Police and Security "Auditers"

[Strangely Brown]

Mr Miata said:

What The Deuces said:

You’re making it up I’m afraid.

Go watch the Blackbeltbarrister drone/dog video, he covers that a bit there.

Go look at the ring doorbell case judgement where the neighbour was filming the area surrounding his house with cctv and ring doorbell.

In what way do you think GDPR fine information is in the public domain?

It’s funny that you should quote BlackBeltBarrister in your argument, while “conveniently” not mentioning he’s also done a video about Auditors where he says the general position is it’s not illegal to film or photograph in public, they do not need the consent of anyone else and nobody has the right to stop them or ask them to delete them. There’s also NPCC guidance on Auditors.

It’s like you’re cherry picking what he says to suit your narrative

The key words there are "general position", i.e. there are exceptions, as has been held by the Court of Appeal.

The position in pretty much all cases is, "It depends..."

[Raccaccoonie]

Yes BBB contradicts his own argument, if you watch both videos. Like he says he would argue such and such. Who the F has a barrister to argue this, not these auditors.

[What The Deuces]

Mr Miata said:

What The Deuces said:

You’re making it up I’m afraid.

Go watch the Blackbeltbarrister drone/dog video, he covers that a bit there.

Go look at the ring doorbell case judgement where the neighbour was filming the area surrounding his house with cctv and ring doorbell.

In what way do you think GDPR fine information is in the public domain?

It’s funny that you should quote BlackBeltBarrister in your argument, while “conveniently” not mentioning he’s also done a video about Auditors where he says the general position is it’s not illegal to film or photograph in public, they do not need the consent of anyone else and nobody has the right to stop them or ask them to delete them. There’s also NPCC guidance on Auditors.

It’s like you’re cherry picking what he says to suit your narrative

Sigh

I’ve always said it depends what they’re doing

But the touted view often given on here that you can film what you like is incorrect. I’ve proven it time and time again with links to the legislation and other experts. I’ve never said you can’t film in public but it’s not Carte Blanche as people like you try to make people believe

[tommytaylor]

What The Deuces said:

Sigh

I’ve always said it depends what they’re doing

But the touted view often given on here that you can film what you like is incorrect. I’ve proven it time and time again with links to the legislation and other experts. I’ve never said you can’t film in public but it’s not Carte Blanche as people like you try to make people believe

I've been reading this thread with interest so can I ask a question, if its commercial then it falls under the GDPR as we know, all the shops/banks etc are commercial and they all have CCTV and a lot of these look out over public areas. What happens if I walk into a bank that has cameras and tell them I don't want to be filmed whilst I'm in public and then go and stand outside the bank on the pavement, will they switch the cameras off?

[What The Deuces]

tommytaylor said:

I've been reading this thread with interest so can I ask a question, if its commercial then it falls under the GDPR as we know, all the shops/banks etc are commercial and they all have CCTV and a lot of these look out over public areas. What happens if I walk into a bank that has cameras and tell them I don't want to be filmed whilst I'm in public and then go and stand outside the bank on the pavement, will they switch the cameras off?

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection-your-business/using-cctv

[sugerbear]

What The Deuces said:

tommytaylor said:

I've been reading this thread with interest so can I ask a question, if its commercial then it falls under the GDPR as we know, all the shops/banks etc are commercial and they all have CCTV and a lot of these look out over public areas. What happens if I walk into a bank that has cameras and tell them I don't want to be filmed whilst I'm in public and then go and stand outside the bank on the pavement, will they switch the cameras off?

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection-your-business/using-cctv

It's amazing that anyone ca conflate a bank using CCTV on their own premises for security reasons with someone filming people for profit without their knowledge in a public space.

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/ring-do...

The Law Gazzette said:

But what if your system captures images of people outside the boundary of your private domestic property – for example, in neighbours’ homes or gardens, shared spaces, or on a public footpath or a street? Then the [GDPR] and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA18) will apply to you, and you will need to ensure your use of CCTV complies with these laws.’

Can we please now stop debating that filming in public is completely exempt from GDPR and move on. Its utterly boring.

For those of you who think you can do what you like with a camera then think again and inform yourselves of things you can and cant do.

That article is about domestic CCTV systems. This thread is about auditors, who film in public as citizen journalists.

We have established that citizen journalism is exempt from the Data Protection Act provided that the person doing it has a reasonable belief that it is in the public interest.

No one has been able to provide examples of an auditor being subject to enforcement because their activities did not meet this test.

That should be the end of any discussion on GDPR, in this thread because there is nothing more to say.

But you continue to obsess over it for some reason.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

That article is about domestic CCTV systems. This thread is about auditors, who film in public as citizen journalists.

We have established that citizen journalism is exempt from the Data Protection Act provided that the person doing it has a reasonable belief that it is in the public interest.

No one has been able to provide examples of an auditor being subject to enforcement because their activities did not meet this test.

That should be the end of any discussion on GDPR, in this thread because there is nothing more to say.

But you continue to obsess over it for some reason.

Nope, some things we see auditors do are clearly against the law and as explained many many times there is no mechanism for us to know who has been fined for what as far as I know.

However you have a video of a barrister telling you it needs to be considered and links to legislation telling you the exact circumstances it applies.

You can claim GDPR doesn't apply and wont be enforced all you like but the ICO reckon they resolve 95% of complaints in x months, so if you make a complaint legitimately to the ICO then it will be investigated. I have plenty of professional experience of it. From small one man bands to corporate.

Edited by What The Deuces on Tuesday 28th March 13:45

[Flumpo]

It’s a moot point anyway, as YouTube and Facebook have their own rules and will take down or ask for faces and names to be blurred in videos if people complain.

[tommytaylor]

sugerbear said:

What The Deuces said:

tommytaylor said:

I've been reading this thread with interest so can I ask a question, if its commercial then it falls under the GDPR as we know, all the shops/banks etc are commercial and they all have CCTV and a lot of these look out over public areas. What happens if I walk into a bank that has cameras and tell them I don't want to be filmed whilst I'm in public and then go and stand outside the bank on the pavement, will they switch the cameras off?

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection-your-business/using-cctv

It's amazing that anyone ca conflate a bank using CCTV on their own premises for security reasons with someone filming people for profit without their knowledge in a public space.

I was trying to see if there was anything in the act that could prevent someone filming but it appears not. So there may be many things open to you if someone is filming commercially but it doesn't appear that stopping them filming is one of them. That's the way I see it anyway.

[What The Deuces]

Flumpo said:

It’s a moot point anyway, as YouTube and Facebook have their own rules and will take down or ask for faces and names to be blurred in videos if people complain.

Do you possibly think its because they need to comply with GDPR and data privacy legislation?

[Bigends]

If an auditor is merely filming the back of a building but happens to capture comings and goings of vehicles and persons does GDPR kick in at that time? or only when approached to find out what theyre up to.

[Flumpo]

What The Deuces said:

Flumpo said:

It’s a moot point anyway, as YouTube and Facebook have their own rules and will take down or ask for faces and names to be blurred in videos if people complain.

Do you possibly think its because they need to comply with GDPR and data privacy legislation?

I would have thought that was blindingly obvious, but this is now so tedious I was trying to help it move along.

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

That article is about domestic CCTV systems. This thread is about auditors, who film in public as citizen journalists.

We have established that citizen journalism is exempt from the Data Protection Act provided that the person doing it has a reasonable belief that it is in the public interest.

No one has been able to provide examples of an auditor being subject to enforcement because their activities did not meet this test.

That should be the end of any discussion on GDPR, in this thread because there is nothing more to say.

But you continue to obsess over it for some reason.

Nope, some things we see auditors do are clearly against the law and as explained many many times there is no mechanism for us to know who has been fined for what as far as I know.

However you have a video of a barrister telling you it needs to be considered and links to legislation telling you the exact circumstances it applies.

You can claim GDPR doesn't apply and wont be enforced all you like but the ICO reckon they resolve 95% of complaints in x months, so if you make a complaint legitimately to the ICO then it will be investigated. I have plenty of professional experience of it. From small one man bands to corporate.

What I have written is what the legislation and guidance says about citizen journalism. It is excluded from GDPR provided that the journalism in question is in the public interest. If it’s not in the public interest then it won’t be excluded.

So there are two questions:

1. Is auditing citizen journalism? I think this is highly likely given the way this activity is described.

2. If it is citizen journalism, is it also in the public interest? Again, I think so but others may disagree.

That’s it, there is nothing more to say about it until further guidance or precedent emerges.

On the enforcement point, the simple fact that the highest profile auditors are continuing with their activities suggests quite strongly to me that they are not currently being targeted by the ICO. If they were then I think it is likely that their behaviour would already have changed.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

That article is about domestic CCTV systems. This thread is about auditors, who film in public as citizen journalists.

We have established that citizen journalism is exempt from the Data Protection Act provided that the person doing it has a reasonable belief that it is in the public interest.

No one has been able to provide examples of an auditor being subject to enforcement because their activities did not meet this test.

That should be the end of any discussion on GDPR, in this thread because there is nothing more to say.

But you continue to obsess over it for some reason.

Nope, some things we see auditors do are clearly against the law and as explained many many times there is no mechanism for us to know who has been fined for what as far as I know.

However you have a video of a barrister telling you it needs to be considered and links to legislation telling you the exact circumstances it applies.

You can claim GDPR doesn't apply and wont be enforced all you like but the ICO reckon they resolve 95% of complaints in x months, so if you make a complaint legitimately to the ICO then it will be investigated. I have plenty of professional experience of it. From small one man bands to corporate.

What I have written is what the legislation and guidance says about citizen journalism. It is excluded from GDPR provided that the journalism in question is in the public interest. If it’s not in the public interest then it won’t be excluded.

So there are two questions:

1. Is auditing citizen journalism? I think this is highly likely given the way this activity is described.

2. If it is citizen journalism, is it also in the public interest? Again, I think so but others may disagree.

That’s it, there is nothing more to say about it until further guidance or precedent emerges.

On the enforcement point, the simple fact that the highest profile auditors are continuing with their activities suggests quite strongly to me that they are not currently being targeted by the ICO. If they were then I think it is likely that their behaviour would already have changed.

Guess all you like. The ICO won’t target anyone without a complaint, which requires informed people to make them.
From this thread we can see that most people have no idea bar what they think they know so we’ll leave it at that. You seem to think the ICO turn a blind eye to things. They don’t

You also seem to think that an exemption just means you ignore GDPR, it doesn’t, there are still many obligations when processing that data and policy’s to follow and maintain.

As I’ve said all along stuff like filming Police is probably exempt under journalism from needing consent.

Filming Bob the scrapyard security guard on his property while goading him from the footpath will not pass the test of public interest and would certainly require consent.

Edited by What The Deuces on Tuesday 28th March 21:56

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Filming Bob the scrapyard security guard on his property while goading him from the footpath will not pass the test of public interest and would certainly require consent.

That is not certain. It is simply your opinion and I think you are wrong.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Filming Bob the scrapyard security guard on his property while goading him from the footpath will not pass the test of public interest and would certainly require consent.

That is not certain. It is simply your opinion and I think you are wrong.

You are more than entitled to your opinion but reading back you’ve learned about GDPR legislation as you have gone along this post, or done a very good impression of somebody who didn’t know or understand the detail.

My point of view is from professional interactions with the ICO on behalf of a number of companies and individuals since the GDPR legislation became active and long experience of being nominated Data controller for a number of companies.

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Filming Bob the scrapyard security guard on his property while goading him from the footpath will not pass the test of public interest and would certainly require consent.

That is not certain. It is simply your opinion and I think you are wrong.

You are more than entitled to your opinion but reading back you’ve learned about GDPR legislation as you have gone along this post, or done a very good impression of somebody who didn’t know or understand the detail.

My point of view is from professional interactions with the ICO on behalf of a number of companies and individuals since the GDPR legislation became active and long experience of being nominated Data controller for a number of companies.

You seem to be obsessed with GDPR. To the extent that you have completely hijacked this thread in order to talk about what appears to be your pet subject.

But despite that apparent knowledge your posts are not logical or consistent. The facts of the situation are not in doubt. Auditors claim to be citizen journalists, which would exempt them from most aspects of GDPR if their stories are in the public interest. I have not changed my position on this at all.

Your believe that some auditors are not acting in the public interest and so might not be exempt, but you keep stating that belief as absolute certainty when it obviously isn’t. Telling me that your opinion carries more weight than mine does not change the fact that it is simply an opinion.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Filming Bob the scrapyard security guard on his property while goading him from the footpath will not pass the test of public interest and would certainly require consent.

That is not certain. It is simply your opinion and I think you are wrong.

You are more than entitled to your opinion but reading back you’ve learned about GDPR legislation as you have gone along this post, or done a very good impression of somebody who didn’t know or understand the detail.

My point of view is from professional interactions with the ICO on behalf of a number of companies and individuals since the GDPR legislation became active and long experience of being nominated Data controller for a number of companies.

You seem to be obsessed with GDPR. To the extent that you have completely hijacked this thread in order to talk about what appears to be your pet subject.

But despite that apparent knowledge your posts are not logical or consistent. The facts of the situation are not in doubt. Auditors claim to be citizen journalists, which would exempt them from most aspects of GDPR if their stories are in the public interest. I have not changed my position on this at all.

Your believe that some auditors are not acting in the public interest and so might not be exempt, but you keep stating that belief as absolute certainty when it obviously isn’t. Telling me that your opinion carries more weight than mine does not change the fact that it is simply an opinion.

You seem to be obsessed in saying it doesn’t apply ever.

An auditor can claim to be a citizen journalist

I can claim to be an aubergine. Are they freemen of the land too lol


The simple fact is (and all Ive ever said on here) is that some of the content we’ve seen on here falls under GDPR. I’ve demonstrated why and also that fact that ‘citizen journalism’ doesn’t not exempt you from the entire range of obligations.

You are obsessed with saying people can film exactly as they please in public and it’s a stone cold fact that they can’t in all circumstances. The more you say they can, the more I’ll say they can’t and point out why.

It’s not remotely my pet subject, I just happen to know about it through a professional need. I know plenty of other subjects in much much more detail.

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

You seem to be obsessed in saying it doesn’t apply ever.

Except that is not what I have said.

What The Deuces said:

The simple fact is (and all Ive ever said on here) is that some of the content we’ve seen on here falls under GDPR.

It is not a fact, it is your opinion. You are not the person who gets to decide what is in the public interest. Neither is the ICO in effect, because the true test is if the journalist has a reasonable belief that their activities are in the public interest

What The Deuces said:

I’ve demonstrated why and also that fact that ‘citizen journalism’ doesn’t not exempt you from the entire range of obligations.

You have not demonstrated anything. You have set out an opinion, which is often confused and illogical. The fact that the exemption is not total is broadly irrelevant. No one is arguing that it is.

What The Deuces said:

You are obsessed with saying people can film exactly as they please in public and it’s a stone cold fact that they can’t in all circumstances. The more you say they can, the more I’ll say they can’t and point out why.

If I was saying that your responses might make sense. But I am not and they don’t.

What The Deuces said:

It’s not remotely my pet subject, I just happen to know about it through a professional need. I know plenty of other subjects in much much more detail.

You made your point a long time ago. You believe that some aspects of auditing are not exempt from GDPR and if you are ever audited you intend to make a complaint. If and when someone does that we might get more clarity. In the meantime, all you are doing is repeating your theory over and over again. There is no need to do that.