Recording not allowed in Welfare Offices

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

....and get broken by the floor waxer...

bobbyss wrote: »

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

What is the difference Bobbys?

uck51js9zml2yt

bobbyss wrote: »

You certainly have rights to privacy.
But when you are in a public accessible place you have no expectation of privacy. Just like someone could take your photo if you were walking down the street.

It's a place of work, not s public street.
I'm entitled to have my privacy protected when I'm in work.

splinter65 wrote: »

What is the difference Bobbys?

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong as I may be, is that a public building like for example the National Museum or any Department is owned by the state.

pubs are not owned by the state. They are privately owned. I would need permission from the owner to record stuff inside a pub because of that fact.

RayCun

bobbyss wrote: »

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong as I may be, is that a public building like for example the National Museum or any Department is owned by the state.

And the state is not allowed set any rules on who may enter buildings it owns, and what may be done in them?

some real strange interpretations of what public money being spent on something means, nothing new there.

tell ye what lads, off ye go and hop into a garda car and take it for a spin.

yknow, ye bought it with all yere taxes. thats how it works eh.

let us know how it goes

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote:

It's a place of work, not s public street. I'm entitled to have my privacy protected when I'm in work.

Totally agree with you. Doesn't your employer have a duty of care to protect you?

On another note there are lots of places where you can't record. No photos in post office, Garda station, dole office, schools at certain times, gyms and not just the changing rooms. Here's one recording children you don't know on a public beach or park. You can be arrested for that. I'd love to hear someone tell the judge that it's a public place & you have a right

A person's right to record can't overrule another person's rights. A business has a right to make a no recording rule, I can't imagine a restaurant letting you record people dining. The business has the right to refuse overrules a person's right to record

RayCun wrote: »

And the state is not allowed set any rules on who may enter buildings it owns, and what may be done in them?

I don't know the answer to your question.

I don't know what laws there are that govern recording in public buildings.

RayCun

bobbyss wrote: »

I don't know what laws there are that govern recording in public buildings.

You appreciate that a public building can set opening hours, for example, or say that only certain people can go into certain areas?

And that there are other things you can do out on the public street, or in a public park, that you can't do inside some public buildings, at least some of the time?

bobbyss wrote:

I don't know the answer to your question.

bobbyss wrote:

I don't know what laws there are that govern recording in public buildings.

The answer is they are allowed to refuse admission just like a private business & they can & do bring in rules of no recording

Imani Abundant Alternator wrote: »

It's a place of work, not s public street.
I'm entitled to have my privacy protected when I'm in work.

A fair point but it underlines how complex this is. What about if your place of work is the street?

If I record stuff in a street and I capture a Garda in the course of his work, where does that leave us?

bobbyss wrote: »

A fair point but it underlines how complex this is. What about if your place of work is the street?

If I record stuff in a street and I capture a Garda in the course of his work, where does that leave us?

on dicey effin ground mate

whippet

bobbyss wrote: »

I don't know the answer to your question.

I don't know what laws there are that govern recording in public buildings.

herein lies your problem … and then you have the people who unless it is categorically written in to the constitution its all fair game.

GrumpyMe

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

I've edited my post to include all of your post and I'm glad to see you don't subscribe to the single sentence statement that " The whole idea of recording is threatening and intimidating."

bobbyss wrote: »

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

They're both publicly accessible, right?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They're both publicly accessible, right?

Post 155 has dealt with this. It can't be any clearer.

bobbyss wrote: »

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong as I may be, is that a public building like for example the National Museum or any Department is owned by the state.

pubs are not owned by the state. They are privately owned. I would need permission from the owner to record stuff inside a pub because of that fact.

This has been going on since yesterday and still you persist.
The fact that the state owns the building doesn’t mean that you, a tax paying citizen, can do whatever you like in that building. That would be ludicrous. You have to either accept that or suffer the consequences.
If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted in any public building be it the SW office the tax office the library the Garda station the health clinic the county council office then that would be anarchy.
So there are rules, common sense rules, in order to allow the everyday business of allowing citizens to access public services.
You are insisting that your “entitlement” to film the public servant dealing with your application trumps everyone else’s right to peace and privacy.
Where did you get that idea?
You also imply that if you are paying tax and a public servant is getting paid from the state coffers then that public servant must comply with your wishes and follow your instructions.
So. Where does that begin and end? If you think that the public servant must address you at all times as “your royal highness” then should they? You are, after all, paying his/her wages?

bobbyss wrote: »

Post 155 has dealt with this. It can't be any clearer.

So you think you can go into Mountjoy Prison and start filming without any permission? Or the National Museum offsite storage in Swords? Or the Revenue data centre? Or Beaumont Hospital? Or your local community school?

forward8

whippet wrote: »

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.

So any criticism of seetec / turas nua = clearly not interested in working... :rolleyes:

good stuff.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you think you can go into Mountjoy Prison and start filming without any permission? Or the National Museum offsite storage in Swords? Or the Revenue data centre? Or Beaumont Hospital? Or your local community school?

....and tell a prison officer that you are recording him/her because your tax euros pays his/her wages and thus it’s only fair that your interaction is a matter of record....
Nothing to hide nothing to fear!
It’s a cowardly kind of bullying actually.

Carawaystick

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?

If a state office displayed such a sign can they then use their own cctv footage?

whippet

forward8 wrote: »

So any criticism of seetec / turas nua = clearly not interested in working... :rolleyes:

good stuff.

Re-read what I said ... I didn’t say all .. but a growing number ... but in this thread being accurate isn’t important

Reati

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a state office displayed such a sign can they then use their own cctv footage?

Yes, of course. As private occupiers of the building they set the policy that guests can't record but they permit their own CCTV. They do need to sign the CCTV is recording and why though.

otherwise what you are saying well I can't break a red light or speed so are emergencies services allowed too?

cobhguy28

Reati wrote: »

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a state office displayed such a sign can they then use their own cctv footage?

Yes, of course. As private occupiers of the building they set the policy that guests can't record but they permit their own CCTV. They do need to sign the CCTV is recording and why though.

otherwise what you are saying well I can't break a red light or speed so are emergencies services allowed too?

But that is not what was said.
"If a state office displayed such a sign can they then use their own cctv footage?"
They are saying that the sign would be contradicting itself if it says " No recording on site" instead of The public are not allowed record on site.

RayCun

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a state office displayed such a sign can they then use their own cctv footage?

If they display a sign saying "No admission without appointment" do all the people who work there have to make appointments?

gman2k

On mobile so cannot post links, but Google "t j mcintyre mccabe connolly" and read the Indo article.
Key section
"Irish law recognises a constitutional right to privacy â€“ and it is true that this right could apply to recordings if they related to his personal life. The carrying out of his public functions is quite another matter. There is no basis for saying that senior public officials enjoy a right to privacy in the way they carry out their duties. Public officials act on behalf of the people â€“ not in any private capacity â€“ and are open to scrutiny about what they do in our name.

In any event, the claim of privacy is misguided where a person voluntarily reveals information in the course of their duty. There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that has been deliberately disclosed in this way, however much a person might later regret the disclosure."

Reati

Honestly, this has become the stupidest thread I've seen in a while and that's a pretty hard standard given the quality of boards these days.

It's like listening to a idiot who thinks he is a sovereign citizen arguing with his own shadow over their uneducated concept of the law. I'm out.