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

• General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨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,

  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 ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        You seem to be misunderstanding my hypothetical application and my street photography.

        To make it abundantly clear, as per the discussions in the House of Commons / Lords, that taking photos of people in public is not limited by any law, stature, or rule.

        So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online as the person in the photo isn’t easily identifiable, like you can’t get their name from it, they don’t have a right to stop publication simply because their face is shown providing the image isn’t defamatory, misleading, or used for commercial purposes.

        UK GDPR may apply if:

        • The subject is clearly identifiable, not incidental, and
        • the photo is used in a context that processes or organises personal data (eg tagging, profiling, categorising people)

        Key point Artistic and journalistic expression are except from most GDPR rules, under Article 85, if the images are published as part of legitimate artistic or documentary work.

        So:

        • A candid street photography posted to a gallery as art or commentary is generally except from GDPR
        • A facial recognition project or tagging system using those images then GDPR applies fully.

        So do you want to refute these claims when you’ve read Article 85 or concede, as conceded to your other points.

        Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

        source

        • -> View More Comments