Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

Reati

They want it banned because people were sharing information on social media and they feel under threat.

"Their private domestic lives, home addresses and members of family have been referred to in a way not connected to the duty of which that member was carrying out."

Seems the real ban is that Identifying a Garda's name and home address on social media. Sounds like they are using this as a way to avoid been held accountable for things they do on duty which gets recorded. Trustworthy bunch they are and all.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-want-ban-on-people-photographing-and-recording-them-on-duty-35609002.html

Can't see how this would be enforced without infringing on our fantastic laws with regards photographic freedoms. I hope this falls on it's face.

tayto lover

I can understand why they would want that.
Like the scenario where a Garda is identified arresting a known drug dealer or gang member and someone takes a picture of them and shares it on facebook etc and then they have the worries about someone identifying them and targeting their home or family.

Maybe you need to walk a mile in their shoes OP.

TheQuietFella

Absolutely not!

skywalker

tayto lover wrote: »

I can understand why they would want that.
Like the scenario where a Garda is identified arresting a known drug dealer or gang member and someone takes a picture of them and shares it on facebook etc and then they have the worries about someone identifying them and targeting their home or family.

Maybe you need to walk a mile in their shoes OP.

How would police in other countries deal with such a scenario?

I read an article this morning that NYPD are proposing body cameras for all of their officers. While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite. It doesnt add up.

ThisRegard

skywalker wrote: »

I read an article this morning that NYPD are proposing body cameras for all of their officers. While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite. It doesnt add up.

They're proposing a ban on them wearing body cameras?

Little CuChulainn

During the height of the water protests there were lots of posts on protest pages such as Edenmore Says No looking for the home address of Gardai in photos and threatening everything from getting a gang to call around to the family home to shooting the Garda and petrol bombing their station. That's what AGSI are referring to. Nobody cares if you want to put a video on YouTube of you being stopped at a checkpoint.

The_Pretender

Reati wrote: »

Seems the real ban is that Identifying a Garda's name and home address on social media. Sounds like they are using this as a way to avoid been held accountable for things they do on duty which gets recorded. Trustworthy bunch they are and all.

I think that's a little unfair and assuming the worst. I can understand where they might be coming from - doing their job and then seeing their face plastered all over social media because some people didn't agree with them.

I don't agree with what they're trying to do, I think people should definitely be able to record members of the force if they think there is wrong doing going on. Don't think it's fair to say it's so the Gardai can abuse their powers and fcuk people over. I believe the majority of the force are actually decent people.

seamus

Recording a video is one thing, it should always be legal. It's what you do afterwards that's the sticking point.

Where a video is posted online with a piece of text underneath it describing the situation, you have no idea if the text is accurate, if the video is accurate and if the video is complete.
People can and do post videos online where the video has been heavily edited or cropped to remove the context and the accompanying information is either outright lies, or heavily one-sided.

Like that pipeline gowl who claimed the Gardai joked about raping her. Look at the storm she caused with her deceit.

And what happens from there stirs up anger, people go off and find out names and addresses, and suddenly from a Garda just doing his or her job, his entire family is at risk from some scumbag who's been made angry by proxy, because some other scumbag posted false information about the situation.

That's before you ignore the basic safety things. A video goes up, people start identifying the Garda, and then some scumbag who remembers being arrested by the Garda happens to spot it and decides he's bored, may as well go hock a few stones at the Garda's house and slash his tyres.

I do think it should be illegal to publish video of Gardai in the course of their duty, with "honest reporting" being a suitable defence for doing so.

skywalker

ThisRegard wrote: »

They're proposing a ban on them wearing body cameras?

No their proposing that all their officers wear body cameras while on duty.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15230524/new-york-city-police-department-nypd-body-camera-policy

FionnK86

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

During the height of the water protests there were lots of posts on protest pages such as Edenmore Says No looking for the home address of Gardai in photos and threatening everything from getting a gang to call around to the family home to shooting the Garda and petrol bombing their station. That's what AGSI are referring to. Nobody cares if you want to put a video on YouTube of you being stopped at a checkpoint.

Police should have body cameras for their own protection. Having talked with 3 guards over this issue, approach to policing has changed, we offered them a cup of tea when they came to check our house that was broken into. They couldnt have one for fear we might post it on Facebook that they were slacking.

Trial by Facebook is seriously undermining their respect around the country, decent guards are getting caught up in it.

How would you like it if someone came into your workplace, and recoreded you on facebook in work, or when your having a smoke break?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

It's one thing to film them, but to release their personal details on facebook is not right. That's the issue to address.

Often the real reasons for such laws are masked, as I believe they are in this case. There has been a footage of heavy handed Gardai taking liberties, which they would rather was not in the public eye. I believe that is the main reason for this.

*EDIT* Sensationalist headline is sensationalist, of course, the most important part is omitted by the OP and Indo "...then post this image on any media."

punisher5112

Very simple set up specialized units to target drug dealers and other high end criminals like in the US where they wear full tactical gear including face mask/ cover.

ThisRegard

skywalker wrote: »

No their proposing that all their officers wear body cameras while on duty.

But you said this about the gardai?!

skywalker wrote: »

While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite.

Your Face

The devil is in the details here.
I dont agree with a blanket ban on filming Gardai seeing as people should have the right to get evidence if a Gardai is acting unprofessionally.

If its just a case of online sharing of video, good luck enforcing that.

Widdershins

I'm totally opposed to a garda's private details being exposed, either deliberately or inadvertently. I don't think our photographic freedom laws are fantastic, I think people are far too free with their phone cameras and I dislike the culture of snapping people without their knowledge or permission. It's kind of indecent. I don't think it can or should be totally stopped but I think there could be a deterrant since it looks like some people don't have enough of a moral compass to stop themselves. But the gardai still have to be accountable and I would oppose any outright ban on recording them in public. Remember the pair of gardai who got recorded (by mistake afaik) talking about raping someone who was in their custody a few years back?

sbsquarepants

tayto lover wrote: »

I can understand why they would want that.
.

So can I!

And it has a lot more to do with not being held accountable for their day to day actions than fear of reprisal from drug dealers.
They gardai are now, and always have been, fond of bending the odd rule every now and again when the situation calls for it. This is only about covering their own arses, nothing else.

tayto lover

skywalker wrote: »

How would police in other countries deal with such a scenario?

I read an article this morning that NYPD are proposing body cameras for all of their officers. While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite. It doesnt add up.

I really don't know.

I had a student shadowing me for a month in my office a few years ago.
Couldn't take a phone call without him asking what it was about. He tried to follow me on one occasion and me after telling him I was going to the jacks and I had words with him on several other occasions.
I doubt I could stick someone filming me at all.

skywalker

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you said this about the gardai?!

What I meant was our force is proposing a move towards less transparency, whereas in the example I highlighted, and generally internationally police forces are moving towards more transparency. I hope that clarifies.

sbsquarepants

Widdershins wrote: »

Remember the pair of gardai who got recorded (by mistake afaik) talking about raping someone who was in their custody a few years back?

I fairness - that was only a joke. A tasteless joke, but still only a joke nonetheless.

I'd be more concerned about their heavy handed treatment of people they don't like.

Mrs OBumble

So every CCTV camera in the country would have to be removed because it might just catch a guard doing their job? Yeah right, thats gonna happen.

Think it through lads ...

ThisRegard

skywalker wrote: »

What I meant was our force is proposing a move towards less transparency, whereas in the example I highlighted, and generally internationally police forces are moving towards more transparency.

Ok, but I would hope that's not what they're proposing.

sbsquarepants

skywalker wrote: »

What I meant was our force is proposing a move towards less transparency.

I wonder why. It's scandal after scandal, getting caught out in lie after lie. Why in the name of god would they want more transparency - the organisation is fairly rotten, they want more secrecy, not openness.

Ash.J.Williams

There are loads of videos of people recording interactions with gardai on YouTube , if someone videoed me in work I'd murder them.

Widdershins

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I fairness - that was only a joke. A tasteless joke, but still only a joke nonetheless.

I'd be more concerned about their heavy handed treatment of people they don't like.

I didn't actually know how it was said to be honest. I'm glad to hear that, not that it s an excuse, of course.

There is that, too. That's why I say they have to be accountable.

punisher5112

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There are loads of videos of people recording interactions with gardai on YouTube , if someone videoed me in work I'd murder them.

At least the murder would be recorded....

sbsquarepants

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So every CCTV camera in the country would have to be removed because it might just catch a guard doing their job? Yeah right, thats gonna happen.

Think it through lads ...

Of course not.
But say little johnny scumbag whips out his (probably stolen) phone and catches garda McMucksavage thumping the head off his scumbag mate, the video would likely not be allowed to be used in evidence as it was illegally obtained.

Think that through....

skywalker

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I wonder why. It's scandal after scandal, getting caught out in lie after lie. Why in the name of god would they want more transparency - the organisation is fairly rotten, they want more secrecy, not openness.

Unfortunately thats what I glean from the proposal.

Im sure we all want an open fair police force that we can trust/be proud of. This seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. Body cameras on the other hand, seem like they would be a step in the right direction for all. Their is an unbiased account of any interaction between a guard and a member of the public. If anyone makes a threat to the guard or their families doesnt the guard themselves having a recording only help them in this regard?

If the problem is with people threatening individual guards or their families, rather than the actual recording, cant this be dealt with using existing legislation?

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So every CCTV camera in the country would have to be removed because it might just catch a guard doing their job? Yeah right, thats gonna happen.

Think it through lads ...

No, the discussion point here is not making it illegal to record Gardai, but making it illegal to publish without the Garda's consent. The Indo have of course sensationalised it up a bit.

Little CuChulainn

Paul Lazy Meteorologist wrote: »

It's one thing to film them, but to release their personal details on facebook is not right. That's the issue to address.

Often the real reasons for such laws are masked, as I believe they are in this case. There has been a footage of heavy handed Gardai taking liberties, which they would rather was not in the public eye. I believe that is the main reason for this.

It's very wrong to implement such a law, some in the force will use this to administer their own law onto those who seem eligible.

What's going to take precedent when filming a Guard kneeing somebody in the head while they are on the ground? Will the evidence be dismissed? Will the person recording the incident face charges?

Like this case where the Garda was destroyed in the media and on social media before GSOC cleared him of all wrong doing and evidence about the violent nature of his "victim" came out.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-charges-for-garda-filmed-pepper-spraying-homeless-man-675963.html

It's not about the filming, it's about what's done with it. It's pretty common for this kind of footage to be edited before being released.

_Kaiser_

I read this on the IT this morning and I don't agree at all with stalking individual members online to try and find out where they live, intimidate them etc. People doing so should be identified themselves and prosecuted.

HOWEVER, given the never-ending scandals and corruption within our police force, I think it's actually VITAL that they can be held to account through video from the general public. It's one of the few instances where social medias can actually be useful.

biko

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

During the height of the water protests there were lots of posts on protest pages such as Edenmore Says No looking for the home address of Gardai in photos and threatening everything from getting a gang to call around to the family home to shooting the Garda and petrol bombing their station. That's what AGSI are referring to. Nobody cares if you want to put a video on YouTube of you being stopped at a checkpoint.

Then they will have to prosecute the offenders using regular procedures. I don't mind harder sentencing for threatening a police officer on social media.

But this is what the gagging law will actually be used for from Spanish experience:

A Spanish woman has been fined €800 (£570) under the country’s controversial new gagging law for posting a photograph of a police car parked illegally in a disabled bay.

For god's sake, all they want is a ban on people taking photos and videos of members on social media and identifying them.

You can still video wrong doing and use it the correct way,using correct procedure.

ThisRegard

seamus wrote: »

The Indo have of course sensationalised it up a bit.

Purposely so, they don't really clarify what the proposal actually is, whereas at least the Times banner headline is

Gardaí want to ban people taking and sharing their pictures

.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't think our photographic freedom laws are fantastic, I think people are far too free with their phone cameras and I dislike the culture of snapping people without their knowledge or permission. It's kind of indecent. I don't think it can or should be totally stopped but I think there could be a deterrant since it looks like some people don't have enough of a moral compass to stop themselves.

Our photographic freedom is fantastic. What kind of moral compass should one posses when taking pictures in public? Should everybody in the picture be asked for their permission?

What deterrent are you tanking about? It shouldn't be stopped, but it should be deterred, how exactly? And more importantly, why?

Reati

Just to be clear as people seemed to be missing the point I'm making.

It should continue to be legal to record and photo police on duty. Plenty of my family are in the guards so I'm fully aware of what they face and still believe there is no reason for them not to be recorded in the course of duty.

It should be illegal however, to detail personal details (name, address, family etc) of the guards online. Many of the examples here used to support such a ban, would not be solved by a ban on filming them on duty. Indeed, if a drug dealer what's to know who an arresting guard, they will find out. To think otherwise is very naïve.

Reati

Reati wrote: »

Just to be clear as people seemed to be missing the point I'm making.

It should continue to be legal to record and photo police on duty. Plenty of my family are in the guards so I'm fully aware of what they face and still believe there is no reason for them not to be recorded in the course of duty.

It should be illegal however, to detail personal details (name, address, family etc) of the guards online. Many of the examples here used to support such a ban, would not be solved by a ban on filming them on duty. Indeed, if a drug dealer what's to know who an arresting guard, they will find out. To think otherwise is very naïve.

But that's what they are proposing!
A ban on identifying members on photos and videos online.

biko

But it will still be ok for police to photograph citizens at demonstrations right?

Reati

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Like this case where the Garda was destroyed in the media and on social media before GSOC cleared him of all wrong doing and evidence about the violent nature of his "victim" came out.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-charges-for-garda-filmed-pepper-spraying-homeless-man-675963.html

It's not about the filming, it's about what's done with it. It's pretty common for this kind of footage to be edited before being released.

No, it's about filming. They are explicitly looking to ban that, not a ban on what gets done on social media.

As I said in the OP. They are using this as the excuse to get the total ban on filming them on duty.

ThisRegard

biko wrote: »

But it will still be ok for police to photograph citizens at demonstrations right?

Why wouldn't it be? The 2 are hardly comparable.

Reati wrote: »

They are using this as the excuse to get the total ban on filming them on duty.

But are they? The problem they have with filming is only when it's shared on social media with a purpose to identifying and harassing them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bubblypop wrote: »

But that's what they are proposing!
A ban on identifying members on photos and videos online.

And due to the scummy nature of papers like the Indo, they leave out this fact from the headline. The headline is misleading, but it's what gets people to read their poo rag of a paper. This style "journalism" should be outlawed.

"Gardai want a ban on people posting videos of them online" is exactly what the title should be.

I also disagree with this, the videos should be available to the public, but the private information of individuals should not.

Reati

bubblypop wrote: »

But that's what they are proposing!
A ban on identifying members on photos and videos online.

They are asking for a total ban on filming police on duty with asking them in the event you might share them online.

So then when you go and take a picture or video them, they will use the law to say you can't do that and hence we have a total ban on filming on duty no matter why you are filming.

So down the slippy slope we go and as the someone else posted in the case from Spain where someone was fined 800 euro for taking a photo of a cop breaking the law.

seamus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

HOWEVER, given the never-ending scandals and corruption within our police force, I think it's actually VITAL that they can be held to account through video from the general public. It's one of the few instances where social medias can actually be useful.

I disagree.

Video from the general public is far too easy to alter and hack around to make it appear like the exact opposite has happened.

On top of that, social media is the worst place to share contentious video. Sharing it is not "holding Gardai to account", it's holding a kangaroo court with people who've decided the outcome before even watching the video.

By all means record Gardai and if you believe something is an issue, provide your footage to GSOC. That's doing a valuable public service.

Going online and posting the video is not.

What's vitally needed is body cams, and I believe the Gardai are in favour of it. Body cams by design can't be tampered with by the Garda who's wearing it.

For Forks Sake

seamus wrote: »

I disagree.

Video from the general public is far too easy to alter and hack around to make it appear like the exact opposite has happened.

On top of that, social media is the worst place to share contentious video. Sharing it is not "holding Gardai to account", it's holding a kangaroo court with people who've decided the outcome before even watching the video.

By all means record Gardai and if you believe something is an issue, provide your footage to GSOC. That's doing a valuable public service.

Going online and posting the video is not.

What's vitally needed is body cams, and I believe the Gardai are in favour of it. Body cams by design can't be tampered with by the Garda who's wearing it.

And would provide an interesting counterbalance to all the very selectively edited footage of gardai that gets posted up on FB and youtube by the likes of the various water warrior groups.

Widdershins

Paul Lazy Meteorologist wrote: »

Our photographic freedom is fantastic. What kind of moral compass should one posses when taking pictures in public? Should everybody in the picture be asked for their permission?

What deterrent are you tanking about? It shouldn't be stopped, but it should be deterred, how exactly? And more importantly, why?

If the photograph is a general crowd, no, if it is specifically a photograph of one person, yes. I'm talking about photos taken with the intent of uploading to the internet to make a laughing stock of or cause trouble for an individual.

I don't know what deterrent and it should be self explanatory ''why''.

allthedoyles

So will I have to switch off the dashcam every time I see a Garda through the windscreen ?

selectamatic

I'd be the last man to support the Freeman of the state peaceful protest numpties but surely the hypocrisy of the garda Twitter page needs to be called into question if trial by social media is the issue.

Some pictures posted there are very much identifiable even if regs are blanked out. Only last week there was The wreck of a red octavia taxi running on slicks. It was ridiculously illegal and I'm not for one minute condoning it but AGS throwing a pic up of it on Twitter with a catchy little tagline is the very thing they appear to be against when the proverbial shoe would be on the other foot

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Widdershins wrote: »

If the photograph is a general crowd, no, if it is specifically a photograph of one person, yes. I'm talking about photos taken with the intent of uploading to the internet to make a laughing stock of or cause trouble for an individual.

I don't know what deterrent and it should be self explanatory ''why''.

"We should stop X but I will not share my reasons, you need to come up with reasons yourself"... what???

If you want to deter something, explain why, fair enough not know the how.

What differentiates a group from an individual? Why not afford the same rights to a group? Making a laughing stock of a group or an individual should be the same. Very difficult to police as anybody could claim that they have been made a laughing stock.

Either way, being made a laughing stock should not be a crime.

punisher5112

selectamatic wrote: »

I'd be the last man to support the Freeman of the state peaceful protest numpties but surely the hypocrisy of the garda Twitter page needs to be called into question if trial by social media is the issue.

Some pictures posted there are very much identifiable even if regs are blanked out. Only last week there was The wreck of a red octavia taxi running on slicks. It was ridiculously illegal and I'm not for one minute condoning it but AGS throwing a pic up of it on Twitter with a catchy little tagline is the very thing they appear to be against when the proverbial shoe would be on the other foot

That is though the best advertising one could hope for and try to get through to the ass hats that drive in that way.

A taxi should be the best cared for and road legal vehicle on the road including and PSV.

Widdershins

Paul Lazy Meteorologist wrote: »

"We should stop X but I will not share my reasons, you need to come up with reasons yourself"... what???

If you want to deter something, explain why, fair enough not know the how.

What differentiates a group from an individual? Why not afford the same rights to a group? Making a laughing stock of a group or an individual should be the same. Very difficult to police as anybody could claim that they have been made a laughing stock.

Either way, being made a laughing stock should not be a crime.

What differentiates a group from an individual. Well, when I said ''a crowd'' I meant benign photographs of an event. No laughing stocks there.
I don't see why the same protection shouldn't be afforded to a group, where the group was being targeted for a humiliating or detrimental reason. It would be difficult to enforce, I'm just saying that that is my feeling on it. I don't think the lawmakers are listening, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

All sorts of minor things are against the law. Slander, libel, etc, all seem similar to deliberately sharing someone's image for nefarious or cruel reasons.

selectamatic

punisher5112 wrote: »

That is though the best advertising one could hope for and try to get through to the ass hats that drive in that way.

A taxi should be the best cared for and road legal vehicle on the road including and PSV.

That's true and since it's a public service I'd like to know if a local taxi was ridiculously illegal and borderline undriveable but I'd also like to know if the gardaí were breaking the law since they provide a public service too.

The law should have to apply to everyone it's the culture that it's acceptable to pick and choose that has lead to some of the various scandals in AGS recently.

Fleawuss

A simple joined up approach is needed: compulsory body cams for Gardai. Mandatory jail sentence for threatening the family of any public servant who is engaged in public service at the time. Proper independent Garda complaints and disciplinary procedures.

Chances of all this happening: nil. Let the discussion continue.