By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
Good idea . People trot out the 1984 nonsense but if it eliminates the morons it’s a great thing .
You only have to worry if you’re going something wrong .
What, like protesting against the owner? Throwing a small plastic pig onto the pitch? Holding a flag from North Korea?
The problem with this approach of "let's film everyone then we can get them later" is much the same as the general "let's have CCTV everywhere and catch the murderers later". It's far better to prevent trouble and bad behaviour than to deal with it later, though it may well be more expensive. It also abdicates responsibility for dealing with match-day issues to an algorithm reading the CCTV feed much later rather than proper stewarding. It will lead either to sterile atmospheres or future disasters. Neither are a good thing IMO
I believe we have had this system at the Valley for 2 or 3 years now.
I've not seen any evidence of it leading to a sterile atmosphere or a disaster.
When we go into the ground we are on private property and accept as a condition of entry the ground regulations which include filming.
I protested, as did many others. Thankfully no one spotted me dragging the sofa onto the pitch : -
Anyone have Tone's email address so I can report this heinous crime
You can contact Tone on the following email address BigTone@thesandwicharrangers.com
Isn’t the difference here that the club can point a camera at any specific seat at any given time, but this new proposal is to have a system that can film every seat all the time?
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
What choice do you have......precious little evidently. Fait accompli.
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
What choice do you have......precious little evidently.
Don't go? When you are entering someone else's property surely they have a right to set the rules?
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
What choice do you have......precious little evidently.
Don't go? When you are entering someone else's property surely they have a right to set the rules?
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
What choice do you have......precious little evidently.
Don't go? When you are entering someone else's property surely they have a right to set the rules?
Yawn.
I don't think you understand how discussion forums work.
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
Everyone buying a ticket to a Charlton League game this season, home or away, has, de facto, agreed to the above condition.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
What choice do you have......precious little evidently.
Don't go? When you are entering someone else's property surely they have a right to set the rules?
Different circumstances I know and it can be argued that they were allowed 'to set the rules' eventually but losing the original and one appeal suggests at the very least there is a debate to be had.
Now, whilst I don't agree refusing to make a cake infringes upon someone's rights, I can see how someone could argue it does.
I'm not sure the same can be said for CCTV, what harm does it cause for any law abiding citizen?
That would or could depend on what happens to the images.
However it's more the principle of being snooped upon in a supposedly free society rather than 'having anything to hide.' If I scratch my arse I do it discreetly. I don't like the thought of someone watching me do it on a camera. I believe in privacy unless and until it has an adverse effect on others.
Why should the innocent majority have to suffer surveillance because of the actions of the minority of scumbags in society?
CCTV is convenient for the authorities. Police can sit in their cars in Mcdonald's car parks eating burgers rather than offering a deterrent presence to the scum element on the street as incidents are recorded. Some poor sod will doubtless have received a good kicking in the meantime but Plod can wipe the ketchup from his lips with his serviette and look at the cameras as and when.
I exaggerate to make a point but excessive CCTV is not a good thing in my opinion and, as @Off_it said higher up the thread, potentially a slippery slope if those in authority are not benign.
So using it as form of policework, on public streets is very different, Imo, to what we're discussing here, which is the use of CCTV on private property.
I get the point about lazy police work, I think it's awful police are happy to stand back and record violence, knowing they can make arrests later, rather than protecting the public at the time.
I guess my opinion is also swayed by where I live and the fact that I see literally 100s of cameras a day. I've never felt safer though.
Isn’t the difference here that the club can point a camera at any specific seat at any given time, but this new proposal is to have a system that can film every seat all the time?
Thats a big leap.
Already in place at the Emirates and if my memory serves me correctly, it’s all done by a single camera. F’in impressive tech I’ve been told.
I have cctv fitted to my house, it’s bloody brilliant. Complete with night vision but with the slightest bit of light full colour. Anyone stepping on to my driveway or my front garden gets filmed. I don’t give a toss about others human rights when it comes to my property and my family’s safety. Prevention and the deterrent is better than dealing with the aftermath of crime. A couple of years back a policeman knocked on my door and asked to review the footage to see if there was any images of the scum who burgled one of my neighbours. I haven’t had any of my neighbours ever complain about them being under 24 hour neighbourhood watch.
It’s interesting that this is irritating some people, as though football clubs are behaving differently to any other business. I’m pretty certain that you’re being filmed many times a day - banks, supermarkets, bars. Lots of places have CCTV.
You’re in public, so you have no expectations of privacy. The concern should be less about the filming and more about how it can be used. Who can access it? How long is it kept? How is it disposed of? Is it kept securely?
It’s interesting that this is irritating some people, as though football clubs are behaving differently to any other business. I’m pretty certain that you’re being filmed many times a day - banks, supermarkets, bars. Lots of places have CCTV.
You’re in public, so you have no expectations of privacy. The concern should be less about the filming and more about how it can be used. Who can access it? How long is it kept? How is it disposed of? Is it kept securely?
That's the same issue though, isn't it?
It's not so much that you can be filmed, it's what it can be used for, who has access and why, etc.
I can remember a time when people could never figure out how Facebook was ever going to make any money. Letting people use it for free you say?. The idiots!
It’s interesting that this is irritating some people, as though football clubs are behaving differently to any other business. I’m pretty certain that you’re being filmed many times a day - banks, supermarkets, bars. Lots of places have CCTV.
You’re in public, so you have no expectations of privacy. The concern should be less about the filming and more about how it can be used. Who can access it? How long is it kept? How is it disposed of? Is it kept securely?
That's the same issue though, isn't it?
It's not so much that you can be filmed, it's what it can be used for, who has access and why, etc.
I can remember a time when people could never figure out how Facebook was ever going to make any money. Letting people use it for free you say?. The idiots!
Agree. My point, although maybe not expressed well, is the complaining about being filmed is pointless.
People need to focus on what happens to the data. There should be rules and procedures for accessing, sharing, storing and destroying. Does our club have those? Can we see those rules? Can this be considered personal information?
Idont know now the answers, but those would be my questions. Maybe a subject for CAST to raise at the fans forum if people are concerned about this.
hibs also considering sniffer dogs while Hearts are upgrading their cctv in the summer as well as closing sections of the ground after a number of recent incidents including a coconut being thrown on the pitch at the derby last week
Comments
By entering the Ground, all persons are acknowledging that photographic images and/or video recordings (and/or stills taken from video recordings) may be taken of them and may also be used, by way of example and without limitation, in televised coverage of the game or by or on behalf of the Club or the EFL (or their respective commercial partners, which term includes the relevant competition’s title sponsors, any ‘official partners’, broadcasters and other commercial partners of the EFL or Clubs) for marketing, training or promotional purposes. Entry into the Ground is confirmation that all persons have consented to such use of their image. If these images should feature an individual prominently the Club will make reasonable efforts to gain the consent of that person before publishing such images, however, if this is not possible, then entry into the Ground shall be deemed consent unless the Club is notified in writing to the contrary.
On the basis that you have agreed to being filmed in the ground, is it reasonable to object to being filmed in the ground?
You can contact Tone on the following email address BigTone@thesandwicharrangers.com
Thats a big leap.
Fait accompli.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
Different circumstances I know and it can be argued that they were allowed 'to set the rules' eventually but losing the original and one appeal suggests at the very least there is a debate to be had.
EDIT: Helps to include the link!
I'm not sure the same can be said for CCTV, what harm does it cause for any law abiding citizen?
However it's more the principle of being snooped upon in a supposedly free society rather than 'having anything to hide.' If I scratch my arse I do it discreetly. I don't like the thought of someone watching me do it on a camera. I believe in privacy unless and until it has an adverse effect on others.
Why should the innocent majority have to suffer surveillance because of the actions of the minority of scumbags in society?
CCTV is convenient for the authorities. Police can sit in their cars in Mcdonald's car parks eating burgers rather than offering a deterrent presence to the scum element on the street as incidents are recorded. Some poor sod will doubtless have received a good kicking in the meantime but Plod can wipe the ketchup from his lips with his serviette and look at the cameras as and when.
I exaggerate to make a point but excessive CCTV is not a good thing in my opinion and, as @Off_it said higher up the thread, potentially a slippery slope if those in authority are not benign.
I get the point about lazy police work, I think it's awful police are happy to stand back and record violence, knowing they can make arrests later, rather than protecting the public at the time.
I guess my opinion is also swayed by where I live and the fact that I see literally 100s of cameras a day. I've never felt safer though.
Make life a lot easier for law enforcement agencies.
The average person can go buy a door bell system with HD camera technology
A couple of years back a policeman knocked on my door and asked to review the footage to see if there was any images of the scum who burgled one of my neighbours. I haven’t had any of my neighbours ever complain about them being under 24 hour neighbourhood watch.
Microchipped and a camera installed in our foreheads. Just in case.
Oh, and ID cards if you want to do anything extreme - like go to a football match.
You’re in public, so you have no expectations of privacy. The concern should be less about the filming and more about how it can be used. Who can access it? How long is it kept? How is it disposed of? Is it kept securely?
That's the same issue though, isn't it?
It's not so much that you can be filmed, it's what it can be used for, who has access and why, etc.
I can remember a time when people could never figure out how Facebook was ever going to make any money. Letting people use it for free you say?. The idiots!
People need to focus on what happens to the data. There should be rules and procedures for accessing, sharing, storing and destroying. Does our club have those? Can we see those rules? Can this be considered personal information?
Idont know now the answers, but those would be my questions. Maybe a subject for CAST to raise at the fans forum if people are concerned about this.
hibs also considering sniffer dogs while Hearts are upgrading their cctv in the summer as well as closing sections of the ground after a number of recent incidents including a coconut being thrown on the pitch at the derby last week