Lodging a complaint about case officer.

Kirby · 09-08-2018 02:09PM

The only bullying behavior demonstrated by anyone in this thread is by yourself.

I corrected you about the law. That is what I did. You were giving people misinformation, I informed you of the legislation regarding recording and apparently, you got annoyed by it and started ad hominem attacks by calling me a liar. A personal attack which was not warranted. You then called me a coward and a bully. Another personal attack.

I never, at ANY point encouraged anyone to do anything. I informed the OP that if he or she wished to record their interaction with SW they were entitled to do so. I also pointed out the dubious legal advantages of doing so in my original post to give them a full picture. People make their own choices. You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I encouraged nothing.

09-08-2018 02:28PM

Kirby wrote: »

Thats actually not true. You have no expectation of privacy at your workplace. It's why its legal for security to film you.

There are also signs in the airport stating that filming is prohibited but that is ALSO legally untrue. You are not allowed to film a member of staff directly but you CAN legally film yourself, your party and virtually anything else including members of staff in the background as long as they are not the intended target.

That is the law. My point being that signs stating filming is not allowed are everywhere and in 99% of cases are not legally binding and that includes a SW office.

Crazy talk. There is a world of difference between your employer filming the activities in the building and some randomer off the street recording everything. Walk into a bank and start recording people going about their business under the guise of making a selfie or whatever, and see how quickly you get shut down. Why would it be any different in a SW office? What about a doctor's? Or maternity hospital?

Claim whatever you want about it being legal, the proprietor has the right to remove you from the building for causing a nuisance to other patrons.

09-08-2018 02:32PM

Kirby wrote: »

1) I informed you of the legislation regarding recording

2) I informed the OP that if he or she wished to record their interaction with SW they were entitled to do so.

1) What legislation? You claimed you spoke to a solicitor, if I remember correctly.

2) Yes, but SW are equally entitled to refuse to deal with you if you are recording them.

Kirby · 09-08-2018 02:36PM

The postal and communication act of 1983. I quoted it on the last page. Have you read the thread?

09-08-2018 02:57PM

Kirby wrote: »

The postal and communication act of 1983. I quoted it on the last page. Have you read the thread?

Apologies, I missed that. No need for the passive aggressive nonsense.

Anyway, that refers to telephone conversations only, if I'm not mistaken. Nothing about face-to-face or video recordings, which is unsurprising seeing as it's from the early 80s.

Here's more recent legislation:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/6/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

Personal data shall not be processed by a data controller unless section 2 of this Act (as amended by the Act of 2003) is complied with by the data controller and at least one of the following conditions is met:
(a) the data subject has given his or her consent to the processing or, if the data subject, by reason of his or her physical or mental incapacity or age, is or is likely to be unable to appreciate the nature and effect of such consent, it is given by a parent or guardian or a grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother or sister of the data subject and the giving of such consent is not prohibited by law,
(b) the processing is necessary—
(i) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party,
(ii) in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract,
(iii) for compliance with a legal obligation to which the data controller is subject other than an obligation imposed by contract, or
(iv) to prevent—
(I) injury or other damage to the health of the data subject, or
(II) serious loss of or damage to property of the data subject,
or otherwise to protect his or her vital interests where the seeking of the consent of the data subject or another person referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection is likely to result in those interests being damaged,
(c) the processing is necessary—
(i) for the administration of justice,
(ii) for the performance of a function conferred on a person by or under an enactment,
(iii) for the performance of a function of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or
(iv) for the performance of any other function of a public nature performed in the public interest by a person,
(d) the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by a third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the fundamental rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

Note the following definition:

“‘personal data’ means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;”,

So, their voice and / or a video or still frame from a video and / or their name badge.

Kirby · 09-08-2018 03:02PM

Thats not the relevant legislation. Members of the public are not "data controllers". Fair play for actually engaging and not just hurling insults like splinter65 though. If I came off as passive aggressive I apologise. It's not nice to be attacked for informing people of their rights.

09-08-2018 03:11PM

Anyone is a potential data controller. If you shove a camera in my face and start recording it, you are now in control of my data. The same way a landlord controls your data if you are a potential tenant and send them copies of your PPSN etc.

Imagine the carnage that would be going on if every Tom, Dick and Freeman of the land were allowed to record every interaction with "de gubbermint" and selectively edit it to suit their own needs?

You cannot film inside a private place without the prior consent of the owners of that space. Just because its a building that is owned and operated by the public sector does not mean its not privately owned.

mp22 · 09-08-2018 06:25PM

Closed

Lodging a complaint about case officer.

Comments