We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
WHISTLEBLOWING IN IRELAND – speaking truth to power – can be a dark experience.
Whistleblower reprisal experienced when speaking truth to power here can lead to very negative professional, reputational and personal outcomes.
My journey as an army whistleblower began on 6 November 1989. As an idealistic Trinity graduate, I joined the Irish Army as an officer cadet.
Eighteen months of intensive – often brutal – training followed until April 1991 when I was commissioned as an officer. It was the proudest day of my life.
Prior to republican cease-fires, the early 1990s in Ireland were operationally demanding and I quickly gained experience commanding armed operations in support of An Garda Síochána.
In 1995, I deployed to Lebanon as a UN peacekeeper. During my tour of duty, the Israeli government launched an air and ground campaign against the population of south Lebanon, declaring our area of operations a ‘free-fire zone’. All hell broke loose.
Hundreds of Lebanese civilians were butchered during ‘Operation Grapes of Wrath’. As human shields we, the 650 Irish soldiers of the 78th Irish Battalion, placed ourselves in the firing line trying – often in vain – to prevent the slaughter. Our tour culminated in a massacre of over 100 civilians in a village called Qana.
Lebanon left its mark on me: I returned home restless. Psychological, emotional, intellectual and ethical changes fomented within me.
Coming from a matriarchal household, I had a strong relationship with my mother and grandmother. My Kerry grandmother had fought with Cumann na mBan during the War of Independence.
Aware of the role of women – often leadership roles – in the liberation of the state and, later, within the Provisional IRA and other Irish paramilitary organisations, I was struck by parallels with the conflict I had encountered in the Lebanon. I had observed their suffering and resilience.
This, among other reasons, led me towards a PhD in DCU. I applied in writing to the General Staff to conduct research into the status and roles of females in the Defence Forces. With ethical approval from DCU, I was supervised and supported by the university in what became an equality audit of the Defence Forces.
‘Feminine’ work
Initial results were stark, showing a sharp and negative gender division of labour within the organisation.
Female soldiers performed ‘feminine’ work – often tasks such as waitressing in officer’s messes – and were denied the command and operational appointments required for promotion.
As my research progressed and I reported to DCU’s postgraduate research committee, the Registrar’s Office became concerned at the very negative nature of the initial findings.
The Registrar advised me to meet with the Defence Forces’ Chief of Staff to inform him of the emerging findings and obtain a ‘letter of comfort’ to proceed with the research.
In June 1998, Lieutenant General Gerry Mac Mahon granted my request in writing, urging me to complete the research ‘thoroughly’, so the Defence Forces could fully appreciate and rectify the serious issues confronting female personnel.
With the Chief of Staff’s imprimatur, I got permission from unit commanders to interview 43 female colleagues from various appointments in army, air corps and naval units across Ireland and extended the investigation to include interviewing 17 serving in the Middle East.
These were harrowing interviews.
Discussing training, 59 out of 60 of my female colleagues revealed traumatic experiences of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. I documented the research findings and continued to work under the supervision of DCU and my military superiors towards the conclusions and recommendations of the research.
In summer 2000, I completed my viva examination and on graduation in December, lodged the doctoral thesis, as directed by the Chief of Staff, to the DCU library.
At this point, I was a valued member of the Defence Forces. I was a Captain, serving as a staff officer to the Chief of Staff in Defence Forces Headquarters. I was at the heart of the organisation, a highly regarded press officer and colleague with command experience in a violent overseas deployment. I embodied the values and leadership qualities of the officer corps – professionally, intellectually, ethically.
I was confident my superiors would end the systematic violence perpetrated against my female colleagues.
At that moment, I was unfamiliar with the terms ‘whistleblower’ or ‘whistleblower reprisal’. They were to become familiar. What happened next is what Transparency International Ireland has dubbed a ‘textbook case’ of ‘whistleblower reprisal’. All hell broke loose.
When I communicated my findings to my superiors I was rebuffed and verbally abused.
I was told crudely that my work was ‘bullshit’.
I was a ‘rat’.
I was warned to remain silent and threatened with a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign.
A former superior and mentor chillingly stated ‘if the organisation cannot go for the ball, they’ll go for the man’, because ‘character assassination’ is a legitimate tactic ‘when the reputation of the organisation is at stake’.
At this point, as planned, I retired from the Defence Forces to pursue an academic career.
I made repeated attempts to persuade the general staff to act on my findings. Instead, I was ostracised and demonised by many former colleagues.
Reprisal
In summer 2001, Irish media gave the research saturation coverage.
The Defence Forces stated in dozens of media interviews that I had ‘concealed’ the research and carried it out ‘covertly’, that I had ‘fabricated’ the research process, ‘falsifying’ the findings.
These blatant untruths, along with an insidious and systematic campaign of character assassination continued for weeks, intensifying so alarmingly I feared losing my new career as an academic.
My professional reputation and integrity as a researcher were brutally targeted.
Matters came to a head that September when I showed journalists my letters of permission from the Chief of Staff, proving that the Defence Forces knew of and supported my research.
I demonstrated that my PhD was pursued openly and ethically. It was unique as an academic study in that it was supervised, supported and invigilated at the level of Registrar and Chief of Staff in DCU and the Defence Forces respectively.
One listener to a radio interview I had at that time with RTÉ was then-Minister for Defence Michael Smith TD. After I left the studio, he rang my mobile asking what needed to be done to end the extended, sorry saga. I asked for a full, independent enquiry into the research I had carried out.
He did exactly that, launching the ‘Study Review Group’ headed by Dr. Eileen Doyle, an experienced, highly-respected academic. The group fully vindicated the findings and recommendations of my research.
To its credit, the military authorities fully implemented the Study Review Group’s recommendations. This has profoundly transformed the Defence Forces’ culture regarding workplace equality, diversity and dignity.
As a consequence of my research and subsequent enquiry, the Defence Forces is a better workplace for thousands of aircrew, sailors and soldiers.
Indeed, the Defence Forces are regarded as exemplars of best practice on diversity, inclusion and equality within the international military.
Fractured
Unfortunately my relationship with the organisation remained broken.
For two decades, I remained isolated from former colleagues. My contribution to the transformation of Defence Forces’ culture remained unacknowledged. I never received an apology for the whistleblower reprisals perpetrated against me and my family when my research became public.
However, in June this year – exactly 21 years to the day when Lt Gen MacMahon gave me written instructions to complete my research – I received an unexpected, welcome invitation from the current Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral Mark Mellett, to discuss what had passed between myself and the Defence Forces.
We met in September and discussed the impact of the research on the organisation, and of the research process upon me personally and professionally. At some point in the conversation, I realised my whistleblower journey had ended. In this meeting of minds, my relationship with Oglaigh na hEireann had come full circle. I had come back in from the cold.
Today, 30 years after I joined the Army, I will be met at the Military College in the Curragh Camp by Vice Admiral Mellett. Along with DCU, the Defence Forces will acknowledge the contribution my PhD made to the organisation on equality, diversity and dignity.
More significantly, Sandra Healy, DCU’s Head of Diversity and Inclusion, and I will deliver an inaugural annual lecture to senior Defence Forces officers on the power of diversity and inclusion in our armed forces.
We will discuss moving forward in partnership – to learn from whistleblowing, and to empower individuals to speak truth to power. In partnership with the Chief of Staff, we feel strongly that Irish public and private sector organisations and institutions might be empowered by learning to respond receptively and positively to disruptive findings within the workplace.
Unusually for Ireland, this whistleblowing story has a happy ending.
It would have not been possible without the support of DCU and the Defence Forces. I am grateful to Professor Brian MacCraith, President of DCU for his personal support. I am indebted to Vice Admiral Mellett for his courage in facilitating this reconciliation and profound moment of healing and learning.
Most of all, I am especially grateful to my female colleagues who spoke so powerfully and eloquently in my research. To this day, I remain awed by their integrity, courage and resilience as Irish women and soldiers serving our country in the most difficult of circumstances.
Dr Tom Clonan is a former Captain in the Irish armed forces. He is a security analyst and academic, lecturing in the School of Media in DIT.
You can follow him on Twitter here.
Jaysus, isn’t he just great altogether. But don’t listen to me, just read what he’s written about himself above.
@Chris Linehan: eh he did several tours of the Leb, he’s got bigger balls than you
@Inanimate Carbon Rod: By the sounds of it, you’ve had quite a good close up of those balls of his. To be clear, I wasn’t trying to undermine or disrespect his service or the research he did, but you can’t deny he paints a very good picture of himself as the embodiment of a professional, intellectual amd ethical officer.
@Chris Linehan: he is all those things you mentioned. Your problem is?
@Chris Linehan: why wouldn’t he paint that picture of Himself?, wasn’t it He who did the research, and done the interviews and gathered all the information required to complete the story. They did not know what would be uncovered, that is why they key him continue, but then when the whole thing came together it was not acceptable . It would destroy the Organisation, so try and discredit him and his research. Fair play to him, it is probably a better place to work now.
@EillieEs: Maybe he is all of those things. I myself am highly professional, an intellectual among my peers and have actually written the ethical standards which my chosen industry upholds. I’m also humble and so wouldn’t tell people those things about myself.
@Chris Linehan: they’ll write songs about you.
@Eugene Comaskey: My comment had nothing to with his research or service. Fair play to him for both.
@Hanzee: No need. I’ll write my own songs about myself.
@Chris Linehan: Sounds a lot like jealously to me Chris . Only a small minded man would belittle this man ‘s actions at great personal sacrifices to himself and his family . He has gone above and beyond to serve his country and made a huge difference to the defense forces in Ireland .
@Mary Mc Carthy: Who belittled his actions? Like i said twice, his service and research are to be commended. I was making light of his ‘farts don’t stink’ opinion of himself.
@Chris Linehan: and rightly so he did the research and the hard work with drive, conviction and immense respect for his position and that of his colleagues. He is only getting what was long overdue for him.
The other uninformed services could take advice from this.
@Chris Linehan: ‘cept a humble person doesnt tell anyone that they are.
@Chris Linehan: why cant u just be happy for someone who has endured so much both professional y & personally that he has come thru the other side ? Gives hope to us all
@Chris Linehan: u were saying about humility?
@Chris Linehan: would you get the massive chip on your shoulder looked into Chris, good man.
@Neil Ryan: what chip is that exactly? I made a quip about the clearly cocky tone of the article, as others did. The Journal melts interpreted that as an attack on his research and military service.
@eileen boles: that was my point.
@Chris Linehan: come again?
@Inanimate Carbon Rod: something tells me chris or someine close may have too….He was a brave man,forced to stand up for those women, force by what he heard,and unable to follow orders to bury it ….wouldnt Collins be disgusted with those officers….
@Chris Linehan: yes you were,now grow a pair and expand as to why….!
@Chris Linehan: did you have your life and character destroyed fior trying the truth that would eventually lead to transformational changes in the industry you worked? His sacrifice has led two better lives for thousands in his old work place and this sacrifice is finally being acknowledged yet you want to belittle him?
I have experience as a contract employee of several and diverse branches of the public service.
The service is riven with political patronage and the basic philosophy prevailing on matters of right and wrong is “don’t rock the boat”
that’s enough about me -let’s talk about you- what do you think about me ;-)
@Dave Hammond: the article is about his experience as a whistleblower, why on earth would he talk about other issues?
@EillieEs: lighten up Ellie
@Dave Hammond: says a narcissist
@Dave Hammond: ur a nonce?
Magnificent telling of a terrible story that’s had magnificent ending recently. (I found it very moving) – Tom Clonan is a national Hero who deserves presidential honour
@Paul O’Mahony (Cork): a presidential honour for doing his job? Whaaaaat??
@Da Vid: Go back and read the story again and then you might just get it !
@Da Vid: For doing his job? For being a brave whistle blower who forced others to do their jobs! He and people like him should be given a special pension for every year they were left out in the cold!
@Da Vid: its grt to know that the auld begrudgery still alive & well for some wasnt just doin his job btw.
@Paul O’Mahony (Cork): I don’t believe he did for glitzy awards, he did because it was the right thing to do. He took some amount of grief for doing so but stuck to his guns and was proven right for doing so.
@Da Vid: doing his job? Her got ran out of the service for going above and beyond his job! He was attacked personally and professionally in a smear campaign as was his family in an attempt to discredit his research. He suffered all this why? Because he told the truth, was he the only one “doing his job” why was nobody else bringing this to national and international attention? Probably because they were looking after number 1 unlike Tom
Probably not the ideal time to point out to a national security analyst, that a former Irish female soldier is due to return from Turkey in the next 24-72 hours and may well have passed information about our own armed forces to a terrorist organisation – something I think highly likely.
As for the content of the article, well I’m glad things have gone full circle for you. I bought your book when it came out initially. I’m also glad the military seems to have made substantial progress on equality and diversity.
@Perlum Sprite: So long as she hasn’t told them that we are running at less than 90% of our required numbers, that we have very few mine proof, armoured vehicles, small numbers of aircraft, very tiny navy, no primary air search radar, no counter submarine capability, a handful of drones and thus a limited reconnaissance capability, one of the largest oceanic territories in north western EU and the smallest military budget in the EU, nor where the keys to the target shed are, im sure that we’ll be fine.
@Ros Aodha: Well said.
@Perlum Sprite: im SO glad that u re glad
@Perlum Sprite: what military secrets could she tell them about our armed forces? We are a neutral country so don’t need much of a seen armed presence
Well done Tom. While I vehemently disagree with your pro NATO stance, I think your work on this issue deserves a lot of credit and admiration.
Still very much ongoing Tom.
Irish Air Corps recently bullied a long serving whistle-blower out of the service. Same whistle-blower had highlighted the ongoing unprotected toxic chemical exposure of personnel including pregnant females. He should have received a medal but instead was vilified.
Not only does the Air Corps punish whistle-blowers but they also are ACTIVELY bullying personnel injured by chemical exposure and treating such sick personnel as malingerers.
Hopefully the Vice Admiral will acknowledge the contribution to chemical Health & Safety made by Air Corps whistle-blowers…if he’s allowed. :)
While I had my reservations about the impact Tom’s report had on training recruits/ cadets, it is a harsh environment they are being trained for and harshness in training methodology needed to be exercised. The DF took it to heart and unfortunately it created other problems, some soldiers would complain about the simplest of commands given by an authority figure. It reduced effectiveness in a lot of case, as it meant that an NCO would have to institute disciplinary procedures against the individual instead of tearing them a new one there and then. Having said all that, it did remove the rampant bullying by certain personnel against those weaker members of the DF, who could then go on to become successful soldiers, sailors and air crew.
@Rob67: a good leader/manager can lead without humiliating people otherwise they shouldn’t be leading. Dont be making excuses for inexcusable behaviour.
@eileen boles: if you read my point, I don’t condone bullying in any shape or form. However, a soldier will undergo stress at some point and it is important to push the recruit to a controlled limit to get them to work beyond their normal level, be stressed and still be able to function in a clear and consistent manner. That is what you get from good training. Bullying undermines the individual and therefore is not good ground to build someone up, which good training will do. I don’t know if you ever served, but if you did and had a bad experience as a result, I can only offer my support and understanding, I’ve been at the wrong end but lucky enough to work my way through it and now lead my own team using everything I learned in the DF, including how not to be a bully but a leader.
@Rob67: u should re read your own post.
@eileen boles: I will pretend that I am utterly inept at subtlety and ask you to be a bit more specific.There is a fine line between pushing someone to the limit and bullying. A good NCO/ officer will always know the difference. I have trained people since I was 20 years old and still do to this day, I am happy to say that some of those I trained became NCO’s and in two cases, commissioned officers, I consider that some of my greatest professional achievements. My point was that the new reality in training led to a situation in some cases where Ptes were being treated with kid gloves because NCO’s were afraid to apply pressure. You need pressure to test the limits. Bullying is where an individual does not know or cares what the limit is and causes damage, that could not be allowed to continue. If you perceive that as condoning bullying, then I cannot help you in that regard.
Self praise is no praise.
@SF Knee Knockers: it’s better than none at all
@SF Knee Knockers: He is recounting his own personal experience . You just don’t recognize a good man when you see it
@SF Knee Knockers: but nowhere has he done so
If any organisation had treated me like that and then come back later to ingratiate themselves with me, I like to think I would tell them to get stuffed.
@Richard Barrett: im sure he gave it some thought & rightly so
Fair play to Michael Smith, I wouldn’t have been the biggest fan but had a lot to do with helping sort the deafness claims and now this, which I was unaware of his involvement initially. Compare that to recent behaviour by ministers etc in relation to whistle blowing elsewhere in certain services. Be interesting to hear Tom’s thoughts on this now he’s gone full circle.
He’s not really what one would call a whistleblower, he apparently didn’t witness these things first hand and report them, he wrote about conversations he had with the alleged victims, all of them he spoke to it appears, it begs the question ‘should women serve in the Military if they suck this shit up without aggressively resisting’? I sure as hell wouldn’t have had it nor would I have allowed it to occur to anyone in my presence when I served.
@Kieron King: A bit like Julianne Assange rotting in a high security prison in England. He didnt witness the murders carried out by the US army. He reported on them and is now waiting possible extradition to the US along with possible death penalty. Whistle blowers dont need to be first hand witnesses.
@DaMoons: Nowhere near the level of Assange, someone I respect, Assanges’ disclosures spoke for themselves, none of Clonans victim statements were subjected to any sort of scrutiny to ascertain their veracity, apart from his fellow academics saying it was great stuff. I won’t even begin to comment on his Lebanon memoirs.
@Kieron King: how do u know whether they “agressively resisted” or not?
@eileen boles: Because I served during that period, appears to have been the best kept secret of the day, I served at home and abroad with outstanding female Officers and Enlisted Troops, most of whom would have had ripped your tongue out of your face or your arm out of your socket depending on what type of grief you were giving them. Not quite sure who he spoke with, guess I didn’t know many of them.
@Kieron King: I have had the distinct honour of serving with some brilliant female soldiers, one of whom is now a general, she can definitely “suck it up” and can give as good back. She got there by being the best at what she did and deservedly so. In times gone by, some training NCO’s went too far, blinded by their animosity towards women in the army. Like any similar organisation, you had good and bad from both genders but some women were subjected to some of the worst kinds of bullying, which is well documented. Please remember, it happened to men too. It should not have happened but it did, the DF tried to rectify it and in some cases went too far and disrupted the balance needed to create proper military personnel.
@Rob67: I agree completely Rob, most of the bullying and bullshit that went on unchecked was gender neutral, I believe his submission is seriously flawed and was endorsed by academics who in reality had no idea how the arena he was assessing operated. I feel he did a major disservice to the majority of outstanding female troops that I know who stood their ground on equal terms with their male counterparts by portraying them as hiding in the corner keeping their mouths shut little fragile things. That is not a reflection of the female troops I served with at home and abroad. But hey, it made headlines.
Jesus some of the comments here be ex servicemen show that they still don’t care what went on, circle the wagons and try to discredit were the tactics used at the time to discredit this man’s work and they were that effective that they are still alive and well. One guy was saying he served with loads of women and never saw anything that wasn’t gender neutral. Well I went to mass every Sunday and served with many boys but never saw any child sexual abuse so by that man’s logic it just couldn’t have happened? Get your head our of your rears ex servicemen and show this man the respect he deserves for shining a light on the depraved conditions some female (and I’m sure male too but that wasn’t the point of hus reasearch) were forces to work in.
@Dino: with respect Dino I would suggest that you are the one with your head up your arse, had Clonan done his questioning five years before women had been allowed to serve in the Defence Forces with the equivalent amount of male subjects he would have come up with the same results including the rape allegations. To suggest that everything he ‘discovered’ only applied to females in the Defence Forces is nonsense, it was how things were done long before women were allowed to serve. But hey, his one sided unsubstantiated investigation was endorsed by ‘Academics’. Jog on.
So, is the Defence Forces going to say sorry to us females that endured sexual harrassment?
@Karina Molloy: the DF hierarchy have a tendency to never apologise for past wrongs no matter who was in the wrong, sadly. Having said that that, if a wrong was committed against, you should seek redress against the individual(s) and the Dept concerned. It would be even better if a group of female soldiers, who had been harassed and abused, got together and took their cases to the courts, the evidence of an issue exists in Tom’s document and I am sure there would be evidence elsewhere within the Dept.
So Tom, are you going to get the Defence Forces to apologise to all the females thhat were harassed??
@Karina Molloy: all u can hope is that theyll do the right thing & set an example to society. Tom did a grt job highlighting the problem.
It looks like a trip on the feminist Bandwagon. Canny move for an aspiring academic.
@John Lynch: u keep feeling sorry for yourself along with the rest of the delicate flowers.
So, Tom, are you going to get the Defence Forces to apologise to all the females that were harassed?
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say