Police and Security "Auditers"

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.



You are ignoring the basic reality that if you confront them to explain GDPR you are just going to hand them content.

So the best answer, either way, is to simply ignore them. If they have nothing to film they will go somewhere else.

[Flumpo]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.



You are ignoring the basic reality that if you confront them to explain GDPR you are just going to hand them content.

So the best answer, either way, is to simply ignore them. If they have nothing to film they will go somewhere else.

My concern is they go somewhere else, but where?

Once every security guard in England finally gets wise, where do these auditors go to earn their £12k a month viewing fees?

They will have to go somewhere that doesn’t have laws that explicitly protect filming, but also provide entertainment for their fans.

Where does that end up, dressed as a ninja filming your kids christening or auditing your wedding? Women’s rape crisis centres, you going to visit your GP, where do they go to earn that tasty £12k a month once every industrial estate ignore them?

It’s the old wait until they come after you and it might be too late.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.



You are ignoring the basic reality that if you confront them to explain GDPR you are just going to hand them content.

So the best answer, either way, is to simply ignore them. If they have nothing to film they will go somewhere else.

I can only comment on what I’ve seen and I find it very difficult to see other than videoing the police what hits the mark for public interest. I also come at it from the example of me being filmed from the pavement on one of the private properties I work at.




That’s your opinion about ignoring them, I’d happily talk to them in a non confrontational manner to explain my subsequent actions and comments. It would be pretty boring content but maybe informative for this with less understanding of the law and their rights.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.

It’s a bit more sensible and informed than your posts on it, as I said you were clueless, you’ve googled a bit and now you think you know everything

Elysium on March 12th said:

Yes in all cases. Filming in public is a lawful activity. GDPR compliance does not prohibit it.

Which is pure bullst

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.



You are ignoring the basic reality that if you confront them to explain GDPR you are just going to hand them content.

So the best answer, either way, is to simply ignore them. If they have nothing to film they will go somewhere else.

I can only comment on what I’ve seen and I find it very difficult to see other than videoing the police what hits the mark for public interest. I also come at it from the example of me being filmed from the pavement on one of the private properties I work at.

That’s your opinion about ignoring them, I’d happily talk to them in a non confrontational manner to explain my subsequent actions and comments. It would be pretty boring content but maybe informative for this with less understanding of the law and their rights.

If you engage with them, you will become the story and you will end up having to deal with it retrospectively. Through the GDPR complaint you are so keen to make and by complaining to the platforms that host the footage.

Despite the fact that the guidance makes it clear that auditors have a solid claim to exemption, you continue to make sweeping statements that their activities are illegal. That doesn’t seem like a position that would be ‘informative’ for others. It is confusion.

The easier option, as I have said, is to simply leave them to it.

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.

It’s a bit more sensible and informed than your posts on it, as I said you were clueless, you’ve googled a bit and now you think you know everything

Elysium on March 12th said:

Yes in all cases. Filming in public is a lawful activity. GDPR compliance does not prohibit it.

Which is pure bullst

No it is not. Filming is lawful.

It is simply that you are required to also comply with GDPR where that is applicable.

If you fail to comply with GDPR you are not guilty of ‘filming in a public place’ because that is lawful. You are guilty of failing to comply with GDPR.

That was the context of the quote you dug up from a few weeks ago.

[What The Deuces]

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.

It’s a bit more sensible and informed than your posts on it, as I said you were clueless, you’ve googled a bit and now you think you know everything

Elysium on March 12th said:

Yes in all cases. Filming in public is a lawful activity. GDPR compliance does not prohibit it.

Which is pure bullst

No it is not. Filming is lawful.

It is simply that you are required to also comply with GDPR where that is applicable.

If you fail to comply with GDPR you are not guilty of ‘filming in a public place’ because that is lawful. You are guilty of failing to comply with GDPR.

That was the context of the quote you dug up from a few weeks ago.

Erm no

GDPR is a law and privacy laws may also apply



As always I depends on what you’re doing but your constant insistence that you can film what you like in public is pure rubbish and has been proven over and again.

You’re out of your depth here and I can only assume by your blind insistence that you are an ‘auditor’ in which case it’ll bite you on the arse at some point , probably sooner rather than later


By the way the GDPR law is excellent as it protects your right to film many things and sets out what you can do to do this, but it’s not everything sadly and you clearly don’t understand the full law or the scale of the exemptions either as the exemptions mainly focus on consent. You still need to comply with the rest of it.

Edited by What The Deuces on Wednesday 29th March 21:05

Edited by What The Deuces on Wednesday 29th March 21:05

Edited by What The Deuces on Wednesday 29th March 21:08

[anonymous-user]

Another new Black Belt Barrister video on citizen journalism and filming in public:

https://youtu.be/VhMUJhlWIXI

[What The Deuces]

Lord Marylebone said:

Another new Black Belt Barrister video on citizen journalism and filming in public:

https://youtu.be/VhMUJhlWIXI

Without watching it I’ve always said I consider the police to be public interest

[Elysium]

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Elysium said:

What The Deuces said:

Mr 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

Edited by Mr Miata on Wednesday 29th March 12:46

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?

And once again we are back to GDPR.

As before you make a definitive statement that this activity is illegal when the truth is anything but definitive.

It’s a bit more sensible and informed than your posts on it, as I said you were clueless, you’ve googled a bit and now you think you know everything

Elysium on March 12th said:

Yes in all cases. Filming in public is a lawful activity. GDPR compliance does not prohibit it.

Which is pure bullst

No it is not. Filming is lawful.

It is simply that you are required to also comply with GDPR where that is applicable.

If you fail to comply with GDPR you are not guilty of ‘filming in a public place’ because that is lawful. You are guilty of failing to comply with GDPR.

That was the context of the quote you dug up from a few weeks ago.

Erm no

GDPR is a law and privacy laws may also apply

Yes, there are other laws that must be complied with where they apply. But the act of filming in public itself is a lawful activity. We are all filmed in public on a daily basis.

What The Deuces said:

As always I depends on what you’re doing but your constant insistence that you can film what you like in public is pure rubbish and has been proven over and again.

I have not insisted on this once, let alone constantly. It depends.

What The Deuces said:

You’re out of your depth here and I can only assume by your blind insistence that you are an ‘auditor’ in which case it’ll bite you on the arse at some point , probably sooner rather than later

No, you are just confused and I don’t see how I can resolve that. I’ve explained why but you just ignored it?

[Mr Miata]

What The Deuces said:

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?

Edited by What The Deuces on Wednesday 29th March 18:15

Because if you don’t go upto them, you don’t end up on their video.

They are fishing for a reaction. And if you don’t give them one, then they have no content for their YouTube video.

It really is that simple.

[Elysium]

Mr Miata said:

Because if you don’t go upto them, you don’t end up on their video.

They are fishing for a reaction. And if you don’t give them one, then they have no content for their YouTube video.

It really is that simple.

[Raccaccoonie]

Marty Blagborough had a hearing today for CBO.

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/S...

T20210985
T20220007

Is there a way to see what the sentence was as can't see anything.

[Raccaccoonie]

A policeman who used to live in my old village.

He has already been accused of rape, which I think he did,it fell apart, as he has said stories before which were very dodgy.

My mate has just seen him doing litter picking seems he got a misconduct for harassing a female officer. Really not surprising. What is more surprising he has still got a job. With the recent met police stuff I know there must be a lot like him out there. He is a predator.

[thetapeworm]

Drunken Auditing Yorkshire arrested on his own livestream (TikTok link, apologies) while trying to get into a police van.

https://www.tiktok.com/@audithqfan/video/722569697...

(Bit sweary)

[Raccaccoonie]

Marti B got a CBO, funny for someone who holds police to account, now banned from police stations.

[eldar]

Raccaccoonie said:

Marti B got a CBO, funny for someone who holds police to account, now banned from police stations.

Victim of state oppression, innit.

[jm8403]

oh well.

[Red Devil]

Raccaccoonie said:

Marti B got a CBO, funny for someone who holds police to account, now banned from police stations.

AIUI, quite limited in scope: he can still film from a public place, e.g. from the pavement outside.

[Raccaccoonie]

Red Devil said:

AIUI, quite limited in scope: he can still film from a public place, e.g. from the pavement outside.

Well considering he got it for thinking he had the right to film, let's see.