nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Victor

TomOnBoard wrote: »

How is a social welfare office private property?

Private in the sense of who is allowed access it and do any particular activity there.

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..

Provided for the purpose of providing welfare services, not somewhere where you can take pictures.

Otherwise, you would have people showing up at the mint wanting to print their own money.

bobbyss wrote: »

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?

It's about who has access to that footage. But remember, it is also about protecting clients, who may be revealing personal details.

whippet

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

You didn’t look hard ... there are far to many videos to even start referencing ... take the whole water protesters videos .. generally all they show is the reaction of the guards or Irish water staff ... not the nonsense that sparked the reaction

[Deleted User]

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?

It is there to protect staff. It's not unusual for staff to be threatened. I can imagine some scumbag recording a staff member & putting it on Facebook or YouTube

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote: »

No I mean what law prohibits this? What law says you can not go into a public place and video and record?

It's not a public place. It is an office operated by a public body. Try going for a walk with your dog through the Dept Finance offices at Govt building and see how you get on.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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..

Because it's not a public place, it is a private office operated by a public body. Do you think you can walk around the offices of a Garda station and have a goo at what's happening? Or walk around Revenue's investigations office any time you like. These are private offices.

whippet wrote: »

You didn’t look hard ... there are far to many videos to even start referencing ... take the whole water protesters videos .. generally all they show is the reaction of the guards or Irish water staff ... not the nonsense that sparked the reaction

Does this happen in social protection offices, or in related office scenarios - Revenue, CWOs etc?

bobbyss

Sleeper12 wrote:

It is there to protect staff. It's not unusual for staff to be threatened. I can imagine some scumbag recording a staff member & putting it on Facebook or YouTube

I am not sure if someone can be stopped from posting people on you tube. It may have to do with whether it's there for financial gain or something like that.

I don't quite understand this idea of threatening staff as you would want to be pretty dumb to post a threatening video on YouTube as the proof of the threat is very evident.

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It's not a public place. It is an office operated by a public body. Try going for a walk with your dog through the Dept Finance offices at Govt building and see how you get on.

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department. There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

ohnonotgmail

bobbyss wrote: »

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department.

The key word there is allowed. They do not have a right to enter.

bobbyss wrote: »

There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

CCTV is covered under data protection. joe bloggs with his phone isn't concerned about data protection. The simple fact that it is their property and they make the rules about who can enter and what you can do while inside. The same as any business premises.

whippet

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this happen in social protection offices, or in related office scenarios - Revenue, CWOs etc?

i'm sure there are plenty of people who try.

Sure just today I saw video on another thread of some tool trying to record a rant at a clerk in a bank branch ... he was trying to goad the clerk in to accepting his nonsensical argument that he didn't have to pay back his two mortgages for some mental legal reason he made up. The clerk just pulled down the curtain at the desk and ignored him .. but of course his clown followers took that to mean they he was right and he gets a couple of free houses.

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote: »

Aren't members of the public allowed to enter government departments? I may have lawful business to conduct, not necessarily in the private offices, but the publically accessible parts of any department. There may be cameras already there at any rate so I don't see why a member of the public can not make their own recording for their own use.

Some offices are indeed open to the public, but not all. That doesn't create any entitlement to public access.

I can see how staff would have concerns about this. Low-paid front-of-house staff aren't official spokespersons. They're not really paid enough to end up on YouTube, breaching their personal privacy.

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote:

I am not sure if someone can be stopped from posting people on you tube. It may have to do with whether it's there for financial gain or something like that.

They can't but they can be stopped from recording in the dole office

bobbyss wrote:

I don't quite understand this idea of threatening staff as you would want to be pretty dumb to post a threatening video on YouTube as the proof of the threat is very evident.

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

Vetch

Staff are entitled to dignity and respect at work, but also, depending on the layout of offices, someone recording could record the personal business of another social welfare client.

cobhguy28

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

Its not their office, Its belongs to the state, Just because someone ones works in a place, it does not give them a right to make policy's about what their customers can do, only the department can do this.

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some offices are indeed open to the public, but not all. That doesn't create any entitlement to public access.

I can see how staff would have concerns about this. Low-paid front-of-house staff aren't official spokespersons. They're not really paid enough to end up on YouTube, breaching their personal privacy.

I am not really talking about threatening anyone at all, just going about my business. I could be a journalist for example wanting to get footage for a story.

If someone goes into, for example, the foyer of a public building (where they are legally entitled to be) and starts videoing something for their own purposes or asks questions of the person at the desk, then that person is acting as a public servant doing what he or she is obliged to do (and getting paid to do that) and I would not think they are entitled to privacy at all as they are not in a private place. They are in a public building.

uck51js9zml2yt

Members of staff are entitled to go about their normal work without being intruded upon by some idiot with a camera phone who then posts their image without their consent on the web.
It breaches their privacy and it's something an employer is required to protect and rightly so.
Anyone who can't see that...well...I'd be carded if I said what I thought:)

Victor

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Its not their office

"They" is referring to the Department.

cobhguy28

The main reason is that the don't want you having proof that they have given you false/incorrect information.

whippet

bobbyss wrote: »

I am not really talking about threatening anyone at all, just going about my business. I could be a journalist for example wanting to get footage for a story.

If someone goes into, for example, the foyer of a public building (where they are legally entitled to be) and starts videoing something for their own purposes or asks questions of the person at the desk, then that person is acting as a public servant doing what he or she is obliged to do (and getting paid to do that) and I would not think they are entitled to privacy at all as they are not in a private place. They are in a public building.

your making a lot of incorrect assumptions here!!

cobhguy28

Victor wrote: »

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Its not their office

"They" is referring to the Department.

Yes but that is the Issue. Is it a department policy, which I could understand or is it an local
office policy which they have no right to enforce.

c.p.w.g.w

Surely if its just a audio recording it's not going to give away your identity.

I have been screwed around by the Dole for the brief time i was on it, i was lied to by a couple of officers. Lead to missing out 6 weeks of payment, while i was struggling to find work. If i had been able to prove what i was told, i could have probably got my payments back dated

cobhguy28

Completely different issues, recording interacting for personal documentary purpose should be allowed, its the same as keeping detailed notes, there should be no issue, filming for publishing purpose like putting on you tube is a completely different thing.

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote:

I am not really talking about threatening anyone at all, just going about my business. I could be a journalist for example wanting to get footage for a story.

It's the rule not to record though. It's the same in post offices Garda stations and I'm sure dozens of other places.

Apart from the staff being entitled to their protection what about the people using the office. They are entitled to their dignity. If I'm ever unlucky enough to be on the dole I'd hate the thoughts of someone recording me giving personal information over the counter. I'm not a violent person but I could see myself smashing someone's phone off the ground for trying to record me at a low point in my life.

TomOnBoard

There's some serious sense of entitlement and protection being shown here for/on behalf of those working in the offices, with very little understanding of clients' rights being shown. These ppl who work on the front line are public servants. No client has the right to abuse or intimidate such officials. By the same token, no official has the right to deny a client's right to fair process, including facilitating the client's complete understanding of the nuances of the business that is being verbally conducted. Any client who feels the need to maintain a complete record of their interaction with any official with whom they come into contact should be enabled by the public service organisation rather than having his record keeping tools prohibited and his right obstructed.

In times past, such record keeping relied on skilled note-taking. Nowadays, a more accurate record is capable of being maintained by an audio recording of the interaction. Public offices do this all the time on telephone transactions, and a client must agree to being recorded if they wish to conduct business using the telephone. I fail to see why officials should have an objection to using such recordings during face to face meetings, assuming that they are being properly conducted.

Of course, while a client's right should be facilitated, that should not interfere with any other client's right to their privacy. Because of this, I would be happy to have recordings limited to use of audio alone, as video recording can more easily invade another client's rights.

bobbyss

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote:

Members of staff are entitled to go about their normal work without being intruded upon by some idiot with a camera phone who then posts their image without their consent on the web. It breaches their privacy and it's something an employer is required to protect and rightly so. Anyone who can't see that...well...I'd be carded if I said what I thought

But why would you call a journalist with a camera going about his job an 'idiot'?
(I am not a journalist. I am simply putting the case.)

Couldn't a member of the public, By the same token, argue that they feel intruded by the cctv inside buildings too?

I don't think consent is needed to post on you tube. I am not sure, but I don't think so.

Yawns

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Surely if its just a audio recording it's not going to give away your identity.

I have been screwed around by the Dole for the brief time i was on it, i was lied to by a couple of officers. Lead to missing out 6 weeks of payment, while i was struggling to find work. If i had been able to prove what i was told, i could have probably got my payments back dated

If it's audio recording, you can't 100% prove who it was.

Video recording, you would be recording biometric data ( facial recognition ).

Both sets of data would now be covered under Data regulation. What are you recording it for, what purpose to you intend to use it, how are you keeping it safe, how long will you keep it etc.

The way you should have gone about your business at the time was to go in, speak with the clerk / officer and then ask for it all in writing on headed paper, handwritten signature, typed name and office stamp. It's a pita for the clerk but they will / should do it. Both parties get what they want. You get traceable info and they have privacy from a baying mob as you won't be able to edit the data or if you did somehow, they will have a record having made a copy.

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote: »

There's some serious sense of entitlement and protection being shown here for/on behalf of those working in the offices, with very little understanding of clients' rights being shown. These ppl who work on the front line are public servants. No client has the right to abuse or intimidate such officials. By the same token, no official has the right to deny a client's right to fair process, including facilitating the client's complete understanding of the nuances of the business that is being verbally conducted. Any client who feels the need to maintain a complete record of their interaction with any official with whom they come into contact should be enabled by the public service organisation rather than having his record keeping tools prohibited and his right obstructed.

In times past, such record keeping relied on skilled note-taking. Nowadays, a more accurate record is capable of being maintained by an audio recording of the interaction. Public offices do this all the time on telephone transactions, and a client must agree to being recorded if they wish to conduct business using the telephone. I fail to see why officials should have an objection to using such recordings during face to face meetings, assuming that they are being properly conducted.

Of course, while a client's right should be facilitated, that should not interfere with any other client's right to their privacy. Because of this, I would be happy to have recordings limited to use of audio alone, as video recording can more easily invade another client's rights.

Would you be happy to have audio-recordings of all your workplace dealings with 3rd parties to be available on mobile phones out in the world?

Turtwig

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Completely different issues, recording interacting for personal documentary purpose should be allowed, its the same as keeping detailed notes, there should be no issue, filming for publishing purpose like putting on you tube is a completely different thing.

Any recording should only be allowed if prior consent from the office is sought. It's not hard to ask in advance and most of the time if the reason is fair and justifiable you'll be allowed.

cobhguy28

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Surely if its just a audio recording it's not going to give away your identity.

I have been screwed around by the Dole for the brief time i was on it, i was lied to by a couple of officers. Lead to missing out 6 weeks of payment, while i was struggling to find work. If i had been able to prove what i was told, i could have probably got my payments back dated

Same thing happen a person I was advocating for. Told by clerk, that the person must of heard wrong and it was their fault for the delay and it could not be backdated, appeals officer said say thing denied. Supervisor said same thing. I pointed out how they must not know their own rules and procedures as a claim can be backed dated under their own rules and how the person fitted the exception. Then I told them if they denied this were committing fraud "
6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence."

Like magic, A few days later all money backdated but no letter or communication telling them why.

c.p.w.g.w

Yawns wrote: »

If it's audio recording, you can't 100% prove who it was.

Video recording, you would be recording biometric data ( facial recognition ).

Both sets of data would now be covered under Data regulation. What are you recording it for, what purpose to you intend to use it, how are you keeping it safe, how long will you keep it etc.

The way you should have gone about your business at the time was to go in, speak with the clerk / officer and then ask for it all in writing on headed paper, handwritten signature, typed name and office stamp. It's a pita for the clerk but they will / should do it. Both parties get what they want. You get traceable info and they have privacy from a baying mob as you won't be able to edit the data or if you did somehow, they will have a record having made a copy.

Certainly not a baying mob, but being deliberately lied to or given the incorrect information. Put me out of pocket, when i raised i was misinformed, was told i was not and i was lying. If i'd had a recording i could have proved myself as being truthful.

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote:

There's some serious sense of entitlement and protection being shown here for/on behalf of those working in the offices, with very little understanding of clients' rights being shown. These ppl who work on the front line are public servants. No client has the right to abuse or intimidate such officials. By the same token, no official has the right to deny a client's right to fair process, including facilitating the client's complete understanding of the nuances of the business that is being verbally conducted. Any client who feels the need to maintain a complete record of their interaction with any official with whom they come into contact should be enabled by the public service organisation rather than having his record keeping tools prohibited and his right obstructed.

The reason you can't record in the dole office is the same reason you can't record in a police station. It's not the staff. The rule protects the privacy of the unfortunates using the dole office or people giving personal details in the police station.

bobbyss

Sleeper12 wrote:

The reason you can't record in the dole office is the same reason you can't record in a police station. It's not the staff. The rule protects the privacy of the unfortunates using the dole office or people giving personal details in the police station.

Which rule specifically are you referring to?