To Hull and Back

Marti Blagborough pays a visit to HMP Hull. They wish he hadn’t.

Footage is copyright of Marti Blagborough Audits and used here under fair dealing.

Marti Blagborough’s video “The Return of Farther Ted, HMP Hull Audit”:

Street Video Reviewer video – ‘Marti Blagborough Is A Nutjob’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHI6uNYcIRc

Section 40D of the Prison Act 1952:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/52/section/40D

Section 40E of the Prison Act 1952:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/52/section/40E

Schedule 2, Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/part/5

The UK GDPR:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/contents

Amendments of the UK GDPR:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/419/schedule/1/made

Article 6 of the UK GDPR:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/6

Article 13 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/

Article 12(1) of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-12-gdpr/

Explanation on the ICO website of ‘Legitimate interests’ in data processing:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/

Recital 18 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/

Link to search the ICO Register of data protection fee-payers:
https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Search

Article 18 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-text.com/read/article-18/

Article 77 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-text.com/read/article-77/

Regulation 2 of the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9780111165782/regulation/2

Article 5 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/

Article 15 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/

Article 16 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-16-gdpr/

Article 17 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

Article 21 of the UK GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-21-gdpr/

Channel Theme: Credit to Ashutosh/@ashutoshmusic
https://www.ashutoshmusic.com/music

That’s a document that states F police don’t need no permission I can do what I want when I want no one can [Applause] Stop today we’re going to discuss data protection and public photography the footage you’re now watching is Marty blabber at hmp Hall it seems that Marty blabber thinks the law doesn’t apply to him and doesn’t care whether the people films want to be uploaded to YouTube let’s watch an encounter with one of the

Prison staff which takes place on the public Highway pardon have you checked in to see we don’t need to check in M no we’re not public L right okay chaps here going to snitch guys snitchy snitchy snitchy say you know what to say about snitches don’t you

Bro the chapline didn’t like it I’ll get some pictures of him now there people out here taking videos and photos Eddie have you checked in me I am checked in no what do you mean you aren’t checked in I am oh my bro we’re going to have a problem now you should

Have checked in I we we’re not in Yorkshire are we I have to say I think that gentleman from the prison could have been a bit more polite I don’t like to be critical because he didn’t ask for Marty blabber to turn up at his place of

Work and he’s drawn the Short Straw in having to challenge him but I think one of the reasons auditing is still going and Auditors are able to create content like this is because staff in businesses and public bodies seemed to lack social skills what he should have done was say

To Marty blabber excuse me sir I’m from the prison I notice you’re filming is there anything I can help you with may I ask why you’re filming may I take your name sir and then he could have said I’ll just let reception know that you’re here anyway they are on the public

Highway they have the right to be where they are and they have the right to film the prison in a previous video we talked about section 40D of the prison act 1952 and they said that while section 40 D1 of the ACT makes it an offense to record

Inside the prison I also Express The View that the ACT must be interpreted in light of both the rights under article 10 and everyday common sense I’m of a view that even if Marty blabber and his associate were actually stood within the frontage of the prison therefore inside the prison technically

They would still not be committing an offense under section 40 D1 because they would be within an area that is publicly accessible at the very least I doubt it would be prosecuted as an offense because the CPS the crown prosecution service would have to apply a public

Interest test and it’s not in the public interest to prosecute someone just for filming within the grounds of a prison and I don’t believe that was the intention behind the legislation originally anyway as matters stand they are on the public highway so they’re not doing anything wrong in and of itself

They don’t have to alert the prison to their presence on the other hand the prison staff member they have just spoken to is also not doing anything wrong by reporting their presence out on the pavement to the prison he’s just been Vigilant and cautious which we can

Say is to his credit um he could have been more polite though just like a big effort not me thank you till L I already got you now well that’s not very fair is it you need my permission to yes you do no you don’t yes you do does Marty

Blabber require this man’s permission to film him it must first be acknowledged that although public photography is not in itself a crime nor should it be any photography of identifiable individuals does involve the capture of personal data even if the individual isn’t named and if the photographer is undertaking

This activity not as a hobby but for money then it comes within the scope of data protection that’s why the question about consent arises because commercial photography of identifiable individuals involves data processing which is regulated by data protection laws and regulations Marti blabber is filming this man outside his place of work and

They filmed his face and the video they have uploaded to YouTube does not blur out his face the blurring is what I’ve added Marti blaber is processing someone’s personal data here he he can’t rely on the exemption for artists and Jour or journalists in part five of

Schedule two of the data protection act 2018 known as the special purposes exemption because he’s not undertaking journalism or art in this video does he need the man’s consent to do this it’s a relevant question because they are filming him up close and don’t seem too concerned about considerations of

Privacy and data protection to answer the question we need to First reframe it as a different question the real question here is what are the lawful grounds for commercial non-journalistic filming of identifiable individuals in public consent is one of the grounds for the lawful processing of data under article six of the UK

Gdpr they are in in the public place and you can film in a public place without seeking permission from the individual you are filming we’ve also mentioned section 40D of the prison act 1952 and although technically the ACT does say that it doesn’t matter where the recording device um is placed So in

Theory making it make it making it an offense even to film a prison from a public Highway um nevertheless um they can’t seriously be considered to be committing an offense when you consider that they are on the public Highway and they are not filming a confidential part

Of the prison the man also did approach them but in it in itself that doesn’t imply consent and can’t be treated as tciic consent because he clearly objects to being filmed and he probably is expected to question and challenge this activity by his employer the prison and

When walking past the camera he clearly tries to Shield his face and expresses the wish not to be filmed and he does it in a moment ask for the footage to be deleted they clearly don’t have his consent let’s look at the other grounds

In article six and see if we can find a lawful basis for this filming without his consent the first one is consent we’ve just mentioned we’ve identify that as relevant already and we’ll come to it shortly to answer the original question the next one B is that filming is for

The performance of a contract that doesn’t apply C is filming is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation that also doesn’t apply here D is filming to protect the vital interest of a man being filmed or some of a natural person that doesn’t apply e is filming

In the public interest or on the basis of some official Authority again that doesn’t apply there’s no way this filming is in any public interest it’s not journalism there’s no campaign involved we already know photography is not a crime he isn’t proving anything of of importance by standing outside a

Prison with a camera and filming some random person who reports him f is the only other one that could apply which is filming in the legitimate interests of the data controller Marty blabber let’s look at this concept of legitimate interests the legitimate interest basis could be commercial it could simply be

That filming is how Marty blabber earns income and filming this man outside the prison will earn him money on YouTube but this is a consideration of Interest so Marty’s legitimate interest in earning income on YouTube has to be balanced with legitimate interests of a man being filmed to protect his own

Privacy how these two competing interests are balanced is a matter of opinion and only a court can decide it conclusively in each particular case if this man that’s if this man decided to bring a civil claim against Marty blabber and perhaps YouTube for damages on the basis that his private

Information has been misused my point is simply to say that it’s not as simple as Marty blabber thinks he can’t just do as he pleases back to the original question does Marty need the man’s consent and we should also ask does Marty’s legitimate interest in wishing to earn income from

Filming override this man’s interest in maintaining his privacy and allow Marty to film without film him without his consent some points that would go against Marty blabber in all this are as follows first he sets out in the first place to create drama and confrontation that’s the whole point of him being

There there’s no public interest in him filming or being stood outside that prison there’s no journalistic or artistic purpose to it he wouldn’t have a defense under a public interest defense under section 40e of the prison act if in the unlikely event the CPS decided to prosecute him just for

Filming from that PL the prison from that place it’s purely a commercial um exercise and purely about entertaining people by humiliating other people this is what’s called context it means where looking at how the recording or photograph is used rather than the fact that it was taken second Marty is not

Generally compliant with data protection he’s not registered as a data controller and he refused to explain his purpose to this man or provide his name and address third Marty gets up close to the man it’s not a situation where the man’s face has been captured naturally or incidentally and Marty’s attitude

Doesn’t show much concern for the man’s dignity or privacy fourth the man is outside his presumed place of work and it’s possible to surmise who he is from his work close which means that the court is likely to hold that capture of his face on film is identifiable information and therefore personal data

Fifth Marty didn’t just film this man he also intended to upload the footage to social media and did so without consulting him or complying with the relevant provisions of the data protection app by supplying his name and address six the man is not a prison officer or Governor or siia licensed

Individual or an attested Constable or designated or credited person in other words he isn’t someone whose duties would involve an expectation of being scrutinized and filmed by the public seventh it’s not just that Marty did not obtain the man’s consent the man very forcefully refuses consent and voices his objection and seems alarmed

And distressed the point seem favor of filming are that first they are on the public Highway he approached them orbe he’s probably expected to to be fair he also helped to create the drama here through his own uh manner he could have been more polite he Marty was already filming when

The man approached him and the man knew this on balance I think the consent was required and since they were already filming when he approach them what I am saying in effect is that they should have stopped filming at the point he refused consent and they should have

Sought his consent before uploading the video to YouTube without blurring out his face my reason for taking this view balls down to context first the purpose of Marty blabber’s Channel gives us context he’s not a journalist or hobby photographer or a freelance commercial photographer or engaged in some other

Normal and legitimate purpose he’s purpose is to generate conflict second the filming is focused on this one individual when filming is focused on an individual and could impact that individual in some way then it could become personal data in the gdpr sense context and intention changes things and

Can mean that the law reviews the same data differently in different circumstances to explain further let’s say Marty had filmed a load of prison officers coming out of the prison on their break and these individuals are filmed in a way that makes them identifiable the cameraman in those

Circumstances is not processing the film or photograph to learn anything about any of the individuals whose images were captured nor is it likely that the cameraman would ever process a photograph for that purpose so it would not be personal data as it is not used to record learn or decide something

About the individuals I think this film of the man is being processed to record him as an individual and therefore it is personal data although I think consent was needed and I don’t believe any legitimate interest can override it I’ll now assume that I’m wrong and that in fact a

Legitimate interest could um apply and form a law lawful basis for data processing in this case in the absence of consent the question then is would Marty’s legitimate interest provide a lawful basis for filming without consent I don’t believe it does because he set out to create confrontation and

He refuses to consider this man’s privacy or provide his name and address as required by articles 13 and 121 of the UK gdpr or any information about his channel and what he was doing and why given that behavior it’s hard to argue that Marty’s right to film should

Override this man’s privacy I’m not saying auditing is an illegal activity as such no one can physically stop Marty from filming but the point is that a lack of consent or legitimate interest would leave Marty open to a civil action and I think auditing in the manner he

Goes about it does create an actionable breach of privacy for which the victim could bring a civil claim for for damages under the Civil wrong of the misuse of private information I think as a minimum it would have been a simple matter for Marty to blur out this man’s face so

That he was no longer readily identifiable and that could I only say could address privacy concerns and broadcasting this man in a way that he can be identifiable is hardly necessary in meeting Marty’s legitimate interests it is still open for the man being filmed to ask YouTube to take the

Footage down or require that Marty blurs out his face let’s see what uh Marty has to say about that no you don’t stop you put you on internet you need my permission no I don’t yes you don’t no I don’t you do I’ve attempted to give you my own

Balanced opinion about it since he does not obtain this man’s consent it is open to this man to ask YouTube to take the footage down or require Marty to edit the footage to blur out his face on the basis of privacy or data protection or de facto harassment no blooded up can

You take it can you it absolutely not the man is been polite in asking Marty to delete the footage and in effect ask him not to upload the footage to social media Marty is refusing to comply it is something that Marty needs to give some thought to and the law does variously

Expect and require that Marty give some thought to it where does the law require that there are two threads to the law here First Data protection as contained in the UK gdpr and the data protection act 2018 second in Privacy Law which includes the Civil wrong of misuse of private

Information and article 8 of the scheduled to the Human Rights Act the two threads are linked as I’ll explain Marty blabber runs a monetized YouTube channel Channel therefore he does not benefit from the domestic purposes exemption in recital 18 so all the data protection requirements apply

To him what this means is that his auditing activities fall within the UK gdpr and the data protection act 2018 it’s possible that some of the auditing activity he undertakes could fall within the journalistic exemption from data protection known as a special purposes exemption which is assessed on

The caseby case basis but even then the majority of the requirements in data protection would still apply to him I think we can comfortably say that in this video Marty is not carrying out any sort of Journalism this means that all requirements of data protection apply to

What Marty blabber and his associate are doing in this video a person’s image is regarded in law as personal data where that person is identifiable able from the image as I mentioned earlier I believe this gentleman would be identifiable from the image because first he’s being photographed outside

His presumed place of work he’s not just being photographed as some random individual in a shopping center let’s say second it’s not a wide angle shot it’s a close-up shot of this gentleman in particular with the camera focused on him let’s look at the data protection requirements that are most relevant you

Notice I hope in what follows that nowhere do I suggest that Marty should be stopped from filming in a public place or that filming people in public even without their permission um is in any way wrong morally or legally in and of itself he is at Liberty to do so and

It is not a crime to do so and nobody is suggesting that it is or nor that it should be what I am saying is that this rightful Liberty he has to do so is subject to certain requirements where he is capturing personal data first under

Articles 13 and 121 of the UK gdpr the staff member being filmed has the right to the name and address of the data controller in this case the data controller is Marty blabber second under Articles 181c and 182 of the gdpr the staff member being filmed can restrict

Processing of this data while he initiates a legal claim against Marty blabber that could be a claim for a civil wrong being misuse of his private information he also has the right to complain to the information commissioner under article 77 of the gdpr about Marti blabber’s activities under regulation

Two of the data protection charges and information regulations 2018 Marty is also required to register with the information commissioner as a data controller I can confirm that Marty blabber has not done so so anyone can check the register for themselves and see that his name is not there if you

Don’t believe me you can follow the link in the description he and other Auditors could be fined by the information commissioner as this is a breach of the regulations Marty must adhere to the requirements of a UK gdpr and the data protection act which include only processing data on a lawful basis and

Only holding the data for as long as that data is needed and furthermore it includes informing this prison staff member of his rights as a data subject including the right to object to processing of his data to request deletion or modification of his data modification may include blurring his

Face in any videos Marty retains and publishes if Marty refuses to delete the video or blur his face he would need to supply a reason for this refusal Marty is required to be fair in the way he processes his man’s data and must on request provide him with a copy of any

Data he stores of course the fairness relates to a law the lawful basis requirement and we’ve already been through the lawful basis uh aspect of this and I’ve explained why I believe Marty does not have a lawful basis for the processing of this man’s data in the first place

Now that I’ve gone through all that let’s get back to the footage not under any circumstances whatsoever you realize that not even the police officers have the power to make me delete videos or I’m not making you I’m asking you no absolutely not if you didn’t go as I’ve

Demonstrated this man is completely within his rights to ask for deletion of his data that’s articles 171 and 172 of the UK gdpr he could also ask Marty to edit the data to blur out his face Marty has to consider the deletion or editing request and he must have a reason for

Refusing it if this was a journalist making a documentary of some sort probably there would be no right to deletion this is not a journalist this is Marty blab let’s see if Marty gives a reason if you didn’t go snitch on where if you didn’t go snitch on us I might have considered

It snitching on you see what that is a c that’s my back I’m covering my back if I walk past here and someone’s doing something that I’m wary about then I have to um report it the man is absolutely right nobody can blame him if I was a photographer in that situation I

Would have no complaints Marty’s reason for refusal which is that the man snitched on him it’s very interesting very novel explanation I’m not sure if a court would be very convinced by that explanation and I don’t recall reading in either the UK gdpr or the data protection act anything

About the data subject snitching on you but we must remember something here which is that Marty is a legal genius and it could well be that he’s breaking new ground in the field of data Protection Law just bear that in mind you scared of Camas what you scared of

Camas cans are you scared of cameras cameras no what’s the issue then well it’s just where you’re going to put my face I’m going to put it on internet and and where are you from me yeah n your business really sorry Marty but it is his business because you are a

Data controller and you are processing his personal data and under Article 13 of the UK gdpr he has a right to your name and address I think Marty is a bit of a bluffer well it’s not in your business you taking photogra me if I’m stud in a public public place my

Permission to put it on the it’s all to do with this data protection data protection applies to companies not individuals all businesses whether companies or Soul Traders or Partnerships are subject to data Protection Law Marty is wrong as usual as I’ve explained he has a monetized

YouTube channel so he is subject to data Protection Law to the same extent as any other business he also can’t artificially separate his public photography activity from his YouTube channel because it’s clear that one serves the other apart from all that as you saw in the last video Marty was

Going around telling people that he does have a company of which he is the director so do you belong to a company I have my unlimited company yes right what’s the name of that I’m not going to tell you that I think I can help pinac media UK limited of which Marty blabber

Was the director was dissolved on the 31st of May 2022 that is the only company to which Marty blab was ever Associated according to company’s house that’s a bit confusing I don’t need no permission off you whatsoever I don’t need no permission off you whatsoever H well Matt is a legal

Expert this must mean that I can go out with my camera stick a camera in somebody’s face and there’s nothing they can do about it this is why I watch Marty’s Channel cuz you’d get all kinds of useful information thanks Marty now whether or not Marty is correct that he doesn’t

Require this man’s permission to film him and put the footage on YouTube I think he is risking a civil action by not doing so the footage is still personal data and all the requirements of data protection apply I don’t need no permission off your whatever from I’m not from there

No that’s a document that states from police don’t need no permission I can do what I want when I want no stop Marty can’t do what he wants when he wants he’s subject to the laws of a land just like the rest of us you can’t

Bye let’s look at where Marty went wrong here first Marty thinks that because he’s not a company data protection laws don’t apply to him this is categorically incorrect Marty is making in income on YouTube through an activity that involves processing personal data so he is a data controller and data protection

Does apply to his activities second probably because of the first point I’ve just mentioned Marty has failed to register as a data controller with the information commissioner’s office this is a breach of Regulation two of the data protection information charges on information regulations 2018 for which he could be

Fined third Marty thinks he does not need the consent of the prison staff member we’ve just seen to film him well this implies that he thinks his commercial interest in filming can override a need for consent consent effectively folding into privacy but when you take into account that the

Purpose of his channel is exploitative he may not be on Solid Ground if someone brings a civil action against him for infringing privacy in addition there’s also a risk in some cases of him being found to have committed an offense of under Section Five of a public order Act of behaving

In such a way that is likely to cause harassment alarm and distress and if he’s on private land he wasn’t here but in cases where he is on private premises and he’s behaving in this way he could also be accused of aggravated trespass which is an offense

Contra to section 68 of the criminal justice and public order act 1994 fourth Marty seems unaware of his obligations as a data controller he is required to provide his name and address and explain for what purpose he’s carrying out filming these are are requirements in the UK gdpr the data

Subject I the prison staff member we’ve just seen can if he wishes make contact with Marty or with YouTube as the case may be to exercise his other rights under the data protection legislation that I’ve already outlined fifth Marty seems to have no regard to considerations of other people’s privacy

He ignores the heartfelt pleas and objections of a prison staff member in the video and if you visit Marty’s Channel on YouTube there’s no privacy policy or mention of data protection what Marty’s neglect of these things tells us is that he doesn’t care in his

Own words I can do what I want when I want he certainly acts like he can do what he want when he wants the fact is that Marty has filled this man up close against his will outside his workplace in a way that must identify him so this

Is personal data and Marty is not complying with data Protection Law there is arguably a misuse of private data which is a civil wrong for which this man could seek down damages in the courts whether he would be successful in such an action is an open question but

One thing’s for sure Marty blab can’t just do what he wants with other people’s Privacy