Staff wearing body cameras

[Cantab26]

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 .

Consent is not the only lawful basis for data processing. The data subject does not have a veto (other than certain limited matters relating to direct marketing).

 

[AlterEgo]

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 .

You can't do anything about it anyway, litigation or not, because it is not illegal for someone to record you in a public place performing your duties.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2022 ==

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).

What you are asking for is nothing like GDPR but a privacy law, really.

I don't really see the basis for such a law although I accept the sorts of people who deliberately edit footage to make it appear defamatory, or turn you into a meme, aren't exactly nice people and there should be some sort of civil law against that.

 

[Cantab26]

You can't do anything about it anyway, litigation or not, because it is not illegal for someone to record you in a public place performing your duties.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2022 ==


What you are asking for is nothing like GDPR but a privacy law, really.

I don't really see the basis for such a law although I accept the sorts of people who deliberately edit footage to make it appear defamatory, or turn you into a meme, aren't exactly nice people and there should be some sort of civil law against that.

There is: it’s called defamation.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is: it’s called defamation.

If you post an edited video of someone where all the things they say are exactly what was said, but perhaps you leave out key interactions, and don't say anything about them yourself, I don't understand how that is defamation. You have to say or publish an untruth about someone, no?

 

[seagull]

An example might be, if I were a member of platform staff and was recorded telling someone that:
"You are not allowed to trespass on the railway."
which got edited for YouTube by removal of the word "not" to capture me supposedly saying:
"You are allowed to trespass on the railway."
If that was then used to harm my reputation or career I'd have a case for defamation.

 

[yorkie]

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 .

I would therefore advise caution when any party makes a recording as the other party may consider making their own recording.

It is a risk that if a member of staff starts recording passengers, that a counter-recording may be made.

For example if someone was incorrectly claiming a valid ticket wasn't valid (instances of which occur on a daily basis) and if this was being filmed by the party making the false claim, I'd be very tempted to make my own recording of the encounter.

It's true that a member of staff on duty would be subject to a code of conduct while the passenger wouldn't, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Cantab26]

If you post an edited video of someone where all the things they say are exactly what was said, but perhaps you leave out key interactions, and don't say anything about them yourself, I don't understand how that is defamation. You have to say or publish an untruth about someone, no?

The statement does not necessarily have to be untrue in order to be defamatory, although if it is true then that would be a potential defence to a suit.

 

[muz379]

ou can't do anything about it anyway, litigation or not, because it is not illegal for someone to record you in a public place performing your duties.

Yes but a train isn't a private place not that this matters for the purposes of GDPR . Sure if you are part of the backdrop to a recording , but a recording that makes said member of staff the principal focus of that recording depending on other details given is likely to be personal data for the purposes of GDPR .

I would therefore advise caution when any party makes a recording as the other party may consider making their own recording.

It is a risk that if a member of staff starts recording passengers, that a counter-recording may be made.

For example if someone was incorrectly claiming a valid ticket wasn't valid (instances of which occur on a daily basis) and if this was being filmed by the party making the false claim, I'd be very tempted to make my own recording of the encounter.

It's true that a member of staff on duty would be subject to a code of conduct while the passenger wouldn't, but that's just the way it is.

Would you have an issue with a member of rail staff filming customers on their personal devices then ?

 

[yorkie]

Yes but a train isn't a private place not that this matters for the purposes of GDPR . Sure if you are part of the backdrop to a recording , but a recording that makes said member of staff the principal focus of that recording depending on other details given is likely to be personal data for the purposes of GDPR .

GDPR wold not apply to individuals (unless the individual is carrying out business e.g. is self employed).

Would you have an issue with a member of rail staff filming customers on their personal devices then ?

I don't think any train company would allow their staff to do this, would they?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes but a train isn't a private place not that this matters for the purposes of GDPR . Sure if you are part of the backdrop to a recording , but a recording that makes said member of staff the principal focus of that recording depending on other details given is likely to be personal data for the purposes of GDPR .

It’s not, because GDPR doesn’t apply to individuals. If I crash into someone’s car and we swap details I don’t have to process their name, address and phone number in line with GDPR. It’s that simple.

 

[Meerkat]

GDPR wold not apply to individuals (unless the individual is carrying out business e.g. is self employed).

That raises the interesting point as to whether it would apply to people who are collecting ad revenue from YouTube???

 

[muz379]

It’s not, because GDPR doesn’t apply to individuals

The decision made in Fairhurst v Woodward demonstrates that this is not the case . The defendant was found to have breached provisions of the DPA 2018 and the UK GDPR and damages were awarded to the claimant for that .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2022 ==

GDPR wold not apply to individuals (unless the individual is carrying out business e.g. is self employed).

I don't think any train company would allow their staff to do this, would they?

See above re point 1 .

As for the second point I wasn't talking about TOC policies . If there was no TOC policy prohibiting it would you have issue with a member of staff filming a passenger using their personal devices .

 

[AlterEgo]

The decision made in Fairhurst v Woodward demonstrates that this is not the case . The defendant was found to have breached provisions of the DPA 2018 and the UK GDPR and damages were awarded to the claimant for that .

Thanks - I stand corrected on this point! That's an interesting case, and one where the filmed was definitely a pretty bad and weird bloke by the sounds of it.

I note with interest that the defendant's case failed in this respect on his sheer dishonesty and evasiveness about why the images and sound were being habitually collected away from his property or personal space. It would be interesting to see if any of those would apply to a person openly filming a single interaction with a member of staff during a dispute - I suspect not.

In any case, thanks for sending me down a rabbithole, there seems to be quite a lot of chat about that online!

 

[muz379]

Thanks - I stand corrected on this point! That's an interesting case, and one where the filmed was definitely a pretty bad and weird bloke by the sounds of it.

I note with interest that the defendant's case failed in this respect on his sheer dishonesty and evasiveness about why the images and sound were being habitually collected away from his property or personal space. It would be interesting to see if any of those would apply to a person openly filming a single interaction with a member of staff during a dispute - I suspect not.

In any case, thanks for sending me down a rabbithole, there seems to be quite a lot of chat about that online!

I think there are more worrying aspects to that case like his behaviour towards his neighbour for sure . I agree his evasiveness doesn't help but I wonder if that was down to lack of any genuine justification for some of the recordings he was making . The sheer volume of it probably was relevant as well .

Filming a member of staff during a dispute for the purposes of sharing with their employer as evidence probably could be justified , especially if it's deleted after the complaint is finished much like it's justified in the public interest if you film someone committing a crime for the purposes of evidence . Unfortunately I think in many cases the only way to test these things is costly litigation which makes the law only accessible to certain people based on financial means .

But what I think gets a lot of staff members / police officers backs up and what I think isn't justifiable is when those recordings are put all over tik tok , you tube or some other social media platform without that person's consent .

There is a lot of discussion of the case online and I'm not sure how I feel about all of the judgement and it's implications for the millions of people with CCTV on their private property . I think maybe it could have initially been dealt with by way of injunction to tell him to take cameras down and delete video but that was a decision for the court to make. I think it does however nicely demonstrate that the provisions of the DPA 2018/ GDPR do apply even to personal recording .

 

[exbrel]

a Barristers legal view of auditing/filming in publc...

 

[Feuillesmortes]

For the benefit of those who can't access youtube, he says this:

"There is no specific law that prevents you from taking photographs or filming a video in public but there are certain things that you might wish to consider before while doing so.

There are various laws that may cause difficulties depending on the situation but you have the right to keep any photographs and video you take or film in public and you are the copyright owner of all such material. No one has the right to force you to delete photographs or videos that you have taken in public but in certain situations, the police may be able to search, view, or even seize photographs or videos that you have taken in public. Also consider the Police powers to search under s43 Terrorism Act 2002."

 

[muz379]

a Barristers legal view of auditing/filming in publc...

That video is shown as being uploaded 5 months ago which is prior to the decision in Fairhurst v Woodward .

I'd also exercise caution over sources such as this . I could upload a video purporting to be a barrister but ultimately if you did fall foul of the law and attempted to use a you tube video as part of your defence I doubt it would end that well. Even if the author of the video is a barrister there's no guarantee they have experience in that field . I mean if you asked someone that practiced family law as a barrister a nuanced employment law question they might struggle to give up to date advice .

 

[Clip]

That video is shown as being uploaded 5 months ago which is prior to the decision in Fairhurst v Woodward .

I'd also exercise caution over sources such as this . I could upload a video purporting to be a barrister but ultimately if you did fall foul of the law and attempted to use a you tube video as part of your defence I doubt it would end that well. Even if the author of the video is a barrister there's no guarantee they have experience in that field . I mean if you asked someone that practiced family law as a barrister a nuanced employment law question they might struggle to give up to date advice .

You should check the person's credentials and the disclaimer on the actual video where he states to get legal advice before you make such a statement .



It's worth noting in the case you highlight that the judgement that you posted is that the judge found the accused caused alarm and distress due to dishonesty and being threatening.



There's lots to go over in that case but I wouldn't use it as a measurement as to whether you can film others or not becuase the judgement itself is not a binding judgement on everyone else

 

[Meerkat]

Unfortunately I think in many cases the only way to test these things is costly litigation which makes the law only accessible to certain people based on financial means .

Surely this is something the unions should be looking at - protecting the interests of their members?

There is a lot of discussion of the case online and I'm not sure how I feel about all of the judgement and it's implications for the millions of people with CCTV on their private property .

I have strong concerns about the spread of private CCTV, particularly Ring doorbells etc - the quality is such that you can see and hear people's conversations on other people's doorsteps, and there seems to be little control over their use on youtube etc or ensuring internet security. And that's before you get onto their potential for domestic abusers.

 

[falcon]

That video is shown as being uploaded 5 months ago which is prior to the decision in Fairhurst v Woodward .

I'd also exercise caution over sources such as this . I could upload a video purporting to be a barrister but ultimately if you did fall foul of the law and attempted to use a you tube video as part of your defence I doubt it would end that well. Even if the author of the video is a barrister there's no guarantee they have experience in that field . I mean if you asked someone that practiced family law as a barrister a nuanced employment law question they might struggle to give up to date advice .

Fairhurst v Woodward has sets no legal presedent as it was just one of many ordinary County Court cases that are heard every day in the UK.

It was presided over by a single judge.

A different result could be arrived at tomorrow in the same court. Neither would set a presedent.

I think GDPR is really crap legislation, as is the CRA2015. Both are as clear as mud. Both involved input from the EU.

 

[muz379]

You should check the person's credentials and the disclaimer on the actual video where he states to get legal advice before you make such a statement .



It's worth noting in the case you highlight that the judgement that you posted is that the judge found the accused caused alarm and distress due to dishonesty and being threatening.



There's lots to go over in that case but I wouldn't use it as a measurement as to whether you can film others or not becuase the judgement itself is not a binding judgement on everyone else

I merely cited the case to demonstrate that the Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR do apply to private individuals .

Indeed it's not binding but it does demonstrate that private individuals can be held liable for personal data they collect and process . Yes Individual facts could be different but I can't see that principle changing.

Surely this is something the unions should be looking at - protecting the interests of their members?

I have strong concerns about the spread of private CCTV, particularly Ring doorbells etc - the quality is such that you can see and hear people's conversations on other people's doorsteps, and there seems to be little control over their use on youtube etc or ensuring internet security. And that's before you get onto their potential for domestic abusers.

I agree unions and their solicitors should be ready to proceed with a test case to provide clarity on this area of law.

I can see why there are concerns about the growing number of people with CCTV on their property which overlooks or overhears things from outside of their property. At the same time though I sense the great deal of anxiety about deterring would he burrgulars etc .

Fairhurst v Woodward has sets no legal presedent as it was just one of many ordinary County Court cases that are heard every day in the UK.

It was presided over by a single judge.

A different result could be arrived at tomorrow in the same court. Neither would set a presedent.

I think GDPR is really crap legislation, as is the CRA2015. Both are as clear as mud. Both involved input from the EU.

As above I appreciate it sets no precedent. But I can't see another court arriving at a different decision on the basic principle that the Data Protection Act 2018 /UK GDPR apply to individuals producing / processing personal data . Indeed there's nothing in the legislation that implies it only applies to businesses.

 

[jumble]

But what I think gets a lot of staff members / police officers backs up and what I think isn't justifiable is when those recordings are put all over tik tok , you tube or some other social media platform without that person's consent .

Some one who was being uncharitable might suggest that it is fairly stupid behavior of the police to be challenging auditors who are filming under terrorist legislation or by pretending it is illegal
The filmer would presumably be far more likely to use a hidden camera if they were genuinely up to nefarious activity.

 

[Meerkat]

I can see why there are concerns about the growing number of people with CCTV on their property which overlooks or overhears things from outside of their property.

First step would be to make it illegal to show or share the output and a duty to ensure it is secure from hackers. Preferably there would be a duty to ensure it didnt overlook other properties.

The filmer would presumably be far more likely to use a hidden camera if they were genuinely up to nefarious activity.

If it is legal then far better to do it openly. Non-suspicious hidden filming is probably harder than it looks and getting noticed would definitely get you on a list or two!

 

[exbrel]

i've just finished a job related security modual, and one part deals with hostile reconniassance, where the point is made someone filming in daylight, out in the open, quiet openly would not reasonably be classed as dangerous...
Also as the barrister mentions, the point the majority of auditors are demonstrating is, are the police, security, even the military etc up to speed on filming in public?... some are but many are not.

 

[muz379]

First step would be to make it illegal to show or share the output and a duty to ensure it is secure from hackers. Preferably there would be a duty to ensure it didnt overlook other properties.

That could be fairly easy with video just aim the cameras so they only see in your property or fit shields to parts of the camera surround etc . Not as easy to stop audio recording outside a set boundary tho .

 

[the sniper]

a Barristers legal view of auditing/filming in publc...

Crikey, Charlie Veitch is still going... I'd thought his audience had outed him as a double agent years ago.

 

[Watershed]

But I can't see another court arriving at a different decision on the basic principle that the Data Protection Act 2018 /UK GDPR apply to individuals producing / processing personal data

In principle, it applies equally to individuals and companies, yes.

But one of the most significant exemptions is the "domestic purposes" exemption (Article 2(2)(c)), which means that the vast majority of things that people do in their daily lives with personal data - having their friend's phone number in their contacts, for example - does not come within the scope of the GDPR.

That is not to say that GDPR cannot apply to things you do with personal data. But to say that it always applies would be misleading.