Filming a public building or flying a drone over industrial sites may not seem compulsive viewing – but when combined with a confrontation with a jittery security guard or even police officer, they are proving an unlikely hit on YouTube.

The country’s leading ‘auditors’, as they are known, frequently pull in hundreds of thousands of views for each video they produce. Some are so popular they are recognised by their followers – despite jealously guarding their identities.

And Kent has not escaped from being the focus of their attention. From shopping centres in Folkestone to Medway police stations, supermarkets in Thanet to council offices, it is a bizarre craze which shows no sign – as yet – of losing its fascination for viewers.

But just what is ‘auditing’ and why do these so-called ‘auditors’ do it?

Firstly, it is not, as the name may lead you to believe, the process of checking company accounts to make sure all is as it should be. Instead it is presented as an asserting of our rights to take photographs and film on publicly-accessible land.

Each film normally follows a set routine; they stand outside a building, filming. Security, not unsurprisingly, comes out to ask what they are doing and to stop. The auditor then tells them they are legally entitled to film whatever they want. An argument ensues. YouTube hits are delivered. It’s all rather odd.

Such has been the increase in popularity, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued guidance on how to handle auditors to officers. It provides a succinct overview.

“Auditing is a behaviour that has common practice in the USA for a number of years and is developing a growing community of auditors, subscribers and viewers throughout the United Kingdom,” it says.

“The auditors use security concerns surrounding the filming of staff and premises, alongside limited powers to prevent it. They appear to provoke staff and site security into potentially embarrassing reactions, often asserting that staff are overstepping legal boundaries. They are also well-versed in their own rights and often cite legislation in their interactions with staff. Any perception they are under police surveillance is likely to be challenged robustly and, potentially publicly.”

The most successful YouTube channels are by the likes of a character who calls himself DJ Audits – who is based in Leicestershire. With close to 150,000 subscribers, he frequently pulls in more than half a million viewers, some even tipping over the million mark. Given the revenues the platform provides, that quickly adds up to many thousands of pounds in revenues.

Little wonder, then, many others have dabbled. And they’re not just youngsters.

The man behind the Kent Audit UK channel on YouTube is a 76-year-old. He doesn’t use a drone but has visited a host of Kent sites. He has been frequently joined by a colleague from Thanet who spoke to us on condition of anonymity.

Using his preferred pseudonym of RottDogg, he explained to KentOnline: “I honestly don't know where the name auditing came from. I know it’s not the right terminology. But loosely speaking, it’s about holding people to account.

“I believe it started in the States and it was more towards holding law enforcement to account.

“In the UK, the whole auditing thing has expanded to encompass a lot of businesses as well; industrial sites, retail sites – all sorts. We’re part of what’s loosely called the PINAC movement [Photography Is Not A Crime – a US organisation defending people’s rights to take photographs of public or government buildings].

“It's basically holding people to account for, say, breaches of GDPR. So if you if you happen to be filming something and you can see some sensitive data on a computer screen. The breach is on them, not us, for filming it.”

In truth, many of the main ‘auditors’ would be hard-pushed to say that is what they are looking for. What they are interested in – and which propels their video into money-making territory – is when they are approached and questioned by security. The angrier the confrontation, the more the likelihood of a popular video.

In one incident at the Waitrose supermarket in Ramsgate, the situation deteriorates rapidly when Kent Audit is confronted by a member of staff who calls him “a nonce” and calls the police. No one comes out of the encounter looking good.

The whole point of having these YouTube channels is that yes, the host is hoping to draw a reaction,

Adds RottDogg: “The whole point of having these YouTube channels is that yes, the host is hoping to draw a reaction, but it's not specifically looking for a confrontation. If you visit a site and you don't get a reaction, that's great.

“But, obviously, interaction or nothing happening doesn't make for good YouTube views. The thing is, we’re one of the most heavily surveilled countries on Earth, yet people accept CCTV and dashcams, but get triggered by this.”

Anyone is quite entitled to film property – and people for that matter – from a public place or, restrictions permitting, take a drone up over commercial premises. Or, for that matter, a police station. Better still for the auditor is when that falls on deaf ears and the police are called.

Unsurprisingly, the police have become used to being called out to handle such incidents.

Chief Superintendent Simon Alland of Kent Police explained: ‘We are aware of the trend relating to social media ‘auditors’ and have shared national guidance with officers who may come into contact with them.

“Police officers are encouraged to be professionally curious in the course of their duties in order to protect themselves, their colleagues and members of the public. This is especially important when they observe somebody who may be acting in a suspicious or provocative manner.

“Whilst officers will routinely engage with people who are seen filming outside police premises, formal action will only be taken in the event a criminal offence has been committed.”

However, the manner in which auditors frequently present themselves has left some concerned.

One auditor was recently spotted filming outside the headquarters of Canterbury City Council – dressed, apparently, in a balaclava.

A spokesman for the local authority, Leo Whitlock, said: “We absolutely recognise the right of people to film strangers while in a public place. It is for them to deal with any privacy issues that may ensue especially when they post the footage on the internet.

If they have nothing to hide, their first shot in every post should be of themselves so the public can see who is behind the camera

"But when the government terror threat level is substantial, they are covering their face with a balaclava, they are filming innocent people going about their business, coming in and out of work buildings, and they are trying to zoom in through windows, they can't be surprised when they get asked what they are up to and who they are.

"We obviously realise that is what they want.

"Our question is: who audits the 'auditors'? If they have nothing to hide, their first shot in every post should be of themselves so the public can see who is behind the camera.

"It's hypocritical otherwise."

A common exchange on auditor videos will be when security or police ask for their details – and they relish telling them they are not under any obligation to tell them.

But wearing balaclavas and covering their faces? It seems hard to justify.

Adds RottDogg: “It's a little bit rebellious. It's also a way of creating our own privacy in public to prevent our identity from being filmed. Personally, I don’t wear a mask when I go out.

“But auditors do protect their identity. Being accepted by an auditor is bloody hard and getting an interview with an auditor will also, I think you'll find, be equally difficult.”

He’s not wrong. We reached out to DJ Audits but got no response. Kent Audit responded but preferred to speak through his colleague.

Talking of DJ Audits – whose videos include drone footage – there is an issue as to whether the use of such drones is a help or hindrance to those who like to fly the gadgets.

I see many auditors that are clearly exploiting this misinformation to intentionally cause irritation for confrontation, and ultimately video clicks, which is a very poor approach in many ways.

Chris Bradbury, support officer for the British Model Flying Association and British Drone Flyers, says: “On one hand, there can be a misunderstanding from the general public on where drones can and can’t be flown or used legally, as well as some individuals and companies making claims over what is lawful that may not be true, so I see their point as it were.

“However, on the other hand I see many auditors that are clearly exploiting this misinformation to intentionally cause irritation for confrontation, and ultimately video clicks, which is a very poor approach in many ways.

“At the British Model Flying Association [BMFA] we proudly promote the safe and lawful use of all model aircraft and drones, which is why we also launched the British Drone Flyers to attempt to bring more drone users into the safe approach, while educating as much as we can. We believe education is the best way to safe drone use and interaction in the community as a whole. By comparison, the approach of many auditors creates more fuel to the common problem that many flyers face, which is a negative stigma attached to the word ‘drone’ due to the military or spying association with the word.

“The average BMFA member that flies drones does so for recreation, sport, or just to take nice photos of places and their travels, nothing more. Auditors in my personal opinion achieve nothing more than creating an 'anti-drone flyer’ opinion into every person they intentionally antagonise.

“In a nutshell, although auditors may have a point to prove or make, the approach and method is not a safe or friendly way in which to do it.”

Ultimately, the sun will only set on the auditing craze when the confrontations they rely on no longer exist.

.