Recording not allowed in Welfare Offices

Brae100

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

johnnyskeleton

Brae100 wrote: »

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

Its their office they can do what they like, within reason, I guess.

coylemj

Brae100 wrote: »

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

You have no legal right to record an interaction with them so they are within their rights to forbid the practice on their turf.

Just because it's a Govt. office doesn't mean you can do what you like. It's not much different from the prohibition on singing which exists in a lot of pubs - house rules apply.

TomOnBoard

Surely there are many reasons why a client might need to have a recording of a meeting with an official? Examples include:

Poor command of English
Hard of hearing
Poor note-taking ability
Etc.

It seems strange that official offices would prohibit recording when there are 'security' cameras all over the place in many of these offices. It strikes me that too often, officials want the ability to play fast and loose with their own statements and actions to captive clients and thats why they dont like to be recorded. I believe that audio recordings should be allowed at least.

Brian Lighthouse

And, if, whether Video or Audio recordings - could the privacy of others using the office at the time be guaranteed?

The office itself will have CCTV, however there are strict rules regarding that, along with all the Data Protection stuff etc etc.

Stay out of a place like that with your camera or voice recorder, You'd never know what it picks up.

Brian Lighthouse

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Surely there are many reasons why a client might need to have a recording of a meeting with an official? Examples include:

Poor command of English
Hard of hearing
Poor note-taking ability
Etc.

It seems strange that official offices would prohibit recording when there are 'security' cameras all over the place in many of these offices. It strikes me that too often, officials want the ability to play fast and loose with their own statements and actions to captive clients and thats why they dont like to be recorded. I believe that audio recordings should be allowed at least.

Ask for a private meeting, Ask for a translator, Doesn't matter , ask for a private meeting room. If that is that case.

Victor

The ban is to prevent invasions of privacy and/or intimidation of clients and staff. Would you go into a bank and insist that you be allowed take recordings?

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Surely there are many reasons why a client might need to have a recording of a meeting with an official?

Then they can ask the official if they can record the meeting.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Social Welfare staff have the same rights as you do to not have themselves recorded without their prior consent, whether in the course of their work or not. I worked there for a while and had some lad come in and try to record me telling him why he wasn't getting his JA that week (he had been out of the country for the week as it happened) as he was "paying my wages".

charman

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

Social Welfare staff have the same rights as you do to not have themselves recorded without their prior consent, whether in the course of their work or not. I worked there for a while and had some lad come in and try to record me telling him why he wasn't getting his JA that week (he had been out of the country for the week as it happened) as he was "paying my wages".

Unfortunately as long as one person knows they're recording the conversation it's legal. You have the same constitutional rights..sue him

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

charman wrote: »

Unfortunately as long as one person knows they're recording the conversation it's legal. You have the same constitutional rights..sue him

Not in a place of employment.

Sue him? Will you stop

seamus

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Not in a place of employment.

I'm not sure if the location matters, either party can legally record a private conversation without the other's consent.

It's what you do with that recording that makes the big difference.

There is also nothing stopping any place of business from putting up signs saying that the use of recording equipment is prohibited. "Prohibited" can be a simple warning of the owner's right to ask you to leave if they see you recording.

But given that it's a government building, there may be legislation underpinning it, for the safety of employees and privacy of the public.

notharrypotter

seamus wrote: »

for the safety of employees.

Google Brian Purcell and Martin Cahill.

UrbanVixen

Would an INTREO office allow a social welfare client to take written notes ?

I am thinking of one individual I know who has memory and fatigue problems associated with a neurological condition. If he is unaccompanied he needs to be able to write down what was discussed or some of it just gets lost.

BTW what is the position about taking notes in court ? It is a while now since it happened but you would hear of the odd instance of a DJ objecting to people taking notes in the body of the court. What happens if I want to keep a watching brief on a particular case and take a note of evidence tendered ?

ohnonotgmail

I dont think INTREO (or any government office) would have an issue with you taking written notes.

BarryD2

If only the Gardai extended this to carparks etc., they mightn't be in as much difficulty as they are with the McCabe affair!

whippet

Unfortunately there are far too many people out there who will feel disgruntled with state or public bodies and will harass and bully front line staff .. they will video the interaction and try and goad the staff in to saying or doing something ... then this hero will edit the video and post the bits suiting their agenda on social media so the rest of the permanently outraged classes can share, pass comment and further bully and harass the unfortunate front line staff member.

PlaneSpeeking

whippet wrote: »

Unfortunately there are far too many people out there who will feel disgruntled with state or public bodies and will harass and bully front line staff .. they will video the interaction and try and goad the staff in to saying or doing something ... then this hero will edit the video and post the bits suiting their agenda on social media so the rest of the permanently outraged classes can share, pass comment and further bully and harass the unfortunate front line staff member.

This.

Sad but entirely true.

uck51js9zml2yt

We often have lobby groups coming to my department to hand in a letter to the minister.
They generally have their camera crew with them.
They are told clearly before they meet someone that under no circumstances are photos of staff allowed. There is always someone to monitor this.

randomrb

UrbanVixen wrote: »

BTW what is the position about taking notes in court ? It is a while now since it happened but you would hear of the odd instance of a DJ objecting to people taking notes in the body of the court. What happens if I want to keep a watching brief on a particular case and take a note of evidence tendered ?

There should be nothing stopping you taking notes in court, the only time that wouldnt be appropriate is for a family law case or a case involving a minor. All other district courts are open to the public and you should be able to take notes if you want

Mrcaramelchoc

video recording i would say no way, but audio i would say if it is absolutely, for your own use and its for the reasons stated for example hard of hearing etc.work away.
whos going to know?,most phones now have audio recorders and can be discreetly used.

ive done it numerous times for serious consultants appointments.purely because i have a terrible memory and i need to know and remember whats being said.when im done with it ive deleted the recording.

but again i would stress it should be for your own use and not for public broadcast.

AndrewJRenko

whippet wrote: »

Unfortunately there are far too many people out there who will feel disgruntled with state or public bodies and will harass and bully front line staff .. they will video the interaction and try and goad the staff in to saying or doing something ... then this hero will edit the video and post the bits suiting their agenda on social media so the rest of the permanently outraged classes can share, pass comment and further bully and harass the unfortunate front line staff member.

Does this happen often? I had a quick look on YouTube and this is the worst I could find - a short recording of the recorded answering service.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0bA6-n6cQ

Del2005

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this happen often? I had a quick look on YouTube and this is the worst I could find - a short recording of the recorded answering service.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0bA6-n6cQ

Look for the Corrib and water protests. They have very good editing skills.
There's also the woman who claimed she got kicked out of Pennys for beast feeding or the waiter in Texas who claimed he didn't get a tip but a racist note instead.

Way too much of it happens these days and with social media you are guilty straight away.

Eric Cartman

Im personally glad this is here. Considering the internets desire for poorly edited videos and vigilanty justice, you'd have every welfare officer in fear of their lives of a video of them denying a claim being edited to look like theyre mr. burns and have a load of the unwashed show up at their door.

bobbyss

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote:

We often have lobby groups coming to my department to hand in a letter to the minister. They generally have their camera crew with them. They are told clearly before they meet someone that under no circumstances are photos of staff allowed. There is always someone to monitor this.

Why is this not allowed?

notharrypotter

bobbyss wrote: »

Why is this not allowed?

Too easy to be edited afterwards to suit the agenda of the group.

AndrewJRenko

Del2005 wrote: »

Look for the Corrib and water protests. They have very good editing skills.
There's also the woman who claimed she got kicked out of Pennys for beast feeding or the waiter in Texas who claimed he didn't get a tip but a racist note instead.

Way too much of it happens these days and with social media you are guilty straight away.

Big difference between a push and shove protest or Penney's and a social protection office. There are people getting shot in public offices in Texas, but that doesn't mean we need metal detectors in the Tallaght social protection office.

bobbyss

notharrypotter wrote: »

Too easy to be edited afterwards to suit the agenda of the group.

No I mean what law prohibits this? What law says you can not go into a public place and video and record?

nuac

Courthouses are under the care and management of Court Services.

Videos etc may be used outside of the court house premises, but nol inside the courthouse without permission of court services

uck51js9zml2yt

bobbyss wrote: »

Why is this not allowed?

Quiet frankly, it's private property.
Also our staff are entitled to go about their day without being recorded against their will.

If it was public property,ie The street, it's a different story.

TomOnBoard

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote: »

Quiet frankly, it's private property.
Also our staff are entitled to go about their day without being recorded against their will.

If it was public property,ie The street, it's a different story.

How is a social welfare office private property? It's owned or leased by the State, and is therefore paid for in its entirety by the taxpaying public, and providing public service(s) to the public..

bobbyss

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote:

Quiet frankly, it's private property. Also our staff are entitled to go about their day without being recorded against their will.

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote:

If it was public property,ie The street, it's a different story.

This is publically accessible and therefore a public building. Aren't there cameras inside lots of public buildings already so why would a public employee have an issue with someone recording then as a matter of principle?

Victor

TomOnBoard wrote: »

How is a social welfare office private property?

Private in the sense of who is allowed access it and do any particular activity there.

It's owned or leased by the State, and is therefore paid for in its entirety by the taxpaying public, and providing public service(s) to the public..

Provided for the purpose of providing welfare services, not somewhere where you can take pictures.

Otherwise, you would have people showing up at the mint wanting to print their own money.

bobbyss wrote: »

This is publically accessible and therefore a public building. Aren't there cameras inside lots of public buildings already so why would a public employee have an issue with someone recording then as a matter of principle?

It's about who has access to that footage. But remember, it is also about protecting clients, who may be revealing personal details.

whippet

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this happen often? I had a quick look on YouTube and this is the worst I could find - a short recording of the recorded answering service.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0bA6-n6cQ

You didn’t look hard ... there are far to many videos to even start referencing ... take the whole water protesters videos .. generally all they show is the reaction of the guards or Irish water staff ... not the nonsense that sparked the reaction

Sleeper12

Brae100 wrote:

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

It is there to protect staff. It's not unusual for staff to be threatened. I can imagine some scumbag recording a staff member & putting it on Facebook or YouTube

AndrewJRenko

bobbyss wrote: »

No I mean what law prohibits this? What law says you can not go into a public place and video and record?

It's not a public place. It is an office operated by a public body. Try going for a walk with your dog through the Dept Finance offices at Govt building and see how you get on.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

How is a social welfare office private property? It's owned or leased by the State, and is therefore paid for in its entirety by the taxpaying public, and providing public service(s) to the public..

Because it's not a public place, it is a private office operated by a public body. Do you think you can walk around the offices of a Garda station and have a goo at what's happening? Or walk around Revenue's investigations office any time you like. These are private offices.

whippet wrote: »

You didn’t look hard ... there are far to many videos to even start referencing ... take the whole water protesters videos .. generally all they show is the reaction of the guards or Irish water staff ... not the nonsense that sparked the reaction

Does this happen in social protection offices, or in related office scenarios - Revenue, CWOs etc?

bobbyss

Sleeper12 wrote:

It is there to protect staff. It's not unusual for staff to be threatened. I can imagine some scumbag recording a staff member & putting it on Facebook or YouTube

I am not sure if someone can be stopped from posting people on you tube. It may have to do with whether it's there for financial gain or something like that.

I don't quite understand this idea of threatening staff as you would want to be pretty dumb to post a threatening video on YouTube as the proof of the threat is very evident.

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It's not a public place. It is an office operated by a public body. Try going for a walk with your dog through the Dept Finance offices at Govt building and see how you get on.

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department. There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

ohnonotgmail

bobbyss wrote: »

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department.

The key word there is allowed. They do not have a right to enter.

bobbyss wrote: »

There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

CCTV is covered under data protection. joe bloggs with his phone isn't concerned about data protection. The simple fact that it is their property and they make the rules about who can enter and what you can do while inside. The same as any business premises.

whippet

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this happen in social protection offices, or in related office scenarios - Revenue, CWOs etc?

i'm sure there are plenty of people who try.

Sure just today I saw video on another thread of some tool trying to record a rant at a clerk in a bank branch ... he was trying to goad the clerk in to accepting his nonsensical argument that he didn't have to pay back his two mortgages for some mental legal reason he made up. The clerk just pulled down the curtain at the desk and ignored him .. but of course his clown followers took that to mean they he was right and he gets a couple of free houses.

AndrewJRenko

bobbyss wrote: »

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department. There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

Some offices are indeed open to the public, but not all. That doesn't create any entitlement to public access.


I can see how staff would have concerns about this. Low-paid front-of-house staff aren't official spokespersons. They're not really paid enough to end up on YouTube, breaching their personal privacy.

Sleeper12

bobbyss wrote:

I am not sure if someone can be stopped from posting people on you tube. It may have to do with whether it's there for financial gain or something like that.

They can't but they can be stopped from recording in the dole office

bobbyss wrote:

I don't quite understand this idea of threatening staff as you would want to be pretty dumb to post a threatening video on YouTube as the proof of the threat is very evident.

The whole idea of recording is threatening and intimidating. It's why they did it to the poor guys fitting water meters and why they do it to the Gardai.

I believe that we have a right to record in public but I think its only a matter of time before someone is convicted of threatening & intimidating behaviour because that is what it is shoving a camera in someone's face

Vetch

Staff are entitled to dignity and respect at work, but also, depending on the layout of offices, someone recording could record the personal business of another social welfare client.

cobhguy28

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Brae100 wrote: »

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

Its their office they can do what they like, within reason, I guess.

Its not their office, Its belongs to the state, Just because someone ones works in a place, it does not give them a right to make policy's about what their customers can do, only the department can do this.

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some offices are indeed open to the public, but not all. That doesn't create any entitlement to public access.


I can see how staff would have concerns about this. Low-paid front-of-house staff aren't official spokespersons. They're not really paid enough to end up on YouTube, breaching their personal privacy.

I am not really talking about threatening anyone at all, just going about my business. I could be a journalist for example wanting to get footage for a story.

If someone goes into, for example, the foyer of a public building (where they are legally entitled to be) and starts videoing something for their own purposes or asks questions of the person at the desk, then that person is acting as a public servant doing what he or she is obliged to do (and getting paid to do that) and I would not think they are entitled to privacy at all as they are not in a private place. They are in a public building.

uck51js9zml2yt

Members of staff are entitled to go about their normal work without being intruded upon by some idiot with a camera phone who then posts their image without their consent on the web.
It breaches their privacy and it's something an employer is required to protect and rightly so.
Anyone who can't see that...well...I'd be carded if I said what I thought:)

Victor

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Its not their office

"They" is referring to the Department.

cobhguy28

The main reason is that the don't want you having proof that they have given you false/incorrect information.

whippet

bobbyss wrote: »

I am not really talking about threatening anyone at all, just going about my business. I could be a journalist for example wanting to get footage for a story.

If someone goes into, for example, the foyer of a public building (where they are legally entitled to be) and starts videoing something for their own purposes or asks questions of the person at the desk, then that person is acting as a public servant doing what he or she is obliged to do (and getting paid to do that) and I would not think they are entitled to privacy at all as they are not in a private place. They are in a public building.

your making a lot of incorrect assumptions here!!

cobhguy28

Victor wrote: »

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Its not their office

"They" is referring to the Department.

Yes but that is the Issue. Is it a department policy, which I could understand or is it an local 
office policy which they have no right to enforce.

c.p.w.g.w

Surely if its just a audio recording it's not going to give away your identity.

I have been screwed around by the Dole for the brief time i was on it, i was lied to by a couple of officers. Lead to missing out 6 weeks of payment, while i was struggling to find work. If i had been able to prove what i was told, i could have probably got my payments back dated

cobhguy28

Completely different issues, recording interacting for personal documentary purpose should be allowed, its the same as keeping detailed notes, there should be no issue, filming for publishing purpose like putting on you tube is a completely different thing.