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?