Rutherford Labs double sprint race, 26 Aug

[JK]

Thanks - please let me know when you have done so..

I'll now go and seek permission for it to be published. Hopefully that shouldn't take long.

"Had the area been That sensitive, then no-one would have had access.". I said it wasn't sensitive (although a nearby area would have been, hence we didn't get access), but showing every entrance to every building is something that might not be appreciated - neither the map nor Google shows as much detail. It is government property after all and we had to convince the people that owned it that competitors wouldn't be attractive by shiny things and go investigating, but would be charging round concentraing on their map - making a video wasn't discussed. If it had been, then I suspect they'd have asked us to ensure that the permission from the parents of any Juniors appearing on the video wassought first.

"There is nothing stopping public access where orienteers went, simply enter from the far side, no gates, no security." - What is your evidence for this? As far as I know every entrance is locked / protected by key card to the RAL site. If you have evidence to the contrary then please let us know.

"Should orienteers wipe all images seen during the course from their brain." - that shouldn't be neccessary.

"There is nothing to prevent someone who has now downloaded the video from posting it themselves." - true, but I think it would be a bit petty to ignore the wishes of a Controller who has given up time and effort to help with the courses (and given up his Fri and Mon runs at the White Rose, making map corrections and then controlling) when he'd be the one getting it in the neck if his management didn't like what had been done.

JK

[nooomember]

Now I don't want to sound alarmist but I've worked in environments where I've had to sign the official secrets act before I've been allowed into areas like that described and it is possible that unauthorised filming can actually be a criminal offence punishable by a long period of imprisonment.
I suspect that isn't the case here as they allowed the event but just take them down it's the easier solution.

Yet another person who starts by saying... 'i dont want to sound alarmist, BUT' and then go on to be alarmist!, well I dont want to sound offensive, but....
This area seems to be so secretive, and so sensitive that there is no security, no one signed in and out, no armed guards... My local library is more secure!

And by the way, this thread has nothing to do with child protection.

[JK]

There is nothing secretive about RAL, but as it is home to multi-million pound facilities they take security seriously.

There was a lot of persuading went on to persuade them that the security would be able to identify who was an orienteer and who wasn't. Normally entry to site is by security pass only. Roger had to get one specially printed so he could get on the site to tag the controls and had to show it each time he entered it.

If you prefer I am sure signing in and out for each runner could be arranged next time, but the security were happy with the system they had for ensuring everything was as it should be.

[ianandmonika]

Just delete the video, perfectly understandable about the sensitivity, not to delete it might put future events at risk,Don Valley and Lincoln videos are totally different situation

[Mrs H]

I have to admit on this occasion to having a sneaky sympathy with Noomember. I can't help but think if the question of photography was so obviously sensitive that there should have been some mention about not taking photos in the advance information. I mean it's either really important or it's not. Would have saved quite a bit of stress and invective by the look of things.

[Jon X]

Jeez.

All sorts of things could perhaps have been said in advance about filming on the day. Ho hum. Sounds like actually making the event happen in the first place was higher up the list of priorities for the organisers. Maybe you should thank them for the event instead of anything else.

Is others watching your headcam footage really so important to you that it merits this debate if it might cause a problem for the race organisers and so they have asked you to take it down for now?

Play nice. Take it down as requested. Easy answer. Only grown-up answer.

[graeme]

(although a nearby area would have been, hence we didn't get access),

Is that the one which didn't exist when I worked there?

[nooomember]

Civil liberties springs to mind.

Also, the 'facility' would have their own 'no photos or else' signs everywhere. And witg sexurity monitoring everything on cctv, and sitting opposite the finish, they should notice and object if need be.

[JK]

Quite simple really, if anyone had brought up the question about filming beforehand then the question could have been asked of the owners. TVOC guys wouldn't know if there were any restrictions and since they only asked RAL for permission to do orienteering then RAL wouldn't know that anyone wanted to film.

As both STFC employee (who knows that although not totally banned, photos and filming from the sister lab must get clearance) and Controller then had I guessed in advance that someone might want to do a video then I'd have ensured that permission was sought.

As it wasn't mentioned, it never crossed my mind until I saw the post on this thread os I thought the most prudent thing to do was to politely ask for it to be taken off ASAP while we retrospectively ask for permission.

After a few days it has now been taken down and it is with the "powers that be". I doubt that there will be anything that they'll object to, but since we got use of the land for free, on an area which isn't Google Streetviewed, and is hence quality orienteering then it makes sense to "keep them sweet" so thanks for taking it off for now.

In the future then I'd suggest that anyone wanting to make a film on private property asks permission (through the organisers) of the landowners first just in case. Of course I guess that if Google Streetview has been there already then there is unlikely to be an issue.

[AndyC]

Civil liberties springs to mind.
.

Yes their "Civil liberties" you don't have the right to photograph anyone's property wthout their permission - a common law right of privacy which I acknowledge is often breached -including as you note earlier by google (but they fuzz out anything personal -like people's faces and car registrations and there are gaps in the coverage for "security reasons").
Many professionals and owners of things like classic cars and antiques enforce their rights of ownership to their "likeness" - There was nearly no Spock in the first Star Trek film because Leonard Nimoy was sueing Roddenberry over the latter's use of the former's image for example.

edited to remove a typo..

[Glucosamine]

I think there might be a legal distinction in the UK between what can be photographed from public spaces and from private. Otherwise a photo from a mountain top would seem to require permission from every landowner whose land is in shot. You can be asked not to photograph inside a railway station (private) but though anti-terrorist police seem to think otherwise, a photo of the bus stop on the highway outside probably does not need permission (public). This is presumably why Google Streetview generally tries to stick to highways and public places. As pointed out above, a location like RAL is distinctly private.

From a wider orienteering perspective, having planned an urban event, it can be surprising how many apparently public areas are actually private - I once nearly came unstuck with a car park. I suspect that there may be more incipient issues which competitors are not aware of without tempting fate. Making ISSOM maps can take a lot of effort - it would be a pity if their use was limited to a single event.

[Roger]

(although a nearby area would have been, hence we didn't get access),

Is that the one which didn't exist when I worked there?

There are essentially three areas.

One is the RAL fenced site (plus the Electron building), where the outstandingly helpful Sean is in charge.

One is the former UK Atomic Energy Authority site, now being decommissioned but still a Nuclear Licensed site with a big security fence around it, armed police on the gates and no photography without permission from Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Just as when Graeme didn't work there. We were never going to get permission to roam around there and I didn't even ask.

The third is the business park confusingly known as 'Harwell Oxford' (the next line of the address is 'Didcot'...). This is managed by the property management company Goodman. It includes the parking area and the modern buildings that you saw as you approached the car parking along Fermi Avenue. It also includes sports pitches, some other wooded / grassed areas, the shops on Curie Avenue, ex-RAF housing, two areas of demolished pre-fabs, some new housing and an area containing some office buildings that was formerly part of the Nuclear Licensed Site but has now been delicensed. That's where I work. Although it is private land (and it's not on Streetview), the security fence has been moved back and it's used by the public.

We'd hoped to obtain permission for Harwell Oxford and I'd planned 'race A' courses there, starting a year ago, using aerial photos and lots of lunchtime test runs. But Goodman refused permission so we had to squeeze two races into the RAL area. We were fortunate that Public Health England granted permission for the linking area north of the RAL main entrance, where the race B courses had their first few controls.

I developed a good relationship with the RAL Security team, explaining for example that I (or my test-runner) was just about to test-run a course and would appear in 5 minutes or so at a run, past the hedges where the first races started and into the site. Not only did this experience hone the courses, but it accustomed Security to what an orienteer looked like. Hence on the day, seeing you running through the main entrance wearing your numbers and studying your maps, they knew that you shouldn't be stopped.

Incidentally, Security would like to thank everyone for providing them with more entertainment than they usually get on a Bank Holiday. They were impressed with the age range on display, and especially with the older competitors.

What you didn't see, because it's surrounded by building and is correctly mapped as solid, is that you circumnavigated a bit of Mars!

If you'd like more history of the Harwell site (and perhaps would like to see how it's changed even in the last few years), have a look at a 50-year commemorative issue (1996) of the site magazine.

[Gross]

Seems this debate is getting bogged down in the detail of the competition venue. Seems to me it's the principle that should be discussed.

It's very common nowadays for people to use headcams when orienteering or other sports so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Therefore the organisers should have considered this in advance (risk assessment). In this case it seems the controller was aware in advance of potential difficulties but hadn't actually thought / remembered about it... so the controller made an error... it happens, no need to get worked up about it....... reaction should be 'sorry guys, we made a mistake by not thinking this through... can you please delete?'.... rather than the seemingly aggressive approach taken here.

The person making the 'youtube' did nothing wrong... no-one told him not too...

[EddieH]

Gross you actually sound serious this time so a serious answer:

BLAME BLAME BLAME that's what's so wrong with our culture. Why blame anyone? It happened - no-one will ever anticipate everything - get over it.

All blame does is upset people - it achieves nothing.

And you of all people - risk assessment requiring this

[andy]

Yet another person who starts by saying... 'i dont want to sound alarmist, BUT' and then go on to be alarmist!, well I dont want to sound offensive, but....
This area seems to be so secretive, and so sensitive that there is no security, no one signed in and out, no armed guards... My local library is more secure!

I agree with you 100%, personally I think we should post whatever we want as long it wasn't explicitly stated beforehand. But... the organisers have admitted they screwed up by not finding out the situation in advance and are trying to rectify it so your video can go live without causing any future problems for future races. You're not painting yourself in a great light here, be nice about it and give them some time to find out what the situation is