The Drone Auditors & How To Deal With Them

[@johnburns1882]

Some of these Audit videos actually start with the auditor being quite confrontational during their initial contact with security/ building owners. There's absolutely no need for them to behave this way.

[@Firefly_UAV]

It all makes for a great video and gets people annoyed from the start, so they can call down the ‘big guns’ to speak to them. I’m all for exercising our freedoms, but not just for my monetary gain at the possible expense of others in the hobby

[@mananddroneuk]

It's very simle folks, come out and stand with them and then stick your favourite spotify song on full blast. KZbin will automatically detect any copyright song and mute the video, believe me if they have no audio they have no viewers, and no viewers mean no revenue.

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s a very good defence / offence. I bush I’d added that to the video!

[@b2bmail]

Exactly!

[@TransoceanicOutreach]

That doesn't work, as the many videos where people try this clearly demonstrate. Also, following someone and playing music 'full blast' is both harassment and a public order offence. The police make them stop or arrest them, it's hilarious.

[@outspokenwitness8744]

Companies should train their security staff on the photography laws and be friendly and professional and as you suggested, even offer them a cup of tea. This alone would make the vast majority of drone auditors vids boring to watch. Most people only watch the confrontations anyway and skip most of the videos.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Very true 👍

[@bobnewsdog]

The cost of freedom is having to tolerate things you don't like.

[@HumanityWillPrevail]

Well said sir 👏👏👏

[@marinka424]

I agree that people should have the freedom to film. After all CCTV is everywhere. The problem arises for the filmee when that film is put on the internet for everyone to see. Even if I had behaved impeccably I wouldn’t want someone to publish a verbal interaction I’d had without knowing in advance. I don’t mind just visual, but not speech. I always avoid people on the street interviewing people. I’m not ashamed , I’m just an introvert and a bit shy. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those characteristics.

[@marinka424]

The cost of total freedom means no laws, and having to tolerate living in an uncivilised, primitive, self serving jungle of people.

[@davidclark1545]

@@marinka424 but then you wouldn’t go out to confront them and get filmed, all the companies need to do is to go out, shut the gates and go back into the buildings and not say a word.

[@bobnewsdog]

@marinka424 never said total freedom. No right is absolute.

[@grossi46]

Completely agree with you buddy. If nobody approached them they would have no video's to upload 😤 👍👍

[@Firefly_UAV]

Thanks for your comment. Approaching is adding petrol to the fire in most cases

[@TheHarrybo1]

But they do & we didn't need a video telling us that 😂

[@danielweston8077]

Unfortunately, there is usually edited-out provocation. Filming female staff through windows, shouting at and verbally abusing staff, and often criminal records These people HAVE TO approach these frauditors to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their staff and premises

[@marinka424]

@@Firefly_UAV Security approach them because it’s in their job description to approach an unknown person on their property.

[@AMDronephotography]

Funnily enough a video popped up on my feed the other day. The bloke was at a metal recycling facility and went on the site and told them he was going to film them with his drone. The security contacted his manager who came over and wasn’t too happy as they had a no filming policy. He escorted the chap off his sight and all the time he was saying I’m going to fly a drone over anyway. It was quite a windy day and he literally flew not much more than roof height. I commented to the effect that you’re asking for trouble flying that low over someone’s property especially after you have antagonised the owner first. It wasn’t until after I had commented that I realised it was one of these auditor video’s. Pricks like that are just going to give us responsible drone operators a bad name 😡

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s very true. People will think drones are just there to annoy and infringe their privacy, taring us all with the same brush

[@lucindafergusonart]

Sounds like PJ

[@grahamniven]

Have never seen one of these drone audit videos, the folk who make them sound like a right bunch of

[@Firefly_UAV]

If you never watch one then you’re not paying them 😏

[@DavidStockford]

I have come across these auditor videos and cannot see a reason for them other than to garner a confrontation. What is the purpose otherwise? Thank you for answering the questions i had in my head. I dont understand why you would be interested in documenting a building but each to their own and if it is a genuine hobby then no harm is done.

[@Firefly_UAV]

You see a snipped of the confrontation early on and then treated to 20m of complete drivel which of course helps their watch time and eventually the confrontation. People are getting smarter in the more recent ones though…..

[@mal6232]

Other purposes - 1/ educating people upon the law. 2/ exercising your rights. 3/ manufacturing an income stream. 4/ highlighting possible environmental/health and safety violations

[@TheSadButMadLad]

7:00 If the drone pilot doesn't show their operator Id then there is nothing that can be done about it. Calling the police won't necessarily work either because if you know there is an Id but you aren't able to read it then the police have no grounds to demand it. They can only get it if they suspect a crime.

[@Allthegoldandcash]

What's the weird thing round this guy's neck ??? Bondage Betty ??lol

[@Dale_The_Space_Wizard]

I think its a slave collar. It has the ring at the front to attach leashes and chains.

[@Therealmiracleworker]

it is bound to result in more clampdowns on drones. These people really annoy me, just because you legally can do something doesnt mean you should.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Very true

[@mal6232]

Who are you to impose your will on someone else exercising their legal right to perform a legal action? People like you really annoy me. (See where this is going?)

[@Therealmiracleworker]

@@mal6232 no. I can legally go up to someone and get in their face and hassle them constantly, until they try to strike me, when they do i can block that and then knock them out in self defence. Perfectly legal, but everyone knows im the dick in that situation. Im legally allowed to park on other peoples drive ways, but i dont because doing so would make me a complete dick. Its always the case that people doing stupid stuff like that end up being the cause of more draconian legislation, ruining things for others.

[@Nellyontheland]

What nonsense! If you can do it, then no amount of guilt tripping should stop you, surely? Let me type it this way, and don't be offended... "Just because you can type a comment that says you are annoyed doesn't mean you should if what they are doing is still within the law!" Do you see?

[@marinka424]

Some of us take pride in showing common courtesy and consideration to others. Unfortunately, some people are just too basic to even comprehend that.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

6:20 All land in the UK is privately owned. There is no such thing as publicly owned land. What there is are "public places". This is any property or part of a property designed to be used by the public or used by the public. So a shop is a public place till it closes and waste land used as a shortcut at every hour if the day us a public place. Both are private property. The publicly accessible factor has no bearing on the ownership.

[@taffman1]

No a shop is not a public place, and you enter as a customer, essentially an invitee of the shop management.

[@marinka424]

They should just totally ignore the auditor, and move around in a calm relaxed manner as if the auditor is invisible. The auditor will just get more and more silly , and more and more obnoxious in their attempts to rile, and show themselves up for what they are. After all, these security guards just want to get back to work, not play around making people a cup of tea, they’re not paid to do that, unless it’s a customer, or their boss. There might even be regulations about not making tea on the site. When I worked in an office, we were only allowed to have a cup of tea at lunchtime and morning and afternoon break, not willy nilly, or when a mate dropped in.

[@Make_Boxing_Great_Again]

If the auditors make money form their videos then surely they are then bound by GDPR law and they just ask permission to publish personal data and pictures of people???

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s what I’ve said in my most recent video on the subject. They insist they are individuals until it comes to tax and then it goes through a limited company

[@Make_Boxing_Great_Again]

@@Firefly_UAV What does this mean from a legal perspective though? Do they need to ask permission to publish people’s faces, names, ID cards, vehicle number plates, place of work etc or are they only required to remove such information from publication once formally asked. If the latter is true then surely the auditor is not allowed to conceal his/her identity or else how else is someone supposed to submit a request regarding their personal data.

[@Firefly_UAV]

I think some auditors have a double standard when it comes to identity. They try and hide theirs and expose others. I think this is in part so it makes it difficult to challenge them legally. I’m sure once word gets round about the identity of each auditor is then those legal challenges will come and then maybe the ICO will eventually act with enough complaints. They are effectively making money from peoples identity

[@BikerBloke600]

Don't see this here in Northern Ireland as they usually end up in Hospital or worse 👍🍻

[@Firefly_UAV]

I guess that’s one approach 🤣

[@BikerBloke600]

@@Firefly_UAV These people actually live very sad lives and will do anything for a bit of attention. Hope they have good life insurance as they will do it to the wrong person some day and it will be a very bad day for them

[@Firefly_UAV]

It would make a really good video though!!

[@BikerBloke600]

@@Firefly_UAV 👍🤣

[@kawasaki32]

Didn't realise Northern Ireland was full of hard men. 🥔

[@turdwarbler]

So far you have not picked out any points that say the auditors are doing anything illegal. While I agree there are some auditors that just want to film an augument, there are also many who are just calling the police and others to account, exercising their rights to film in public and film what they see. We live in a relatively free society and I would like the police to be accountable. In virtually all the videos I have watched the auditors know the law far better than the police and private land owners. There are too many police who use the uniform to bully people when they dont get their own way, the result of this is many unlawful arrest claims (that nearly always) dont get to court and the police have to pay out thousands in compensation. Incidentally section 241 also applies to any police or people who harrass a drone pilot while flying and in doing so may be caught by "A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property." This is why police are given instructions to leave a drone pilot alone until the drone has landed, or if they have suspicion thatan offence has or may be commited, instruct them to land the drone. Also the operator ID does not identify the pilot, it identifies the person who is responsible for the drone. In most case the pilot is the person who has registered the operators id but this is not a given.They may have loaned it to somebody to fly, in this case the pilot must have a flyer id. Nobody has a right to see the operators id or flyers id apart from the police if they think an offence has or may be committed. (th reason may be one of several).

[@Firefly_UAV]

Thanks for your comment. The ‘auditors’ are very careful and operate within the current law and the grey areas of that. I accept that the police don’t know drone law like many others. In all fairness it’s not something they will come across very often and they can’t be expected to know everything. ANO only applies to the person operation the drone and it’s for the RP to mitigate the risk of others disturbing their flight.

[@shaunbarnett2972]

I personally would love to see a business owner really take physical action tbh, perhaps take a small team of personnel out there, equipped and ready to go, start by spraying them with a fire extinguisher to really put them off their game a bit, have 2 or 3 people continually stand directly in their space, and stick to them like glue, giving them no space to feel comfortable. Perhaps playing loud music from a boombox so they can't record audio, just anything to disrupt them non stop. IT would be fantastic to see that! HOWEVER, What the gentleman in this video suggests to do is actually spot on. Your best option is to give them zero attention. Not a single word from any staff member, not even security. If they're completely ignored, most likely the resultant video will be so uninteresting for viewers on their channel, they might not even upload it. Boring videos just don't make the grade on KZbin or other media.

[@taffman1]

I know of one incident where one of these frauditors turned up at a site, was given a clear instruction to leave the premises, or be removed, he refused to leave, and was promptly and physically removed from the premises, total time on the premises was less than 2 minutes, and he never released his video.

[@mpfredgarvin7198]

I prefer the 12 gauge method of dealing with drones.

[@mananddroneuk]

Clearly knows nothing about shotguns or drones lol 12 gauge has a max distance of 400 yards, so good luck shooting anything down with that!

[@TheHovel]

Which would constitute a serious criminal offence. 🤣

[@TheSadButMadLad]

6:10 Not leaving when asked to does not make it aggravated trespass. Aggravated trespass requires active interference with the lawful activity on the property and stopping the quiet enjoyment of the place. Standing doing nothing more than flying a drone or using a camera is not interfering. Sitting down the same. Going into secure areas, getting in the way, glueing yourself to door handles us aggravated trespass. Best thing to do with trespassers is what said already - don't approach, just monitor.

[@peterd788]

There are some places where it is a serious criminal offence to film into or over and these include civil or military nuclear facilities, places associated with air traffic control, certain MOD facilities and those declared as being subject to the Official Secrets Act or specifically proscribed. In these circumstances it doesn't matter whether you film from the ground or from the air. You are committing a crime and in most cases your drone can be seized or destroyed without compensation. There are even a few places where if you continue a trespass after being warned more than once lethal force can be used against people deemed to pose a threat such as the AWE in Aldermaston or Porton Down in Wiltshire.

[@citroenrelayboxerducatomat3984]

lethal force for taking a picture?? and his defence would be ?? he pointed his camera at a building??? t~~t

[@yorkshirewanderer6176]

Think you need to clarrify your statement here. There are no fly zones such as airports, MoD sites or prisons where you can't fly a drone and the drones most auditors fly have a geofence that will prevent the drone flying in those areas, but if you stay out side of that air space or even from the ground there is nothing preventing you from filming if you are in a public accessible area. Tresspass is typically a civil matter, but certain locations such as MoD sites including GCHQ are covered under SOCAP and a criminal offence, but execution is not one of the punishments. I think you'd find anyone trying to justify the use of lethal force against someone in one of these areas unless showing that they were an immediate threat to life ie had a gun and about to use it would then be facing criminal charges themselves.

[@peterd788]

The government approach to the use of lethal force is deliberately wooly in that, as a matter of policy, it doesn't employ lethal force unless contextually appropriate. There are certain sites which simply cannot be breached either in person or by drones. Try the first or operate the latter in certain places and, yes, it could mean lights out. The Official Secrets Act, 1911 and subsequent guidance allows the use of any necessary action to protect against those perceived to be hostile to the vital interests of the UK in prohibited places. A recent change to the law allows the government to expand the list of prohibited places without primary legislation. SOCAP covers acts of trespass at certain sites. It doesn't cover acts perceived as hostile to the safety of the United Kingdom and its vital interests. The MOD can change its byelaws defining a response at certain sites without recourse to Parliament.

[@yorkshirewanderer6176]

@peterd788 we don't live in Russia. Lethal force cannot in any circumstances be used against someone flying a drone or photography alone. They would have to be shown to be a threat to life for it to be justifiable. The MOD do not have the impunity to do as they please and can be held to account the same as anyone else.

[@peterd788]

@@yorkshirewanderer6176 It is, indeed, highly unlikely MOD police would employ lethal force against a drone operator but the problem with drones is that it is not always possible to determine the purpose behind the use of a drone and there are provisions in law to use lethal force. As for the MOD being held to account there hasn't been a court denial of ministerial assertion of Crown Immunity or Public Interest Immunity against the MOD in matters of national security since the enactment of The Crown Proceedings Act in 1947. The government can literally deny that a death happened and stop any court, inquiry or inquest looking into it.

[@deanbarkley7997]

There is also the issue of privacy. This is not mentioned in the video. I'm sure there must be a law which protects people from prying eyes/drones?

[@tonyb1223]

I think its covered in the drone code, is it 25-29 on privacy?

[@Firefly_UAV]

I think that’s why the ‘auditors’ do not give out any details. If they did they could be open to a civil case. I’d like to see someone get the details and see how many final cases would arise from it though?

[@TheHovel]

It's been established in law that there can be no expectation of privacy in a public place. What you'd have to show, to be successful in some kind of privacy suit, is that at that time and in that place there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Whilst you could probably show that to be reasonable for the inside spaces of buildings it would be difficult for the external places within property boundaries, especially if those places are visible from a public place. I'm no lawyer so this is just my opinion but as far as I know there have been no successful claims against "auditors" on privacy grounds, and some of the businesses that they've visited have very deep pockets. If they could have sued, they would have.

[@marinka424]

@@Firefly_UAV unfortunately one auditor doesn’t understand what a civil case is. He only understands what criminal case means. As civil, is not criminal, he assumes it means he’s untouchable. Every time the police tell him it’s a civil matter, he says to the owner “ there you are you see, I told you, you cant do anything about it” then when the police emphasise that its a civil matter, he says to the police “thanks mate, you and I know don’t we, ha ha, but this muppet ( the owner) ha ha thinks he knows best. I wish one of them would sue the chavvy vest off him.

[@marinka424]

@@TheHovel it might be easier to get them for harassment, if they walk away, then come back, then fly a drone, then come back, and telephone you etc….It might amount to a course of action leading to harassment in the opinion of a Judge. Its also possible for the police to arrest you if it’s obvious that your presence at a place could cause distress, such as a right winger turning up at a left wing demo, even if it’s the left wing being violent. I expect some audit situations could translate into this such as when Curtis Arnold was harassing someone called Peggy regarding the Nicola Bulley case. Curtis Arnold was threatened by Peggy’s grandson, but the police said they would arrest Curtis Arnold instead. I also wonder if a Judge might be more sympathetic to a civil claim if the person being audited was classed as a “vulnerable adult”, and had medical professions supporting the fact that being filmed would likely trigger distress and alarm due to a pre existing medical/psychological condition.

[@MidlandBulletRiders]

All you have to do is play music. They wont be able to use the video due to copyright.

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s one of the tips I missed 😊

[@Danny_Roman.]

What is this guy wearing around his neck ? 😮

[@Ego_Sum_Nemo]

giant ck ring lol

[@johnvienta7622]

It is slightly disturbing whatever it is.

[@AuditIreland]

It is a bdsm submissive collar! What are the odds! :)

[@LandOverview]

I think some people deliberately go out of their way to annoy others and cause trouble. I could not say here how to deal with them but boy do they need it.

[@Firefly_UAV]

I’m in agreement with you! We do sometimes need to challenge authority but not in this way

[@davidclark1545]

If everyone just ignored them it would all die away and there would be no interactions to put on line.

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s correct yes 👍

[@marinka424]

I’ve just watched a DJE media new one with the thumbnail “weirdo”. The way these security in orange behaved is exactly how all security should behave. I honestly think they had discussed it beforehand, watched auditing videos, and even rehearsed how to behave. It was perfect. I really admired how they ignored all insults and stayed calm and perfectly behaved.

[@DavidMiller-pt5su]

That was a brilliant video ignore the time wasting frauditors camera cowards is the best advice

[@Firefly_UAV]

Thank you

[@Firefly_UAV]

Thank you

[@citroenrelayboxerducatomat3984]

it only gets worse.... get their flier number?? and how can they do that?? Ask?? you should enlighten the company they do not have to divulge that ... your comment seems to imply it should be given out on request... ohh dear.. back for more misinformation..

[@chrisphelan9383]

The problems drone fliers face and the increasing Gordian knot of legislation is in large part down to morons who have flown these things in a manner that put a welcome mat at the open door leading to the creation of CAA legislations. The CAA was going to regulate drone flight regardless: that was a door that was already open and had been since 2016. What you can't fault is the fact that these people: pain in the arse that they might be, fly in absolute accordance with the A1 sub-category regulations, which as you might know, states that there need be no minimum horizontal or vertical distance from structures (reacting to a post lower down on the list). You might not agree with what they do, or their motivations, but the fact remains that there are certain activities being undertaken that require independent oversight. Perfect example: the discovery, excavation and subsequently the complete destruction of a substantial archaeological feature (HS2 were the ones destroying it) defined by the professional archaeologists tasked with excavating it as being "...of National importance...", If it wasn't for someone taking responsibility and documenting this feature and what occurred to it, there would be no publicly accessible record. What is inevitable, regardless of "auditors" or any other responsible or irresponsible drone flier, is that now one layer of restrictive legislation has been successfully laid: there will be further rules and restrictions laid on top of these, especially the closer we get to commercial drone operation, designated commercial flight corridors, the introduction of 'U-Space' and the USSP's (U-Space Service Providers) who will then charge drone owners on a flight by flight basis in what is a recognised State Asset. Coventry airport as owned by the Rigby Group already has Government funding to convert this airstrip into Britain's first commercial (cargo & delivery) and passenger drone hub - what happens to all the drone fliers in the Birmingham and Coventry areas who own consumer class DJI and Autel drones?

[@Firefly_UAV]

That’s very true

[@daveyoung445]

Seems to be an awful lot of talking which could have been summed up much easier.. If you as a business employee or representative encounter a member of the public for any reason, remain professional.. .. Is that simple enough for folks ?

[@lucindafergusonart]

What about playing Michael Jackson or something in front of them surely that would ruin their video that's what Robert suggested ,sounds good idea to shut them up?

[@ellflood]

IMO the ones I have seen help teach those who are unaware of Drone laws - Often people come out screaming flying a drone is illegal. Had this happen to me & I wasn't doing any audit or anything, just some clueless lady

[@Firefly_UAV]

I’ve had that happen to me too. I even have footage. I bet if I made a video with the footage I’d get thousands of views, I didn’t though. Do you think people using drones to audit other businesses improve the reputation of drone pilots?

[@citroenrelayboxerducatomat3984]

4.29.. you mention "document everything.." you fail to mention though, the CCTV ON the site may already have recorded this, but even MORE so, if the person recording the activity is recording on either their own personal phone or a works phone they are subject to GDPR and must BY LAW divulge the recordings as and when the data subject goes through the appropriate channels, and more often than not, the person then spouts off about THEIR person being captured on the member of publics camera... It shows the company do NOT understand the regs on GDPR... If you don't like the 98% of decent auditors then don't concentrate on the bad eggs in ONE particular activity.. try politics... how many bad eggs there?? eh? MUCH more to pull people up for there eh? I'll watch the rest of your drivel now, see if it justifies my comment

[@Tonyh7618]

I watch a few auditors on KZbin and some are better than others. Some are antagonistic some are just seemingly interested in a certain business. Personally I think they are ok a lot of them are going around police stations which are public buildings some have been arrested incorrectly and have been payed out due to the arrest being unlawful. A lot of them no the laws that cover what they are doing especially when it comes to police arriving etc telling them to stop flying when they know they don’t have to.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Do you think this helps the case of regular drone pilots, or hinders it? Do you think they’re be more flight restricted areas in the future?

[@Tonyh7618]

@@Firefly_UAV it’s an hard one to call because as someone that’s getting into drones I hope not, but from the Auditors I watch they aren’t really doing anything wrong. Most of them go to police stations, yes you can question as to why but a lot of the time it’s to actually see how much of the law the police do understand. In fact One auditor has just been paid out with an out of court settlement for wrongful arrest. I genuinely don’t see why it would hinder mate!

[@vitalhygiene3546]

@@Tonyh7618 They are there to antagonise the police. Why not investigate the real cases of mishandling evidence or giving racial profiling etc. These videos don't help the public at all Do some real investigations then it will be admired, these videos will soon be water under the bridge, too many people copying each other. Boring.

[@mal6232]

@@Firefly_UAV I doubt they care either way. When you fly, do you only think of how it is furthering the hobby?

[@danielweston8077]

The new laws just brought in allow official bodies to declare no-fly zones, a classic example of the rules that this abuse has caused

[@raistmajere5627]

One potential way to get rid of them is to go near to them playing music on your phone. Main stream music with copyright. The auditors will not be able to upload to you tube as breach of music copyright😂.

[@lawroast2509]

7:36 good point. So often the auditors do not keep line of sight so blatantly

[@TheSadButMadLad]

7:20 Problem with asking if the drone pilot can see the drone is that you are breaking the law too. Interfering with an aircraft is a crime.

[@iancastledine7284]

Just don't engage with them, or if you do keep some company spiel in the security room and give it them with a cheap crappy pen and leave em to it... No confrontation = no content!

[@stevenward1434]

If its leagle its leagle but it dnt make it common sense and common curtissie should be used

[@Firefly_UAV]

It’s legal yes, but will the law change to make it illegal, which might then affect everyone else in the hobby

[@steamgaming6568]

If you speak and distract a drone pilot while they are flying the drone you will be the ones breaking the law

[@Firefly_UAV]

What law is that?

[@anthonymcdonough6629]

​@@Firefly_UAV , Air Navigation order 2016 Article 241 applies to small unmanned aircraft as per article 23 of the ANO. If I'm wrong, happy to be corrected but that's my understanding.

[@ColinFyfielduk]

@@anthonymcdonough6629 that’s correct article 241 applies to drones yes. ‘A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property’ But not to the general public who aren’t flying

[@petelomax.]

They can only make it worse for other drone enthusiasts, just after attention

[@Firefly_UAV]

I think even though you can fly legally in some places it’s not really what you should be doing, so most would choose not to

[@lawroast2509]

5:03 whilst the CAA permit flight of 249g drones above private land it is still trespass and a drone flyer needs the consent of the land owner. I would happily work with you to produce an updated video on what a business owner can actually do to stop a drone going over their land

[@TheHovel]

It is not trespass. The landowner does not own or have any controlling rights over the airspace above their land, and so the taking of photographs of a property from above does not create a trespass. Bernstein v Skyviews - 1978

[@Boyson66]

Law roast, you are 100% wrong.

[@lawroast2509]

@@TheHovel If you had read Bernstein properly you’d know that what you’ve said is wrong. Landowners own the air space up to a distance where they can reasonably be expected to have quiet enjoyment of their land.

[@johnvienta7622]

So on that basis a helicopter flying low over your premises, or an aircraft at 36,000 feet with a passenger looking down at your house, would breach the law. Do business owners own the air, did they purchase the space above the ground? Just as property owners do not own the earth beneath their premises, they also do not own the airspace as such, although you are correct to a point that offences can be committed in regard to harassment and other privacy issues.. That will be one very short updated video.

[@mburton5365]

I think there will be more restrictions in the future. There are plans already for drone super highways in the sky and drone hubs / airports etc. These are all for commercial profit and they will overrule hobbyists and professional drone operators. Amazon etc will pay millions of £££s to have have their own highways in the sky and the rest of us will be pushed to the sidelines, hobbyists and professional drone operators alike.

[@Firefly_UAV]

I’m not so sure. You’re talking about operations on the certified category which will be much more tightly controlled. If as hobbyists we follow the drone code we should be able to operate in the same way. The trouble will be if people are operating BVLOS etc

[@Allthegoldandcash]

Pushing your rights to the fullest is absolutely what everyone needs to do. Where are we in communist China. This is a sad video made by someone wanting clicks for their video lol

[@byMRTNjournals]

Nice gimp collar Auditing is all about asserting the right to record. Testing the law Vs people's perceptions.

[@lukejackson4073]

Imagine not having anything better to do with your time than fly a drone to purposefully try and annoy people, what a sad sad life 😂

[@vitalhygiene3546]

They are not auditors as auditors are trained and have experience and qualifications in their field of work Im a safety specialist and audit premises but I'm well trained and have a degree in. My field. These so called you tubers are just blokes from the pavement pretending to know the law. They will rehearse what they will say and practice this every day. My advice do everything to film them as well and gain their contact details, you could follow them to their car. Once they are identified they will never post that video. So get your cameras out OK, I do it all the time and it works.

[@Firefly_UAV]

I think we should be calling then pseudoauditors!

[@mal6232]

You will need their name in order to check their identity on the CAA website so that won't work will it! Most of these auditors don't travel to their places of 'audit' by car because they know the police would harass them once they locate their vehicle. Following someone is stalking - an illegal activity, one likely to put you in trouble. Is it worth it? Clearly "These so called you tubers are just blokes from the pavement that DO know the law."

[@vitalhygiene3546]

@@mal6232 it's called double standards. Film others but don't be filmed. No they are not trained

[@TheHovel]

Be careful not to break the law, whilst in pursuit of someone who is not breaking the law.

[@vitalhygiene3546]

You could as a company invest in a drone and film them and obtain the operators ID, from. Their drone. Do. Exactly what these so called you tubers do. It's called mirroring, learned it by doing some courses with the police. Use a drone against them.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Unfortunately if you flew over their house and filmed them in their back garden you’d probably be rightly prosecuted for invasion of privacy 🤔

[@mal6232]

Bit difficult to see the operators ID if it is in the battery bay.

[@adrianboole7829]

I think they are brilliant. I respect what they do. They are not braking any lows. They are all respectful. If someone jumped up Karen/Kevin wants security guard/wannabe copper wants to act like a muppit infant of the camera that's his/her problem. As for the drone it's 100% legal. Its a big part of what our rights and freedom are all about. One thing you convienely forget about. You say film a auditor. Yes if you are a member of the public but if you are on the clock you are under G.D.P.R data protection and a adulter now has a right to that photo/video. So to all the boot licker that don't know or is ignorant to the law tough they will do what they are legally allowed to do. Deal with it

[@mozkingston1707]

What a load of Tosh .. I think it so it must be true B.S .. The security guard was clearly in the wrong for invading his personal space if he was flying a drone or not that is close enough to give D.J the lawful act of self defense..and it clearly was an assault .. Haters will hate eh? The dog must be under control in a public place was that dog under control? No. Obviously not.. If it isn't D.J I hope he sues you and he probably will. It's only a business that is restricted by gdpr if they are previously commissioned and sign an agreement to abide by the gdpr policy .. D.js income comes directly from a share of revinew generated by adds on his video and that revinew is generated by KZbin not D.j .. Luckily the law doesn't stretch to suit !

[@taffman1]

No such thing as personal space in UK law. It is upto DJ to fly the drone safely regardless of how close people are. As for GDPR, as the payments made by YT are made to DJ who is operating as a business, then I would strongly suspect he is subject to GDPR>

[@billmorrison8292]

Some good advice and some bad. Best advice is to ignore them, no reaction and they will soon go away. Really bad advice is to talk to them while they are flying the drone, Interrupting a pilot is dangerous and actually illegal. A drone under 250gm can be flown over people but has to be flown safely. Over 250 you cannot intentionally fly over people. Some people have spoken to them about their business and actually given them a tour. Massively good publicity. Some have actually asked for the footage to check rooves and use on Web sites. Calling the police is normally a waste of police time unless something drastic has happened.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Thanks for your comment👍 It’s a offence to interfere with a pilot where it’s manned aviation, but there’s a distinct difference for remote pilots and it’s not a offence. It’s for them to mitigate that risk by having someone with them to deal with any ‘public’. If they are expecting to be approached then the RP is either happy with that risk or maybe that haven’t taken that o to account. I have seen one video where the drone is trying to land with low battery and instead of landing the RP pursues a police officer to continue an argument.

[@mananddroneuk]

Wrong i'm afraid, I hear people quoting this all the time "you can't interupt a pilot' well, i'm sorry to tell you this only applies to 'manned' aircraft, so unless your 2 inches tall and riding your drone, your not except from this.

[@mickytwoknives]

no bias here.................. what so ever .....

[@Firefly_UAV]

You think I have a bias? If I do it’s a bias in keeping rules the way they are and not letting a tiny minority exploit the rules for their own personal monetary gain while the rest are left with tighter legislation due to the few

[@lawroast2509]

6:21 you need my assistance to bring this video to next level

[@HumanityWillPrevail]

“The Air is a state-owned asset”. Says who? The State? Well they would say that wouldn’t they? I wonder how many people have voluntarily consented to or are even aware of such a nonsensical concept. If owned by a corporation it could by implication be denied to people - not just in terms of access but also use, which is clearly ridiculous. The air is not “owned” by anyone no matter what may be said by a corporation who has decided to concoct words and marks on a piece of paper that suggest they do.

[@marcandsebe]

I saw one recently when the drone operator was mocking the police as he was flying over the police station. This behaviour will most likely get some rule changes.

[@Firefly_UAV]

Unfortunately that’s how they get the rise from the police and make a video that people watch

[@TakeMetotheRiver.]

filming in public isnt a privilege its a right and should be done to teach police and the citizens about rights in general. if you get unreasonably irritated about cameras than maybe its a lesson for you to not be such a shmuck... but some people dont do it the right way and make people mad for no reason. having a driving license is a privilege but anyone can fly a drone without a license. therefore its a right we all have.

[@rokketron]

Drone auditors are doing the same as what you're doing ... making money from their videos. Simples!

[@Firefly_UAV]

I don’t make any money from my videos. Auditors intentionally seek to antagonise people going about their day to day jobs and then put them on KZbin. This could all harm the hobby that we all live so much I’m not antagonistic with anyone and want to give to the hobby I love, rather than take. How’s this the same?

[@TransoceanicOutreach]

DJ has done more to promote drone flying in the UK than all of your lifes work combined. I know two people who have bought dron es just because of watching his videos and being amazed at the image quality.

[@Cemti92]

Auditors are really educating the public and the concerned people who they Audit!! You should be talking more on human rights, than vilifying Auditors. Your making money too, on this channel. How come?

[@lawroast2509]

2:58 that’s incorrect. The airspace belongs to the landowner - I like you’ve done this video but please don’t feed into this “you don’t own the airspace” rubbish

[@TransoceanicOutreach]

You're talking nonsense, nobody owns airspace.

[@TheHovel]

Please remove the word "Law" from your channel name as you are obviously clueless on that subject.

[@lawroast2509]

@@TheHovel if you’re going to try and argue the law then I suggest you get yourself some legal qualifications.

[@TheHovel]

@@lawroast2509 If you have a legal qualification (which I doubt) then you are quite clearly incompetent.

[@lawroast2509]

@@TheHovel I can show you my practising certificate

[@brendanwalsh7432]

It's It's not a hobby thay get Paid