Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Vacant Homes (www.vacanthomes.ie) and Privacy

  • 14-08-2017 4:46pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8


    Hi,

    Could I start a discussion or get advice on the right to have your property photographed and uploaded to a government database without your knowledge. As well as allegations made that its vacant? I spend a lot of time away so my house might meet the criteria (long grass, no movement - serious, these are on the website).

    I don't like the idea of busy bodies taking pictures of my house at all. If Google have to remove them on my request why should anyone be allowed to do this?

    Should there be an opt out option on the site and is this kind of G Man snooping even legal? Surely Big Government already has info on what houses pay full property tax and those pay as vacant?

    I'd appreciate opinions.

    Vacanthomes.ie Invasion of Privacy 70 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    100% 70 votes


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    In general taking a photograph of the front of a house is perfectly legal. "Alleging" that it may be empty is also perfectly legal, especially if it's just to a body whose purpose is to investigate whether it is.

    The body's purpose is to contact owners of a property and assert whether it's vacant or not. If that happens to you, you can let them know that it is in fact occupied.

    So there's not really any invasion of privacy there.

    Contrary to popular belief, "Big Government" does not have one all-encompassing database of information, so obtaining Revenue records on paid property tax is not straightforward and may not be very reliable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    I would consider a stranger taking a photo of my home an invasion of privacy. I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.
    Even the notion of somebody assuming the right to consider a property of mine vacant gets my goat.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    While there is likely get-out clauses that allow the state to do this within the various legislations, the concept of it implementing essentially a snooper's charter is touching on the Orwellian on the sliding scale of governmental over-reach.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,809 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.
    Even the notion of somebody assuming the right to consider a property of mine vacant gets my goat.

    Just out of interest when you did this were any of your neigbhours house excluded as well?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Just out of interest when you did this were any of your neigbhours house excluded as well?

    It's a detached, stand alone, rural property.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭Think_then_talk


    I also had the street photo removed, they did leave next door, I would love to have the Google Earth shots
    removed also.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 Hupourradat


    Thanks for all the replies
    seamus wrote: »
    In general taking a photograph of the front of a house is perfectly legal. "Alleging" that it may be empty is also perfectly legal, especially if it's just to a body whose purpose is to investigate whether it is.

    The body's purpose is to contact owners of a property and assert whether it's vacant or not. If that happens to you, you can let them know that it is in fact occupied.

    So there's not really any invasion of privacy there.

    Contrary to popular belief, "Big Government" does not have one all-encompassing database of information, so obtaining Revenue records on paid property tax is not straightforward and may not be very reliable.

    I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph. I think the gov are exploiting the "Alright if you get away with it" mentality.

    I think the person who reports a property should be named.

    It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.

    I have deGoogled the house too!

    It just seems like one more step towards the State watching everything you do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Absolutely disgraceful proposals from the Government. The vacant homes website is chilling. Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble??:confused: This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.

    I have my suspicions as to what's really going on here. The next step will be expansion of CPOs and forcing homeowners to take the Government's preferred choice of resident into their homes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 Hupourradat


    Absolutely disgraceful proposals from the Government. The vacant homes website is chilling. Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble??:confused: This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.

    I have my suspicions as to what's really going on here. The next step will be expansion of CPOs and forcing homeowners to take the Government's preferred choice of resident into their homes.

    I recently watched a Youtube video where everyone who wasn't part of the elite were described as their cattle. Now it seems they are building a system to move us from field to field.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    It's not as anonymous as people think. I'm sure IP addresses are captured along with geolocations (even though that's optional), network details etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph.

    You can object all you like but if it's a public place you've no right to privacy and can only complain about it's publication not taking.
    It's not as anonymous as people think. I'm sure IP addresses are captured along with geolocations (even though that's optional), network details etc.

    No need for geo location analysis when the person posting will be giving the location of the building ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83,412 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    I think their plan is to shift the blame on ordinary people for the housing crisis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    I think they mean recording the geo location of the informant.

    Indeed I do as providing the geoloc of the house is optional.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

    The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

    Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 340 ✭✭twilight_singer


    Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

    The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

    Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.

    'ol mayo county council


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Thanks for all the replies



    I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph. I think the gov are exploiting the "Alright if you get away with it" mentality.

    I think the person who reports a property should be named.

    It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.

    I have deGoogled the house too!

    It just seems like one more step towards the State watching everything you do.

    The High Court has made a decision on the privacy aspect.

    http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/9bd14182c49347be8025713300410c9c?OpenDocument

    I do not believe it has been appealed or overturned


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

    The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

    Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.

    It is registered by Mayo County Council.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    What is the legal basis for the collection of such information?

    Ask Mayo county council and the minister for local government


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    This post has been deleted.
    They're asking for it.

    On what basis is the collection of this information illegal?
    I would consider a stranger taking a photo of my home an invasion of privacy.
    What you consider to be invastion of privacy doesn't mean it is.
    I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.
    You had it removed because Google allow you to do so in good faith. They are under no legal obligation to do so.
    It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.
    I have no doubt that if the government had one big database on everyone that any government department could access with impunity, you'd be spitting feathers. Yet when they don't have such a database, you think it's ridiculous.

    The collection of this information appears on the face of it to be perfectly legal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    This post has been deleted.
    Generally you don't need a "legal basis" to collect information. You need a legal basis to stop someone collecting information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭AlanG


    IMO this site is fine as it only gathers information and does not distribute it like Google. It is likely that it will fall foul of GDPR as it has a notes field that will most likely end up having peoples names entered. Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Legal or otherwise, if I stood outside someone's house, a house I have no connection with, and took several photographs of it (as the site requests turncoats to do) I shouldn't be surprised if someone saw fit to call the Gardai.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Legal or otherwise, if I stood outside someone's house, a house I have no connection with, and took several photographs of it (as the site requests turncoats to do) I shouldn't be surprised if someone saw fit to call the Gardai.
    Sure. And the Gardai would do nothing about it unless a law has been broken.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    AlanG wrote: »
    IMO this site is fine as it only gathers information and does not distribute it like Google. It is likely that it will fall foul of GDPR as it has a notes field that will most likely end up having peoples names entered. Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.

    The site was developed with the assistance of the DPC.

    No names are entered unless you want to set up an account.

    The site needs a renewal in February 2018, not in 3 months.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    Hopefully someone will record Dáil Éireann as a vacant home of democracy... given that they're all off on their jollies for the foreseeable :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 783 ✭✭✭nsa0bupkd3948x


    AlanG wrote: »
    . Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.

    They're using Lets Encrypt. 90 days is the longest certificate they offer, normally renews after 60/75 days.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    ......

    I have deGoogled the house too!

    ........

    They are the ones that "stand out"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    seamus wrote: »
    Sure. And the Gardai would do nothing about it unless a law has been broken.

    They would be entitled to ask you what you are doing.

    And if the house is broken into, well the ninny who submitted the info to the site is a sitting duck.

    Tragic to see people fall for this sh*te. Thankfully judging by the overall response not many.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    They would be entitled to ask you what you are doing.

    Do you honestly think they would rush there just to ask someone why they're taking photos


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Gatling wrote: »
    Do you honestly think they would rush there just to ask someone why they're taking photos

    They may or may not, it depends on the conduct of the "snitch", but it's a distinct possibility as it could be perceived as loitering with intent. You could be taking photos with a view to breaking in later on. If you were taking photos, and randomly quizzed, and replied that you were planning on uploading photos to the vacanthomes website, do you honestly think the Gardai would believe you? :D

    The first question they would ask is, why?

    A couple of houses near me are vacant. If I report them (why would I do that anyway?) to the website, and give my name - even if I don't they can trace an IP address - I'm a sitting duck if there's a burglary, both in civil and criminal liability.

    Mod deletion. Unfounded accusation

    If someone was burgled in the coming weeks and it transpires that their property was uploaded to this website prior to the break in I'd wager they would have a prima facie case in action against Mayo County Council and whoever furnished information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    .........

    The first question they would ask is, why?

    vacanthomes dot ie


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    gctest50 wrote: »
    vacanthomes dot ie

    It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities, unless it is completely dilapidated and a safety risk in that case uninhabitable in any event.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities, .......

    Makes perfect sense, vacant properties in the area attract the wrong sort of visitor

    That sort of visitor are like rats, if they know there's no copper plumbing n tanks to be got, they won't be around


    this exists too :



    http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/leasing/repair-and-leasing-scheme-rls-frequently-asked-questions



    The scheme is targeted at owners of vacant properties who cannot afford or access the funding needed to bring their properties up to the required standard for rental property

    The Repair and Leasing Scheme (RLS) has been developed to assist private property owners and local authorities or Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) to harness the accommodation potential that exists in certain vacant properties across Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities
    To you.

    Some people may see it as a civic duty to flag up vacant properties when the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.

    Your use of inflammatory language - snitch, ninny, turncoat, Stasi, rat - illustrates that you automatically consider the state to be an enemy of the individual which seeks to undermine the rights of the individual.

    So it doesn't surprise me why you'd have trouble understanding that other people don't feel the same way.

    Anyway, your assertion that taking photos of a vacant property could find you liable for burglary charges is unfounded Mod deletion


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Makes perfect sense, vacant properties in the area attract the wrong sort of visitor

    That sort of visitor are like rats, if they know there's no copper plumbing n tanks to be got, they won't be around


    this exists too :



    http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/repair-leasing-faqs_feb-2017.pdf

    If an owner wants to avail of that scheme let him apply himself.

    It's none of my business to be a snitch to the State as to what he wants to do with his property, or what his personal circumstances are.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    seamus wrote: »
    To you.

    Some people may see it as a civic duty to flag up vacant properties when the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.

    Your use of inflammatory language - snitch, ninny, turncoat, Stasi, rat - illustrates that you automatically consider the state to be an enemy of the individual which seeks to undermine the rights of the individual.

    So it doesn't surprise me why you'd have trouble understanding that other people don't feel the same way.

    Anyway, your assertion that taking photos of a vacant property could find you liable for burglary charges is unfounded and hysterical.

    Agreed. I fully believe that.

    It's not the State's business, or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity).

    Feel free to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome if it makes you feel important.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It's not the State's business, or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity).
    Well, that's a matter for a different forum. This is the legal discussion forum. Whether you consider the purpose of the website to be morally right or wrong, it's still legal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    seamus wrote: »
    Well, that's a matter for a different forum. This is the legal discussion forum. Whether you consider the purpose of the website to be morally right or wrong, it's still legal.

    It's not a matter for a different forum when it's mooted that Compulsory Purchase Orders be expanded.

    I find your motive for being on this thread very suspect.

    Mod
    I don't see anything suspect in what Séamus posted


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    They may or may not, it depends on the conduct of the "snitch", but it's a distinct possibility as it could be perceived as loitering with intent. You could be taking photos with a view to breaking in later on. If you were taking photos, and randomly quizzed, and replied that you were planning on uploading photos to the vacanthomes website, do you honestly think the Gardai would believe you? :D

    Weather or not they believe you is irrelevant. There is no crime of loitering or loitering with intent in Ireland.

    When loitering in a manner which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace, Gardaí can ask you to leave, but the photo is already taken. The problem is the Gardaí must suspect with reasonable cause that you are doing so and you must not have any reasonable excuse before they can do so. Taking a photograph is a fairly reasonable excuse which would not give rise to reasonable cause.


    The first question they would ask is, why?

    The thing is you are only taking a picture, by the time the Gardaí are called and respond the chances is still being there to be asked why are very slim. And if you are there you say why and that is the end of it.


    If someone was burgled in the coming weeks and it transpires that their property was uploaded to this website prior to the break in I'd wager they would have a prima facie case in action against Mayo County Council and whoever furnished information.

    A case for what exactly? The information supplied isn't published.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50




    It's not the State's business,
    or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity)........

    It's the States business to try look after everybody

    if you have a place that ( looks ) vacant, it will attract the wrong sort of visitor


    If you have a place that "looks vacant " you are accommodating criminal/anti-social behavior
    .......

    (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity)........


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    God bless the innocence of some posters on here.

    They'll learn.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭trixiebust


    Peregrinus wrote:
    Generally you don't need a "legal basis" to collect information. You need a legal basis to stop someone collecting information.

    I'm living in an estate of about 200 houses, of which approx 65 houses are empty. Have been so, since 2007.

    Looking in the windows ( the one's that aren't broken anyway ), it's like a time warp. Newspapers on the ground, half finished coke bottles.

    It's like someone walked in one day and said " right lads pack up, we're
    finished ".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I find your motive for being on this thread very suspect.
    That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Feel free to PM me if you have any queries about my motives rather than drag this any further off topic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    The shrill 'they tuk our properties' would be bemusing if it wren't so serious. The right to property is not unfettered.
    Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble??:confused: This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.
    So, you are suggesting that "tenants ... who might cause trouble" are worse than a vacant property that is at risk of vandalism, flooding, fire, etc.
    The High Court has made a decision on the privacy aspect.

    http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/9bd14182c49347be8025713300410c9c?OpenDocument

    I do not believe it has been appealed or overturned
    Interesting that the right to privacy in this case is tied to the inviolability of the home - vacant houses aren't homes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    God bless the innocence of some posters on here.

    They'll learn.

    It can be tricky to insure a vacant house

    If a kid has an accident on the site of the vacant house - who pays ?

    The State ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Victor wrote: »
    The shrill 'they tuk our properties' would be bemusing if it wren't so serious. The right to property is not unfettered.So, you are suggesting that "tenants ... who might cause trouble" are worse than a vacant property that is at risk of vandalism, flooding, fire, etc.

    The issue is the encroachment of the State on property ownership. You are very naive if you don't see that that's what is happening here. It isn't about dealing with homelessness. It's about creeping measures on the drip effect towards seizure in an expanded set of circumstances. Then the State can decide in an escalating fashion who they choose to house and not house. I won't say anymore but I have my suspicions as to what is actually going on here.

    If a property owner leaves a property vacant as long as it is not a safety risk he is perfectly entitled to do so.

    Existing laws, authorities and insurers perfectly serve the circumstances you highlight and are a separate issue.

    I hope developers and property investors fight any measures involving penalties tooth and nail in the Courts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    gctest50 wrote: »
    It can be tricky to insure a vacant house

    If a kid has an accident on the site of the vacant house - who pays ?

    The State ?

    The owner if it's uninsured. Though should the kid have been on the vacant premises in the first instance? Probably not.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement