Indeed. Perhaps an apt question - would the member of staff be happy if they were filmed by all the passengers they encounter? If yes, they can have BWV. If not, but they still want BWV for their own benefit, perhaps they should reflect on the hypocrisy of that attitude...
Members of the public are not bound by GDPR. Perhaps the answer would change if they were. Personally I don't mind, but I can see the concern when the public have been known to get creative with editing.
The issue with this is that at no point have I ever been aggressive or used foul or abusive language to any of the thousands of passengers I've spoken to over the years, but receive it most days.
There should be an expectation of privacy in regard to the publication and sharing of photo/video. If you are just passing by then thats not an issue, but the idea that someone can deliberately video one person and then just share that, possibly edited unfairly or with captions, isn't really part of a nice society. Its a form of stalking/bullying
But one could "loose" the camera.
Which wouldn't remotely look suspicious, would it?
You only have to look at YouTube to see what private individuals can do with unregulated footage to understand why. Yes, it is legal to film but I often look at YouTube footage and think, "That looks interesting but I wonder what occurred in the 20 seconds BEFORE the uploaded footage".
Its not strange at all. If you are in a busy pub you might not mind your mates taking photos of you but would get pretty annoyed at some random stranger following you around sticking a camera in your face - even if the pub has cctv!
well all those i've seen show the photographer walking to wherever he's intending to audit, then he's approached by whoever and the confrontation begins...and it nearly always begins with "hello can i help you" then "you can't film here"... but he always does.
i've never seen one in a pub, to be fair if a member of the public is filmed walking by their faces are fuzzed out, but police stations, post offices, council buildings, business parks, where they are approached and told they cannot film, their interaction is then filmed... to educate them that filming in public is legal.
but if you are in that sort of situation, should you not be told the body cam is on and you are being recorded?
If your in a station or train then there should be signage telling you CCTV recording is taking place, but the cameras are also designed to stand out so you see the person is wearing it. Bear in mind it may be recording when nothing is happenning too, for example while walking through known problem trains, carrying out a check on someones welfare etc. Especially if the staff member is alone or in an area with no fixed CCTV installed.
Some staff perhaps, personally I don't have any issue, nor do the people I work with. Of course someone shoving a camera phone in someone face half way through an incident is a little diffrent. I had such a person do this recently accusing me of bullying. They didn't feel the need to include the part where they avoided their fare, or shouted and swore at me, but I'm careful what I say to avoid someone creatively editing it for YouTube views.I find it interesting how staff are allowed to wear body cameras yet have issues with anyone filming in stations with a Go Pro. It is very hypocritical if you ask me.
Especially when the body cameras film people in an intimidating way. Anyone with a Go Pro is more likely focused on filming trains instead!
As an example, and a little off topic, my colleague had to get BTP to remove someone from a train who was following them up and down a train filming them checking tickets. They asked them nicely to stop and they refused. The problem being it makes the staff member and the passengers they are dealing with uncomfortable. Do you want your name and address on YouTube because some self styled 'auditor' is following an RPO giving out a penalty fare? This is where it starts to become complicated, especially in terms of protecting someone's personal information. Ironically I'd have hoped if these people really believed they were protecting the publics rights they'd understand the issue here, but clearly not.
Big difference between staff who have permission to record and are subject to GDPR regulations then a member of the public strolling in and filming a security risk area without permission.I find it interesting how staff are allowed to wear body cameras yet have issues with anyone filming in stations with a Go Pro. It is very hypocritical if you ask me.
Especially when the body cameras film people in an intimidating way. Anyone with a Go Pro is more likely focused on filming trains instead!
I think quite a few police officers get very upset when filmed.
They don't, they're trained to deal with it. Being filmed is part and parcel of the job nowadays.
There are two Locals by us. All staff in them wear cameras, even the non uniform management/supervisory staff.
Some Police Officers do indeed get upset with being filmed, but it’s only a few, and it’s the same with security staff/railway staff etc, who think that people aren’t allowed to film them, when they are. Those doing the filming play on this and it makes for some quite entertaining YouTube videos with people tying themselves in knots.
Being entertained by people harassing workers for no good reason is an odd thing. It seems perfectly normal to me for someone to not like being filmed, even if they have to accept that it is legal. There are all sorts of things that are legal but anti-social and annoying.
I agree, however it’s often far easier for the staff member to simply walk away or put their hand up to the camera rather than entertain those who are filming them. Unfortunately, it’s often a Willy waving contest.
