I always wonder who enjoys these videos on YouTube of people harrasing strangers doing a job, or just random people in the street. I mean these people who claim to be protecting civil liberties, but they invariably are not filming, for example, a police officer abusing their power, they instead tend to just be following someone around and trying to wind them up, often just a traffic warden or the like. That sort of nonsense was called bullying when I was at school, though that was long before camera phones.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Staff wearing body cameras
- Thread starter InOban
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
People who have no life can get attention, positive or negative, which seems to be reason enough to harass people for no actual purpose.
In many cases they didn't start filming for any good reason and seem to goad people into doing something. In the US, they often get arrested for refusing to leave private property and then kick off, which seems to satisfy them because they later post the video and play victim.
There are now many YouTube channels that ridicule these people and give their own commentary. Everyone involved makes their money and it seems to be a well established form of entertainment.
In many cases they didn't start filming for any good reason and seem to goad people into doing something. In the US, they often get arrested for refusing to leave private property and then kick off, which seems to satisfy them because they later post the video and play victim.
There are now many YouTube channels that ridicule these people and give their own commentary. Everyone involved makes their money and it seems to be a well established form of entertainment.
I dont think the two are comparable , the member of staff with a BWC is using a device that does not belong to them , the footage is not accessible or editable by them , the company dont publish it and its only accessed in cases where it can help shed light on a situation .
Meanwhile a MOP shoving a camera in your face can keep footage as long as they want and do whatever they want with it . Generally I just walk away from such situations and report them , unless there is a risk of harm to myself or others at which point I have to act .
Im quite happy for people to film me doing my job if they are prepared to let me see it , have a copy and dont publish it without my permission . Of course as we all know they wont do that wheras the company does give those very rights to people it holds recordings of .
Out of interest what is the legal status of stations and trains - ie do the public have the right to film on them?
If they do can the railway just change the conditions and stop you filming (or say you can not share or upload it, except to police/consumer rights)?
The railway as a whole is private property which the public has an implied permission to access. There is no intrinsic right to be there, let alone to film. (It’s worth noting that, if a member of staff asks you to leave and you refuse to do so, you are technically committing the criminal offence of railway trespass and therefore liable to arrest).
Clearly filming/photographing isn’t expressly prohibited, and is generally acceptable so long as done sensibly e.g no flash photography in certain locations, and not causing a distraction/nuisanance. Common sense goes a long way in this area!
I believe NR also states that footage taken on railway premises cannot be used for commercial purposes without their express permission. I’m not at all sure how they enforce this.
Last edited:
riceuten
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2018
- Messages
- 950
I think it rather depends on what you film them doing.
Edsmith
Member
Can't believe this auditor nonsense is a thing here too, but hey ho - I guess they get a few quid for the views and lots of positive comments from other like minded clout chasers.
NR take a very common sense approach with this. You can't film an advertisement there, for example, but your average hobbyist or YouTuber who films trains and uploads it and perhaps earns some money is fine. I film on NR premises all the time without permission and my YouTube channel is monetised, yet I never have any issues.
Speaking as a former professional photographer I can state that if you are in Public you can film what you want, including Police, Parking Attendants or Sparrows. There has been specific instruction sent out by ACPO and it’s’ successor the NPCC to all forces regarding this. However, some Police and other ‘officials’ don’t like being filmed in case of misconduct being caught on camera.
That is just as assumption that some police or other 'official' doesnt like being filmed for that reason .
Being someone that does not like random members of the public shoving a camera in my face when I am at work let me explain why I do not like it again . I do not like it because that recording of me is not guaranteed to be processed in a GDPR compliant way . I do not have any control over that recording of me , I cant request to see it , have any control over how it is used or ask for it to be delted with any rights to expect so . If I am being honest if someone just wants to record me to send to my employer as part of their compliant then I would not have any issue with that but all too often these things end up on you tube or some other video platform without my consent .
I am filmed multiple times a day doing my job on station CCTV and recordings from those cameras have on many occassions been used to discipline staff that have done something wrong . Which I have no issue with because I know that the processing of that data is GDPR compliant or can take action if it is not .
I wonder if these people would be happy to have me following them into their home and filming everything they do. Standing a few feet away as they cook, clean, go to bed, go to the toilet etc.
Obviously I know that's private property and all that, but the point is that some people simply feel the need to film someone to harass them and for absolutely no purpose other than the fact they're going to post on YouTube for some crazy narrative they're following.
Unlike having CCTV monitoring you passively, it's quite clear that someone following with a camera - and quite possibly also taking and goading/winding up - is going to alter someone's behaviour. It might make someone make a mistake, or say something out of anger, or even get to a point where they lash out (the ultimate goal for these people).
It is very sad because there are countless incidents where a camera can be useful, and these 'auditors' or people going around looking for a fight are only going to one day see new laws passed that bans recording or photographing people in public - and the people will support such draconian laws because of these videos on YouTube.
Obviously I know that's private property and all that, but the point is that some people simply feel the need to film someone to harass them and for absolutely no purpose other than the fact they're going to post on YouTube for some crazy narrative they're following.
Unlike having CCTV monitoring you passively, it's quite clear that someone following with a camera - and quite possibly also taking and goading/winding up - is going to alter someone's behaviour. It might make someone make a mistake, or say something out of anger, or even get to a point where they lash out (the ultimate goal for these people).
It is very sad because there are countless incidents where a camera can be useful, and these 'auditors' or people going around looking for a fight are only going to one day see new laws passed that bans recording or photographing people in public - and the people will support such draconian laws because of these videos on YouTube.
I think you will find that sadly if you are football supporter your rights get treated rather differently than other people's and the plod can do pretty much whatever they like.
I understand why this is but some police seem to see it as a free hit to act up (some, others are probably far too lenient!)
What GDPR rule do think can be broken if you are photographed in a public place?
Not talking about the video, but as a conductor I will obviously deal with large groups, or drunken passengers differently.
Same with passengers requiring assistance, you use different techniques to make your job easier.
Do I talk more abruptly and assertively to drunk passengers, absolutely.
Do I engage in banter with football fans when jovial, but use a more aggressive tone when they are abusive and threatening, of course.
I am on the fence regarding having a body-cam purely because I have never had a situation that I haven't been able to handle, I know many train crew who've been assulted but I also know their character and why it may have escalated that way.
They don't resolve the potential confrontation for those who can't handle the situation in the first place, they are not a deterrent, just a way of collecting evidence.
It always amuses me that RPMs/(Is) tend to work in packs, never alone, yet conductors always work alone when doing revenue.
A good Conductor is no less at risk that an RPM just because it's just a penalty notice.
I never said in a public place . A train is private property
People being filmed during the course of their duties have had said recordings put up on you tube and other various social media outlets and have been named/identified in the course of that .
As already noted in this thread, there is a distinction between "private property" and a "private place" when discussing matters of personal privacy. A piece of private property to which members of the general public are given access - such as a train in passenger service, or a shopping centre, or so on - is considered to be a public place and therefore a place in which a person cannot reasonably have an expectation of privacy unless it is specifically provided by law.
A train is a public place and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if someone photographs or films you in the passenger saloon.
It would be different if a member of the public photographed you sneakily in the mess room or the toilet.
To an extent I agree, however, by the nature of their work, revenue are vulnerable to more abuse than Guards. The minute you start issuing penalty fares, it changes things. I used to be in an enforcement role (not revenue) and had no issue working alone (I’d naturally change my method of working if I deemed it necessary though).
The way I saw it was that people were more willing to supply their name and address to be reported for an offence, than hand over their details thinking they were going to be Penalty Fare’d (because that’s the mentality of some people). I did t issue penalty fares, so that was never an option, but I worked a lot with some Revenue who couldn’t grasp the fact that those who were likely to kick off most, were the sort that would do so because of the immediate impact of a £20 penalty fare, rather than simply giving details and ending up in court in 6 months.
I wore BWV for a few years and can say it worked as a deterrent to an extent, but some people just don’t care. It’s the same for assaults on staff; some members of the public simply don’t care how they act, and no matter how you speak to them, they will become aggressive.
Edsmith
Member
My brother in law is a conductor and he said the same thing, they do the job alone whilst it's always safety in numbers for revenue staff. He also mentioned how it's often the same staff that are involved in assaults and altercations, he's not saying they're necessarily to blame but he thinks they could perhaps reassess the way they approach such situations.
Absolutely, every depot has at least one conductor who seems to always be the one getting assulted whereas most never get more than a few verbals.
it's not the private or public place I am refering to.
It's this GDPR issue. What GDPR rule is broken if you are photographed in a public or private place and or how can the photo be processed in any way that would be in breach of GDPR.
Even if photos or video are put on social media and a person is identified from that, what rule under GDPR is being broken?
I can photograph in a football stadium with 25,000 fans and put it on social media or you tube, many of the people including ball boys, the ref, all the security staff can be identified. How does GDPR have anything to do with it?
I worry that you seem to have no care for the feelings of other people. Normal people do not want to be filmed and identified, they certainly don't want other people filming them, editing it, and then presenting it with the main purpose being to humiliate them or otherwise use them for entertainment and moneymaking.
AIUI GDPR applies principally to businesses. There’s therefore a distinction between footage captured on a private individual’s recording device, which isn’t covered by GDPR, and “official” footage captured by/on behalf of a business on CCTV/body cams etc. which is.
Last edited:
It's not that I don't have any care for other peoples feelings.I am trying to find out what GDPR rule is broken when someone films or photographs me and put's it on social media or you tube. I am told there is nothing I can do about it.
I thought if you knew of a rule that it infringed my GDPR rights then I could use or quote it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's almost like it's the wrong way round. Official people have to be careful with the photos or filming but un identifiable individuals don't!
I think the moral of the story is that, like it or not, almost everyone has a camera phone on them these days and there’s basically nothing you can really do to avoid being filmed. Inevitably people in public facing jobs wearing identifiable uniforms are more exposed to this than most.
I think this is basically correct. There’s essentially nothing you can do to prevent images of you being taken in public by individuals with cameraphones, and no real recourse if you don’t like how those images are then used. By far the most effective response to being filmed at work by someone looking for clickbait is to be as professional as possible, so that the person filming ends up with some extremely boring footage!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is also true - but I suppose makes sense when you consider that the GDPR regime is meant to protect private individuals from data harvesting by large organisations, governments etc. Film footage is one small area of personal data of course.
The situation where one individual films another person, who happens to be in public and acting in the course of their employment, isn’t really in scope.
Last edited:
I think you may have misunderstood. I think the point made accepted that you are correct, but that was the problem. GPDR covers official filming but doesn't cover someone filming you, editing it, identifying you etc, all without your permission or control.
I think some sort of GPDR should cover such events. If you are in the background of a photo of a station then no problem, but if you are the subject of the film/photo you should have some control over what is done with it or be obscured (I am sure the software to do that is very simple).
" Personal data " for the purposes of GDPR relates to any data that can be used to directly or indirectly identify someone . I don't think it's a far stretch to argue that filming someone thus producing an image of them coupled with Information about who they are employed by could leave them quite easily identifiable .
As other comments have alluded to GDPR does in spirit and in much of its provision is related to large controllers and processors of data , there is an exemption for personal/household activities although I'd argue if you run a blog/you tube channel it probably still does apply to you .
My exact point anyway was that I have no issue being filmed on company owned CCTV because I can assert rights over that as per GDPR whereas I would struggle to do so over someone filming me then later distributing the footage on social media . I'd argue that because their video of me in the workplace contains personal data and I had not consented to it being collected or processed in the way it is being they should take it down and delete the footage . But if they refuse I can't do anything about that without costly litigation .
GDPR is a relatively new piece of legislation and as such there haven't been many tests of it yet so there are many nuances yet to be tested out . I think the sorts of situations we are talking about here will be covered in coming years.
- Status