Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

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.

TheQuietFella

seamus wrote: »

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.

You should have said The Indo' was your source to begin with!

That explains it all so!!

Reati

seamus wrote: »

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.

Let's take your example. The ban gets passed. You are recording the guards doing something you believe is an issue. They walk over and say you can't record me. Delete the footage or be arrested (and let's say the result is fined).

How does one deal with that then?

The guards have the law they want in place can stop you recording because "We don't know you aren't planning to share that online".

So how can you ever get footage to perform your valuable public service.

seamus wrote: »

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.

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.

Totally agree. So then ban the sharing not the filming. Body cams should be standard now too. Given the current reputation problems the force is suffering it might actually help them to get a bit more modernized.

Tayschren

Video and photos of garda in the line of duty should be fine, they have nothing to worry about surely.

Using footage and pictures to attack individual garda for doing their duty (protesters and other numpties) or making personal details like home addresses available over the interweb should be a criminal offence.

Makes sense

Ted111

They are actually piloting body cams.

TheQuietFella

http://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/ACPO_Guidance_PhotographsPublicPlaces.pdf

A link to a statement from the UK police force in regard to photography!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Widdershins wrote: »

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.

Slander and Libel involves creating false statements to damage a persons reputation. Photo-shopping an image to do the same would fall under the same laws, but taking a picture of somebody doing something which will damage their reputation is not slander or libel.

sbsquarepants

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.

You can't really make someone a laughing stock without them providing the means can you?

If you weren't doing something laughable in the first place, you wouldn't be laughed at. I'm just sitting here eating my lunch at the moment - not too much comedy to be had in that no matter how you film or share it around!

pure.conya

seamus wrote: »

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.

you mean this pipeline "gowl"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CacPP-ZIslU

hatrickpatrick

FionnK86 wrote: »

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?

They've brought this on themselves by failing time and time again to accept accountability and responsibility when they f*ck up though. The solution here is, as always, to repair the broken culture of AGS, not to attempt yet another cover up of bad behaviour.

Widdershins

Paul Lazy Meteorologist wrote: »

Slander and Libel involves creating false statements to damage a persons reputation. Photo-shopping an image to do the same would fall under the same laws, but taking a picture of somebody doing something which will damage their reputation is not slander or libel.

Yes, I am aware of the difference, I find them similar in intent. I think it is morally objectionable, but plenty of people do it, see nothing wrong with it and would of course defend their ''right'' to do it.
It's a useful way of getting the measure of someone's character.

Reading the following comment. Photographing people in upsetting or humiliating circumstances and then turning it on them to say they ''provided the means for the humiliation'' is telling.