Recording not allowed in Welfare Offices

cobhguy28

Riggie wrote: »

When you enter an INTREO/Social Welfare office you are doing so as a member of the public seeking assistance.

You wait in a PUBLIC area with others who like you require assistance/information with whatever personal AND/OR private issues which you do not wish to have made public.

When you attend these offices you present at a public counter with a simple partition  separating you and the customer beside you as you both speak with an officer about your personal issues.

So if I attended this office and started taping/recording my interactions there is no guarantee that it would not pick up another customers information  as well.

This would be a serious  breach data protection  of the third party as they would not have wished to have their interactions enter into the public domain.

THIS is why you a prohibited from taking recordings in  public offices.

Well this is incorrect, as far as I can see the only policy on recording is that, you can not record in a private interview, which is held in a private room. 
"5.13 As outlined on the “customer interview card,” it may be mentioned that it is Departmental policy not to allow a customer to record the interview with a mobile phone or other electronic equipment." 
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/CodeofConductforOfficeInterviews.pdf
This only refers to interviews in a private room.

TomOnBoard

Really??? The provisions of the Constitution are trumped by the advent of the Internet and availability of YouTube???

You dont owe me anything?? Of course you do! You owe me the proper operation and provision of a service that all our taxes are paying for! Its the taxes of the public that pays for the service, including your salary!!

You work in the public service, not the private sector so clearly different rules apply!!

Once again, put respectful delivery mechanisms in place so that the clients of the service that employs you dont have to shout their personal information into you. That would remove the reason for the ludicrous objection that is being spuriously used as a reason for denying your clients' right to audio-record their interactions with you.

GrumpyMe

coylemj wrote: »

... It's not much different from the prohibition on singing which exists in a lot of pubs...

WHAT?
You mean Government Departments don't have entertainment licences - well who'd have guessed?

GrumpyMe

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

Goose and gander?
So the Gardai are using threatening and intimidating behaviour when they record with cameras?

Reati

It's amazing how many threads come up on this subject lately.

I'm sure it's been said but yes they can forbid you recording. Private property owners can enforce such a policy.

A mate of mine works in the dole office and I get why they'd not want it recorded. He gets noting but abuse and sob stories day in day out. I'm sure people are only dying to make a video for Facebook about how the government is screwing them and my friend face ends up everywhere. It'd make a great ask me anything actually though.

This is basic Privacy rights.

You do not have the right to record at or from private places such as someone’s home or business, without a signed release.

https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/

whippet

This thread could almost be discussed in the Freeman thread !!

Most reasonable people can understand the rule but you will always have those who will see it as something sinister.

Vetch

bobbyss wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood my post and my apologies for any lack of clarity on my part.

I have not been in a dole office for a long, long time and any time I have been in a Garda station I have never noticed any such rule posted. I didn't know such a rule existed.

Many posts above talk about the rules of the building etc. (One poster above says:'their building, their rules'. Their building? Just to be clear, I am not talking about private property, I am talking about the public's building ie our buildings).

But I am not talking about rules posted on noticeboards.

I am talking about laws and statutes.

What law prohibits me from recording in the manner described?

Apologies again for lack of clarity, but the above question is clear enough.

A person who records other people outside his/her home is subject to data protection legislation and is a data controller. Look up the Rynes case in the CJEU.

runawaybishop

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Really??? The provisions of the Constitution are trumped by the advent of the Internet and availability of YouTube???

You have no constitutional right to record a video.

RayCun

bobbyss wrote: »

We are talking about publically accessible parts of public buildings.

So I can take your photo in the toilets of the National Gallery?

Sleeper12

TomOnBoard wrote:

Really??? The provisions of the Constitution are trumped by the advent of the Internet and availability of YouTube???

Hang on here. Your comment is a two way street. The constitution is old enough to be talking pencils or quill and ink. It was never intended to cover the recoding devices no more than the American constitution was intended to cover automatic weapons. We also have privacy rights and legislation covering data protection.

RayCun

TomOnBoard wrote: »

it it even more crucial for MY ability to understand how MY case is being dealt with, that I can have an accurate record.

As has been said before upthread, if you want an accurate record of proceedings, you get something in writing. A document signed by both parties has far more weight in later proceedings, if that is your concern, than a recording that doesn't clearly identify the parties and could have been edited later.

bobbyss

RayCun wrote:

So I can take your photo in the toilets of the National Gallery?

If you are legally entitled to, then yes of course. It is your right.

RayCun

bobbyss wrote: »

If you are legally entitled to, then yes of course. It is your right.

That's a non-answer. Do you think I am legally entitled to?
Video recording too?

Sleeper12

GrumpyMe wrote:

Goose and gander? So the Gardai are using threatening and intimidating behaviour when they record with cameras?

The threatening and intimately behaviour as I explained in my post but you didn't want to quote it shoving the camera in someone's face. The Gardai don't do this. The there is no threat to the Gardai sharing their recordings on social media. Gardai protect your identity & respect your privacy. That will never be seen as threatening behaviour.

bobbyss

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of public photography what with references to shoving cameras on faces, threatening and intimidation behaviour etc.

A journalist could have one of those go pro cameras attached around waist and therefore is not shoving cameras around anybody's face. A journalist going about his job. Not somebody looking to threaten anybody.

If people feel threatened by a camera does that mean same journalist has to stop his work?

Sleeper12

bobbyss wrote:

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of public photography what with references to shoving cameras on faces, threatening and intimidation behaviour etc.

bobbyss wrote:

A journalist could have one of those go pro cameras attached around waist and therefore is not shoving cameras around anybody's face. A journalist going about his job. Not somebody looking to threaten anybody.

You are mixing up two different things. Another poster tried to do the same on another post. There is a huge difference between a photographer a Garda and a scumbag shoving his/her phone in your face.

Garda is recording evidence or a crime on behalf of the state & in turn the public. He/she doesn't shove the camera in your face. There is no threat of them posting this on social media.

Photographer won't just go into a dole office unannounced. Even if they were allowed in, all faces would be pixilated & personal identities protected. He/she has their insurance and can be sued for revealing private details. Again his/her camera wouldn't be shoved in your face & wouldn't threaten you with social media.

A scumbag shoving his mobile phone in someone's face shouting go back to your own county and this is going on YouTube is using their phone as a form of intimidation. Bullying. If you saw teenagers do it to another child you would stop them & they would be reported for bullying because it is bullying.

It's nonsense to compare these in the same post

forward8

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

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.

It's funny that. The social welfare have no problem passing clients personal data on to private companies such as turas nua and seetec without even notifying them. When I challenged seetec on how they 'acquired' my information such as name, address, phone number, email and pps number she stated she was "not in a position to discuss that".

Clients are forced to play ball by their rules and they (social welfare) don't want to be held accountable for malpractice through a recording.

AndrewJRenko

bobbyss wrote: »

We are talking about publically accessible parts of public buildings.

Indeed - a public house (the hint is in the name). Anyone can walk into a pub, and anyone in the pub can walk into the loo - so it is a publicly accessible part of a public building - so you've problem if I film you taking a wizz after a few pints, right?

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?

Yes. 100 percent legal

whippet

forward8 wrote: »

It's funny that. The social welfare have no problem passing clients personal data on to private companies such as turas nua and seetec without even notifying them. When I challenged seetec on how they 'acquired' my information such as name, address, phone number, email and pps number she stated she was "not in a position to discuss that".

Clients are forced to play ball by their rules and they (social welfare) don't want to be held accountable for malpractice through a recording.

Your point is irrelevant.

I know there is a growing tide of resentment against Turas Nua and Seetec by some segments of the unemployed... in my opinion that resentment is derived by an unwillingness to seek gainful employment due to having to give up some fairly generous social welfare benefits.

There are plenty of groups who are active on social media playing fast and loose with their own interpretation of the law and unfortunately the staff at the frontline in the social welfare offices / jobpath offices are in the firing line of this bullying. And I’m sure there have been attempts by some loons to film staff interactions and this has lead to the rules being introduced

AndrewJRenko

forward8 wrote: »

It's funny that. The social welfare have no problem passing clients personal data on to private companies such as turas nua and seetec without even notifying them. When I challenged seetec on how they 'acquired' my information such as name, address, phone number, email and pps number she stated she was "not in a position to discuss that".
.

If you believe the Dept has breached data protection law, then you should report the matter to the Data Protection Commissioner.

splinter65

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If I need to keep an accurate record of what you say to me in your role as a public official, I'll use any tool available to me to ensure accuracy. If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear! Generally, however, I wouldn't even bother because the vaaast bulk of public officials Ive come across have been decent and helpful. But if someone is BS'ing or abusing me, rest assured, I'm gonna take appropriate action..

If I see you filming me then better be assured I’m going to take appropriate action. I’m going to ask you to stop and if you don’t immediately I’ll terminate your consultation and you’ll be escorted outside by security.... that’s how that goes in reality

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed - a public house (the hint is in the name). Anyone can walk into a pub, and anyone in the pub can walk into the loo - so it is a publicly accessible part of a public building - so you've problem if I film you taking a wizz after a few pints, right?

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a public building and a public house.

RayCun

bobbyss wrote: »

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a public building and a public house.

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between government property and the street outside.

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

If it's not officially allowed, do it unofficially, no big deal

Your happy to be filmed secretly Wanderer unbeknownst to yourself ? I’m surprised that someone like you who sees himself as a champion of people with complex needs would think that that was acceptable?

splinter65

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What??

If you own the public building then why can’t you go in there before it closes and bring your sleeping bag and pillow and bed down for the night?

splinter65

bobbyss wrote: »

We are talking about publically accessible parts of public buildings.

The pub toilets are a publicly accessible part of a public building. What do you think they are?

Sleeper12

splinter65 wrote:

If I see you filming me then better be assured I’m going to take appropriate action. I’m going to ask you to stop and if you don’t immediately I’ll terminate your consultation and you’ll be escorted outside by security.... that’s how that goes in reality

I 100 percent agree with you. The phone might drop on the floor as he's escorted out

splinter65

forward8 wrote: »

It's funny that. The social welfare have no problem passing clients personal data on to private companies such as turas nua and seetec without even notifying them. When I challenged seetec on how they 'acquired' my information such as name, address, phone number, email and pps number she stated she was "not in a position to discuss that".

Clients are forced to play ball by their rules and they (social welfare) don't want to be held accountable for malpractice through a recording.

When you complained to the Data Commissioner about this breach of your privacy what was the response?