James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Criminal. It strikes me that there are a plethora of often overlapping and complex frameworks surrounding the capturing of images, be that video footage or stills, from the point of view of GDPR, the constitutional right to privacy, surveillance Acts and the interception of telecoms. We have had many such debates in the justice committee in recent times, not least on facial recognition technology which is now subject to separate legislation and before that we debated body cams for gardaí.

When I introduced legislation to regulate drones, I encountered a difficulty in the previous Dáil when the question of what a reasonable expectation of privacy was arose. People were disconcerted by the idea that a drone might hover overhead and record them without their permission or consent. I understand the position in civil law is that if one is in a public place, there is not an expectation of privacy but if one is in one's back garden, for example, there probably is unless there is a very low fence or whatever. There is a rule of thumb and the usual legal phrase is "Where there is an expectation of privacy". It is a difficult one to get right.

It is a modern phenomenon, with the digital age, that there are so many consequential recordings. I am glad Deputy Smith mentioned that the likes of dashcams will not be affected by the Bill. I am uncomfortable with the idea of being accidentally or consequently recorded many times a day as we go about our business. One of the reasons we were so apprehensive about the facial recognition technology during the course of the debate was because of the thought of ongoing surveillance. I understand a street in London had a camera running 24-7, which led to the potential for profiling and the unintended or unwanted consequences that flow from that are apparent. It is something that happens, however We have to distinguish between innocent engagements, such as holiday snaps which have a person in the background, and more sinister behaviour. What we used to call rubbernecking we now call rubberphoning or video cameraing. Deputy Smith spoke about the constant Garda refrain to please not share images. It is horrific and tragic that that even needs to be said. One would think common decency would prevent someone from doing that. The instinctive reaction should not be to whip out a phone and record an accident unless it is contribute to evidence gathering - unfortunately, that is not the case in most instances - and then to share the footage. We have to question how we have ended up in a society where recording such images is the first instinct and the second instinct is to forward them on to a WhatsApp group.

I am sure the Minister will have amendments to consider. I have not had a chance to study the text of the Bill. It is difficult to get legislation right in this space because there is so much conflicting and overlapping legislation in terms of allowing the consequential recording and capturing of images and the expectation of privacy in a public place, which does not really exist. My knowledge of the royal family is not 100%, but a young royal couple who married some years ago were on honeymoon when a photographer with a zoom lens took a photograph while the woman was sunbathing on a balcony. Ultimately, the question of law said if she was visible from the road she could not have an expectation of privacy. That seems very intrusive and unfair, but that is often the law in these cases.

The Bill deals with a very serious and grave matter, but people's privacy is also a very serious matter that has to be respected. It is difficult to get this right, but I commend the Deputy for bringing the Bill before the House. Unfortunately, with the increase in the number of car crashes on the M50 and elsewhere I have seen what has happened. The intention is excellent and it is certainly something I would welcome passing. I am glad to hear the Deputy say it has all-party and Government support.

See this speech in context