News that Isn't!

[Mr Celine]

Creepy weirdo buys glasses developed by creepy weirdo and uses them to do creepy things.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g369y5k8ko

 

[briantrumpet]

Creepy weirdo buys glasses developed by creepy weirdo and uses them to do creepy things.


View attachment 16607



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g369y5k8ko

I can't see how the EU can't ban them - there are just too many uses of them that would be downright illegal if they were an ordinary camera. on permanent record & facial recognition. They cross pretty much every threshold of perviness.

 

[Psamathe]

I can't see how the EU can't ban them - there are just too many uses of them that would be downright illegal if they were an ordinary camera. on permanent record & facial recognition. They cross pretty much every threshold of perviness.

Some time ago I asked the ICO about the Data Protection Act and dashcams (eg as used by cyclists). From their response

If the individual is capturing images beyond the boundaries of their property they will be required to register as a data controller – this will also apply to those operating dashcams.

Year or so back somebody from town purchased a new build in the village and put-up CCTV with signs of their fence about "CCTV operating". This went down very badly in the village (that hasn't seen a burglary for years). And so, lots of Subject Access Requests submitted and wasn't too long until the CCTV cameras were taken down.

I do think the glasses are not compatible with all sorts of aspects of society eg what if somebody recording is looking slightly away when you put your card into an ATM and key your PIN. I think it reasonable that when you walk down the street you should not have your imge plastered up on Social MEdia even worse if facial recognition is naming you ...

 

[Pblakeney]

Some time ago I asked the ICO about the Data Protection Act and dashcams (eg as used by cyclists). From their response

Year or so back somebody from town purchased a new build in the village and put-up CCTV with signs of their fence about "CCTV operating". This went down very badly in the village (that hasn't seen a burglary for years). And so, lots of Subject Access Requests submitted and wasn't too long until the CCTV cameras were taken down.

I do think the glasses are not compatible with all sorts of aspects of society eg what if somebody recording is looking slightly away when you put your card into an ATM and key your PIN. I think it reasonable that when you walk down the street you should not have your imge plastered up on Social MEdia even worse if facial recognition is naming you ...

That seems to be contradictory with the actual law, unless you can link otherwise. (Note - All other searches including video were similar).
"Generally legal in public. No law prohibits photography of people in public places. Exceptions: voyeurism, upskirting."

https://policing.uk/know-your-rights/is-it-illegal-to-take-photos-of-people-uk

 

[BoldonLad]

That seems to be contradictory with the actual law, unless you can link otherwise. (Note - All other searches including video were similar).
"Generally legal in public. No law prohibits photography of people in public places. Exceptions: voyeurism, upskirting."

https://policing.uk/know-your-rights/is-it-illegal-to-take-photos-of-people-uk

I was just about to say similar.

I can see a knee-jerk reaction coming, which fails to solve the problem (if there is one) and introduces another unworkable law, with unintended consequences.

 

[Psamathe]

Some time ago I asked the ICO about the Data Protection Act and dashcams (eg as used by cyclists). From their response

Year or so back somebody from town purchased a new build in the village and put-up CCTV with signs of their fence about "CCTV operating". This went down very badly in the village (that hasn't seen a burglary for years). And so, lots of Subject Access Requests submitted and wasn't too long until the CCTV cameras were taken down.

I do think the glasses are not compatible with all sorts of aspects of society eg what if somebody recording is looking slightly away when you put your card into an ATM and key your PIN. I think it reasonable that when you walk down the street you should not have your imge plastered up on Social MEdia even worse if facial recognition is naming you ...

That seems to be contradictory with the actual law, unless you can link otherwise. (Note - All other searches including video were similar).
"Generally legal in public. No law prohibits photography of people in public places. Exceptions: voyeurism, upskirting."

https://policing.uk/know-your-rights/is-it-illegal-to-take-photos-of-people-uk

I'm no expert (hence my having asked the ICO) is that it depends on the purpose of the recordings. I didn't quote everytging from the ICO's response to my question but they also said

Similar to domestic CCTV, there will be circumstances in which dashcam use is unlikely to be for 'purely domestic purposes', for example, where they are used for the purpose(s) of insurance or where they are routinely used to record evidence to be provided to the Police to assist their investigations in the event of an incident. In such circumstances, the personal information captured should be processed in line with the obligations set out in the DPA. This includes, responding to subject access requests.

The Data Protection Act includes an exemption for personal data processed for a domestic purpose so I guess a lot comes down to the reason it's being recorded.

 

[Pblakeney]

I'm no expert (hence my having asked the ICO) is that it depends on the purpose of the recordings. I didn't quote everytging from the ICO's response to my question but they also said

The Data Protection Act includes an exemption for personal data processed for a domestic purpose so I guess a lot comes down to the reason it's being recorded.

Sounds like they are tying themselves in knots with good intentions but unintended consequences.

 

[Pross]

I'm no expert (hence my having asked the ICO) is that it depends on the purpose of the recordings. I didn't quote everytging from the ICO's response to my question but they also said

The Data Protection Act includes an exemption for personal data processed for a domestic purpose so I guess a lot comes down to the reason it's being recorded.

Wouldn't that then come down to the organisation the images get passed to e.g. the police or insurance company? Considering the police make regular appeals for CCTV / dashcam footage to help them investigate incidents I'm pretty sure it would have been challenged by a defence lawyer by now if there was any doubts regarding the legality.

 

[Psamathe]

Sounds like they are tying themselves in knots with good intentions but unintended consequences.

I don't interpret it that way. My understanding is that whilst you can take photos of other people in a public place, the crucial aspect is what you do with those photos. eg (My understanding) is if you post them to Social Media you become covered by GDPR and are considered the "Data Controller" and subject to all the obligations that entails. You are in effect collecting and making use of personal data about others.

 

[Psamathe]

Wouldn't that then come down to the organisation the images get passed to e.g. the police or insurance company? Considering the police make regular appeals for CCTV / dashcam footage to help them investigate incidents I'm pretty sure it would have been challenged by a defence lawyer by now if there was any doubts regarding the legality.

I'm just quoting from the ICO's response to a question I raised directly with them. But as per my 2nd excerpt "In such circumstances, the personal information captured should be processed in line with the obligations set out in the DPA. This includes, responding to subject access requests." My interpretation in this regard is that it's not saying you can't do it, just that it would be subject to Data Protection Laws eg the driver of the car you recorded breaking the law can submit a Subject Access Request to you, obligations about use of material, privacy, etc.

 

[Pross]

I don't interpret it that way. My understanding is that whilst you can take photos of other people in a public place, the crucial aspect is what you do with those photos. eg (My understanding) is if you post them to Social Media you become covered by GDPR and are considered the "Data Controller" and subject to all the obligations that entails. You are in effect collecting and making use of personal data about others.

Where is the line then? You video the family somewhere and share it but other people are in the background - is this covered? It's impossible to police. If the target of your video is other people then that's a different matter. I do find it annoying when people post a video of an (alleged) criminal incident on social media asking for names etc. when they should just be reporting it. It might well mess up any future prosecution and also suggests some kind of planned vigilante action.

 

[Pross]

I'm just quoting from the ICO's response to a question I raised directly with them. But as per my 2nd excerpt "In such circumstances, the personal information captured should be processed in line with the obligations set out in the DPA. This includes, responding to subject access requests." My interpretation in this regard is that it's not saying you can't do it, just that it would be subject to Data Protection Laws eg the driver of the car you recorded breaking the law can submit a Subject Access Request to you, obligations about use of material, privacy, etc.

That's the bit I'm assuming would transfer to the police / insurance company that you pass the footage to.

 

[Psamathe]

Where is the line then? You video the family somewhere and share it but other people are in the background - is this covered? It's impossible to police.

My interpretation is it's about personal information. If the image contains personal information (eg face) then it's covered by legislation.

I think it's not unreasonable for somebody posting pictures of others on Social Media to take steps to protect the privacy of others eg easy to blur the faces of people in the background.

As for enforcement, probably more down to an individual to enforce which means they have to be aware of eg posting on social media. But I guess that law (as I understand/interpret it) given an individual rights should they chose to enforce it.

 

[Pblakeney]

I don't interpret it that way. My understanding is that whilst you can take photos of other people in a public place, the crucial aspect is what you do with those photos. eg (My understanding) is if you post them to Social Media you become covered by GDPR and are considered the "Data Controller" and subject to all the obligations that entails. You are in effect collecting and making use of personal data about others.

As Pross says, everyone posting family stuff on FB would need a paper trail of permissions. Or blur faces. Not going to happen.
Unintended consequences.

 

[Psamathe]

As Pross says, everyone posting family stuff on FB would need a paper trail of permissions. Or blur faces. Not going to happen.
Unintended consequences.

Or, people posting online need to learn that what they are doing is subject to laws and constraints and they need to comply with them, to consider others. Lots of apps that can easily blur faces so not hard to do.

There are all sorts of constraints about what you can post online. eg I once "fell foul" of an online posting law as in Cambodia your don't have "Freedom of Panorama". I posted a photo of a famous statue in Phnom Pen's central park ... and was then ld to take it down as the statue was the main subject of the photo and the architect dies less than 50 years ago. All that happened is I was told to take the photo down.

But as with most things, when you do something you need to be aware of the laws relating to what you are doing and I can see no reason people posting to Social Media should be exempt.