|
This discussion is a great example of how incomprehensibly overbroad and unrelated to 'human rights' the EU data directives actually are.
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 16:59 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:02 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This discussion is a great example of how incomprehensibly overbroad and unrelated to 'human rights' the EU data directives actually are. IDK, I like the fact that people can't just film me while shopping and post it on the internet for the world to see.
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:00 |
|
. 
|
SEKCobra posted:A shop is not a public place and this is also not true in the EU. The shop is open to the public or a "substantial group of people". Which makes it public.
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:24 |
|
|
GunForumMeme posted:The shop is open to the public or a "substantial group of people". A lot of people get this wrong because we use the same words to describe two very different ideas. Edit: And apparently these terms also change their meanings depending on what country you're in. All this to say EU's privacy laws are different from anywhere in North America. Here, if you're in a place where any schmuck can walk into (a place open to the public), and that place is not in Quebec, you can be photographed for personal reasons. And then someone can put that photograph on the internet, where absolutely nothing else will happen because nobody cares and "privacy" was pretty much illusionary even before most of civilization carried a uniquely identifiable transmitter with them everywhere they went. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at May 22, 2013 around 17:39 |
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:26 |
|
|
chartley posted:Some of that is familiar and some really isn't. Maybe we are just really lax or you guys are really strict. I think it's just the agencies my force works with, they've been on a big data protection kick for a while now after one of them were sued for a breach! SEKCobra posted:A shop is not a public place and this is also not true in the EU. Legally speaking in England a shop is a public place if it is open and the public have access to it  Snowdens Secret posted:This discussion is a great example of how incomprehensibly overbroad and unrelated to 'human rights' the EU data directives actually are. I wouldn't really say they're unrelated, it is considered personal information and is protected by law because it falls under the umbrella of identifying information that is collected and stored. If this legislation didn't exist you could potentially have random people gaining access to CCTV systems and spying on you. For example if you had a stalker, they could slip somebody a tenner at a supermarket and gain unfettered access to the CCTV system there so they could watch you as you shopped. Creepy poo poo. The legislation restricts access so only relevant people can access it. On paper it goes a bit overboard (like the example of someone watching over your shoulder) but a bit of common sense allays that. When not applied to CCTV, it applies to things such as addresses, date of births, places of births, so on and so forth. You wouldn't want unauthorised parties having access to that information!
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:30 |
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Troll? What? These are the laws here, and I expected the US to have similar ones, and if they don't have it I literally expected too much of them since they don't provide that level of protection. I really don't see how you would take this in a way that angers you and therefore be trolling. Like I literally meant no judgement like OH NO US DOESNT DO THAT BAD US THEYRE ALL FAT. I just stated that that is why I assumed that it would be illegal, because that is common legislation here. Have you ever seen Youtube? It is literally -millions- of videos of people being recorded that may or may not know about it.  Or worse, World Star Hip Hop.
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:48 |
|
|
No reasonable expectation of privacy in public or any place open to the public.
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:54 |
|
|
I can't properly sperg effortpost from the phone, but like Slagcheek implied, with laws like that you end up with infinite benign activities that are technically illegal, with dubious actual privacy benefit. Hell, fantasy football is illegal. Privacy law is rife with unintended consequences at the best of times and the EU processes tend to make it far worse. And claiming that things like a shopkeeper posting a vid of you throwing a tantrum in their store is a violation of 'basic human rights' demeans the very meaning of the words.
Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at May 22, 2013 around 19:43 |
| # ? May 22, 2013 19:40 |
|
|
If you do something stupid in public why should other people be prohibited from shaming you for it? Banning that would be illegal here on the basis of freedom of speech anyway. Do they not have that across the pond? Or does it just mean something different over there? 
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 06:11 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you do something stupid in public why should other people be prohibited from shaming you for it? Banning that would be illegal here on the basis of freedom of speech anyway. Do they not have that across the pond? Or does it just mean something different over there? Europe tends to have much different laws when it comes to digital/video privacy. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about it will hop in later on but my basic understanding is that in Europe, unless that person gives you consent, you can't use anything featuring them. Even if it's in a public space. So if I take a picture of myself and it happens to catch someone's face and they don't want that picture taken then welp. Same applies for video, so unless that woman signed off on her rampage being posted on the internet it would be illegal to do so, period.
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 06:32 |
|
|
The EU: Protecting you from olive oil since 2013.
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 06:45 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you do something stupid in public why should other people be prohibited from shaming you for it? Banning that would be illegal here on the basis of freedom of speech anyway. Do they not have that across the pond? Or does it just mean something different over there? Looks like you expected too much from the UK. 
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 08:48 |
|
|
Vasudus posted:Europe tends to have much different laws when it comes to digital/video privacy. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about it will hop in later on but my basic understanding is that in Europe, unless that person gives you consent, you can't use anything featuring them. Even if it's in a public space. So if I take a picture of myself and it happens to catch someone's face and they don't want that picture taken then welp. Same applies for video, so unless that woman signed off on her rampage being posted on the internet it would be illegal to do so, period. That isn't true. You can take pictures of anyone in a public place for any reason and publish them. You cannot however use it for a commercial purpose, which is probably where you've seen that (maybe television shows and stuff?). I would be well within my rights to walk down the local highstreet filming people. I could even go into businesses and do it, providing the public have access to it. I may be barred from entering them again in the future, but legally I'm within my rights to film; I'm just not exempt from other consequences. Also if you publish photos of someone you can leave yourself open to libel.
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 11:17 |
|
|
Hezzy posted:That isn't true. You can take pictures of anyone in a public place for any reason and publish them. You cannot however use it for a commercial purpose, which is probably where you've seen that (maybe television shows and stuff?). I would be well within my rights to walk down the local highstreet filming people. I could even go into businesses and do it, providing the public have access to it. I may be barred from entering them again in the future, but legally I'm within my rights to film; I'm just not exempt from other consequences. How the gently caress can publishing a photo be considered libel? Truth is a defence, and an unedited photograph is fundamentally a truthful representation. 
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 13:10 |
|
|
DrakeriderCa posted:How the gently caress can publishing a photo be considered libel? Truth is a defence, and an unedited photograph is fundamentally a truthful representation. Furthermore, how does anyone ever publish news footage of public events with hundreds or thousands of people present?
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 13:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:02 |
|
|
DrakeriderCa posted:Furthermore, how does anyone ever publish news footage of public events with hundreds or thousands of people present? When I've bought tickets they have a disclaimer on them saying "by entering this event you agree to a set of conditions" and it's usually written in there that you consent to photography. If it is taken in public (like a parade or something?) and the focus is of the crowd then no releases are needed. If you're using pictures for commercial purposes and it focuses on one person then you'll probably need a model release form otherwise they could be eligible for compensation. This is all civil law though; the data protection act and its related criminal offences relate primarily to companies and public bodies abusing the information or being negligent in its security. As for libel, I'm not entirely sure because I'm not a civil lawyer. I guess if you write a caption on a photo saying "homeless drunk sleeping" and it's a pic of an unshaven guy on a bench a lawyer could have a case. Hezzy fucked around with this message at May 23, 2013 around 14:32 |
| # ? May 23, 2013 14:27 |
|
