Snowden revelations impact Ireland

Ireland

Indented line

Irlande

The Edward Snowden revelations have had little impact in Ireland, despite the fact that Dublin is home to European headquarters of many of the Internet firms targeted by the NSA and GCHQ [1]. While there has been extensive media coverage, there has been no concrete action by the Irish government or parliament to investigate the abuses and the Data Protection Commissioner has refused to examine disclosure of information by Facebook under the PRISM programme [2]. To the contrary, the government has signaled its willingness to assist the US government in the extradition of Mr.Snowden [3]. The response of the Irish government has been marked by an unwillingness to antagonise the United States, rather than any desire to protect the privacy of Irish citizens.

Les révélations de Snowden ont eu peu d'impact en Irlande, malgré le fait que Dublin soit la ville où se situe le siège européens de nombreuses entreprises du Net visées par la NSA et le GCHQ [1]. Bien qu'il y ait eu une large couverture médiatique, il n'y a pas eu d'action concrète engagée par le gouvernement irlandais ou le parlement pour enquêter sur les abus, et le délégué à la protection des données a refusé d'examiner la mise à disposition d'informations par Facebook au programme PRISM [2]. Au contraire, le gouvernement irlandais a fait part de sa volonté d'assister le gouvernement des USA dans l'extradition de M.Snowden [3]. La réponse du gouvernement irlandais a été plus marquée par sa réticence à contrarier les USA, que par son souhait de protéger la vie privée des citoyens irlandais.

Media reporting

Couverture Media

For the most part, Irish media coverage has been confined to reporting and commenting on material revealed elsewhere. There does not appear to have been any investigative journalism considering, for example, the possible involvement of Irish authorities, the role of subsidiaries of US firms or the extent to which Irish undersea cables might have been tapped. With some honourable exceptions [4], there has been little media interest even examining the response of the Irish government.

En majeure partie, la couverture par les médias irlandais s'est réduite à reporter et à commenter les contenus révélés ailleurs. Il ne semble pas qu'il y ait eu une quelconque investigation journalistique, au vu, par exemple, de la possible implication des autorités irlandaises, du rôle des filiales des entreprises américaines ou de l'étendue des cables sous-marins irlandais qui auraient pu être espionnés.

Public action

Action publique

There have been no large-scale demonstrations or online campaigns against US surveillance.

Il n'y a eu aucune manifestation de grande ampleur ou de campagne sur le net contre la surveillance des USA.

Cases before courts and other authorities

On 4 July 2013 the Irish Attorney General, acting on a request made by the US government, sought a pre-emptive extradition arrest warrant against Mr.Snowden before the High Court [5]. When that warrantwas refused by the court (on the basis that the location of the alleged offences had not been established), the Minister for Justice went on to say that: “The Irish and US authorities have remained in close contact about this matter and, for its part, the Government will take any action open to it to ensure that the State's obligations in relation to extradition arrangements are met.” [3]

Following the Snowden revelations, Max Schrems of Europe v. Facebook made a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner regarding Facebook’s involvement in the PRISM programme. Mr. Schrems sought a formal investigation of access by US authorities to personal data transferred from Facebook-Ireland to Facebook Inc. in the US. [6] The Data Protection Commissioner refused to carry out an investigation on the basis that the European Commission’s “Safe Harbour” decision prevented him from examining the actions of US authorities in relation to data transferred under Safe Harbour. Mr. Schrems brought a judicial review against that refusal, and a decision is now pending from the High Court. [7] Whatever the outcome of that decision, the case highlights an important gap in European practice, which currently does not seem to have an effective mechanism to examine abuse of European citizens’ data when transferred abroad. Government and parliamentary action The Irish government has made only token protest to the US and has not investigated possible breaches of Irish law. As summarised by the political correspondent of the Irish Times: “It is beyond dispute that the Coalition is collectively reluctant to shout or complain too loudly or make any probative inquiries as to whether the bugging and covert surveillance that has occurred in Germany, France and elsewhere has happened in Ireland.” [4] Individual opposition and backbench members of parliament have raised the issue, but the Irish parliament has not held any formal inquiry, debate or vote prompted by the Snowden revelations. Professional organisations There does not appear to have been any formal response by any of the professional bodies (such as those representing lawyers and doctors) which one might expect to safeguard the privacy of communications. Reforms There is nothing currently on the table prompted by the Snowden revelations; however a number of domestic factors including possible police abuse of surveillance powers and the success of Digital Rights Ireland in challenging the Data Retention Directive may collectively lead to some reform of national law in the mid term. [8] [9] [10] [1] Jamie Smyth, “Dublin becomes hub for major internet groups”, Financial Times, 27 October 2011, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/836bffd0-00a8-11e1- 930b-00144feabdc0.html.A Crisis of accountability 49 [2] Derek Scally, “Ireland: prisoner of Big Tech?”, Irish Times, 3 May 2014, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/ireland-prisoner-of-big-tech- 1.1781833. [3] “Statement by Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD, on judgement in the case of an application for a provisional arrest warrant in relation to Edward Snowden”, 8 July 2013, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR13000279. [4] Harry McGee, “Government parties show divergent views on spying issue”, Irish Times, 1 November 2013, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-parties-show-divergent- views-on-spying-issue-1.1579693. [5] Attorney General v. Snowden [2013] IEHC 308, http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H308.html. [6] Noel Baker, “Judicial review of Facebook PRISM case to be heard this week”, Irish Examiner, 28 April 2014, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/judicial-review-of-facebook-prism-case- to-be-heard-this-week-266720.html. [7] Mary Carolan and Genevieve Carbery, “Data Commissioner decision challenged by Facebook user”, Irish Times, 29 April 2014, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/data-commissioner- decision-challenged-by-facebook-user-1.1777930. [8] C-293/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-293/12 [9] Conor Lally, “Bugging found at offices of Garda complaints watchdog”, Irish Times, 9 February 2014, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and- law/bugging-found-at-offices-of-garda-complaints-watchdog-1.1685345. [10] Stephen Collins, Conor Lally and Fiach Kelly, “Government fears recording of phone calls at Garda stations may threaten convictions”, Irish Times, 26 March 2014, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government- fears-recording-of-phone-calls-at-garda-stations-may-threaten-convictions- 1.1738206. Correspondent: TJ McIntyre