Watching Social Media Audits: Like Being Swallowed by a Quagmire of Ignorance

Watching social media auditing videos on YouTube is a bit like being swallowed by a quagmire of ignorance.

One of the biggest "stars" on the social media auditing front is a chap called Curtis Arnold although, for reasons of self-preservation, he recently changed his name to Daniel James Edwards. His photograph, shown above, is available from a lot of public sources. He currently goes by the name of DJE Media on YouTube.

Having seen my earlier article a reader forwarded me the link of one of DJE Media's latest videos, in which he "audits" a G4S cash in transit depot in Swansea. The video is called "It's An Offence NOT To Provide Operator ID", although that's a bit of a clickbait title in common with most of his other videos. I regret to say I watched it in full.

Before delving deeper into this particular video a quick recap on the current craze of social media auditing. In short, this is an activity where people exercise their lawful right to film or take photographs in a public place. It is perfectly legal for anyone to film or take photographs of anything they can see from a public place. That said, just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean it is always the appropriate or responsible thing to do.

Of course simply filming in a public place wouldn't, necessarily, make for a very entertaining video. For that reason a lot of social media auditors, DJE Media included, will attempt to provoke a response to their filming. That might be by filming in sensitive locations or at places with obvious security concerns. It might be by filming a particular demographic, like police officers or security staff. It might be by entering places displaying "no filming/photography" signs with the sole intention of doing just that.

A lot of social media auditors actively court controversy, because it attracts a larger audience which, in turn, results in greater exposure and increased advertising revenue. Many will become argumentative and aggressive, in the hope that their target will respond in kind and thus make a more entertaining video. The majority of auditing videos are cheap, gutter viewing of the lowest order. Despite any pretence of providing a public service or investigative journalism, the majority of auditors are motivated by entirely by egotism and greed. DJE Media falls squarely into that category.

Back to the video in question, in which DJE Media attended the G4S Cash Solutions depot on Kingsway, Swansea. As is customary in his videos, he attended with the intention of filming the facility and flying his drone above it. It is a high security facility, which he knew would guarantee a response when he started snooping about with his camera and drone.

I have been asked to comment on DJE Media's drone use in particular. I have discussed the legalities of drone flying in an earlier article.

On this occasion DJE Media was flying a DJI Mini 4 Pro (aff. link), which is a very popular sub-250 gram model of drone. Being sub-250 gram there are very few limitations on how and when it can be flown. That said, legislation requires the following:

• That a valid operator ID is displayed prominently on the drone;
• Compliance with a maximum flight altitude of 120 metres (400 feet);
• That the drone pilot maintains a visual line of sight with the drone in flight;
• That the drone is not flown over any crowds of people;
• That the drone is not flown in any airspace to which a relevant restriction applies;
• That the drone is not flown in such a manner that it causes a hazard to other aircraft.

There is nothing in the video to suggest that DJE Media has contravened any of these requirements.

Once the police arrived on the scene they very quickly established - indeed DJE Media admitted - that he had been flying a drone over the G4S depot. That being the case the officers had more than sufficient grounds under paragraph 2 to schedule 9 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to require him to provide details of the operator.

This can only be achieved by showing or telling the officers the full operator ID number displayed on his drone. Indeed it is an offence for any person reasonably suspected of flying (or having flown) a drone to fail to provide operator details to a police officer if they are requested and they are able to do so.

I tried to point this out in the YouTube video comments, but seemingly every other commentator - being sympathetic to DJE Media's cause - was of the opinion that it was not necessary to show the full operator ID number. In their opinion simply showing that such a number existed (e.g. "here it is, but you can't read it") was sufficient. That is clearly incorrect, because unless the officer is able to read the digits there is no way they can check its validity and thereby confirm compliance with the registration requirement.

If it was simply a case of flashing the number then anyone could write any old number on their drone. It isn't exactly difficult to find out the correct format for an operator ID (here's one I made earlier - GBR-OP-123466664321). Of course DJE Media's YouTube channel being what it is, he was quick to delete my comments as they disagreed with own poorly informed opinion.

So, in short, his actual flying in the video is perfectly legal, but his refusal to provide his operator ID is not. The maximum penalty on conviction for this offence is a fine at level 2 (£500), but more significantly it gives the court an avenue of making ancillary orders like deprivation or a CBO.

It is unfortunate that the officers dealing with DJE Media have been uncertain about some aspects of the legislation, but hopefully they have now addressed that matter.