Auditors

[123taff]

Since uploading a few vids to You tube, I have become aware of the “auditors” who go around commercial properties and goading property owners, security personal and in particular Police Officers into a response in relation to over flying private property with sub 250g drones.

Now they would have us believe that they are crusaders selflessly pushing the boundaries on behalf of us drone hobbyists and are completely altruistic in their aims. They claim that they are exercising our rights and “educating” the authorities in the legalities that we follow in pursuit of our hobby, thus making it easier for us.

That might be true to a certain extent, and indeed, I myself was recently videoing a local closed Police HQ before it is demolished and gone forever in the pursuit of another housing estate, and was interrupted by the sole security guard, and no one else was on the site and I had taken of from a public space. I pointed out the drone in flight and asked if I could safely land it before engaging in conversation with him. We then held a mutually respectful conversation where I pointed out the legalities of what I was doing, and we parted with the mutual respect each of us deserved.

I am of the opinion that some of these “auditors” are just too cocky and antagonistic and are deliberately goading occupiers for effect. For example, if you are going to over fly Police premises, then do so and then if challenged, attempt to “discuss” the legalities. To go into a Police Station and TELL them they are going to over fly the Police property and engage immediately in hostility is far from assisting our cause.

Are these people not intelligent enough to realise that their persistent antagonism may have the opposite effect in as much that the authorities may consider that they have miscalculated in the liberalisation of sub 250g drones, and may actually tighten up legislation and restrict our hobby even further?

 

[old man mavic]

@123taff when such people started doing their so called auditing, it was more about the principal, that it is legal to photograph anything, that can be seen from a public place,and as such in public there is no right of privacy,and to do such filming ,they used hand held cameras on gimbals ,and also cameras attached to some part of their clothing
then along came the sub 250g DJI mini drones which could be legally flown over property, people ,and so on ,and these have become the standard for such so called auditers
they dont care about the fact, that using the drone as they do could have an impact on future rules ,and unfortunately all of us in the hobby ,will have to suffer the consequences of such changes

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

The are complete and utter ............................. in my opinion. I'd love to see them get banged up for 'sumit'.

 

[old man mavic]

The are complete and utter ............................. in my opinion. I'd love to see them get banged up for 'sumit'.

so many words to choose from, to fill in the dotted line

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

so many words to choose from, to fill in the dotted line

I know but most of them would fall foul of the auto censor lol.

 

[old man mavic]

All the ones i can think of definately would for sure

 

[Robert Prior]

Are these people not intelligent enough to realise that their persistent antagonism may have the opposite effect

From the limited number of videos I've seen, they are intelligent enough to realize that conflict generates views, which generates money.

I think of it as more a type of "reality TV" than an actual legal crusade. If they were serious about the legal aspects they'd be bringing in lawyers and getting actual precedents established, rather than antagonizing low-level employees for monetized Youtube views.

 

[Droning on and on...]

For example, if you are going to over fly Police premises, then do so and then if challenged, attempt to “discuss” the legalities. To go into a Police Station and TELL them they are going to over fly the Police property and engage immediately in hostility is far from assisting our cause.

Are these people not intelligent enough to realise that their persistent antagonism may have the opposite effect

This question assumes these "auditors" are operating with the legitimate, morally defensible purpose they claim. They are not. Their only real purpose is harassment, filming it, then getting strokes from others bereft of character viewing it on line.

Here's the bottom line: There is no valid educational purpose in posting these videos on YT. None at all. What is being learned, and who is learning it? The population of security guards out there? Law Enforcement?

As you said, if this was the true intent, the best way to achieve this goal is to talk to them first. But then, you need to actually have a legitimate mission you want to fly, and "teaching you a lesson, occifer, nyuck nyuck nyuck, snicker snicker snicker" doesn't qualify.

 

[Mrprop365]

i call it being "legally annoying"

 

[123taff]

i call it being "legally annoying"

That is a good description to be fair!

 

[Robert Prior]

i call it being "legally annoying"

I wonder how many of them were that bratty brother who would put their hand a couple of millimetres from their sibling's face to provoke a reaction, while chanting "I'm not touching you".

 

[bitsbytes]

I am not sure which "hostile" auditors are being referenced. There are good and bad auditors out there, just as there are good and bad police officers out there. It seems to me that if you keep getting recommended or watching bad auditors it is because you continue engaging with that type of content instead of trying to learn more about the fact that photography in public is a right in many countries, and a lot of people don't know or don't care.

 

[mavic3usa]

No comment.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

No comment.

Is that not a comment in itself?

 

[Meta4]

I am not sure which "hostile" auditors are being referenced. There are good and bad auditors out there

Not sure where you are seeing good "auditors".
The ones on Youtube are all deadbeats who look for and create conflict in the hope of generating revenue from Youtube.
They are among the lowest internet lifeforms and have no genuine interest in improving anything.

 

[Droning on and on...]

There are good and bad auditors out there, just as there are good and bad police officers out there.

Please describe a "good" auditor in the context we're discussing.

Legitimate "auditors" provide a valuable service that others seek them out and hire them for. For example financial records auditors, or cyber security auditors.

There are no legitimate drone-rights auditors. No one is interested in hiring them to test someone else's fidelity to flying rules. Further, their behavior is anything but professional, rather clearly prioritized for sensation and public dissemination.

This is not how an "auditor" worthy of the term operates. It's how hooligans and social reprobates behave. A real audit in virtually all situations is something you and I would never know about. It's private, sensitive information, collected to uncover deficiencies with the goal to correct and improve.

Should a PD undertake an audit to determine the knowledge level of drone flying rules among their officers, it would not consist of some pilot flying over the PD headquarters and then getting in an aggressive argument with whoever came out to talk to them, and posting it to YT.

That's exceedingly unlikely to result in an education program at the department.

The idea that there are ANY "good" YT drone "auditors" is laughable, and I'm holding back 'cause this is a family site The truth is, all these idiots do is make things harder for the rest of us enthusiasts, poisoning relations with LE, and advancing knowledge not at all.

 

[MS Coast]

Please describe a "good" auditor.

And, provide a link to one of their supposedly "good" posts.

 

[Chip]

And, provide a link to one of their supposedly "good" posts.

I think this is a very informative video for a few reasons including:

1. Both auditor and police present their respective positions very well;
2. The police officer is prepared, calm and courteous;
3. The auditor and his accomplices throw every conceivable curve ball at the officer who deflects them all.

The auditor argues that a drone can fly over fenced in property and no one below has any reasonable expectation of privacy or any basis to complain. Do you buy it?

 

[MS Coast]

I think this is a very informative video for a few reasons including:

1. Both auditor and police present their respective positions very well;
2. The police officer is prepared, calm and courteous;
3. The auditor and his accomplices throw every conceivable curve ball at the officer who deflects them all.

The auditor argues that a drone can fly over fenced in property and no one below has any reasonable expectation of privacy or any basis to complain. Do you buy it?

This contrived confrontation took place nearly ten years ago. What did it accomplish? What is informative? What legal conclusions were reached?

 

[Droning on and on...]

This contrived confrontation took place nearly ten years ago. What did it accomplish?

Exactly.

What is informative?

Exactly.

What legal conclusions were reached?

Exactly.

This was not an "audit" of anything. It was a contrived confrontation from which no meaningful benefit to anyone was derived.

Compliments to the LEO who acted professionally and constructively.

Shame on the child that set this up in the first place. What a great example of arrested development.