Garda getting body cams

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My pal was pulled off the street, (long time ago) and brought to a Garda station where a couple of Garda punched him and one stood on his back after he fell. They let him go about 7 the following morning. They mistook him for some other lad walking the same street who had said something smart to a patrolling officer. He learned this as he was being set upon, "Think you're funny now?". Initially he'd no idea why they took him. He wasn't charged with anything.
Garda are people no better or worse than the rest of us. This was obviously a gang of lads looking to give someone a hiding. Sadly we get that in society.

The difference is that the Gardai know there's virtually no comeback on them as their "word" is taken as gospel as a matter of routine (which is nonsense as a general rule. "I saw him do it" isn't proof - which cameras will help address actually)

But they only do things like that to soft or innocent targets like your mate. Apparently they were seen rapidly exiting an estate in Finglas last night after some fella chased the car with a lit firework (heard this on R1 earlier).

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Bump. Laws being unveiled for body cams this week apparently. There was a lad on the radio from the council for criminal liberties this morning saying why this is a big mistake and shouldn't be allowed happen.

Really struggled to get a coherent point across as to why it's such a bad idea.

Yeah, and many of his supporters are well able to clip their inevitable video to make the Gardai only look bad. Delighted to hear the Gardai are fighting back against these low lives.

At least courts can be shown what actually happened.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties have been MIA during this lockdown with it's mission creep and ever moving goalposts so i've very little time for them.

Get Real wrote: »

The fact the Gardaí are for these, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties are against them, shows you all you need to know.

Fine for lads to be recording gardai and throwing it up on tiktok and twitter. Different story then when the whole interaction can be filmed for the benefit of everyone.


Surely anyway, if anything nefarious took place (I'd bet a very small proportion versus what's claimed) it'll be great to have it recorded and they'll get loads of compo off the state no? Funny how with a mobile phone, it's very rare you see anything from start to end. Interesting...

As though the person recording, in any situation, would have the psychic precognition to capture the start of a noteworthy incident etc?

Unlike a body camera the average bystander cellphone does not remain always on or have any kind of 30 second, 60 second etc. pre-recording buffer.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My only concern with this is that the individual Garda themselves retains control over when it's turned on and off. This just seems like a bad idea - not just from the aspect of selective recording, but key moments being missed and thus contested.

Let's be honest here. As good as most Gardai are, the force as a whole has a long way to go from a professionalism and transparency perspective - just look at the number and details of scandals over even recent years.

Always on, with no means for the individual to change that or the content is the only way for both the Gardai themselves and the public.

How’s about them using a toilet?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Indeed. Worth noting that they opposed the use of any CCTV down through the years, whether by the Government or businesses seeking to protect their property.

They opposed disproportionate use of CCTV that involved unqualified, unprofessional, unincorporated community groups being put in charge of neighbourhood cameras.

Get Real wrote: »

The fact the Gardaí are for these, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties are against them, shows you all you need to know.

Fine for lads to be recording gardai and throwing it up on tiktok and twitter. Different story then when the whole interaction can be filmed for the benefit of everyone.


Surely anyway, if anything nefarious took place (I'd bet a very small proportion versus what's claimed) it'll be great to have it recorded and they'll get loads of compo off the state no? Funny how with a mobile phone, it's very rare you see anything from start to end. Interesting...

That's the issue though, the whole interaction won't be filmed. The Garda will control how much of the interaction will be filmed.

There are valid concerns on all sides tbh.

From the citizen's side Gardai wearing bodycams can represent a security and privacy risk of sensitive moments being released into the public domain. Gardai having control of the camera also allows somewhat selective recording of incidents.

From the Garda's perspective there are also privacy concerns if they don't have control. One can always remove the camera in the jacks, but out on the street it means two Gardai can't have a sensitive conversation - personal or operational - without being recorded. I don't think any of us would be comfortable with our employers recording absolutely everything we say and do during the work day.

There'll have to be a happy medium though. Perhaps the weight of non-video evidence should be reduced. That is, where a Garda is wearing a bodycam, any allegations of things that were said or done outside a video are automatically inadmissible as evidence unless there is a compelling reason to admit it? This would mean that if they "forget" to turn the bodycam on, there's a good chance the charge will be thrown out.

Geuze wrote: »

Why is a new law needed?

Why not simply start using them?

Because if they just started using them, they would very quickly be deemed inadmissible in court until laws were put in place.

The camera system needs to operate in a proscribed way, the data needs to be stored and protected in a proscribed way, and the requirements and limitations of the use of the camera while on duty needs to be formalised.

All of which requires laws in place.

Otherwise it's pointless wearing them at all. The first time a Garda admits it as evidence in court, the defence will ask for proof that the footage is intact and unaltered, the prosecution will not be able to do so, and it'll be excluded.

The law will instead allow that where the footage has been captured by the system set out in law, then it is evidence by default, it does not need to be proven that it is whole and unaltered.

This is how it works for speed cameras.

I'd be surprised if there are many (any?) police forces using always-on cameras, it's changes the data volume by miles and add so many layers of difficulty around scenarios that don't need to be / shouldn't be recorded. Also impossible to get a union to agree to.

FishOnABike wrote: »

Could have been a little more professional but I can see it getting very tedious dealing with ill informed provocative smart-asses every day.

Motor vehicles belonging to the Armed Forces, the Garda Síochana or the Fire Service are currently not subject to mandatory roadworthiness testing.

If indeed it happened, it could have been edited.

I know a Garda who "allegedly" agreed that a trip to feed a goldfish for a person who was on holidays at the height of the pandemic was an essential trip. Turned out the video was edited.

seamus wrote: »

Individuals captured incidentally going about their business wouldn't have any right to access the data. Blurring of faces would really only be required in the case that there were security reasons for it.

Are you sure? I would have thought that if individuals incidentally going about their business have their image captured in the footage, they would be entitled to a copy of it because their image is their data, no?

If a criminal asks for a copy of it, the non-blurring of faces might expose the identity of witnessess long before a trial.

Your everyday scrote doesn't submit GDPR requests to the Gardai, and people otherwise going about their business aren't going to be saying, "A garda walked by me yesterday I demand to see that footage".

Scrotes might start doing it to p1ss off the Gardai.

Like I said, I'm in favour of bodycameras but I can see a lot of unintended consequences.