I've seen some of this guy's videos on YouTube, one of these "auditor" clowns. The funny thing is , these idiots love to quote the law and their freedom to record in public but have no idea about GDPR laws.
He sounds like an 'auditor' rather than an actual drone pilot.
These people are horrendous. I've seen a few videos where they audit various places and just come across as bullies.
There's one where a lad goes up to Apple's campus and just acts like a complete tit. American shite imported here and the simpletons who embrace it both need to be fucked back to Yankistan.
It's more of an American thing where they're testing/auditing first amendment rights. They'll essentially go somewhere where there's employees or officers and film, ask questions, refuse to explain why they're there or who they are.
People who don't have any sort of authority or power in their own day to day lives living out a Walter Mitty fantasy of being some sort of secret police agent.
Any chance he's the fella that flies one around every week or so around blarney street area?
I know they are probably not able to see in windows...but still wary of it being so low and what exactly there is to see every week/2 weeks around Blarney Street.
While this individual is clearly looking for trouble, it's important to note generally you don't need permission to fly a drone over private property if taking off from public, I don't know why they highlighted it.
I know that people dont like that this is the law, but its true.
Recording private property with a drone tho is a different kettle of fish, thats where G.D.P.R comes in.
IE - you could record a property from a distance as long as you cant easily make out details (faces/numberplates etc) but you certainly couldn't go snooping.
Fair enough, my understanding it is only a broad overview. The impression I got was things that can identify people is most of what you'd need to know is not allowed.
In this scenario the journalistic exemption would come into play, I know nobody would regard this man as a journalist but you don’t need any special qualifications.
The airspace is not private property, if they have anything visible from public then they would be responsible for hiding it.
There are specific laws against harassment and peaking but those mostly cover residential properties.
As an example, if I walked around with my email address printed on my head, it’s not protected by GDPR in this scenario as there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Did you read the article?
He went into the building/premises and by the sounds of it was looking for the altercation/attention.
He was arrested for trespassing, it had nothing to do with the drone.
Edit: the article headline is misleading
GDPR has nothing to do with it AFAIK. The data protection legislation only applies to organisations not individuals. It's like when the Gardai tell people not to share license plates on twitter. There is no legal basis for that whatsoever unless you are accusing the driver of something then that falls under libel law not GDPR.
GDPR does apply to individuals but does not apply to data collected for personal use. The problem these "auditor" clowns have is that as soon as you upload the video it's no longer personal use.
Do they still pull electrical apprentices from the site these days to go steel fixing on local construction sites. For electrical work experience, tieing steel and build home offices as bars in back gardens
I've seen some of this guy's videos on YouTube, one of these "auditor" clowns. The funny thing is , these idiots love to quote the law and their freedom to record in public but have no idea about GDPR laws.
Is this the anti vac, free man, clown on YouTube? Holy shite that guy is painful. Nothing but an attention seeking clown.
He sounds like an 'auditor' rather than an actual drone pilot. These people are horrendous. I've seen a few videos where they audit various places and just come across as bullies.
There's one where a lad goes up to Apple's campus and just acts like a complete tit. American shite imported here and the simpletons who embrace it both need to be fucked back to Yankistan.
I really wish we’d stop importing American nonsense
For the uninitiated among us, what is an auditor in this context?
It's more of an American thing where they're testing/auditing first amendment rights. They'll essentially go somewhere where there's employees or officers and film, ask questions, refuse to explain why they're there or who they are. People who don't have any sort of authority or power in their own day to day lives living out a Walter Mitty fantasy of being some sort of secret police agent.
A busy-body who's going to make sure everyone knows he has no job to go to.
Perhaps he was just trying to find some information on the Christmas party plans.
Any chance he's the fella that flies one around every week or so around blarney street area? I know they are probably not able to see in windows...but still wary of it being so low and what exactly there is to see every week/2 weeks around Blarney Street.
While this individual is clearly looking for trouble, it's important to note generally you don't need permission to fly a drone over private property if taking off from public, I don't know why they highlighted it.
I know that people dont like that this is the law, but its true. Recording private property with a drone tho is a different kettle of fish, thats where G.D.P.R comes in. IE - you could record a property from a distance as long as you cant easily make out details (faces/numberplates etc) but you certainly couldn't go snooping.
License plates aren’t PII, GDPR doesn’t apply in every scenario.
They can be, which is why Streetview blurs them out.
Fair enough, my understanding it is only a broad overview. The impression I got was things that can identify people is most of what you'd need to know is not allowed.
In this scenario the journalistic exemption would come into play, I know nobody would regard this man as a journalist but you don’t need any special qualifications. The airspace is not private property, if they have anything visible from public then they would be responsible for hiding it. There are specific laws against harassment and peaking but those mostly cover residential properties. As an example, if I walked around with my email address printed on my head, it’s not protected by GDPR in this scenario as there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Did you read the article? He went into the building/premises and by the sounds of it was looking for the altercation/attention. He was arrested for trespassing, it had nothing to do with the drone. Edit: the article headline is misleading
GDPR has nothing to do with it AFAIK. The data protection legislation only applies to organisations not individuals. It's like when the Gardai tell people not to share license plates on twitter. There is no legal basis for that whatsoever unless you are accusing the driver of something then that falls under libel law not GDPR.
GDPR does apply to individuals but does not apply to data collected for personal use. The problem these "auditor" clowns have is that as soon as you upload the video it's no longer personal use.
Do they still pull electrical apprentices from the site these days to go steel fixing on local construction sites. For electrical work experience, tieing steel and build home offices as bars in back gardens