Body worn video for marshalls

[Robert James]

Morning all,

 

Browsing social media and I saw this post from Driver Wood Airsoft regarding their new Marshall "kit". 

 

Most of the comments are people asking about the GDPR for the camera (then others arguing about GDPR) and the sepura radio.

 

However, it got me thinking... what's the need for a body cam, at airsoft. I've never seen someone try to square up to a Marshall and its not going to offer quality for a live link to see if someone is cheating

[Pseudotectonic]

probably similar reason the police wear them, to make it a deterrence for trouble, and marshals not doing their job properly

[Robert James]

2 minutes ago, Pseudotectonic said:

probably similar reason the police wear them, to make it a deterrence for trouble, and marshals not doing their job properly

Genuinely, I've never seen an issue where a body cam would benefit anyone or anything.

 

Edit: at an airsoft site

Edited March 24 by Robert James

[JimFromHorsham]

If a site has to go to this level to “police” it’s staff and players in terms of cheating or aggro then it really doesn’t say much about the site at all does it 🤔

[Dan Robinson]

Does seem odd, Driver Wood isn't exactly chav central unlike a certain place that's come to the forum's attention this week.

 

The footage isn't going to be social media worthy either.

[Robert James]

11 minutes ago, JimFromHorsham said:

If a site has to go to this level to “police” it’s staff and players in terms of cheating or aggro then it really doesn’t say much about the site at all does it 🤔

 

5 minutes ago, Dan Robinson said:

Does seem odd, Driver Wood isn't exactly chav central unlike a certain place that's come to the forum's attention this week.

 

The footage isn't going to be social media worthy either.

Quote 1: I've never played there but I thought it had a good reputation, but I agree it does seem odd

 

Quote 2: exactly my thoughts... 

[Cannonfodder]

This is an odd one. I've only played there once and while I wont be going back I didn't see any need for staff to wear body cams. I know they do other activities like paintball and axe throwing so I'm guessing they might've had trouble there so now cameras have to be worn for all activities. Of course it could simply be down to the owner trying to show how professional his staff are for extra clout on social media 

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, Cannonfodder said:

 Trying to show how professional his staff are for extra clout on social media 

I dont see how this makes it more professional. Just looks like tesco security cosplay 

[gavinkempsell]

People can be douchebags, even self scan colleagues at tesco wear them. I guess it could be percieved as unneccessary but it might simply be an insurance requirement for the site or an aid to proving due diligence in case there's an issue at some point.

[Sewdhull]

Having video footage is great, people are unreliable and tend to make things up. It's a good idea, both for insurance and the management of people, customers and staff, to have it.

[Adolf Hamster]

Afaik the gdpr thing doesnt apply to a public site, no different to cctv in the supermarket or the butcher, baker, candlestick maker, workplace and basically everywhere else apart from in your own home (all the camera equipped gadgets we keep around these days notwithstanding). I'd say it's the rarity these days to not have someone with a camera snapping pics/video either for site marketing or youtuber wannabe's.

 

Ofc it is concerning they feel the need to record staff interactions, gives the impression they dont trust either the players or the staff to act reasonably which isn't a good look either way. Kinda like not being reassured when you see armed police because it raises the question of what do they expect to happen that requires that kind of firepower.

 

But i suppose it's just another symptom of the death spiral of trust in society that we've just gotten used to.

[Galvatron]

21 minutes ago, Adolf Hamster said:

But i suppose it's just another symptom of the death spiral of trust in society that we've just gotten used to.

 

The death spiral of trust in society is a symptom of the death of acting in good faith. Not everybody is a bad actor but when you see more people acting in bad faith and they are treated leniently when caught, it's not a surprise that some become less trusting.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong for marshals to wear body cams though I can understand why they would to deter aggro from players in disputes over not calling their hits for example.

Edited March 24 by Galvatron

[Sewdhull]

GDPR applies to private or public areas. GDPR with respect to video applies in supermarkets, on the street etc. There are very few exceptions, marshalling Airsoft not being one.

 

 

[Cannonfodder]

1 hour ago, Robert James said:

I dont see how this makes it more professional. Just looks like tesco security cosplay 

This would be one of those situations where intentions and the outcome are very different things 

[Adolf Hamster]

55 minutes ago, Galvatron said:

 

The death spiral of trust in society is a symptom of the death of acting in good faith. Not everybody is a bad actor but when you see more people acting in bad faith and they are treated leniently when caught, it's not a surprise that some become less trusting.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong for marshals to wear body cams though I can understand why they would to deter aggro from players in disputes over not calling their hits for example.

 

Indeed, unfortunately as a sport so existentially reliant on good faith behaviour airsoft is particularly vunerable to degradation of trust.

 

28 minutes ago, Sewdhull said:

GDPR applies to private or public areas. GDPR with respect to video applies in supermarkets, on the street etc. There are very few exceptions, marshalling Airsoft not being one.

 

I've probably not worded it correctly with respect to gdpr specifically, my meaning is just that i dont think there's a legal issue with them filming as a matter of routine, especially with the vague notions of it being for the safety and security of patrons.

[JinxDuh]

In my opinion, it's better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

 

I've seen a few marshals get into altercations with aggressive players who aren't happy with them and/or other players over the years, plus it only takes a few knob heads to make a complaint that could then be proven true or false via camera. I don't quite understand why a negative approach has been taken to a site owner wanting to protect his employees, but that's just me 🤷‍♂️

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, JinxDuh said:

In my opinion, it's better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

 

I've seen a few marshals get into altercations with aggressive players who aren't happy with them and/or other players over the years, plus it only takes a few knob heads to make a complaint that could then be proven true or false via camera. I don't quite understand why a negative approach has been taken to a site owner wanting to protect his employees, but that's just me 🤷‍♂️

I'm not being negative about it, just don't really see a point. As I've said, I've never seen an "altercation" between marshalls and players, you have. Maybe it's needed maybe its not... nothing to do with professionalism though, if they started filming players etc id suspect a complaint about them may take a while to settle if people are asking for the footage to be sent to them etc. Plus they'll have a headache if they "lose" footage or capture something inappropriate, just for the sake of what? A jumped up airsoft nugget who doesn't accept his/her gun doesn't shoot as far as the person next to him. 

 

Again, I dont disagree with your points, particularly around safety, but I just don't see a point in having them.

[ImTriggerHappy]

2 minutes ago, Robert James said:

I'm not being negative about it, just don't really see a point. As I've said, I've never seen an "altercation" between marshalls and players, you have. Maybe it's needed maybe its not... nothing to do with professionalism though, if they started filming players etc id suspect a complaint about them may take a while to settle if people are asking for the footage to be sent to them etc. Plus they'll have a headache if they "lose" footage or capture something inappropriate, just for the sake of what? A jumped up airsoft nugget who doesn't accept his/her gun doesn't shoot as far as the person next to him. 

 

Again, I dont disagree with your points, particularly around safety, but I just don't see a point in having them.

Some of us considered this years ago and decided in the end that unless it is head mounted you would miss most things. There were some good plus points made but in the end it seemed too much hassle.

If any site wants to run it though then I see no problem as it could help protect players and staff, altercations between marshalls and players do happen so I can see the use there. I know a couple of times there was some he said she said moments that it could of helped clear up.

[Rogerborg]

Who needs to see evidence?

 

I mean, if the site owner doesn't trust his staff, that's a problem right there.

 

This would seem to shift toss-arguing from "Well, you didn't see it" to "Well, you didn't record it."

[GiantKiwi]

8 hours ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 

Indeed, unfortunately as a sport so existentially reliant on good faith behaviour airsoft is particularly vunerable to degradation of trust.

 

 

I've probably not worded it correctly with respect to gdpr specifically, my meaning is just that i dont think there's a legal issue with them filming as a matter of routine, especially with the vague notions of it being for the safety and security of patrons.

 

That still puts them in shaky grounds for it, especially if they've not got a very clear and defined (and bulletproof) data retention policy on them - CCTV has very specific rules to it, and bodycams are not going to be in scope.

 

Edit: Been and checked. 

 

If an airsoft site is doing any of these:

 

1. Using the body cams as CCTV to monitor members of the public or to identify individuals.
2. Using the body cams as CCTV to guard against disorder or to protect individuals from assault, including the use of to try to prevent crime from happening or to provide information about them later.

 

Anyone wearing one would need to hold an SIA Public Space Surveillance license. I'll take a stab in the dark, that nobody on their team has that.

Edited March 24 by GiantKiwi

[OTH21]

Considering Driver Wood is the only site I've been to where an argument between players has come to throwing punches, I'd say that it is unfortunately warranted. Albeit not for defending staff actions, but more so for potential footage of evidence or to back up the site banning a player. 

[JVacation]

I don't see there being any real negative to having this. It protects staff and the players. So if a site feels like it's useful then so be it. I can see it being more useful for sites which cater for larger number of players for things such as recognition and for when things escalate on those larger sites where the next Marshall might be a 5 minute walk away. 

 

In my own experience players do seem to be getting more frustrated if not aggressive in the last few years.  Especially after covid. 

 

Having more protection is never a bad thing. 

 

[Sewdhull]

2 hours ago, GiantKiwi said:

 

That still puts them in shaky grounds for it, especially if they've not got a very clear and defined (and bulletproof) data retention policy on them - CCTV has very specific rules to it, and bodycams are not going to be in scope.

 

Edit: Been and checked. 

 

If an airsoft site is doing any of these:

 

1. Using the body cams as CCTV to monitor members of the public or to identify individuals.
2. Using the body cams as CCTV to guard against disorder or to protect individuals from assault, including the use of to try to prevent crime from happening or to provide information about them later.

 

Anyone wearing one would need to hold an SIA Public Space Surveillance license. I'll take a stab in the dark, that nobody on their team has that.

I'm unsure why you would think that. 

I hold an SIA licence, but it's not required to wear a body cam.

You'd only need a licence if you weren't working for the Airsoft place and then only if you were watching the footage.

 

Sia licences are to regulate the security industry, if you are working for the place that has the CCTV you don't need a licence. Otherwise someone in a school or shop would need an SIA licence.

 

All you'd need to do to comply with data protection is have a policy and stick to it. Main thing being keep the video for the least amount of time you need to.

[TheFull9]

20 hours ago, Dan Robinson said:

Driver Wood isn't exactly chav central unlike a certain place that's come to the forum's attention this week.

 

??

[Cannonfodder]

10 hours ago, GiantKiwi said:

Anyone wearing one would need to hold an SIA Public Space Surveillance license. I'll take a stab in the dark, that nobody on their team has that.

Only if they're working for another company contracted to provide security etc, staff directly working "in house" don't. The only exceptions to this are door supervision in licenced premises or vehicle imobilisation (NI only)