Youths doing ****ty things but not shooting anyone

MrFresh

FFred wrote: »

Wrong.

https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/work/operating-childcare-service/guidelines-on-using-imagesvideo-of-children/consent-for-taking-imagesvideos-of-children/

https://www.barnardos.ie/media/2188/template-policy-on-the-use-of-internet-and-photographic-and-recording-devices-with-guidance.docx

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Wrong. Videoing them WAS illegal.

Data protection laws.

And you could argue they are only 12. Kids do stupid stuff.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

By the way its not just kids ..videoing ANYONE in this country without permission adult or child is illegal.


Same with audio recordings for example what happened with Omarosa could not legally happen here. If someone is recorded with a hot mike etc again can't happen here.


And with children you need their parents permission or a guardian.

Can you quote the actual law you are referring to instead of vague "data protection" or guidelines for childcare workers?

Sonny noggs

El_Bee wrote: »

Well no because racist or not, dragged up pieces of human trash like these are the norm now.

That’s what we get when we are soft on crime.

PokeHerKing

ILoveYourVibes wrote:

By the way its not just kids ..videoing ANYONE in this country without permission adult or child is illegal.

So how does cctv work then? I'd be all ears for that.

ILoveYourVibes

biko wrote: »

Without a source you're just making stuff up.

I have a law degree i am not making things up.

Covert footage sometimes can't even be used in court cases here. Believe it or not that CAN include CCTV footage.

ILoveYourVibes

PokeHerKing wrote: »

So how does cctv work then? I'd be all ears for that.

Read my post above. Judges are reluctant to exclude cctv footage on the basis of data protection law alone but it DOES happen.

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording

Its VERY nuanced.

Phoebas

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have a law degree i am not making things up.

Covert footage sometimes can't even be used in court cases here. Believe it or not that CAN include CCTV footage.

Can you post a link to the actual legislation?

biko

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have a law degree

Then it should be even easier for you than Joe Soap to find the relevant law.

Noveight

Sonny noggs wrote: »

That’s what we get when we are soft on crime.

Firing welfare around with no questions asked doesn’t help either.

Put the two together and you’ve the perfect breeding ground for scumbags.

ILoveYourVibes

Phoebas wrote: »

Can you post a link to the actual legislation?

-__-


Act 1993, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

But there are other ones..

There is also EU law for example.

ALso data protection act of 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/html

Bear in mind there is NOT just ONE law etc.

It can be VERY complex.

ILoveYourVibes

Phoebas wrote: »

Can you link to the law about that?
My understanding is that even secret videoing only requires single party consent in Ireland.

no that is a phone call...and ONLY by phone

if you use other telecommunications facetime etc or whatever it doesn't apply..i mean the remit doesn't cover skype

Also these laws are updated A LOT. Or in recent years with technology etc.

They can change.

MrFresh

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

-__-


Act 1993, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

But there are other ones..

There is also EU law for example.

ALso data protection act of 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/html

Bear in mind there is NOT just ONE law etc.

It can be VERY complex.

Which section of which law prevents you recording someone, a child in this case, in a public place?

Phoebas

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

By the way its not just kids ..videoing ANYONE in this country without permission adult or child is illegal.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its VERY nuanced.

It's gone from illegal to 'VERY nuanced' in the space of 10 minutes.



Whatever about the law, it's clear that the kids in the video were giving him dogs abuse. Maybe he should have walked away, but I couldn't fault him for videoing the incident, especially after them alleging he is a paedophile in public. There could be all sorts of ramifications from that.

ILoveYourVibes

MrFresh wrote: »

Which section of which law prevents you recording someone, a child in this case, in a public place?

Chapter part 3 chapter 1 scroll down. Hint its right at the top!

If you need any more help i am going to start charging.

jay1988

El_Bee wrote: »

Well no because racist or not, dragged up pieces of human trash like these are the norm now.

The Norm? Would ya give over, talk about hyperbole 🙄

Phoebas

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Chapter part 3 chapter 1 scroll down. Hint its right at the top!

If you need any more help i am going to start charging.

I'm just not seeing anything in there that prevents videoing of a minor. Can you be more specific?

El_Bee

jay1988 wrote: »

The Norm? Would ya give over, talk about hyperbole ��

You're living in a bubble, visit any estate outside the leafy safe zones.

MrFresh

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Chapter part 3 chapter 1 scroll down. Hint its right at the top!

If you need any more help i am going to start charging.

Not there. I think I'll have to start charging you tuition to learn how to quote a specific law.

jay1988

El_Bee wrote: »

You're living in a bubble, visit any estate outside the leafy safe zones.

I've lived in Coolock my whole life, you're still talking ****e, this is the not the norm anywhere.

ILoveYourVibes

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm just not seeing anything in there that prevents videoing of a minor. Can you be more specific?

That is because Data protection is not just for minors.

ILoveYourVibes

MrFresh wrote: »

Not there. I think I'll have to start charging you tuition to learn how to quote a specific law.

THE WHOLE ACT???

Phoebas

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That is because Data protection is not just for minors.

Ok. Ok. You got me.
I know when I'm being trolled.

ILoveYourVibes

Regulation 10 of the Child Care Act 1991and Regulations 2016

That would and could be applied to an individual recording your child.

ILoveYourVibes

I think you guys aren't seeing it because of the language.

MrFresh

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think you guys aren't seeing it because of the language.

I think you should ask that online service for a refund for your degree.

ILoveYourVibes

MrFresh wrote: »

I think you should ask that online service for a refund for your degree.

kings Inn

Zatccha

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think you guys aren't seeing it because of the language.

You'd want to get refund on that law degree, mate. Anyone is perfectly entitled to take a video/photograph in a public space.

GDPR/Data Protection only "applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system." - as per Article 2(2)(c) / Recital 18 GDPR. In this case, it would fall under the personal exemption.

The Data Protection Commission have a pretty good outline of the topic at www. dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording.

ILoveYourVibes

Zatccha wrote: »

You'd want to get refund on that law degree, mate. Anyone is perfectly entitled to take a video/photograph in a public space.

GDPR/Data Protection only "applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system." - as per Article 2(2)(c) / Recital 18 GDPR. In this case, it would fall under the personal exemption.

The Data Protection Commission have a pretty good outline of the topic at www. dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording.

But it was published on a website. Online etc. FB is removing it probably because THAT IS A FILING SYSTEM.

Zatccha

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Wrong. Videoing them WAS illegal.

Data protection laws.

And you could argue they are only 12. Kids do stupid stuff.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

By the way its not just kids ..videoing ANYONE in this country without permission adult or child is illegal.


Same with audio recordings for example what happened with Omarosa could not legally happen here. If someone is recorded with a hot mike etc again can't happen here.


And with children you need their parents permission or a guardian.

I thought your argument was that videoing them was illegal?

tayto lover

One of the biggest problems here is that there is only Oberstown to put violent children into and it is full to the brim since St. Patrick’s closed.

ILoveYourVibes

Zatccha wrote: »

I thought your argument was that videoing them was illegal?

My arguement could be anything in a court of law.

Zatccha wrote: »

I thought your argument was that videoing them was illegal?

It could be. Partic if its considered he was harassing them.


there would be snippets of hundreds of areas that could apply to any published image - as others have mentioned above, data protection, privacy, etc etc etc.

ILoveYourVibes

Zatccha wrote: »

You'd want to get refund on that law degree, mate. Anyone is perfectly entitled to take a video/photograph in a public space.

GDPR/Data Protection only "applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system." - as per Article 2(2)(c) / Recital 18 GDPR. In this case, it would fall under the personal exemption.

The Data Protection Commission have a pretty good outline of the topic at www. dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/video-recording.

This is not a personal activity. He could be considered a data controller.

Although its a mexican site so....dunno

ILoveYourVibes

If it were that simple places like RTE would not need to get consent.


And certainly the other two lads who did nothing wrong should not have their faces plastered.

ILoveYourVibes

Ask in legal discussion. Might be interesting.

MrFresh

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

kings Inn

I don't think anyone is buying what you are selling.

tayto lover wrote: »

One of the biggest problems here is that there is only Oberstown to put violent children into and it is full to the brim since St. Patrick’s closed.

And they are housed alongside non violent youths. Oberstown is not a bad facility in itself but it's been used incorrectly.

the beer revolu

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

If it were that simple places like RTE would not need to get consent.

RTE have an extremely conservative and powerful legal department. They go way above and beyond what is legally necessary regarding consent.

ILoveYourVibes

The personal exemption in Data protection applies to only personal/household activities and usage. Personal activities i don't think covers putting it online.


(7) ‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

processor’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller.

Automated data is just ..like on a phone or a computer.

ILoveYourVibes

the beer revolu wrote: »

RTE have an extremely conservative and powerful legal department. They go way above and beyond what is legally necessary regarding consent.

True and fair point. But that is the advise they would give you.

I think you guys are getting mixed up with the language.

A data controller or a data processor can be a person.

ILoveYourVibes

I mean there is a point that there are two boys in the video who did NOTHING wrong. And their faces are shown.

ILoveYourVibes

Its actually the ONE OFF aspect of this imo that makes it clear he isnt a data controller.

J Mysterio

As far as I'm aware, you are free to take pictures in a public place. Our lawyer doesnt seem to have disproven this yet. Though someone did post a link about recording minors, which is something.

Either way, I wouldn't reccommend doing what this idiot is doing though, he's asking for trouble.

J Mysterio

Alien Gods wrote: »

If scummy knacker girls were harrassing me, calling me a pedo, absolutely I'd be recording the interaction for my own protection.

I would be getting the fuçk out of there, not hanging around like a muppet, waiting for confrontation and escalating a situation. This man is the supposed adult.

Zatccha

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

My arguement could be anything in a court of law.

No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.

I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

there would be snippets of hundreds of areas that could apply to any published image - as others have mentioned above, data protection, privacy, etc etc etc.

So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is not a personal activity. He could be considered a data controller.

You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Ask in legal discussion. Might be interesting.

Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.

The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.

I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.

Erik Shun

J Mysterio wrote: »

I would be getting the fuçk out of there, not hanging around like a muppet, waiting for confrontation and escalating a situation. This man is the supposed adult.

So run away from kids...yeah... that'll get you far in life... scared of 14yo knackerettes..he may as well pack his bags and go home

the beer revolu

Alien Gods wrote: »

If scummy knacker girls were harrassing me, calling me a pedo, absolutely I'd be recording the interaction for my own protection.

To be fair, they were calling him a pedo because he was videoing them.

He mentioned them breaking his headphones several times. It seems like they may have assaulted him which is why, presumably, he started to record them.

ILoveYourVibes

Alien Gods wrote: »

If the little kunts are calling you 'pedo' you'd smart to have evidence you weren't bothering them.

Personally I was hoping he'd lose it and batter one of the little kunts.

He doesn't though. What happened BEFORE the video?

Alrigghtythen

The Gardai came and took statements. I hope the little scumbags and their families get ostracised in their school and community.

ILoveYourVibes

Zatccha wrote: »

No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.

I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.



So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.



You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.



Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.

The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.

I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.

I have lots!

ILoveYourVibes

Zatccha wrote: »

No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.

I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.



So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.



You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.



Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.

The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.

I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.

He doesn't have to be doing it for commercial purposes.


If you, as an individual or an organisation, collect, store or process any data about living people on any type of computer,phone or in a structured filing system, then you are a data controller.

His best defense imo is THIS IS A ONE OFF!

ILoveYourVibes

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

The Gardai came and took statements. I hope the little scumbags and their families get ostracised in their school and community.

Is in the Irish news anywhere?

Alrigghtythen

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Is in the Irish news anywhere?

I would tell you but I might be breaching some data protection regulation