Rob tourists at gunpoint & have your anonymity protected?

boombang

A report in the IT shows a video of a pair of scummers robbing tourists at gun point. The thieves have their faces blurred in the video placed online. Call me old-fashioned, but I think robbing people at gun point should make you liable for having your mug plastered all over the media.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tourists-robbed-at-gunpoint-near-guinness-storehouse-in-dublin-1.4059200

Dialing my predictable outrage down, what's the serious reason for preserving the privacy of these scrotes? Is it because Gardai will have a good idea of who they are and there's no need to risk mistakenly identifying innocent grey tracksuit wearers? Surely there's a good reason rather than modern PC data privacy?

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

Wanderer78

boombang wrote:

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Gatling

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

boombang

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Did I say it was perfect solution? It's just my personal preference.

Wanderer78

boombang wrote:

Did I say it was perfect solution? It's just my personal preference.

That's fair enough, but does it really work?

boombang

Wanderer78 wrote: »

That's fair enough, but does it really work?

I don't know: I've not looked in to it. However, I would like to have a fair ability to know if there's a violent or persistent criminal that lives in my neighbourhood following release. That's why I'd like this info to be out there. Plus, if you do something shameful, then I think you should deal with the public shame.

Seathrun66

boombang wrote: »

I don't know: I've not looked in to it. However, I would like to have a fair ability to know if there's a violent or persistent criminal that lives in my neighbourhood following release. That's why I'd like this info to be out there. Plus, if you do something shameful, then I think you should deal with the public shame.

One reason is mistaken identity. Blanking out the faces until conviction prevents vigilante attacks on innocent lookalikes.

Tacitus Kilgore

Completely understand the need to blur the faces,

Also, certain - the Gardai local to the area will 100% know this guy off the bat, I certainly hope he doesn't repeatedly trip and fall during his upcoming arrest.


Scummy bastard, you can feel the terror in that poor lady from watching the video. I sincerely hope she recovers without PTSD or some other crap hanging over her.

boombang

Would people feel OK to have the unedited footage released following conviction?

I understand the need not to prejudice chances of a conviction/possibly avoid mistaken identity, but these would seem to be void if a conviction is successfully achieved.

Padre_Pio

Seathrun66 wrote: »

One reason is mistaken identity. Blanking out the faces until conviction prevents vigilante attacks on innocent lookalikes.

Yep. Innocent until proven guilty, even if they're blatantly guilty.

It's a shame people falsely accused of sexual crimes don't get the same protection.

The high horse brigade

boombang wrote: »

A report in the IT shows a video of a pair of scummers robbing tourists at gun point. The thieves have their faces blurred in the video placed online. Call me old-fashioned, but I think robbing people at gun point should make you liable for having your mug plastered all over the media.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tourists-robbed-at-gunpoint-near-guinness-storehouse-in-dublin-1.4059200

Dialing my predictable outrage down, what's the serious reason for preserving the privacy of these scrotes? Is it because Gardai will have a good idea of who they are and there's no need to risk mistakenly identifying innocent grey tracksuit wearers? Surely there's a good reason rather than modern PC data privacy?

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Gatling

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls ,

This shows exactly what happens when we have a failed judicial system and a failing law enforcement system

boombang

The high horse brigade wrote: »

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Do you know if this would also apply following a successful conviction?

Also, I presume GDPR has not done away with photos being taken of delightful characters leaving court?

Gatling

The high horse brigade wrote: »

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Imagine that some scum bag has more rights to protection than we have to be protected against scum

SEPT 23 1989

It took ten minutes for the first unarmed Gardai to arrive

God help us if there is a terrorist attack in the city centre

The high horse brigade

boombang wrote: »

Do you know if this would also apply following a successful conviction?

Also, I presume GDPR has not done away with photos being taken of delightful characters leaving court?

GDPR only relates to video recording technologies
https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording

Donnielighto

The high horse brigade wrote: »

GDPR only relates to video recording technologies
https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording

A CCTV that take loads of individual pics would be ok or not in that situation?

bossdrum

The high horse brigade wrote:

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

The high horse brigade

Donnielighto wrote: »

A CCTV that take loads of individual pics would be ok or not in that situation?

What? That's exactly what a video is made up of. M-Jpeg is motion Jpeg, ie a series of images that change rapidly

boombang

The high horse brigade wrote: »

What? That's exactly what a video is made up of. M-Jpeg is motion Jpeg, ie a series of images that change rapidly

I think the point is what's the dividing line between multiple still images and video.

boombang

bossdrum wrote: »

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

I presume it might be possible to circulate the images where the scumbags are not already identifiable to the police and the balance of the benefit of public help identifying them outweighs the possible harm of mistaken identity.

The high horse brigade

bossdrum wrote: »

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

Not sure, you'd need to ask the data protection commisioner. Maybe they are seeking permission
https://www.dataprotection.ie/

James Brown

That area is rife with scummers. They hang out in packs by the Lord Edward and over by the SVdeP across from Christ Church.

The eyewitness – Muhammed

Religion of peace my ar... oh wait

Tony EH

Gatling wrote: »

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls

What happens when that "little scrote" is your son, who happens to look a bit like a scumbag caught on CCTV.

is_that_so

Gatling wrote: »

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls ,

This shows exactly what happens when we have a failed judicial system and a failing law enforcement system

Pretty sure there are a few other indictable crimes in this post!

Duane Dibbley

Tony EH wrote: »

What happens when that "little scrote" is your son, who happens to look a bit like a scumbag caught on CCTV.

He’s not talking about a lookalike. He’s talking about the actual scumbags in the cctv.

Tony EH

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

He’s not talking about a lookalike. He’s talking about the actual scumbags in the cctv.

Would you trust a mob to discern between "actual scumbags" and somebody they think is the guy their looking for?

lola85

GDPR is a load of ****.

If it means scumbags are caught then I’m all for dropping GDPR.

meathstevie

Gatling wrote: »

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

Does GDPR provide for anonymity for acts committed in a public place ?

If so I’m afraid journalism is facing a bleak future and may start to read a bit like this; “Today at an unspecified time at an undisclosed location a person made some promises and talked about unspecified past achievements and future events. All relevant information has been omitted just in case the particular individual’s identity may be deducted from it.”

Good luck to you finding out if this was a door to door vacuum cleaner salesman or the Taoiseach announcing the next general election.

Jimbob1977

GDPR should be repealed.

It is a terrible piece of legislation.

It is like the world's biggest wet blanket. Stifling everything.... law enforcement, business, the economy, simple inquiries.

Bob24

Gatling wrote: »

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

I doubt this is the actual reason. News reporting is to a large extend exempt from GDPR, and for obvious reasons there isn’t a blank requirement to always blur all faces when you share CCTV footage (otherwise that footage would become useless).

I’d say GDPR is more an easy excuse to justify decisions based on other motives.

Invisibleman

boombang wrote: »

A report in the IT shows a video of a pair of scummers robbing tourists at gun point. The thieves have their faces blurred in the video placed online. Call me old-fashioned, but I think robbing people at gun point should make you liable for having your mug plastered all over the media.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tourists-robbed-at-gunpoint-near-guinness-storehouse-in-dublin-1.4059200

Dialing my predictable outrage down, what's the serious reason for preserving the privacy of these scrotes? Is it because Gardai will have a good idea of who they are and there's no need to risk mistakenly identifying innocent grey tracksuit wearers? Surely there's a good reason rather than modern PC data privacy?

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

Have they been proven guilty in a court of law ?

Invisibleman

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

GDPR should be repealed.

It is a terrible piece of legislation.

It is like the world's biggest wet blanket. Stifling everything.... law enforcement, business, the economy, simple inquiries.

Yes who cares about privacy eh

whisky_galore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Some people are beyond shame.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Err, yes it does.

The scum is identified and put behind bars where these animals belong. Therefore he will not be in a position to commit future crimes.

It's not complicated.

Seathrun66

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Yep. Innocent until proven guilty, even if they're blatantly guilty.

It's a shame people falsely accused of sexual crimes don't get the same protection.

You just completely ignored my point on mistaken identity and the wrong people getting attacked. Pretty happy you've no role in the criminal justice system.

NasserShammaz

Ah now let's just t wait till judge Martin nolan gets these 2 little scamps into his courtroom.......

Kermit.de.frog

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It took ten minutes for the first unarmed Gardai to arrive

That is absolutely disgraceful but sadly no one is surprised.

Been saying it for years. If the scummers had a brain to spare between them the city could be brought to it's knees in chaos very quickly.

We don't have a proper police force.

Simple as that.

The new commissioner Harris knows it too. He was in charge of an actual police force in the north.


Could you imagine a tourist site like that in London, tourists held at gunpoint, (or any major city in the UK) where the police would take 10 minutes to arrive??? They'd be on it in seconds, not minutes.

We are not deserving of such protection in our capital city seemingly.

lola85

Invisibleman wrote: »

Yes who cares about privacy eh

Exactly.

If you’re doing nothing wrong then who cares.

People can find out what they want about you nowadays no matter what.

joe40

Absolute scum, the guys doing that. I kinda admire the woman for arguing with them, if someone was pointing a gun at me it would be "please take the money"
An incident like that can leave long term effects on mental health

listermint

Gatling wrote: »

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

Gdpr has nothing to do with this. It's public CCTV.

It would have everything to do with ruining any prosecution. And frankly I'm ok with that. Because the guards will definitely know these lads.

And hope they get the book thrown at them. And not get off on technicalities just because it makes an internet rabble all hard.

Invisibleman

joe40 wrote: »

Absolute scum, the guys doing that. I kinda admire the woman for arguing with them, if someone was pointing a gun at me it would be "please take the money"
An incident like that can leave long term effects on mental health

She was stupid, just like Charlie chalk years ago of the goat pub

NasserShammaz

If you want our police farce to turn up these days your need to be either a member of the hutch/ kinihan vermin families or a large multi national that has hired them at a daily rate.

I can only hope these two cockroaches and everyone like them eventually die screaming in agony in a pool of their own piss and vomit alone in a **** street lane crying for the bitch **** mare that spit them out. All junkies and scumbags should be gassed we have reached tipping point in this country and the next generation are worse. The scum at the top and the scum at the bottom are just feeding of all us mugs in the middle

bfa1509

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It's a shame people falsely accused of sexual crimes don't get the same protection.

Like dashcams, the Gardai will soon encourage people to make a video record of all their sexual activity.

The high horse brigade

listermint wrote: »

Gdpr has nothing to do with this. It's public CCTV..

It's still bound by GDPR

boombang

Invisibleman wrote: »

Have they been proven guilty in a court of law ?

I can (just about) see the point of blurring faces before a conviction has been achieved. Based on the footage, I'm pretty sure they will be convicted. Once convicted, I believe it should be open season on that video.

I don't believe criminals deserve any privacy regarding their crimes. Not prejudicing a case is the primary reason I can see why this would be censored.

I think the system is so stacked in favour of the perpetrators rather than victims and the rest of society.

NasserShammaz

bfa1509 wrote: »

Like dashcams, the Gardai will soon encourage people to make a video record of all their sexual activity.

If these lazy bastards had their way they'd have people giving themselves speeding tickets and sit on their areas back at the station making life hard for someone trying to get a ****ing passport from signed. Nancy ****in drew can **** off back north for all the use he's been it didn't take him long to get into retirement mode and realise that here you can just coast till the pension entitlement is secured

theguzman

I'd have gone at them swinging, most likely was a fake gun or if real they'd be too cowardly to pull the trigger. It is a bullet to the head that lowlife needs and nothing less.

stevek93

The real issue here is how dodey DCC has gotten, I have been in it recently and the amount of scumbags knackers and junkies are nearly out numbering normal people it has gotten ridiculous I would be terrified as a tourist.

Sam Quentin

Dublin really is Dangerous.
Here's a 'beautiful' Greenway I will never cycle or walk on.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/shocking-footage-shows-cyclist-repeatedly-17125449

jimmycrackcorm

It's nothing to do with GDPR, but that throwing it all over social media will prejudice any future trial by making it difficult to get an unbiased jury