Filming interaction with on board staff

[AdamWW]

It is becoming more common for staff on board trains to wear body cameras.

I'm curious - do TOCs have a policy on how to react if a passenger attempts to film an interaction themselves?

It seems to me fair game - if you're allowed to film me then I can film you and I don't believe there are legal grounds to object anyway.

I can, however, imagine someone being unhappy about it and the balance of power is not equal in such situations.

 

[Haywain]

There are differences though. Because they are wearing a body cam does not necessarily mean it is actually filming at the time, and there are very strict rules about keeping the recordings and what else can be done with them. Whereas you are not bound by such rules and could be putting the film all over the internet within minutes.

 

[LowLevel]

It is becoming more common for staff on board trains to wear body cameras.

I'm curious - do TOCs have a policy on how to react if a passenger attempts to film an interaction themselves?

It seems to me fair game - if you're allowed to film me then I can film you and I don't believe there are legal grounds to object anyway.

I can, however, imagine someone being unhappy about it and the balance of power is not equal in such situations.

Sure, provided provision is made for the staff to have some sort of legal redress if the footage filmed by the passenger isn't treated the same way as that filmed by the staff - if it appears on YouTube for example rather than being submitted as part of a measured complaint, and particularly if the footage is edited in any way or presented so as to harm the employee in question.

Personally I go into robot mode if someone decides to try and weaponise filming me. In situations where I was attempting to calm things down or use my discretion, I just go straight by the book instead, and on more than one occasion the result has been the idiot following me around whilst rabbiting on camera trying to provoke me being marched off by the police.

If they do the "you're going to be famous" etc thing I just park everything up and refuse to work in their presence, which means the train stops at the next station until they're no longer on it.

 

[spag23]

Aside from security sensitive locations, I am not aware of any legislation, railway or general, that outlaws passive, observational filming or recording in a public place. But IANAL.
But bear in mind that open filming may well affect the conduct of the parties involved. It may moderate their behaviour. Or it may amplify it; perhaps towards the videographer!
Depending on what the filmer expects to achieve (difficult in a developing situation), they may prefer to be subtle about their recording activity.

 

[cocoiadrop]

I recall videos of a particular person having poor interactions with ToC employees, uploaded to Youtube by the person, had privacy complaints lodged against them via YouTube. No idea if it was the ToC doing that or not, but I can see why they'd take a dim view of uploading those sorts of interactions for the world to see without due process.

 

[AlterEgo]

I recall videos of a particular person having poor interactions with ToC employees, uploaded to Youtube by the person, had privacy complaints lodged against them via YouTube. No idea if it was the ToC doing that or not, but I can see why they'd take a dim view of uploading those sorts of interactions for the world to see without due process.

In the UK it's entirely legal to film an interaction in public with anyone - even a police officer - and post it on the internet.

An employee does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing face to face with customers and no redress is available if someone films you in a public space and posts it to YouTube. You would however not be allowed to film them in situations where they may reasonably expect privacy, like secretly in the back cab, or a private office, or toilet.

Sure, provided provision is made for the staff to have some sort of legal redress if the footage filmed by the passenger isn't treated the same way as that filmed by the staff - if it appears on YouTube for example rather than being submitted as part of a measured complaint, and particularly if the footage is edited in any way or presented so as to harm the employee in question.

You may have a case if the footage is edited so as to appear to defame the employee, or commentary added that was false and defamatory, but not simply if your interaction was uploaded to the internet, unedited.

Personally I go into robot mode if someone decides to try and weaponise filming me. In situations where I was attempting to calm things down or use my discretion, I just go straight by the book instead, and on more than one occasion the result has been the idiot following me around whilst rabbiting on camera trying to provoke me being marched off by the police.

If they do the "you're going to be famous" etc thing I just park everything up and refuse to work in their presence, which means the train stops at the next station until they're no longer on it.

This is definitely the best way to handle this sort of thing. Weaponising footage is definitely wrong even if it is not strictly illegal and I have less than zero time for "auditors", time wasters, wind up merchants and the like. My view is that recording disputes is likely, at least in the short term, to escalate a situation and result in a worse outcome all round.

 

[AdamWW]

In the UK it's entirely legal to film an interaction in public with anyone - even a police officer - and post it on the internet.

It might be against YouTube's terms and conditions though to post it there.

My view is that recording disputes is likely, at least in the short term, to escalate a situation and result in a worse outcome all round.

I think that's true and I would be very wary of doing so for that reason.

On the other hand it would be nice when I know that a member of staff is wrongly preventing me from using a valid ticket to be able to have some evidence as otherwise it's just my word against theirs if I somehow manage to get a complaint to be taken seriously.

There are differences though. Because they are wearing a body cam does not necessarily mean it is actually filming at the time, and there are very strict rules about keeping the recordings and what else can be done with them. Whereas you are not bound by such rules and could be putting the film all over the internet within minutes.

As people have pointed out above, I am free to do so should I wish. And I also don't think I should be prevented from doing something because I might abuse it. After all I might not.

(I certainly wouldn't post it though and I don't even like putting photos on the internet that have identifiable people on, staff or otherwise,).

 

[Haywain]

In the UK it's entirely legal to film an interaction in public with anyone - even a police officer - and post it on the internet.

An employee does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing face to face with customers and no redress is available if someone films you in a public space and posts it to YouTube.

That may well be the case but try filming someone in the street and see how it ends up.

 

[AlterEgo]

It might be against YouTube's terms and conditions though to post it there.

It isn't.

 

[AdamWW]

It isn't.

Then I wonder what grounds YouTube had for facilititating a complaint then.

That may well be the case but try filming someone in the street and see how it ends up.

But surely a TOC's policies should be informed by the law not how the man in the street might react?

 

[LOL The Irony]

It might be against YouTube's terms and conditions though to post it there.

It isn't.

If a privacy complaint is made, youtube generally remove it as they "aren't a legal mediator" (despite the fact removing it is a legal action and could result in youtube being sued), even if the video is perfectly kocher.

That may well be the case but try filming someone in the street and see how it ends up.

Then that someone in the street could very well find themselves being questioned by a police officer.

 

[Haywain]

Then that someone in the street could very well find themselves being questioned by a police officer.

They might do but that won't repair your broken phone or your bloody nose.

 

[LOL The Irony]

They might do but that won't repair your broken phone or your bloody nose.

The court case will go some way to doing that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Then I wonder what grounds YouTube had for facilititating a complaint then.

Anyone is allowed to make a privacy complaint on YouTube, and YouTube does not generally interfere with the process at the outset. It goes to the video uploader for their side of the story, first. Generally, just filming an interaction isn't forbidden, but of course some people go further by fully doxxing people, posting their address, financial information, etc. That certainly is grounds for removal.

YouTube's privacy policy says:

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable and the complaint that we received from that individual, or their legal representative, must uniquely identify the individual by a combination of image, voice, full name, government identification number, bank account number, contact information (e.g. home address, email address) or other uniquely identifiable information. We also take into account public interest, newsworthiness, consent and whether the information is otherwise publicly available when determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation. YouTube reserves the right to make the final determination of whether a violation of its privacy guidelines has occurred.

Someone filming a guard, selling a new ticket and having an argument with them is not usually in and of itself grounds for removal. YouTube is an American company and "public interest" is defined very broadly in their terms.

I would never ever film a dispute or any sort of complaint but if I did I would blur the face/name badge of the other party if there was any risk they would look bad - even if I was 100% in the right.

If a privacy complaint is made, youtube generally remove it as they "aren't a legal mediator" (despite the fact removing it is a legal action and could result in youtube being sued), even if the video is perfectly kocher.

No, they don't. The complaint goes to the uploader, who is advised to take one or more of the following actions:

How can I act on the complaint?​

• You can remove the reported content completely from the site.
• If someone's full name or other personal information is listed within the title, description or tags of your video, you can edit these details by going to Videos and clicking the Edit button on the reported video.
• You can blur the faces of individuals who appear in the videos.

Incomplete methods of removal are not acceptable, and include:

• Making a video private, as the uploader can change the status from private to public at any time.

 

[AdamWW]

They might do but that won't repair your broken phone or your bloody nose.

On the presumption that a member of railway staff would not act in such a manner, I think we're wandering off somewhat from the original point of this thread.

 

[Haywain]

The court case will go some way to doing that.

Given the current state of our legal system, I'd call that optimism. And I wouldn't rule out the police taking no action if you've caused the action by filming an individual.

On the presumption that a member of railway staff would not act in such a manner, I think we're wandering off somewhat from the original point of this thread.

I was simply making the point that because you have a right to do something it doesn't make it a good idea or particularly acceptable behaviour.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Filming people in public for the fun of it is always likely to cause conflict.

 

[AdamWW]

Given the current state of our legal system, I'd call that optimism. And I wouldn't rule out the police taking no action if you've caused the action by filming an individual.


I was simply making the point that because you have a right to do something it doesn't make it a good idea or particularly acceptable behaviour.

That's certainly true.

Hence my original question of whether this is something staff are trained to deal with in a particular way.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Filming people in public for the fun of it is always likely to cause conflict.

But if you want some evidence if a guard is incorrectly claming you don't have a valid ticket, it's not exactly for the fun of it.

Edited to add:

Or indeed if there is no dispute at all but you just want to be able to provide evidence that - for example - you've been given permission to board a train even though you didn't have a valid ticket.

 

[gabrielhj07]

But if you want some evidence if a guard is incorrectly claming you don't have a valid ticket, it's not exactly for the fun of it.

Edited to add:

Or indeed if there is no dispute at all but you just want to be able to provide evidence that - for example - you've been given permission to board a train even though you didn't have a valid ticket.

I agree, although it’s probably more subtle to make a voice note of the encounter. I was more referring to Haywain’s comment in agreement.

 

[AdamWW]

I agree, although it’s probably more subtle to make a voice note of the encounter. I was more referring to Haywain’s comment in agreement.

True, though then it becomes much harder to demonstrate that it is a member of staff you've recorded.

 

[LOL The Irony]

And I wouldn't rule out the police taking no action if you've caused the action by filming an individual.

I don't see that happening unless you wind up with morons showing up. Photography (including filming) is not a crime in a public space. Punching someone in the face is. If it's a member of staff doing it, a sackable offence too.

No, they don't. The complaint goes to the uploader, who is advised to take one or more of the following actions:

Believing youtube's word is like believing someone you know to be a compulsive liar. I don't trust youtube as far as I could throw one of their loaded server racks. The onus is always on the uploader to prove no policy violation was committed, not on the complaint to prove there was a violation in the first place.

 

[AlterEgo]

Believing youtube's word is like believing someone you know to be a compulsive liar. I don't trust youtube as far as I could throw one of their loaded server racks. The onus is always on the uploader to prove no policy violation was committed, not on the complaint to prove there was a violation in the first place.

That's not true in my (fairly extensive) experience of being on YouTube and speaking to other people who are creators on the site.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That's not true in my (fairly extensive) experience of being on YouTube and speaking to other people who are creators on the site.

In your experience, maybe. But just wait until youtube introduce another ridiculous arbitrary guideline that does something silly like forcing you to start blurring the faces of the general public out in yet another one of their knee jerk reactions to something.

Or better yet, your video gets removed because their dog poo algorithm thinks you've broken a guideline. You appeal, get the video reinstated, only to have them delete it 2 years later because they're less decisive than a teenage girl deciding what she wants to wear.

I can also go on about their copyright appeals system and what a gdpr gold mine that is...

 

[Haywain]

I don't see that happening unless you wind up with morons showing up. Photography (including filming) is not a crime in a public space. Punching someone in the face is. If it's a member of staff doing it, a sackable offence too.

1. This was about filming an individual, not a street scene. That may not be a crime but it will wind people up.
2. Punching someone in the face may be a crime, but it doesn't stop it happening, and far from all crimes end up in court.
3. No mention was made of staff doing so.

 

[LOL The Irony]

1. This was about filming an individual, not a street scene. That may not be a crime but it will wind people up.
2. Punching someone in the face may be a crime, but it doesn't stop it happening, and far from all crimes end up in court.
3. No mention was made of staff doing so.

This thread pertains to members of staff being filmed, to the point it's called "Filming interaction with on board staff". If this member of on board staff were in the street being filmed and still punched you, they'd still be sacked.

 

[Haywain]

This thread pertains to members of staff being filmed

And you chose to start arguing with my point about what might happen away from the railway and railway staff.

If this member of on board staff were in the street being filmed and still punched you, they'd still be sacked.

If they were not on duty and not in uniform, I don't think that is by any means certain.

 

[LOL The Irony]

And you chose to start arguing with my point about what might happen away from the railway and railway staff.

Because you're talking about somewhat silly hypotheticals. Yes people filming in the street are attacked sometimes, but these are almost always dealt with.

 

[zwk500]

Because you're talking about somewhat silly hypotheticals. Yes people filming in the street are attacked sometimes, but these are almost always dealt with.

By whom? Certainly not the police.

 

[43066]

I'm curious - do TOCs have a policy on how to react if a passenger attempts to film an interaction themselves?

No.

when I know that a member of staff is wrongly preventing me from using a valid ticket

As if that happens all the time. You must be incredibly unlucky….

I can, however, imagine someone being unhappy about it and the balance of power is not equal in such situations.

Indeed it isn’t. Staff are faced with needing to remain professional, often while the person filming them tries to provoke them, knowing that they can’t react. Really it’s a form of bullying.

If they do the "you're going to be famous" etc thing I just park everything up and refuse to work in their presence, which means the train stops at the next station until they're no longer on it.

I once made a strategic PA announcement which led to the idiot filming me through my cab window (while ranting incoherently) being frogmarched away by some off duty policemen. Incredibly satisfying!

 

[LOL The Irony]

By whom? Certainly not the police.

If you have been assaulted, it is the polices job to turn up. If they fail to do so you submit a complaint to the iopc.