Handy one for the assistant commissioner as she was due to explain to court today why it was deleted
The data was just resting on the servers
“You know that thing we said we destroyed which subsequently could have led to a mistrial…yeah, we actually found it”
It had fallen down the back of the couch.
So let me get this straight: the destruction of the data was ordered internally, but the order was carried out in such a sloppy/inconsistent way that they could now find a working copy?
This makes me want to know more about the data retention scheme in the Gards. It indicates to me that there’s likely more cases where sensitive data was not handled in a consistent manner.
corrupt to the core
I wish the various ra’s would start using major and minor release numbers, or more unique branding. Isn’t clear to me if the real branch was meant all along in articles about that case. You would think one of the groups committes or councils would have standardisation within their remit if they keep using similar names and changing policies.
If the gardai use third party trackers the data could have been deleted by them, but still recoverable on another system.
It is probably unavoidable that some data will be transmitted via cell towers outside of the jurisdiction, whether or not the actual vehicle is. Without specific gps based filtering they’ll likely store the lot.
So it was signed off for destruction, was supposedly destroyed and has now been found on an old computer that hadn’t yet been destroyed. Huh.
Now, why would it have been approved for destruction if it was part of a Garda investigation into a murder?
And is there anywhere I can find a good recap of this case?
Get AC12 on the case
Lads could we get a list of vehicles by manufacturer, model and year that have trackers on them?
You can’t even drive over to murder someone these days……
10 comments
Handy one for the assistant commissioner as she was due to explain to court today why it was deleted
The data was just resting on the servers
“You know that thing we said we destroyed which subsequently could have led to a mistrial…yeah, we actually found it”
It had fallen down the back of the couch.
So let me get this straight: the destruction of the data was ordered internally, but the order was carried out in such a sloppy/inconsistent way that they could now find a working copy?
This makes me want to know more about the data retention scheme in the Gards. It indicates to me that there’s likely more cases where sensitive data was not handled in a consistent manner.
corrupt to the core
I wish the various ra’s would start using major and minor release numbers, or more unique branding. Isn’t clear to me if the real branch was meant all along in articles about that case. You would think one of the groups committes or councils would have standardisation within their remit if they keep using similar names and changing policies.
If the gardai use third party trackers the data could have been deleted by them, but still recoverable on another system.
It is probably unavoidable that some data will be transmitted via cell towers outside of the jurisdiction, whether or not the actual vehicle is. Without specific gps based filtering they’ll likely store the lot.
So it was signed off for destruction, was supposedly destroyed and has now been found on an old computer that hadn’t yet been destroyed. Huh.
Now, why would it have been approved for destruction if it was part of a Garda investigation into a murder?
And is there anywhere I can find a good recap of this case?
Get AC12 on the case
Lads could we get a list of vehicles by manufacturer, model and year that have trackers on them?
You can’t even drive over to murder someone these days……