The techniques were known as Operation Amber
Irish phone companies were “unwilling” to take part in an early 2000s scheme to temporarily block networks in a bid to prevent bombs being set off in Northern Ireland, according to previously confidential documents.
Authorities in Northern Ireland and the UK had been engaging with the Republic of Ireland about the possible implementation of a plan to counter the threat posed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which used mobile phone technology as a means of remote controlled detonation.
The IEDs could be detonated by sending a call or a text to a phone or device where the Sim card had been attached to the bomb.
Authorities could counter this threat by isolating the specific phone from the network if the number was known to “absolute certainty”, or it could withdraw the entire mobile service to the area in which the bomb is believed to be located.
The techniques were known as Operation Amber.
However, as coverage from service providers can extend both ways across the border, the relevant mobile phone could “roam” into the Republic of Ireland if it was blocked in Northern Ireland and remain viable for use.
UK authorities were therefore “anxious” for the Dublin Government to explore if they could participate in the operation.
According to confidential files from January 2005 released from the National Archives of Ireland, Irish police briefed the justice minister at the time, Michael McDowell, before he was due to meet Northern Ireland secretary Paul Murphy.
Gardai had been authorised to explore the techniques from late 2002.
However, mobile phone companies in the Republic said they could only “defend this course of action”, which would involve “denying service to their customers” if it was ordered by a new law and if the state paid for any new technology needed.
The briefing note states: “Unlike their UK counterparts, which were prepared to participate in initial, practical exercises of service withdrawal without legal or financial indemnity, the Irish telecommunications service providers are unwilling to countenance any such action.”
It adds: “The Irish telecommunications service providers argue that as they may be required to interrupt network coverage to specified geographical areas, thereby denying service to their customers, they consider that they could only defend this course of action if it is performed under a legal obligation imposed by the State.”
The note said while section 110 of the Postal and Telecommunications (Services) Act 1983 allowed the state to direct phone companies to take decisions for specific crime-prevention related reasons, in early 2005 the attorney general had advised Government this law “could not be used in relation to Operation Amber and that new primary legislation would be required”.
The issue was “further complicated by the question of funding”, with the note saying that “one of the Irish service providers”, identified as Vodafone, had indicated “it would not countenance developing the capacity to effect the techniques of Operation Amber without full reimbursement by the state”.
– This article is based on documents contained in the file labelled 2025/120/37 in the National Archives of Ireland.
For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.
