If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

Power gone to the head of Minister for Justice

  • 04-05-2022 12:36am
    Registered Users Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭ Markus Antonius

    Has anyone noticed the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee pushing the boundaries further and further when it comes to trivialising people's privacy? And it's purely to boost her profile too which is the worst thing - taking a hardline approach, a "you have nothing fear if you have nothing to hide" approach to bolster her tough female politician image.

    There have been more than a few instances in the past few months including this recent one of entering a europe-wide deal to share facial recognition data of those "suspected of committing a crime", not just criminals but even those simply suspected of doing so, which more or less could be anyone:

    But one that really sent shivers down my spine was an interview of Helen McEntee about two weeks ago when speaking about giving more powers to Gardai. She said "people's right to privacy is not as important as detecting crime"

    There are very few lines that could have come out of her mouth that would be more sinister than this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,546 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool

    Do tell and explain the more sinister lines that were said. Implying them does not make for good discussion.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭ mikethecop

    I don't think it would be a bad thing to say people's right to privicy is less important that preventing crime certinally.

    A peados right to privacy definitely comes second to his right to stalk children on line or download child porn.

    I do agree though that mcentee is way out of her depth as minister for justice and is comming out with some very stupid ideas with litte compression of the effects .

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,046 ✭✭✭ NSAman

    Gdpr? If you can’t use video cameras outside your own property or publish that footage without breaking GDPR… how is this different? Sorry facial recognition is a disgusting intrusion into non-criminal peoples lives!

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭ cuttingtimber22

    I am not quite sure I would make this about the Justice Minister herself.

    But I think that a discussion on the broad issue of privacy is one that we should be having.

    • how far should facial recognition software go? Do we want community rating e.g. to ban people from public transport?
    • should an employer have access to someone’s search history? As mentioned above something may not be illegal but someone may make a moral judgementS
    • should a health insurer have access to your shopping activities to determine alcohol consumption? Note that banks categorise spending and sell this data on.
    • should a semi state company (an post) sell data on its customers?

    Checks and balances are critical especially in this country where the vast majority of people cannot afford to use the court system.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭ Fandymo

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,638 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump

    No point complaining now OP.

    Sure George Soros and Bill Gates can already track you and read your mind using the magnets and chips they put into you with the so-called covid vaccine

  • agree that generally this govt hasnt done much to merit trust with erosion of privacy

    seeing a shinner raise it as if butter wouldn't melt is enough to make one shudder all the same

  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭ Absolute Zero

    She's an odd ball alright. She broadcasts on Twitter that she made a TikTok account.

    Does she even know TikTok is CCP owned and a data collection app? Very strange for a justice minister to be supporting the same regimen that also is allies with the Russians and dare I say helping to fund and supply their war in Ukraine.

    Would she happen to be using her work mobile phone as well to record her videos. I honestly thought that if you were in her position you would know better such a shame, playpus ☹️

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,718 ✭✭✭✭ jmayo

    Two people go for a job as minister of justice.

    Person A has following credentials:

    Studied economics, politics, and law at Dublin City University (DCU) for three before graduating in 2007.

    After graduating worked for a subsidiary of Citibank.

    Returned in 2010, to complete a Masters in Journalism and Media Communications at Griffith College. (private, third level higher education college)

    Then was assistant to their TD father for two years.

    Then stood in by election caused by father's death and won seat in 2013.

    Won seat in next general election 2016 and given role of Minister of State for Mental Health and Older People.

    A year later, 2017, was given role as Minister of State for European Affairs (and was part of Brexit team).

    Was elected as Vice-President of the European People's Party (EPP) in Nov 2019.

    Person B has following credentials:

    Has a BCL Law degree from UCD.

    Has a master's degree in law and an M.Phil. in criminology from Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge University.

    Sidney college for anyone that doesn't know is one of the Cambridge colleges, ranked half way.

    Has 4th highest ranking for Nobel prizes won by Cambridge alumni.

    Has a barrister-at-law degree from the King's Inns.

    In 2000 represented a taoiseach in defamation proceedings appearing with two future attorney generals.

    Was made a senior counsel in 2008.

    Represented many high-profile clients in defamation cases and was involved in two of Ireland's largest commercial court disputes.

    Served as legal advisor to major political party for 5 years.

    Was elected as Dublin city councilor.

    Was elected to Dail in 2016 and made opposition Spokesperson for Justice and Equality, even drafting legislation that was passed by the Oireachtas and became an Act.

    In 2020 was re-elected to Dail.

    Leave out parties, leave out sexes and just look at CV.

    Which person in 2020 was more suitable to be minister for justice?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭ mikethecop

    SO how do you isolate the people whos privacy doesn't matter from those who do ?

    Online activity ranges from child porn to fraudsters to large and small scale drug dealing money laundering on an industrial scale with revolute all the way down to phone snatches . technology a part of the modern world and thus a part of the criminal world too.

    the process to access information on a simple on line fraud scam is incredibly complex in both time and and money with warrants needed to access even the victims information because the banks dont want to cooperate. It could take months to investigate and trace information on something like two kids threatening each other on snapchat or similar only to be told that those companies dont recognize a warrant o court order from Irish courts . Making that easier faster and less impossible isnt a bad think.

    Again i dont think she is capable of doing the job and is doing as she is told by her staff and higher ups to garner populist support.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭ Markus Antonius

    How you isolate people whos privacy does and doesn't matter is not 90+% of the generally law abiding population's problem.

    But McEntee clearly feels it's worth dismissing the privacy of all to dispense justice to the few

  • Registered Users Posts: 36,053 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles

    Attractive young lady in a position of power.

    Incel Catnip.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭ mikethecop

    so at the end of the day , those crimes that could be prevented and prosecuted using the laws and procedures in question will go undetected and unpunished and the victims continue to be victimized.

    total privacy comes with a price , you just have to be wiling to pay that price

    I would say realistically its more like 99 percent of people who's information would never be accessed.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭ Fandymo

    People seem to be willing to pay that price. I know I am.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭ Markus Antonius

    I am too. All this talk of criminals getting off scott free is just fearmongering for people to surrender their privacy. Most people willfully surrender their rights/privacy anyway through ignorance of the law.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 69,910 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

    Why would you need facial recognition software to implement a community rating for busses? Bus passes can already be made to be uniquely identified passengers if necessary.

    Some shops already have "community ratings" they plaster bad cheques and photos of bad people from their CCTV to keep out.

    I don't think employers need to know your search history and the type of data brokering should be barred from hiring practices by law.

    Health Insurance data broker access sounds like a whole thread in and of itself. Insurance companies need to have the banal ability to investigate potential fraud.

    If a state entity for a necessary service sold citizen data to 3rd parties as a product or service I would revolt. That's separate from Freedom of Information requests.