
Rather than some form of abstract legal test, necessity is
a fact-based inquiry as to the direct link between the
card and the problem to be solved by it. From a privacy
perspective, the card must demonstrably be the least
intrusive way of solving the problem that it is designed
to address.
Each particular aspect of the card is subject to this test.
For example, the card may be necessary to combat
welfare fraud but this in and of itself does not make it
necessary for some other purpose such as, for example,
to obtain a driving licence. Each use case requires a
separate justification.
Third and finally, if the card is considered necessary, it
must also be proportionate to its aims. In other words, a
balance needs to be struck between the card and the
intended aim or result to be achieved. If necessary,
safeguards must be introduced to reduce the risk to
individuals.
The bottom line is that the State cannot simply introduce
measures such as the public services card which process
the personal data of the entire population without
demonstrating that it is necessary to meet a recognised
public interest objective, and that it is a necessary and
proportionate measure when all the facts are taken into
account.
There is a growing list of measures that have been
overturned by the European courts on privacy grounds
including the retention of bulk telecommunications data,
the US Safe Harbour programme and the exchange of air
passenger details with Canada.
Unless the State can demonstrate that all aspects of the
public services card are justified under EU law it is
inevitable that it will join this list.
Fred Logue is a partner at FP Logue Solicitors
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/state-must-justify-
introduction-of-public-services-card-1.3211434

A row about ID cards lasted


years and cost the UK billions.
Then Theresa May scrapped
them
Critics labelled it as an attempt to bring in a compulsory ID system by
stealth. That argument may sound familiar
Aug 31st 2017,
A ROW IS brewing over the public services card ahead of the
resumption of the Dil and Seanad next month.
Civil liberties campaigners have raised concerns about the
card after confirmation that possession of one will soon be
required in order to obtain a driving licence or a passport.
Data protection experts have complained that that the
government is attempting to create an ID card system by
stealth, and Fianna Fil has called for a debate on the issue
to take place in both houses of the Oireachtas.
The card is not new it was originally introduced in 2012
but its rollout is coming under renewed focus after a number
of cases (see below) which saw people lose out on public
services because they dont have one.
In the UK, attempts to introduce ID cards rumbled on for
nearly a decade causing numerous headaches for prime
ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as they attempted
to bring in various versions of the scheme in the face of
fierce opposition.
From the inception of the plan to the eventual, limited
introduction of the cards, the dispute played out over an
eight year period from 2002.
The scheme was scrapped entirely with the election of David
Cameron and Nick Cleggs Conservative-Lib Dem
government in 2010.
Heres what happened
Fighting benefit fraud
Tony Blairs Labour government had proposed the idea of
national ID cards after 9/11 as a way of combatting
terrorism.
The initial plan was shelved, but a new version was
introduced by Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2002. It
was now being described as an entitlement card which
would be used to combat social welfare fraud.
A public consultation was launched: despite the fact that
almost two-thirds of the 7,000 submissions were against the
idea, Blunkett said he was pressing ahead with the project.
Blunkett pressed for legislation to be included in the 2003
Queens Speech, which traditionally sets out the priorities of
the UK government for the coming year, but Blairs cabinet
was split on the issue.
The Home Secretary insisted the cards would ensure people
dont work if they are not entitled to work, they dont draw
on services which are free in this country, including health,
unless they are entitled to.
Plans to bring in a national ID system were eventually
outlined in the Queens November speech but the scheme
was to be delayed until later in the decade so that biometric
data could be included.

Lost votes
Blunkett resigned and was replaced by Charles Clarke in
2004, but the new Home Secretary insisted he would press
ahead with the ID card plan: legislation continued to make
its way through parliament.
Labour suffered several defeats on the legislation in the
House of Lords in 2006. In one such vote, Tory and Liberal
Democrat peers managed to strike down plans to link the
card to passport applications insisting the government
was trying to bring in compulsory ID cards by stealth.
Lady Kennedy, a human rights lawyer and Labour party
rebel, had argued that the measure amounted to introducing
compulsory ID by the back door. The legislation would
have required all passport applicants to enter their details
on a national identity register.
Labour ministers had warned the peers they ought to follow
parliamentary convention and green light the measure, as it
had featured in the governments election manifesto.
Opponents, however, said that the manifesto had promised
a voluntary scheme, whereas the one being proposed would
have to be accepted by anyone applying for a passport.
By the end of the year Tony Blair was still insisting the
identity card scheme should go ahead for reasons of
modernity. At a press conference, he also stressed the
personal benefit of having an ID card, saying it would do
away with the need to produce other documents to prove
your identity.

Foreign Nationals
After a 2006 compromise that allowed the bill to pass
through the Lords, the rollout began in 2008 as ID cards
became compulsory for foreign nationals.
A trial plan to make the cards mandatory for pilots and
airside staff at London City and Manchester airports was
dropped the following year, after union opposition.
Alan Johnson, who had by then taken over as Home
Secretary, conceded that the cards should not have been
sold as the panacea for tackling terrorism and said that
had been a factor in messing up the debate.
People who worked airside were resenting the fact there
was compulsion involved, Johnson said although he
insisted the ID scheme was still very much alive.
As the BBC reported at the time, the government had always
envisaged that the scheme would eventually be compulsory.
It had always insisted, however, that the cards would not be
made compulsory without MPs being allowed to vote on the
issue and it was never proposed that it would actually be
mandatory to carry one at all times.

Not compulsory
A year after they were rolled out for foreign nationals, the
final design of the card was unveiled to the public in 2009
and they were offered at first to members of the public in
Greater Manchester.
The cards, which were available from 30, would be
launched nationwide in 2011 or 2012, the government
announced. Home Secretary Alan Johnson helmed the
regional launch in July 2009, saying:
The introduction of ID cards today reaches another
milestone, enabling the people of Manchester to prove and
protect their identity in a quick, simple and secure way.
Given the growing problem of identity fraud and the
inconvenience of having to carry passports, coupled with gas
bills or six months worth of bank statements to prove
identity, I believe the ID card will be welcomed as an
important addition to the many plastic cards that most
people already carry.
The opposition described it as a colossal waste of money
and civil liberties campaigners said it was as costly to our
pockets as to our privacy.

The end
As the rollout continued, the scheme was extended across
the North West and to 16- to 24-year-olds in London in
2010.
By May of that year there were around 15,000 cards in
circulation.
The same month, David Cameron became Prime Minister
following a general election and his Home Secretary Theresa
May announced she was scrapping the cards. A separate but
similar scheme for foreign nationals would continue.
The entire project was estimated to have cost 5 billion
although the London School of Economics estimated at the
time that the true cost could be far higher.

Theresa May pictured in 2010.


The debate hasnt entirely gone away, however.
At the beginning of last year Nicholas Soames, a Tory MP,
asked then-Immigration Minister James Brokenshire
whether he would consider ID cards as a way of combatting
the growing terror threat in Europe.
The idea was dismissed by Brokenshire, who responded:
There are steps that we are taking through various measures
to enhance the security of this country but our judgment
remains that ID cards is not the right way forward.
This summer, it was announced that EU citizens living in the
UK after Brexit would need to apply for a new residence
document to prove their right to stay in the country.
Again the familiar by stealth argument raised its head as
opponents accused the government of trying to bring in ID
cards by the back door.
It is not an ID card, Brexit Secretary David Davis insisted
in the House of Commons.
We are talking about documentation to prove that people
have the right to a job and the right to residence, but they
will not have to carry that around all the time. It is not an ID
card; it is rather like your birth certificate. Its not an ID
card!

Here at home, both main opposition parties have called for a


debate on the issue of public services cards.
Sinn Fin TD Donnchadh Laoghaire said this week that
there were very considerable and legitimate concerns
regarding privacy and sharing of sensitive data. Fianna
Fils Seanad spokesperson for Social Protection Catherine
Ardagh said it was essential both houses of the Oireachtas
had an opportunity to debate the matter.
UK's national ID card unveiled
30 July 09 15:16 GMT

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has unveiled the final


design of the controversial national identity card.
The card will be offered to members of the public in the
Greater Manchester area from the end of this year.
Ministers plan to launch the 30 biometric ID card
nationwide in 2011 or 2012 - but it will not be compulsory.
Opposition spokesmen said it was a "colossal waste of
money" and civil liberty groups said it was "as costly to our
pockets as to our privacy".
Ministers say the card, which follows the launch of the
foreign national ID card, will provide an easy way of safely
proving identity.
They say this system, backed up by a national identity
register, will help combat identity fraud, crime and
terrorism.

How the card will look and work


The card is very similar in look to a UK driving licence but
holds more data, including two fingerprints and a
photograph encoded on a chip.
This chip and its unique number in turn links the card to a
national identity register which, under current legislation,
could hold more information about the identity of the
individual.

If the scheme goes ahead, the card could be used as a


travel document within Europe, separate to the passport,
similar to arrangements between other EU member states.
Like the UK passport, the front of the card displays the
royal crest as well as the thistle, the rose, the shamrock
and the daffodil to represent the four parts of the UK.
The Home Office denied the union jack had been left off
the card for fear of antagonising Northern Ireland's
nationalist community. A spokeswoman said the card was
based on the British passport, which did not have a flag on
it.
'No brainer'
Unveiling the card, Mr Johnson said: "The introduction of
ID cards today reaches another milestone, enabling the
people of Manchester to prove and protect their identity in
a quick, simple and secure way.
"Given the growing problem of identity fraud and the
inconvenience of having to carry passports, coupled with
gas bills or six months worth of bank statements to prove
identity, I believe the ID card will be welcomed as an
important addition to the many plastic cards that most
people already carry."

The Home Office has faced increasing pressure over the


ID card programme in recent months.
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the
government had signed contracts worth 1bn before last
month's U-turn on the cards, which are no longer
compulsory.
"Alan Johnson today launches a wing-and-a-prayer
scheme based on the hope that people across the North
West will sign up for a glossy ID card, and send a
message to their counterparts in other parts of the country
that the ID card is the hottest property since Susan Boyle,"
said Mr Grayling.
"The government has already wasted 200m that we
cannot afford.
"The scheme will cost hundreds of million pounds more,
even if the cards are voluntary. It is time this scheme was
completely scrapped."
And Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats said: "It doesn't
matter how fancy the packaging is when the product is a
colossal waste of money that achieves nothing.
"A designer piece of plastic is not going to combat identity
fraud, crime or terrorism. This intrusive scheme should be
scrapped immediately."
But Mr Johnson said the card was a "no brainer" and that
the opposition had initially supported the plans before
changing their position.
Counter-campaign
Last month, the Home Office dropped plans to make the
ID card compulsory for 200,000 airport workers amid
widespread opposition from inside the industry that it
would do nothing to improve the strict security procedures
already in place.
That announcement means only some foreign nationals
are currently obliged to hold a card, although the Home
Office still wants to press ahead with an 18-month trial at
Manchester and London City airports.

No2ID, a national pressure group, is launching a counter-


campaign across North-West England to derail the Home
Office's plan.
Dave Page, from the organisation, said: "Once you are on
that database, you can never come off it.
"From the moment you're registered you'll have to tell the
authorities of any change in your circumstances for the
rest of your life - and pay whatever fees they ask for the
'service'.
"You'll never know who's looking at your details. It won't
protect our safety. It won't be convenient - except for
Whitehall. This scheme is an expensive and dangerous
con."
A poll of 1,731 adults across the UK, conducted by human
rights campaign group Liberty, suggested six out of 10
people were unlikely to volunteer for a card.
Campaigns co-ordinator Sabina Frediani said the North
West was being made an "ID card guinea pig".
"How many times can you re-design and re-launch this
tired old policy?" she said.
"When will the government realise there is dwindling
public support for a scheme that is as costly to our
pockets as to our privacy and race relations?"
Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said identity cards will not be
compulsory for UK citizens. Here's a guide to what it means for
the multi-billion pound identity scheme.
What did Mr Johnson actually say?
He says he wants ID cards to be voluntary for British citizens. The
government had originally wanted them to be compulsory - and
planned to use hundreds of thousands of airport workers and pilots
as guinea pigs for such a scheme. This was scaled back to workers
at Manchester and London City airports - but even that has now been
scrapped following a campaign by trade unions. Now the only people
who will be forced to have ID cards are foreign national workers - so
far 50,000 have them.
Does this mean ID cards have been scrapped?
No.
But if they are not going to be compulsory, what is the point of
them?
That's what a lot of ID industry experts and former enthusiasts for the
scheme are saying - but critics say the cards themselves are almost
irrelevant. Alan Johnson is still pressing ahead with the main
elements of the ID card scheme. From 2011, British citizens aged 16
over who apply for a passport will automatically be registered on the
national identity database.
Why has Mr Johnson made this announcement now?
In the short term, the government wants to avoid a damaging row -
and possible strike action - from airside workers who resented being
made to have ID cards. In the longer term, they want to neutralise a
potentially difficult general election issue. The cards was never going
to be made compulsory without a vote in Parliament - so Mr
Johnson's announcement does not represent a major shift in policy.
But he will be hoping headlines about the death of ID cards will help
blunt Tory and Lib Dem attacks.
Why not just scrap the scheme altogether?
Critics say the government wants to avoid what would be presented
as a humiliating U-turn. But ID cards remain a central part of the
government's plans to tighten up Britain's border controls and clamp
down on illegal working. The government says the police and security
services also want the cards - although opinion is split on how
effective they would be at combating crime and terrorism. Mr
Johnson has admitted it was a mistake to sell ID cards to the public
as a "panacea" for combating terrorism.
But wouldn't scrapping ID cards save a lot of money?
Not necessarily. Mr Johnson has said scrapping ID cards now would
save "diddly squat", as the cards themselves were going to be self-
financing by the charges people would have to pay for them. The
bulk of the cost of the scheme will still be spent in setting up the
identity register and biometric passports. The scheme is usually said
to cost 5bn, although the London School of Economics has said the
true cost will be between 10bn and 20bn. Either way, much of the
money has already been spent or committed. The Tories say they
are not "assuming vast savings" from scrapping it - somewhere
between 1bn and 2bn, as they would not scrap biometric
passports or the database. That's a substantial sum but only a
fraction of Britain's 750bn national debt.
Is there any evidence people want ID cards?
So far just 3,500 people have registered an interest in having an ID
card in the Greater Manchester trial area but the government hopes
many more will join them. It has appointed an advertising agency to
run a campaign stressing the benefits of ID cards. It is also speeding-
up plans to offer cards to people in London, which it says will happen
next year.
But who would voluntarily pay for an ID card if they don't have
to have one?
About 80% of the UK population have passports, so the Identity and
Passport Service is confident of a high voluntary uptake of ID cards.
The government is also pinning its hopes on "early adopters". Mr
Johnson hopes that by stressing the convenience of ID cards - how
they would replace all the existing forms of ID currently cluttering up
people's wallets - that they will become desirable items. He is
considering a discount for the over-75s to encourage take-up. Banks
will also try to sign up young people when they open up their first
bank accounts.
Is there a chance that they could be made compulsory in the
future?
Former home secretary Charles Clarke, who pushed the ID cards Bill
through Parliament, said they could be made compulsory once
around 80% of the population was covered. Alan Johnson has rowed
back from this, insisting he wants it to be voluntary. Campaigners are
still pressing the government for a guarantee that it will never be
made compulsory.
What is the timetable for introducing ID cards?
Everyone over the age of 16 applying for a passport will have their
details - including fingerprints and facial scans - added to a National
Identity register from 2011/12. The first identity cards have already
been issued to non-EU foreign nationals coming to work in the UK.
Later this year airside workers at London City and Manchester
airports will be able to apply for ID cards. There will also be a
voluntary pilot scheme in the Greater Manchester area. From 2010
young people will be encouraged to get ID cards when they open
bank accounts and there will be a voluntary scheme in London. From
2011/12 the Identity and Passport Service hopes to issue "significant
volumes" of ID cards alongside British passports - but people will be
able to opt out of having a card if they don't want one.
How can I get an ID card?
People who want an ID card can register their interest now on the
Directgov website. They will be told later in the year how to get their
card, which will probably involve a visit to a passport office to be
interviewed and have their fingerprints and photo taken. After two
years the plan is that you will be able to register at post offices and
some High Street chains, which will be equipped to take biometric
information.
How much will they cost?
The cost of the cards themselves has been capped for two years at
30. It will eventually be up to retailers how much they charge to do
enrol people on the database, but it is estimated it will be about 30
on top of the 30 for the card.
Where will you have to show your ID card?
The Home Office says there will be no requirement to show an ID
card anywhere and all officials will have to accept other forms of ID
too. The police, immigration officers, job centre and other public
service staff will all eventually be issued with scanners enabling them
to check a person's identity, but there is currently no timetable for this
to happen. You will also be able to use ID cards in shops, banks,
pubs and other businesses but there are as yet no plans to issue
them with scanners either. Staff will have to rely on visual checks.
What if staff or officials suspect someone is using a fake ID?
If they have suspicions about a person's ID they will be able to call a
special phone line. Opponents say the lack of widespread biometric
scanners will lead to a black market in fake ID cards but the Home
Office insists anti-fraud measures will be built into the cards.
How have the plans changed?
Under the original plans the first British citizens would have been
issued with ID cards in 2008, with the widespread roll-out taking
place in 2010. Plans to take iris scans of passport applicants have
also been ditched. And plans for enrolment centres have been
scrapped, with retailers such as Boots and the Post Office to be
given the job of taking fingerprints and signing people up. Ex-Prime
Minister Tony Blair had suggested plans to make it compulsory to
have - rather than to carry - and ID card was going to form a major
part of the next Labour election manifesto.
Why have the plans changed?
The Home Office is under pressure to cut costs. Public support for
the scheme has also been hit by a series of data loss scandals,
although the government claims the majority of people are still in
favour of it.
What information will be on the cards?
The card will contain basic identification information including a
photograph of the card holder, along with their name, gender and
date of birth. A microchip will link to a biometric database holding a
person's fingerprints and address.
Are the details stored centrally too?
No. Plans for a single database holding the personal information of
all those issued with a card have been scrapped due to cost and data
security concerns. Instead, information will be held on three existing,
separate government databases. The whole scheme will be overseen
by a new independent watchdog.
What the cards would store about you
What won't be stored?
The government has sought to allay some fears about ID cards by
saying they will not store details about someone's race, religion,
sexuality, health, criminal record or political beliefs. According to the
Home Office, the data stored will be the same as is currently held on
passport records.
What about foreign nationals wanting to enter the UK?
They will have to apply for "biometric residence permits" or "biometric
visas" and their details will be entered into the national identity
database. The government also wants all foreign nationals living in
the UK to have identity cards and will make anyone applying to
extend their stay register biometric details. The aim is that 90% of
foreign nationals in the UK will have ID cards by 2015.
Who is against ID cards?
The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have both said they
would scrap the scheme if they came to power. The Tories have
written to firms warning them not to sign long-term contracts for ID
card work. Most other political parties in the UK, including the SNP,
Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and UKIP, are also against ID cards
and there is a grassroots campaign against them, through groups
such as NO2ID.
What are their objections?
Critics say identity cards interfere with civil liberties, are too
expensive and will do little to tackle problems like terrorism and illegal
immigration. There are also fears the cards will antagonise ethnic
minority communities targeted by police stop and search operations.
They are not happy that the only people forced to have cards will be
foreign nationals. Some critics also claim the scheme will not work
and that the cards will be too easily faked - something denied by the
Home Office.
Do other countries have ID cards?
Several countries in the European Union now have some form of ID
card, even if they are not compulsory. They have become widely
accepted by their citizens. In France, for example, about 90% of the
population carries one. But many other countries, like Japan,
Australia and New Zealand, have not adopted the idea. Neither has
the US, but it does intend to make visitors have cards to cover their
visas.
Why did Britain get rid of ID cards after World War II?
During the WWII the National Register of ID cards was seen as a
way of protecting the nation from Nazi spies. But in 1952, Winston
Churchill's government scrapped the cards. The feeling was that in
peacetime they simply were not needed. In fact they were thought to
be hindering the work of the police, because so many people
resented being asked to produce a card to prove their identity. The
National Register became the NHS register, which is still in use
today.
The National Identity Card scheme will be abolished within 100
days with all cards becoming invalid, Home Secretary Theresa
May has said.
Legislation to axe the scheme will be the first put before parliament
by the new government - with a target of it becoming law by August.
The 15,000 people who voluntarily paid 30 for a card since the 2009
roll out in Manchester will not get a refund.
Ms May said ID card holders would at least have a "souvenir" of the
scheme.
The Labour scheme was aimed at tackling fraud, illegal immigration
and identity theft - but it was criticised for being too expensive and an
infringement of civil liberties. The cards were designed to hold
personal biometric data on an encrypted chip, including name, a
photograph and fingerprints. The supporting National Identity
Register was designed to hold up to 50 pieces of information.
The cards already in circulation will remain legal until Parliament has
passed the legislation to abolish them and the register. The short
abolition bill will be pushed through Parliament as quickly as possible
with the aim of cards being invalid by 3 September.
Anyone who has a card or has to deal with them, such as airport
security officials, will be told the termination date in writing. Once the
cards are illegal, the National Identity Register will be "physically
destroyed", say ministers. Some 60 people who were working on the
scheme for the Identity and Passport Service in Durham have lost
their jobs.
Ms May said: "This bill is a first step of many that this government is
taking to reduce the control of the state over decent, law-abiding
people and hand power back to them. With swift Parliamentary
approval, we aim to consign identity cards and the intrusive ID card
scheme to history within 100 days."
800m saving
Officials are renegotiating two contracts worth 650m with companies
who had agreed to deliver parts of the scheme. It's not clear how
much the government will need to pay compensation, but officials say
there is no "poisoned pill" in the deals and they expect to save 86m
once all exit costs are met.
Some 250m was spent on developing the national ID programme
over eight years and its abolition will mean the government will avoid
spending a further 800m over a decade.
Former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett unveiled plans for an
identity card scheme in July 2002. By February 2010, the scheme's
costs over its lifetime had ballooned to an estimated 4.5bn.
Despite the demise of the national identity card, a separate but
technically similar scheme for some foreign nationals will continue.
That scheme, run by the UK Border Agency, is still being rolled out.
Immigration minister Damian Green said the scheme was an EU
obligation and that the previous Labour government had rolled it into
the main ID card programme.
Some 200,000 of these cards, now known as biometric resident
permits, have already been given to migrant workers, foreign
students and family members from outside the European Economic
Area.
British passports are about to be upgraded to a new international
security standard but additional proposals to put more biometric
information on in the future have also been axed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/politics/8175139
.stm
What is the Public Services
Card?
The Public Services Card will include facial imaging software to help
detect and prevent welfare fraud. What else do we know about this new
ID card?
May 9th 2012

A NEW ID card for people claiming social welfare payments


is being rolled out in Ireland. But what will it involve?
We take a look at the the Public Services Card (PSC), which
the Department of Social Protection says will act as a key
for access to public services in general, identifying and
authenticating individuals as appropriate and where
required.
When the outgoing Minister for Social Protection Eamon
Cuiv announced the introduction of the cards, it was
branded a costly political stunt by the Irish Council for
Civil Liberties. The cards are now on their way but it will
take a few years before they are fully introduced.
Cost
The total cost of the project is estimated to be in the region
of 24 million for a population of 3 million people. There
will be no charge to members of the public to get their Public
Services Card.
What is the card for?
The card will provide public service providers with
verification of an individuals identity. The Department of
Social Protection said this will reduce the resources
currently required to do so each time a member of the public
tries to access a public service.
It will also make it harder for people to use false identities,
the department said.
Facial recognition
The cards are issued following a robust registration
process and incorporate identification features including a
photograph (facial image) and an electronic signature.
The Department said it requires facial image matching
software to enhance the registration process and to help
detect and/or prevent duplicate registrations.
Pilot programme
A pilot system for the registration processes and ICT
systems began in July in Tullamore and was extended to
Dublin (Kings Inn) and Sligo.
The PSC issue facility was put into production at the
beginning of October and over 7,000 PSCs have been issued
to date.
These cards are available to be used by many public service
bodies including the Department of Social Protection and
can be used to collect social welfare payments at post offices.
Resources
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
sanctioned resources for this project, and these are currently
being sourced and deployed.
The pilot also indicated the need for legislative changes to
support the new processes. These were included in the
recent Social Welfare and Pensions Act.
How long will roll out take?
The Department is now finalising plans for a national roll-
out of the new cards on a phased basis commencing this
month.
While roll out of the card will be done as securely and
speedily as possible, it will take a number of years to
complete, the Department said. The initial focus will be on
roll out to clients of working age.
How do you get the card?
Members of the public will be contacted with an
appointment to go to their nearest Social Welfare Local
Office to have their photograph taken for the card as part of
the registration process.
They should bring at least one form of photographic ID and
one form showing their current address.
http://www.thejournal.ie/what-is-the-public-services-card-443305-May2012/
Last-minute rubberstamping
of Public Service Cards scheme
"a costly political stunt"
Irish civil rights group criticises Eamon O Cuiv issuing of ID cards on
last day in office.
Feb 2nd 2011,

A CIVIL LIBERTIES watchdog has branded the introduction


of Public Service Cards to three million Irish people a
political stunt.
The outgoing Minister for Social Protection Eamon O Cuiv
posted a press release on the departments website
yesterday, announcing that the controversial Public Service
Cards will begin to be issued in the coming months to all
Irish citizens over 16 years of age who can access public
services. The cards will replace cards such as the Social
Services card and the Free Travel card. They will instead
include a contact chip, a laser engraving personalisation, a
signature and a photograph of the user.
As the press release was posted on the busy last day of the
30th Dail, it appeared to go under the radar. The Irish
Council for Civil Liberties, which has previously voiced
concern that the cards might compromise privacy and could
be seen as ID cards, said it had not been made aware that
the issuing of the cards was to begin until contacted by
TheJournal.ie.

ICCL Director Mark Kelly said:


We can only assume that this is a political stunt by Eamon O
Cuiv TD, although it remains a mystery how spending 24
million of taxpayers money on an unproven scheme would
bolster anyones electoral credibility. The first act of the new
coalition government in the UK was to scrap the costly farce
of the UKs ID card scheme.
That Eamon O Cuiv should suggest that it is acceptable for
him to press ahead with such an unproven scheme in
Ireland after the Dail has risen is nothing short of profligate.
The Department of Social Protection has said that the new
card scheme should help them clamp down on social welfare
fraud because they cannot be falsified or tampered with.
Eamon O Cuiv has previously assured the ICCL that the
personal data on the cards is such that is already available to
the State.
He said yesterday that the cards were highly secure and
that he was committed to having the cards issued as soon
as possible.
O Cuiv also stressed that there would be cost savings
attached to the cards in terms of the potential for fraudulent
claims being reduced.
http://www.thejournal.ie/last-minute-rubberstamping-of-public-service-cards-
scheme-a-costly-political-stunt-77613-Feb2011/
Press Statement Census 2016 Results
Profile 8 - Irish Travellers, Ethnicity
and Religion
http://pdf.cso.ie/www/pdf/20171012094
546_Press_Statement_Census_2016_
Results_Profile_8__Irish_Travellers_Et
hnicity_and_Religion_full.pdf

What is the Public Services Card (PSC)?

The Public Services Card (PSC) helps you to access a range of public
services easily. Your identity is fully authenticated when it is issued so you
do not have to give the same information to multiple organisations. It was
first introduced in 2011 and was initially rolled out to people getting social
welfare payments. It is now being rolled out to other public services.
The front of the card holds a persons name, photograph and signature,
along with the card expiry date. The back of the card holds the persons
PPS number and a card number. It also holds a magnetic stripe to enable
social welfare payments such as pensions to be collected at post offices
If the person holding the card is entitled to free travel, the card will display
this information in the top left-hand corner. If FT-P is written on the card
the holder is personally entitled to free travel. If FT+S is written on the card
the holder can travel with their spouse, partner or cohabitant. If FT+C is
written on the card the holder can have a companion (over 16) travel with
them for free (because they are unable to travel alone for medical
reasons).
Why do I need a PSC?
The PSC is currently a requirement for the following;
Access to Social Welfare Services (including Child Benefit and
Treatment Benefits)
First time adult passport applicants in the state
Replacement of lost, stolen or damaged passports issued prior to
January 2005, where the person is resident in the State.
Citizenship applications
Driver Theory Test Applicants
Access to high value or personal online public services, e.g. Social
Welfare and Revenue services, via MyGovId, the mechanism for
accessing public services online. To learn more about MyGovID
click here.
How do I get a PSC?
Face-to-face registration for a Public Services Card is called SAFE
(Standard Authentication Framework Environment) registration.
SAFE registration takes about 15 minutes to complete (once all documents
are presented). During this appointment your photograph will be taken and
your signature recorded for your new Public Services Card, which will be
posted to you. You will also be asked for the answers to some security
questions.
You must bring certain documents with you to your appointment to prove
your identity and address. You should also bring your mobile phone, if you
have one. Having your mobile phone with you when you are SAFE
registered means that we can pair that mobile phone number with
you. This makes it much easier for you to verify your MyGovID account
which is required should you wish to access public services online in the
future.
Ordinarily, to get a PSC, a person must attend a face to face interview at a
DEASP Office. However in certain circumstances and subject to a
persons consent a PSC can also be issued based on information provided
to another state body, such as in a drivers licence
application. Accordingly this Department intends to write to certain
persons who have renewed their licence since March 2014 and in doing so
has provided the Road Safety Authority with personal information and a
photograph. These people will be offered the opportunity to complete the
SAFE registration process without attending a DEASP office. See Privacy
Impact Assessment on the use of RSA Driving Licence data here.
A PSC is usually issued to adult applicants for PPS numbers.
If you dont yet have a PSC you can make an appointment to get one
either by using MyWelfare.ie or by calling into your local Intreo Centre or
social welfare local office. Details of the Department of Employment
Affairs and Social Protections offices can be found here:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Intreo-Centres-and-Local-and-Branch-
Offices.aspx
Documents to bring to your SAFE registration
appointment
1.Evidence of identity:

Irish citizens born in the Republic of Ireland Current Irish passport or


current Irish or UK driving licence or Irish learner driver permit. If you are
adopted, please bring your adoption certificate

* If you are an Irish or UK citizen and do not have a Passport or Driving


licence as identification, you may still be issued with a PSC. When you
attend you will have an in-depth interview and additional information
gathered during this interview will be verified in order to confirm your
identity.
For Irish citizens born in the Republic of Ireland, birth details can be
verified online in most cases with the General Register Office. However, in
some cases, it is not possible to locate the birth registration, so the person
will need to return with a copy of his/her birth certificate.
If you wish to get a copy of your Irish birth certificate for SAFE registration
purposes, you can get it from the Registrar at a reduced rate when you
show your SAFE invitation letter.
The Department does not have access to the adoption register, so adopted
people should bring their adoption certificate with them when attending
their appointment.
2. Evidence of address (applies to everyone, whether an Irish, EU or
non-EU citizen):
You need to show evidence of your address. You can use any of the
following documents to do this (it must show your name and address):
A household utility bill
An official letter/document
A financial statement
Property lease or tenancy agreement
Confirmation of address by a third party such as a school
principal/administrator, accommodation/property owner*or manager.
*If you are staying with friends or relatives an original household bill plus a
note from the bill holder confirming your residency at the bill address is
acceptable. This note can be written on the bill itself.
3. Additional helpful documents
If you have any of the items listed below, you should bring them along with
you as they may also help to confirm your identity. If you do not have any
of these, you should bring other documents or forms of photo ID instead*.
Irish Free Travel Pass
Medical card issued under the General Medical Service
European health insurance card
Credit/debit card
Student card
*The following items are not acceptable as proof of identity for the purpose
of SAFE registration: Baptismal certificate, work ID card, Garda form ML-
10, Garda age card, photocopied certificates or documents and expired
documents generally.
Why might I need one in the future?
The Public Services Card (PSC) infrastructure is the Governments
standard identity verification scheme, which is to be used for access to all
public services where appropriate. The list of commitments by
Departments and Government Offices to adopt the PSC and MyGovID
infrastructure for specified public services within the listed timeframes is
here.
Lost or damaged Public Services Cards
If your Public Services Card is lost, stolen or damaged, you should
immediately contact the Public Services Card Helpdesk at 1890 837000.
Questions
If you have general questions about the card or the registration process
you can use the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protections
online query form or contact:
Client Identity Services
Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection Shannon Lodge
Carrick-On-Shannon
Co. Leitrim
Tel: (071) 9672616
Locall:1890 927 999
Note:
The rates charged for using 1890 (LoCall) numbers may vary among
different service providers.

Photography and the Public Services Card:

The Department can confirm that it has never piloted or used facial image scanning cameras in its
local offices and has no intention of so doing. Additionally, the Department does not and has no
plans to collect fingerprints. Finally, there are no security passwords or biometric facial scans held
electronically on the PSC. Any of these would require primary legislation and the accompanying
public debate.

SAFE 2 registration requires a photo of the customer. This photo is run through software to check
against other photos that have been taken during other SAFE 2 registrations. The purpose is to
detect and/or prevent duplicate registrations.

The photograph is a part of the Public Service Identity (PSI). Section 262 of the Social Welfare
Consolidation Act, 2005 (as amended) provides for the PSI including its use and sharing. Sharing
of the PSI is restricted to public service bodies specified in law or their agents. It can only be used
by a specified body in relation to authenticating an individual with whom it have a transaction and
in performing its public functions insofar as those functions relate to the person concerned.

Legislation and the PSC:

The Department of Social Protection would like to restate that the use of the identity verification
processes used by the Department and the Public Services Card (PSC) are underpinned by
legislation as set out in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended). This legislation
limits the usage of the PSC to specified public bodies only.

Section 247C(3) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, specifies the manner
in which the Minister may be satisfied as to a persons identity. In effect this Section describes the
process for registering a persons identity this is the SAFE 2 registration process. A PSC is
issued to a person who is SAFE 2 registered in accordance with Section 263 of the Act. It is a
token which proves that a person has had their identity verified to a substantial level of assurance
in accordance with the SAFE 2 standard.

Is the PSC a National ID card?

The Public Services Card is not a national identity card. The Public Service Card is a card for
accessing public services only.

The Public Services Card does not have any of the typical characteristics of a national identity
card in that

1) It is not compulsory or mandatory for individuals to hold or carry a Public Services Card. There
is no law in Ireland requiring a person to carry any form of ID card (other than a driving licence
when driving).

2) You are not required by law to provide it to a member of the police force at their request. An
Garda Sochna is specifically precluded from requesting an individual to produce a PSC as proof
of identity. It is an offence for an organisation or a member of an organisation that is not a
specified body in the Act to request the PSC. An Garda Sochna is not a specified body (except
in respect of its own members). This deliberate exclusion is a clear signal as to the purpose of the
PSC.

3) Bodies not specified in the legislation in either the public or private sector may not request the
PSC or may not be required to use it in any transactions.

The Public Services Card is exactly that a card is designed for the purpose of safely, securely
and efficiently providing public services.
For further information on the Public Services Card please see our previous statement
here http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr250817.aspx

ENDS
http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/pdf/pr290817.pdf

Department of Social Protection

29th August 2017


http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/P
ages/pr290817.aspx
Statement on Public Services Card 25th August 2017

The Public Services Card (PSC) is precisely that, a card for accessing
public services. It helps customers access a range of public services
easily. The users identity is fully authenticated when it is issued so they do
not have to give the same information to multiple organisations. It was first
introduced in 2011 and was initially rolled out to people getting social
welfare payments. It is now being rolled out to other public services.
The PSC is currently a requirement for the following;
Access to Social Welfare Services (including Child Benefit and
Treatment Benefits)
First time adult passport applicants in the state
Replacement of lost, stolen or damaged passports issued prior to
January 2005, where the person is resident in the State.
Citizenship applications
Driver Theory Test Applicants
Access to high value or personal online public services, e.g. Social
Welfare and Revenue services, via MyGovId, the mechanism for
accessing public services online.
The Department of Social Protection makes it clear to customers in receipt
of social welfare payments that they do need to register to SAFE 2 to
access, or continue to access, a social welfare entitlement.
Customers in receipt of a social welfare entitlement are written to and
invited to make an appointment to complete the SAFE 2 registration
process -which results in them being issued with a Public Services Card.
The process takes about 15 minutes to complete, once all required
documents are presented. The Department also issues reminder letters to
customers, if required.
The majority of our customers accept the importance of, and need for the
robust SAFE 2 identity verification process when in receipt of a social
welfare entitlement and c2.77m Public Services Cards have been issued to
date.
The decision to suspend or stop a payment is never made lightly.
However, where a customer does not satisfy the Minister in relation to
identity as per the legislative requirements outlined below, a payment can
be stopped or suspended.
Legislative Basis for disqualification from receipt of benefit where
identity is not authenticated
In 2005, the Government approved a rules based standard for establishing
and authenticating an individuals identity for the purposes of access to
public services. This standard is known as the Standard Authentication
Framework environment or SAFE. A Public Services Card (PSC) is
issued to an individual who has successfully completed a registration
process to a substantial level of assurance this is known as SAFE 2.
In the case of the Department of Social Protections own services, the
legislation governing the validation of identity for access to these is
contained in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, viz.
Section 247C(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may require any
person receiving a benefit to satisfy the Minister as to his or
her identity;
Section 247C(2) of the Act specifies the consequences of failure to
satisfy the Minister in relation to identity as required, specifically
that a person shall be disqualified from receiving a benefit;
Section 247C(3) of the Act specifies the manner in which the Minister
may be so satisfied; in effect, this Section describes the process
for registering a persons identity - this is the SAFE 2 Process.
In other words, this legislation requires a person to satisfy the Minister as
to their identity and allows disqualification from receipt of a benefit in the
event that it is not done. It is not possible for a person to satisfy the
Minister as to his or her identity without being SAFE 2 registered.
Legislative basis for usage of PSC by other public bodies
The legislation governing the production of the PSC and its usage by other
public bodies is set out at Section 263 of the Social Welfare Consolidation
Act 2005. Section 263 also sets out how it is an offence for bodies not
specified in the legislation to seek or use the PSC. As an Garda Sochna
is not a specified body in the legislation (except in respect of its own
members), it would therefore be an offence for a Garda to ask someone to
present a PSC
Is a Public Services Card a national Identity Card?
The Public Service Card is a card for accessing public services only. It is a
token which proves that a person has had their identity verified to a
substantial level of assurance in accordance with the SAFE 2 standard. It
is governed in that context by legislative provisions in the Social Welfare
Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended), which limit its usage.
The Public Services Card does not have any of the typical characteristics
of a national identity card in that
You are not required by law to register for a Public Services Card. It is
not compulsory or mandatory for individuals to hold or carry a Public
Services Card. There is no law in Ireland requiring a person to carry
any form of ID card (other than a driving licence when driving).
You are not required by law to provide it to a member of the police force
at their request. An Garda Sochna is specifically precluded from
requesting an individual to produce a PSC as proof of identity. This
deliberate exclusion is a clear signal as to the purpose of the PSC.
Bodies not specified in the legislation in either the public or private sector
may not request the PSC or may not be required to use it in any
transactions.
The Public Services Card is exactly that a card is designed for the
purpose of safely, securely and efficiently providing public services.
PSC and Data Protection
The design of the card was discussed with the Office of Data Protection
Commissioner which, in its Annual Report of 2010, advised that The
Public Services Card will include a photograph, signature and electronic
chip, as well as featuring the PPSN of the individual on the back of the
card. The incremental nature of the rollout of the Public Services Card is
welcome as is the active engagement of the Department of Social
Protection with all stakeholders including our Office to try to ensure that all
relevant issues are addressed. It has already completely taken on board a
number of points which we have made, which I very much welcome.
The personal information on the card is deliberately restricted to avoid
misrepresentation or identity fraud in circumstances where the card has
been lost or stolen. Lost or stolen cards are replaced without charge.
PSC and Security
Given the value of a Public Services Card, its design includes a number of
advanced physical and technical security features that meet the highest
international standards of data security. Importantly, all data contained on
the PSC chip is encrypted. Only paired card readers specifically
programmed to accept Public Services Cards can read the encrypted
personal data which is held on the card.
Free Travel Variant of the Public Services Card
Free Travel customers include those over 66 years of age, and customers
in receipt of Disability Allowance, Blind pension, Invalidity payments,
Carers payments and those participating in the Make Work Pay scheme
who can retain their free travel entitlement for a period of five years after
they return to work. The Free Travel variant of the PSC holds a separate
contactless chip which allows it to interact with the Integrated Ticketing
System operated by the National Transport Authority. No personal
information on a customer is made available to any transport operator
either inside or outside of the jurisdiction when the PSC is used to interact
with the ticketing system.
Have the Public Been informed about this ?
The Department has always been open about its plans to invite all
customers in receipt of social welfare payments to register to SAFE 2. The
Department has also produced explainer videos in both English and Irish
relating to the PSC card and it use; these are available on the
Departments website. www.welfare.ie/psc
The legislation underpinning the Departments application of the SAFE
registration process and use of the PSC has been published and debated
in the Oireachtas. Since the launch of the PSC in 2011, the Department
has answered a considerable amount of questions both in the Dil and in
the Irish media.
ENDS
Department of Social Protection
25th August 2017

Public Service Identity Dataset


This is described in legislation [Section 262(1) of the Social Welfare
Consolidation Act 2005, as amended] as consisting of the following:
Personal Public Service Number,
Surname,
Forename,
Date of Birth,
Sex,
All former surnames (if any)
All former surnames (if any) of his or her mother,
Address,
Nationality,
Date of Death,
Certificate of death, where relevant,
Where required, a photograph of the person, except where the person is
deceased,
Where required, the persons signature, except where the person is
deceased,
Any other information as may be required for authentication purposes
that is uniquely linked to or is capable of identifying that person,
Any other information that may be prescribed which, in the opinion of
the Minister, is relevant to and necessary for the allocation of a
personal public service number.

Your Personal Public Service Number (PPS number) is a unique reference number that helps you
access social welfare benefits, public services and information in Ireland.

Before you can be allocated a PPS number, you must show that you need one for a transaction
with a specified body. For example, if you are taking up employment, you need a PPS number to
register with the Revenue Commissioners. However, looking for work is not a transaction with a
specified body and employers should not look for your PPS number when recruiting. An employer
should only seek a PPS number if you are actually taking up employment with the organisation.

You can find a list of State agencies that use PPS numbers to identify individuals on
the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection's website.

A PPS number is always 7 numbers followed by either one or two letters.

The PPS number was known as the Revenue and Social Insurance (RSI) number. If your number
is the same as your spouse's number but your number has a W at the end, you may need a new
PPS number - see 'Phasing out of W numbers' below for more information.

Using the Personal Public Service Number

You can use your PPS number for:

All social welfare services


The Free Travel Pass
Pupil ID
Public health services, including the medical card and the Drugs Payment Scheme
Child immunisation
Schemes run by the Revenue Commissioners, such as mortgage interest relief
Housing grants
Driver Theory Testing and driver licences

A PPS number has already been issued to you if:

You were born in Ireland in or after 1971


You started work in Ireland after 1979
You are getting a social welfare payment
You are taking part in the Drugs Payment Scheme

PPS numbers are printed on the following documents:

Public Services Card


Social Services Card
Drugs Payment Scheme Card
Medical Card
GP visit card
European Health Insurance Card
P60 (the annual statement of pay, tax and social insurance contributions from your
employer)
P45 (the statement of tax and pay to date issued by your employer when you leave
employment)
Tax Assessment
PAYE Notice of Tax Credits
Temporary Payment Card

Phasing out of W numbers

Before 2000 when some women got married they had to use the same PPS number as their
husband, but with a W at the end of the number. This W number was issued by Revenue to
identify spouses in a jointly assessed relationship. The W number was linked to the PPS number
of the assessable spouse (which is the term used in Revenue for the spouse who is charged tax
on the income of both spouses).

These numbers are being slowly phased out and W numbers have not been issued since 1999.

If your PPS number is the same as your husbands PPS number but the last letter is W, you must
get a new PPS number in these circumstances:

If your spouse is deceased


If you are divorced or separated
If you were issued with a Social Insurance number before 1979

If you have a PPS number ending with W and you cannot access the Local Property Tax online
system using this number you may need to request a new number.

If you were issued a PPS number after 1979 and before you married, the Department may re-
issue you with your original number on request.

If you are changing your W number for a new PPS number you do not need to go through the
same application process as everyone else. To get your new number or to be re-instated with your
old number contact the Client Identity Section in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social
Protection (DEASP). The phone number is (071) 967 2616 or Lo-call 1890 927 999.
When you get your new number from the DEASP, you should inform any organisations that may
hold your old number. For example, your employer, your bank, the National Driver Licence
Service, the HSE and Revenue you can inform Revenue using the Revenues online Jobs and
Pension Service or contact your local tax office.

I'm moving to Ireland soon - how do I get a Personal Public Service


Number?

You cannot apply for a PPS number before you arrrive in Ireland. You must be living in Ireland to
apply for a PPS number. Before you can be allocated a PPS number, you must show that one is
required for a transaction with a specified body.

You will be asked to produce documentary evidence of identity and residence in Ireland. Different
documentary evidence will be required, depending on your nationality. A complete list of
documents required as evidence of your identity is available.

I am not resident in Ireland but I need a PPS number - how do I get it?

In some cases people who are not resident in Ireland may need a PPS number. For example,
someone who is a beneficiary under an Irish will may need to supply a PPS number before a grant
of probate can issue.

The DEASP's Client Identity Services (CIS) provide a service for non-resident applicants who
cannot attend at a designated PPS Registration Centre and who need a PPS number. If you want
to use this service, you must show documentary evidence that you need a PPS number for a
transaction with a specified body. You cannot use this exceptional application process if you are
living in or intend to relocate to Ireland for any period of time. Audits of PPS applications are
carried out periodically and you may be asked for additional information.

If you are living in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom and are working in the Republic of
Ireland (a frontier worker) you apply for a PPS number in the normal way at a designated PPS
Registration Centre.

I need a PPS number for a deceased person - how do I get this?

Occasionally a PPS number may be required for a deceased person, usually when dealing with
grant of probate.

In such cases, you should send a copy of the death certificate and details about why the PPS
number is required to the DEASP's Client Identity Services - the address is below.

Rules

To get a PPS number, you will need to fill out an application form in the PPS number centre,
provide evidence of your identity and evidence of why you need a PPS number allocated. You
must also provide proof of your address.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/WebAttach
ments.nsf/($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20141209/$File/Daily%20B
ook%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement

Unemployment Data
Unemployment Data

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/
Debates%20Authoring/WebAttachmen
ts.nsf/($vLookupByConstructedKey)/d
ail~20141209/$File/Daily%20Book%20
Writtens%20Unrevised.pdf?openelem
ent
Their argument for suppressing the DPCs concerns?

Commissioner feared
potential for form of
national ID card
Department believed release of Dixons email would
misinform about public services card
Tue, Sep 5, 2017, 21:00
Elaine Edwards

Public service card: Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon was


concerned about a considerable leap in purpose for the card

The Data Protection Commissioner told the head of the


Department of Social Protection last year that there was
a risk the public services card (PSC) was expanding in
scope and that this would turn it into a form of national
ID card.
Helen Dixons concerns are contained in an email to
former secretary general Niamh ODonoghue, released to
The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act.
The department initially refused to release the record
late last year and, on appeal, the Information
Commissioner overturned the decision.
Ms Dixon wrote on August 19th, 2016, that expanding
the use of the PPS number and the card beyond their
original boundaries would increase the exposure of the
PPSN system to heightened risk in terms of the
protections provided to the data privacy rights of
individuals.
She also expressed concern that an alternative
legislative framework outside the normal strictures of
social welfare legislation had been used to mandate the
collection of the PPS number for the new Central Credit
Register established by the Central Bank.
Leap in purpose
During the appeal process, the department told the
Information Commissioner it believed the release of the
views expressed in the letter would misinform the
public about the PSC. It also believed releasing the
correspondence would erode public confidence in the
project and/or in the ODPC.
In her email, Ms Dixon said the current
interdepartmental focus on identifying opportunities for
the wider use of the card, and initiatives such as the
proposal to replace the Garda Age Card with the PSC,
further underscore the ever increasing expansion of the
PPS number and the PSC beyond their stated purpose.
State must justify introduction of public services card
Public Services Card: More than semantics at play
No evidence public services card has cut fraud, says Fianna
Fil
Again, as a risk of functional creep, intentionally or
otherwise, there is a risk that the PSC will be altered
from one which contains limited information [name and
PPSN] existing to facilitate transactions with public
services into a form of national ID card.

This would represent a considerable leap in purpose for


the card, far beyond the original concept, Ms Dixon
said.
Functional creep is when something intended for one
purpose is gradually widened or extended for other
purposes.
Unauthorised disclosures
Ms Dixon said that should the use of the PPS number
and the card continue to be extended for purposes other
than transacting with the public services, the provisions
to safeguard against its misuse could be severely
undermined.
She noted numerous examples of unauthorised
disclosures both accidental and malicious of peoples
personal data by the public sector.
Such breaches when they become public knowledge
have the strong potential to weaken wider public
confidence in the PPSN system, as well as bringing
significant potential harm and detriment to the
individual.
In our view, expanding the use of the PPSN and PSC in
the manner I have outlined would likely increase the
exposure of the PPSN system to heightened risk in terms
of the protections provided to the data privacy rights of
individuals, Ms Dixon wrote.
She said the purposes for which the PPSN and PSC were
now being, or proposed to be, used, indicated the need
for a comprehensive and transparent public sector-wide
strategy on the future uses of both.
On August 29th, Elizabeth Dolan, senior investigator
with the Office of the Information Commissioner,
directed the release of the email and said the department
had not adequately demonstrated that the release of the
records would be contrary to the public interest.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and other Ministers have
insisted the card is not, and was never intended to be, a
national ID card. Writing in The Irish Times last week,
Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said the card
infrastructure and the associated MyGovID digital
identity was part of ambitious plans for cross-border e-
government and the establishment of a digital single
market.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-
affairs/commissioner-feared-potential-for-form-of-
national-id-card-1.3210594

The Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill


2017 currently before the Oireachtas proposes to remove
restrictions on the use of the public services card so that
it may be used mo

Doherty's officials can't


back up their claim that
the public want to use
PSCs as ID cards

1
Shane Phelan
September 5 2017

PSC Public Services Cardre widely as a form of ID.


Regina Doherty's officials have no formal research to back up their insistence
the public actually want to use the Public Services Card (PSC) as an identity
card.
Officials at the Department of Social Protection said "customer opinion" was
behind new legislation, which will significantly relax restrictions on the use of
the card and promote its use as an ID card.

The department said it received the feedback from face-to-face meetings


between its staff and customers, rather than through any formal survey or
research.
The claims are the latest twist in the row over the roll-out of the PSC, which civil liberties campaigners
believe is being introduced as a national ID card by stealth.

Currently, the law only allows for the card to be used in dealings with around 120 "specified bodies"
and it is an offence for a private entity to request that someone produce it. Garda are prohibited from
asking people to show the card as proof of identification.

But the new legislation would allow cardholders get their date of birth printed on their PSC and use it
as a substitute to the Garda Age Card.

Cardholders would also be given the discretion to voluntarily produce their PSC to private entities to
verify their name and age.

In a statement to the Irish Independent, the department said: "Customer opinion is that they should be
allowed to volunteer the card to non-specified bodies if it suits them to do so, for the purpose of ID and
age verification. Many customers often report that private companies insist on a passport or driver's
licence, which they might not have and which are costly, whereas the PSC is free."

The legislative proposals, contained in the general scheme of the Social


Welfare and Pensions Bill 2017, are viewed by critics as a step towards the
PSC becoming a national ID card.

However, the department said that while it would no longer be an offence for
a private entity to accept the card, it would remain an offence for one to
require someone to produce the PSC. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted the
PSC would not morph into a national ID card.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dohertys-officials-cant-back-
up-their-claim-that-the-public-want-to-use-pscs-as-id-cards-36100783.html

Ireland must learn from UK


data protection and ID
disasters
Ditching of costly databases in UK suggests more care
needed with public services card
Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 05:00
TJ McIntyre

While authorities may push ahead with plans which ignore concerns about
privacy and data protection, the law will eventually catch up with them, usually
at significant cost to the taxpayer.
The growth of the public services card as a de facto
national ID card has attracted a lot of media attention
recently, with special credit due to Elaine Edwards of
this newspaper for her persistence in excavating the facts
on which most of the later reporting has been based.
The issue continues to rumble on, and the Data
Protection Commissioner has asked the Department of
Social Protection to explain the legal basis for the claim
that the card is mandatory. One month later, despite
repeated promises, the department has not yet done so.
More could be written about the public services card,
and the varying and sometimes contradictory claims put
forward to support it. But if we focus on the card we risk
missing the wider picture, which is that the card is not
an aberration but exemplifies a systematic disregard for
privacy and data protection throughout the State.
Consider the Department of Health. In a remarkable
statement to the Dil earlier this month, Minister for
Health Simon Harris admitted that Ireland remains in
breach of both European Union and national data
protection legislation by keeping a database of blood
samples from newborn children without the consent of
their parents. Following a complaint in 2009, the Data
Protection Commissioner ordered that these samples be
destroyed. However, the Department of Health has
failed to comply and is instead proceeding with plans to
retain the database and to open it up for research and
possible other uses.
Ignore with impunity
This defiance of the law raises significant questions for
the independence of the Data Protection Commissioner,
who has taken no enforcement action against this
challenge to her statutory authority. The message to the
State is that it can ignore data protection law with
impunity.
Since 2014, the Department of Health has also been
involved in developing health identification numbers
and electronic health records schemes, which present
significant issues of privacy and confidentiality. For
example, by requiring the use of health identification
numbers these schemes tie together potentially leak-
sensitive information about an individuals medical
history, despite an earlier promise that use of these
numbers would be voluntary. It is hard to trust
assurances from the department on this issue given that
it is already, by its own admission, in deliberate breach
of data protection law.
In 2014, An Garda Sochna started using body-worn
cameras in an ad hoc way, without any legislation or
formal safeguards. The Garda five-year modernisation
plan says that the Garda will start taking video feeds
from the National Roads Authority, local authorities and
private car park operators to run automatic number
plate recognition systems creating a national database
of peoples travel to be stored for an unspecified period.
That plan also says that, from 2017, the Garda will start
using face-in-the-crowd and shape-in-the-crowd
biometrics to identify people on CCTV systems. Again,
all of this is to take place without any legal basis, in a
manner that appears to be contrary to data protection
law. It seems the Garda has not learned any institutional
lessons from the 2014 scandal around the recording of
calls to and from Garda stations, nor from the ongoing
concerns about abuse of the Pulse system.
Fundamental rights
The common pattern in these cases is that fundamental
rights are viewed as inconvenient obstacles. This is a
paternalistic view, in which the institution knows best
and public concern can be disregarded. However, this
approach merely stores up problems for the future.
There are lessons for Ireland from the UK, where many
of these issues have already been played out.
In 2002, the UK government launched a National Health
Service-wide electronic health records system which
failed to adequately address patient confidentiality. This
was eventually scrapped in 2011, in large part due to
concerns about privacy, and replaced with systems
which guarantee that patients can opt out of data
sharing. The ultimate cost was in the region of 10
billion.
The public services card has a parallel in the UK, where
ID cards and a National Identity Register were
introduced by legislation in 2006, only to be abandoned
and the data destroyed in 2011 following extensive public
opposition. Similar to the public services card, the UK ID
card had no clear rationale and was ultimately rejected
by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government as wasteful,
bureaucratic and intrusive, at an eventual cost of about
5 billion.
The increasing Garda use of CCTV, facial recognition
and number-plate recognition also echoes the UK, where
both the information commissioner and the independent
surveillance camera commissioner have described
similar practices by UK police forces as intrusive,
disproportionate and illegal.
Significant cost
The message from these UK examples is clear. While
state authorities may push ahead with plans which
ignore concerns about privacy and data protection, the
law will eventually catch up with them, usually at
significant cost to the taxpayer. Fundamental rights are
factors which must be taken into account at the outset,
not reluctantly considered when a scheme is already
being implemented.
As the Data Protection Commissioner put it in her most
recent annual report: Public-sector bodies and
Government departments are in many cases slow to
adjust to the reality that data-protection rights cannot
simply be legislated away without sufficient necessity
and proportionality analysis and prejudice tests being
applied.
The failure of the State to accept these points has already
squandered public trust in areas such as the public
services card, and seems likely to do so in other areas
such as electronic health records.
Dr TJ McIntyre is a lecturer in the UCD
Sutherland School of Law, a solicitor with FP
Logue Solicitors and the chair of Digital Rights
Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/t
echnology/ireland-must-learn-from-uk-
data-protection-and-id-disasters-
1.3236139
Blistering writing by @klillington. Mr Justice Murray left no doubt that the existing law stank

Steps finally being taken to


change shameful data
retention law
Indiscriminate surveillance trampled on privacy rights of
ordinary citizens for years
about 9 hours ago Updated: about 8 hours ago

Karlin Lillington Follow @klillington


0

Former chief justice John Murray: produced a damning report which draws
pretty much the same conclusions about Irish law that the ECJ did about the
EU directive. Photograph: Frank Miller
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Pinterest

Share to Reddit

Share to Google+
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Email App

Share to LinkedIn

Its taken quite a while for the Irish Government to


properly notice that, in April 2014, the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) resoundingly rejected the validity of the
EU Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC).
That landmark ECJ decision had a direct relationship to
Irelands data retention laws. The case forwarded to the
court, on which the decision hinged, was brought by
Digital Rights Ireland (DRI). It questioned the
constitutionality of Irelands data retention law, the
Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011, which
implemented the EU directive. The ECJ was asked to
assess the validity of the EU directive, the substantive
basis of Irelands law.
The view of Europes highest court was that the directive
amounted to indiscriminate surveillance on the entire
population of the EU, could leave people with the sense
that they had little personal privacy, and conflicted at
numerous points with the European Charter of
Fundamental Rights, entail[ing] an interference with
the fundamental rights of practically the entire European
population.
Data retention involves the mandatory storing of all
telecommunications metadata for calls, texts, emails
and, in some cases, other internet browsing activity for
anywhere from months to years. Metadata is pretty
much everything except the content of a communication
the date and time sent or received, who sent and
received the item, the duration of a call, the size of an
email, the location of a mobile and IP addresses.
For a long time, metadata was often referred to by those
who wished to collect it as just metadata, as if merely
trivial technical bits and bobs of minor privacy
concern. But, reflecting the findings of many studies and
experiments, the ECJ found otherwise.
Everyday life
Those data, taken as a whole, may provide very precise
information on the private lives of the persons whose
data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life,
permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or
other movements, activities carried out, social
relationships and the social environments frequented,
the court noted in a statement.

The judgment declared the directive invalid on a


number of points including the indiscriminate collection
of such data for long, arbitrary periods, and the failure to
provide adequate security protections or oversight.
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
States approach to data privacy is a national scandal
The judgment has since been followed by several more
complementary decisions regarding data gathering,
including that of Schrems v Facebook.
After the DRI judgment, years passed, but Irish law did
not change. On the contrary, the Government continued
to defend its position that Irish data retention legislation
was not unconstitutional, despite the ECJ ruling.
Yet, on those key points noted by the ECJ in its DRI
decision, little to nothing of import distinguished the
Irish implementation of the EU directive from the EU
directive, indicating that Irish data retention law surely
must also violate fundamental rights guaranteed to
European citizens.
Still, inconceivably, the domestic DRI case remained
live. And the Government made no move to bring in
replacement legislation.
Until now. Last week, the Department of Justice finally
published proposals for a Communications (Retention of
Data) Bill 2017. Not coincidentally, the announcement
came alongside the departments release, after nearly six
months, of retired chief justice John Murrays report to
Government (at former minister for justice Frances
Fitzgeralds request), in which he reviewed Irelands
existing data retention law.
Evolution
But his review took place not because of an ECJ
judgment made in relation to an Irish challenge to that
legislation. Instead, the review came in the wake of
questions about the legal basis by which Gsoc obtained
access to several journalists call records, as revealed in
January 2016.
As DRI chairman TJ McIntyre pointed out here last
week (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-s-
approach-to-data-privacy-is-a-national-scandal-
1.3246055http://iti.ms/2y9ljbF), Mr Justice Murray
chose to interpret the review request broadly and
included a review of the data retention legislation.
He produced a damning report which draws pretty
much the same conclusions about Irish law that the ECJ
did about the EU directive. As McIntyre notes in his
analysis of the report and the proposals, Mr Justice
Murray left no doubt that the existing law stank, and the
Government clearly moved swiftly, finally, to prepare
new legislation following receipt of the report.
Thats what was announced last week. Yet not once does
the Department of Justices official media release refer
to the DRI case, the obvious reason why new legislation
must be introduced. Instead, the need for change is
credited to evolving jurisprudence coming from the
ECJ.
Well, OK, but it evolved pretty definitively back in April
2014. The DRI decision on its own mandated the need to
change the law here. We didnt need further evolution.
Still at least and at last real steps are finally being
taken to change this shameful legislation to something
more balanced and proportionate.
But consider that neither the State nor the media
seriously scrutinised a law so deleterious to human
rights and the privacy of all Irish citizens, even after the
ECJ decision, until journalists found it affected them,
too, and made an almighty fuss.
The rights of ordinary citizens? Oh, them. They
didnt seem to matter that much.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/t
echnology/steps-finally-being-taken-
to-change-shameful-data-retention-
law-1.3252329#.Wd8ZVueGnk0.twitter
As DRI chairman TJ McIntyre pointed out here last week
Mr Justice Murray chose to interpret the review request broadly and
included a review of the data retention legislation.

States approach to data


privacy is a national scandal
So deep are the problems that actions for damages may
be brought and convictions quashed
Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 01:00
TJ McIntyre

In almost every regard the Irish system fails to meet standards articulated in a
number of recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and the
European Court of Justice. Photograph: iStock
Its not every day that a Minister for Justice issues a
report describing their department as operating a
universal, indiscriminate and illegal system of mass
surveillance. Yet that is precisely what happened last
Tuesday with the publication of a damning report by
retired chief justice John Murray, which found that Irish
surveillance practices fail to comply with European law.
The background dates from January 2016, when it
emerged that Gsoc had been accessing journalists phone
records (without a clear legal basis) in order to identify
their sources within An Garda Sochna. In response,
then Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald appointed
the former chief justice to examine the legal framework
around State access to journalists communications data
- a remit he interpreted widely to include the underlying
data retention law.
That law the Communications (Retention of Data) Act
2011 forces telephone companies and ISPs to log
details of everyones communications and movements
and to store that information for up to two years. In
Murrays words it constitutes a form of mass
surveillance of virtually the entire population of the
State, involving the retention and storage of historic
data, other than actual content, pertaining to every
electronic communication, in any form, made by anyone
and everyone at any time In essence this means the
retention of all communication data not going explicitly
to content: in other words, data pertaining to such
matters such as the date, time and location of a
telephone call.
Vast store of personal info
The impact on the privacy of individuals is clear. As the
report puts it, a vast amount of private information
pertaining to the personal communications of virtually
everyone in the State is now retained without the
consent of those affected Although routinely referred
to in anodyne terms as data or retained data, this vast
store of private information touches every aspect of an
individuals private and professional communications
profile over a lengthy period.
By providing for universal rather than
targeted surveillance the system falls at
the first hurdle
Despite the intrusiveness of this system, Murray found
that in almost every regard it fails to meet standards
articulated in a number of recent judgments by the
European Court of Human Rights and the European
Court of Justice.
Steps finally being taken to change shameful data
retention law
Restricting seizure of computer evidence could have huge
consequences
Google offered to provide cyber training for Irish judges
Some of the main problems can be summarised. By
providing for universal rather than targeted surveillance
the system falls at the first hurdle: the report noted that
European case law effectively sweeps the ground from
under wholly indiscriminate mass surveillance schemes
of the kind established by the 2011 Act.
In the same way, the report found that Irish law fails to
meet European standards by allowing for
communications data to be accessed based purely on
internal procedures within An Garda Sochna, without
any court approval and without any protections for
journalists sources. Even the basic matter of keeping
this sensitive data secure was flunked: according to the
report the approach to data security [under the 2011
Act] can, at best, be described as nonchalant.
Indeed, in a remarkable postscript, Murray said that
because many of the features of the [2011 Act] are
precluded by EU law, State agencies should consider
whether they should continue to access data pending
the final resolution of issues pertaining to the status of
the Act and/or any amending legislation conforming
with EU law and obligations under the ECHR.
Translated from the polite language of the judiciary, this
is a strong warning that Irish law is so deficient that it is
dangerous to rely on it any further.
Scandalous lag
The report was delivered to the Department of Justice in
April this year and its tone and implications clearly
spurred urgent action in the following months.
Alongside the report, the Minister has published a
general scheme of a Bill to replace the 2011 Act, which
addresses most (though not all) of the criticisms made
by the former chief justice.
While the Minister must be commended for producing a
draft Bill that genuinely engages with privacy issues, it is
scandalous that it has taken this long to do so. The
department has sought to spin its actions as a response
to recent evolving case law coming from Europe. It is
true that the European courts have become stronger on
privacy issues in recent years, particularly after the
Snowden revelations, but the reality is that the
fundamental rights problems with data retention
schemes have been clear for over a decade.
Irish journalists and citizens have been
exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of
illegally obtained evidence
In 2005 the civil rights group Digital Rights Ireland
started High Court proceedings challenging Irish and
European data retention laws; in 2010 the High Court
agreed that the case raised important constitutional
issues; in 2014 Digital Rights Ireland succeeded in part
of that case before the European Court of Justice; and
the case has since returned to the High Court for a full
hearing. Each of these developments should have
prompted reform; instead, successive ministers
including Dermot Ahern, Alan Shatter and Frances
Fitzgerald adopted the ostrich position.
The result of this delay is that Irish journalists and
citizens have been exposed to illegal surveillance, and
prosecutions brought on the basis of illegally obtained
evidence. Unfortunately it is possible that claims for
damages may be brought against the State and
convictions may be overturned as a result. If so, the
blame for this will lie squarely with the Department of
Justice and successive ministers.
Dr TJ McIntyre is a lecturer in the UCD Sutherland
School of Law, solicitor with FP Logue Solicitors and
chair of Digital Rights Ireland
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/st
ate-s-approach-to-data-privacy-is-a-
national-scandal-1.3246055

How Companies Use Personal Data


Against People
Automated disadvantage and personalized manipulation? A working paper on the
societal ramifications of the commercial use of personal information, with a focus on
automated decision-making, personalization, and data-driven behavioral change.
Working Paper by Wolfie Christl, Cracked Labs,
October 2017.
The large-scale commercial exploitation of digital
personal information raises major concerns about the
future of autonomy, equality, human dignity, and
democracy. Our previous report, published in June 2017,
documented the massive scale and scope of how
companies collect, disclose, trade, and utilize personal
information about individuals today (Web, PDF).
Our new working paper further explores and examines
how the corporate aggregation and use of personal data
can affect individuals, groups of people, and society at
large, in particular in the context of two partially
overlapping areas of concern: automated decisions and
data-driven persuasion.

Download
How Companies Use Personal Data Against People.
Automated Disadvantage, Personalized Persuasion, and
the Societal Ramifications of the Commercial Use of
Personal Information.
Working paper by Cracked Labs, October 2017. Author:
Wolfie Christl. Contributors: Katharina Kopp, Patrick
Urs Riechert.
Download as PDF
Abstract
Today, companies aggregate, trade, and utilize personal
information at unprecedented levels. Their unilateral and
extensive access to data about the characteristics,
behaviors, and lives of billions allows them to constantly
monitor, follow, judge, sort, rate, and rank people as they
see fit. Our previous report documented the massive
scale and scope of todays networks of digital tracking
and profiling. It investigated relevant industries, business
models, platforms, services, devices, technologies, and
data flows, focusing on their implications for people
whether as individuals, consumers, or citizens and
society at large.
This working paper examines how the corporate use of
personal information can affect individuals, groups of
people, and society at large, particularly in the context of
automated decisions, personalization and data-driven
persuasion. After briefly reviewing our previous
researchs findings and key developments in recent
years, this paper explores their potential to be used
against people in detail.
Systems that make decisions about people based on
their data produce substantial adverse effects that can
massively limit their choices, opportunities, and life-
chances. These systems are largely opaque,
nontransparent, arbitrary, biased, unfair, and
unaccountable even in areas such as credit rating that
have long been regulated in some way. Through data-
driven personalization, companies and other institutions
can easily utilize information asymmetries in order to
exploit personal weaknesses with calculated efficiency.
Personalized persuasion strategies provide the means to
effectively influence behavior at scale. As companies
increasingly and unilaterally shape the networked
environments and experiences that underlie and
determine everyday life, manipulative, misleading,
deceptive, or even coercive strategies can be automated
and customized down to the individual level.
Based on the examination of business practices and their
implications we conclude that, in their current state,
todays commercial networks of digital tracking and
profiling show a massive potential to limit personal
agency, autonomy, and human dignity. This not only
deeply affects individuals, but also society at large. By
improving the ability to exclude or precisely target
already disadvantaged groups, current corporate practices
utilizing personal information tend toward
disproportionally affecting these groups and therefore
increase social and economic inequality. Especially
when combined with influencing strategies derived from
neuroeconomics and behavioral economics, data-driven
persuasion undermines the concept of rational choice and
thus the basic foundation of market economy. When
used in political campaigns or in other efforts to shape
public policy, it may undermine democracy at large.
While this working paper does not directly offer
solutions, it examines, documents, structures, and
contextualizes todays commercial personal data
industries and their implications; further research will
build on this basis. Hopefully, it will also encourage and
contribute to further work by others.
The production of this report was supported by the Open Society
Foundations.

http://crackedlabs.org/en/data-against-
people
CORPORATE SURVEILLANCE IN
EVERYDAY LIFE How Companies
Collect, Combine, Analyze, Trade, and
Use Personal Data on Billions

http://crackedlabs.org/dl/CrackedLabs
_Christl_CorporateSurveillance.pdf
HOW COMPANIES USE PERSONAL
DATA AGAINST PEOPLE Automated
Disadvantage, Personalized Persuasion,
and the Societal Ramifications of the
Commercial Use of Personal Information
http://crackedlabs.org/dl/CrackedLabs
_Christl_DataAgainstPeople.pdf
Networks of Control A Report on
Corporate Surveillance, Digital Tracking,
Big Data & Privacy
http://crackedlabs.org/dl/Christl_Spiek
ermann_Networks_Of_Control.pdf

Privacy Offline tracking


https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/e-
privacy-onepager_offline-tracking.pdf

Dear MEPs: We need you


to protect our privacy
online!
By EDRi
Theyre hip, theyre slick and they follow you everywhere.
They know you like new shoes, playing tennis and
tweeting at odd hours of the morning. Do you know what
that says about your health, your relationships and your
spending power? No? Well, the online companies do.
They follow you everywhere you go online, they have a
perfect memory, they know the sites you visited last year
even if youve forgotten Look whos stalking.
European legislation protecting your personal data was
updated in 2016, but the battle to keep it safe is not over
yet. The European Union is revising its e-Privacy rules.
We welcomed the European Commission (EC) proposal
as a good starting point, but with room for improvement.
The online tracking industry is lobbying fiercely against it.
Online tracking and profiling gave us filter bubbles and
echo chambers. Yet the lobbyists lobby for it under the
pretext of saving the internet, protecting quality
journalism even saving democracy.
The European Parliament is currently debating its position
on the EC proposal. Some Members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) support tracking business, as usual
while others support a strong future-proof norm to protect
the privacy, innovation and security of future generations
of EU citizens and businesses.
Priorities for defending privacy and security:
1) Protect confidentiality of our communications both in
transit and at rest!
Confidentiality of communications needs to be protected
both in transit and when it is stored. Lobbyists have been
campaigning for a technicality that would allow them to
read and exploit your emails stored in the cloud. (Art. 5)
2) Protect our privacy: Do not add loopholes to security
measures!
A legitimate interest exception was not included in any
version of the previous e-Privacy Directives. This would be
a major weakening of the legislation compared with
existing rules. Our member Bits of Freedom wrote about
the problems with legitimate interest here. (several
Articles and Recitals)
3) Do not let anyone use our data without asking for our
consent!
It is crucial to keep consent as the legal ground to process
communications data. Neither legitimate interest nor
further processing should be allowed to weaken the
security and privacy of European citizens and businesses
(Art.6)
4) Privacy should not be an option what we need is
privacy by default!
Provisions about default privacy settings need to be
strengthened and improved, certainly not watered down or
deleted. e-Privacy must ensure privacy by design and by
default and not, as in the EC proposal, privacy by
option. You can find our specific proposals here. The
European Parliament previously adopted a Directive that
criminalises unauthorised access to computer systems. It
would be completely incoherent if it were to adopt
legislation that foresees default settings that do not protect
against unauthorised access to devices. (Art. 10)
5) No new exceptions to undermine our privacy!
Exceptions for Member States cannot become a carte
blanche rendering e-Privacy useless. Therefore, the
safeguards established by the Court of Justice of the
European Union on cases regarding the exceptions in the
relevant sections of the e-Privacy Regulation should be
diligently respected the scope of the exception should
not be expanded. (Art. 11)
6) Do not undermine encryption!
Imposing a ban on undermining or attacking encryption
should be a priority.
7) Protect our devices (hardware+software) by design and
by default!
Hardware and software security need to be protected by
design and by default.
MEPs, protect our #ePrivacy Support amendments that
follow the principles listed above!
e-Privacy revision: Document pool
https://edri.org/eprivacy-directive-document-pool/
e-Privacy: Consent (pdf)
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/e-privacy-
onepager_consent.pdf
e-Privacy: Legitimate interest (pdf)
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/e-privacy-
onepager_legitimate-interest.pdf
e-Privacy: Privacy by design and by default (pdf)
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/e-privacy-onepager_privacy-
by-default.pdf
e-Privacy: Offline tracking (pdf)
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/e-privacy-onepager_offline-
tracking.pdf
Your privacy, security and freedom online are in danger
(14.09.2016)
https://edri.org/privacy-security-freedom/
Five things the online tracking industry gets wrong
(13.09.2017)
https://edri.org/five-things-the-online-tracking-industry-
gets-wrong/
ePrivacy Regulation: Call a representative and make your
voice heard!
https://eprivacy.laquadrature.net/-piphone/
Whos afraid of e-Privacy? (04.10.2017)
https://medium.com/@privacyint/whos-afraid-of-e-
privacy-7969a1cfe776

https://edri.org/dear-meps-we-need-you-to-protect-
our-privacy-online/
Boris Johnson's 350m lie exposed by the UK Statistics Authority
https://twitter.com/MariaMichalis
EU court to probe new Facebook data challenge Data privacy invalid bY EU and
US and UK
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sh2/HCJ.pdf
EU Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU) was set up in mid-2015 within the EU's
Hague-based police agency, Europol, to help inform the internet firms of
illegal content
https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/eu-internet-referral-
unit-year-one-report-highlights

INTERNET ORGANISED CRIME


THREAT ASSESSMENT (IOCTA) 2017
Report
IOCTA
https://www.europol.europa.eu/iocta/2017/index.html

The Irish High Court is referring the case to the European Court of Justice
because the data ... mass surveillance as ... Irish data commissioner ... Irish High
Court- Judgement on Facebook and US surveillance delivered on 3rd October
2017
http://europe-v-facebook.org/PA_Oct3.pdf
Irish High Court rules on Facebook surveillance case- Irish DPC has well
founded concerns over US surveillance of Facebook EU-US data transfer
complaint referred to European Court of Justice for a second time
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sh2/PA.pdf
Irish High Court hears DPC lawsuit against Facebook & Schrems February 7th
2017 the Irish High Court will hear a case brought by the Irish Data Protection
Commissioner (DPC) against Facebook Ireland Ltd and Mr Schrems over EU-US
data
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/MU_HC.pdf

Privacy: Facebook to face the European Court of Justice (CJEU) Austrian Supreme Court
refers class action to Luxembourg

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sk/PA_OGH_en.pdf
US Government seeks to join European US mass surveillance case In an unusual
move the United States government has asked the Irish High Court today,

NSA Mass Surveillance:


US Government wants to intervene in European Facebook-Case

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/PR_MC-US.pdf
Irish Data Protection Commissioner to bring EU-US data flows before CJEU again

Update:

Facebook & NSA-Surveillance: Following Safe Harbor decision, Irish


Data Protection Commissioner to bring EU-US data flows before CJEU
again

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/PA_MCs.pdf
The Irish High Court has decided that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner
has to investigate "Facebook Ireland Ltd" over alleged cooperation of "Facebook
Inc" with US spy agencies, such as under the NSA's "PRISM"
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/MU_HC.pdf
letter of Complaint against Facebook Ireland Ltd 23 PRISM
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/prism/facebook.pdf

CJEU: First reaction to AGs opinion on NSA PRISM scandal


Facebooks EU-US data transfers under Safe Harbor not legal

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/GA_en.pdf
Savage v. Data Protection Commissioner & Google Ireland
https://www.dataprotection.ie/documents/judgements/Savage_v_DPC_&_Googl
e_Ireland_Circuit_Court_judgment_11.10.16.pdf
Shatter v. Data Protection Commissioner - 21 January 2015
https://www.dataprotection.ie/documents/judgements/Shatter_v_DPC_Circuit_
Court_21.1.15.pdf

ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-
29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2016/wp235_en.pdf
Safe_Harbours_Decision_CJEU_6.10.15 Court of Justice of the European Union
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner - 6 October 2015
https://www.dataprotection.ie/documents/judgements/Safe_Harbours_Decisio
n_CJEU_6.10.15.pdf

European Court of Justice strikes a blow


for the little guys
Data protection
Wed, Oct 7, 2015, 00:05

Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems has performed an important service to Irish and European
consumers that deserves acknowledgment. Yesterdays ruling in his favour in the European Court of
Justice (ECJ), on a clarification sought by the Irish High Court, in effect reprimands both Irelands
Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) and the European Commission for failing adequately to oversee
and protect European standards of data protection against the attentions of US intelligence agencies.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/european-court-of-justice-
strikes-a-blow-for-the-little-guys-1.2381311?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-
origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorial%2Feur
opean-court-of-justice-strikes-a-blow-for-the-little-guys-1.2381311
European Court of Justice Strikes EU-US Agreement on PNR Data BY FRANCESCA
BIGNAMI

Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04

European Parliament

Council of the European Union

and

Commission of the European Communities

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data Air


transport Decision 2004/496/EC Agreement between the European Community
and the United States of America Passenger Name Records of air passengers
transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Directive 95/46/EC Article 25 Third countries Decision 2004/535/EC
Adequate level of protection)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Approximation of laws Directive 95/46 Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46, Art. 3(2); Commission Decision
2004/535)

2. International agreements Conclusion EEC-United States Agreement on


the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Records of air passengers to the
United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

(Art. 95 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46, Arts 3(2) and 25;
Council Decision 2004/496)

1. Decision 2004/535 on the adequate protection of personal data contained in


the Passenger Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection relates to personal-data processing
operations concerning public security and the activities of the State in areas of
criminal law, operations which are excluded from the scope of Directive 95/46 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data, by virtue of the first indent of Article 3(2) of that
directive.

The fact that the personal data are collected by private operators for commercial
purposes and it is they who arrange for their transfer to a third country does not alter
such a conclusion, inasmuch as their transfer falls within a framework established by
the public authorities that relates to public security, and is not necessary for the
supply of services by those operators.

(see paras 56-59)


2. Decision 2004/496 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European
Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR
(Passenger Name Record) data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of
Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, cannot have been
validly adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC, read in conjunction with Article 25 of
Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data.

The agreement relates to data processing operations which, since they concern
public security and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law, are excluded
from the scope of Directive 95/46 by virtue of the first indent of Article 3(2) of that
directive.

(see paras 67-69)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

30 May 2006 (*)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data Air


transport Decision 2004/496/EC Agreement between the European
Community and the United States of America Passenger Name Records of
air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection Directive 95/46/EC Article 25 Third countries Decision
2004/535/EC Adequate level of protection)

In Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04,

ACTIONS for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 July 2004,

European Parliament, represented by R. Passos, N. Lorenz, H. Duintjer


Tebbens and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg,

applicant,

supported by

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), represented by H. Hijmans


and V. Perez Asinari, acting as Agents,

intervener,

v
Council of the European Union, represented by M.C. Giorgi Fort and
M. Bishop, acting as Agents,

defendant in Case C-317/04,

supported by

Commission of the European Communities, represented by P.J. Kuijper, A.


van Solinge and C. Docksey, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by


M. Bethell, C. White and T. Harris, acting as Agents, and by T. Ward, Barrister,
with an address for service in Luxembourg,

interveners,

and v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by P.J. Kuijper, A.


van Solinge, C. Docksey and F. Benyon, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg,

defendant in Case C-318/04,

supported by

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by


M. Bethell, C. White and T. Harris, acting as Agents, and by T. Ward, Barrister,
with an address for service in Luxembourg,

intervener,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas


and J. Malenovsk, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von
Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet,
M. Ilei and J. Kluka, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Lger,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 18 October
2005,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22


November 2005,

gives the following

Judgment
1 By its application in Case C-317/04, the European Parliament seeks the
annulment of Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion
of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of
America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the
United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (OJ 2004 L 183, p. 83, and corrigendum at OJ 2005 L 255, p.
168).

2 By its application in Case C-318/04, the Parliament seeks the annulment of


Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 on the adequate protection
of personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record of air passengers
transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (OJ
2004 L 235, p. 11; the decision on adequacy).

Legal context

3 Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (the ECHR),
provides:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of


this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or
the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.

4 The second sentence of Article 95(1) EC is worded as follows:

The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the
measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation
or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the
establishment and functioning of the internal market.

5 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24


October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),
as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 September 2003 adapting to Council Decision
1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the
Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in
instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty
(OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1) (the Directive), was adopted on the basis of Article 100a
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC).

6 The 11th recital in the preamble to the Directive states that the principles of
the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, notably the right to
privacy, which are contained in this Directive, give substance to and amplify
those contained in the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 for
the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal
Data.

7 The 13th recital in the preamble reads as follows:

the activities referred to in Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union


regarding public safety, defence, State security or the activities of the State in
the area of criminal laws fall outside the scope of Community law, without
prejudice to the obligations incumbent upon Member States under Article 56(2),
Article 57 or Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community
....

8 The 57th recital states:

... the transfer of personal data to a third country which does not ensure an
adequate level of protection must be prohibited.

9 Article 2 of the Directive provides:

For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) personal data shall mean any information relating to an identified or


identifiable natural person (data subject); an identifiable person is one
who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an
identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical,
physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

(b) processing of personal data (processing) shall mean any operation or


set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not
by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organisation, storage,
adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by
transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or
combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;

10 Article 3 of the Directive is worded as follows:

Scope

1. This Directive shall apply to the processing of personal data wholly or


partly by automatic means, and to the processing otherwise than by automatic
means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to
form part of a filing system.

2. This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data:

in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community


law, such as those provided for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on
European Union and in any case to processing operations concerning
public security, defence, State security (including the economic well-
being of the State when the processing operation relates to State security
matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law,


11 Article 6(1) of the Directive states:

Member States shall provide that personal data must be:

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further
processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Further processing
of data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes shall not be
considered as incompatible provided that Member States provide
appropriate safeguards;

(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for
which they are collected and/or further processed;

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer
than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or
for which they are further processed. ...

12 Article 7 of the Directive provides:

Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:

(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which


the controller is subject; or

(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the
public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the
controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or

(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests


pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data
are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the
interests [or] fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which
require protection under Article 1(1).

13 The first subparagraph of Article 8(5) of the Directive is worded as follows:

Processing of data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security


measures may be carried out only under the control of official authority, or if
suitable specific safeguards are provided under national law, subject to
derogations which may be granted by the Member State under national
provisions providing suitable specific safeguards. However, a complete register
of criminal convictions may be kept only under the control of official authority.

14 Article 12 of the Directive provides:

Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the
controller:
(a) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or
expense:

confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being


processed and information at least as to the purposes of the
processing, the categories of data concerned, and the recipients or
categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed,

communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing


processing and of any available information as to their source,

knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data


concerning him at least in the case of the automated decisions
referred to in Article 15(1);

(b) as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the


processing of which does not comply with the provisions of this Directive,
in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data;

(c) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any
rectification, erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless
this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort.

15 Article 13(1) of the Directive is worded as follows:

Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the
obligations and rights provided for in Articles 6(1), 10, 11(1), 12 and 21 when
such a restriction constitutes a necessary [measure] to safeguard:

(a) national security;

(b) defence;

(c) public security;

(d) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal


offences, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions;

(e) an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the


European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters;

(f) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even


occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in
(c), (d) and (e);

(g) the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others.

16 Article 22 of the Directive provides:

Remedies

Without prejudice to any administrative remedy for which provision may be


made, inter alia before the supervisory authority referred to in Article 28, prior
to referral to the judicial authority, Member States shall provide for the right of
every person to a judicial remedy for any breach of the rights guaranteed him
by the national law applicable to the processing in question.

17 Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive constitute Chapter IV, on the transfer of


personal data to third countries.

18 Article 25, headed Principles, provides:

1. The Member States shall provide that the transfer to a third country of
personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing
after transfer may take place only if, without prejudice to compliance with the
national provisions adopted pursuant to the other provisions of this Directive,
the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection.

2. The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country shall


be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer
operation or set of data transfer operations; particular consideration shall be
given to the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the proposed
processing operation or operations, the country of origin and country of final
destination, the rules of law, both general and sectoral, in force in the third
country in question and the professional rules and security measures which are
complied with in that country.

3. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases
where they consider that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of
protection within the meaning of paragraph 2.

4. Where the Commission finds, under the procedure provided for in Article
31(2), that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection
within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, Member States shall take the
measures necessary to prevent any transfer of data of the same type to the
third country in question.

5. At the appropriate time, the Commission shall enter into negotiations with
a view to remedying the situation resulting from the finding made pursuant to
paragraph 4.

6. The Commission may find, in accordance with the procedure referred to


in Article 31(2), that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection
within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, by reason of its domestic law
or of the international commitments it has entered into, particularly upon
conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 5, for the protection of
the private lives and basic freedoms and rights of individuals.

Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with the
Commissions decision.

19 Article 26(1) of the Directive, under the heading Derogations, is worded as


follows:

By way of derogation from Article 25 and save where otherwise provided by


domestic law governing particular cases, Member States shall provide that a
transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country which does not
ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of Article 25(2) may
take place on condition that:
(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed
transfer; or

(b) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the
data subject and the controller or the implementation of precontractual
measures taken in response to the data subjects request; or

(c) the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract


concluded in the interest of the data subject between the controller and a
third party; or

(d) the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest


grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; or

(e) the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data
subject; or

(f) the transfer is made from a register which according to laws or


regulations is intended to provide information to the public and which is
open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who
can demonstrate legitimate interest, to the extent that the conditions laid
down in law for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case.

20 It was on the basis of the Directive, in particular Article 25(6) thereof, that the
Commission of the European Communities adopted the decision on adequacy.

21 The 11th recital in the preamble to that decision states:

The processing by CBP [the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection] of


personal data contained in the PNR [Passenger Name Record] of air
passengers transferred to it is governed by conditions set out in the
Undertakings of the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) of 11 May 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the
Undertakings) and in United States domestic legislation to the extent indicated
in the Undertakings.

22 The 15th recital in the preamble to the decision states that PNR data will be
used strictly for purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and related
crimes, other serious crimes, including organised crime, that are transnational
in nature, and flight from warrants or custody for those crimes.

23 Articles 1 to 4 of the decision on adequacy provide:

Article 1

For the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, the United States
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter referred to as CBP) is
considered to ensure an adequate level of protection for PNR data transferred
from the Community concerning flights to or from the United States, in
accordance with the Undertakings set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Decision concerns the adequacy of protection provided by CBP with a


view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and
shall not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of
that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member
States.

Article 3

1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with


national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of
Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise
their existing powers to suspend data flows to CBP in order to protect
individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the following
cases:

(a) where a competent United States authority has determined that CBP is
in breach of the applicable standards of protection; or

(b) where there is a substantial likelihood that the standards of protection


set out in the Annex are being infringed, there are reasonable grounds for
believing that CBP is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps
to settle the case at issue, the continuing transfer would create an
imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects, and the competent
authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts in the
circumstances to provide CBP with notice and an opportunity to respond.

2. Suspension shall cease as soon as the standards of protection are


assured and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned are
notified thereof.

Article 4

1. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when


measures are adopted pursuant to Article 3.

2. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of any
changes in the standards of protection and of cases where the action of bodies
responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection by CBP
as set out in the Annex fails to secure such compliance.

3. If the information collected pursuant to Article 3 and pursuant to


paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article provides evidence that the basic principles
necessary for an adequate level of protection for natural persons are no longer
being complied with, or that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with
the standards of protection by CBP as set out in the Annex is not effectively
fulfilling its role, CBP shall be informed and, if necessary, the procedure
referred to in Article 31(2) of Directive 95/46/EC shall apply with a view to
repealing or suspending this Decision.

24 The Undertakings of the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of


Customs and Border Protection (CBP) annexed to the decision on adequacy
state:

In support of the plan of the European Commission (Commission) to exercise


the powers conferred on it by Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC and to
adopt a decision recognising the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as providing adequate protection for the
purposes of air carrier transfers of [PNR] data which may fall within the scope
of the Directive, CBP undertakes as follows ...

25 The Undertakings comprise 48 paragraphs, arranged under the following


headings: Legal authority to obtain PNR; Use of PNR data by CBP; Data
requirements; Treatment of sensitive data; Method of accessing PNR data;
Storage of PNR data; CBP computer system security; CBP treatment and
protection of PNR data; Transfer of PNR data to other government
authorities; Notice, access and opportunities for redress for PNR data
subjects; Compliance issues; Reciprocity; Review and termination of
Undertakings; and No private right or precedent created.

26 The Undertakings include the following:

1. By legal statute (title 49, United States Code, section 44909(c)(3)) and its
implementing (interim) regulations (title 19, Code of Federal Regulations,
section 122.49b), each air carrier operating passenger flights in foreign
air transportation to or from the United States must provide CBP
(formerly, the US Customs Service) with electronic access to PNR data to
the extent it is collected and contained in the air carriers automated
reservation/departure control systems (reservation systems).

3. PNR data are used by CBP strictly for purposes of preventing and
combating: 1. terrorism and related crimes; 2. other serious crimes,
including organised crime, that are transnational in nature; and 3. flight
from warrants or custody for the crimes described above. Use of PNR
data for these purposes permits CBP to focus its resources on high-risk
concerns, thereby facilitating and safeguarding bona fide travel.

4. Data elements which CBP requires are listed herein at Attachment A.

27. CBP will take the position in connection with any administrative or
judicial proceeding arising out of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]
request for PNR information accessed from air carriers, that such records
are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

29. CBP, in its discretion, will only provide PNR data to other government
authorities, including foreign government authorities, with counter-
terrorism or law-enforcement functions, on a case-by-case basis, for
purposes of preventing and combating offences identified in paragraph 3
herein. (Authorities with whom CBP may share such data shall
hereinafter be referred to as the Designated Authorities).

30. CBP will judiciously exercise its discretion to transfer PNR data for the
stated purposes. CBP will first determine if the reason for disclosing the
PNR data to another Designated Authority fits within the stated purpose
(see paragraph 29 herein). If so, CBP will determine whether that
Designated Authority is responsible for preventing, investigating or
prosecuting the violations of, or enforcing or implementing, a statute or
regulation related to that purpose, where CBP is aware of an indication of
a violation or potential violation of law. The merits of disclosure will need
to be reviewed in light of all the circumstances presented.

35. No statement in these Undertakings shall impede the use or disclosure


of PNR data in any criminal judicial proceedings or as otherwise required
by law. CBP will advise the European Commission regarding the passage
of any US legislation which materially affects the statements made in
these Undertakings.

46. These Undertakings shall apply for a term of three years and six months
(3.5 years), beginning on the date upon which an agreement enters into
force between the United States and the European Community,
authorising the processing of PNR data by air carriers for purposes of
transferring such data to CBP, in accordance with the Directive.

47. These Undertakings do not create or confer any right or benefit on any
person or party, private or public.

27 Attachment A to the Undertakings contains the PNR data elements required


by CBP from air carriers. The PNR data elements include the PNR record
locator code, date of reservation, name, address, all forms of payment
information, contact telephone numbers, travel agency, travel status of the
passenger, e-mail address, general remarks, seat number, no-show history
and any collected APIS (Advanced Passenger Information System)
information.

28 The Council adopted Decision 2004/496 on the basis, in particular, of Article


95 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article
300(2) EC.

29 The three recitals in the preamble to that decision state:

(1) On 23 February 2004 the Council authorised the Commission to


negotiate, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with the United
States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air
Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection.

(2) The European Parliament has not given an Opinion within the time-limit
which, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the Treaty,
the Council laid down in view of the urgent need to remedy the situation
of uncertainty in which airlines and passengers found themselves, as well
as to protect the financial interests of those concerned.

(3) This Agreement should be approved.

30 Article 1 of Decision 2004/496 provides:


The Agreement between the European Community and the United States of
America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the
United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

31 That agreement (the Agreement) is worded as follows:

The European Community and the United States of America,

Recognising the importance of respecting fundamental rights and freedoms,


notably privacy, and the importance of respecting these values, while
preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes and other serious
crimes that are transnational in nature, including organised crime,

Having regard to US statutes and regulations requiring each air carrier


operating passenger flights in foreign air transportation to or from the United
States to provide the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter DHS),
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter CBP) with electronic
access to Passenger Name Record (hereinafter PNR) data to the extent it is
collected and contained in the air carriers automated reservation/departure
control systems,

Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC , and in particular Article 7(c) thereof,

Having regard to the Undertakings of CBP issued on 11 May 2004, which will
be published in the Federal Register (hereinafter the Undertakings),

Having regard to Commission Decision 2004/535/EC adopted on 14 May 2004,


pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC, whereby CBP is considered as
providing an adequate level of protection for PNR data transferred from the
European Community (hereinafter Community) concerning flights to or from
the US in accordance with the Undertakings, which are annexed thereto
(hereinafter the Decision),

Noting that air carriers with reservation/departure control systems located


within the territory of the Member States of the European Community should
arrange for transmission of PNR data to CBP as soon as this is technically
feasible but that, until then, the US authorities should be allowed to access the
data directly, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement,

Have agreed as follows:

(1) CBP may electronically access the PNR data from air carriers
reservation/departure control systems (reservation systems) located
within the territory of the Member States of the European Community
strictly in accordance with the Decision and for so long as the Decision is
applicable and only until there is a satisfactory system in place allowing
for transmission of such data by the air carriers.

(2) Air carriers operating passenger flights in foreign air transportation to or


from the United States shall process PNR data contained in their
automated reservation systems as required by CBP pursuant to US law
and strictly in accordance with the Decision and for so long as the
Decision is applicable.

(3) CBP takes note of the Decision and states that it is implementing the
Undertakings annexed thereto.

(4) CBP shall process PNR data received and treat data subjects
concerned by such processing in accordance with applicable US laws
and constitutional requirements, without unlawful discrimination, in
particular on the basis of nationality and country of residence.

(7) This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature. Either Party may
terminate this Agreement at any time by notification through diplomatic
channels. The termination shall take effect ninety (90) days from the date
of notification of termination to the other Party. This Agreement may be
amended at any time by mutual written agreement.

(8) This Agreement is not intended to derogate from or amend legislation of


the Parties; nor does this Agreement create or confer any right or benefit
on any other person or entity, private or public.

32 According to Council information concerning the date of its entry into force (OJ
2004 C 158, p. 1), the Agreement, signed in Washington on 28 May 2004 by a
representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and the Secretary of
the United States Department of Homeland Security, entered into force on the
date of its signature, as provided by paragraph 7 of the Agreement.

Background

33 Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States


passed legislation in November 2001 providing that air carriers operating flights
to or from the United States or across United States territory had to provide the
United States customs authorities with electronic access to the data contained
in their automated reservation and departure control systems, referred to as
Passenger Name Records (PNR data). While acknowledging the legitimacy
of the security interests at stake, the Commission informed the United States
authorities, in June 2002, that those provisions could come into conflict with
Community and Member State legislation on data protection and with certain
provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code
of conduct for computerised reservation systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
1999 L 40, p. 1). The United States authorities postponed the entry into force of
the new provisions but, ultimately, refused to waive the right to impose
penalties on airlines failing to comply with the legislation on electronic access
to PNR data after 5 March 2003. Since then, a number of large airlines in the
European Union have granted the United States authorities access to their
PNR data.

34 The Commission entered into negotiations with the United States authorities,
which gave rise to a document containing undertakings on the part of CBP,
with a view to the adoption by the Commission of a decision on adequacy
pursuant to Article 25(6) of the Directive.

35 On 13 June 2003 the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with


regard to the Processing of Personal Data, set up by Article 29 of the Directive,
delivered an opinion in which it expressed doubts regarding the level of data
protection guaranteed by those undertakings for the processing operations
envisaged. It reiterated those doubts in an opinion of 29 January 2004.

36 On 1 March 2004 the Commission placed before the Parliament the draft
decision on adequacy under Article 25(6) of the Directive, together with the
draft undertakings of CBP.

37 On 17 March 2004 the Commission submitted to the Parliament, with a view to


its consultation in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC,
a proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an agreement
with the United States. By letter of 25 March 2004, the Council, referring to the
urgent procedure, requested the Parliament to deliver an opinion on that
proposal by 22 April 2004 at the latest. In that letter, the Council stated: The
fight against terrorism, which justifies the proposed measures, is a key priority
of the European Union. Air carriers and passengers are at present in a situation
of uncertainty which urgently needs to be remedied. In addition, it is essential
to protect the financial interests of the parties concerned.

38 On 31 March 2004 the Parliament, acting pursuant to Article 8 of Council


Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the
exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L
184, p. 23), adopted a resolution setting out a number of reservations of a legal
nature regarding the proposal which had been submitted to it. In particular, the
Parliament considered that the draft decision on adequacy exceeded the
powers conferred on the Commission by Article 25 of the Directive. It called for
the conclusion of an appropriate international agreement respecting
fundamental rights that would cover a number of points set out in detail in the
resolution, and asked the Commission to submit a new draft decision to it. It
also reserved the right to refer the matter to the Court for review of the legality
of the projected international agreement and, in particular, of its compatibility
with protection of the right to privacy.

39 On 21 April 2004 the Parliament, at the request of its President, approved a


recommendation from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market
that, in accordance with Article 300(6) EC, an Opinion be obtained from the
Court on the compatibility of the agreement envisaged with the Treaty. That
procedure was initiated on that very day.

40 The Parliament also decided, on the same day, to refer to committee the
report on the proposal for a Council decision, thus implicitly rejecting, at that
stage, the Councils request of 25 March 2004 for urgent consideration of the
proposal.

41 On 28 April 2004 the Council, acting on the basis of the first subparagraph of
Article 300(3) EC, sent a letter to the Parliament asking it to deliver its opinion
on the proposal for a decision relating to the conclusion of the Agreement by 5
May 2004. To justify the urgency of that request, the Council restated the
reasons set out in its letter of 25 March 2004.
42 After taking note of the continuing lack of all the language versions of the
proposal for a Council decision, on 4 May 2004 the Parliament rejected the
Councils request to it of 28 April for urgent consideration of that proposal.

43 On 14 May 2004 the Commission adopted the decision on adequacy, which is


the subject of Case C-318/04. On 17 May 2004 the Council adopted Decision
2004/496, which is the subject of Case C-317/04.

44 By letter of 4 June 2004, the Presidency-in-Office of the Council informed the


Parliament that Decision 2004/496 took into account the fight against terrorism
a priority of the Union but also the need to address the uncertain legal
situation of air carriers as well as their financial interests.

45 By letter of 9 July 2004, the Parliament informed the Court of the withdrawal of
its request for an Opinion, which had been registered under No 1/04.

46 In Case C-317/04, the Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of
order sought by the Council, by orders of the President of the Court of 18
November 2004 and 18 January 2005.

47 In Case C-318/04, the United Kingdom was granted leave to intervene in


support of the form of order sought by the Commission, by order of the
President of the Court of 17 December 2004.

48 By orders of the Court of 17 March 2005, the European Data Protection


Supervisor was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order
sought by the Parliament in both cases.

49 Given the connection, confirmed at the hearing, between the cases, it is


appropriate to join them under Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure for the
purposes of the judgment.

The application in Case C-318/04

50 The Parliament advances four pleas for annulment, alleging,


respectively, ultravires action, breach of the fundamental principles of the
Directive, breach of fundamental rights and breach of the principle of
proportionality.

The first limb of the first plea: breach of the first indent of Article 3(2) of the
Directive

Arguments of the parties

51 The Parliament contends that adoption of the Commission decision was ultra
vires because the provisions laid down in the Directive were not complied with;
in particular, the first indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive, relating to the
exclusion of activities which fall outside the scope of Community law, was
infringed.

52 In the Parliaments submission, there is no doubt that the processing of PNR


data after transfer to the United States authority covered by the decision on
adequacy is, and will be, carried out in the course of activities of the State as
referred to in paragraph 43 of the judgment in Case C-101/01 Lindqvist [2003]
ECR I-12971.

53 The Commission, supported by the United Kingdom, considers that the air
carriers activities clearly fall within the scope of Community law. It submits that
those private operators process the PNR data within the Community and
arrange for their transfer to a third country. Activities of private parties are
therefore involved, and not activities of the Member State in which the carriers
concerned operate, or of its public authorities, as defined by the Court in
paragraph 43 of Lindqvist. The aim pursued by the air carriers in processing
PNR data is simply to comply with the requirements of Community law,
including the obligation laid down in paragraph 2 of the Agreement. Article 3(2)
of the Directive refers to activities of public authorities which fall outside the
scope of Community law.

Findings of the Court

54 The first indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive excludes from the Directives
scope the processing of personal data in the course of an activity which falls
outside the scope of Community law, such as activities provided for by Titles V
and VI of the Treaty on European Union, and in any case processing
operations concerning public security, defence, State security and the activities
of the State in areas of criminal law.

55 The decision on adequacy concerns only PNR data transferred to CBP. It is


apparent from the sixth recital in the preamble to the decision that the
requirements for that transfer are based on a statute enacted by the United
States in November 2001 and on implementing regulations adopted by CBP
under that statute. According to the seventh recital in the preamble, the United
States legislation in question concerns the enhancement of security and the
conditions under which persons may enter and leave the country. The eighth
recital states that the Community is fully committed to supporting the United
States in the fight against terrorism within the limits imposed by Community
law. The 15th recital states that PNR data will be used strictly for purposes of
preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes, other serious crimes,
including organised crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight from
warrants or custody for those crimes.

56 It follows that the transfer of PNR data to CBP constitutes processing


operations concerning public security and the activities of the State in areas of
criminal law.

57 While the view may rightly be taken that PNR data are initially collected by
airlines in the course of an activity which falls within the scope of Community
law, namely sale of an aeroplane ticket which provides entitlement to a supply
of services, the data processing which is taken into account in the decision on
adequacy is, however, quite different in nature. As pointed out in paragraph 55
of the present judgment, that decision concerns not data processing necessary
for a supply of services, but data processing regarded as necessary for
safeguarding public security and for law-enforcement purposes.

58 The Court held in paragraph 43 of Lindqvist, which was relied upon by the
Commission in its defence, that the activities mentioned by way of example in
the first indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive are, in any event, activities of the
State or of State authorities and unrelated to the fields of activity of individuals.
However, this does not mean that, because the PNR data have been collected
by private operators for commercial purposes and it is they who arrange for
their transfer to a third country, the transfer in question is not covered by that
provision. The transfer falls within a framework established by the public
authorities that relates to public security.

59 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the decision on adequacy


concerns processing of personal data as referred to in the first indent of Article
3(2) of the Directive. That decision therefore does not fall within the scope of
the Directive.

60 Accordingly, the first limb of the first plea, alleging that the first indent of Article
3(2) of the Directive was infringed, is well founded.

61 The decision on adequacy must consequently be annulled and it is not


necessary to consider the other limbs of the first plea or the other pleas relied
upon by the Parliament.

The application in Case C-317/04

62 The Parliament advances six pleas for annulment, concerning the incorrect
choice of Article 95 EC as legal basis for Decision 2004/496 and breach of,
respectively, the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC, Article 8 of the
ECHR, the principle of proportionality, the requirement to state reasons and the
principle of cooperation in good faith.

The first plea: incorrect choice of Article 95 EC as legal basis for Decision
2004/496

Arguments of the parties

63 The Parliament submits that Article 95 EC does not constitute an appropriate


legal basis for Decision 2004/496. The decision does not have as its objective
and subject-matter the establishment and functioning of the internal market by
contributing to the removal of obstacles to the freedom to provide services and
it does not contain provisions designed to achieve such an objective. Its
purpose is to make lawful the processing of personal data that is required by
United States legislation. Nor can Article 95 EC justify Community competence
to conclude the Agreement, because the Agreement relates to data processing
operations which are excluded from the scope of the Directive.

64 The Council contends that the Directive, validly adopted on the basis of Article
100a of the Treaty, contains in Article 25 provisions enabling personal data to
be transferred to a third country which ensures an adequate level of protection,
including the possibility of entering, if need be, into negotiations leading to the
conclusion by the Community of an agreement with that country. The
Agreement concerns the free movement of PNR data between the Community
and the United States under conditions which respect the fundamental
freedoms and rights of individuals, in particular privacy. It is intended to
eliminate any distortion of competition, between the Member States airlines
and between the latter and the airlines of third countries, which may result from
the requirements imposed by the United States, for reasons relating to the
protection of individual rights and freedoms. The conditions of competition
between Member States airlines operating international passenger flights to
and from the United States could have been distorted because only some of
them granted the United States authorities access to their databases. The
Agreement is designed to impose harmonised obligations on all the airlines
concerned.

65 The Commission observes that there is a conflict of laws, within the meaning
of public international law, between the United States legislation and the
Community rules and that it is necessary to reconcile them. It complains that
the Parliament, which disputes that Article 95 EC can constitute the legal basis
for Decision 2004/496, has not suggested an appropriate legal basis.
According to the Commission, that article is the natural legal basis for the
decision because the Agreement concerns the external dimension of the
protection of personal data when transferred within the Community. Articles 25
and 26 of the Directive justify exclusive Community external competence.

66 In addition, the Commission submits that the initial processing of the data by
the airlines is carried out for commercial purposes. The use which the United
States authorities make of the data does not remove them from the effect of the
Directive.

Findings of the Court

67 Article 95 EC, read in conjunction with Article 25 of the Directive, cannot justify
Community competence to conclude the Agreement.

68 The Agreement relates to the same transfer of data as the decision on


adequacy and therefore to data processing operations which, as has been
stated above, are excluded from the scope of the Directive.

69 Consequently, Decision 2004/496 cannot have been validly adopted on the


basis of Article 95 EC.

70 That decision must therefore be annulled and it is not necessary to consider


the other pleas relied upon by the Parliament.

Limitation of the effects of the judgment

71 Under paragraph 7 of the Agreement, either party may terminate the


Agreement at any time and the termination takes effect 90 days from the date
of notification of termination to the other party.

72 However, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Agreement, CBPs


right of access to PNR data and the obligation imposed on air carriers to
process them as required by CBP exist only for so long as the decision on
adequacy is applicable. In paragraph 3 of the Agreement, CBP stated that it
was implementing the Undertakings annexed to that decision.

73 Given, first, the fact that the Community cannot rely on its own law as
justification for not fulfilling the Agreement which remains applicable during the
period of 90 days from termination thereof and, second, the close link that
exists between the Agreement and the decision on adequacy, it appears
justified, for reasons of legal certainty and in order to protect the persons
concerned, to preserve the effect of the decision on adequacy during that same
period. In addition, account should be taken of the period needed for the
adoption of the measures necessary to comply with this judgment.

74 It is therefore appropriate to preserve the effect of the decision on adequacy


until 30 September 2006, but its effect shall not be preserved beyond the date
upon which the Agreement comes to an end.

Costs

75 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be


ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful partys
pleadings. Since the Parliament has applied for costs and the Council and the
Commission have been unsuccessful, the Council and the Commission must
be ordered to pay the costs. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(4),
the interveners in the present cases must bear their own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the


conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and
the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR
data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland
Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and
Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 on the adequate
protection of personal data contained in the Passenger Name
Record of air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection;

2. Preserves the effect of Decision 2004/535 until 30 September 2006,


but not beyond the date upon which that Agreement comes to an
end;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in Case
C-317/04;

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the


costs in Case C-318/04;

5. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its


own costs in Case C-317/04;

6. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


and the European Data Protection Supervisor to bear their own
costs.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:62004CJ0317
Proposal for a Regulation (EURATOM, EC) of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the
Statistical Office of the European Communities
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006PC0477&from=EN
Headquarters agreement between the EFTA Court and the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg
http://www.eftacourt.int/fileadmin/user_upload/Files/Headquarters_Agreeme
nt/Headquarters_Agreement_English.pdf

Facebook Privacy Class Action before European Court of Justice

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sk/PA_EuGH_en.pdf

Lawsuit filed

http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sk/sk_en.pdf

Hearing at the CJEU


http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sk/PA_OGH_en.pdf
Ireland: Three Strikes, Not Out: EMI v Data Protection
Commissioner
Last Updated: 17 September 2012

On 27 June 2012, EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd, Sony Music Entertainment Ireland Ltd,
Universal Music Ireland Ltd and Warner Music Ireland Ltd secured a court order in
the Commercial Court quashing a notice issued by the Data Protection
Commissioner (the "Commissioner") directing eircom to cease using the "three
strikes" system which is aimed at preventing the illegal downloading of music.

Under that agreement, eircom subscribers would lose their internet access for a
week after three copyright infringements and lose access completely after four
infringements. The music companies challenged the Commissioner's enforcement
notice of 5 December 2011, which sought to ban the three strike policy on privacy
and data protection grounds following a complaint by a subscriber who had been
wrongly notified of a copyright infringement on his account due to an error by eircom.

The Enforcement Notice stated, amongst other grounds, that eircom was breaching
data protection law by (i) surveilling traffic data and not erasing it when it was no
longer needed, and (ii) processing personal data in a manner incompatible with
which it was obtained and without the proper and informed consent of
subscribers. Eircom was given a 60 day period to cease all processing relevant to
the GRS and destroy any such personal data.

Michael McDowell SC, appearing for the companies, argued that, in issuing the
notice, the Commissioner had acted in excess of his powers, irrationally,
disproportionately and in a manner prejudicial to the companies' interests. The
companies claimed the notice would effectively unwind their agreement with eircom
and argued it was an unlawful attempt to reopen data protection issues already
determined by the courts in their favour. Mr McDowell SC added that the
Commissioner had failed to give reasons for his decision to issue a notice.

Decision

The Court found that the notice was invalid due to the failure by the Commissioner to
give reasons as to why it had been issued. The reasons which appeared to support
the notice, to the extent they could be ascertained, also "involved a misconstruction
of the relevant law", according to the Court. The case, therefore, turned on the
Commissioner's failure to give reasons and so the Court did not analyse in any great
detail the data protection issues surrounding the three strikes policy.

The judgment means that eircom can now continue its three strikes policy and
suspend or disconnect internet access to users who illegally download music.

Appeal

At a conference on privacy held at Blackhall Place on Saturday 8 September 2012,


the Deputy Data Commissioner, Gary Davis, announced the Commissioner's
intention to appeal the decision of Charleton J to the Supreme Court. Mr Davis noted
that the Commissioner strongly disagreed with the Court's decision and felt that
Charleton J had not given due weight to the right to privacy under Article 8 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject
matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

GDPR guidance- Contracts and liabilities between controllers and processors


https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultations/2014789/draft-gdpr-
contracts-guidance-v1-for-consultation-september-2017.pdf

Overview of the General Data


Protection Regulation (GDPR)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680&from=EN
Personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences are not included, but
similar extra safeguards apply to its processing (see Article 10). Further reading
in the GDPR
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN
Data controllers and data processors- what the difference is and what the
governance implications are Data Protection Act
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1546/data-controllers-
and-data-processors-dp-guidance.pdf
Key provisions in the GDPR Articles 4(2), 4(7) and 4(8
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN
Kevin Lyles has more than 20 years experience leading major transactions and providing
counsel in the areas of health care, outsourcing, and cybersecurity and data privacy. He
has represented hospital systems, academic medical centers, children's hospitals,
physician organizations, health insurers, and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies.

Kevin's health care practice focuses on significant transactions, including reorganization of


academic medical center relationships, health care outsourcing transactions, licensing
electronic health records systems (EHRs), HIPAA compliance, co-management
arrangements, and hospital mergers and acquisitions. He also advises group purchasing
organizations (GPOs).

Kevin was named the 2017 Outsourcing Lawyer of the Year in Corporate LiveWire's Global
Awards, a publisher of legal guides, and received the elite "leading lawyer" designation for
outsourcing in 2016 and 2017 from Legal 500. His practice is concentrated in customer-
side transactions and includes business process and information technology outsourcing.
His recent experience includes the outsourcing of HR, information technology, revenue
cycle, finance and accounting, and benefit plan administration services.

Kevin's cybersecurity and data privacy practice includes developing compliance programs,
cross-border data transfers, and responding to breaches, with extensive experience
counseling clients on compliance with HIPAA and the HITECH Act. He is a member of the
International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

Kevin has served as vice chair of the Health Information Technology Practice Group for
the AHLA and on the advisory boards for the Healthcare Outsourcing Congress and the
Privacy2000 conference series.

Kevin has served on the boards of directors for the National Healthcare, Research and
Education Finance Corporation and the Contemporary American Theatre Company.

Anand Varadarajan is a litigator with experience in a variety of complex commercial


litigation matters, internal investigations, and cybersecurity and data privacy issues. His
experience has spanned all phases of litigation in state and federal courts, including
factual and legal research, e-discovery, motions practice, depositions, and trial.

Anand's cases include matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, False Claims
Act, antitrust claims, class action defense, contract disputes, securities claims, and white
collar criminal defense. His practice extends to privacy and data security matters as well.
In addition to handling data breach responses for clients, Anand represents companies
facing privacy and security-related litigation and government regulatory inquiries and
conducts enterprise-wide privacy and information security assessments.

Anand maintains an active pro bono practice. He represents children facing immigration
proceedings in state and federal courts and volunteers at legal clinics sponsored by the
Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program.

Anand also serves as coach of SMU's undergraduate Mock Trial Team. He is the editor-in-
chief of Jones Day's Global Privacy & Cybersecurity Update.

Margaret Lyle defends class actions and represents businesses in complex litigation and
appeals, including intellectual property, data privacy, contract, and internet-marketing
claims.

She has successfully defended consumer and mass tort class actions claiming fraud,
unjust enrichment, conspiracy, products liability, medical monitoring, and toxic exposure,
as well as those brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act,
RICO, and state consumer statutes. Her appellate representations in state and federal
courts include SAS, Sercel, Experian, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and other industry
leaders.
Margaret has defended Computer Sciences Corporation in class litigation over its
insurance software, Interstate Battery in class warranty litigation, the Washington
Division of URS Corp. in class litigation over New Orleans flooding following Hurricane
Katrina, and Experian in data privacy and consumer class actions. She represented R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company in more than 30 proposed class actions across the country,
including cases of first impression in Nevada and Oregon, where the state supreme courts
rejected a medical monitoring tort.

Margaret serves as a programming chair for the ABA's Class Action and Derivative Suits
Committee and as editor-in-chief of the ABA's The Woman Advocate. A Dallas Bar
Foundation Fellow, she is a member of Attorneys Serving the Community and the Texas
Law Parents Leadership Association. She has served as a practitioner contributor
to Black's Law Dictionary, was a founding director of Marshall Lawyers Care, and has
served on the boards of community arts and historical organizations.

Businesswoman arbitrates breach of shareholder's agreement claims at ICC

November 2015

Jones Day represented a businesswoman and philanthropist seeking injunctive and


monetary relief through arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
related to the breach of the shareholder's agreement for a company with operations in 17
countries in Latin America. Jones Day also obtained a decision in our client's favor in a
related Hague Treaty case tried in the Western District of Texas, pending an appeal to the
5th Circuit on an issue of first impression and obtained orders in a federal Civil RICO case
defeating personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens dismissal motions.

Deutsche Bank defends lawsuit alleging boycott against CDS exchange

September 2017

Jones Day is defending Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch in litigation brought by Tera
Group, Inc., a swap execution facility (SEF) operator, which alleges that the defendants
boycotted it to prevent it from gaining traction as an exchange for credit default swap
(CDS) exchanges.

Recognized by The National Law Journal as a regulatory and compliance trailblazer,


Stephen Obie advises multinational corporations and individuals on U.S. securities and
commodities law compliance. For more than 20 years, he has represented clients in
enforcement investigations before the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC),
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA),
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Stephen's extensive experience
includes investigating and litigating cases involving: false reporting of pricing
benchmarks, including LIBOR; manipulation of electricity options; manipulation and false
reporting in the natural gas market; foreign currency fraud; insider trading; disruptive
trading (spoofing) by an algorithmic trader; whistleblowers; disclosure of material and
nonpublic information; and misuse of customer funds, segregation violations, and failure
to supervise.

Stephen currently represents Overstock.com and its financial technology subsidiary


t0.com concerning their use of blockchain technology to trade securities. He led the team
that obtained the first ever effective registration statement that contemplates a public
offering utilizing blockchain technology. Prior to joining Jones Day, Stephen held several
top positions at the CFTC, including Acting Director of the CFTC's Division of Enforcement,
and co-chair of the Securities and Commodities Subcommittee of the President's Financial
Fraud Enforcement Task Force. While at the CFTC, he advised senior management and
presidential appointees on enforcement and policy matters, interacting frequently with
federal authorities and international regulators.

Stephen is a regular panelist on legislative, regulatory, and enforcement developments in


the commodities and derivatives markets and has been interviewed by leading
newspapers and television programs.
European Council published its first revisions ("Revised Draft") to the draft
EU ePrivacy Regulatio
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_11995_2017_INIT&from=EN
Finally, a recent breach of Deloittes server
potentially affected the emails of an estimated 350
clients, including four U.S. government
departments, the United Nations and some of the
worlds biggest multinationals.
Earlier today we revealed how hackers had
managed to publish the credit reports and personal
information of a number of public figures on a
newly-created website.
Victims include celebrities such as Beyonc
Knowles, Ashton Kutcher, Paris Hilton and Britney
Spears as well as public figures such as US Vice
President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Michelle
Obama.

In that earlier article I wrote:


The nature of the content - names, social security
numbers, previous addresses, dates of birth, etc -
suggest that a credit agency might have been
compromised in some fashion. Whether an agency
was actually hacked, compromised in some other
fashion, or whether an insider within the
organization leaked the data, is impossible to say at
this point.
Well, now some of the United States top credit
bureaus have come forward and acknowledged that
fraudulent and unauthorized access to the records
of well-known figures have taken place.

According to Bloomberg, Equifax Inc and


TransUnion Corp have confirmed that sensitive,
personal-identifying information about celebrities
and public figures has been taken from their
systems.

Bloomberg goes on to say that a third credit


reporting agency, Experian, is investigating whether
any of its data was compromised.
Whats clear, however, is that the details belonging
to Paris Hilton that were posted on the website do
appear to have originated from the firm.
The three companies jointly run a website
annualcreditreport .com which is designed to give
users free access to their own credit reports.
Some of the information posted on the hackers
website (which we have chosen not to name)
references annualcreditreport .com, suggesting that
hackers might have found a way to exploit the
online portal to scoop up sensitive information.
Many questions remain as to whether this was a
straightforward hack, or if the hackers were able to
gain unauthorised access to the data via other
means.
One possibility is that the hackers were able to
scoop information up off the net about particular
individual public figures, and then use that to
successfully impersonate their targets and access
credit histories.
I think we can all feel confident that the authorities
will be keen to identify those responsible for the
security breach as soon as possible especially as
those exposed include the head of the Los Angeles
police force Charlie Beck and FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
Naked Security has chosen not to publish the name
of the website which has published the personal
information of the public figures, as it is currently
still available, and has redacted the images above.

Ex-justice minister Michael


McDowell opposed national
ID card
Civil liberties watchdog calls for clarity on whether
Government intends to introduce compulsory identity card
Mon, May 22, 2017, 12:07 Updated: Mon, May 22, 2017, 19:04
Elaine Edwards

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe said it would be
compulsory for all passport applicants to hold a public services card.
Photograph: Eric Luke
A former minister for justice in the government that
decided to introduce public services cards for citizens
has said he was against national identity cards and
remained opposed to them.
Senator Michael McDowell said, however, he did not
know whether the public services card (PSC) card being
issued by the Government actually does amount to an
identity card.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said on
Monday the Government should clarify the position on
the introduction of PSCs, which have been issued to over
2.3 million citizens to date.
All citizens applying for a passport and a driving licence
will in future have to first obtain the State-issued card.
The decision to introduce the cards was taken in 2004
when Mr McDowell, then a member of the Progressive
Democrats, was in government with Fianna Fil led by
Bertie Ahern.
Privacy campaigners concerned over national ID card by
stealth
State faces 60m bill for public services cards by end of
year
Passport applicants will have to have States public services
card
I was always against [a national ID card] and I made it
clear at the time that I was against identity cards and
that the only circumstance in which I would contemplate
going along with the idea would be that if as a result of
the Good Friday agreement that the British introduced
them in the North and that we had to follow suit, Mr
McDowell told The Irish Times.
Dropped
The English Labour Party was very keen to do it and it
was dropped in the UK. Im against it on liberal
ideological grounds. I dont know whether this card
actually does amount to an identity card.
Mr McDowell said he believed ID cards alter the
citizens relationship with the State because in the end it
will become more and more mandatory to have it and
carry it and all the rest of it.
Liam Herrick, executive director of the ICC, said that if
the Government wished to introduce mandatory national
ID cards, they should propose such a measure through
primary legislation and facilitate a national debate on
such a measure.

Ineffective
In such a debate ICCL would argue that ID cards are an
ineffective, expensive and intrusive mechanism to
advance the stated public policy objectives. We note that
plans to introduce a national ID card system in the UK
were abandoned in 2010 for these reasons, Mr Herrick
said.
Dr TJ McIntyre, a UCD law lecturer and chairman of the
privacy advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland, said on
Sunday these measures marked the introduction of a
national ID card by stealth and he believed it was being
done in a way which appears to be illegal.
Labour Party TD and spokesman on enterprise Alan
Kelly said he believed the card was a good thing that had
major potential benefits, such as the revival of the rural
post office network.
I think the cards would be very helpful on issues of
identity and bringing multiple ID requirements on to
one platform. I am the person who brought in the Leap
[travel] card. I think the travel pass and the Leap card
can all be incorporated into this and in future you should
be able to do other services through it as well.
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal
Donohoe confirmed that all passport applicants would
be required to have a PSC from the autumn, although he
insisted it was not and will not be compulsory for
citizens to get the card.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-
news/ex-justice-minister-michael-mcdowell-opposed-
national-id-card-1.3091892
Irish police made at least 10 applications for phone data of Garda who exposed "smearing" of
whistleblower:

Tnaiste welcomes passage of new legislation to


deal with cybercrime through Oireachtas

First piece of legislation in this jurisdiction specifically and solely dedicated to dealing with
cybercrime

Crime evolves as technology advances and legislative frameworks must develop to


counter new threats

Cybercrime is an international, worldwide problem which recognises no borders and


requires harmonised laws
18 May 2017

The first piece of Irish legislation dedicated specifically to dealing with cybercrime today
completed its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas, where it received general,
cross-party support. The Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Bill
aims to safeguard information systems and the data that they contain. The legislation
creates new offences relating to:

unauthorised accessing of information systems

unauthorised interference with information systems or data on such systems

unauthorised interception of transmission of data to or from information systems, and

the use of tools, such as computer programmes, passwords or devices, to facilitate the
commission of these offences relating to information systems.

The term information system, as defined in the Bill, is deliberately broad, encompassing
all devices involved in the processing and storage of data, not only those considered to be
computer systems in the traditional sense. This reflects the range of modern
communications and data storage technology currently available, such as tablets and
smart phones.

The Bill establishes strong and dissuasive penalties for commission of the offences it
contains. The most serious offences could result in a term of imprisonment of up to 10
years.

The legislation gives effect to relevant provisions of an EU Directive on attacks on


information systems. It also gives effect to many of the key provisions of a Council of
Europe Convention on Cybercrime as certain offences are shared by both international
instruments.

The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald TD, who brought
forward the legislation, commented: This Bill represents landmark legislation in this
jurisdiction as it is the first Irish statute specifically and solely dedicated to
cybercrime. There is an increased reliance on information and communications
technology in the modern world and it is clearly important that we seek to
protect vital infrastructures and to maintain users confidence in the safety and
reliability of such systems. This is clearly in the best interests of businesses, the
government sector and individual citizens alike.

Cybercrime is an international, worldwide problem. It transcends national


boundaries. International cooperation and harmonisation of national laws have a
significant role to play in countering the transnational dimension of cybercrime.
This legislation transposes an EU Directive which harmonises Member States
law in this area and ensures that Ireland can stand alongside our European
partners in combating cybercrime involving attacks on information systems and
their important data.

The passing of the Bill follows in the wake of last weekends unprecedented global cyber
attack which involved some 200,000 systems in over 150 countries. The Tnaiste
added: This legislation is both welcome and timely. It is particularly important
given that Ireland has become a global cyber hub in view of the number of high
tech IT and internet-based companies that have major operations here.

The Bill provides significant new powers to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of
unlawful activities relating to information systems and their data. The Tnaiste concluded
by saying, I am sure that this legislation will make a significant difference in
combating cybercrime and prove of considerable benefit to the Garda Sochna in
their work in this area. It is undoubtedly an important addition to the Irish
Statute Book.

ENDS

Submission Cover Sheet- Joint Oireachtas Committee on


Transport and Commmunications hearings on the abuse
of social media and cyberbullying
http://www.nascireland.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Social-Media-Submission.pdf

Published on Monday 12th June 2017

Tnaiste Fitzgerald discusses counter


terrorism measures with EU Justice
Ministers in Luxembourg
JHA Council takes place under the dark shadow of the recent depraved terrorist attacks in London and

Manchester.

The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality Frances Fitzgerald is meeting her EU counterparts in Luxembourg

today (Friday). Ministers discussed the European response to terrorism following the recent attacks in Manchester

and London.

The Tnaiste said: People who carry out these savage and appalling acts in any one EU State are attacking all of us

and the fundamental values of freedom that we share. But the responses of the people of London and Manchester

shows that terror cannot and will not stop our way of life. The democratic elections that took place in the United

Kingdom yesterday are a worthy affront to those who seek to impose their twisted will through murder and mayhem.

Enhancing information-sharing across Europe and making the best use of the available EU and Interpol resources

remains a key priority for Ministers.

Like many other Member States, we are working hard to ensure best use is made of the existing resources available

to us but also to upgrade and accelerate our connectivity to every resource that can help keep us safe. I have

committed substantial resources to this."

The protection of our borders is an absolute priority. My Department and An Garda Sochna continue to progress a

broad series of initiatives to strengthen border security. For example, since November 2016 an automated

connection to INTERPOLs Lost and Stolen Travel Documents database was rolled out to all international airports

and seaports and passengers are systematically checked against this database.
Later this year the Irish immigration authorities will begin to process Advance Passenger Information on flights into

the State from outside the EU and preparations are also under way to implement the EU Directive on Passenger

Name Records (PNR). These systems will provide further protection for our borders against crime, terrorism and

illegal immigration threats.

Countering radicalisation has been a strong focus of Ministers efforts over a number of years now and it will remain

at the top of the agenda.

Ireland supports the European Commissions proposal to establish a High Level Expert Group on Radicalisation to

consider further possible actions to be taken to counter radicalisation and also to consider whether and how there

might be established at EU-level a more permanent structure or framework to co-ordinate actions to counter

radicalisation.

Combating online violent radicalisation and the use of the internet by terrorist groups remains another priority area

and the EU Internet Forum to counter violent radicalisation has managed a sustained interaction with a number of the

global IT and social media companies. This improves partnerships, including with Europols Counter Terrorism

Centre, in identifying and taking down terrorist content. The Garda Authorities co-operate closely with service

providers here.

"Countering radicalisation will involve a whole of community approach nationally and locally. It requires a criminal

justice approach, the strongest legislation and intelligence sharing and a speedy identification of risk factors.

Concerns were expressed at the meeting by a number of countries at the speed at which some of those who have

perpetrated attacks have been radicalised.

The Government is committed to providing all necessary resources to An Garda Sochna to deal with the threats

they face, be it terrorism or organised crime. Significant extra funding and resources have been provided in the past

year and Government will not be found wanting in responding to any request for additional resources to continue to

keep our country safe.

Published on Thursday 1st June 2017

Tnaiste publishes Judicial Council Bill


2017 and Judicial Appointments
Commission Bill 2017
The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald has published the

Judicial Council and Judicial Appointments Commission Bills. Both are major

reforms to the judiciary in Ireland.

The Tnaiste said: The Irish judiciary is has been one of the great

successes of the Irish state. Its enduring independence has provided a

constitutional structure that has enabled this state to withstand enormous

political and economic threats to its existence and stability. The Irish

judiciary is consistently among the top ten most independent judiciaries

globally. These two Bills will underpin public confidence and guarantee the

quality of our judicial system is maintained.

Speaking about the Judicial Council Bill 2017, the Tnaiste said: The

need for a Judicial Council has long been recognised, both domestically and
internationally. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Judicial

Council which will promote and maintain excellence functions and high

standards of conduct among judges. A Judicial Conduct Committee will be

established which will consider complaints against judges and refer them

either for informal resolution or for formal investigation. The Committee

will also prepare draft guidelines concerning judicial conduct and ethics

for adoption by the Council. Short of invoking Article 35.4 of the

Constitution, which relates to the process whereby a judge may be removed

from office, commonly referred to as impeachment, there is no mechanism

available which allows for the investigation of complaints of a less

serious nature. This Bill will provide that mechanism.

The Bill will provide for the establishment of a Judicial Studies

Committee to facilitate the continuing education and training of judges

with regard to their judicial functions. A Sentencing Information

Committee will also be established to collate information on sentences

imposed by the courts, and to disseminate information from time to time to

judges and persons other than judges.

Speaking about the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017, the Tnaiste

said: This is a key commitment in the Programme for Partnership Government

2016, and also represents the outcome of a consultation process on judicial

appointments undertaken by the Department of Justice and Equality in 2014.

It will replace the existing Judicial Appointments Advisory Board with a

new Judicial Appointments Commission that will have a more substantial role

and broader functions.

The Commission will have a lay chairperson accountable to the Oireachtas

and a lay majority selected by the Public Appointments Commission. It will

also include the Chief Justice and all of the Court Presidents directly

involved in the selection and recommendation of person for appointment.

Both Bills are available on the Oireachtas website via the links below

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017 -


http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/7
117/b7117d.pdf

Judicial Council Bill 2017


http://www.oireachtas.ie
/documents/bills28/bills
/2017/7017/b7017s-
memo.pdf

Probe into civil servant


who snooped on dozens
of women for 'curiosity'
Niall O'Connor
August 18 2014
1A CIVIL servant has admitted snooping on personal
records belonging to dozens of women including school
colleagues, a former girlfriend and a person he wanted to
ask out on a date.
The Department of Social Protection is investigating the
"inappropriate" actions of the official, who insists that he
searched the private data to satisfy his curiosity.
Documents obtained by the Irish Independent reveal how
the man told his bosses that he checked the records of
predominantly women in their late thirties who have not
settled down.
He admitted meeting up with a female whose records he
had obtained through the internal social welfare database
known as 'INFOSYS'.
The employee has also been confronted by his superiors
over making alleged "inappropriate interactions" with
colleagues.
The man said his activities were "stupid and foolish" and
told his superiors that medication he was taking had
impeded "his judgment and caused him to do things that
he would not normally do".
The actions of the official are now subject to an internal
investigation by the department, according to details
released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The inappropriate activities by the man, which took place
during working hours, were initially detected in 2010.
He said that there were times where he would have spent
one or two hours per day snooping on women and their
spouses.
The man added that he would check people he went to
school with to see if they were single or married and what
part of the country they lived in.
Sanctioned

But after being sanctioned by the department, he was


found to have again begun making inappropriate
accesses of records last year.
Some 80pc of the people searched were women, according
to the documents.
The Irish Independent understands that the latest round
of snooping by the official is subject to an ongoing internal
investigation.
Details of the probe are revealed after this newspaper
revealed the ease with which private investigators were
able to access information from the department with just a
single phone call.
The so-called 'tracing agents' acting on behalf of at least a
dozen credit unions, were able to wrest reams of personal
data from officials in the country's biggest spending
department without having to prove who they were.
All the private investigators had to do was ring up and say
they were from another agency.
In one case, a private investigator didn't even give a
surname, just a false Christian name.
The information was then handed back to at least 12 credit
unions in return for lucrative fees.
The department said it constantly reviews its internals
controls and takes its data protection responsibilities very
seriously. The Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) said it
condemned the practice of the private investigators, which
it says its members were not aware of.
The link between the credit unions, the department and
private investigators has been the subject of a year long
investigation by the Office of the Data Protection
Commissioner.
As revealed last week, Assistant Data Protection
Commissioner Tony Delaney now believes that State
agencies other than the Department of Social Protection
have been targeted by agents who use suspect tactics.
Mr Delaney and a number of his officials have begun
building profiles of the agents in question.
A routine audit of a small number of credit unions sparked
the probe revealed in the Irish Independent.
Illegal
After inspecting the books and records of credit unions, it
became clear that customer records had been obtained
illegally from the Department of Social Protection.
Mr Delaney and his staff last year carried out audits into
12 credit unions as part of the wide ranging probe into
private investigators.
Sources say the department in question was targeted due
to the reams of confidential data it possesses.
The information that was supplied to the agents working
on behalf of credit unions was retrieved from a wide
ranging database known as 'INFOSYS', which is similar to
the garda 'PULSE' system.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/probe-
into-civil-servant-who-snooped-on-dozens-of-women-
for-curiosity-30514979.html
Serious concern over
exemption of public bodies
from data protection fines
Commissioner raises issues over proposals for
implementation of new EU regulation
Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 06:15 Updated: Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 08:23
Elaine Edwards

Helen Dixon, Data Protection Commissioner. Photograph: Cyril Byrne


It is a serious matter of concern that legislation
proposed by the Government seeks to exempt public
bodies from fines where they breach data protection
rights, the Data Protection Commissioner has said.
Helen Dixon and two deputy data protection
commissioners attended the Joint Oireachtas Committee
on Justice and Equality on Wednesday for pre-legislative
scrutiny of a new data protection Bill.
The general scheme of the Data Protection Bill 2017
outlines legislation that would give effect to the new EU
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as
an EU directive on the sharing of personal data for law
enforcement purposes.
Fines of up to 20 million or 4 per cent of annual
worldwide turnover may be imposed on bodies that
breach the regulation, depending on the circumstances.
The regulation, along with a new electronic privacy
regulation protecting communications by phone and
email and electronic means will take effect across the
union from May 25th next year.
Ms Dixon said that in general terms, her office welcomed
the new legal regime for data protection law in Europe
and the important additions to her toolkit as an
enforcer.
Punitive fines
Its undoubtedly the case that there will be
investigations where a punitive fine is warranted in
order to deter organisations from failing to invest in
compliance and to deter them from creating risks for
consumers and individuals, she said.
The very purpose of punitive fines provided for in the
new EU law was to act as a deterrent to all types of
organisations, Ms Dixon said.
Her office saw no basis on which public bodies or
authorities would be excluded, particularly given that
arguably higher standards in the protecting of
fundamental rights are demanded of those entities.
The heads of the Bill as published propose that public
bodies would only be subject to administrative fines
where they were acting as undertakings, namely where
the services they were providing were in competition
with other bodies in the private sector.
Ms Dixon said the workload proposed for the DPC in
making assessments of whether public bodies were
engaged in activities that would compete with the
equivalent private sector bodies would take her office
away from its substantive role in relation to data
protection.
Her office, she said, occupied a unique position as a
supervisory authority in Europe as its remit covered the
largest global internet companies that had their
European bases in Ireland.
Clean slate
A comprehensive toolkit as an enforcer was a
necessity.
Ms Dixon noted the new EU regulation was intended to
represent a clean slate with regard to data protection
legislation in Europe, and yet there was no guarantee
that the existing Irish data protection acts of 1988 and
2003 would be repealed.
She said her office considered that their retention, and a
patchwork presentaiton of Irish law, ran the risk of
creating legal uncertainty in terms of precisely which
provisions of the law would apply, and in what
circumstances, after May 2018.
The commissioner also raised an issue regarding the
handling of complaints from individuals under the
GDPR, noting it introduced changes in relation to the
manner in which supervisory authorities must deal with
complaints from individuals about alleged infringements
of their rights. She said it was important to note in this
context that the supervisory authority was required to
investigate a complaint to the extent appropriate.
Our aims in these circumstances will be to ensure that
our resources are deployed in a way that maximises
them, pursues investigations in cases of the most grave
or enduring infringements on an objective and priority
basis, she said.
Independents 4 Change TDs Clare Daly and Mick
Wallace raised concerns about Government projects
such as Public Services Cards and Individual Health
Identifiers and whether the manner in which they were
being rolled out was compatible with EU law.
Transparency
Seamus Carroll of the civil law reform division in the
Department of Justice and Equality said he did not want
to be drawn on the details of health legislation which was
being considered separately.
But he said that for the future, there must be a lawful
basis for the processing of personal data and there must
also be greatly increased transparency.
Ms Dixon will address the Data Summit hosted by the
Department of the Taoiseach at the Convention Centre
in Dublin on Thursday morning.
It will be opened by newly elected Taoiseach Leo
Varadkar, with an introduction by Minister for European
Affairs, the EU Digital Single Market and Data
Protection Dara Murphy.
The event spans Thursday and Friday and is supported
by a range of partners, including all the main
multinational data firms in Ireland, Enterprise Ireland,
IDA Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland and the
American Chamber of Commerce Ireland.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/serious-concern-over-exemption-
of-public-bodies-from-data-protection-fines-1.3120643
CJEU judgment in Watson/Tele2

This post, composed immediately after judgment was handed down in this
important case on 21 December 2016, encapsulates my reaction to it. Its
possible implications for the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, for the other bulk
powers used by UK intelligence agencies and others, for the developing case
law of the European Court of Human Rights and indeed for any EU adequacy
determination directed to the UK post-Brexit, remain to be worked out over the
months and years ahead.

What happened today?

The Grand Chamber of the EUs Court of Justice (CJEU) gave judgment this
morning in the case brought in 2014 by David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP,
from which David Davis withdrew on his appointment to
Government. They challenged the powers to require the retention of certain
types of communications data not the content, but the who, where and when
of communications in the Data Protection and Investigatory Powers Act 2014
(DRIPA 2014).

The Court spelled out the requirements of EU law, specifically, the privacy
protections of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in a manner which makes it
plain that DRIPA 2014 is incompatible with those requirements. In doing so, it
went further than the more pragmatic opinion of its own Advocate General
and further also than the existing case law of its sister court, the (non-EU)
European Court of Human Rights.

The CJEU considered that DRIPA 2014 exceeds the limit of what is strictly
necessary and cannot be considered to be justified, within a democratic society:
para 107. But it referred the case back to the English Court of Appeal for a
decision on the extent to which UK law is consistent with EU requirements (para
124). The battle will resume there in the New Year.

The case (Case C-698/15) was joined with a Swedish case brought by Tele2
Sverige AB (Case C-203/15). The judgment is here watson-judgment, and the
Courts own press release is here watson-press-release. A previous post in
which I set out the background is here.

What are the powers in issue?


The power of chief concern to the Court was the power to
require communications service providers to retain fixed and mobile call logs
(traffic data) and mobile phone location data for up to 12 months.

Those powers have been exercised in the UK for many years. The EUs own
Data Retention Directive of 2006, a measure supported by the UK Government
which required such powers to be exercised EU-wide, was itself struck down by
the Court in 2014 (Digital Rights Ireland). Many Member States have continued
to exercise such powers under their own national law, and a number of them
(Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland)
joined the UK in arguing in this case that the principles set out in Digital Rights
Ireland should not be treated as mandatory requirements in these circumstances.

What are the powers used for?

The DRIPA 2014 power at issue in Watson is a relatively familiar and low-
tech one: contrast some of the bulk collection powers used by security and
intelligence agencies in the UK and other countries whose utility I reviewed in this
report of August 2016. (The Treaty on European Union states at Article 4(2) that
national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State: the
scope of that carve-out remains to be definitively determined.)

Access to retained traffic and location data is however extremely useful to the
police and other law enforcement authorities, in the investigation not only of
serious crime but e.g. of reported disappearances where examination of the
phone records of the missing person may offer clues as to their contacts and so
help locate them. During my investigatory powers review of 2014-15, I was left in
no doubt as to its value.

Some specific examples of the utility of retained communications data in


investigating both missing persons and serious crimes (sexual offences, supply of
drugs, trafficking, homicide, terrorism) are at Annex 10 to my June 2015
report, A Question of Trust. Similar examples were provided to the European
Commission from a variety of Member States. See further A Question of Trust at
7.47-7.51, 9.21-9.32 and 9.43-9.47. As I wrote at 9.45, retained data may be
particularly useful because:

Conspirators become more guarded in their use of communications as the


moment of a crime approaches. Older data may therefore be the best
evidence against them.
It may be relatively easy to arrest the minor players in a drugs importation
or smuggling ring. But by going through their historic communications
data, it may become possible to trace the bigger players who have taken
care to remain in the background.
A time lapse between the incident and the identification of a suspect will
mean that old data is needed.

Law enforcement figures cited at 7.50(c) showed that over a two-week period in
2012, 27% of requests for communications data in terrorism cases and 37% of
requests in sexual offence cases were for data more than six months old.
I also quoted Rob Wainwright, the (British) Director of Europol, who gave the
following evidence to the European Parliament in late 2014:

Ask yourself what the end of data retention would mean in concrete terms? It
would mean that communications data that could have solved a murder or
exonerate a suspect is simply deleted and no longer available.
The European Commission has been a strong supporter of universal retention of
communications data, noting in 2014:

Data retention enables the construction of trails of evidence leading up to an


offence. It also helps to discern or corroborate other forms of evidence on the
activities of and links between suspects and victims. In the absence of forensic
or eye witness evidence, data retention is often the only way to start a criminal
investigation. Generally, data retention appears to play a central role in criminal
investigation even if it is not always possible to isolate and quantify the impact of
a particular form of evidence in a given case.
Precisely because suspects are often not known in advance, data retention which
is not universal in its scope is bound to be less effective as a crime reduction
measure. In addition, a person whose data has not been retained cannot be
exonerated by use of that data (e.g. by using location data to show that the
person was elsewhere).

The judgment: minimum safeguards

The Court followed its Advocate General (the member of the court entrusted with
preparation of a preliminary opinion) in requiring that access to stored data
should be restricted to serious crime purposes (para 119) and subject to prior
independent authorisation (para 120). Those points were anticipated also by the
English High Court in its ruling of July 2015, though on grounds which
were doubted by the Court of Appeal in November 2015.

The judgment also introduced a requirement to notify persons affected when


such notification is no longer liable to jeopardise an investigation (para 121). It
further requires that data must be retained in the EU (para 122: this is not
currently the case for all data).

The judgment: principle of general data retention

The wider significance of the Grand Chambers judgment is in its ruling that the
whole principle of what it called general and indiscriminate retention (para
97) is contrary to EU law specifically the Charter of Fundamental
Rights. Though some saw this bold conclusion prefigured in Digital Rights
Ireland, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the CJEUs own Advocate
General all chose to avoid it in Watson. Indeed as Open Rights Group reminds
us, even Tom Watsons advocate, Dinah Rose QC, submitted that the
position later taken by the CJEU was wholly impracticable. Her case was,
rather, that a general retention obligation could be lawful so long as accompanied
by an access regime with sufficiently stringent safeguards.

The judgment of the CJEU was thus a genuinely radical one. The proven utility
of existing data retention powers, and the limitations now placed on those
powers, is likely to mean that it will be of serious concern to law enforcement both
in the UK and in other Member States. On the other side of the balance, not
everyone will agree with the Courts view that these powers constitute a
particularly serious interference with privacy rights, or that they are likely to
cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of
constant surveillance (para 100). A more rigorous analysis of
proportionality would have focussed on any actual harm that this useful power
might be shown to have caused over its years of operation, and sought to
avoid assertions based on theory or on informal predictions of popular feeling.

It must be acknowledged, however, that feelings on these matters do vary at


least to some extent across Europe. Thus:

The comments of the CJEU in relation to the seriousness of the


interference with privacy find no real echo in the three parliamentary and
expert reports which led to the introduction of the Investigatory Powers
Bill, nor in the regular reports of the Interception of Communications
Commissioner, the senior former Judge who conducts detailed oversight
of this activity in the UK.
But in the eastern part of Europe and in Germany, historic experience,
coupled with a relative lack of exposure (until recently) to terrorism have
induced greater circumspection. National data retention rules have
proved controversial and were annulled even before Digital Rights
Ireland in Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Cyprus and the Czech Republic.

This may reflect what I have previously described as marked and consistent
differences of opinion between the European Courts and the British judges
which owe something at least to varying perceptions of police and security forces
and to different (but equally legitimate) conclusions that are drawn from 20th
century history in different parts of Europe (A Question of Trust, 2.24).

Geographical profiling?

The qualms expressed by the Court in relation to the principle of universal data
retention did not extend to a retention obligation based on objective evidence
which makes it possible to identify a public whose data is likely to reveal a link, at
least an indirect one, with serious criminal offences . Indeed the CJEU
advised (para 111) that:

Such limits may be set by using a geographical criterion where the competent
national authorities consider, on the basis of objective evidence, that there exists,
in one or more geographical areas, a high risk of preparation for or commission of
such offences.
Did the Court mean by this that it could be acceptable to perform general and
indiscriminate retention of data generated by persons living in a particular town,
or housing estate, whereas it would not be acceptable to retain the data of
persons living elsewhere? Such geographical profiling could prove wholly
impracticable, in the phrase of Dinah Rose QC. If attempted, it would certainly
raise extremely sensitive legal and ethical issues. Those issues were not
touched upon in the judgment.
Impact on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016

DRIPA 2014 expires anyway at the end of 2016: but the judgment has
significance for the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which received Royal Assent
on 29 November and provides for data retention powers similar to (indeed in
some respects more extensive than) those contained in DRIPA 2014.

The precise impact of the judgment will have to be worked out over the weeks
and months ahead, with the assistance of the Court of Appeal which referred
questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling and to which the answers have
now been returned (para 124). But its consequences are likely to have to include
the amendment of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, either by further primary
legislation or by a statutory instrument (secondary legislation) under the
European Communities Act 1972.

And after Brexit?

The UK remains bound by decisions of the CJEU, including this one, until such
time as it has left the EU.

But even after Brexit, it will not be possible to ignore its data protection
judgments altogether. The sharing of personal data with non-EU countries, in
particular, is subject to certification by the EU that their data protection standards
are adequate. In the 2014 case of Schrems, the CJEU held that this required the
non-EU country to provide for a level of protection of fundamental rights
essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU legal order. The implications
of this for countries such as the USA and Canada (and in due course, no doubt,
the UK) were explored with admirable clarity by Jemima Stratford QC and
Graham Smith in this recent seminar. See, to similar effect, para 118 of last
weeks House of Lords EU Committee Report.

Further Debate

This important judgment is bound to feature in law exams across Europe this
summer. If I were setting a question, it would be this one:

Lives are ruined by crime, not by the properly safeguarded use of general
data retention to fight crime. Discuss.
That question will continue to be debated in many forms and for many years. It is
to be hoped that those debates will generate light as well as heat. For this to
happen, the participants legislators, courts, NGOs, academics and students
need to avoid trading prejudices, and instead make productive use of the
increasing evidence base relating to both the harm and the utility of bulk data
retention.

[amended 23 Dec 2016, 2300]

STOP PRESS [14 June, corrected 16 June]

I have just heard that in June 2017, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a
different case (chaired by Burton J, with Mitting J and three others on the panel)
stated orally its intention of making a further reference to the CJEU in order to
seek clarification of the Watson/Davis judgment. A hearing was fixed for late July
for the purpose of finalising the questions. It remains to be seen what those
questions will be, and how they will be disposed of by the CJEU.

https://www.daqc.co.uk/2017/04/11/cjeu-judgment-in-watson/

Wow: IPT has decided to make a further reference to #CJEU on the meaning of Watson/Davis
daqc.co.uk/2017/04/11/cje . QQ to be decided end July.
https: //www. u-judgment-in-watson/

The Members States may not impose a general obligation to retain data
on providers of electronic communications services

https://www.daqc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2016/12/Watson-
press-release.pdf
Brexit- future UK-EU security and police cooperation
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/77/77.pdf
Brexit: Security, surveillance and home affairs

Event date: 06/12/16


On Tuesday 6 December 2016, Brick Court hosted a Brexit panel discussion on Security,
Surveillance and Home Affairs. Gordon Corera, the BBCs Security Correspondent, moderated
the event. He opened it by remarking that the subject presented many unanswered questions.
Brick Courts David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation since 2010,
outlined the UKs leading role within the EU on many counter-terrorism initiatives and observed
that EU policy tends to reflect UK policy. Anderson touched on how far the EU involves itself in
national security given Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which reserves national
security to Member States. He identified two main fault-lines in EUUK security cooperation: the
UKs wariness of compromising sovereignty and the rest of the EUs wariness of privacy
intrusion, typified by the CJEUs decision in C-393/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for
Communications. Anderson concluded by suggesting that two key questions post-Brexit are
whether the EUs measures will be sufficiently useful and whether UK participation in them will
be satisfactory.
Alison Duncan-Mercy MBE, Deputy Director for Strategy and Communications at the National
Counter Terrorism Policing HQ, spoke about EUUK counter-terrorism policing cooperation and
the likely effect of Brexit. She outlined the UKs counter-terrorism policing network and
explained the threat presently posed by, amongst other things, the 850 individuals from the UK
and those from elsewhere who have travelled to Syria and Iraq, some of whom have
returned. Duncan-Mercy explained the role of the eight (soon to be eleven) UK Counter
Terrorism Police Liaison Officers stationed with EU Member States. The critical elements of the
strategy they implement are information exchange, investigative support, crisis support and
capacity building. Duncan-Mercy stated that the UKs counter-terrorism relationships were and
would remain stronger than ever due to the severe threat.
Georges Baur, Deputy Secretary General of EFTA (previously Deputy Head of the Liechtenstein
Mission in Brussels), considered the bespoke relationship of EFTA states to EU security
policy. Security is generally outside the scope of EFTA and EFTA states have cooperation
agreements with (not full membership of) EUROPOL, but all EFTA member states are Schengen
states and use the Schengen Information System. Norway and Iceland are linked to the European
Arrest Warrant by agreements on a surrender procedure. Baur suggested that political dialogue
means EFTA states adhere de facto to the EUs Common Foreign and Security Policy. All these
were matters to bear in mind for anyone suggesting that EFTA membership might be a post-Brexit
option for the UK.
Brick Courts Jemima Stratford QC addressed the UKs data protection legislation during and
after Brexit. Stratford explained that the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU)
2016/679), which replaces the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) from May 2018,
will have direct application in the UK during Brexit negotiations. New features include
mandatory reporting of breaches, higher standards of consent and larger fines (up to 20 million
from the current 500,000 maximum). Stratford suggested that the UKs post-Brexit data
protection regime would likely mirror EU law: the UK has very limited room for manoeuvre if it
wants a Commission adequacy decision to enable continued UKEU dataflows. Stratford
concluded by observing that divergence between EU and UK data-protection law post-Brexit was
likely to create unwelcome uncertainty for business.
Graham Smith of Bird & Bird discussed the mechanics of post-Brexit data-transfers and the
data-protection implications of the very recent Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA). Smith
explained the requirements to obtain a Commission adequacy decision, which would enable EU-
UK dataflows post-Brexit. Case C-362/14 Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner established
that state surveillance regimes are relevant to an adequacy determination and that generalised
access to content of electronic communications compromises the essence of the right to respect for
private life. However, there was a disconnect between the different uses of bulk data, with vastly
different levels of privacy intrusion, and the concept of access in Schrems. Smith pointed out
that the July 2016 EUUS Privacy Shield recognised that bulk powers can be a legitimate
interference. Smith suggested that, in terms of UK implications, the IPA is long on safeguards but
short on limits to powers, blurs metadata and content, and includes new hacking powers;
further, it is unclear whether government policies are sufficiently public under the IPA to satisfy
human rights requirements.
The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, discussed the
political dimensions of post-Brexit home affairs cooperation. She remarked that it was difficult to
start deciding on details when the government hadnt articulated the big picture, although security
cooperation was likely to remain an area for continued cooperation. Evidence to the Home
Affairs Select Committee was that the EUROPOL and SIS2 databases and the European Arrest
Warrant were very effective instances of security cooperation. Cooper identified three key
political challenges in continuing this cooperation post-Brexit: a bespoke UK data-protection
regime preventing continued UK access to EU security databases; the challenges of negotiating
long-term arrangements within 18 months (and the likely need for transitional measures); and the
possibility of negotiations on security cooperation being squeezed or upset by unrelated
politics. Cooper concluded by reiterating that Parliament would vote to trigger Article 50 if and
when asked to do so.
The presentations were followed by a lively Q&A session.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVegn-khidQ
UKs data protection legislation during and after Brexit. Stratford explained that
the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), which
replaces the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) from May 2018
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN

Investigatory Powers Act 2016

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/enacted/data.pdf
overview
Jemima Stratford QC is widely recognised as a leading litigator in EU, competition and public
law/human rights.
Jemimas EU and competition expertise range from FRAND licensing to pharmaceuticals, and
from free movement to financial services. She has appeared in more than 50 cases in the General
Court and Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Her domestic practice includes competition law cases
in the CAT, Commercial Court and Patents Court. She was part of the team for the OFT in the
bank charges litigation, and is currently instructed for claimants (Ericsson and Unwired Planet) in
significant telecommunications litigation against Apple, Samsung and Huawei.
Jemima's public law and human rights work have taken her to the Supreme Court and to the Grand
Chamber of the ECtHR. Before taking silk, she was a member of the Attorney Generals A
Panel. She acts for both claimants and defendants across a wide range of cases, some of which
also have a connection with EU law. Jemima also advises both States and international
organisations on immunities from jurisdiction, dealing with both public international law and
human rights arguments before the ECtHR, the High Court and Employment Tribunals.
Contributor to "Competition Litigation: UK Practice and Procedure" (OUP, 2010)
Author of "Striking the Balance: Privacy v Freedom of Expression under the European
Convention on Human Rights", published in "Developing Key Privacy Rights" (Hart, 2002)
Co-author of "Competition: Understanding the 1998 Act" (Palladian, 1999)

Jemima has excellent judgement, is very responsive, highly proactive and incredibly hard-
working." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"She is able to cut through a lot of dry and academic material with ease and is extremely user-
friendly." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"She is extremely hard-working and never misses deadlines. She is always well prepared for any
case and her advice is very measured and thorough." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"She is a very capable leader of a team and gives good direction." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"Extremely knowledgeable and passionate." (The Legal 500 2016)
"Brings real depth to her submissions while keeping judges firmly on board." (The Legal 500
2016)
"A client-friendly silk with superb analytical skills." (The Legal 500 2016)
"She is phenomenal - really thorough, personable and a brilliant advocate. She can relate well to
her clients and they have full confidence in her." (Chambers & Partners 2016)
"I have never known her to be less than 110% prepared. She is very thoughtful and succinct and
always goes out of her way to help." (Chambers & Partners 2016)
"Very clever and a great strategist." She is "fantastically knowledgeable." (Chambers & Partners
2016)
"Absolutely excellent; she is very knowledgeable in a wide range of EU law matters because she
does the human side of EU law as well." (Chambers & Partners 2016)
"Jemima has depth of knowledge and she's a very clear advocate, particularly in European courts."
"She is known for being intellectually strong." (Chambers & Partners 2016)
Extremely knowledgeable and passionate. (The Legal 500 2015)
A strong advocate; thorough and good with clients. (The Legal 500 2015)
Extremely competent and calm. (The Legal 500 2015)
"She is excellent, and charming with it." (Chambers & Partners 2015)
"She has very strong, clear and accessible ideas, and the ability to boil things down to the nub
without making you feel stupid." (Chambers & Partners 2015)
"Impressive, thorough and down to earth. She's a good team player." (Chambers & Partners 2015)
"An extremely talented and dedicated lawyer, and a fount of all knowledge on EU law and
regulations." (Chambers & Partners 2015)
http://www.brickcourt.co.uk/people/profile/jemima-stratford-qc
High Court hands down landmark FRAND judgment
05/04/17, EU/Competition

Mr Justice Birss today handed down a landmark judgment in Unwired Planet International Ltd v
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd in which he ruled for the first time on the obligation to license
standard essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and the
interrelationship between FRAND and EU competition law. The judgment is also the first outside
Germany to consider the application of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Union in Huawei v ZTE.
Unwired Planet acquired a portfolio of standard essential patents from Ericsson in 2013 and, after
unsuccessful attempts to license those patents consensually, commenced patent infringement
proceedings against Huawei, Samsung and Google in March 2014. In addition to challenging
validity and infringement of the patents, each of Huawei, Samsung and Google brought
counterclaims against Unwired Planet alleging that Unwired Planets conduct was not FRAND
and that it was in breach of EU competition law. The claims against Google were settled in May
2015 and the claims against Samsung were settled shortly before trial in July 2016. The claims
against Huawei went to trial over 7 weeks in November and December 2016.
In a judgment which will be welcomed by those seeking to license patents relevant to global
standards, Mr Justice Birss found that it was FRAND for a patent holder to insist on a global
licence (and conversely that it was not FRAND for a prospective licensee to insist on licensing on
a country-by-country basis). He proceeded to determine the FRAND rate for Unwired Planets
portfolio.
Huaweis competition law counterclaims were dismissed, including the argument that Unwired
Planet was in breach of the principles laid down by the Court of Justice in Huawei v ZTE for
commencing proceedings before making a FRAND offer.
Since Huawei had refused to enter into a licence on terms that the Court had determined to be
FRAND, and Unwired Planet was not in breach of competition law, Mr Justice Birss considered
that it was appropriate to grant a final injunction against Huawei to restrain infringement of
Unwired Planets patents in the UK.
The judgment is here.
Sarah Ford QC appeared for Unwired Planet, instructed by Enyo Law.
Jemima Stratford QC, Sarah Abram, Michael Bolding and David Bailey were instructed at an earlier
stage of the proceedings.
Daniel Piccinin acted for Ericsson, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, prior to a
compromise being reached.
Robert ODonoghue QC appeared for Google, instructed by Bristows, prior to a compromise being
reached
Nicholas Saunders appeared for Google and Samsung, instructed by Bristows, prior to a compromise
being reached.

Selection of arbitrators for the


Arbitration Panel under the
EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
Second call for Interest
22/09/2017

New! Selection of arbitrators for the Arbitration Panel


under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Second Call for
Interest, Deadline: 6 October
In order to facilitate the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States while
ensuring a high level of data protection, the Commission has adopted a so-called
adequacy decision on the EU-US Privacy Shield. In this context, the European
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) have agreed to set up an
arbitration mechanism which Europeans whose personal data are transferred to certified
U.S. companies may invoke when they consider that their data protection rights under
the framework have been infringed. For this mechanism to become operational, a list of
arbitrators from which the parties to the dispute may select the arbitration panel has to be
agreed between the Commission and the DOC. The (second) call for interest has been
published in the U.S. Federal Register and can be accessed under the following link:

U.S. Federal Register

This can be accessed until 6 October 2017 (included), anyone interested in becoming an
arbitrator and fulfilling the requirements set out in the Federal Register notice may submit
an application to the address indicated therein.

Calls For Expressions Of Interest : Selection of arbitrators for the Arbitration


Panel under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Second call for Interest

http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-
detail.cfm?item_id=604382&utm_source=just_newsroom&utm_medium=Websit
e&utm_campaign=just&utm_content=Selection%20of%20arbitrators%20for%2
0the%20Arbitration%20Panel%20under%20the%20EU-
US%20Privac&utm_term=Data%20protection&lang=en

concerning the adoption of the work programme for 2017 and the financing for the
implementation of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-
2020/files/rec_2017_awp_commission-implementing-decision_en.pdf
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a Rights,
Equality and Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 to 2020 Text with EEA relevance
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1381&from=EN
EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_eu-
us_privacy_shield_en.pdf
Human rights watchdog
seeks details on foreign
surveillance
ICCL and other bodies ask governments to disclose
details of arrangements for sharing data
Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 15:15
Elaine Edwards

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has asked for details of how the State
shares foreign intelligence information.
A leading human rights watchdog has asked the
Government and the States policing and defence
agencies to release details of how they share intelligence
surveillance with other governments.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) on Tuesday
submitted requests under the Freedom of Information
Act to the Department of Justice, An Garda Sochna
and the Defence Forces seeking information on the
States information sharing agreements with other
countries.
It informed the agencies that the arrangements
dramatically implicate the privacy of every person, both
nationals and non-nationals.
However, to date those arrangements are largely
shrouded in secrecy, it said in correspondence to all
three bodies.
The requests were submitted as part of a global public
information campaign aimed at uncovering international
information-sharing agreements between intelligence
agencies.
The campaign is being coordinated through the
International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations
(INCLO), of which ICCL is a member.
The group says international information-sharing
agreements between intelligence agencies potentially
allow those agencies to sidestep domestic legal
constraints by funnelling surveillance data into a
transnational intelligence network.
Mass leaks
The Snowden files and other mass intelligence leaks
have yielded crucial information about the mechanics of
domestic state surveillance. They also revealed more
about intelligence cooperation through the Five Eyes, the
post-war surveillance alliance established between the
United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia
and New Zealand, the ICCL said.
However, surveillance regimes now operate on a global
scale, extending far beyond Western democracies.
We still know very little about the Five Eyes and other
information-sharing relationships between
governments, including intelligence alliances in the
global south. By submitting requests for information in a
geographically diverse array of states, INCLO hopes to
expose these undisclosed alliances and learn more about
their exact practice.
Eight member organisations filed freedom of
information requests with their governments today, in
what they said was an attempt to shine a light on this
critical seam of the global surveillance regime.

In his correspondence, ICCL executive director Liam


Herrick is seeking all details of the circumstances in
which Ireland may share foreign intelligence
surveillance data with another country.
Electronic surveillance
He is also seeking details of the circumstances in which
Ireland may request or acquire electronic surveillance
data from another jurisdiction.
This is the first multinational coalition demanding that
governments release any and all information regarding
agreements between intelligence agencies, and provide
answers about a practice largely shielded from
accountability, ICCL said.
The action builds on a report by the INCLO last year
entitled Surveillance and Democracy: Chilling Tales
from Around the World.
The organisation said it would publish all documents
released on foot of the requests submitted on Tuesday.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/human-rights-watchdog-
seeks-details-on-foreign-surveillance-1.3118234#.WUAFpe-SwjV.twitter
Cabinet to mull laws on online bugging
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The Government is to be briefed in the coming weeks on forthcoming
laws giving law enforcement agencies powers to intercept email and
internet communications.
The measures are contained in proposed legislation to legally underpin
online bugging powers already in place in relation to telephone
communications.
In a development since the new powers were mooted last November,
the Department of Justice said it was considering enhancing
safeguards in terms of the granting and monitoring of the system.
Digital Rights Ireland said these safeguards will have to involve
authorisation by a judge or an independent body in line with a ruling
at the European Court of Justice last December.
Currently, under Irish law, the justice minister authorises the use of
phone bugging by garda, the Defence Forces, and the Garda
Ombudsman.
A department spokesperson said: The need to enhance powers in this
regard is absolutely essential given the importance of taking strong
action to tackle terrorism and organised crime.
Recent events in Manchester and London serve only to remind us of
the ongoing need to ensure that the agencies charged with defending
the security of the State must have all the assistance necessary.
The department said it had consulted with industry, privacy, and rights
bodies.
The spokesperson said Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald believed protection
of citizens fundamental rights was of paramount importance and that
consideration was being given to the enhancement of safeguards.
Telephone calls can be intercepted in the investigation of serious crime
and protecting State security.
The department said that, under current arrangements, only the
justice minister can authorise bugging and that the system is overseen
independently by a High Court judge who reports to the Taoiseach.
Last November, the department said no change was proposed to
these arrangements.
However, the spokesperson yesterday said: Consideration is being
given to ways in which the safeguards currently in the act may be
supplemented or enhanced.
Law lecturer TJ McIntyre, chair of Digital Rights Ireland, said the
department has had to amend its proposals following a European Court
of Justice (Tele2/ Watson) decision last December in which it ruled that
access to phone records must be approved by a judge or an
independent body.
Mr McIntyre said this applies even more so to accessing the content of
those conversations and would apply to both phone and online
communications.
The protections will have to apply to all communications, email and
phone, traffic data and content, he said.
He said the UK government recently introduced powers which retained
the power of authorisation in the home affairs minister, but with a
judicial oversight.
The department here might try and borrow the UK approach, but I
dont think thats a runner. The ECJ decision is very clear.
One thing that is less clear is if the forthcoming laws will include access
to encrypted online technologies, such as WhatsApp.
Garda sources said their inability to access encrypted technology was a
major failing and resulted in significant intelligence gaps.
Mr McIntyre said very opaque UK laws could give it the power to
compel service providers to build a back door into encrypted
technologies.
He thought it was very unlikely the department would do this unless it
was part of a wider EU initiative.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cabinet-to-mull-laws-on-online-
bugging-452362.html

Electronic health records to


be rolled out despite data
concerns
eHealth project head says new digital system will result in
better outcomes for patients
Fri, Jun 9, 2017, 01:00
Kevin O'Sullivan

Prof Mark Ferguson is the chairman of the Governments eHealth project.


Photograph: Eric Luke
Electronic health records are to be rolled out for
everyone availing of Irish healthcare services and will
ensure better outcomes for patients, the chairman of the
Governments eHealth project, Prof Mark Ferguson,
has said.
He said the project was going ahead in spite of concerns
about personal information being stored digitally.
Prof Ferguson said the reality was that electronic health
in Ireland is not in a good place but the changes being
introduced would lead to better quality of GP and
hospital care, and a seamless transition from one system
of care to the other.
Under the plans, all people availing of healthcare would
have a unique identifier and all their records would be
stored digitally and there would be the capacity to carry
out genome sequencing to chart their genetic make-up
where appropriate, added Prof Ferguson, who is also the
Governments chief scientific adviser and head of
Science Foundation Ireland.
Speaking at a medical conference in Dublin on clinical
trials, he said he appreciated eHealth was a sensitive
area which had people really worried.
In contrast, he noted they did not give a damn about a
paper of record being lost in the back of a taxi or paper
records being kept in an unlocked room.
How long should parents be away from their children?
They talk to the dog, not me. How people react to
disability
Cherie and I held Tonys hands. We sang as he slipped away
As a consequence, eHealth Ireland was engaging in a
series of pilot projects to reassure the public and to
demonstrate the advantages for them.
In one such project 20 people with epilepsy had their
genotype profiled. In one case, it resulted in a person,
who had an epileptic fit every day for 30 years, adopting
a dietary change that meant they have never had a fit
since.
He said the eHealthIreland project set up by the
Department of Health had developed seven patient
personas, which meant different things had to be
delivered for different categories of people, informed by
studies of sickness and health. This strong patient
focus would be critical to the procurement process.
Frightened
He accepted that the biggest hurdle was educating
people so they are not frightened about control of their
data.
The initiative would also secure better participation in
clinical trials and ensure proper consent, Prof Ferguson
said at the conference hosted by the Avoca Quality
Consortium, which co-ordinates collaboration on clinical
trials.
Irelands approach to scientific research was being
vindicated, he said, as it meant the State had become a
global leader in chosen fields. This was a consequence of
research excellence which was distributed in different
places.
Through 12 highly-specialised research centres based in
third-level institutions and close collaboration with
industry, and backed SFI funding, Ireland was among
the top five globally in areas such as nanotechnology,
animal and dairy, chemistry, immunology and
mathematics, he added.
Prof Ferguson said SFI was underlining the benefits of
Ireland in the context of Brexit, though they were not
actively poaching people. They wanted good researchers
to think of relocating to Ireland.
Leading universities
To assist this, they were collaborating with four leading
universities in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge, University
College London and Imperial College London) which are
ranked in the top-10 in the world.
This would involved joint appointments to centres in
Ireland and the UK while PhD students would divide
their time between both locations. In addition, SFI was
also strengthening relations with major funders of
research in Britain, which would be important regardless
of the Brexit outcome.
He cited the example of a potential Nobel Prize winner
based in the US, reluctant to pursue climate change
research there because of the Trump factor, who might
have concerns about going to the UK, but might be
persuaded by the joint approach involving Ireland.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/electronic-health-records-to-be-
rolled-out-despite-data-concerns-1.3112831

Department of Justice and Equality


Crime Data
All Written Answers on 1 Jun 2017
Previous answer
Next answer
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) Link to this:
Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
59. To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality
further to Parliamentary Question No. 175 of 12 July 2016,
the information which is available and readily accessible on
the Garda information technology system in respect of all
technology related cybercrime affecting businesses here;
the number of convictions; and if she will make a statement
on the matter. [26508/17]

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) Link to this:


Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Central Statistics Office (CSO), as the national statistical
agency, is responsible for the compilation and publication of the
official recorded crime statistics, and the CSO has established a
dedicated unit for this purpose. I am advised that the relevant
categories of recorded crime are not disaggregated along the
lines referred to by the Deputy and therefore the information in
question is not displayed in the official CSO crime statistics
publications.
However, I have asked the Garda authorities to provide any
relevant information which might be of assistance in relation to
the matters referred to in the Deputy's question. I will contact
the Deputy again when I have received a response from the
Garda authorities.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-06-
01a.131&s=cybercrime#g132.q

Simon Harris signed the commencement order for the Individual Health Identifier yesterday
Individual Health Identifier -
Progress
HSE and eHealth Ireland welcome the commencement order in relation
to the Individual Health Identifier (IHI)
IHI will now become operational throughout Ireland

The HSE and eHealth Ireland welcome the commencement order for the
Individual Health Identifier (IHI) signed by the Minister of Health Mr Simon
Harris yesterday, Tuesday 30th May 2017. This allows for the operational use
of the IHI throughout the Irish healthcare system in line with the terms of the
Health Identifiers Act 2014.

An Individual Health Identifier is a number that identifies each person who has
used or may use a health or social care service in Ireland. Each individual will
be assigned their own personal number which is unique to them. The main
benefit of having an Individual Health Identifier is to uniquely identify each
service user and therefore, improve patient safety by reducing errors that
might happen, such as ensuring patients receive the correct medication,
vaccinations, and treatment.

The IHI is established first and foremost as a patient safety mechanism. It


also allows for a new level of audibility and traceability for healthcare
information by providing a record of who accessed information and when. No
medical information is contained within the IHI register.

Welcoming the signing of the commencement order, John Hennessey,


National Director for Primary Care said, This allows for the work to fully
implement the IHI to proceed. Making the IHI operational will be done in a
planned and managed way over a period of time, to ensure that services are
well prepared and that all safeguards are in place to protect peoples privacy.

Richard Corbridge, HSE Chief Information Officer and CEO of eHealth Ireland
said This is a fundamental block in building a better health service through
the availability of digital solutions. The IHI allows us to work with GPs,
hospitals, digital partners, patients, and service providers, to make the IHI
available in as many care settings as possible. This will be done
incrementally, with the patients interests at the centre of every decision along
the way.
Minister for Health Simon Harris said, "The bringing into operation of the
relevant provisions in the Health Identifiers Act and the making of Regulations
on accessing the National IHI Register and using the IHI, represent further
tangible steps in my commitment to enhancing patient safety and developing
the eHealth agenda necessary for a modern patient-centred health service."

The Health Identifiers Act, 2014, provides the legislation for the Individual
Health Identifier. In September 2015 a delegation order was commenced to
allow the HSE to develop and operate the IHI on behalf of the Minister for
Health.

An IHI (number) has been created and assigned to Irish residents who have
used or may use the health and social care services within Ireland. People do
not need to know their IHI to access services. For more information on the IHI
project and its progress visit www.ehealthireland.ie/IHI
(Published 01/06/2017)

The eReferrals service and each of the General Practice Management


Systems have now been configured to store and display the IHI number and
an interface has been developed to allow these systems to Find IHI numbers
for their patient records. These systems are ready to become operational
once a Legislative Commencement Order for the provision of IHI numbers to
Health Service Providers is signed by the Minister of Health.
(Published 31/01/17)

Progress towards the delivery of the Individual Health Identifier (IHI) has
continued since the announcement of the programme on 11 March 2015.
In July 2015, a proof of concept version of the infrastructure was created and
a data cleansing and the matching process was completed, with over 90%
success match rate against existing HSE Primary Care Reimbursement
(PCRS) records.
The proof of concept solution was made available to a number of systems so
that they could begin to understand how clinical benefit can be
gained from local systems by deploying access to the IHI. Access to this
system was not against real data. The HSEs own development team carried
out this early review with volunteer suppliers, Slainte Healthcare, Socrates
Healthcare Informatics and Helix Health.
In September 2015 a delegation order was commenced to allow the HSE to
develop and operate the IHI on behalf of the Minister for Health.
A Public Consultation for the draft IHI Privacy Impact Assessment published
on January 28, 2016, was conducted in March 2016 and extended to 8th April
2016 due to the volume of interest.
The outcomes for the Public Consultation and the IHI Privacy Impact
Assessment itself was published on 10/08/2016.
On November 8th 2016, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed with the
Department of Social Protection for the provision of Public Service Identify
Records for the population and maintenance of the IHI Register allowing for
the population of the IHI Register with 6.2 million approx. records for known
residents of Ireland.
IHI numbers were generated and assigned to these records.
(published 01/12/2016)

Future decisions regarding which Health Service Provider systems will have
access to the IHI will be agreed within the Health Identifiers Programme
based on evaluation of candidate systems against criteria relating to clinical
benefit and patient safety rather than being technology led. For example, the
New Born and Maternity system is already high on the list of systems to
consider to ensure that the IHI is available to babies from birth.

https://www.digitalhealth.net/2016/02/ireland-consults-public-on-identifier/

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE


INDIVIDUAL HEALTH IDENTIFIER

on January 28, 2016


http://www.ehealthireland.ie/Library/Document-Library/IHI-
Documents/PC-PIA-IHI.pdf

EU court ruling may impact


health identifier plans
Smaranda Bara case has implications for sharing of
citizens data between public bodies
Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 13:27 Updated: Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 13:29
Elaine Edwards

The HSE said the Department of Health would examine the impact of
legislative changes on the health identifier project following a major EU ruling.
Photograph: Thinkstock
Health authorities are examining the possible impact of a
major EU court ruling on their work to date on a plan to
give every person in the State a unique health identifier.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/eu-court-ruling-may-impact-health-identifier-
plans-1.2407367?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-
origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Feu-court-
ruling-may-impact-health-identifier-plans-1.2407367

ENFORCEMENT
DELAYED FOR HEALTH
PLAN IDENTIFIER
REGULATIONS
November 3, 2014
http://ncvhs.us/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/
140923lt5.pdf
IHI Service Data Protection Policy
Information in the form of data is at the core of the Health Service Executives
(HSE) activities. The security and privacy of this data, especially patient and
client personal data, is of the upmost importance to the HSE. In order to
maintain public confidence in the HSE and the delivery of our services to the
public, the HSE and its staff, agents, representatives, contractors and data
processors must ensure they process and protect this data in accordance with
the relevant legislation and the HSEs policies, procedures and guidelines.
In 2014, the Health Identifiers Act was enacted and this allowed for the
creation and operation of a unique Individual Health Identifier (IHI) for any
person using a health or social care service in Ireland and the establishment
of a national IHI register. The Minister for Health delegated the authority to
establish and operate the IHI to the HSE and the HSE IHI Business Service is
responsible for this. As the IHI includes an individuals personal data, the HSE
is legally required to ensure that all personal data is processed in accordance
with the Health Identifiers Act, the Data Protection Acts, the GDPR (when
effective) and other statutory and legal obligations.
The purpose of this policy is to provide HSE staff, agents, representatives,
contractors and data processors and others with clear guidance and
instruction on the appropriate, safe and legal way in which they can make use
of the information stored on the IHI register. This policy has been approved by
the HSE Director General and the HSE leadership team
Click here for the full IHI Service Data Protection Policy
Memorandum of Agreement between Department
Of Social Protection, Department of Health and
the Health Service Executive in respect of
Utilisation and Sharing of Public Service Identity
(PSI) Dataset in the Context of the Health Identifiers
Act 2014
On November 8th 2016, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed with the
Department of Social Protection for the provision of Public Service Identify
Records for the population and maintenance of the IHI Register allowing for
the population of the IHI Register with 6.2 million approx. records for known
residents of Ireland.
The Department of Social Protection is the data controller for the Public
Service Identity Dataset.
The Health Identifiers Act 2014 was introduced to provide for the assignment
of a unique number to an individual to whom a health service is being, has
been or may be provided. Individual Health Identifiers (IHI) can be used in
both the public and private sector. For operational reasons, the Health
Identifier Act 2014 provides for the delegation of certain functions to the
Health Service Executive (HSE). The HSE will operate the Health Identifiers
Register on behalf of the Minister of Health. Notwithstanding the delegation
of function, Section 26 of the Health Identifiers Act 2014 provides for the
functions continue to be vested in the Minister concurrently with the HSE and
the delegation does not remove or derogate from the responsibility of the
Minister.
On receipt of the data from the Department of Social Protection, the HSE will
become responsible for the personal data which it has received, i.e. it is the
data controller for information received from that point.
Click here for the full Memorandum of Agreement.

Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Individual


Health Identifier.
A privacy impact assessment examines the measures that need to be put in
place to protect your personal information. Privacy Impact Assessments are
particularly important in health and social care settings. Your privacy is really
important to the HSE and so we undertook a Privacy Impact Assessment for
the IHI.
The Privacy Impact Assessment, identifying risks and outlining the
safeguards that will be put in place to reduce risk of your personal information
being accessed has been published.
Click here for the IHI Privacy Impact Assessment Outcomes.

Public Consultation on the Privacy Impact


Assessment (PIA) for the Individual Health
Identifier.
The PIA for the IHI is about the protection of your personal information. We
conducted a public consultation about the PIA as we wanted to hear from you
whether you thought that we had identified sufficient safeguards to protect
your privacy.
Information about the public consultation on the Privacy Impact Assessment
can be found with a Privacy Impact Assessment Infographic and an animation
is available by clicking below:
We shared an IHI Privacy Impact Assessment Public Consultation
Document outlined what the Individual Health Identifier is, what its benefits
are and what a Privacy Impact Assessment is. It also summarised a draft
Privacy Impact Assessment that had been prepared and listed all the risks
identified and the safeguards that were proposed to reduce those risks.
We requested feedback using an Online Feedback Form which asked for
opinions on the following 3 questions:
1. Have we identified all the benefits of the IHI?
2. Have we identified all the privacy risks?
3. Are the safeguards that we are proposing sufficient?

In addition an IHI PIA feedback form was made available.


The public consultation closed on Friday 8th April 2016.
The finalised Statement of Outcomes outlining the Health Service Executives
response and proposed actions arising from the feedback received during the
Public Consultation was published on the eHealth Ireland website.

In addition, all individual submissions received as part of the Public


Consultation were anonymised and published on the eHealth Ireland website.

http://www.ehealthireland.
ie/Library/Document-
Library/IHI-
Documents/PC-PIA-
IHI.pdf
Electronic Health Record ...
Another example can be found in research on health ... Initial evaluation of patient interaction with
the Electronic Health Record

https://www.scribd.com/d
ocument/312286237/Bran
ds2004-PwC-ehealth-
doc-pdf#

Individual Health Identifier


(IHI)
Context and Background
An Individual Health Identifier (IHI) is a number that safely
identifies a person who has used, is using or may use a
health or social care service in Ireland. The provision of an
IHI for individuals was identified as a key enabler for
eHealth Strategy for Ireland December 2013. The IHI
number will be used to safely identify the individual and
enable the linking of their correct health records from
different health systems to give a complete medical
history.
This will allow for Health Care Practitioners to provide
health services to individuals supported by a
comprehensive view of their relevant medical history. The
Health Identifiers Act, of July, 2014, provided for the
establishment and maintenance of national registers for:
Individual Health Identifiers
Health Service Provider Identifiers (Practitioners and
Organisations)
An animation explaining the IHI is available by clicking
below:

The IHI Dataset is outlined in the Health Identifiers Act


2014 as follows (a copy of the Legislation can be
downloaded from the Oireachtas Website):
surname
forename
date of birth
place of birth
sex
all former surnames
mothers surname at birth
address
nationality
personal public service number (PPSN), if any. The
PPSN can be used to find an IHI number but an IHI
number cannot be used to find a PPSN
date of death in the case of a deceased individual
signature
photograph
any other particulars (excluding clinical information
relating to the individual) that, in the opinion of the
Minister, are relevant to identifying the individual.
The HSE Health Identifiers (HIDs)
Programme
The HSE has established the Health Identifiers (HIDs)
Programme to:
1. Establish the registers that will contain the health
identifier numbers
2. Design the business operational models for the
maintenance of the registers
3. Design the technology systems required to support the
operational models
4. Transition the registers and their maintenance into the
appropriate service functions.
The IHI project has been established within the HIDs
Programme to focus specifically on the IHI national
register.
Separate projects will be established to focus on the
national registers for Health Care Practitioners and Health
Care Organisations within the HIDs Programme.

The IHI Project


The key IHI Project deliverables are:
1.The creation of a single national register of individual
service users of Health and Social Care Services in
Ireland
2.The design and establishment of a business operations
function to provide service user identity services to Health
and Social Care Systems in Ireland
3.The design and implementation of a technical
infrastructure with appropriate external interfaces to
support and maintain the national register (IHI system)
4.The design and implementation of technical interfaces
enabling data exchange between the IHI system and
selected consumer systems.
IHI Project Delivery Approach
The IHI National Register has been created and populated
with 6.2 million records from a trusted data source. A
unique identifier (IHI number) has been generated and
associated with each IHI record. These IHI records
constitute the establishment of the IHI National Register.
A suite of interfaces will be delivered to:
Allow a Health Service Provider to search for an IHI
number for an individual
Store the IHI number on the Health Service Provider
system
Notify the IHI National Register of any updates to the
individual IHI record that may have been notified to the
Health Service Provider by the individual.
The initial Health Service Provider systems that have been
selected for integration with the IHI system are eReferrals,
the National Epilepsy Electronic Patient Record (EHR)
System, Laura Lynn Hospice, Primary Care
Reimbursement Schemes(PCRS) and selected General
Practice Systems.
http://www.ehealthireland.ie/IHI
Information for the Public logoThe Individual Health Identifier An individual
number that uniquely and safely identifies you.
http://www.ehealthireland.ie/Strategic-Programmes/IHI/Information-for-the-
Public/The-IHI-Public-Information.pdf

Strategic eHealth Programmes:


Electronic Health Record Programme
Oireachtas-Committee-on-the-Future-of-Healthcare-Slaintecare-Report-300517
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/futureofhealthcare/O
ireachtas-Committee-on-the-Future-of-Healthcare-Slaintecare-Report-
300517.pdf
Irelands HSE Health Data invasion without Consent Webinar EHR Briefing for
Suppliers Recording of HSE Webinar to brief vendors on the EHR programme
(or viewable Oct 2017
http://www.ehealthireland.ie/Library/Video%20Libary/Webinar-EHR-
Briefing-for-Suppliers.mp4
.
EHR-Vision-and-Direction National Electronic Health Record - eHealth Ireland
National Electronic Health Record ... A National EHR for Ireland ... range of
leading and innovative eHealth companies in Ireland to provide part of the long
term
http://www.ehealthireland.ie/Library/Document-Library/EHR-Vision-and-
Direction.pdf
Irelands eHealth Agenda- Public Engagement & Internal ... Irelands first health
care supply chain ... eHealth Blueprint National EHR Registries and Domains
http://www.ammeon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Richard-Corbridge-
HSE-Irelands-eHealth-Agenda.pdf
Irelands first health care supply ... eHealth Blueprint ... access and contribute to the NationalShared
Record through

https://www.gs1ie.org/Download_Files/Events-Conferences/HSE-GS1-HUG-
Presentation-Richard-Corbridge.pdf
eHealth-Interoperability-standards-consultation
https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2017-08/eHealth-Interoperability-
standards-consultation.pdf
Consultation on the Privacy Blueprint for the Individual Electronic Health Record
Submission to the Australia National E- Health Transition Authority
https://www.oaic.gov.au/images/documents/migrated/migrated/sub_nehta_08
08.pdf
Your Movements Shall Be Traced- The New EU Regulation on Cross-Border
Portability
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-9-2017-INIT/EN/pdf

Supreme Court limits


investigations access to
emails of senior CRH
executive
CCPC accessed 100,000 emails during inquiry into
alleged anti-competitive practices in cement market
Mon, May 29, 2017, 17:02
Mary Carolan
The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission cannot examine all
100,000 emails of a senior executive of cement giant CRH copied by it
following a dawn raid as part of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive
practices, the Supreme Court has ruled
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Pinterest

Share to Reddit

Share to Google+

AddThis Sharing Buttons


Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Email App

Share to LinkedIn
The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
cannot examine all 100,000 emails of a senior executive
of cement giant CRH copied by it following a dawn raid
as part of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive
practices, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The commissions search was lawful and it is entitled to
lawfully proceed with its investigation but may only
examine such emails of Seamus Lynch as are relevant to
that investigation, Mr Justice Peter Charleton ruled.
There was no need for the commission to hold on to
irrelevant material and it might consider developing a
code of practice for future similar cases, he added.
The emails were among materials taken by officers of the
commission after its unannounced early morning raid at
the plant of Irish Cement Limited, a subsidiary of CRH,
at Platin, Co Meath, on May 14th, 2014.
The search was carried out under a warrant granted by
the District Court under the 2014 Competition and
Consumer Protection Act. The commission sought the
warrant after saying it had formed the opinion ICL, from
January 2011 to the date of the warrant, may have
engaged in abuse of a dominant position in relation to
the supply of bagged cement in the State.
ICL, CRH Plc and Seamus Lynch later took proceedings
alleging commission officers were not entitled to seize,
retain or trawl through any electronic files within a
crh.com email account of Mr Lynch unrelated to the
business and activity of ICL. Mr Lynch left ICL in 2011 to
join CRH and, at the time of the search, was managing
director of CRH Europe (Ireland and Spain).
The plaintiffs argued the warrant only entitled the
commission to seize documents related to ICL. By
seizing other data, the commission breached their
privacy and other rights under the Constitution, Article 8
of the European Convention on Human Rights and the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, they argued.
The commission denied those claims but undertook not
to go through the material until the courts decided the
matter.
In the High Court last year, Mr Justice Max Barrett
found certain materials seized fell outside the scope of
the search warrant and granted injunctions restraining
the commission accessing, reviewing or making use of
the material seized. He also held, if the commission
sought to access, review or use the documents, that
would breach Article 8.
Three judgments
In three separate judgments on Monday, the five-judge
Supreme Court dismissed the commissions appeal over
the High Court decision.
Mr Justice Charleton said the search was lawful and the
material seized could be taken off site. The focus of the
appeal was on the emails of Mr Lynch, he said. While
this was a business email address, the problem was the
scope of seizure of an entire email account of thousands
of mails without justification for such ample and
undifferentiated seizure.
While the seizure of the computer was proportionate and
the need to examine what was on it was justified by the
nature of the investigation, the commission and
CRH/Lynch side now needed to agree a procedure to
isolate private emails of Mr Lynchs from any emails
relevant to the commissions investigation, he said.
Outlining a number of recommendations as to how that
might be done, he said CRH and Mr Lynch might
identify what private material of his has been copied by
the commission and set out why that is so sensitive as to
require protection of his privacy rights under Article 8.
He, the Chief Justice Susan Denham and Ms Justice
Elizabeth Dunne also endorsed Ms Justice Mary Laffoys
separate findings concerning Article 8. Ms Justice Laffoy
held, because the commission had not accessed the
emails, there was no breach of Article 8 rights.
In his judgment also dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice
John MacMenamin ruled the search was unlawful and
the commission was therefore not entitled to access any
of the materials seized. The commisison acted outside its
powers under the Competition and Consumer Protection
Act 2014 and breached the constitutional and Article 8
rights to privacy of CRH and Mr Lynch, he held.
The commission had also not acted in accordance with
its obligations under the European Convention on
Human Rights Act 2003.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/supreme-court-limits-
investigation-s-access-to-emails-of-senior-crh-executive-1.3100526

protecting their privacy rights. In the recent case of CRH PLC, ... Competition and
Consumer Protection Act 2014 ... and Article 8 provides for protection of
https://www.algoodbody.com/media/Dawn-Raids-31May1.pdf

The Constitution

The Court held that each of the plain- tiffs enjoys a constitutional right to privacy which can only be
interfered with in a justifiable and proportionate manner.

However the Court was not prepared to grant a declaration that the CCPC had acted in breach of the
plaintiffs right to privacy under Article 40.3 of the Constitution.

The real difficulty arose with the CCPC determining what was to happen in respect of the materials
seized (other than legally privileged materials) which did not relate to the matter under investigation.
Barrett J. stated that if the CCPC was to trawl through the material and determine what it was entitled to
take away, it would quite literally be engaging in an entirely unwarranted not to mention egregious
transgression of the right to privacy of the plaintiffs in these proceedings. The Court concluded that
such an examination would contravene Article 40.3 of the Constitution.

This aspect of the ruling means


that the appointment of an impartial third party to assess the relevance of material seized by the CCPC
(particularly electronic data) during a dawn raid is likely to become a part of Irish competition law
enforcement actions going forward.
The ECHR

The parties accepted that the dawn raid of the business premises and the copying of the records could
con- stitute an interference by a public authority with the private life of one or more of the plaintiffs,
contrary to Article 8(1) of the ECHR. So the sole issue for the court was whether such interference
occurred in accordance with law, and was necessary in a democratic society (i.e. proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued) pursu- ant to Article 8(2).

The Court considered European case-law showing how dawn raids of

businesses can violate the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR. For example, in
Niemetz v Germany (1993) 16 EHRR 97, the ECtHR held that a search of

the plaintiff lawyers office amounted to a breach of Article 8 because the warrant was drawn in such
broad terms that it ordered a search for
and seizure of documents without any limitation, and was disproportion- ate in the circumstances.

Also in Robathin v Austria (3rd July 2012) which concerned a search and seizure of electronic data
at a lawyers office, the ECtHR condemned general searches

of electronic documents which are not reasonably limited in their scope, and found the search warrant to
be couched in very broad terms which went beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim.
Further, in Vinci Construction v France (2nd April 2015), the ECtHR found France to be in violation of
the ECHR in respect of inspections carried out at business premises, as the seizures included the
entirety of certain employees professional email accounts, as well as correspondence exchanged with
lawyers.

Barrett J. found that the warrant issued was suitably constrained


in both scope and effect, and the CCPC adopted a proportionate ap- proach when conducting the
search. However, he held that it was entirely unclear how it was proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued by the CCPC for it to review the material that it was not allowed to possess during the course of
the raid, without any impartial screening.

Top 10 tips to prepare for a dawn raid

Having clear internal procedures, well trained staff, and experienced counsel present during raids will
help organisations to find the correct bal- ance between cooperation and pro- tecting privacy rights.
Different regu- lators operate under different legisla- tive frameworks, but the following are some tips on
what to do when faced with a dawn raid:

have a dawn raid response pro- cedure in place so that everyone knows what to do;

contact external lawyers and key executives and directors immedi- ately;

askforeachofficersproofof identity and take a copy of it;

ascertain the team leader and the purpose of the inspection;

check the warrant, authorisation or other formal document to en- sure that it correctly identifies the
business premises and the scope of the investigation;

keepaninventoryandacopyof all documents taken by the inves- tigators;

if correspondence with lawyers is copied or seized, object and ask that it is kept separately from oth-
er documents copied or seized and that it is not reviewed until a determination has been made as to
whether it is legally privileged;

ifinvestigatorsattempttocopy or seize files or devices which contain material that is irrelevant to the
matter under investigation, object and ask that those files
or devices be put aside for your lawyers to discuss with the inves- tigators after the raid;

whereagreementcannotbe reached with investigators on relevant files or devices to be copied or


taken, have lawyers request an independent third par- ty to be appointed to examine the material and
sift through relevant or irrelevant material: and

co-operatewiththeinvestigators and do not obstruct or impede the investigation at any time (which may
be an offence) whilst being mindful of your legal rights and the legal duties of the investiga- tors.

group to which the party under investi- gation belongs.

Some of the emails and attachments in the email box were almost certainly not caught by the terms of
the warrant, as they included documents relating to other companies within

the group as well as personal emails. This was not information that may be required in relation to a
matter under investigation as required by section 37 of the 2014 Act. The central issue before the court
was what was to be done about those emails which it was claimed that the CCPC did not lawfully have
in its possession.

The CCPC contended that it had the right to go through all the material it had seized to determine what
material it was entitled to take away. The plain- tiffs, on the other hand, claimed that for the CCPC to
review the material which it was not entitled to take away contravened the right to privacy, be it in the
form arising under the ECHR or the Constitution, or both.

Reliefs sought

At trial, the plaintiffs sought the follow- ing:

a declaration that the CCPC


had acted ultra vires (beyond its powers), contrary to the 2014 Act, and outside the scope of
its search warrant;
a declaration that the CCPC had acted in breach of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003
(the DPAs);
a declaration that the CCPC had acted in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter;
a declaration that the CCPC had acted in breach of the plaintiffs right to privacy under
Art.40.3 of the Constitution;
a declaration that the CCPC had acted in contravention of Article 8 of the ECHR; and
an injunction restraining the CCPC from accessing, reviewing or making any use of the
documents seized, which do not relate to an activity in connection with the busi- ness of
supplying or distributing

goods or providing a service at the premises of the business.

The decision

The High Court said that the bulk seizure was outside the scope of the search warrant issued under
section 37 of the 2014 Act, and that examina- tion by the CCPC of the bulk data would constitute a
breach of the right to privacy under Article 40.3 of the Irish Constitution and Article 8 of the ECHR.

It therefore granted a declaration that certain materials seized by the CCPC during its dawn raid were
not covered by the terms of the applicable search warrant and were done without au- thorisation under
section 37 of the 2014 Act.

The Court noted that there is nothing in the 2014 Act to indicate what should be done regarding material
which has been seized but ought not to have been seized, as the material does not relate to a matter
under in- vestigation. It granted an injunction restraining the CCPC from accessing, reviewing or making
any use of the seized material pending any agree- ment that might be reached between the parties on
how to sift out the rele- vant and irrelevant material.
The Court also noted the existence
of a perfectly operable process in section 33 of the 2014 Act whereby material that is seized and which
is claimed to be legally privileged is vet- ted impartially with a view to determin- ing whether that
privilege has been correctly claimed, and thus whether the State should view that material. The Court
found that there was no reason why such a process could not have been voluntarily agreed between the
CCPC and the plaintiffs in this case.

The Court refused to grant declara- tions that the CCPC had breached the DPAs or Articles 7 and 8 of
the Char- ter. It also refused to grant a declara- tion that the CCPC had contravened Article 40.3 of the
Constitution or Arti- cle 8 of the ECHR, but it considered that if the CCPC was to proceed as
it intended (i.e. to go through all the material that it had taken away and determine what is the material
that it

was entitled to take away), that those provisions of the Constitution and the ECHR would be breached.

Addressing each legislation in turn why did the Court find the CCPCs dawn raid was not contrary to
the DPAs, Charter, Constitution or ECHR?

The DPAs

The Court noted that section 8 of the DPAs contains exemptions regarding the processing of personal
data which is required for the purpose of investi- gating offences, or which is required under any
enactment or by order of the court. It found that there was a very wide breadth of information
including personal data that the CCPC was entitled to take away with it after the dawn raid, by virtue
of the combined effect of its search warrant and section 37 of the 2014 Act.

One of the judges noted that, to the extent that the CCPC was not entitled to any personal data being
sought, it was open to the party under investiga- tion in these proceedings to refuse to release that data
to the CCPC. Insofar as that party elected to release data to which the CCPC was not entitled, it is liable
as data controller for its breach of the DPAs, not the CCPC. However, once the data were disclosed to
the CCPC, it had a responsibility to pro- cess the data in accordance with the DPAs.

The Charter

Barrett J. found that Article 51 of


the Charter provides that the Charters provisions are addressed to Member States only when they are
implement- ing EU law. In the Courts view, section 37 of the 2014 Act (under which the search warrant
was issued) was not a statutory provision imple- menting EU law in the context of this case, because the
CCPC was not acting to implement EU law (although there are circumstances when it could be).

Therefore no argument as to contra- vention of the Charter could succeed in these proceedings.

Ireland: Search And Seizure Supreme Court Rules On


Competition Case
Last Updated: 7 August 2017

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (the "CCPC") recently lost
its appeal against a decision of the High Court, which concerned a search it had
carried out at the premises of Irish Cement Limited ("ICL") in May 2015.

The Supreme Court found that the CCPC had breached the right to privacy of ICL,
CRH Plc ("CRH") - ICL's parent company and a senior executive within the CRH
group (together "the Respondents"), under both Irish law and under the European
Convention on Human Rights, due to the way in which it carried out the search.

The Supreme Court decision will undoubtedly impact on search and seizures carried
out by the CCPC in future cases. It may also influence other regulators to take a
more refined approach to search and seizure powers granted under different
legislation.

Background

The CCPC was investigating whether ICL may have engaged in anticompetitive
practices between January 2011 and 12 May 2015, on foot of allegations that it was
using exclusive purchasing arrangements, rebates or other inducements to
distributors of bagged cement, which had the effect of excluding competitors from the
Irish market. The allegations concerned only ICL's activities within the State and not
elsewhere.

In May 2015, the CCPC conducted a search of ICL's premises under section 37 of
the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 (the "Act"). This gave the CCPC
broad search and seizure powers, including allowing it to take copies of, and/or
seize, records which it found at the premises when investigating potential competition
law breaches. As required by the Act, the CCPC had obtained a search warrant from
the District Court prior to conducting the search.

One of the central issues in the case was whether the CCPC was entitled to copy the
entirety of Mr. Seamus Lynch's email account, a former managing director of ICL, but
who is now a managing director of Ireland and Spain for CRH Europe. The material
copied included correspondence with CRH subsidiaries in other European locations.

The Respondents argued that documents relating to Mr. Lynch's functions and
activities which were separate and unrelated to ICL were outside the scope of the
search warrant and should not be reviewed by the CCPC. The High Court agreed
with this position and the CCPC appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Criticisms

The Supreme Court dismissed the CCPC's appeal and was critical of the search
procedure which it adopted in this case at the outset. It noted that the search warrant
was couched in broad and unspecific terms and did not identify the suspected
offence or the suspected persons. Although the Respondents' lawyers were shown a
copy of the search warrant on the day of the search (and ultimately given a copy of
it), the Supreme Court found that in the absence of any specific information regarding
the scope of the investigation on the warrant, the Respondents' lawyers were unable
to make any meaningful observations to the CCPC officials as the search took place.

The Supreme Court also stated that at the time of the search, the CCPC had
information available to it, which would have enabled it to conduct a more focused
search. This was due to the relatively narrow scope of the investigation, the
methodology of search (involving electronic data which is often susceptible to key
word search) and the specific nature of the offences being investigated. It noted that
the search was pre-planned and that the pre-search procedure was not a focused
one, in identifying any specific email data by reference to the time, place or identity of
the writers, or addresses. The Supreme Court remarked that when the CCPC seized
all of Mr. Lynch's email account, it must have been aware that it would inevitably take
large quantities of material outside the scope of its investigation and was critical of
the fact that the CCPC did not take any steps to avoid such an event. It implied that a
better approach may have been for the CCPC to do a keyword search on site, which
would have narrowed down the material which was copied. The Supreme Court
noted that in some situations it may not be possible to have a more narrowly defined
search warrant or search (e.g. in relation to more serious types of crime where the
scope of the warrant must be broader and there was an urgent need for searches)
but it said that those considerations did not apply in this case.

Decisions

The Supreme Court dismissed the CCPC's appeal and found that the CCPC had
acted outside of the powers contained in section 37 of the Act, in breach of the
Respondents' constitutional right to privacy and in breach of their rights under Article
8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (which also relates to privacy). The
Supreme Court granted an injunction preventing the CCPC from reviewing any
material or any of the data "which were the fruits of this unlawful search." The
Supreme Court noted that although the Act provided a mechanism whereby
privileged legal material which was seized could not be reviewed by the CCPC, it did
not address what would transpire if material which was not covered by the search
warrant was seized. It noted that this was a matter for the Oireachtas, but said in the
absence of any such legislative provision dealing with the issue, it was for the CCPC
to try and reach agreement with the Respondents as to how any seized material
which was alleged to be outside the scope of the warrant, would be dealt with. Mr.
Justice Charleton suggested some steps which could be taken to resolve the issue
(this included the Respondents specifying what material should not have been
seized, the parties using key word searches to identify relevant material and the
destruction by the CCPC of any irrelevant material).

Comment

The Supreme Court has made clear that save in exceptional circumstances, search
warrants by the CCPC will need to be more precise so as to enable the subject of the
search to understand what is being investigated and presumably therefore to make
informed objections if necessary, about any data being seized. It is also evident, that
in competition law cases, the Supreme Court expects the CCPC to conduct more
pre-planning in relation to searches so as to limit the amount of irrelevant material
being seized.

Aside from the CCPC, other regulators have broad powers of search and seizure.
The Supreme Court ruling should serve as a cautionary note to them, to show
restraint when exercising their powers, as the excessive seizure of material will be
open to challenge.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject
matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Being supervised by a right to privacy extends to companies

labyrinth of regulators, organisations in Ireland face a very real and present risk

of a regulatory investigation or dawn raid. Although regulators have wide- reaching search and seizure
powers (including the ability to conduct unan- nounced inspections), organisations benefit from certain
safeguards under privacy laws. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) exercises a
close scrutiny over whether such safeguards are applied in a practi- cal and effective, rather than a
theoreti- cal and illusory, manner. Thus the chal- lenge for organisations is to understand how to deal
with unannounced inspec- tions and co-operate with investigators, whilst protecting their privacy rights.

In the recent case of CRH PLC, Irish Cement Ltd and Seamus Lynch v The Competition and Consumer
Protection Commission (CCPC) (5th April 2016), the Irish High Court determined that the seizure by
the CCPC of the entire contents of a professional email ac- count of an employee, containing docu-
ments unrelated to the investigation as well as personal emails, was unlawful.

Although the decision relates to the search and seizure regime under the Competition and Consumer
Protection Act 2014 (the 2014 Act), the case serves as a warning to other regulators to ensure that
they respect organisa- tions privacy rights when exercising their search and seizure powers during
dawn raids.

The right to privacy background

Although the Irish Constitution does


not expressly recognise a general
right to privacy, such a right has been recognised as being implied from Article 40.3 of the Constitution
since the date of the decision of the Supreme Court more than four decades ago in McGee v Attorney
General [1974] I.R. 284.

However, the right is not an unqualified right, and may be limited or restricted in the interests of the
common good, public order and morality.

In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications & Ors [2010] 3 IR 251, the High Court
confirmed that the

as legal entities, separate and distinct from their members as natural persons.

Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to respect for
private and fami- ly life, for the home and for correspond- ence. Again, this right is not absolute. Article
8(2) of the ECHR provides that: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as [1] in accordance with the law and [2] is necessary in a democratic society [a]
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, [b] for the
prevention of disorder or crime, [c] for the protection of health or mor- als, or [d] for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.

The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 gives effect to the ECHR in Irish law. It requires
the courts to interpret Irish law insofar as possible in line with the ECHR, and requires public bodies
(such as regulators) to perform their functions in a manner compatible with the ECHR.

In Societes Colas Est v France (16th April 2002), the ECtHR confirmed that in certain circumstances,
the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR may be construed as including the right to respect for a
companys registered office, branches or other premises.

Articles 7 of the EU Charter of Funda- mental Rights of the EU (the Charter) provides for the right to
respect for private and family life, and Article 8 provides for protection of personal data. Article 51 of the
Charter provides that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to Member States only when they are
implementing EU law.

The facts of the case


In May 2015, authorised officers of
the CCPC, acting pursuant to a search warrant issued under section 37 of the 2014 Act, carried out a
dawn raid of business premises of a party under investigation for anti-competitive prac- tices in the
bagged cement sector.

In the course of that raid, the officers obtained a copy of the entirety of the email box of a (now former)
senior ex- ecutive,

Revealed: How Facebook


chief, Sheryl Sandberg,
lobbied Taoiseach Enda
Kenny over data
protection role and
taxation
Brian Carroll
May 29 2017
Facebook chief, Sheryl Sandberg, personally lobbied the Taoiseach at one-to-
one meetings and in correspondence, on who would be appointed as Irelands
next Data Protection Commissioner.

Given extraordinary access to the Taoiseach, Ms Sandberg lobbied Enda


Kennypersonally at meetings in Davos and California, and in subsequent
correspondence, trying to influence his appointment of a successor to Billy
Hawkes, who was due to retire from the role of Data Protection
Commissioner.

Ms Sandberg doesnt specifically name any preferences she has for potential
successors in the documentation. She makes clear, however, that Facebook is
interested in who the appointment will be, and that whoever is appointed is a
strong candidate as Mr Hawkes was a hard act to follow.

She says in the documentation that she hopes whoever is appointed to the
position will be able to collaborate with Facebook and provide leadership on
the data protection issue in Europe.

Documents released to the Irish Independent under the Freedom of


Information Act, reveal how over a period of 11 months, Ms Sandberg used her
privileged access to the Taoiseach to lobby him on two issues of critical
interest to Facebook: taxation and data protection, specifically who would
replace Mr Hawkes.
The correspondence between the Taoiseach, his officials and Ms Sandberg
takes place in 2014 as Facebook is fighting two battles on two continents: one
against the IRS in the United States, which has found that Facebooks Irish
operations present a possible $5billion tax liability; and the other fight against
allegations that Facebook Ireland handed users private data to US spies.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner had played a crucial role in


Facebooks defence of the US spying claims. Mr Hawkes had refused to
investigate the claims on legal grounds. However, at the time of the lobbying
of Enda Kenny by Ms Sandberg, these grounds were being appealed to the
Irish High Court, and the Court of Justice of the European Union was going to
be asked to rule on the matter.

Ms Sandberg was anxious to ensure that Mr Hawkes successor as Data


Protection Commissioner would be as strong as Mr Hawkes had been.

The documents released under the Freedom of Information Act cover 11


months of correspondence between the Taoiseach, his officials and Sheryl
Sandberg.

Beginning on January 3 2014, the Taoiseachs officials set up a one-to-one


meeting between the Taoiseach and Ms Sandberg in meeting room ME22 at
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The meeting was to take
place at 11am sharp on January 23. The correspondence reveals that Ms
Sandberg sets the time of the meeting and confines it to 15 minutes because of
her tight schedule.

At the meeting, Ms Sandberg lobbies Mr Kenny on taxation and on the spies


issue, specifically advancing Facebooks position in relation to proposed
European Data Protection regulations. Later that evening Ms Sandberg
dropped by an IDA dinner at Davos.

Two days after the Davos meeting Ms Sandberg writes to Mr Kenny, and is
sure to warn how changes to taxation or privacy laws might lead Facebook to
consider different options for future investment and growth in Europe.

The email reads:

I also want to commend you once again for your leadership during your
Presidency of the EU. You made enormous progress. When it came to the
European Data Protection Regulation, you and your staff really internalised
our concerns and were able to present them in a reasonable way, which has
had a positive impact ...We hope we can rely on you for your continued
leadership on this regulation since we still have more work to do here. Along
the same lines, I was pleased to hear that you are so involved in the OECD
working group process on tax reform. These discussions will be very
complicated and important, and we hope to be helpful to you identifying the
implications with different options for future investment and growth in
Europe. We are keen to collaborate with your office on this, just as we have on
the DPR.
After the one-to-one meeting in Davos, Facebooks Senior Policy team,
comprising 15 executives from Washington, California, Dublin, and across
Europe, requested a personal meeting with the Taoiseach in Government
Buildings on February 6 2014.

Mr Kenny did not meet the delegation but instead sent his special adviser,
Paul OBrien, the Secretary General to the Government, Martin Fraser, and
two of the Taoiseachs experienced assistant secretaries with responsibility for
international economic matters, Lorcan Fullam and John Callinan.

After this high-powered delegation, the Taoiseach was invited to Facebooks


Menlo Park headquarters in the United States, in June 2014, where he had a
meeting with Sheryl Sandberg, which was scheduled to last for precisely 43
minutes.

They discussed the need for one tax regulator in the EU, and also the issue of
who would replace Billy Hawkes as Data Protection Commissioner. Mr
Hawkes was to retire on August 31 that year.

A subsequent letter to the Taoiseach in June 2014 specifically mentions Billy


Hawkes and the need for his replacement to be a strong candidate. While Mr
Hawkess independence and integrity are undisputed, there is no doubt that
Facebook would have been relieved in 2013, when Mr Hawkes refused to
investigate claims that Facebook Ireland had transferred data to the States for
examination by the NSA.

Mr Hawkes had refused the investigation on the legal grounds that Facebook
was entitled to send data from the EU to the US under EU Commission Safe
Harbour provisions. However, at the time when Ms Sandberg was being
granted personal access to the Taoiseach, a subsequent judicial review in the
Irish High Court had been initiated, which again threatened Facebooks
bottom line.

Two days after this June 2014 meeting, Ms Sandberg wrote to the Taoiseach
and invited him to open Facebooks new Nama-funded headquarters in Silicon
Docks in November that year.

The letter was used to again lobby the Taoiseach on taxation and Data
protection, and to warn about the consequences of disappointing Facebook,
which would involve the company having to revisit its investment strategies
for the EU.

We agree with you that to have a true Single Market approach, it is important
to have one regulator, whether on privacy or tax, to enable businesses and
benefit consumers across the EU. Without this, the risk is that companies will
revisit their investment strategies for the EU market. We hope you will
continue to play a leadership role on the Data Protection regulation since
there is still more work to do there.

Her letter then switches to a pointed reference to Billy Hawkes departing as


Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland and the importance of appointing
someone Facebook would approve of in his place.
Read more: Facebook's lobbying and facing up to truth

It was helpful to hear how you are focused on finding a strong successor to
Billy Hawkes, as Data Protection Commissioner for Ireland. Billy will be a
hard act to follow and we are hopeful that his successor will be someone who
will establish a collaborative working relationship with companies like ours
and be able to lead on the important issue of data protection compliance in
Europe.

By November 2014, when Enda Kenny opened Facebooks new NAMA-funded


offices in Dublins Silicon Docks, the Taoiseach had created a new junior
ministry - a Minister of State with responsibility for Data Protection, within
The Taoiseachs own department.

He mentions this in his closing remarks to Facebook executives: On a very


serious note, one of the key challenges going forward for companies such as
yours, is Data Protection .I believe that it is of the utmost importance to
work closely with out new Data Protection Commissioner. As a measure of the
seriousness with which we take this issue, I have recently appointed a new
Minister of State for Data Protection - Dara Murphy - within my own
Department, as we are very conscious that we need to be fully on top of all
aspects of Data Protection.

In this area, Irelands ability to build and maintain good relationships at EU


and international fora on Data Protection is paramount for the continued
growth of this exciting new area of opportunity in Ireland and we are
determined to address all the complex issues which these challenges raise.

By June the following year the government had increased the funding for the
Data Protection Commissioner, according to a memo prepared after a meeting
between then Minister for Enterprise Jobs and Innovation, Richard Bruton,
and senior Facebook executives who had travelled to Ireland to discuss
building a 200m Data Centre in Clonee, County Meath on June 3 2015.

Minister Bruton outlined the economic work of the Government over recent
years, the appointment of a Minister of State for Data Protection, the fact that
we work closely with the EU on Data issues and that we recently strengthened
the office of the Data Protection Commissioner by allocating additional
resources," the document reads.

Investigation
In October 2015, the European Court of Justice declared that the Safe
Harbour provisions were invalid - a move which led to Hawkes successor,
Helen Dixon agreeing to investigate the claims against Facebook Ireland.

Ms Dixon reopened the investigation, and took a case asking the Irish High
Court to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union the question of
whether so-called standard contractual clauses (SCCs) used by Facebook and
others to transfer data from the EU to the US, are valid. After 20 days of
evidence, judgment in the case was reserved in the Irish High Court in March
2017. A decision is still awaited.

Meanwhile, the EU has adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation


(GDPR) . It comes into force in May 2018 after a two-year transition period. It
extends the scope of the EU data protection law to all foreign companies
processing data of EU residents. It harmonises data protection regulations
throughout the EU, with severe penalties of up to 4pc of worldwide turnover.

According to the European Commission, personal data is any information


relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional
or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an
email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical
information or a computers IP address.

Facebook appears to have won some concessions. The regulation does not
apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law
enforcement. However, the data protection reform package includes a
separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector
that provides robust rules on personal data exchanges at national, European
and international level.

Ms Sandberg will also have been pleased to note that under the new
regulation, there is to be a one-stop-shop for privacy complaints, where
businesses deal with the Data Commissioner in the country of their main
establishment.

In this case, this means Facebook will be dealing with Ms Dixon, the former
companys registrar and civil servant who is now Irelands Data Protection
Commissioner.

Revealed: How Facebook chief,


Sheryl Sandberg, lobbied
Taoiseach Enda Kenny over data
protection role and taxation

1
FaBrian Carroll
May 29 2017
cebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Taoiseach Enda Kenny
Facebook chief, Sheryl Sandberg, personally lobbied the Taoiseach at one-to-
one meetings and in correspondence, on who would be appointed as Irelands
next Data Protection Commissioner.

Given extraordinary access to the Taoiseach, Ms Sandberg lobbied Enda


Kennypersonally at meetings in Davos and California, and in subsequent
correspondence, trying to influence his appointment of a successor to Billy
Hawkes, who was due to retire from the role of Data Protection
Commissioner.

Ms Sandberg doesnt specifically name any preferences she has for potential
successors in the documentation. She makes clear, however, that Facebook is
interested in who the appointment will be, and that whoever is appointed is a
strong candidate as Mr Hawkes was a hard act to follow.

She says in the documentation that she hopes whoever is appointed to the
position will be able to collaborate with Facebook and provide leadership on
the data protection issue in Europe.

Documents released to the Irish Independent under the Freedom of


Information Act, reveal how over a period of 11 months, Ms Sandberg used her
privileged access to the Taoiseach to lobby him on two issues of critical
interest to Facebook: taxation and data protection, specifically who would
replace Mr Hawkes.

The correspondence between the Taoiseach, his officials and Ms Sandberg


takes place in 2014 as Facebook is fighting two battles on two continents: one
against the IRS in the United States, which has found that Facebooks Irish
operations present a possible $5billion tax liability; and the other fight against
allegations that Facebook Ireland handed users private data to US spies.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner had played a crucial role in


Facebooks defence of the US spying claims. Mr Hawkes had refused to
investigate the claims on legal grounds. However, at the time of the lobbying
of Enda Kenny by Ms Sandberg, these grounds were being appealed to the
Irish High Court, and the Court of Justice of the European Union was going to
be asked to rule on the matter.

Ms Sandberg was anxious to ensure that Mr Hawkes successor as Data


Protection Commissioner would be as strong as Mr Hawkes had been.

The documents released under the Freedom of Information Act cover 11


months of correspondence between the Taoiseach, his officials and Sheryl
Sandberg.

Beginning on January 3 2014, the Taoiseachs officials set up a one-to-one


meeting between the Taoiseach and Ms Sandberg in meeting room ME22 at
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The meeting was to take
place at 11am sharp on January 23. The correspondence reveals that Ms
Sandberg sets the time of the meeting and confines it to 15 minutes because of
her tight schedule.

At the meeting, Ms Sandberg lobbies Mr Kenny on taxation and on the spies


issue, specifically advancing Facebooks position in relation to proposed
European Data Protection regulations. Later that evening Ms Sandberg
dropped by an IDA dinner at Davos.

Two days after the Davos meeting Ms Sandberg writes to Mr Kenny, and is
sure to warn how changes to taxation or privacy laws might lead Facebook to
consider different options for future investment and growth in Europe.

The email reads:


I also want to commend you once again for your leadership during your
Presidency of the EU. You made enormous progress. When it came to the
European Data Protection Regulation, you and your staff really internalised
our concerns and were able to present them in a reasonable way, which has
had a positive impact ...We hope we can rely on you for your continued
leadership on this regulation since we still have more work to do here. Along
the same lines, I was pleased to hear that you are so involved in the OECD
working group process on tax reform. These discussions will be very
complicated and important, and we hope to be helpful to you identifying the
implications with different options for future investment and growth in
Europe. We are keen to collaborate with your office on this, just as we have on
the DPR.

After the one-to-one meeting in Davos, Facebooks Senior Policy team,


comprising 15 executives from Washington, California, Dublin, and across
Europe, requested a personal meeting with the Taoiseach in Government
Buildings on February 6 2014.

Mr Kenny did not meet the delegation but instead sent his special adviser,
Paul OBrien, the Secretary General to the Government, Martin Fraser, and
two of the Taoiseachs experienced assistant secretaries with responsibility for
international economic matters, Lorcan Fullam and John Callinan.

After this high-powered delegation, the Taoiseach was invited to Facebooks


Menlo Park headquarters in the United States, in June 2014, where he had a
meeting with Sheryl Sandberg, which was scheduled to last for precisely 43
minutes.

They discussed the need for one tax regulator in the EU, and also the issue of
who would replace Billy Hawkes as Data Protection Commissioner. Mr
Hawkes was to retire on August 31 that year.

A subsequent letter to the Taoiseach in June 2014 specifically mentions Billy


Hawkes and the need for his replacement to be a strong candidate. While Mr
Hawkess independence and integrity are undisputed, there is no doubt that
Facebook would have been relieved in 2013, when Mr Hawkes refused to
investigate claims that Facebook Ireland had transferred data to the States for
examination by the NSA.

Mr Hawkes had refused the investigation on the legal grounds that Facebook
was entitled to send data from the EU to the US under EU Commission Safe
Harbour provisions. However, at the time when Ms Sandberg was being
granted personal access to the Taoiseach, a subsequent judicial review in the
Irish High Court had been initiated, which again threatened Facebooks
bottom line.

Two days after this June 2014 meeting, Ms Sandberg wrote to the Taoiseach
and invited him to open Facebooks new Nama-funded headquarters in Silicon
Docks in November that year.
The letter was used to again lobby the Taoiseach on taxation and Data
protection, and to warn about the consequences of disappointing Facebook,
which would involve the company having to revisit its investment strategies
for the EU.

We agree with you that to have a true Single Market approach, it is important
to have one regulator, whether on privacy or tax, to enable businesses and
benefit consumers across the EU. Without this, the risk is that companies will
revisit their investment strategies for the EU market. We hope you will
continue to play a leadership role on the Data Protection regulation since
there is still more work to do there.

Her letter then switches to a pointed reference to Billy Hawkes departing as


Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland and the importance of appointing

It was helpful to hear how you are focused on finding a strong successor to
Billy Hawkes, as Data Protection Commissioner for Ireland. Billy will be a
hard act to follow and we are hopeful that his successor will be someone who
will establish a collaborative working relationship with companies like ours
and be able to lead on the important issue of data protection compliance in
Europe.

By November 2014, when Enda Kenny opened Facebooks new NAMA-funded


offices in Dublins Silicon Docks, the Taoiseach had created a new junior
ministry - a Minister of State with responsibility for Data Protection, within
The Taoiseachs own department.

He mentions this in his closing remarks to Facebook executives: On a very


serious note, one of the key challenges going forward for companies such as
yours, is Data Protection .I believe that it is of the utmost importance to
work closely with out new Data Protection Commissioner. As a measure of the
seriousness with which we take this issue, I have recently appointed a new
Minister of State for Data Protection - Dara Murphy - within my own
Department, as we are very conscious that we need to be fully on top of all
aspects of Data Protection.

In this area, Irelands ability to build and maintain good relationships at EU


and international fora on Data Protection is paramount for the continued
growth of this exciting new area of opportunity in Ireland and we are
determined to address all the complex issues which these challenges raise.

By June the following year the government had increased the funding for the
Data Protection Commissioner, according to a memo prepared after a meeting
between then Minister for Enterprise Jobs and Innovation, Richard Bruton,
and senior Facebook executives who had travelled to Ireland to discuss
building a 200m Data Centre in Clonee, County Meath on June 3 2015.

Minister Bruton outlined the economic work of the Government over recent
years, the appointment of a Minister of State for Data Protection, the fact that
we work closely with the EU on Data issues and that we recently strengthened
the office of the Data Protection Commissioner by allocating additional
resources," the document reads.

Investigation
In October 2015, the European Court of Justice declared that the Safe
Harbour provisions were invalid - a move which led to Hawkes successor,
Helen Dixon agreeing to investigate the claims against Facebook Ireland.

Ms Dixon reopened the investigation, and took a case asking the Irish High
Court to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union the question of
whether so-called standard contractual clauses (SCCs) used by Facebook and
others to transfer data from the EU to the US, are valid. After 20 days of
evidence, judgment in the case was reserved in the Irish High Court in March
2017. A decision is still awaited.

Meanwhile, the EU has adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation


(GDPR) . It comes into force in May 2018 after a two-year transition period. It
extends the scope of the EU data protection law to all foreign companies
processing data of EU residents. It harmonises data protection regulations
throughout the EU, with severe penalties of up to 4pc of worldwide turnover.

According to the European Commission, personal data is any information


relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional
or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an
email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical
information or a computers IP address.

Facebook appears to have won some concessions. The regulation does not
apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law
enforcement. However, the data protection reform package includes a
separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector
that provides robust rules on personal data exchanges at national, European
and international level.

Ms Sandberg will also have been pleased to note that under the new
regulation, there is to be a one-stop-shop for privacy complaints, where
businesses deal with the Data Commissioner in the country of their main
establishment.

In this case, this means Facebook will be dealing with Ms Dixon, the former
companys registrar and civil servant who is now Irelands Data Protection
Commissioner.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-how-
facebook-chief-sheryl-sandberg-lobbied-taoiseach-enda-
kenny-over-data-protection-role-and-taxation-
35765139.html?utm_content=bufferab267&utm_medium
=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

You might also like