Do we need changes to recording people in public?

jblack

I don't have an opinion on this yet (my field is construction and arbitration) - but given the latest KPMG girl incident and other sorry occurrences such as people flocking to Dawson Street with their iPhones recording the scene where that poor lad was killed by a bus before Christmas, does anyone think that there should be stricter legislation on recording people without consent in public?

Procrastastudy

Not in my opinion. If its a public place then you should be allowed to record what you like. Publishing the same though should probably be more tightly controlled.

I'm really not talking about KPMG girl here. If you get that pissed in public you deserve what you get.

P_1

IMO filming should be fine, of course there are lots of places where it's supposed to be banned in the agencies bye laws (I'm thinking bus stations, luas stops etc).

Publishing needs tighter controls though. Trouble is how is this to be enforced.

jblack

pithater1 wrote: »

IMO filming should be fine, of course there are lots of places where it's supposed to be banned in the agencies bye laws (I'm thinking bus stations, luas stops etc).

Publishing needs tighter controls though. Trouble is how is this to be enforced.

It is passively through the 2010 act at the moment, but to be more specific; situations where someone publishes non-defamatory material that could be anything from;

Highly embarrassing
Likely to have an affect on an innocent party (such as the parents' of the guy run over)
etc

It is probably highly impractical but should consent, or at least no objection to publication be required?

Procrastastudy

jblack wrote: »

It is passively through the 2010 act at the moment, but to be more specific; situations where someone publishes non-defamatory material that could be anything from;

Highly embarrassing
Likely to have an affect on an innocent party (such as the parents' of the guy run over)
etc

It is probably highly impractical but should consent, or at least no objection to publication be required?

I'm just thinking of the a situation where phone footage has been beneficial - police brutality etc. Surely its best to leave this sort of thing alone. The issue is the majority of people I speak to think the UK have the regulation of things like Facebook (under the some Communications Act) wrong. I think we're suggesting a similar approach here. If we're not I can see a very complex piece of legislation being the result.

P_1

jblack wrote: »

It is passively through the 2010 act at the moment, but to be more specific; situations where someone publishes non-defamatory material that could be anything from;

Highly embarrassing
Likely to have an affect on an innocent party (such as the parents' of the guy run over)
etc

It is probably highly impractical but should consent, or at least no objection to publication be required?

I'm not from a legal background so tbh I wouldn't have a bogs notion on how to even start classifying what 'degrees of embarassment' should be legislated for.

Trouble is once it starts, how can it end, could you end up getting into legal trouble say for uploading a video of your mate doing something foolish in a drunken moment on your Facebook?

McCrack

We live in a democracy with I believe the right balance between privacy and freedom of expression/speech. Filming and publishing people in public places is fair game. If people do/say silly things in public they face consequences. We live in a digital age. C'est la vie.

The KPMG girl, I dont blame her but her parent/s. She didn't lick that attitude off the ground. Its unfortunate but its a hard lesson and hopefully for others too.

Pat Mustard

People's rights to privacy are being further and further eroded every day imo. Punters are more than eager to take pictures and video clips, and put them up on facebook, potentially for ever.

Most people are lucky not to be celebrities, constantly stuck in the goldfish bowl of public observation.

Some people are not so lucky, like Ruth Hickey, who, even though not a celebrity, is or was the girlfriend of David Agnew, husband of Twink. Ruth Hickey's case is described here. RTE report here. Irish Examiner report here. She and her newborn child were photographed and had their pictures published in the paper. Although the judge found that her privacy rights were not infringed, he criticised the Sunday World for engaging in 'the lowest standards of journalism imaginable.'

Although I am not very familiar with French law, I understand that there are proper privacy laws to protect the private lives of even the sleaziest public figures. Who wants to know about their personal lives anyway - completely unimportant stuff to us, but pretty important to those whose privacy is at stake. I couldn't care less how many extra-marital affairs that former Minister XYZ has had, but I imagine that if it was to be published, it would be a massive intrusion not only upon him, but also his wife and family.

There is proposed legislation; the Privacy Bill 2012, here. It will introduce a tort (civil wrong) of violation of privacy, but still no criminal penalties will be imposed on newspapers imposing on people in this way. Therefore, in my view, this will not stop the press from stomping all over people like Ruth Hickey, unless they make less money selling newspapers than they pay out in a civil claim. There should be criminal sanctions, resulting in fines and ultimately jail time for editors/owners (for repeated infringements).

There is one more thing. If a child is murdered and the parents attend the trial and sentencing of the murderer, in this country, those distraught parents can fully expect to be photographed and to have their faces splashed all over the front pages of even the most (apparently) respectable of broadsheets.

There is something very wrong with that.

Tom Young

OP: To what 2010 Act do you refer? Post #5.

Zillah

No, for two reasons:
- Free expression and an unhindered media are foundations of a healthy democracy and limiting recording in public would be detrimental to that.
- It would be unfeasible to enforce.

Short sighted conservative reactions over issues such as those mentioned in the OP are far outweighed by the demands of a modern democracy. Using force of law to forbid something should only be done when necessary.

Finally, the KPMG girl recording was not done in public, it was done in a pizza place - the owners of which would have been entirely within their rights to forbid recording on their premises.

jblack

Tom Young wrote: »

OP: To what 2010 Act do you refer? Post #5.

Sorry, the Defamation Act 2009.

McCrack

The legal definition of a public place includes any place where the general public have access to. So that includes a pizza shop, the owners of course can set their own rules as to audio-visual recording which they are entitled to do.

Zillah

McCrack wrote: »

The legal definition of a public place includes any place where the general public have access to....

But not, as you say, in regards to recording video, so what's your point?

McCrack

Zillah wrote: »

But not, as you say, in regards to recording video, so what's your point?

My point is anybody can record anybody (certain narrow exceptions, Offences Against State Act) in a public place and public places include private property where the public have access to either express or implied subject to the occupiers consent and not the person being filmed consent.

That's my point.

drkpower

There is already quite a bit of legislation covering the use of photographic (still or recorded) images that would cover a situation where a hypothetical 16 year old girl is recorded, and that recording is subsequently published online.

Images of a person are personal data in respect of that person and that personal data must be obtained fairly and any subsequent processing of that data must be done fairly and with consent, subject to certain exceptions.

Whatever about whether the actual recording of a hypothetical 16 year old in a public place could be considered to be with consent or whether it would be considered to be obtained fairly, the subsequent publication of that recording without consent is clearly against existing data protection law unless one of the exceptions in data protection law can be relied upon. I dont think any would be relevant in the hypothetical situation where a 16 year old is recorded acting the arse.

Paulw

drkpower wrote: »

There is already quite a bit of legislation covering the use of photographic (still or recorded) images that would cover a situation where a hypothetical 16 year old girl is recorded, and that recording is subsequently published online.

Images of a person are personal data in respect of that person and that personal data must be obtained fairly and any subsequent processing of that data must be done fairly and with consent, subject to certain exceptions.

Whatever about whether the actual recording of a hypothetical 16 year old in a public place could be considered to be with consent or whether it would be considered to be obtained fairly, the subsequent publication of that recording without consent is clearly against existing data protection law unless one of the exceptions in data protection law can be relied upon. I dont think any would be relevant in the hypothetical situation where a 16 year old is recorded acting the arse.

Would digital video not be covered under the same legislation??

Aside from which, her age has nothing to do with it, since a minor has no greater protection than an adult when it comes to recording/photographing in public.

And, it would seem that in this instance, you could claim that the posting was editorial, in that it was showing the state of the economic climate and attitude in the country?

drkpower

Paulw wrote: »

1. Would digital video not be covered under the same legislation??

2. Aside from which, her age has nothing to do with it, since a minor has no greater protection than an adult when it comes to recording/photographing in public.

3. And, it would seem that in this instance, you could claim that the posting was editorial, in that it was showing the state of the economic climate and attitude in the country?

1. Yes

2. Age does matter to an extent; a minor may not be capable of consenting to the obtaining or subsequent processing of their personal data. Also, any arguments that a publisher might make in respect of the public interest, are less likely to have traction where the images being published concern a minor (the Data Protection Commissioner used that exact reasoning in a recent decision on the publication by a newspaper of photos of a minor).

3. The 'journalistic defence' under data protection law requires the publication to be in the 'public interest'. As thus far interpreted, a (hypothetical) recording of a 16 year old talking sh!te would not be covered by such an exception.