Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

tayto lover

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

That does not seem to be the point in this at all.

It seems to be about identifying individual Garda members and putting their pics and home details of social media. That's putting their families at risk.
Surely you disagree with that.

seamus

Reati wrote: »

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 ban wouldn't work in that way. The Garda would have no power to demand you delete anything. You can walk away.

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".

That's not how the law works. You cannot be arrested because you might do something. You either have to have committed the crime, or they need really solid evidence that you are planning on committing it.

Think about it. The scenario you've made up is like a Garda arresting you walking down the road because "I don't know you aren't planning to rob one of these houses".

The power the ban would give is that Gardai could make requests for information to Facebook, twitter, etc about accounts that have posted or shared the material, and otherwise investigate and prosecute those who have shared it.

The point, as tayto_lover has said, is to stop people filming features that personally identify an off-duty Garda and his home, personal car registration, etc.

It has nothing to do with filming Gardai at protests, at the side of the road, etc. So long as the Garda is acting within the scope of his duties as a public servant, he can be filmed.

What is the problem here?

diomed

Does this mean RTE can't film Noirin O'Sullivan?

AudreyHepburn

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.

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

It sounds like nothing of the sort.

I can completely understand why they wouldn't want to be filmed - it's putting them and their families at risk and is breach of their privacy rights.

They are entitled to do their job without feeling under threat.

AudreyHepburn

Widdershins wrote: »

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?

That wasn't what happened - they were making a private joke, as they were entitled to, about the fact the woman in question believed they were going to rape her. They had no intention of actually doing so.

This case is a prime example of why I hope this ban is enforced - these Gardai were unfairly reprimanded over what was a private joke among st colleagues.

Reati

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I can completely understand why they wouldn't want to be filmed - it's putting them and their families at risk and is breach of their privacy rights.

No it's not. Filming you in public is not a breach of your privacy rights. In fact the law says the opposite. You can't be entitled to privacy in a public space. It's a public space....

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They are entitled to do their job without feeling under threat.

They are of course. Hence the ban should focus on posting social media not filming them.

AudreyHepburn

Reati wrote: »

No it's not. Filming you in public is not a breach of your privacy rights. In fact the law says the opposite. You can't be entitled to privacy in a public space. It's a public space....



They are of course. Hence the ban should focus on posting social media not filming them.

Would you want a camera shoved in your face whilst trying to do your job?

The people who film Gardai doing their job are simply out to try and catch them out and that to me should not be allowed and should be punishable.

pure.conya

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That wasn't what happened - they were making a private joke, as they were entitled to, about the fact the woman in question believed they were going to rape her. They had no intention of actually doing so.

This case is a prime example of why I hope this ban is enforced - these Gardai were unfairly reprimanded over what was a private joke among st colleagues.

enforcing this particular ban will do nothing to stem mass stupidity within the force and talking about raping anybody or setting emigration on them is no laughing matter, these thicko garda could very well have brothers/sisters nieces/nephews away in america or oz illegally and will do well to afford the same respect to our foreigners as we expect other nations to respect our peoples, dumb fcukwits!!

Reati

seamus wrote: »

The ban wouldn't work in that way. The Garda would have no power to demand you delete anything. You can walk away.
That's not how the law works. You cannot be arrested because you might do something. You either have to have committed the crime, or they need really solid evidence that you are planning on committing it.

You'd be fierce naive to believe that's not what the Gardai would do if they ban come about.

Photographing or videoing Garda members without their consent...

That line is enough for me to know how they will interpret that. I can promise you the second you went to video them doing something they'd be over asking your name, details and telling you to delete the footage(or worse to surrender your camera). It happens now they tell people to stop videoing them so why wouldn't they when the law is hazily on their side.

seamus wrote: »

The power the ban would give is that Gardai could make requests for information to Facebook, twitter, etc about accounts that have posted or shared the material, and otherwise investigate and prosecute those who have shared it.

That's not a ban. They have this power today. They lack a punishment which again I repeat is only half of what they are tabling.

Some of the other justifications:

Agsi and the Garda Representative Association (GRA) have both previously said their members were being videoed, sometimes for hours, while being taunted in the hope it would provoke a reaction.

Under law today this is harassment. I'm not sure why they simply don't arrest someone doing that.

We're not a police state. Videoing anything on view is public should never be banned.

Using "anything" (cameras or other) to harass anyone (incl gaurds) should be an offense.

flutered

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.

or perhaps like the oversize one in wexford caught using his baton on an o.a.p.who seemed to have his hands in his pockets, last year was it not

flutered

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Would you want a camera shoved in your face whilst trying to do your job?

The people who film Gardai doing their job are simply out to try and catch them out and that to me should not be allowed and should be punishable.

remember all the cops with video cameras videoing peacefull anti iw marches

flutered

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.

especially if you are a laughing stock

Reati

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Would you want a camera shoved in your face whilst trying to do your job?

I've been filming several times doing my job when I'm out and about in public. Those are the times I'm aware of. Couldn't tell you where the video went though :cool:

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The people who film Gardai doing their job are simply out to try and catch them out and that to me should not be allowed and should be punishable.

Blanket statements like that are that are simply untrue. You, like the Gardai, are conflating things. You're referring to people out to harass Gardai. That should of course be punishable.

Videoing a guard in the street while on duty shouldn't be.

AudreyHepburn

Reati wrote: »

I've been filming several times doing my job when I'm out and about in public. Those are the times I'm aware of. Couldn't tell you where the video went though :cool:



Blanket statements like that are that are simply untrue. You, like the Gardai, are conflating things. You're referring to people out to harass Gardai. That should of course be punishable.

Videoing a guard in the street while on duty shouldn't be.

Of course it shouldn't be, I agree. But I can also understand why they want it to be - as I said in the vast majority of videos of Gardai posted online/in the media it's clear that the people involved are out to get a rise out of the Garda/Gardai involved and to me that should not be allowed.

And if an outright ban on filming them is the only way stop it then I'd be right behind them.

Little CuChulainn

This is the wording of the motion

"introduce a criminal offence of photographing or otherwise capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member’s consent and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member"

I've highlighted the important words there for those who think Gardaí will be stealing their cameras when they have a bad hair day.

Reati

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course it shouldn't be, I agree. But I can also understand why they want it to be - as I said in the vast majority of videos of Gardai posted online/in the media it's clear that the people involved are out to get a rise out of the Garda/Gardai involved and to me that should not be allowed.

I'd agree and I've seen many of those videos which are doing to get a rise but I think a outright ban won't solve that. Someone will record it and share it anyway. The correct thing here is to table legislation to go after those on social media instead for attempting to name and harass gaurds. Sharing a picture of a gaurd online shouldn't be an offense.

Imagine the amount of hen parties that would get in trouble!!

Anyway, the force has enough problems without tabling something that looks like they want to further avoid transparency. It's terrible timing given the things they shouldbe focusing on.

diomed

You can highlight what you want but
"capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Si­ochana in the exercise of their duty without the member's consent"
means that you can never take an image anywhere if there is a Garda in shot, even if he is in plain clothes.

Little CuChulainn

diomed wrote: »

You can highlight what you want but
"capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member's consent"
means that you can never take an image anywhere if there is a Garda in shot, even if he is in plain clothes.

Well laws dont make sense if you only read half of them.

AudreyHepburn

diomed wrote: »

You can highlight what you want but
"capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Si­ochana in the exercise of their duty without the member's consent"
means that you can never take an image anywhere if there is a Garda in shot, even if he is in plain clothes.

Once again you missing this bit ; and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member

This should absolutely be illegal and punishable.

Reati

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is the wording of the motion

"introduce a criminal offence of photographing or otherwise capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member’s consent and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member"

I've highlighted the important words there for those who think Gardaí will be stealing their cameras when they have a bad hair day.

Thanks for sharing. I was looking for it earlier.

I would struggle to think if a guard is on duty, in a high stress situation like a protest they won't misquote the law to attempt to force you to stop videoing them.

AudreyHepburn

Reati wrote: »

I'd agree and I've seen many of those videos which are doing to get a rise but I think a outright ban won't solve that. Someone will record it and share it anyway. The correct thing here is to table legislation to go after those on social media instead for attempting to name and harass gaurds. Sharing a picture of a gaurd online shouldn't be an offense.

Imagine the amount of hen parties that would get in trouble!!

Anyway, the force has enough problems without tabling something that looks like they want to further avoid transparency. It's terrible timing given the things they shouldbe focusing on.

It shouldn't be illegal no, but if people are going to persist in trying to get a rise of the Gardai in an attempt to make them look incompetent or brutal then I really can't see any other option.

It's hard to track anyone on social media, everything is anonymous and password protected.

diomed

again you are making up stuff
They propose two things
1) you are not allowed to make the image
2) publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member

AudreyHepburn

diomed wrote: »

again you are making up stuff
They propose two things
1) you are not allowed to make the image
2) publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member

I'm making nothing up, I'm simply quoting the proposal that has been set down.

Reati

diomed wrote: »

again you are making up stuff
They propose two things
1) you are not allowed to make the image
2) publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member

Might want to name the "you" there?

Reati

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's hard to track anyone on social media, everything is anonymous and password protected.

It's very easy to track people online for the most part

diomed

They propose you can not make the image.

That means if it become law they can
(1) charge you for making the image
(2) they can charge you for publishing the image (I assume they didn't catch you making the image).

gordongekko

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Thats 2 miles in Garda figures

Little CuChulainn

diomed wrote: »

They propose you can not make the image.

That means if it become law they can
(1) charge you for making the image
(2) they can charge you for publishing the image (I assume they didn't catch you making the image).

Where are you getting that from? The motion is quoted on The Journal. It very clearly states that the offence is to take and publish the photo with the intent to identify. They arent separate things.

SPDUB

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is the wording of the motion

"introduce a criminal offence of photographing or otherwise capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member’s consent and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member"

And if you posted a video of a garda scratching their bollix on "Made up Avenue"is that an intent by you to personally find out their name or does it just identify them to their colleague .