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

• dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You seem to want to me prove that a law doesn’t exist where it’s much easier for you to show me a law doesn’t exist.

      You can read this House of Commons debate on the topic Here

      Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place

      Or you can read This debate from the House of Lords.

      The taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place … and the Home Secretary … expressed our desire to ensure that people are free and able to take photographs in public places

      Seems pretty simple really and based on your lack of understanding of this then i have to assume you don’t understand the other topics you mention and therefore without you providing evidence I’ll go about my day.

      source

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. “Presumption of privacy” is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.

        Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.

        Do you need any further help?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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