Lmao let's see how long it takes them to shut this down

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.

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.

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.

Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.

Your point is moot.

For the people by the people or did you forget?

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.

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?

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.

"Based on trias politcal yes you do." what are you trying to say?
And I said nothing about corruption or 'people with money'
Again, what are you trying to say?

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)

Curious: how often in your field are people harassed out of work by politically motivated complaints?

Around here, restaurant owners are very vulnerable to that kind of harassment - they can literally be put out of business just by people complaining to the health department, with no real basis to the complaints. Its one thing that keeps restaurant owners out of politics.

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.

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

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

You seem to be misunderstanding my hypothetical application and my street photography.

To make it abundantly clear, as per the discussions in the House of Commons / Lords, that taking photos of people in public is not limited by any law, stature, or rule.

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online as the person in the photo isn’t easily identifiable, like you can’t get their name from it, they don’t have a right to stop publication simply because their face is shown providing the image isn’t defamatory, misleading, or used for commercial purposes.

UK GDPR may apply if:

• The subject is clearly identifiable, not incidental, and
• the photo is used in a context that processes or organises personal data (eg tagging, profiling, categorising people)

Key point
Artistic and journalistic expression are except from most GDPR rules, under Article 85, if the images are published as part of legitimate artistic or documentary work.

So:

• A candid street photography posted to a gallery as art or commentary is generally exempt from GDPR
• A facial recognition project or tagging system using those images then GDPR applies fully.

So do you want to refute these claims when you’ve read Article 85 or concede, as conceded to your other points.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

Edit: Furthermore, they are not a source of law they’re a source of an absence of law as was evidenced by those debates and Article 85 as I articulated above.

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online

That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO's website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don't seem to value that favor.

Article 85

Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,

I don’t think it’s a good idea to share all the personal details of a cop.

I think there's a balance to be struck. Should the cop's home address be shared? No. Should their face, badge number and service record be public? Absolutely. I also agree that all public servant's salaries (including employees of publicly traded companies) should be public.

The more exceptions a law has the complexer it gets and the more some people can abuse it.

Agreed, but something as complex as "the police" isn't going to have one solution fitting all circumstances. Whatever the solution is, it should be simple enough to explain, clearly and accurately, to an average 12 year old.

what a public database of the people doing their job allows for.

Any database, public or private, can be endlessly abused. This is the crux of the GDPR.

People should be held accountable for their actions and everybody should be held accountable in the same manner.

Yes, but that has always been less than perfect in practice. Transparency is always the answer. Increased transparency with increased accountability for inequity is the right direction to be moving, not all at once, but gradual continuous progress in the good direction is what we should be seeking. Unfortunately, people lately are standing up and cheering for what they call a "good direction" that is composed of more lies, corruption and ultimately more secrecy about what's really happening.

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.

That's going to be the tricky part about a future where 200MP 60fps video cameras cost less than $100, and digital storage costs less than $100 per TB.

I feel that outlawing or otherwise restricting the use of cameras in general will go poorly. It has been hobby-level practical for the past decade to drive around with license plate reading software, building your own database of who you pass where and when, and getting faces to go with that tracking data isn't hard either - setup a "neighborhood watch" of a dozen or more commuters and you'll have extensive tracking data on thousands of your neighbors, for maybe a couple thousand dollars in gear. Meta camera glasses may be socially offensive, but similar things are inevitable in the future - at least in the future where we continue to have smartphones and affordable internet connectivity.

Even if it's outlawed, that data will be collected. What laws can do is restrict public facing uses of it. Young people today need to grow up knowing that, laws or no laws, they will be recorded their whole lives.

Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here

This is the exact text. I don’t know why you insist on pushing back. If you want to consult a solicitor to confirm then have at it, but it can’t be more clear than it is allowed under artistic or expression and that member states must provide exceptions to the chapters listed which includes the one you cited. Man alive!!!

1. Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.

2. For processing carried out for journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression, Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from Chapter II (principles), Chapter III (rights of the data subject), Chapter IV (controller and processor), Chapter V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations), Chapter VI (independent supervisory authorities), Chapter VII (cooperation and consistency) and Chapter IX (specific data processing situations) if they are necessary to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression and information.

3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission the provisions of its law which it has adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 and, without delay, any subsequent amendment law or amendment affecting them.

Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here

Yes. That is what the member states are instructed to do. What is unclear?