Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please 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. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

would you let this happen to your kid?

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    conorhal wrote: »
    Except it doesn't, given that in one case it's that persons job to look for what you might be hiding and in the other, irritating pillock is not a job description.

    So now you have to have a specific job title job to be able to film someone? As usual you're just digging a deeper hole here


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    pilly wrote: »
    Would you be okay with someone recording you doing your job?

    I'd be fine with it.
    I am recorded a lot of the time - you probably are yourself.
    What's the problem with it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Airports are private property, they can set whatever rules they like. If you disagree with their rules they will escort you out.

    Again doesn't stop the damage which has already happened if the video is being streamed, especially if the phone is confiscated mid stream, that's just asking for it to go viral.

    I will reiterate the point these restrictions are well behind the curve of whats possible with current technology.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭papu


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Again doesn't stop the damage which has already happened if the video is being streamed, especially if the phone is confiscated mid stream, that's just asking for it to go viral.

    I will reiterate the point these restrictions are well behind the curve of whats possible with current technology.

    In that case you are possibly opening yourself up for harsher punishments if convicted by a court because you've already published the video which is in breach of data protection laws :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    papu wrote: »
    In that case you are possibly opening yourself up for harsher punishments if convicted by a court because you've already published the video which is in breach of data protection laws :rolleyes:

    According to you only if it shows someones face, also it would kind of defeat the purpose of the whole thing if there was a public court case about it, the exact thing they do not want is attention


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭papu


    VinLieger wrote: »
    According to you only if it shows someones face, also it would kind of defeat the purpose of the whole thing if there was a public court case about it, the exact thing they do not want is attention

    Data protection laws cover photographs or video recordings of your image or recordings of your voice.

    I advise you to go do your own research on the matter, you're clearly very poorly informed. I'm out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    papu wrote: »
    Data protection laws cover photographs or video recordings of your image or recordings of your voice.

    I advise you to go do your own research on the matter, you're clearly very poorly informed. I'm out.

    But then it wouldn't be cork airport coming after you the individual security officers would have to file claims.

    Fair enough cya!!!!

    What a pointless discussion that was


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    From the Irish Statute Book

    S.I. No. 425/1994 - Airport Bye-Laws, 1994

    4 Prohibited Acts (General)
    4.1. Each of the following is hereby prohibited:


    (18) being intoxicated;:D
    (21) monitoring air traffic control, or airport or airline operational frequencies in the State, with radio receiving or recording equipment or using television cameras or other photographic equipment the use of which in the opinion of Aer Rianta is likely to be contrary to the interests of security;

    4.2. An authorised officer may -
    ( a ) seize and detain for such period as may be reasonable or until the conclusion of proceedings any item used in contravention of this Bye-Law, or
    ( b ) dispose of or destroy any item so used which is a threat to the safety or security of the airport or persons using it or the health of such persons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    From the Irish Statute Book

    S.I. No. 425/1994 - Airport Bye-Laws, 1994

    4 Prohibited Acts (General)
    4.1. Each of the following is hereby prohibited:


    (18) being intoxicated;:D
    (21) monitoring air traffic control, or airport or airline operational frequencies in the State, with radio receiving or recording equipment or using television cameras or other photographic equipment the use of which in the opinion of Aer Rianta is likely to be contrary to the interests of security;

    4.2. An authorised officer may -
    ( a ) seize and detain for such period as may be reasonable or until the conclusion of proceedings any item used in contravention of this Bye-Law, or
    ( b ) dispose of or destroy any item so used which is a threat to the safety or security of the airport or persons using it or the health of such persons.

    Makes a lot more sense than trying to pretend it has something to do with data protection....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Still think recording should be allowed as there really isn't anything they need to fear from it as far as real security concerns go beyond getting embarrassed at doing something stupid


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    I'm not sure what constitutes an "authorised officer"

    Would that be airport police or any old security guard?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Makes a lot more sense than trying to pretend it has something to do with data protection....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Still think recording should be allowed as there really isn't anything they need to fear from it as far as real security concerns go beyond getting embarrassed at doing something stupid

    I think the security thing is a bit of a get out of jail free card - it's clearly not a security issue in anyway, but they can just say "in our opinion" it's a security issue and then do whatever the hell they like.

    If you're doing something in full view of thousands of people streaming past, it's a bit silly to claim it's too private or sensitive to record!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    .

    All I was doing (well trying to do) was get a funny picture of my 6 month old daughter. I was laughing, the mother was laughing, even the baby was laughing - there was no aggression at any stage.



    It's overkill plain and simple.
    By all means check, if you feel the need. They are there for a reason after all. But no need to be an asshole about it,.

    It's overkill alright.
    About babies, I think it's not the same deal really. My two got patted down as babies or toddlers too, it was no bother. Up to a certain age, they simply don't have the self-awareness to be upset about these things.

    Over a certain age, they'll get the reasons for it, and be fine with it.
    My 11 year old daughter would probably understand the patting down, she'd be a bit phased, but grand.

    But I know my little fellow, who's 9, and at this stage when they become self-aware and start to understand privacy, would be upset.

    I'm sure anyone who has children would be able to pinpoint when their child started becoming self-aware, and requiring privacy to change at the swimming pool, etc... I think it's a bit steep to perform such a thorough search on a child around these ages.
    Come to think of it, it's also the time when schools have programs teaching children that their body is their own, and that no adult should interfere with it in an intimate manner. My little guy may be a bit late with this, I'd guesstimate between 7 and 9 years old is generally the time when a child starts to value their body autonomy and privacy (?)

    edit : and about grannies, babies, etc... was there palpation of genital area involved ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Glenster wrote: »
    They patted the kid down for a few minutes.

    You swear they'd sexually assaulted him or something.

    It was sexual assault. Nobody has the right to go near your genital region without consent, that goes above and beyond the meaning of pat down. It's a violation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    It was sexual assault. Nobody has the right to go near your genital region without consent, that goes above and beyond the meaning of pat down. It's a violation.

    Would you honestly care if he did that to you? Maybe I'm just too easy going but I wouldnt at all.People are just getting worked up because it was a child involved


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Would you honestly care if he did that to you? Maybe I'm just too easy going but I wouldnt at all.People are just getting worked up because it was a child involved

    Yes, I absolutely would. And the fact that it's a kid matters, we're supposed to be teaching kids that you don't let strangers grope you FFS.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    It was sexual assault. Nobody has the right to go near your genital region without consent, that goes above and beyond the meaning of pat down. It's a violation.
    Yes, I absolutely would. And the fact that it's a kid matters, we're supposed to be teaching kids that you don't let strangers grope you FFS.


    I eventually got to watch it this morning...

    It was a textbook patdown search, nothing more nothing less. He did everything by the book, presumably because at that stage he was under scrutiny, not just by Supermom and her camera but by his superiors and fellow Officers as well. He did everything perfectly and explained each step to the youngfella as he was doing so.

    If that was a sexual assault his superiors wouldn't stand over him and any court in the land would hammer him for using his position to perpetrate such an assault. You're making some jump there from a pat down search to being 'groped' by a stranger!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    I eventually got to watch it this morning...

    It was a textbook patdown search, nothing more nothing less. He did everything by the book, presumably because at that stage he was under scrutiny, not just by Supermom and her camera but by his superiors and fellow Officers as well. He did everything perfectly and explained each step to the youngfella as he was doing so.

    If that was a sexual assault his superiors wouldn't stand over him and any court in the land would hammer him for using his position to perpetrate such an assault. You're making some jump there from a pat down search to being 'groped' by a stranger!!

    I'd agree it's not sexual assault, and he probably did everything by the textbook. However, professional judgement and decency, or consideration for the subject, could have mitigated his approach, imo.

    I would be interested to know how many of those on here who argue that all was perfectly okey-dokey in the land of patty-downy security are parents to a child of similar age.

    It's one thing to argue that, in theory, all is well, and it's another to stand by while a stranger is patting your child's privates, when you know the same child is very protective about this at that particular time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    It was sexual assault. Nobody has the right to go near your genital region without consent, that goes above and beyond the meaning of pat down. It's a violation.

    That seemed like a reasonable pat down to me, Checking everywhere a plastic lock knife could be hidden, surely that's the point of it. If you couldn't go near the genitals that is definitely where I'd keep my semtex.

    Also, whenever I've been patted down in the US they always ask for consent before they do it.

    It didn't seem sexual to me at all TBH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    I would be interested to know how many of those on here who argue that all was perfectly okey-dokey in the land of patty-downy security are parents to a child of similar age.

    It's one thing to argue that, in theory, all is well, and it's another to stand by while a stranger is patting your child's privates, when you know the same child is very protective about this at that particular time.

    I am not a parent to a similar aged child.

    And I appreciate that a parent might feel uncomfortable watching their nipper being patted down, but rules is rules, parking tickets are a pain in the hole when they happen to me but I appreciate that they have to exist and have to apply to everyone equally except for Mick Wallace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    I'd agree it's not sexual assault, and he probably did everything by the textbook. However, professional judgement and decency, or consideration for the subject, could have mitigated his approach, imo.

    I would be interested to know how many of those on here who argue that all was perfectly okey-dokey in the land of patty-downy security are parents to a child of similar age.

    Mine are older (all adults now) but once upon a time not too long ago they were that age and we passed through many airports without creating a big fuss or song and dance despite the fact that they, as well as ourselves, were on occasion subjected to those in the land of patty-downy security.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    It was sexual assault. Nobody has the right to go near your genital region without consent, that goes above and beyond the meaning of pat down. It's a violation.

    Ah come on....an awful unlikely paedophile...if that area wasn't checked,that's where it would be hidden.

    Nobody should have a right to go near any part of your own body but alas a few have ruined it for the many.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    You know what, thinking on this further. That mother has made an absolute laughing stock of her son by filming that and putting it up online. That will follow him no matter where he goes.

    She has done an awful lot more damage than the security guard. Shame on her.


Advertisement