Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The witness is talking about circumstances where the State's use of that information, in terms of Garda information, was leaked. There is a certain irony in the fact that the appropriate attention being put on the State's surveillance mechanism arose out of the circumstances where GSOC attempted to bring to justice the garda or State agent who was responsible for that violation. That is how the attention was focussed on this issue, and we felt that there was a certain irony in that suddenly becoming huge news, when for years we have been diligently ploughing away at the broader issues of surveillance and the need for these issues to have a spotlight on them. That viewpoint was not aired in any media outlet, although in fairness, The Journaldid have some good articles on the broader issues of data retention.

The Murray report, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights all hold that journalists have a particular status when it comes to privacy. Being someone who does not believe that the State should have any empowerment to access anyone's data, what would be wrong with the threshold that was so high that all citizens benefitted? What particular measures would Mr. Dooley put in place for journalists that other citizens would not be entitled to avail of in that regard? Could we not have the gold standard for everybody? If we cannot, what differences would the witness put in place for journalists that everyone else would not get? There is a difficulty in deciding what a journalist is these days. I know many people talk about journalists who rehash Government press statements without any analysis. How would Mr. Dooley define a journalist? He has said that because of media ownership union membership is restricted, but how is it defined and where does it fit in?