Comment

Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

What’s highly illegal in Europe? Taking a photo or using publicly available images to match that photo to?

Taking a photo for that purpose is likely out.
Matching it to any publically available images is definitely out.
Creating a database of face images for searching: Nope.
Using this system is very problematic.

Some of this is because of the GDPR. So it’s likely to be illegal in the UK, as well. And some is because of the AI Act (in particular 4. but also 3. to some degree). That’s not something that needs to concern Brits.

source

Sort:hotnew top

dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I’d have to research 4, but I know for a fact taking a photo of someone in public is protected as you have no right to privacy in public, it’s also not the subjects business what I intend to do with it, so things like posting online might be subject to GDPR but if i wanted to build an app like the one in this post then I would do what they did and have it all on device so it technically isn’t uploaded anywhere.

I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.

Yes, 3 I agree with as it would fall under GDPR as identifiable information.

source
- General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  I know for a fact
  
  Do you remember why you “know” this? Just curious.
  
  I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.
  
  Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.
  
  source
  - OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Commercial versions of these systems exist in the UK.
    
    theguardian.com/…/shopper-facewatch-watchlist-39p…
    
    The Gdpr and AI act make these things harder to do, but not automatically illegal.
    
    Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.
    
    Yeah, and some of it is even true.
    
    source
    General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.
    
    Finally, I never claimed it’s automatically illegal.
    
    Yeah, and some of it is even true.
    
    Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.
    
    source
  - dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces.
    
    Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
    
    source
    General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    
    I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,
    
    I didn’t write there was one. It sounds like you “know” that photography is “protected” because you need that to be true.
    
    it’s quite easy for you to Google this
    
    Indeed. For anyone who’s not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.
    
    but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
    
    That’s true. You can’t because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.
    
    Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
    
    What do you mean “again”?
    
    The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments