Facial recognition cameras

[Olive 10]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You don't have a right to stop your photograph being taken in a public place although you do have the right to prevent yourself from being photographed by using some form of disguise.

 

Any photograph taken without consent in a public place is unlikely to be covered by the GDPR regulations.

No, I know, currently you don't have a legal right, but don't you have a reasonable expectation?  Is it time the law was revisited to bring people's images in line with other forms of information?   GDPR frowns on the holding of personal information without consent and good reason.  Why is this any different?

Edited May 21, 2019 by Olive

[Olive 10]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48315979

 

This guy's launched a test case.

[Halibut 12]

3 hours ago, Olive said:

No, I know, currently you don't have a legal right, but don't you have a reasonable expectation?  Is it time the law was revisited to bring people's images in line with other forms of information?   GDPR frowns on the holding of personal information without consent and good reason.  Why is this any different?

No. Why would I? If I'm in a public space and others can see me, why would I object to being photographed?

 

Edited to add - that being the case, I don't consent to the police/government using my image to track my movements without my consent.

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Halibut

[Olive 10]

14 hours ago, Halibut said:

No. Why would I? If I'm in a public space and others can see me, why would I object to being photographed?

 

Edited to add - that being the case, I don't consent to the police/government using my image to track my movements without my consent.

 

It's not the photo itself that's the issue.  Like you say, the problem is being photographed, recognised, recorded, timed, tracked, databased.......all without your consent.

 

I recently had to update my GDPR training at work.  And thinking about it, I really can't see why image data isn't included, since GDPR says that any information that can be used to identify a person needs to have their active consent.  The sole purpose of these facial recognition systems is to identify a person.  

[geared 298]

18 hours ago, Halibut said:

No. Why would I? If I'm in a public space and others can see me, why would I object to being photographed?

 

Edited to add - that being the case, I don't consent to the police/government using my image to track my movements without my consent.

 

This is the issue.

 

A photograph/video in a public place is totally innocuous, but when it is then linked to someones personal information it changes entirely and an individual should have rights over that data.

[Joseph D 0]

On 21/05/2019 at 14:51, Olive said:

No, I know, currently you don't have a legal right, but don't you have a reasonable expectation?  Is it time the law was revisited to bring people's images in line with other forms of information?   GDPR frowns on the holding of personal information without consent and good reason.  Why is this any different?

I think there is a difference depending on whether a photo is taken in a public place, where the default position is that you don't have a right of privacy, and a private place, where the questions is "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (just a source I got it from: https://www.arm-sec.co.uk/blog/say-cheeese). 

 

If someone (incl the police) takes a photo of you in a public street then there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. 

 

In terms of the GDPR, my understanding that there is a specific exemption for 'processing personal data', which would include taking photos etc., in the course of private / domestic life (or something along these lines). But I do think that if a police officer takes a photo of someone without a good reason, then it is potentially a GDPR issue. 

[Black Brick 10]

I have nothing to hide so I have no problem with my profile data being held or even a dna sample. Because of the tragic happenings over the last few years it is something I am willing to sacrifice in order to keep myself and those around me safe.

[MAC33 10]

Benjamin Franklin - Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety 

[lil-minx92 10]

7 hours ago, Black Brick said:

I have nothing to hide so I have no problem with my profile data being held or even a dna sample. Because of the tragic happenings over the last few years it is something I am willing to sacrifice in order to keep myself and those around me safe.

That reason is a slippery slope to total state control.  What about a small microchip implant to accurately monitor your every movement- after all you have nothing to hide? How about cameras in every room of our houses? - if it might prevent one  fatal terrorist incident is it not worth it?

 

And what tragic happenings?

[Black Brick 10]

Are you for real? !! Asda are doing a deal on bacofoil for your tin hats

[Halibut 12]

16 minutes ago, Black Brick said:

Are you for real? !! Asda are doing a deal on bacofoil for your tin hats

Is it Ok if we install a camera and microphone in every room of your house, including the bedroom and toilet? And a tracking device permanently affixed to your person?

After all, you've got nothing to hide

[Black Brick 10]

1 hour ago, MAC33 said:

Benjamin Franklin - Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety 

That's why over 2,000 Americans are dead from mass shootings