5 ms·

That is a very American-centric privacy perspective and does not apply to most of the world.

by sgk284 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago
Even in America, it hardly seems universal in the social sphere; Glassholes didn't take their nickname from spying on private property.
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  start recording people in public and some percentage of time you are going to get assaulted. Multiply that percentage by 10 for police officers.
majewsky 10y ago
Freedom of panorama is quite widespread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama (And it is expected that it will be part of the harmonized data protection law that the EU is currently planning.) Also, at least in Germany, the right to your own image does not apply when "persons only appear as props next to a landscape or other location". (Whatever that means is usually decided by the judge AFAIK.) Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html
- detaro 10y ago
  The law in your second link explicitly spells out that this is only valid as long as there is no "justified interest" of one of the people visible that the image isn't published. Which is a pretty serious limitation, and basically means you have to review and judge every image individually. In practice it's explicitly not "happened in public, no expectation of privacy". If you pay some attention you're probably going to be ok, but the "probably" is the annoying thing for individual actors. (E.g. I think Google lost a few lawsuits in Europe and Canada due to people being recognizable even with their face blurred. Annoying and expensive for Google, a criminal conviction and really expensive if it successfully hits an individual.) Good thing for an open, collaborative project is that you are not Google and can be more aggressive with filtering questionable images. Google seemed to value having complete coverage of areas quite a bit, open projects don't have to as much. Some data is better than none, and holes can be closed later, step by step.
- summarite 10y ago
  Freedom of panorama is a term from copyright, rather than data protection. It's primarily about designed buildings - are you allowed to make/share a photo of a building where the architect (!) does not allow it... It sounds absurd like this, but the arguments against it are not that easily ignored. Public interest should outweigh it though. At EU level the issue is that the freedom of panorama does explicitly not exist in some countries, now the laws get a bit more harmonised at EU level and the new rules may/may not force some countries to re establish freedom of panorama. Let's hope the European Commission puts it's foot down and actually makes it obligatory, but chances are that whatever the commission proposes will be ripped apart when member states have to discuss & find a compromise.

That is a very American-centric privacy perspective and does not apply to most of the world.

by sgk284 10y ago

That is a very American-centric privacy perspective and does not apply to most of the world.

Even in America, it hardly seems universal in the social sphere; Glassholes didn't take their nickname from spying on private property.

thesimpsons1022 10y ago
start recording people in public and some percentage of time you are going to get assaulted. Multiply that percentage by 10 for police officers.

majewsky 10y ago

Freedom of panorama is quite widespread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama (And it is expected that it will be part of the harmonized data protection law that the EU is currently planning.) Also, at least in Germany, the right to your own image does not apply when "persons only appear as props next to a landscape or other location". (Whatever that means is usually decided by the judge AFAIK.) Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html

detaro 10y ago
The law in your second link explicitly spells out that this is only valid as long as there is no "justified interest" of one of the people visible that the image isn't published. Which is a pretty serious limitation, and basically means you have to review and judge every image individually. In practice it's explicitly not "happened in public, no expectation of privacy". If you pay some attention you're probably going to be ok, but the "probably" is the annoying thing for individual actors. (E.g. I think Google lost a few lawsuits in Europe and Canada due to people being recognizable even with their face blurred. Annoying and expensive for Google, a criminal conviction and really expensive if it successfully hits an individual.) Good thing for an open, collaborative project is that you are not Google and can be more aggressive with filtering questionable images. Google seemed to value having complete coverage of areas quite a bit, open projects don't have to as much. Some data is better than none, and holes can be closed later, step by step.
summarite 10y ago
Freedom of panorama is a term from copyright, rather than data protection. It's primarily about designed buildings - are you allowed to make/share a photo of a building where the architect (!) does not allow it... It sounds absurd like this, but the arguments against it are not that easily ignored. Public interest should outweigh it though. At EU level the issue is that the freedom of panorama does explicitly not exist in some countries, now the laws get a bit more harmonised at EU level and the new rules may/may not force some countries to re establish freedom of panorama. Let's hope the European Commission puts it's foot down and actually makes it obligatory, but chances are that whatever the commission proposes will be ripped apart when member states have to discuss & find a compromise.