I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.

But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?

In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).

At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?

Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US

As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.

Finally, I never claimed it's automatically illegal.

Yeah, and some of it is even true.

Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.

I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,

I didn't write there was one. It sounds like you "know" that photography is "protected" because you need that to be true.

it’s quite easy for you to Google this

Indeed. For anyone who's not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.

but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

That's true. You can't because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.

Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

What do you mean "again"?

The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.

The answer is that I don't think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.

In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.

The police yes, but he is speaking about a convicted criminal that want revenge when he get out of jail. Or even without getting out of jail, sending some of his accomplices to do the job.

What are they so afraid of?

The drug lord or mafia boss that sends killers to eliminate their families ?

You're doing nothing to fix it.

You seem to want to me prove that a law doesn’t exist where it’s much easier for you to show me a law doesn’t exist.

You can read this House of Commons debate on the topic Here

Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place

Or you can read This debate from the House of Lords.

The taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place … and the Home Secretary … expressed our desire to ensure that people are free and able to take photographs in public places

Seems pretty simple really. Although I will concede that processing or personal identifiable information, even if done ok device, would likely be a breach of GDPR.

As for your assertion that I habitually break GDPR, yeah sure in this hypothetical scenario, but thankfully as a software engineer we have a team that handles this for us.

The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
For police it's so- called 'tightly regulated'.
For private use forbidden but 'there are exeptions'

Well yeah it is better to regulate it but that should include that you aren't allowed to use the data from it to track people etc.
We already have protrait right in the GDPR so it is already hard to use.

Based on trias politcal yes you do.

If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.

the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn’t be able to exist for most cases)

A core tenet of the law is the right to trial by a jury of your peers.

Jury trials have a very similar flaw to democracy.

Think of an average person you know, how stupid are they? Now, realize that half the people out there are stupider than that.

An average randomly selected jury is going to be composed of 50% below average intelligence people.

Of the US law yes, but that's not the case everywhere.

I personally don't think juries should do more than give extra input to the judge. The judge should follow the law exactly and tif they don't, the average person should be able to file a complaint about them not doing their job and they should be investigated.

(I also work in a field (accountancy) where you can file complaints to be for very cheap if I don't do my job correctly)

In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody.

IDK the specifics of GDPR (and GDPR is relatively new, so it will continue to evolve for some time...)

In my view: the police are public servants, salaries and pensions paid by taxes. They have voluntarily chosen to serve as public servants. Whole hosts of studies show that police who are actively involved with the communities they police, seeing, being seen, being known by the neighborhoods they work in, those police are more effective at preventing crime, defusing domestic disputes, etc. than faceless thugs with batons and guns who only show up when they are going to use their arrest powers to shut down whatever is going on.

If I were to write "my version" of the GDPR that I think the US should enact, there would be clear exceptions for public servants, including police and politicians. Now, you can get into the whole issue of "undercover cops" which is clearly analogous to "secret police" which may be a necessary evil for some circumstances, but that's not what is going on with OP's website. OP is providing a tool to compare photos to a public database of photographs of public servants - not undercover cops. By the way: performance is spec'ed at 1 to 3 seconds per photo comparison, so 9000 photos might take 9000-27000 seconds to compare, that's 2.5 to 7.5 hours to run one photo search.

All they have to do is close the public sources of photo IDs. The tool itself isn't anything special, anybody familiar with the tech can code something like this up in less than a day, hell ChatGPT can probably vibe code it for you.

Kindly, I believe your blind faith in your societal institutions to be at best naive and at worst a danger to liberty. I mean this as a genuine warning meant to be heeded, not a personal criticism directed at you. I'm an American. This exact blind institutional faith I see you and many other Europeans frequently espouse online was a core part of what caused the civil collapse of my own society. It will happen in yours too if you guys aren't careful. The prevalence of this way of thinking amongst Europeans I meet online is a dangerous omen. You guys remind me a lot of us back in the 90s. Please. Take it not from an ignorant American, but from a global citizen who has already been down the rough and tumble line.

I think I'll just quote you from another comment you made in this exact same thread, because you encapsulated it better than I ever could:

"...If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it."

This is a fiction. It is a noble lie you are told by people with power. Think semantically. What is corruption? What is "money," "power," etc? In your mind, in countries that you believe to be "one of the good ones," one where by your description the nation "isn't corrupt enough for people to really buy into it"... who controls the nation and how? Realistically, you aren't going to be able to provide an answer to that question that is free from discussing existing corruption, because your idea of supposed societies that cross some arbitrary threshold of being "pure vs corrupt"... doesn't exist in reality. There exists not one corruption-free government, now or ever, in the history of mankind.

This sounds fantastical from your POV but I do mean it as a genuine warning to be heeded. First it starts with gradual scrapes and nicks at the block of reason... stuff exactly like this that everyone engages in on some level, to some degree - it is a transmogrification of the social conscious... soon yet the fascists carve their own damnable Michelangelo from the marble, instead.

Considering people all across the world tend to generalise I don't think it's a good idea to share all the personal details of a cop.
I would rather prefer we just having transparency in the general administration (annual reports) and their salary.

I also dislike that the law should have exceptions. The more exceptions a law has the complexer it gets and the more some people can abuse it.

Fining a complaint about a police office can also be done on their badge number, and that should be enough.
If a police is just bad at their job, but a good person (so they fuck up some other way), then they shouldn't be at risk of being attacked/stalked or whatever by the people they arrested, which is what a public database of the people doing their job allows for. People should be held accountable for their actions and everybody should be held accountable in the same manner.

Just because a photo is made in public doesn't mean it is a public photo, or at least it shouldn't mean that. Again, to protect civilians.

I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. "Presumption of privacy" is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.

Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.

Do you need any further help?

You think individuals can't be targeted because they're "in power"? Why do you think they're wearing them?

What do you think that phrase means? The gov just let's people do whatever they want?