A little story reported by the Nation newspaper on August 15, 2012 under the headline ‘Cellphone mystery’ has not generated the public debate BU expected. The gist of the story is that several calls originating from the cellphone of Jeff Broomes, principal of Alexandra School, terminated on the phone of Hal Gollop, attorney-at-law for the Barbados Secondary Teachers’ Union (BSTU) last weekend. Both Broomes and Gollop are reported to be ‘mystified’ by what BU agrees was a very unusual occurrence.
Barbadians boast of a healthy Internet and mobile phone penetration which compares favourably to developed countries (In this regard we may accurately boast of attaining first world status). What is evident is that Barbadians have not demonstrated even cursory interest in the ‘backend’ which supports how information is managed by telecommunications companies in Barbados. What are the security protocols managed by LIME, Digicel, Telebarbados and others? To what degree is privacy of information respected and guaranteed? So many question can be asked but in Barbados we can be assured answers will not be easily forthcoming.
Remember Barbados is a country which boasts of being highly educated with a telecommunications infrastructure described as one of the best in this hemisphere.
The claim of “[the] mysterious appearance of calls and messages on the phones of two men at the centre of The Alexandra School Commission of Inquiry smells very fishy” and a normal public – including the Fourth Estate – should be ‘raising hell’ about this strange occurrence given the actors (Gollop/Broomes) involved.
-
At this point we do not know which of the service providers deliver service to the phones.
-
Is this a case where the phones were cloned?
-
Did the calls ‘actually’ take place?
-
Is there a match between outgoing and incoming calls?
The newspaper report states that the matter was reported to the police. This begs the question what are the local laws governing data retention. BU is aware that the service providers have to be given notice before they are obligated to ‘switch-on’ data retention. In simple terms, the service providers are under no obligation to retain any record of customer activity which might be of interest to the police unless officially notified; partially under judicial subpoena.
It is known in certain circles that data retention requests have not always been executed with efficiency between the police and local telecommunications companies.
BU’s best advice to Gollop and Broomes is that they submit a data retention request post-haste if it has not been done already. The documented request for data retention should be processed by the police and separately from the service provider(s) involved.
This business with Gollop and Broomes sure smells fishy.
Leave a Reply to Bush TeaCancel reply