Are smart glasses allowed in public in EU?
More and more, i see people wearing these 'smart' glasses as sunglasses which i find totally creepy and intrusive. Living in the EU, i am wondering how these glasses are even 'allowed' in public or may even be sold here. It becomes harder to avoid cause they become so hard to identify. How to deal with this? To what extend is this allowed? (cause apparently it is some way)
You're viewing a single thread.
Using a camera on public property in the EU is broadly very legal.
Which is wild because they shut down Google Glass in the UK because of the ability to photograph and record people without their knowledge. Preemptive bans by establishments, government and the public were followed by Google giving up on the consumer base after a couple months. Privacy and decency is no longer part of this world, it seems.
Using a camera on public property in the EU is broadly very legal.
Less and less so; at least here in France and in Germany and also in the UK, which was quite surprising to me. In the EU, the GDRP being another nail in the coffin of the right of photographing on public space and photographing random people in that public space. Most of the cases I've heard of in the last few years ended up with the plaintiff winning against the photographer, even if the picture was not exploited professionally.
Smart glasses will raise a new flag and push all rules to the next level of paranoia (rightfully so, I'm afraid) and will then be used as an excuse to remove even more of our liberty to use public space (which is supposed to be ours).
Edit: clarifications.
remove even more of our liberty to use public space (which is supposed to be ours).
I mean, your freedom to record in public ends where my freedom to not be recorded in public starts.
I mean, your freedom to record in public ends where my freedom to not be recorded in public starts.
Prior to our wonderful times, and even more so in the UK, public space meant that were no right to privacy to be expected at all while using said public space because, you know, it was public. But the moronic age we live in have managed to change that. So be it.
So, worry not my dear friend: as a law abiding citizen myself, I dutifully respect your so-called freedom to use what is supposed to a public space as your very own private space, and I 100% gave up on photography the second time I was confronted to the consequences of people considering their freedom implied they were to decide what 'public' meant.
Instead, I switched to sketching the very same people in the very same public space.
They may be as annoyed by me doing that but good luck forbidding me to sketch in a public space or even proving it was them I specifically I sketched... as, even though I do enjoy it, I suck at sketching ;)
There is an expectation of privacy anywhere.
The GDPR applies to everyone - including individuals. How long will you store my data? With whom will you share it? How can I contact you and revoke my consent of being recorded? What purpose is the storage of my data?
It does not infringe on your right to photograph in public by the way. As long as the person only happens to be in the photograph somewhere in the background without being the focus you are free to photograph anything and everything.
Your targeted photographs violate the freedom of movement of those you photograph. You are not free in your decisions if you are recorded. You will take the fact you are recorded into consideration and adjust your decisions accordingly.
What prevents someone from innocently setting up a security camera - which happens to also record the entrance of an LGBTQ bar and anyone who enters and exits it? Surely it would be a shame if this footage was then entered into facial recognition software to create a list of people. That is fully legal in countries without the right to privacy in public like the US.
You can use public spaces all you like, you do not get to use my face however you like.
I said not allowed to take picture never told it was to publish or share them. Really, if you have access to you should read recent justice decisions and see how, here in France and in Germany at the very least, they will almost be in favor of... not the photographer, whether the photo was meant to be published or not, whether the photo earned them a cent or not.
For the rest, we live in a free society and I will happily let anyone practice photography as they see fit (provided they do it politely) but don't expect me to pretend trends have not changed in regards to justice and the right to image, because those trends they have indeed changed and not in favor of photographers.
Thing is, that google and apple will, for most people, automatically upload photos to their servers and process them in ways none of us are really certain of. By photographing with a phone, anyone's face could be matched up with a time and place. And then there's the potential problem of the person uploading it on purpose.
Photography isn't the problem - it's the tech attached to it.
Personally, I'm with you - because I'm not a person of interest. If I was a political agitator, e.g. trying to start a McDonald's union, I might feel differently
Indeed, it's a mess. And that mess is one of the reasons we have been witnessing a shift against the very notion of public space.
I've noticed a few people trying to argue with me specifically. I have no idea why (like I think I said, I just mentioned what I know and I don't even do photograph anymore) but that's fine with me. And while they seem to be so vocally willing to defend their undisputed (by me, at the very least) right to privacy I can only wonder how many of those privacy warriors are carrying their own spyware riddled smartphone absolutely everywhere they go, including to the most private place I can think of: the bathroom. And I feel 100% reassured knowing they will pick the right fights ;)
I don't really care whether you benefit in any way from my picture, published or not, for profit or not. If I don't want you to have it, you don't get it. What gives you the right to take my picture? Besides, why do you even want it if you're not using it for something?
What gives you the right to take my picture?
Check the definition of the word public in 'public space'.
But I think you should first need to work on yourself, that would help a lot being able to have a discussion instead of what looks a little bit too much like an argument we certainly should not have you and I as I don't know you and have as much desire to photograph you as I wish to eat poop.
Have a nice day.
Isaiah Berlin's negative and positive liberty in one product
Guess we gotta ban police bodycams, surely nothing will go wrong... 👀
Different situation altogether.
Many EU countries have their own different laws about this stuff. The GDPR likely does not apply here because of the exception for "purely personal and household activities", article 2(2)(c).
Like I mentioned elsewhere, anyone is more than welcome to do what they want. I simply noticed how frequently justice decisions started to punish the photographer, whether the photo was destined at some personal use or not, whether it was sold or not.
I'm no lawyer. I simply don't want to waste anymore of my time, and money, dealing with that kind of shit. It's not worth it... to me at least but, once again, I won't prevent anyone else to keep doing photography like if nothing had changed if that's what they want... I may even sketch them if I see them taking their chance doing that ;)
I think you are mistaken. In Germany public photography is legal as long as it is not your intend to photograph/monitor individuals. They can totally be part of the image, just not the focus. Videos are also legal as long as it is not targeted or constant indiscriminate monitoring.
I don't think other EU countries have largely different laws given how common dashcams are.
I was vlogging in Berlin and there were some turkish street scammers and I caught on camera when sb got pickpocketed and the officers told me that I'll be getting in trouble.
Police officers? The main issue here is that those laws are about balance. Balance of your rights and the persons' you are filming. There are some general rules and a large grey area.
In general your vlogging isn't an issue. However, if you knowingly start recording a specific person e.g. a busker, or in your case a street scammer, things become more difficult - especially because you are vlogging. The expectation that you are going to upload the video makes it unlikely that you are just recording for evidence.
I am not a lawyer. I think the police promarily tried to de-escalate here.
that would mean the death of street photography. Do you have any sources for those cases?
photographing in public space is still a right. There are exceptions, but they are understandable.
Ainsi, la simple captation d'une image dans un lieu public ne suffit pas à autoriser sa diffusion, surtout si cette diffusion peut porter atteinte à la dignité ou à l'intégrité de la personne photographiée. Le droit à l'image en France se distingue par son approche stricte.
Contrairement à d'autres pays, où la captation d'images dans des lieux publics peut être plus tolérée, le législateur français a choisi de protéger de manière rigoureuse la vie privée des individus.
Par conséquent, toute photographie d'une personne identifiable sans son consentement préalable peut engager la responsabilité civile du photographe, qui peut être contraint à des réparations pour le préjudice subi par la victime
it very much depends on the context.
1. Les limites du droit à l'image Bien que le droit à l'image soit un principe fondamental, il existe certaines exceptions qui permettent une captation et une diffusion d'images sans le consentement préalable de la personne photographiée. Ces exceptions sont généralement liées à des intérêts publics ou à des contextes spécifiques : - Les lieux publics et le droit à l'information : Dans les espaces publics, la captation d'images est souvent permise, notamment dans le cadre d'événements d'intérêt général (manifestations, cérémonies, etc.). Cependant, même dans ces cas, la diffusion de ces images peut être soumise à des conditions strictes. Par exemple, la diffusion d'une image prise lors d'un événement public ne doit pas dénaturer le propos ou porter atteinte à la réputation des personnes présentes. - Les personnes publiques : Les personnalités publiques, telles que les politiciens, les artistes ou les sportifs, bénéficient d'une protection moins stricte de leur droit à l'image. En effet, leur statut entraîne une certaine forme de renonciation à ce droit lorsqu'ils apparaissent dans des contextes liés à leur activité professionnelle. Toutefois, cela ne signifie pas qu'ils sont dépourvus de droits ; toute exploitation commerciale de leur image nécessite souvent une autorisation. - L'usage artistique : Dans le cadre de la création artistique, certaines œuvres peuvent utiliser des images de personnes identifiables sans leur consentement, à condition que l'œuvre ait un caractère artistique et ne porte pas atteinte à la dignité de la personne représentée. Cette notion est cependant sujette à interprétation et peut donner lieu à des litiges.
that would mean the death of street photography.
Here in Germany it's fine to photograph a crowd, but if you stand next to someone in public transit with camera glasses, I don't think you can claim that exception.
i mean you would be allowed to wear it in germany, but recordings or pictures would only be allowed if the recorded person agrees
The way I understand it is that if anyone complains, you'd also have to prove that you didn't record and the device has never had the ability to create a permanent record. Which seems difficult.