Police and Security "Auditers"

[Strangely Brown]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

sugerbear said:

Seems the easiest way to get rid him / them is to find their real name and then start to film them whilst repeating their name over and over .

Or just lock all the building doors and wait until they leave.

A couple of the trust pilots are amusing.

Just ignoring them would work as well.

I genuinely don't understand why people are so bothered about auditors. Is it territorial?

Its very very simple, you don't have permission to directly film me without my say so. That is what riles people and in almost all examples that holds true.

Also not strictly true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5d7TVNYUs&t=...

See 6:24

It depends.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 21st March 13:49

[ashleyman]

I’ve been binging Blackbelt Barrister. Can’t seem to get an answer with online searching but police generally referred to as constable in uniform or traffic officer.

What is uniform?
What is the difference between a constable in uniform and a traffic officer?

[What The Deuces]

Strangely Brown said:

Also not strictly true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5d7TVNYUs&t=...

See 6:24

It depends.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 21st March 13:49

I've always said it depends on a number of things.

Just To iterate that video contradicts nothing Ive said and even flashes up to take note of GDPR legislation.

A key thing you aren’t noting I think is the distinction between taking personal film/photos and doing it commercially for monetary gain, such as a monetised YouTube channel for example

Most of the examples on here do not fall in the exemptions IMO and if they do then do we think the auditors are keeping the correct documentation that isn't exempt and the correct records to prove their exemption?

Edited by What The Deuces on Tuesday 21st March 14:51

[Mr Miata]

What The Deuces said:

Its very very simple, you don't have permission to directly film me without my say so. That is what riles people and in almost all examples that holds true.

You better tell that to the owners of the 100,000s of CCTV and dash cams that are in the UK. Good luck with that.

[What The Deuces]

Mr Miata said:

You better tell that to the owners of the 100,000s of CCTV and dash cams that are in the UK. Good luck with that.

Are you struggling a bit here? Please go back and read what has been posted rather than taking snippets out of context. The main bit you've missed is we are generally talking about auditors who make income from youtube hence are making commercial films where GDPR applies. (see the video from blackbeltbarrister re the dog/drone to confirm that rather than take it from me)

[Mr Miata]

What The Deuces said:

Are you struggling a bit here? Please go back and read what has been posted rather than taking snippets out of context. The main bit you've missed is we are generally talking about auditors who make income from youtube hence are making commercial films where GDPR applies. (see the video from blackbeltbarrister re the dog/drone to confirm that rather than take it from me)

You should go back and read the part where I wrote none of these ever get prosecuted for GDPR. It’s not enforced. I’d rather the police used their resources on more important things.

[What The Deuces]

Mr Miata said:

What The Deuces said:

Are you struggling a bit here? Please go back and read what has been posted rather than taking snippets out of context. The main bit you've missed is we are generally talking about auditors who make income from youtube hence are making commercial films where GDPR applies. (see the video from blackbeltbarrister re the dog/drone to confirm that rather than take it from me)

You should go back and read the part where I wrote none of these ever get prosecuted for GDPR. It’s not enforced. I’d rather the police used their resources on more important things.

Because they hide their ID...

What has enforcing GDPR got to do with the Police by the way?

GDPR does get enforced.....a lot........and at a much lower level than you'd probably imagine.

Why do you think the legislation exists?

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

sugerbear said:

Seems the easiest way to get rid him / them is to find their real name and then start to film them whilst repeating their name over and over .

Or just lock all the building doors and wait until they leave.

A couple of the trust pilots are amusing.

Just ignoring them would work as well.

I genuinely don't understand why people are so bothered about auditors. Is it territorial?

Its very very simple, you don't have permission to directly film me without my say so. That is what riles people and in almost all examples that holds true.

We have established that it isn’t simple.

If you don’t want to be filmed then going up to a person with a camera seems like a pretty strange move.

But you didn’t really address the question. What is it about being filmed that is so triggering?

[Strangely Brown]

What The Deuces said:

Strangely Brown said:

Also not strictly true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5d7TVNYUs&t=...

See 6:24

It depends.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 21st March 13:49

I've always said it depends on a number of things.

Just To iterate that video contradicts nothing Ive said and even flashes up to take note of GDPR legislation.

A key thing you aren’t noting I think is the distinction between taking personal film/photos and doing it commercially for monetary gain, such as a monetised YouTube channel for example

Most of the examples on here do not fall in the exemptions IMO and if they do then do we think the auditors are keeping the correct documentation that isn't exempt and the correct records to prove their exemption?

I could, perhaps, have been clearer but I posted the link to that video is response to your specific statement:

"Its very very simple, you don't have permission to directly film me without my say so."

That is quite clearly addressed in the video at 6:24 and it has nothing to do with commercial use or GDPR. Your statement is wrong.

[What The Deuces]

Strangely Brown said:

What The Deuces said:

Strangely Brown said:

Also not strictly true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5d7TVNYUs&t=...

See 6:24

It depends.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 21st March 13:49

I've always said it depends on a number of things.

Just To iterate that video contradicts nothing Ive said and even flashes up to take note of GDPR legislation.

A key thing you aren’t noting I think is the distinction between taking personal film/photos and doing it commercially for monetary gain, such as a monetised YouTube channel for example

Most of the examples on here do not fall in the exemptions IMO and if they do then do we think the auditors are keeping the correct documentation that isn't exempt and the correct records to prove their exemption?

I could, perhaps, have been clearer but I posted the link to that video is response to your specific statement:

"Its very very simple, you don't have permission to directly film me without my say so."

That is quite clearly addressed in the video at 6:24 and it has nothing to do with commercial use or GDPR. Your statement is wrong.

As I said cherry picking one post from a huge thread out of context.

Do I need to add “if you’re an auditor making a commercial film” before every comment?

I think it’s pretty clear if you go back a number of posts who knows the legislation and who doesn’t.

[Strangely Brown]

What The Deuces said:

As I said cherry picking one post from a huge thread out of context.

Not out of context. You made an unqualified statement.

What The Deuces said:

Do I need to add “if you’re an auditor making a commercial film” before every comment?

Yes. If your statements are qualified then qualify them. If you make unqualified statements then you should expect them to be read as such.

¯\_(?)_/¯

[What The Deuces]

Strangely Brown said:

What The Deuces said:

As I said cherry picking one post from a huge thread out of context.

Not out of context. You made an unqualified statement.

What The Deuces said:

Do I need to add “if you’re an auditor making a commercial film” before every comment?

Yes. If your statements are qualified then qualify them. If you make unqualified statements then you should expect them to be read as such.

¯\_(?)_/¯

Just read the thread.

[Strangely Brown]

What The Deuces said:

Strangely Brown said:

What The Deuces said:

As I said cherry picking one post from a huge thread out of context.

Not out of context. You made an unqualified statement.

What The Deuces said:

Do I need to add “if you’re an auditor making a commercial film” before every comment?

Yes. If your statements are qualified then qualify them. If you make unqualified statements then you should expect them to be read as such.

¯\_(?)_/¯

Just read the thread.

Or you could just say what you mean.

[What The Deuces]

Strangely Brown said:

What The Deuces said:

Strangely Brown said:

What The Deuces said:

As I said cherry picking one post from a huge thread out of context.

Not out of context. You made an unqualified statement.

What The Deuces said:

Do I need to add “if you’re an auditor making a commercial film” before every comment?

Yes. If your statements are qualified then qualify them. If you make unqualified statements then you should expect them to be read as such.

¯\_(?)_/¯

Just read the thread.

Or you could just say what you mean.

I have. Repeatedly. If you did everyone the courtesy of reading it then you’d know and we could move on to something g with more substance.

[vxr8mate]

You keep going on about GDPR and auditors.

Name one (just one) account of an auditor being pursued for a breach of GDPR.

[trickywoo]

vxr8mate said:

You keep going on about GDPR and auditors.

Name one (just one) account of an auditor being pursued for a breach of GDPR.

He can't and he won't do anything about raising the issue either, other than banging on about it boringly and relentlessly on here.

I'd love to see a dashcam person reporting something to the police done for gdpr though. I'd crowdfund such a claim, generously.

[What The Deuces]

vxr8mate said:

You keep going on about GDPR and auditors.

Name one (just one) account of an auditor being pursued for a breach of GDPR.

How would you know? Do the ICO publish details of cases naming people.....(Ironic you need to ask)? Given the absolute lack of knowledge about the law also how many people do you expect to be able to construct a viable complaint and actually make it? Then there's the matter of identifying them. As a member of the public i cant force them to identify themselves regardless of them breaking the law or not.


The fact remains, people think all 'auditor' activity in public is perfectly legal, when in reality its a minefield and a lot of it isn't legal. Blackbelt Barrister mentions it totally matter of factly in the drone/dog video. It is a matter of fact.


However there is an example in this thread of a European 'Auditor' filming in a Police station who was taken to court.

[Raccaccoonie]

Lets say DJ audits claimed Mileage for his trips, then he would be clearly working, and as a business open to GDPR.

[Oceanrower]

Raccaccoonie said:

Lets say DJ audits claimed Mileage for his trips, then he would be clearly working, and as a business open to GDPR.

Does he?

[Raccaccoonie]

Oceanrower said:

Does he?

Only the tax man/women would know, but considering how arrogant he is not a massive leap. But all alleged though.