When a person uses a computer they are in effect recording a conversation by their fingerprints or fingertips alone. Using a personnel computer over time brings the relationship between the user and it to a whole new level where people are less guarded in what they write, seek and say. All manner of open and closed secrets are revealed to the machine, and, like an errant lover, it will betray the owner without shedding one tear of emotion sooner or later. One time it took only removing the hard drive from a computer to destroy it but not anymore. The only advise to anyone using a computer is that what you write, seek and say is what you would have no problem to begin with in sharing with one thousand strangers in a room of what exactly that is. The same optics should apply to how you use your phone in what you are recording and who may be recording you whether it is in visual or audio form. The rules that apply to this varies from country to country and is important that anyone learns and knows what they are in regard to them. Let's look at Ireland to at least give an overview of what this means because every armchair or barstool lawyer has an opinion on this one; some qualified lawyers have a few too.
One defense of those who have been recorded is that they feel they were cheated on, violated and a breach of confidence was betrayed; much again like the analogy of an errant lover. Well, that's the emotional defense and the legal one is not much better as it is claimed that the secret recording is illegal or in breach of the constitutional right to privacy. When it comes to visual or the audio recording of another, unfortunately or fortunately, these terms and conditions do not apply here in Ireland and a lot of other countries as well for Irish law requires only "single one party consent." That means the consent of the person doing the recording only!
Some countries legislation prohibits this of course but in Ireland other parties need not be informed at all whether they would have agreed to being recorded or not. There are a few exceptions to the rule: businesses, both private and public, employers and other marketing type companies, which is why they always have a pre- recorded voice message letting a person know that the call that they are on may well be recording and is being done under the guise for training purposes. It is more likely being recorded as an oral signature or not to an agreement or disagreement, or as evidence of the nature of the call and for various other but common marketing strategies.
As a private citizen one is not bound by these same rules in any shape or form if what they are recording is being kept for their "personal affairs" only and that could be later deemed to be consumption for the "public interest that favors the disclosure of what was recorded". If a man was about to rob a bank and a recording by a friend testified to that intent, then that would easily fall under that heading as the friend automatically is protected by the "whistleblower act" and if that didn't do it then the "confidential recipient" act would have.
In Vincent Coyne's case I was the one doing the recording in court for 'free' and up close and personal to the judge; whether the stenographer at the court was doing the same thing came down to one simple fact of economics and that was her recording, if she had one, was going to cost me €200 for every hour of it. I was legally allowed to record despite the public's overall perception that this was not legal. It is allowed and the law is even more clear here: from policeman to judge and anyone in between that is classed as a public servant or government official in any capacity, then a citizen is allowed to record them to their hearts content by any means necessary. If any confidentiality clause did apply, even in the narrowest definition of what that meant, again, a countervailing public interest that applied to it favors a public disclosure. If someone cries that recordings would have a "harmful effect" on them in order to try and prevent disclosure, this can only apply in cases that involve serious and direct harms that facilities and encourages the planning and commission of a crime against that person.
It is worth nothing too that in the Galway courthouse, and the only one that I am familiar with, that there are no written warning notices of any kind outside of the various courtrooms stating recording is not allowed. If they were then they are simply not worth the paper they are written on in terms of what the law is in relation to it or its enforceability; much like a sign telling a wheelchair bound person who wants to use the disability ground floor bathroom that it is 'out of order' and to please use the toilet on the second floor instead. That is not just a story because I was there in the building that had no elevator when it happened
I am reliably informed that some courthouses state you must switch off your phone before entering the courtroom. This is a loose and unenforceable rule too by the courts to keep the perception going that recording is not allowed, and of course if a phone is turned off then there is no chance to record in the first place. Turning the ringer tone off and the volume down is all that is needed to be done in this regard and neither action will affect the recording. If the phone is not turned down rather than turned off, the judge could go after the owner on a contempt charge for interrupting the court if it starts ringing during proceedings even once, and several times would only make things worse and he might even confiscate the phone. Any little secrets then will not be a secret for long even if the person gets their phone back later.
There is no better signature evidence of any event inside a courtroom or outside of one, than a visual or audio recording of what really happened whether it was a public or private matter in the interaction of persons or events by themselves. In insurance matters a recording is the deadbolt lock on a steel door, and what is recorded is the key to opening it to see what's really going on behind it. Everyone in the modern world has a phone with a recording device and comes as standard in a modern car. In short: like what the American Express card advertisement says: "you shouldn't leave home without one".
Barry Clifford in an excerpt from my forthcoming book: Law, Lawyers and Liars
A work in progress.......
No comments:
Post a Comment