Police and Security "Auditers"
Discussion
Strangely Brown said:
Correct. Having read the guidance my personal view is that auditing has strong elements of citizen journalism and artistic expression. It is also impossible if the auditor needs to get consent in advance from the people they are filming. So the enterprise would fail without GDPR exemption.
All of that makes me doubtful that they are likely to end up subject to GDPR enforcement, but as you correctly say ‘it depends’.
Out of all the stuff I have seen the one posted here showing an altercation between a drone pilot and a dog walker seems the least robust. It was shared to shame the people the drone pilot interacted with and was not, in my opinion, in the public interest at all.
So as you say, it depends and at this point it seems largely theoretical.
What is interesting is that some of the auditors use language quite carefully, specifically talking about ‘citizen journalism’ and ‘matters of public interest’. This suggests that they have done at least some research.
Raccaccoonie said:
That public interest is right as these auditors set out to highlight issues.
Not sure filming industrial estates really does this.
its definitely not in the public interest what goes on in some industrial estate, be it a truck company or scrap yard, id say its more a hobby film about how areas have changed over the years. if an auditor rocked up at one of our units and started filming he'd be bored in about 10 mins, none of the staff would be arsed, but im sure the whole idea of these people is to rub up the wrong way over sensitive office staff and undertrained securityNot sure filming industrial estates really does this.
Fozziebear said:
Raccaccoonie said:
That public interest is right as these auditors set out to highlight issues.
Not sure filming industrial estates really does this.
its definitely not in the public interest what goes on in some industrial estate, be it a truck company or scrap yard, id say its more a hobby film about how areas have changed over the years. if an auditor rocked up at one of our units and started filming he'd be bored in about 10 mins, none of the staff would be arsed, but im sure the whole idea of these people is to rub up the wrong way over sensitive office staff and undertrained securityNot sure filming industrial estates really does this.
The ICO guidance covers exemptions for journalism and artistic expression. One of the key points is that the exemption needs to be necessary for the activity to take place, which is the case with auditing.
Artistic expression is stated to be inherently in the public interest. Matters of health and safety are also in the public interest and are frequently covered by auditors. Finally raising or contributing to matters of public debate is also public interest, which is essentially the purpose of the ‘photography is not a crime’ proponents.
For all these reasons, I don’t think it’s possible to make a blanket statement that auditing is or isn’t in the public interest. What actually matters is the reasonable belief of the auditor in a given situation and their ability to show it is justified.
In the end that is why I think all this GDPR a discussion is a red herring. As you say these auditors move on quickly if they don’t get negative interactions to film. Business owners simply need to ignore them.
Strangely Brown said:
Rather a lot of people fail to understand that "the public interest" is not the same thing as "the public being interested".
They are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
Exactly thisThey are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
Specifically those people who spend an hour on google and claim to be an expert over people who deal with it day in day out professionally.
I usually charge.
Strangely Brown said:
Rather a lot of people fail to understand that "the public interest" is not the same thing as "the public being interested".
They are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
If it was the latter then it would be a slam dunk for the auditors as the public clearly are interested in what they do. They are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
But even when properly defined there are clearly several public interest aspects to auditing, even on industrial estates.
Strangely Brown said:
Rather a lot of people fail to understand that "the public interest" is not the same thing as "the public being interested".
They are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
yeah get that bit, I think using the title "Auditor " makes it sound official and they are getting some kind of positive result or change, be easier for them to say they are amateur journalists? they never seem to produce reports audit reports or outcome results from these visits, especially the ones on police stations, surely a report sent to the station with film would produce a more public interest result? rather than YouTube follows? They are two different meanings of the same word. It could even be argued that they are merely homophones with the same spelling.
Fozziebear said:
yeah get that bit, I think using the title "Auditor " makes it sound official and they are getting some kind of positive result or change, be easier for them to say they are amateur journalists? they never seem to produce reports audit reports or outcome results from these visits, especially the ones on police stations, surely a report sent to the station with film would produce a more public interest result? rather than YouTube follows?
Indeed, but I would say that using the word "journalist", even in a very loose sense, is far too kind for most of them. They are, AFAICT, mostly just antagonistic nobs looking to make money from clicks and ADs on YT.They don't send the audit report to the police station you say? Hmmmm... only one of them makes money.
¯\_(?)_/¯
Strangely Brown said:
Fozziebear said:
yeah get that bit, I think using the title "Auditor " makes it sound official and they are getting some kind of positive result or change, be easier for them to say they are amateur journalists? they never seem to produce reports audit reports or outcome results from these visits, especially the ones on police stations, surely a report sent to the station with film would produce a more public interest result? rather than YouTube follows?
Indeed, but I would say that using the word "journalist", even in a very loose sense, is far too kind for most of them. They are, AFAICT, mostly just antagonistic nobs looking to make money from clicks and ADs on YT.They don't send the audit report to the police station you say? Hmmmm... only one of them makes money.
¯\_(?)_/¯
Why is one ‘good’ and another ‘bad’?
Elysium said:
Strangely Brown said:
Fozziebear said:
yeah get that bit, I think using the title "Auditor " makes it sound official and they are getting some kind of positive result or change, be easier for them to say they are amateur journalists? they never seem to produce reports audit reports or outcome results from these visits, especially the ones on police stations, surely a report sent to the station with film would produce a more public interest result? rather than YouTube follows?
Indeed, but I would say that using the word "journalist", even in a very loose sense, is far too kind for most of them. They are, AFAICT, mostly just antagonistic nobs looking to make money from clicks and ADs on YT.They don't send the audit report to the police station you say? Hmmmm... only one of them makes money.
¯\_(?)_/¯
Why is one ‘good’ and another ‘bad’?
Elysium said:
Strangely Brown said:
Fozziebear said:
yeah get that bit, I think using the title "Auditor " makes it sound official and they are getting some kind of positive result or change, be easier for them to say they are amateur journalists? they never seem to produce reports audit reports or outcome results from these visits, especially the ones on police stations, surely a report sent to the station with film would produce a more public interest result? rather than YouTube follows?
Indeed, but I would say that using the word "journalist", even in a very loose sense, is far too kind for most of them. They are, AFAICT, mostly just antagonistic nobs looking to make money from clicks and ADs on YT.They don't send the audit report to the police station you say? Hmmmm... only one of them makes money.
¯\_(?)_/¯
Why is one ‘good’ and another ‘bad’?
freedman said:
Raccaccoonie said:
That public interest is right as these auditors set out to highlight issues.
Not sure filming industrial estates really does this.
Most of them just set out to do anything they can to generate YT views, and therefore revenue, nothing to do with highlighting issuesNot sure filming industrial estates really does this.
vxr8mate said:
Agreed, and as many police (and most security) have become aware of this and now fail to react many auditors have either given up or moved onto industrial estates or drones.
I did laugh at the dreadlocked muppet who antagonised the scrap yard guys and nearly got a slap, very lucky it wasn't dark and isolatedMr Miata said:
The bottom line is, this has been going on for years. And in that time has any YouTube Auditor been successfully prosecuted for it?
No
Can it be solved by ignoring them?
Yes
Why would anyone want to ignore somebody illegally processing their personal data when such an effort has been made by society to establish the concept and legal framework of owning your data?No
Can it be solved by ignoring them?
Yes
Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46
Edited by What The Deuces on Wednesday 29th March 18:15
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff