Workplace recording

Fake Scores

Dav010 wrote: »

Has legislation been enacted relating to video recordings yet? I ask that because I don’t know myself, I haven’t heard. As far as I’m aware, the right to record a conversation you are a party to is not limited to criminal activity.

I was just saying that gdpr doesn't apply to a policeman retaining evidence in regard to McCabe being mentioned. That is unrelated to the OPs case.


The workplace recording doesn't involve crime at all. There could be and should be internal organisational rules and protocols. In the context of GDPR and single-party consent.

Dav010

Fake Scores wrote: »

I was just saying that gdpr doesn't apply to a policeman retaining evidence in regard to McCabe being mentioned. That is unrelated to the OPs case.


The workplace recording doesn't involve crime at all. There could be and should be internal organisational rules and protocols. In the context of GDPR and single-party consent.

A complaint has been made against the employer, whatever it is, the op’s colleague appears to think the op is part of that complaint. Can internal rules over ride a person’s rights to record a conversation they are a participant in? I don’t know, but the right to make that recording is established.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is a spate of these types of issues in the next year due to the numbers now working from home. They may be produced in evidence of bullying, misconduct, crime etc.

Fake Scores

Dav010 wrote: »

A complaint has been made against the employer, whatever it is, the op’s colleague appears to think the op is part of that complaint. Can internal rules over ride a person’s rights to record a conversation they are a participant in? I don’t know, but the right to make that recording is established.

Seperate the two to begin with.

Firstly the act of recording someone.

Secondly what you do with the recording afterwards (Retaining/publishing/circulating)


The recording of something audio or visual is governed by ideas about whether they have to consent to it or not. Expectations of privacy.

Holding on to someone's data brings in issues of GDPR.

Dav010

Fake Scores wrote: »

Seperate the two to begin with.

Firstly the act of recording someone.

Secondly what you do with the recording afterwards (Retaining/publishing/circulating)


The recording of something audio or visual is governed by ideas about whether they have to consent to it or not. Expectations of privacy.

Holding on to someone's data brings in issues of GDPR.

But that expectation of privacy does not apply where one participant gives consent to the recording. Someone not party to the conversation for instance cannot record that conversation because the participants do have an expectation of privacy.

I agree with you, this is not clear cut, no doubt the WRC will have to rule on this given the extent of wfh and use of audiovisual media. These conversations now form the “new” workplace interactions, and as far as I am aware, there is no law against you recording a conversation with a work colleague in the workplace.

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

And Irish law allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without consent from the other parties in that conversation. Could the Gardai have instructed Maurice MCCabe to delete his recordings under GDPR regs? No

Fake Scores wrote: »

Seperate the two to begin with.

Firstly the act of recording someone.

Secondly what you do with the recording afterwards (Retaining/publishing/circulating)


The recording of something audio or visual is governed by ideas about whether they have to consent to it or not. Expectations of privacy.

Holding on to someone's data brings in issues of GDPR.

Couldn't have said it better.

The obligations under GDPR around retaining data are not trumped or cancelled out by Irish law.

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Couldn't have said it better.

The obligations under GDPR around retaining data are not trumped or cancelled out by Irish law.

Except where GDPR do not apply. Is there a law preventing me recording a conversation with you in your office at work?

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

What are the GDPR issues if the recording is made by a participant? Only one party needs give consent.

Again, this is for calls not for video

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, this is for calls not for video

Link please.

Has legislation been enacted relating to this form of communication?

I posted a thorough run-through two hours ago

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I posted a thorough run-through two hours ago

Which Act/ruling did you refer to?

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

Except where GDPR do not apply. Is there a law preventing me recording a conversation with you in your office at work?

Again, the GDPR issue is not about recording. It is about retention of the recording.

Why would GDPR not apply to retention of a recording a conversation with me in the workplace? Are you claiming artistic or journalistic exemption?

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, the GDPR issue is not about recording. It is about retention of the recording.

Why would GDPR not apply to retention of a recording a conversation with me in the workplace? Are you claiming artistic or journalistic exemption?

Are recording of conversations in the workplace by a participant prohibited by law? It’s not a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer to that. In the op’s case, given that a complaint has been made against the employer and the op may be a party in that complaint, I’d say that might be a pretty good reason to retain that recording. No doubt the WRC/Courts will have to rule on this type of issue soon enough.

I don’t know the answers to the questions being posed, but I’m not nearly as sure as you seem to be that the recording of a conversation by a participant is prohibited by law just because it is in the workplace.

It’s a brave new world of remote digital communication, the article snoopsheep linked to has a lot of ambiguous opinions, the rules will have to be rewritten to account for situations like this, but as far as I’m aware, they aren’t there yet. You can be sure that a case in the WRC will have a video recording of a boss screaming at an employee over Skype/zoom etc as part of a bullying claim, that’s when we get clarity.

Edit: leaving aside the op’s specific case, I’ve posted a question in the Legal Discussion forum relating to AV recordings at work, we might get some insight into the legality of it there.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But if the house is being used as a workplace, it's no longer just a private home.

Yes, it is. It does not become a commercial premises

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Link please.

Has legislation been enacted relating to this form of communication?

Are you suggesting that visual recording and the data retained is not subject to separate treatment?

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yes, it is. It does not become a commercial premises

In a way it does, both the employer and employee have responsibilities in relation to the designated workspace in the home.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/topics/remote_working/

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that visual recording and the data retained is not subject to separate treatment?

I am not suggesting that, I am asking what separates a visual recording by a participant from a phone/in person conversation, do you have the answer?

I’ve posted this question over in LD, maybe some of the legal professionals there can shed some light on this.

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

In a way it does, both the employer and employee have responsibilities in relation to the designated workspace in the home.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/topics/remote_working/

It's not an agreed arrangement though, as set out by the HSA. It is a one-sided emergency imposition done without agreement. My house is still my house. No one else gets to decide how things work in my house.

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

Are recording of conversations in the workplace by a participant prohibited by law? It’s not a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer to that. In the op’s case, given that a complaint has been made against the employer and the op may be a party in that complaint, I’d say that might be a pretty good reason to retain that recording. No doubt the WRC/Courts will have to rule on this type of issue soon enough.

I don’t know the answers to the questions being posed, but I’m not nearly as sure as you seem to be that the recording of a conversation by a participant is prohibited by law just because it is in the workplace.

It’s a brave new world of remote digital communication, the article snoopsheep linked to has a lot of ambiguous opinions, the rules will have to be rewritten to account for situations like this, but as far as I’m aware, they aren’t there yet. You can be sure that a case in the WRC will have a video recording of a boss screaming at an employee over Skype/zoom etc as part of a bullying claim, that’s when we get clarity.

Edit: leaving aside the op’s specific case, I’ve posted a question in the Legal Discussion forum relating to AV recordings at work, we might get some insight into the legality of it there.

Again, I'm not saying that recording is prohibited anywhere.

I'm saying that retention of recordings are subject to GDPR.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

IMy house is still my house. No one else gets to decide how things work in my house.

They do though. You cannot beat your wife, starve your kids or manufacture controlled drugs, just for starters.

By actually doing any work from home, you are implicitly agreeing to have it as your workplace. Agree that you were coerced into this with Covid - but you could have said "sorry, there's no way I can work, put me on leave".

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

In a way it does, both the employer and employee have responsibilities in relation to the designated workspace in the home.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/topics/remote_working/

That link does not show any single legislation. None. It's pointless. It places no responsibilities and states itself that it's 'guidance'

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They do though. You cannot beat your wife, starve your kids or manufacture controlled drugs, just for starters.

By actually doing any work from home, you are implicitly agreeing to have it as your workplace. Agree that you were coerced into this with Covid - but you could have said "sorry, there's no way I can work, put me on leave".

The first stuff is all dealt with in law. Can you point to any legislation anywhere that confirms the second part?

Not guidelines, law.

Dav010 wrote: »

I am not suggesting that, I am asking what separates a visual recording by a participant from a phone/in person conversation, do you have the answer?

I’ve posted this question over in LD, maybe some of the legal professionals there can shed some light on this.

There's a difference between a phonecall and in person but in regards visual, I would suggest it's the same as domestic cctv in essence.

cctv.http://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/domestic-cctv

I'm suggesting mind you add it's not an area I have encountered before so haven't researched.

Wfh will need to be fleshed out over the years I'm guessing.

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The first stuff is all dealt with in law. Can you point to any legislation anywhere that confirms the second part?

Not guidelines, law.



There's a difference between a phonecall and in person but in regards visual, I would suggest it's the same as domestic cctv in essence.

cctv.http://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/domestic-cctv

I'm suggesting mind you add it's not an area I have encountered before so haven't researched.

Wfh will need to be fleshed out over the years I'm guessing.

It’s nothing like domestic CCTV, your link relates to capture of images outside perimeter of the home. Why use this analogy?

Can you can point to a law which prevents a participant from recording a visual conversation by giving single party consent? That right is well established in relation to in-person and telephone conversations between two people, is there a prohibition on visual communications between the same two people?

This is not the same as a retailer and customer, or home owner and a neighbour/someone walking by on a public street, this is two colleagues in conversation, one of whom is alleging wrongdoing by the other.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s nothing like domestic CCTV, your link relates to capture of images outside perimeter of the home. Why use this analogy?

Can you can point to a law which prevents a participant from recording a visual conversation by giving single party consent? That right is well established in relation to in-person and telephone conversations between two people, is there a prohibition on visual communications between the same two people?

This is not the same as a retailer and customer, or home owner and a neighbour/someone walking by on a public street, this is two colleagues in conversation, one of whom is alleging wrongdoing by the other.

Did you read it? It states "capturing another person's home"

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Did you read it? It states "capturing another person's home"

When on a zoom call , it is a workspace when wfh, similar albeit not exactly the same, as being at work in your employers building.

DermotCharles

Polycom wrote: »

One of my team members has lodged a complaint against my company. He mentions me in the complaint and stated that he didn't trust me, so recorded our conversations without my knowledge but I didn't say anything incriminating. As far as I know, there is nothing negative in the recordings. I don't have clarity of them being audio or video and not sure if they have been destroyed. The recordings have been while I'm working from him with my kids routinly on the video

Is it legal to record people in this manner?

My advice would be to consult a solicitor as regards the legality of such recordings.

I can only say that it is illegal under US law.

Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is illegal for any person to secretly record an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)

But this isn't the US. Our laws may differ greatly.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They do though. You cannot beat your wife, starve your kids or manufacture controlled drugs, just for starters.

By actually doing any work from home, you are implicitly agreeing to have it as your workplace. Agree that you were coerced into this with Covid - but you could have said "sorry, there's no way I can work, put me on leave".

Those are criminal acts.

The employer doesn't get to impose WFH without any other option given AND impose conditions on how that WFH is to be operated, all on some 'implicit' basis.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

When on a zoom call , it is a workspace when wfh, similar albeit not exactly the same, as being at work in your employers building.

Who says? And who says that incorporates your family?

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Who says? And who says that incorporates your family?

I would have thought the phrase “work from home” would be self explanatory, and indicate that where you work at home becomes your workspace while working remotely.

Should your family be on work zoom calls? I would suggest no, they should not. It is completely unprofessional as you are technically at work, if they are visible, that is your fault, not the other participant in the conversation.

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

I would have thought the phrase “work from home” would be self explanatory, and indicate that where you work at home becomes your workspace while working remotely.

Should your family be on work zoom calls? I would suggest no, they should not. It is completely unprofessional as you are technically at work, if they are visible, that is your fault, not the other participant in the conversation.

It's the fault of the employer who imposed work from home without asking about feasibility and practicality.

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's the fault of the employer who imposed work from home without asking about feasibility and practicality.

The employer, not the Government?