Comment

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

dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨23⁩ ⁨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

Sort:hotnew top

General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨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 ⁨22⁩ ⁨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
  - General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online
    
    That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.
    
    Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.
    
    You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO’s website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don’t seem to value that favor.
    
    Article 85
    
    Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,
    
    source
    dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here
    
    This is the exact text. I don’t know why you insist on pushing back. If you want to consult a solicitor to confirm then have at it, but it can’t be more clear than it is allowed under artistic or expression and that member states must provide exceptions to the chapters listed which includes the one you cited. Man alive!!!
    
    1. Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.
    
    2. For processing carried out for journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression, Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from Chapter II (principles), Chapter III (rights of the data subject), Chapter IV (controller and processor), Chapter V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations), Chapter VI (independent supervisory authorities), Chapter VII (cooperation and consistency) and Chapter IX (specific data processing situations) if they are necessary to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression and information.
    
    3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission the provisions of its law which it has adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 and, without delay, any subsequent amendment law or amendment affecting them.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments