I agree, and the USA (surprisingly) has the right idea here and we should have the absolute right to document police (et al) exercising their powers as long as we don't interfere. So a policeman just walking down the street can ask me not to record him, but as soon as he starts an official interaction (eg. stopping someone to question them) then I can record the interaction from, say, 2 or 3m away.
-
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!
CCTV and its scope (outside of the railway)
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I find that doing so really only inflames the situation - how would you feel if someone came up to you in your workplace and started recording you as you spoke to them. The likliehood is that they will think you are one of those idiotic auditors who is going to post it on YouTube and that will likely change their attitude towards you. They are human after all.
Most police have a body worn camera, so in many cases they're already filming the interaction which you can request to see a copy of.
Most police have a body worn camera, so in many cases they're already filming the interaction which you can request to see a copy of.
Same.
I can also hold myself to the same level of accountability as a private business and write a policy in a Word document, and then audit myself that I am in compliance. If I find I am not complying, I can adjust the policy. If I find recording people results in more benefits to me over time, I will adjust the policy to widen the scope and write blog articles and social media posts about the dangers posed to me. I can cite distant sources like crime in my area going up.
If I find a camera useful in one situation, I will also write a blog post discussing it at length, and detailing how a camera is needed 24x7, and advocate for the wearing of cameras by more people at risk.
Anyone who criticises my actions will be told about my disabilities, issues, past experiences and asked why they want me to suffer more harm
Yeah...
And by the way, 'Auditors' provide the same benefit as 'Karens' - you're being played if you buy into the hatred, without any balance. 'Karens' are popularised by business because they want to inflict crappy service upon you and stop you from moaning.
I am aware of the bodycams but as a member of the general public it is still sometimes in my interest to have my own recorded interaction. While I acknowledge that British police aren't anywhere near as corrupt in the same sense as ones that are actively bribed by organised criminal gangs in other nations, it's important to remember that they still can and will lie to you, and they will also back each other up on these lies even in completely innocent situations.
The key difference is that my job doesn't endow me with powers that, if misused, could ruin someone's life.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,633
But you can't know if that footage will somehow "go missing" or be clipped too short of an important part.
Whatever are you doing where the police could "ruin your life"?
If the police are that corrupt there would be nothing stopping accidentally knocking your phone out of your hand and it accidentally falling underneath one of their boots.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If the police are that corrupt there would be nothing stopping accidentally knocking your phone out of your hand and it accidentally falling underneath one of their boots.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You didn't specifically state only the police - you stated public servants which could just as easily be a paramedic. My other half works for the NHS and the amount of people who stick cameras in their faces because "I am allowed" is ridiculous.
The police don't have to be aware you are filming though. In either case I think most people would rather film an interaction and not needed to have done so in the end than have an interaction where it might've actually helped, because like I said they can and sometimes will lie. To relate this back to the original subject of CCTV and it's scope in the UK, I think it's completely fair to be able to record law enforcement given that those in power have arguably pushed us towards mass surveillance.
Agree, it's not against the law. But as I mention, you are likely to get the person's back up which could change the direction the conversation or interaction goes because the Police are also humans at the end of the day, humans who have a tough job. Sticking a camera in their direction could be positiviely or negatively the route your interaction goes as it would with anyone who is either in a stressful situation or just been on a stressful call out. I guess that's the risk you run and definitely down to how you position it - personally I've found people that have wanted to record myself have never approached it in a polite way, more as a accusatory way which immediately means I'm not going the extra mile for this person.
I think they highlighted this quite well in the recent series of Blue Lights which shows that shoving a camera in someones face can often turn what could have been a polite conversation in to something that becomes hostile.
No situation has ever decreased in temperature after someone whips their phone out to make a point of recording it.
As for "Karens", the idea they're a psyop of businesses who want to deliver bad service is, well, a take. They're just rude and unpleasant people generally, it isn't the businesses posting those videos by and large. Quite often the rude person posts it themselves!
As for "Karens", the idea they're a psyop of businesses who want to deliver bad service is, well, a take. They're just rude and unpleasant people generally, it isn't the businesses posting those videos by and large. Quite often the rude person posts it themselves!
Again, I don't particularly want to make a point of recording it or acting like an obnoxious auditor, nor would I have any interest posting it on the internet because I'm a very camera-shy individual myself. The whole question was in relation to an idea that if someone asks you to stop recording that you should oblige and I asked how this would extend to the police who have legal powers that the average civilian doesn't.
You have the right to do it, but don't be surprised if any discretion goes out of the window:
- It can obviously seem confrontational, and a less professional officer may take it personally
- Depending on how you do it, it may imply you're not listening to what they have to say / their words aren't being taken on board
- The officer may be concerned that a video where they recognised an offence but didn't take any formal action without any context as to why they were lenient will make them look bad (to the public or to their supervisor)
Therefore I would only do it if I were absolutely sure I had not committed an offence and wanted a documentary record of the exchange. From reading the Disputes & Prosecutions subforum, there are maybe a few circumstances there I would consider it in response to RPI interactions on the railway (and I would expect a higher chance of being reported for prosecution as a result of the interaction).
Last edited:
That's where the "exercising powers" part of my post comes in. General interaction follows the same rules as a member of the public - no assumed right to privacy, but equally requests not to be recorded must be respected.
However as soon as they are invoking power (eg. a policeman stopping someone to question them) then any member of the public should be able to record the interaction without interfering in it.
The old "if you've got nothing to hide" works both ways!
I didn't state anything of the kind, the post you're responding to here was my first in this thread.
Apologies, that was someone else with a name beginning with S, it was just before midnight so easily confused in my head.
I tend to agree with that, but it's a statement that doesn't address the difference between not being observed, and recordings being made and retained for an unknown period of time. That changes the dynamic of the conversation significantly.
For example, I can think of one property near me, which has a reasonable desire for CCTV to protect the premises. However, the front and one side of the house front directly onto the street, and there is no means by which a fence, hedge, or whatever can protect the privacy of passersby.
At that point, my issue becomes how my rights to privacy balance against his rights to the security of his premises, especially if he subcontracts his data collection to a 3rd party with whom I have no relationship.