As to the "why are they filming us?" It's simple really, they're hoping to catch you doing something immoral or illegal and use it as a smear. And you haven't. And I am so proud of all of you there yesterday, and over the past few weeks and months that you have given them NO ammunition.
Taking a step back, as many have on this thread, the notion that relations between the leadership of the club and the supporters have deteriorated so much that we are actively driving away sponsors and they are trying to catch us in the act of doing illegal things, it's maddening and heartbreaking at the same time.
Keohane wants to identify and then ban protestors.
That should be easy. It's only 2%. Mind you, Target 20,000 would take a bit of a hit Tony.
The laws on photos as I found out when someone declared they were the owner of a dog in a photographic competition was theirs when I fact he was mine. I was told that a picture taken is not an offence nor to retain that photo only to pass that photo on for profit and or in this case enter a competition for profit was an offence. I should imagine small print on tickets about filming in the ground covers the clubs arses in this instant.
Yep. If your doing it for harassment or indecency or other criminal intent reasons then of course it's illegal but comes under different laws. Your image in public is not personal data. If it was, CCTV couldn't exist and journalists and photographers couldn't do their jobs.
Years ago, the comedian Mark Thomas, requested filming of himself by the police using DPA. He just had to pay for the video. It was a while ago though, so the law may have changed.
I think it is about use because if you use it in a profile of an individual, like trying to identify and ban people, then surely that counts as personal information? This wasn't just random filming of the public, it was targeted. But I am no way certain in this
The DPA act might be something to follow up in general. Overload the club with requests about all stored personal data from individuals, they legally have to turn over all records.
Yeah organisations use dpa forms when the information is requested as it is stored data, even though technically your image isn't personal data. However the dpa itself doesn't legally cover the actual recording of the images in the first place. There's no such thing as breaking the dpa because you filmed people.
So wouldn't it be an idea for some of the individuals being filmed to request the stored data and any relating files so we know what the club was filming and to have a copy of any such future filming? They have a legal responsibility to hand them over and by filming the indivuals they have made a balls up. It is a back door in.
It would tie up resources and be an effective tool to show the paranoia currently engulfing the club. All this talk of reconciliation while acting like the Stasi!
The rules are even more open in public spaces than on private property. So long as you are not recording anything that might be considered illegal, abuse or indecency then, broadly, you can film what or who you like. You are not allowed to film on private property without permission of the owner of said property, nor film people within a private property from a public space without permission.
Talking in general terms, all football clubs have a legal responsibility and a requirement to the police to monitor what happens at a football match. Most will use film to do this, often in a way that is not obviously noticed. The filming shouldn't be a concern because it can only be used in specific and limited number of ways.
Filming people would not in itself be covered by the DPA as it wouldn't be searchable. For example, the club filming the protests will be just one of many films made at the time, as evidenced by the many films put here and elsewhere made by people protesting. But those films cannot in themselves be searched to identify individuals who have been recorded.
Were a football club to use footage to specifically identify individuals, for example, to use as evidence for a banning order, then that would probably come under DPA as the footage would need to be tagged and searchable. Then the questions would be: Is this use within scope and an appropriate use of the information? Is the data held within an appropriate time frame? Is the data held securely? Is the data used in any other way that exceeds what would be considered fit for purpose? Is the data stored within the EU?
Given that football clubs have a legal responsibility to monitor behaviour, it would be difficult to argue that film used was outside of normal business requirements. You would, however, have a right to see it if there is film which is tagged with your name. And if it was used to, say, take out a banning order, you would obviously have the right to contest it using the appropriate channels.
Aww I think it's a shame that videoing the protests didn't happen. Would've been useful footage for a "Battle For The Valley 2: The Belgian Experiment" documentary for the museum once all this is over.
I have a "stone" in front of the main reception that appears to be covered every home game by the barriers put up , it better not be scratched Have I any right to ask the barrier to be removed so I can see it
As to the "why are they filming us?" It's simple really, they're hoping to catch you doing something immoral or illegal and use it as a smear. And you haven't. And I am so proud of all of you there yesterday, and over the past few weeks and months that you have given them NO ammunition.
Taking a step back, as many have on this thread, the notion that relations between the leadership of the club and the supporters have deteriorated so much that we are actively driving away sponsors and they are trying to catch us in the act of doing illegal things, it's maddening and heartbreaking at the same time.
Keohane wants to identify and then ban protestors.
He's had plenty of opportunities to do that over the past couple of months. He just hasn't got the balls to do it, as the adverse publicity would only weaken his position.
I think I inadvertently started this tangent discussion by reading about the proposed filming of the SP Lane protest which I gather then didn't happen. I'm grateful to all those who have subsequently commented and I think I was aware from the outset that photos and filming had no real restriction.
My point was that if they then try to use the address and contact information they hold on fans to create a secondary database of say 'known protesters' then I believe that anyone on that database would have the right to see what is being said in the documentation held against their name in case it may be inaccurate.
This is of course hypothetical but my other earlier point is why film (the Boro protest) if you are not going to use the results in some way? I don't know.
Perhaps to put this to bed, I do think the Club have a duty to supply a name of the person responsible for Data Protection security. I was definitely filmed during the Boro protest and was still-photographed a number of times.
I think this gives me the opportunity to write to the club and ask to what purpose the filming and photos are being put and to whom I should address future inquiries should I not be satisfied with the reply. As a 68 year old I firmly belong in the pensioner bracket - a useful card (yes I know) to play if an organisation turns against you by being over zealous in protecting itself.
Finally, I will post any reply from the club on a separate thread as I don't want to take away space from this thread which I have found inspiring reading in the fight for the survival of the Club against Nightmeire and all her works.
They want to ban the executive box crowd for wearing the Pinnochio costumes, so their thinking is clear to see. I expect all of our pictures to appear in a bumper 100 page edition of the News Shopper asking if anybody knows us, and to call charltonstoppers. The news I heard about instructing a fancy London Legal Firm over resigngate fits into this pattern. They so much see themselves as righteous in all this stuff they probably believe they are justified in their actions. Tony Cajones has absolutely no authority over any of us at all, but laughingly probably sees himself as significant, as important, as a mover and shaker in all this, whilst we are the great unwashed, the public, the customers who ought to know our place. Tony dear love if you're reading this, do get yourself a proper job darling.
Don't encourage him back into catering, we will never get any veggie options.
The rules are even more open in public spaces than on private property. So long as you are not recording anything that might be considered illegal, abuse or indecency then, broadly, you can film what or who you like. You are not allowed to film on private property without permission of the owner of said property, nor film people within a private property from a public space without permission.
Talking in general terms, all football clubs have a legal responsibility and a requirement to the police to monitor what happens at a football match. Most will use film to do this, often in a way that is not obviously noticed. The filming shouldn't be a concern because it can only be used in specific and limited number of ways.
Filming people would not in itself be covered by the DPA as it wouldn't be searchable. For example, the club filming the protests will be just one of many films made at the time, as evidenced by the many films put here and elsewhere made by people protesting. But those films cannot in themselves be searched to identify individuals who have been recorded.
Were a football club to use footage to specifically identify individuals, for example, to use as evidence for a banning order, then that would probably come under DPA as the footage would need to be tagged and searchable. Then the questions would be: Is this use within scope and an appropriate use of the information? Is the data held within an appropriate time frame? Is the data held securely? Is the data used in any other way that exceeds what would be considered fit for purpose? Is the data stored within the EU?
Given that football clubs have a legal responsibility to monitor behaviour, it would be difficult to argue that film used was outside of normal business requirements. You would, however, have a right to see it if there is film which is tagged with your name. And if it was used to, say, take out a banning order, you would obviously have the right to contest it using the appropriate channels.
Sounds about right Henry....... Trouble is in reality it is not a clear issue, and as many media students and photographers have found harassment for simply photographing the public, even outside St Pauls while being the only full time photographer at the BBC found out a few years ago, while taking photos Panorama and the Andrew Marr show. ! Of course the police later apologised, claimed he could have been a 'terrorist' despite having his BBC and NUJ pass on him. ironically the BBC or there management company were more than paranoid about this demanding a photo permit issued by the BBC, ironically I designed the 'permit' and issued them to the management company to sign. You can imagine the scene when I was photographing the new Chairman of the BBC outside tv centre a few years ago, and security racked up! Still it made a nice story for the Evening standard at the time!...... interesting website........ https://phnat.org/about/ Often the excuse for organisations is to surpass awkward opinions coming out\exposure\etc.
Meanwhile, back at sparrows lane...... No one was abusive or even awkward to the staff, except being there. We do have a right to protest and assemble in public, Simply to disagree, and persuade is part of the democratic process. I leave it to others much more qualified in law than myself to determine if it is in the 'public interest'. As others have posted, thank god some common sense prevailed, I am sure Mick Everett who was there saw to that. The protesters made there point. Job done for me.
I don't know if there is to be a Fans Forum event in April, filmed and broadcast as before. If I were this regime I would avoid such a thing anyway. However I am interested in how the agenda is structured. We have been getting email reply about how important fans are, to that end they need to demonstrate that with actions.
I think I inadvertently started this tangent discussion by reading about the proposed filming of the SP Lane protest which I gather then didn't happen. I'm grateful to all those who have subsequently commented and I think I was aware from the outset that photos and filming had no real restriction.
My point was that if they then try to use the address and contact information they hold on fans to create a secondary database of say 'known protesters' then I believe that anyone on that database would have the right to see what is being said in the documentation held against their name in case it may be inaccurate.
This is of course hypothetical but my other earlier point is why film (the Boro protest) if you are not going to use the results in some way? I don't know.
Perhaps to put this to bed, I do think the Club have a duty to supply a name of the person responsible for Data Protection security. I was definitely filmed during the Boro protest and was still-photographed a number of times.
I think this gives me the opportunity to write to the club and ask to what purpose the filming and photos are being put and to whom I should address future inquiries should I not be satisfied with the reply. As a 68 year old I firmly belong in the pensioner bracket - a useful card (yes I know) to play if an organisation turns against you by being over zealous in protecting itself.
Finally, I will post any reply from the club on a separate thread as I don't want to take away space from this thread which I have found inspiring reading in the fight for the survival of the Club against Nightmeire and all her works.
My understanding of it is, that the ICO would take a very dim view of (and would probably fine) any organisation which deliberately sets out to breach the 8 Data Protection Principles (i.e. that all personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed).
In effect, this means that the club may only do with your personal data (supplied by you via season ticket information, etc.) what they hve informed you is the purpose of them holding that data.
If a club has a list of season ticket holders, it is likely that all will have been advised in the small print of the application form/booklet (not that anyone will still have one sitting around) of the purposes for which it will be held - marketing being the most likely, beyond the requirements of holding a list of who holds season tickets. Even then, however, the ICO has come down against the notion of organisations assuming consent (so you actually have to agree to this usage for it to be legal).
As Bournemouth Addick points out above, the ICO website is really useful, but I would also recommend looking at the "for organisations" guidance, as it is generally more specific to particular questions, and the "enforcement" pages, which will give an idea of what the ICO does following a data breach.
As far as my best guess goes (and I'm not a Data Protection expert), there is no problem with the club, or anyone photographing in public spaces, where the data protection element may come in to play is where a living individual can be identified from the records held - so, if the club were to associate the photographs with personal data that they hold, it is more likely that they will be sailing close to the wind.
I have no doubt that there is a data protection policy that they'd love to share with us...
May be worth CARD or CAST sending a 'warning' message to the club pointing out that we are monitoring their 'video' activities and will act if we believe they are using the information unlawfully.
Didn't realise Tony Keohanes was that bloke in the fans forum view etc. The one that is exceptional at being a grey boring old tit. I didn't think this guy is nasty just kind of thought could you hurry up with the crap that's coming out your mouth it's putting me to sleep mode.
I have a "stone" in front of the main reception that appears to be covered every home game by the barriers put up , it better not be scratched Have I any right to ask the barrier to be removed so I can see it
The stones are all ancient history as far as KM is concerned and therefore to be ignored.
As a result you have no right whatsoever to see something that no longer exists.
I have a "stone" in front of the main reception that appears to be covered every home game by the barriers put up , it better not be scratched Have I any right to ask the barrier to be removed so I can see it
My one is under the barriers as well. i might ring up in the week and see what they say.
Comments
It would tie up resources and be an effective tool to show the paranoia currently engulfing the club. All this talk of reconciliation while acting like the Stasi!
Talking in general terms, all football clubs have a legal responsibility and a requirement to the police to monitor what happens at a football match. Most will use film to do this, often in a way that is not obviously noticed. The filming shouldn't be a concern because it can only be used in specific and limited number of ways.
Filming people would not in itself be covered by the DPA as it wouldn't be searchable. For example, the club filming the protests will be just one of many films made at the time, as evidenced by the many films put here and elsewhere made by people protesting. But those films cannot in themselves be searched to identify individuals who have been recorded.
Were a football club to use footage to specifically identify individuals, for example, to use as evidence for a banning order, then that would probably come under DPA as the footage would need to be tagged and searchable. Then the questions would be: Is this use within scope and an appropriate use of the information? Is the data held within an appropriate time frame? Is the data held securely? Is the data used in any other way that exceeds what would be considered fit for purpose? Is the data stored within the EU?
Given that football clubs have a legal responsibility to monitor behaviour, it would be difficult to argue that film used was outside of normal business requirements. You would, however, have a right to see it if there is film which is tagged with your name. And if it was used to, say, take out a banning order, you would obviously have the right to contest it using the appropriate channels.
Have I any right to ask the barrier to be removed so I can see it
What's next CARD?
My point was that if they then try to use the address and contact information they hold on fans to create a secondary database of say 'known protesters' then I believe that anyone on that database would have the right to see what is being said in the documentation held against their name in case it may be inaccurate.
This is of course hypothetical but my other earlier point is why film (the Boro protest) if you are not going to use the results in some way? I don't know.
Perhaps to put this to bed, I do think the Club have a duty to supply a name of the person responsible for Data Protection security. I was definitely filmed during the Boro protest and was still-photographed a number of times.
I think this gives me the opportunity to write to the club and ask to what purpose the filming and photos are being put and to whom I should address future inquiries should I not be satisfied with the reply. As a 68 year old I firmly belong in the pensioner bracket - a useful card (yes I know) to play if an organisation turns against you by being over zealous in protecting itself.
Finally, I will post any reply from the club on a separate thread as I don't want to take away space from this thread which I have found inspiring reading in the fight for the survival of the Club against Nightmeire and all her works.
Trouble is in reality it is not a clear issue, and as many media students and photographers have found harassment for simply photographing the public, even outside St Pauls while being the only full time photographer at the BBC found out a few years ago, while taking photos Panorama and the Andrew Marr show. ! Of course the police later apologised, claimed he could have been a 'terrorist' despite having his BBC and NUJ pass on him. ironically the BBC or there management company were more than paranoid about this demanding a photo permit issued by the BBC, ironically I designed the 'permit' and issued them to the management company to sign. You can imagine the scene when I was photographing the new Chairman of the BBC outside tv centre a few years ago, and security racked up!
Still it made a nice story for the Evening standard at the time!......
interesting website........ https://phnat.org/about/
Often the excuse for organisations is to surpass awkward opinions coming out\exposure\etc.
Meanwhile, back at sparrows lane...... No one was abusive or even awkward to the staff, except being there. We do have a right to protest and assemble in public, Simply to disagree, and persuade is part of the democratic process. I leave it to others much more qualified in law than myself to determine if it is in the 'public interest'. As others have posted, thank god some common sense prevailed, I am sure Mick Everett who was there saw to that. The protesters made there point. Job done for me.
I'm not an expert but as I understand it having spoken to this law firm http://currentsite.deightonpierceglynn.co.uk/expertise/football.htm
there are issues with this at various clubs and they have often taken action on behalf of the FSA and individuals.
If I were this regime I would avoid such a thing anyway.
However I am interested in how the agenda is structured.
We have been getting email reply about how important fans are, to that end they need to demonstrate that with actions.
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/
Charltonstoppers, must be what RD types into YouTube to find defenders for us.
In effect, this means that the club may only do with your personal data (supplied by you via season ticket information, etc.) what they hve informed you is the purpose of them holding that data.
If a club has a list of season ticket holders, it is likely that all will have been advised in the small print of the application form/booklet (not that anyone will still have one sitting around) of the purposes for which it will be held - marketing being the most likely, beyond the requirements of holding a list of who holds season tickets. Even then, however, the ICO has come down against the notion of organisations assuming consent (so you actually have to agree to this usage for it to be legal).
As Bournemouth Addick points out above, the ICO website is really useful, but I would also recommend looking at the "for organisations" guidance, as it is generally more specific to particular questions, and the "enforcement" pages, which will give an idea of what the ICO does following a data breach.
As far as my best guess goes (and I'm not a Data Protection expert), there is no problem with the club, or anyone photographing in public spaces, where the data protection element may come in to play is where a living individual can be identified from the records held - so, if the club were to associate the photographs with personal data that they hold, it is more likely that they will be sailing close to the wind.
I have no doubt that there is a data protection policy that they'd love to share with us...
Very dishonest then. Bit of a snake.
As a result you have no right whatsoever to see something that no longer exists.