Garda getting body cams

Kermit.de.frog

I see the Irish Council for Civil Liberties are moaning this morning about the role out of body cams for gardai.

I think it's great they are getting the cameras.

It will be evidence in cases of the type of scum that needs dealing with on a daily basis but also will help bring more professionalism to the force.

They have had great impact in the United States and some forces in GB that use them.

In the US officers are routinely fired if they in any way try to tamper with the process of recording or inhibit recording.

The cameras record audio and visual 100% of the time.

I think this a real step forward for the Garda and justice system.

The mind boggles how anyone could be against it.

Really welcome.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/10/31/bodycams-for-gardai-could-infringe-rights-warns-iccl/

See here.

Most cameras can be switched on and off at an officer’s discretion, Ms Ansbro said, adding that “the assumption is that all police officers are honest”.

This one from the ICCL claims officers can turn off cameras at will. They can not. That is a lie. For example it is illegal in the US to tamper with the functioning of the camera (i.e by covering it during a traffic stop). Hence as I have said police officers have been fired for doing so.

And the rest of it - "have a 'chilling effect' on right to protest" - why? Unless protesters are knowingly breaking the law why would they care?

Such cameras were first used in the US where their introduction was aimed at reducing instances of police brutality and racially-charged violence.

However, that context is far removed from the Irish one, where the vast majority of police officers are unarmed, according to Doireann Ansbro, senior research and policy officer with the ICCL.

Even more reason they should have the cameras to aid in their own protection against violence/prosecution.

“They’re at close range with audio as well, and it has the potential to affect people’s behaviour, dictating where they go,”

And!?!

“There appears to be a lot of misinformation out there,” Ms Ansbro told the Irish Examiner.

The only misinformation is coming from you.

Boggles

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This one from the ICCL claims officers can turn off cameras at will. They can not. That is a lie. For example it is illegal in the US to tamper with the functioning of the camera (i.e by covering it during a traffic stop). Hence as I have said police officers have been fired for doing so.

Police in the US certainly have discretion of when to activate the camera or not, it's guidelines though not federal law AFAIK.

I have never heard of a police officer been fired for not activating their camera or switching it off for that sole violation.

I do remember reading about a case where a police officer killed someone, the camera wasn't on and he received a suspended day as sanction.

So what you quoted is certainly partly true in the states.

Personally I think they are a good idea, but it would be naive to think it would go strictly by the book in terms of our police force. The trust simply isn't there IMO.

Idbatterim

Great idea. Scum starting to record after action has to be taken , making the guards look like the bad guys is laughable! Far too many scum in this country , bring them in !

JohnnyFlash

The ICCL is a very silly organisation.

The high horse brigade

Great idea but watch this get kicked into touch very quickly

blanch152

This is a very good idea.

I know personally of a few Gardai who have been unfairly villified in edited videos online.

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a very good idea.

I know personally of a few Gardai who have been unfairly villified in edited videos online.

It's not just for Gardaí it's for the public too.

It actually might save us a few quid.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-awarded-1-1m-for-wrongful-arrest-by-garda%C3%AD-over-attack-on-fiancee-1.3970801

weldoninhio

Some goon from the ICCL was just on Adrian Kennedy there. Absolute mouth breather. Doesn't want to be filmed walking down the street apparently. Must not have heard of CCTV.

TheValeyard

It's a great idea. Protects everyone involved. Maybe judges will finally see exactly what these little scrotes with 123 convictions in front of them are really like!

Irishphotodesk

weldoninhio wrote: »

Some goon from the ICCL was just on Adrian Kennedy there. Absolute mouth breather. Doesn't want to be filmed walking down the street apparently. Must not have heard of CCTV.

Someone should ask the council for civil liberties if any of them have a Facebook account or use Google or possess a smart phone ... The amount of information those companies are receiving from individuals is more important that gardai requiring personal CCTV body cams.

I have had discussions with the office of data protection about possible usage of a body cam in my work and was told it would require an assessment, they suggested I would turn on the cam when things escalated, I responded by that stage I would possibly have been assaulted.

I will be purchasing 2 body cams, 1 forward and 1 facing behind me.... If anyone has any complaints I will explain its a health and safety issue and if they want to complain to the office of data protection ... I'm happy to goto court and let the courts decide.

Oasis1974

Just be showing all the guards down the pervebile donut shop really won't it.

gardai have been calling for this for years, particularly since cameras on mobile phones came into widespread use.
It is too easy for someone to video Gardai on the street & edit the video however they want to.
It protects Gardai, It also protects the general public.
I will say however, that I doubt very much these cameras will be on all the time. Makes no sense to record the ordinary day to day Garda walking around , chatting, doing whatever. Which, itself raises the question as to when do they get turned on?
that will have to be dealt with first.
but, a very welcome development

riffmongous

Should be a great idea for everyone's benefit but would I trust the Gardai with them.... Not so sure anymore.

BPKS

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The ICCL is a very silly organisation.

Who funds these do-gooders?

all the bais

Will be refreshing to see from the Garda's POV in the next Carla4garda installment

riffmongous

BPKS wrote: »

Who funds these do-gooders?

That's probably one of the stupidest things I've read here. People who keep an eye on civil liberties are the bad guys?

gifted

After all the issues with the gardai and penalty points issues and missing commissioners mobile phones I would have doubts as to whether gardaI would be....selective....as to when they use these body cameras.....

Oasis1974

Should be Tazers or Guns next think the guards would prefer them over Cams any day.

riffmongous

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/10/31/bodycams-for-gardai-could-infringe-rights-warns-iccl/

See here.



This one from the ICCL claims officers can turn off cameras at will. They can not. That is a lie. For example it is illegal in the US to tamper with the functioning of the camera (i.e by covering it during a traffic stop). Hence as I have said police officers have been fired for doing so.

And the rest of it - "have a 'chilling effect' on right to protest" - why? Unless protesters are knowingly breaking the law why would they care?



Even more reason they should have the cameras to aid in their own protection against violence/prosecution.



And!?!



The only misinformation is coming from you.

How is it a lie? What's the rule on it here? Referencing the US means f'all, it's not some universal law

Gatling

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Should be Tazers or Guns next think the guards would prefer them over Cams any day.

It will happen eventually

Oasis1974

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Should be Tazers or Guns next think the guards would prefer them over Cams any day.

i wouldn't think so, most gardai do their job professionally & well. The body cameras will show that.
I do agree tazers should be general issue, however they are classed as firearms in this country, so it won't happen so long as that is the case.
I wouldn't think most gardai would want to carry firearams though.

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

however they are classed as firearms in this country, so it won't happen so long as that is the case.

Wouldn't prevent them from being issued to gardai once a training program had being completed

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Wouldn't prevent them from being issued to gardai once a training program had being completed

some gardai do carry tazers, but they are gardai who carry firearms.
uniformed members cannot carry firearms.

James Brown

The Garda won't like being watched.

I wonder will the "If you're doing nothing wrong what's the problem?" line be rolled out? ...I doubt it.

mountai

Sooner the better . Also should have ID cards and most importantly a full DNA bank for everyone .

James Brown

mountai wrote: »

Sooner the better . Also should have ID cards and most importantly a full DNA bank for everyone .

Nope. Trouble with DNA is insurance companies treating people differently for example. Info being sold etc. Do we trust our DNA info to the Garda/Pulse system? They can't organise breath tests.

4068ac1elhodqr

Can't see any issues with this in terms of privacy if simply for recording to device only
I.e. for future (secure, hard-line) main storage and retrieval (if and when) an internal request is made to access this, for a valid reason.

However, with the incoming 5G and live FRS ai-systems - it means there would be much higher implications upon privacy, even risks of stalking or harassement.
Typical Facial Recon Systems can scan 200 heads (per second), this data would likely be held on some (live, on-line) national dbase with a variety of multi-access points.

_Kaiser_

bubblypop wrote: »

i wouldn't think so, most gardai do their job professionally & well. The body cameras will show that.

So long as they cannot be turned off or tampered with, I think the biggest benefits here are to protect them from spurious allegations.. BUT ALSO to protect the public from some of the stuff we've seen reported all too often.

Most Gardai seem to do the minimum in my experience. The entire force needs restructuring and reform which in fairness to the new Commissioner, he seems to be trying to do.

I do agree tazers should be general issue, however they are classed as firearms in this country, so it won't happen so long as that is the case.
I wouldn't think most gardai would want to carry firearams though.

Until the general level of professionalism rises in the force I wouldn't trust the rank and file with firearms

BPKS

riffmongous wrote: »

That's probably one of the stupidest things I've read here. People who keep an eye on civil liberties are the bad guys?

Did I say they were "bad guys"? I'm still not sure who fund the ICCL.

alchemist33

Genuine question - would these be always-on during a shift e.g. when they go to a loo or are just chatting while driving around?

Kermit.de.frog

Boggles wrote: »

Police in the US certainly have discretion of when to activate the camera or not, it's guidelines though not federal law AFAIK.

I have never heard of a police officer been fired for not activating their camera or switching it off for that sole violation.

It does happen.

This officer was fired for blocking the mic while having stopped an old friend (@ 1:00). Disabling audio first reason for dismissal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fg7DM8-GOI

Now i'm not aware of the actual laws state or federal surrounding it but they are not allowed to inhibit the filming.

4068ac1elhodqr

mountai wrote: »

Sooner the better . Also should have ID cards and most importantly a full DNA bank for everyone .

DNA is a bit much, ID (photo) cards certainly.

One reason folks are in trucks and rowing boats from mainland EU to britian is their lack of requirements for photoID to be carried at all times. E.g. If you are an illegal migrant you'd have an easier time there than in France if working illegally in nailbars of carwashes, just say your name is Jim-Billy-Joe-John or somesuch if asked.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. Trouble with DNA is insurance companies treating people differently for example. Info being sold etc.

Private sector organisations. I don't trust them with my personal information.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do we trust our DNA info to the Garda/Pulse system? They can't organise breath tests.

Yes, criminals can be quickly identified with DNA. That is a benefit to the public that outweighs the privacy issues.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Most Gardai seem to do the minimum in my experience. The entire force needs restructuring and reform which in fairness to the new Commissioner, he seems to be trying to do.

Until the general level of professionalism rises in the force I wouldn't trust the rank and file with firearms

we will have to disagree on most of this.
you do realise there are thousands of 'rank and file' gardai who carry firarms?

Always Tired

If there were body cams on the gardai there would be a lot more cops being exposed for abuse then there would be 'scrotes', trust me.

There are still plenty of barracks around the country that have no CCTV in them, and the gardai are known to take full advantage of that when they want to.

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

uniformed members cannot carry firearms.

That's easily changed all it takes is a training and certification course and every guard could be issued a razer .

It's quite simple

suicide_circus

if they can be switched on and off at will then they certainly lose some credibility

Duane Dibbley

Excellent idea if they cant be turned off.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

That's easily changed all it takes is a training and certification course and every guard could be issued a razer .

It's quite simple

presuming you mean tazer- yes all members could be trained & issued with a tazer so long as they do away with the unarmed part of AGS, and i don't think there is an appetite to turn AGS into an armed force.

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

if they can be switched on and off at will then they certainly lose some credibility

I'm sure we will be told privacy comes into it ,

There wouldn't be a need to record every on duty guard 24/7

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

presuming you mean tazer- yes all members could be trained & issued with a tazer .

They wouldn't have to get rid of the unarmed forces just give them the tools to defend themselves and others ,

We've over 2500 officers carrying firearms daily

SchrodingersCat

I suspect that the argument that Gardai should wear cameras just to combat Gardai brutality/corruption is naive. These cameras will be used more for finding evidence against the people that they are pointed at: i.e. me and you, the citizens. Worse, these cameras are operated by the Gardai. It is easy to imagine a Garda "forgetting to charge the camera" before heading out on an an arrest or to a protest, for example. This selective evidence gathering by the Gardai means that evidence will weigh more against the citizens.

I can see why governments would push for these cameras. We currently have CCTV on street corners. With Garda cams we will have more even closer to the people pointing at them and now being able to record audio too. With technological developments like facial and voice recognition this could become a big issue for civil liberties.

There are pros and cons to the Gardai wearing cameras. Its a good topic for us to debate. Personally, I am starting to think that the cons to society outweigh the pros having previously held the opposite view.

BarryD2

suicide_circus wrote: »

if they can be switched on and off at will then they certainly lose some credibility

Agree, heard the Garda rep on earlier suggesting they'd choose when to activate the cameras 'according to protocol'. Think these are essential nowadays, protocols are obviously needed as no point in personal recordings of normal station routine jobs. But anytime the Garda leaves the station on duty, they should be obliged to activate them.

As for the ICCL people on RTE earlier, they were for the birds and speaking well outside their remit, when pontificating on value.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

They wouldn't have to get rid of the unarmed forces just give them the tools to defend themselves and others ,

We've over 2500 officers carrying firearms daily

Tazers are firearms in this country, therefore the only way to allow uniformed members to carry them is;
1. allow AGS to become an armed force
2. change the legislation, so that Tazers are not defined as firearms.

there are already members qualified to carry tazers, members who carry firearms

Kermit.de.frog

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

I suspect that the argument that Gardai should wear cameras just to combat Gardai brutality/corruption is naive. These cameras will be used more for finding evidence against the people that they are pointed at: i.e. me and you, the citizens. Worse, these cameras are operated by the Gardai. It is easy to imagine a Garda "forgetting to charge the camera" before heading out on an an arrest or to a protest, for example. This selective evidence gathering by the Gardai means that evidence will weigh more against the citizens.

It's very simple. The cameras have to be on while gardai are on patrol.

That can presumably be simply legislated for as i'm sure it will be.

Everyone can see if a garda didn't turn on a camera or inhibited filming intentionally. Garda then disciplined or dismissed.

I don't see why people have to make up every facile argument under the sun to stop progress like this that is clearly in everyones interests.

Berserker

weldoninhio wrote: »

Some goon from the ICCL was just on Adrian Kennedy there. Absolute mouth breather. Doesn't want to be filmed walking down the street apparently. Must not have heard of CCTV.

Must never leave their house if that is the case.

riffmongous wrote: »

Should be a great idea for everyone's benefit but would I trust the Gardai with them.... Not so sure anymore.

Why would you not trust them?

Gatling wrote: »

They wouldn't have to get rid of the unarmed forces just give them the tools to defend themselves and others ,

We've over 2500 officers carrying firearms daily

Is that true? Apart from the ARU & special branch, who else carries a firearm?

seamus

I am a bit bemused at the ICCL's reaction here.

Certainly if it was just Gardai wandering around holding a camera all day and that's it, then there's an issue.

There are several key elements that need to be in place in order to get the correct balance. The ICCL raised as a concern the fact that there is no international standard in this regard. That's valid.

But rather than say, "Hold on, let's agree on how these cameras are supposed to function and how to safeguard personal rights", they've gone for a blanket, "No, shouldn't be done".

Their objections to them are incredibly flimsy;

- The fact they've worked well in other countries is no evidence that they'll work well in Ireland. Um...
- "a person may decide not to take part in a protest if they know Gardaí will be wearing the technology, or they may restrict what they say or with whom they associate for fear of being recorded." Oh no, people might actually have to control their behaviour in public.

It's really weird. I would have assumed that the ICCL would be all on for introducing some level of accountability on the day-to-day work of Gardai, but instead they've gone with the narrative that body cams constitute mass surveillance.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

I suspect that the argument that Gardai should wear cameras just to combat Gardai brutality/corruption is naive. These cameras will be used more for finding evidence against the people that they are pointed at: i.e. me and you, the citizens. Worse, these cameras are operated by the Gardai. It is easy to imagine a Garda "forgetting to charge the camera" before heading out on an an arrest or to a protest, for example. This selective evidence gathering by the Gardai means that evidence will weigh more against the citizens.

This is not generally how they work. Or at least how they should work. A garda takes a camera at the start of their shift from a pool. The camera is charged, the details of who took which camera are logged. The camera remains on for the duration of the shift, and is checked back in at the end. It is plugged into the system, the data is downloaded to a secure system.

The Garda does not at any time have access to modify the data on the camera, to start or stop the camera, and the footage can only be reviewed through a central system where all accesses are logged. In the central system, video cannot be edited except to extract timestamped excerpts for evidentiary purposes. An individual charged with a crime has the right to obtain all relevant footage for use in court.

That's how it should work. As I say above, the ICCL has a valid concern that there is no international best practice. But that doesn't mean we can't create one.

The ICCL is also concerned that footage that favours the defendent will be "lost", but seem to have missed the fact that this has the effect of damaging the prosecution's case. "Oh the camera got damaged" or, "There was a malfunction" is looked upon dimly by courts and juries and usually works in the defendent's favour.

Kermit.de.frog

seamus wrote: »

I am a bit bemused at the ICCL's reaction here.

Certainly if it was just Gardai wandering around holding a camera all day and that's it, then there's an issue.

They don't hold it. It will be attached to the front of their uniform.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's very simple. The cameras have to be on while gardai are on patrol.

That can presumably be simply legislated for as i'm sure it will be.

Everyone can see if a garda didn't turn on a camera or inhibited filming intentionally. Garda then disciplined or dismissed.

I don't see why people have to make up every facile argument under the sun to stop progress like this that is clearly in everyones interests.

that won't happen Im afraid.
firstly, the guard is entitled to some privacy. how about toilet breaks etc?
or private conversations between colleagues?
there will have to be protocols put in place about when and where the cameras should be turned on.

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

1. allow AGS to become an armed force
2. change the legislation, so that Tazers are not defined as firearms.

No not true and they don't need to change any legislation( what reason )