What expecations of privacy should apply to persons working in a public-facing role?

[Starmill]

Moderator note: Split from

Wheelchair user unable to board Azuma in reverse configuration at Kings Cross

Doug Paulley, a disabled activist, has uploaded a video of his trilogy in attempting to board a train from Kings Cross to Leeds. The train had arrived in reverse direction from Bounds Depot and the platform the train arrived on did not have significant width to allow the wheelchair ramp to be...

www.railforums.co.uk

It is the theme and comments I heard her LNER colleagues make, she wouldn't come and make an appearance in the video and talk to Doug so relied upon her colleagues to deliver the message. So this is hypothesised feeling from watching it

It's genuinely bizarre to be fussy about simply being on camera while in a public place.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I'm by no means trying to put words into the Train Manager's mouth as such, but given the passenger's previous form for doing precisely this- filming my fellow UK Rail employees doing their jobs and posting the footage online (undoubtedly without their permission) maybe the TM thought it was best to consult her superiors and explain why she wasn't comfortable? (maybe wanting reassurance she wouldn't later be accused of any wrong doings/ subject to disciplinary action etc.)

After all, it's not long ago since the same guy was talked about on here after he kicked up a fuss when trying to board a Cross Country Voyager.

I'm all in favour of disabled persons taking action if they've been unfairly treated, particularly if they may have been potentially discriminated against because of their disability. What I do not agree with however, is this guy potentially showing employees in a poor light when the problem he is experiencing is often not in their direct control. E.g. Here- The staff involved didn't deliberately position the train as such a way to prevent him from boarding. Also on the Grand Central one where there was no wheelchair space- I 100% agree it's appalling that the train was allowed to run without wheelchair spaces being available, but no doubt the staff filmed didn't have any say in this happening.

If I spotted this chap at a Station I worked at, I'd probably be contacting my Line Manager to see if they're aware of this chaps tenancy to film and upload online and also warn any other Station or On Train colleagues around at the time as well.

 

[Lewisham2221]

It's genuinely bizarre to be fussy about simply being on camera while in a public place.

No it isn't.

 

[The exile]

No it isn't.

Certainly not if part of what you say or do is likely to be broadcast on the net. Without prejudice to this particular incident, I'm sure we are all aware that a small extract from a conversation can easily convey completely the wrong impression of what was said - and even more importantly, what was meant.

 

[Starmill]

No it isn't.

Nearly all public places in cities and towns are now covered with cameras at every turn. If you don't want to be filmed you need to avoid public places.

filming my fellow UK Rail employees doing their jobs and posting the footage online (undoubtedly without their permission) maybe the TM thought it was best to consult her superiors and explain why she wasn't comfortable?

What is the issue with being on camera? Why would permission be necessary?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Nearly all public places in cities and towns are now covered with cameras at every turn. If you don't want to be filmed you need to avoid public places.

There's quite a difference between CCTV systems (which have to comply with GDPR) and members of the public thrusting a camera in your face, with the ability to edit the video however they so please and use it wherever and for whatever purposes they please.

(Not suggesting for one moment that either of the latter points apply to this particular situation, or indeed the individual involved in filming this and other interactions, but from a wider point of view regarding being filmed by members of the public. I'm sure we've all seen footage on social media of youths (and indeed adults) goading various employees of various organisations, in the hope of inciting a controversial response, which often go on to be edited to completely lose all context. Again, I'm not suggestion that this is the case here, but it is IMO enough to make somebody wary of having an interaction knowingly and directly filmed by a member of the public, as opposed to the interaction being caught on CCTV for example.)

 

[Starmill]

After all, it's not long ago since the same guy was talked about on here after he kicked up a fuss when trying to board a Cross Country Voyager.

They had booked the wheelchair space on a train and the train manager told them they wouldn't be able to board because they're disabled. I am not sure how it could be any more obvious that someone's rights in law are being taken away from them in that situation.

There's quite a difference between CCTV systems (which have to comply with GDPR) and members of the public thrusting a camera in your face, with the ability to edit the video however they so please and use it wherever and for whatever purposes they please.

It's a public place. Anyone could be filming you at any time.

 

[voyagerdude220]

What is the issue with being on camera? Why would permission be necessary?

I don't see an issue about the staff being filmed, it's more the uploading of the footage onto the Internet.

They had booked the wheelchair space on a train and the train manager told them they wouldn't be able to board because they're disabled. I am not sure how it could be any more obvious that someone's rights in law are being taken away from them in that situation.

Is it proven that the TM really did this? Surely they'd be out of a job if this was accurate. Have Cross Country responded to claims of this being the case?

 

[Starmill]

Is it proven that the TM really did this? Surely they'd be out of a job if this was accurate. Have Cross Country responded to claims of this being the case?

So you haven't actually watched the CrossCountry video but you still brought it up? Or you think the speech audio in the video is edited?

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder that if anyone is referring to anything from an external source, we ask that a link is provided. For videos/images, a text-based quote or, where not possible, summary/description should be provided (for many Youtube videos, a transcript is available, in addition to a description) and this should be clearly separate to, and in addition to, a comment on the video.

 

[renegademaster]

Nearly all public places in cities and towns are now covered with cameras at every turn. If you don't want to be filmed you need to avoid public places.

I don't have libelous videos put on YouTube about me by a tesco CCTV camera

 

[Starmill]

I don't have libelous videos put on YouTube about me by a tesco CCTV camera

How might anything here be defamatory? For a start nothing is personally identifiable about the members of staff concerned, so a claim of defamation wouldn't even get off the ground. It sounds to me like you've not actually watched the video.

 

[renegademaster]

How might anything here be defamatory? For a start nothing is personally identifiable about the members of staff concerned, so a claim of defamation wouldn't even get off the ground. It sounds to me like you've not actually watched the video.

Videos can easily be snipped to take lines out of context. Yes the TM has no legal right to prevent herself from being filmed but also no legal prohibition against her hiding in her office and refusing to get dragged into his video

 

[Lewisham2221]

It's a public place. Anyone could be filming you at any time

Yes, they could. And if I became aware of it - whilst I would have no right to stop them recording, I could, if I so wished, take steps to try and avoid being captured on camera. Obviously if somebody is recording you Whilst doing your job, there is only so much you can do to avoid being recorded in such a situation while still carrying out necessary duties, but that still doesn't make the individual being recorded feel any less uncomfortable.

 

[Starmill]

Videos can easily be snipped to take lines out of context. Yes the TM has no legal right to prevent herself from being filmed but also no legal prohibition against her hiding in her office and refusing to get dragged into his video

How has this incident been taken out of context? All the customer wanted to do was board the train same as anyone else. They were unreasonably and likely unlawfully initially told they may not do so. Seems straightforward enough to me?

I didn't claim it was unlawful for the train manager to remove themselves from the video, just that it was bad customer service and bad manners.

Obviously if somebody is recording you Whilst doing your job, there is only so much you can do to avoid being recorded in such a situation while still carrying out necessary duties, but that still doesn't make the individual being recorded feel any less uncomfortable.

If the job is public-facing then yes by definition there is a possibility of this. Why might someone doing that job feel uncomfortable with recording alone? It's just a fact of life. In any case it's not their being comfortable or uncomfortable that's in issue, it's why they wouldn't speak to the customer directly to clarify the situation.

 

[Iskra]

I work in a public facing role and have been filmed by a member of public trying to get me into trouble. I found this weird, but just did my job properly and I did inform my line manager just out of courtesy, but nothing ever came of it.

It is odd, but if you’re following company policy you’re very unlikely to have any real issues arise and it’s the person with the camera that will end up just wasting their time with nothing interesting to show from it or alternatively looking weird.

However, after having recently being duped into signing a TIR form for a railway employee who gave me permission to board their service and then ended up with that TOC trying to prosecute me (unsuccessfully), I can understand why customers may wish to film for evidential purposes.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm by no means trying to put words into the Train Manager's mouth as such, but given the passenger's previous form for doing precisely this- filming my fellow UK Rail employees doing their jobs and posting the footage online (undoubtedly without their permission) maybe the TM thought it was best to consult her superiors and explain why she wasn't comfortable? (maybe wanting reassurance she wouldn't later be accused of any wrong doings/ subject to disciplinary action etc.)

After all, it's not long ago since the same guy was talked about on here after he kicked up a fuss when trying to board a Cross Country Voyager.

I'm all in favour of disabled persons taking action if they've been unfairly treated, particularly if they may have been potentially discriminated against because of their disability. What I do not agree with however, is this guy potentially showing employees in a poor light when the problem he is experiencing is often not in their direct control. E.g. Here- The staff involved didn't deliberately position the train as such a way to prevent him from boarding. Also on the Grand Central one where there was no wheelchair space- I 100% agree it's appalling that the train was allowed to run without wheelchair spaces being available, but no doubt the staff filmed didn't have any say in this happening.

If I spotted this chap at a Station I worked at, I'd probably be contacting my Line Manager to see if they're aware of this chaps tenancy to film and upload online and also warn any other Station or On Train colleagues around at the time as well.

Indeed, I imagine some staff already do this.

The problem here is that as others have pointed out, videos posted on platforms like YouTube do not come under the same strict guidance that say CCTV does. Clips can be edited, sections taken out and all context lost in a moment. And on the back of that staff could end up in trouble, whilst this gentleman may even have the opportunity to monetise his content. Which is another problem if he does, because content creation is big business these days, and its not unusual for some to manipulate scenarios in order to create content. So there is a balance to be struck here, someone like this gentleman may find in future that he is asked to stop filming especially if he plans to publish it on a social media platform. If I were rail staff, I would definitely be speaking to my manager and making it clear I would be uncomfortable having him film me doing my job.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Why might someone doing that job feel uncomfortable with recording alone?

I've edited an earlier post of mine to provide clarification on some points made earlier, but for further clarity:

There are numerous examples across social media where individuals goad employees of various organisations in the hope of attracting a response which paints the employee and/or organisation in a bad light. Such videos can be further edited to remove or alter the context, in order to increase the negative appearance of any behaviour in the footage. Whilst I am in no way suggesting that such motives existed with the situation referenced in the OP, or with the individual involved in recording this situation, it is, in my opinion, more than significant enough of a factor to make employees wary of being filmed and to try and avoid such situations where they can.

 

[Starmill]

I've edited an earlier post of mine to provide clarification on some points made earlier, but for further clarity:

There are numerous examples across social media where individuals goad employees of various organisations in the hope of attracting a response which paints the employee and/or organisation in a bad light. Such videos can be further edited to remove or alter the context, in order to increase the negative appearance of any behaviour in the footage. Whilst I am in no way suggesting that such motives existed with the situation referenced in the OP, or with the individual involved in recording this situation, it is, in my opinion, more than significant enough of a factor to make employees wary of being filmed and to try and avoid such situations where they can.

Wary of being filmed, fair enough. However the point at issue here is not really wariness, but rather refusing to communicate at all with the customer. As you accept the customer wasn't trying to do anything wrong, I am not sure why you didn't agree with me that it's bad customer service to refuse to engage with the person whatsoever.

 

[JamesT]

Isn’t one of the things about railway stations that they aren’t public places? They’re private property where the railway can enforce their rules on those accessing it?

 

[Starmill]

Isn’t one of the things about railway stations that they aren’t public places? They’re private property where the railway can enforce their rules on those accessing it?

If there were a byelaw prohibiting recording then perhaps, yes.

 

[JamesT]

If there were a byelaw prohibiting recording then perhaps, yes.

I’m not sure that’s relevant? Most of the prior postings have been based on the fact that you don’t need permission to film on public land. But on private property you need the permission of the landowner otherwise it’s trespass.
Network Rail have published rules on photography at their stations https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...sts/guidelines-for-taking-photos-at-stations/
I note it includes:

Please respect the fact that some people may not want to be photographed.

 

[Starmill]

Most of the prior postings have been based on the fact that you don’t need permission to film on public land. But on private property you need the permission of the landowner otherwise it’s trespass.

I don't believe that's correct for a place to which the public have free access?

Network Rail have published rules on photography at their stations https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...sts/guidelines-for-taking-photos-at-stations/
I note it includes:

In any case I don't see how Doug would have been in breach of these guidelines. Nobody has been so much as identified by a name let alone an actual face.

In contrast, had the train left without Doug onboard due to his being disabled, it would have been very obvious that LNER had breached the Equality Act.

 

[JamesT]

I don't believe that's correct for a place to which the public have free access?

Filming in Public

www.theiac.org.uk

Council owned parks and buildings, transport stations, church property, shopping malls, theatres, stadiums and the like usually do enforce restrictions. Filming on public transport is the same as on private land; you do need the owners’ or operators’ consent.

In any case I don't see how Doug would have been in breach of these guidelines. Nobody has been so much as identified by a name let alone an actual face.

In contrast, had the train left without Doug onboard due to his being disabled, it would have been very obvious that LNER had breached the Equality Act.

I don’t think the guidelines do mention identifying people, they just say you should respect that some people don’t want to be photographed, which to me reads you should stop filming people if they ask you not to.
I was mainly using it as an example of the fact that the railway does have limits on photography as they’re not a public place.

 

[Starmill]

Filming in Public

www.theiac.org.uk

I don’t think the guidelines do mention identifying people, they just say you should respect that some people don’t want to be photographed, which to me reads you should stop filming people if they ask you not to.
I was mainly using it as an example of the fact that the railway does have limits on photography as they’re not a public place.

OK so what's your point? Doug still hasn't broken the land owner's guidelines you link to, or the law. He's not defaming anyone and he isn't even identifying anyone personally, just corporately. Filming isn't for commercial use. He is entitled to record video and audio for the purpose of providing evidence of what's said to him. Why might you have a problem with that?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Wary of being filmed, fair enough. However the point at issue here is not really wariness, but rather refusing to communicate at all with the customer. As you accept the customer wasn't trying to do anything wrong, I am not sure why you didn't agree with me that it's bad customer service to refuse to engage with the person whatsoever.

I'm not sure where I disagreed with you, nor was I aware that I was obliged to agree or disagree with your opinion regarding customer service.

My original comment was in direct relation to your post:

It's genuinely bizarre to be fussy about simply being on camera while in a public place.

At no point in that post is customer service refered to. All of my previous points regarding it not (in my opinion) being "bizzare" for somebody to wish to not be filmed still stand.

Having watched the video in the OP a couple of times in case I missed anything, I can't actually spot any point at which the TM refuses to appear on camera.

For the record, I do agree, however, that it is poor customer service that a) she refused to move the train, despite everyone else involved being happy with that resolution, b) that she refused to engage directly with the passenger regarding her refusal.

Of course, we have no evidence of whether or not the TM engaged with the passenger once he was onboard and the train was on the move.

 

[Starmill]

At no point in that post is customer service refered to. All of my previous points regarding it not (in my opinion) being "bizzare" for somebody to wish to not be filmed still stand.

Why does it need to be? Surely it's obvious you will in fact be on camera sometimes unless you are never out in public. The train manager changes the way they do their job owing to that, according to one of the other staff. I can't see why else the train manager might never address the customer. If they had a good reason not to they should have politely made that point in the first instance.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Why does it need to be? Surely it's obvious you will in fact be on camera sometimes unless you are never out in public. The train manager changes the way they do their job owing to that, according to one of the other staff. I can't see why else the train manager might never address the customer. If they had a good reason not to they should have politely made that point in the first instance.

There is a vast difference between being "on camera" in a public place and directly being the subject of a video recording being made by a member of the public. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge this?

 

[JamesT]

OK so what's your point? Doug still hasn't broken the land owner's guidelines you link to, or the law. He's not defaming anyone and he isn't even identifying anyone personally, just corporately. Filming isn't for commercial use. He is entitled to record video and audio for the purpose of providing evidence of what's said to him. Why might you have a problem with that?

My point is that it isn’t a public place, the expectation of privacy is different. I would not expect someone to come into my workplace and start filming me without my prior consent.

I’ve not watched the whole video, but the bit I saw had pixelated faces. That may not be sufficient to stop it being personally identifiable information. Though even then, how does the member of staff know that is going to happen? How do they know the footage isn’t going to be accompanied by a defamatory voiceover?

I think it’s entirely reasonable to refuse to allow someone to film you in a potentially adversarial situation where the footage is going to end up on the internet.

 

[Starmill]

My point is that it isn’t a public place, the expectation of privacy is different. I would not expect someone to come into my workplace and start filming me without my prior consent.

You don't have a right to privacy in a railway station on the platform. That's a fallacy, it's not a toilet cubicle.

I would not expect someone to come into my workplace and start filming me without my prior consent.

Do you work as a train manager?

I’ve not watched the whole video, but the bit I saw had pixelated faces. That may not be sufficient to stop it being personally identifiable information. Though even then, how does the member of staff know that is going to happen? How do they know the footage isn’t going to be accompanied by a defamatory voiceover?

By telling the person they don't want to be recorded at the time, and by saying they don't want their identity to be published or revealed in public. If it is anyway, in line with the other elements of defamatory conduct, then they can sue for damages. I can't possibly understand your problem with that?

I think it’s entirely reasonable to refuse to allow someone to film you in a potentially adversarial situation where the footage is going to end up on the internet.

Nobody has claimed they aren't free to dislike the possibility of being filmed. They're just not free to use that as an excuse to unlawfully discriminate. Although that would be between you and your employer, not the customer.

There is a vast difference between being "on camera" in a public place and directly being the subject of a video recording being made by a member of the public. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge this?

I don't. I'm just rejecting your nonsense implications that the filming we're talking about is somehow aggrevated or confrontational. It's not. It's obvious it's not to anyone who's watched the video.

Of course in the general case filming could be aggressive and confrontational, but the post I responded to is about this specific case.