Rob tourists at gunpoint & have your anonymity protected?

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:27pm #1

A report in the IT shows a video of a pair of scummers robbing tourists at gun point. The thieves have their faces blurred in the video placed online. Call me old-fashioned, but I think robbing people at gun point should make you liable for having your mug plastered all over the media.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tourists-robbed-at-gunpoint-near-guinness-storehouse-in-dublin-1.4059200

Dialing my predictable outrage down, what's the serious reason for preserving the privacy of these scrotes? Is it because Gardai will have a good idea of who they are and there's no need to risk mistakenly identifying innocent grey tracksuit wearers? Surely there's a good reason rather than modern PC data privacy?

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

Wanderer78 · 22-10-2019 5:30pm

boombang wrote:

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Gatling · 22-10-2019 5:31pm

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:32pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Because naming and shaming always prevents future crimes!

Did I say it was perfect solution? It's just my personal preference.

Wanderer78 · 22-10-2019 5:33pm

boombang wrote:

Did I say it was perfect solution? It's just my personal preference.

That's fair enough, but does it really work?

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:36pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

That's fair enough, but does it really work?

I don't know: I've not looked in to it. However, I would like to have a fair ability to know if there's a violent or persistent criminal that lives in my neighbourhood following release. That's why I'd like this info to be out there. Plus, if you do something shameful, then I think you should deal with the public shame.

Seathrun66 · 22-10-2019 5:38pm

boombang wrote: »

I don't know: I've not looked in to it. However, I would like to have a fair ability to know if there's a violent or persistent criminal that lives in my neighbourhood following release. That's why I'd like this info to be out there. Plus, if you do something shameful, then I think you should deal with the public shame.

One reason is mistaken identity. Blanking out the faces until conviction prevents vigilante attacks on innocent lookalikes.

Tacitus Kilgore · 22-10-2019 5:41pm

Completely understand the need to blur the faces,

Also, certain - the Gardai local to the area will 100% know this guy off the bat, I certainly hope he doesn't repeatedly trip and fall during his upcoming arrest.

Scummy bastard, you can feel the terror in that poor lady from watching the video. I sincerely hope she recovers without PTSD or some other crap hanging over her.

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:46pm

Would people feel OK to have the unedited footage released following conviction?

I understand the need not to prejudice chances of a conviction/possibly avoid mistaken identity, but these would seem to be void if a conviction is successfully achieved.

Padre_Pio · 22-10-2019 5:47pm

Seathrun66 wrote: »

One reason is mistaken identity. Blanking out the faces until conviction prevents vigilante attacks on innocent lookalikes.

Yep. Innocent until proven guilty, even if they're blatantly guilty.

It's a shame people falsely accused of sexual crimes don't get the same protection.

The high horse brigade · 22-10-2019 5:48pm

boombang wrote: »

A report in the IT shows a video of a pair of scummers robbing tourists at gun point. The thieves have their faces blurred in the video placed online. Call me old-fashioned, but I think robbing people at gun point should make you liable for having your mug plastered all over the media.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tourists-robbed-at-gunpoint-near-guinness-storehouse-in-dublin-1.4059200

Dialing my predictable outrage down, what's the serious reason for preserving the privacy of these scrotes? Is it because Gardai will have a good idea of who they are and there's no need to risk mistakenly identifying innocent grey tracksuit wearers? Surely there's a good reason rather than modern PC data privacy?

Personally, I would like to see the obligatory online posting of names and mugshots upon conviction.

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Gatling · 22-10-2019 5:51pm

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls ,

This shows exactly what happens when we have a failed judicial system and a failing law enforcement system

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:51pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Do you know if this would also apply following a successful conviction?

Also, I presume GDPR has not done away with photos being taken of delightful characters leaving court?

Gatling · 22-10-2019 5:52pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Imagine that some scum bag has more rights to protection than we have to be protected against scum

SEPT 23 1989 · 22-10-2019 5:52pm

It took ten minutes for the first unarmed Gardai to arrive

God help us if there is a terrorist attack in the city centre

The high horse brigade · 22-10-2019 5:54pm

boombang wrote: »

Do you know if this would also apply following a successful conviction?

Also, I presume GDPR has not done away with photos being taken of delightful characters leaving court?

GDPR only relates to video recording technologies
https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording

Donnielighto · 22-10-2019 5:55pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

GDPR only relates to video recording technologies
https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording

A CCTV that take loads of individual pics would be ok or not in that situation?

bossdrum · 22-10-2019 5:57pm

The high horse brigade wrote:

CCTV footage must blur the faces to comply with GDPR

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

The high horse brigade · 22-10-2019 5:58pm

Donnielighto wrote: »

A CCTV that take loads of individual pics would be ok or not in that situation?

What? That's exactly what a video is made up of. M-Jpeg is motion Jpeg, ie a series of images that change rapidly

boombang · 22-10-2019 5:59pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

What? That's exactly what a video is made up of. M-Jpeg is motion Jpeg, ie a series of images that change rapidly

I think the point is what's the dividing line between multiple still images and video.

boombang · 22-10-2019 6:01pm

bossdrum wrote: »

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

I presume it might be possible to circulate the images where the scumbags are not already identifiable to the police and the balance of the benefit of public help identifying them outweighs the possible harm of mistaken identity.

The high horse brigade · 22-10-2019 6:03pm

bossdrum wrote: »

Why does crimecall show unblurred faces so?

Not sure, you'd need to ask the data protection commisioner. Maybe they are seeking permission
https://www.dataprotection.ie/

James Brown · 22-10-2019 6:07pm

That area is rife with scummers. They hang out in packs by the Lord Edward and over by the SVdeP across from Christ Church.

The eyewitness – Muhammed

Religion of peace my ar... oh wait

Tony EH · 22-10-2019 7:00pm

Gatling wrote: »

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls

What happens when that "little scrote" is your son, who happens to look a bit like a scumbag caught on CCTV.

is_that_so · 22-10-2019 7:02pm

Gatling wrote: »

Little scrotes should be dragged through Smithfield and battered with hurls ,

This shows exactly what happens when we have a failed judicial system and a failing law enforcement system

Pretty sure there are a few other indictable crimes in this post!

Duane Dibbley · 22-10-2019 7:06pm

Tony EH wrote: »

What happens when that "little scrote" is your son, who happens to look a bit like a scumbag caught on CCTV.

He’s not talking about a lookalike. He’s talking about the actual scumbags in the cctv.

Tony EH · 22-10-2019 7:11pm

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

He’s not talking about a lookalike. He’s talking about the actual scumbags in the cctv.

Would you trust a mob to discern between "actual scumbags" and somebody they think is the guy their looking for?

lola85 · 22-10-2019 7:32pm

GDPR is a load of ****.

If it means scumbags are caught then I’m all for dropping GDPR.

meathstevie · 22-10-2019 7:46pm

Gatling wrote: »

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

Does GDPR provide for anonymity for acts committed in a public place ?

If so I’m afraid journalism is facing a bleak future and may start to read a bit like this; “Today at an unspecified time at an undisclosed location a person made some promises and talked about unspecified past achievements and future events. All relevant information has been omitted just in case the particular individual’s identity may be deducted from it.”

Good luck to you finding out if this was a door to door vacuum cleaner salesman or the Taoiseach announcing the next general election.

Jimbob1977 · 22-10-2019 7:56pm

GDPR should be repealed.

It is a terrible piece of legislation.

It is like the world's biggest wet blanket. Stifling everything.... law enforcement, business, the economy, simple inquiries.

Bob24 · 22-10-2019 7:56pm

Gatling wrote: »

This was on joe Duffy earlier apparently GDPR laws prevent the person being identified in footage or images

I doubt this is the actual reason. News reporting is to a large extend exempt from GDPR, and for obvious reasons there isn’t a blank requirement to always blur all faces when you share CCTV footage (otherwise that footage would become useless).

I’d say GDPR is more an easy excuse to justify decisions based on other motives.

Rob tourists at gunpoint & have your anonymity protected?

Comments