Filming Gardai

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

Even if they are gob****es and acting the maggot still no excuse for the Gardai to assault them. If they are breaking the law the Gardai can arrest if not they really should descalate. Name a job where you wouldn't get sacked for physically taking a phone out of someones hand without their consent?

Would ye cop on to yourself. Calling it assault is a bit of a stretch.

arccosh

Deleted User wrote: »

Would ye cop on to yourself. Calling it assault is a bit of a stretch.

the wind assaults them on a daily basis

JimmyVik

A guy on a bike ran into me last year near the canal at portobello.
Then he comes back and starts abusing me. He pointed to the camera on his helmet and said he was filming me and would go to the gardai with the film. He was sticking it right in my face.
Something must have snapped in me and I tore it off his helmet and just threw it in the canal.
Off he went cursing and swearing at me. Pure psycho.
What is it with people with cameras that makes them such psychos?

D3V!L

JimmyVik wrote: »

A guy on a bike ran into me last year near the canal at portobello.
Then he comes back and starts abusing me. He pointed to the camera on his helmet and said he was filming me and would go to the gardai with the film. He was sticking it right in my face.
Something must have snapped in me and I tore it off his helmet and just threw it in the canal.
Off he went cursing and swearing at me. Pure psycho.
What is it with people with cameras that makes them such psychos?

They think it gives them more power over others. In reality it doesn't.

tayto lover

If that lad is claiming disability and going around annoying people who are trying to do their jobs then I’d love see him losing his disability and having to actually work for a living.
Loads around my town on disability and they’re well able to work. There should be an investigation into people with no obvious disability claiming the allowance.

mynamejeff

if the op is supporting andy heasman or those like him I fully support the gardai to slap anything they want out of his hand , infact a slap of a baton would be well justified and an arrest for interfering with the arrest that obviously happened before the edited clip that was posted

blanch152

GT89 wrote: »

It seems like members of AGS do not like being filmed. Why do they not like being filmed if they have nothing to hide it looks very bad on them that they make it visible that they hate it and assault and threathen to arrest members of the public for filming them during the course of their work.

Now I understand why they might not want to be filmed but they have absolutely no right to stop people filming in a public place and yet they continue to it. Do at least value their jobs or can they do what they like and not face represcussions. In almost every job if you tried to grab the phone off a member of the public you'd be instantly dismissed and rightly so but does this not apply to Gardai?
https://twitter.com/AndyHeasman2/status/1314681821813186563?s=19

You obviously don't understand GDPR, in fact I'd say you don't have a clue.

Yes, in a public place you can use your camera and film, but that is really all.

If a person (garda) is the central focus of your filming, you need their permission to film them. More importantly, even if you can claim "personal or household activity" use as an exemption to GDPR, once you share the video with anyone else, you are breaching the rights of the person filmed under GDPR.

A generalised wide-angle recording of a demonstration that doesn't identify or focus on individuals can be shared and isn't a breach of GDPR, but a recording focussed on an individual garda such as the one in the OP is a breach of GDPR unless the persmission of the garda is obtained.





https://www.joe.ie/news/gardai-request-public-stop-sharing-tagging-videos-alleged-wrongdoings-656465

weldoninhio

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So can I follow the staff in Tesco around recording them and shoving a camera in their face? Then upload it to YouTube?

What about my mechanic? Doctor?

I pay their wages afterall!

Tesco stores are private property. Garage is private property. Dr surgery is private property.

weldoninhio

JimmyVik wrote: »

A guy on a bike ran into me last year near the canal at portobello.
Then he comes back and starts abusing me. He pointed to the camera on his helmet and said he was filming me and would go to the gardai with the film. He was sticking it right in my face.
Something must have snapped in me and I tore it off his helmet and just threw it in the canal.
Off he went cursing and swearing at me. Pure psycho.
What is it with people with cameras that makes them such psychos?

I'm positive we need a "Didn't Happen of the Year" forum.

mynamejeff

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tesco stores are private property. Garage is private property. Dr surgery is private property.

are they not places of business and there fore the public have a right of access and are therefore a public place?

ThunbergsAreGo

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tesco stores are private property. Garage is private property. Dr surgery is private property.

So courier or a postman? I could just follow them around and film them.

The lads taking the video is intentionally trying to antagonize

Birneybau

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So courier or a postman? I could just follow them around and film them.

The lads taking the video is intentionally trying to antagonize

As long as you're shouting PEACEFUL PROTEST in someone's face, that would be struck out of court as neither being aggressive nor antagonistic.













*As some would have you believe.

weldoninhio

mynamejeff wrote: »

are they not places of business and there fore the public have a right of access and are therefore a public place?

No

weldoninhio

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So courier or a postman? I could just follow them around and film them.

The lads taking the video is intentionally trying to antagonize

Following them would probably put it into harassment territory. If you stood at your front door and filmed them from there, you'd be grand.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

No

He is correct as per the definition under the public order act 1994 for the garage and shopping centre. Doctors surgery, iffy

weldoninhio

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

He is correct as per the definition under the public order act 1994 for the garage and shopping centre. Doctors surgery, iffy

You've no "right of access" into any business once they a sign stating "management had the right to refuse admission". It's not a public place. Gon in and try to have a picnic in your local Tesco and when asked to move on say "its a public place" and see how far that gets you.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You've no "right of access" into any business once they a sign stating "management had the right to refuse admission". It's not a public place. Gon in and try to have a picnic in your local Tesco and when asked to move on say "its a public place" and see how far that gets you.

I dunno why I entertain you. Go on over to legal and argue that sign. You will be laughed at.

Or how about this, a quick ****ing google:

Section 3, Criminal justice (Public order) Act 1994.

“public place” includes—

(a) any highway,

(b) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

(c) any cemetery or churchyard,

(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

(e) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.


Its a public place under the act that covers begging. End of discussion

Overheal

Birneybau wrote: »

As long as you're shouting PEACEFUL PROTEST in someone's face, that would be struck out of court as neither being aggressive nor antagonistic.












*As some would have you believe.

Everyone knows you need the dislaimer post on your facebook wall too, Birney :rolleyes:

AndyFC

The incident in 2018 whereby members of the Gardai appeared in public with their faces covered and pictures were taken of them generated some controversy. Their choice of clothing was very controversial in the Irish Media at that time.

The issue of photography itself and the practice of taking pictures of members of the Gardai was mentioned in the Irish Media during this period.

For example:

This article appeared online with the Journal with the title that a "Ban on taking photos of Gardai on duty would criminalise ordinary members of the Irish public".

https://www.thejournal.ie/photographing-gardai-duty-4239768-Sep2018/

Minister Charlie Flanagan’s proposal would be “grossly disproportionate”, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has said.

The recent EU ruling on the Safe Harbour Data Sharing agreement between Europe and the U.S. makes the issue of Street Photography more complicated recently. Article 2 of the GDPR does refer to Personal Use but does not cover the issue of the Online Sharing of Photography that is taken in the Public location here in Ireland such as Public Paths or Public Parks.

The Good Friday Agreement and its statement on respecting the Civil Rights of each person on the Island of Ireland is important I feel. For example what are Civil rights and how are they defined? Is a right to Street Photography a Civil Right?

The publication of photography taken by a Hobbyist online with Facebook or Flickr for example, does this practice impact the Civil Rights of a person's personal data? The GDPR legislation as I understand it, is that it does.

Personally I would not like to see the practice of Photography in Public by either a Camera, Video or Smartphone being criminalised. It would probably not be practical anyway due to the large use of Smartphone Photography that we all see everyday when walking around our public streets.

And personally I feel the right to be able to share this Photography should also not be criminalised either. The GDPR legislation in future may be challenged either here in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe. Or not, and we may all be moving into a more highly regulated environment that strictly controls the sharing of personal data such as Photography regardless of where the actual pictures are taken.

AndyFC

AndyFC wrote: »

The incident in 2018 whereby members of the Gardai appeared in public with their faces covered and pictures were taken of them generated some controversy. Their choice of clothing was very controversial in the Irish Media at that time.

The issue of photography itself and the practice of taking pictures of members of the Gardai was mentioned in the Irish Media during this period.

For example:

This article appeared online with the Journal with the title that a "Ban on taking photos of Gardai on duty would criminalise ordinary members of the Irish public".

https://www.thejournal.ie/photographing-gardai-duty-4239768-Sep2018/

Minister Charlie Flanagan’s proposal would be “grossly disproportionate”, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has said.

The recent EU ruling on the Safe Harbour Data Sharing agreement between Europe and the U.S. makes the issue of Street Photography more complicated recently. Article 2 of the GDPR does refer to Personal Use but does not cover the issue of the Online Sharing of Photography that is taken in the Public location here in Ireland such as Public Paths or Public Parks.

The Good Friday Agreement and its statement on respecting the Civil Rights of each person on the Island of Ireland is important I feel. For example what are Civil rights and how are they defined? Is a right to Street Photography a Civil Right?

The publication of photography taken by a Hobbyist online with Facebook or Flickr for example, does this practice impact the Civil Rights of a person's personal data? The GDPR legislation as I understand it, is that it does.

Personally I would not like to see the practice of Photography in Public by either a Camera, Video or Smartphone being criminalised. It would probably not be practical anyway due to the large use of Smartphone Photography that we all see everyday when walking around our public streets.

And personally I feel the right to be able to share this Photography should also not be criminalised either. The GDPR legislation in future may be challenged either here in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe. Or not, and we may all be moving into a more highly regulated environment that strictly controls the sharing of personal data such as Photography regardless of where the actual pictures are taken.

Fair enough but the courts have found time and time again that civil liberties, privacy, free speech and the freedom of assemble are not absolute. There are necessary limitations for the good of society and in this particular case, you are weighing your right to photograph a complete stranger with the strangers right to not be photographed and have his ijmage shared online.

AndyFC

Yes I am, but I do feel that there are important precedents in Society both past and present where Photography plays an important role in the protection of people's Civil rights.

For example; the important Photography that Doris Derby took during the protests in the U.S. during the 1960's that captured the everyday realities of black lives at that time. The BLT movement during 2020 continues that protest and Magnum Photography Agency is supporting up and coming Photographers that are today, continuing to capture this struggle in the U.S.

Cathal McNaughton was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in May 2018, for his important work in the Kashmir region of India. He has paid a high personal price for his work in that the Indian Government today, does not allow him entry. This barrier to entry is a form of censorship. And it serves to show how powerful Photography as a Medium for storytelling truly is.

Last year's Hong Kong protests also help highlight the important role that Photography plays in documenting the everyday people's lives that are affected by Government. And here in Europe we are a witness to the Belarus protests that people are documenting through Photography and Video and sharing through Online Social Media platforms.

Citizen data is important and it should be protected. But in my personal opinion there will continue to be moments in our lives where the freedom for the ordinary person to be able to document through Literature, Photography and other forms of the Visual Arts what is happening around us should not be criminalised by Government.

The freedom of publication and the freedom by the ordinary Citizen to be able to reach a Global audience using today's Social Media platforms is a fantastic protection of Civil Rights I feel. Nothing is more empowering for a Citizen to be able to tell their side of the story in a conflict or dispute.

AndyFC

AndyFC wrote: »

Yes I am, but I do feel that there are important precedents in Society both past and present where Photography plays an important role in the protection of people's Civil rights.

For example; the important Photography that Doris Derby took during the protests in the U.S. during the 1960's that captured the everyday realities of black lives at that time. The BLT movement during 2020 continues that protest and Magnum Photography Agency is supporting up and coming Photographers that are today, continuing to capture this struggle in the U.S.

Cathal McNaughton was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in May 2018, for his important work in the Kashmir region of India. He has paid a high personal price for his work in that the Indian Government today, does not allow him entry. This barrier to entry is a form of censorship. And it serves to show how powerful Photography as a Medium for storytelling truly is.

Last year's Hong Kong protests also help highlight the important role that Photography plays in documenting the everyday people's lives that are affected by Government. And here in Europe we are a witness to the Belarus protests that people are documenting through Photography and Video and sharing through Online Social Media platforms.

Citizen data is important and it should be protected. But in my personal opinion there will continue to be moments in our lives where the freedom for the ordinary person to be able to document through Literature, Photography and other forms of the Visual Arts what is happening around us should not be criminalised by Government.

The freedom of publication and the freedom by the ordinary Citizen to be able to reach a Global audience using today's Social Media platforms is a fantastic protection of Civil Rights I feel. Nothing is more empowering for a Citizen to be able to tell their side of the story in a conflict or dispute.

Not a single bit of that tangent is relevant to the rights of a person that is guilty of nothing from having a camera shoved in their face and followed.

You are going to extreme examples that dont represent the situation thats being discussed

AndyFC

Yes these are extreme examples. But that is the point. Life is not always going to be perfect. Whether it is a political, or a ecological, or some other type of sociological crisis or otherwise. Even our present Health Crisis for example. Life is worth documenting and as part of that, Photography in particular will continue to play an important role.

OK in an everyday situation why would someone stick a camera in somebody's face? Yes it would be hard to argue that this type of behaviour is acceptable. The sensible approach is to ask for permission of course.

However the law here in Ireland at this moment permits Photography in a public location. Whatever about publication; that is another debate by itself. I am giving these few extreme examples why some people including myself; believe in the right for people to be able to continue to practice Photography in a public location without the fear of being criminalised either today or someday in the future.

I think it is valid to highlight these examples when debating with people about Privacy and Photography.

AndyFC

AndyFC wrote: »

Yes these are extreme examples. But that is the point. Life is not always going to be perfect. Whether it is a political, or a ecological, or some other type of sociological crisis or otherwise. Even our present Health Crisis for example. Life is worth documenting and as part of that, Photography in particular will continue to play an important role.

OK in an everyday situation why would someone stick a camera in somebody's face? Yes it would be hard to argue that this type of behaviour is acceptable. The sensible approach is to ask for permission of course.

However the law here in Ireland at this moment permits Photography in a public location. Whatever about publication; that is another debate by itself. I am giving these few extreme examples why some people including myself; believe in the right for people to be able to continue to practice Photography in a public location without the fear of being criminalised either today or someday in the future.

I think it is valid to highlight these examples when debating with people about Privacy and Photography.

I'm now legitimately curious if you read the op because you aren't discussing the actual event at all

Markcheese

Actually could shoving a camera in someone's face ,after them asking you not to ,be viewed as an assault in itself ?
Taking a picture from some degree of distance tends to be more passive ... Dancing along literally shoving a camera in some ones face a lot less so ...
Should a gaurd be allowed to share images he's taken,in the course of his duty ? Either online or just down the station .. ( it probably happens anyway but shouldn't )

mynamejeff

you know a lot of them tazer cameras come in from china

lots of assaults of gardai ,

seems like it would be justified to suspect that yer man was gona try and attack the garda and for him to batter him in self defence


be a great defence for the garda anyway …...

AndyFC

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm now legitimately curious if you read the op because you aren't discussing the actual event at all

No; I am not referring to the actual event itself. Rather I am trying to make a more general point regarding the use of Photography or Video in a public location. And granted; using some extreme examples as well to back up my own argument that someone should not expect to be criminalised for the use of Photography or Video while in a Public setting.

Anyway that's my own opinion.

AndyFC

Markcheese wrote: »

Actually could shoving a camera in someone's face ,after them asking you not to ,be viewed as an assault in itself ?
Taking a picture from some degree of distance tends to be more passive ... Dancing along literally shoving a camera in some ones face a lot less so ...
Should a gaurd be allowed to share images he's taken,in the course of his duty ? Either online or just down the station .. ( it probably happens anyway but shouldn't )

That is a very good point indeed. In the course of duty should a Guard be permitted to share images? I think the answer would have to be No?
Good question!

mynamejeff

AndyFC wrote: »

That is a very good point indeed. In the course of duty should a Guard be permitted to share images? I think the answer would have to be No?
Good question!

would make CCTV fairly pointless then wouldn't it ?

ditto missing persons or property photos

AndyFC

AndyFC wrote: »

No; I am not referring to the actual event itself. Rather I am trying to make a more general point regarding the use of Photography or Video in a public location. And granted; using some extreme examples as well to back up my own argument that someone should not expect to be criminalised for the use of Photography or Video while in a Public setting.

Anyway that's my own opinion.

Well could you try and discuss the actual issue instead of leading us on a tangent when all the comments to are replying to are clearly relevant to this particular case?

Feel free to start a thread on your topic by the way, I'm sure people will partake