Well, the US Supreme court did explicitely say cops have no expectation of anonymity while doing their job. This is completely legal. Its premised on the idea that cops arent there to be abusive but to uphold the law, which is not always actually true. The root of the problem is cops behavior themselves rather than the recording or identifying of them. Up until very recently cops at least had their names visible and were required to show ID upon request.

Making picture in public of others is alreasy not allowed under GDPR,

So much for all the security cameras.

bullshit excuses people like you are using

People like you need to get your heads out of your own asses an look around at the real world, as it is today, and contemplate for a moment where it is inevitably going. Bitching about how improper video recording is on internet forums is likely to achieve exactly nothing against the commercial interests who will continue to make and sell the technology.

You are already no allowed to have a camera watching the public streeth

Unless you are the police running a traffic enforcement camera, no?

Yeah, 50€ will stop the drunk at the pub from filing a complaint on his mobile for a lark, but in the greater scheme it's no barrier at all for people intent on serious harassment.

the accountant can lose his title from it.

That's almost always on the table with complaint investigations against licensed professionals of all kinds.

The bigger trick is: who are the regulators that execute the decision making process, how onerous is it to fight it, etc. A lot of what goes down around here on the "bad side" of all that is that certain actors familiar with the system will develop relationships with the regulatory body and launch complaints sufficient to significantly harass license holders (or any regulated person) just enough to really bother them, but not quite enough to trigger a fight with lawyers in the courts and appeals processes. In a competitive arena like running a restaurant, the harassment can be expensive and time consuming enough to tip the balance between profitable, and shutting down.

(juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases)

What does this mean?

Edit: read further down that you're in a country that doesn't guarantee jury trials so I'm guessing you're referring to some kind of criteria not being met to trigger a trial by jury

" Sorry, but I assume everybody here at least has a basic level of understanding on the political system"
I certainly do and know the pretty concept of separation of power, if you have trouble with spelling and forming coherent sentences that's another matter.
When you say "most democratic countries " That means you believe in the solely theoretical concept of democracy, it doesn't exist.
Or what countries do ypu think have that?
And LOL at using China as a negative example of FR.
England for one is far worse.
And no I do not mean the 1%ers which is a silly concept. I mean the regime/government whose rights and powers far exceed the powers of normal citizens.
Even when the theory/law doesn't say that in your imaginary democratic state.
"a consuming focussed angelo-saxton country" again, what do you mean?
That is exactly what we in the west call democracies.
It is merely an ultra-capitalist ,so consumer and profit focused concept. The rights are there on paper.

The TLDR about Anglo-Saxon vs Rheinland's is different cultures in companies and the Anglo-Saxon (mistranslated in my previous comment) mindset is more along the lines of profit and shareholder value optimalisation (you see this a lot in the English-speaking countries) and the Rheinland's model has more focus for other things like the other stakeholders like the employees. (You see this more in NL and DE, among others). The Rheinland's model isn't the greatest, it is slower because there is more to consider than profit maximisation. And pretty sure it is also worse for startups for similar reasons.

The US is also really consuming focussed, they really want you to consume aka buy as much as possible. That's why big box stores exist, and that is generally how they seem to act.

The modern NL had a good monetary head start due to our past, but in general our system is pretty decent. It will take a while to get something done and the government will fall pretty often, but everybody can get into it, at least in some levels if they get enough votes. In local politics, this isn't the hardest thing to do if you want it and believe you can make a difference.
We have a lot of issues (uneven taxes, people missing out on social security due to faults of others, discrimination, etc.). But I do truly believe that our government, the rule of law and the executive power is at least pretty decent.

Edit: I don't believe the US is a good democracy in electoral votes and the mainly 2 party system. Then again the US is just to big and more comparable to the EU than to one country.

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

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

What I can say is the,name it Rheinland or W-European is less bad than the awful Anglo-countries indeed.
While there was a few decades of good social structures and conditions for workers post WW2 they have been destroying it slowly but surely.
I am Belgian, so I presume you're a NL neighbour?
I know things have been going down (a lot of you here for free education and bcs buying NL houses are unafordable) and certainly for Germans even under Merkel who made a lot of people work low wage jobs with very little protection, throw away jobs.
And again it's getting worse.
The NL government is awful and (extreme) right making awful laws.
Like Germany they are among the biggest bootlickers of the genocider state and the US terrorists.

I'm not from the U.S. either, so a lot of that is coming from a place of ignorance, so bear with me please. But the way I understand it, is that the website just lets you look up name and badge number - things that police officers (at least in most jurisdictions) are obliged to provide upon request, but often fail to do so in recent U.S. developments. So one could argue that this is more about access to information that should be available anyway, rather than doxxing people for the fun of it, right?

The extreme right hasn't been able to do much in NL besides postponing getting anything done. Like I said it is slow af to get anything done in NL due to our structure, but at least the extreme right (or extreme left for the matter) will have less option to pass any actual laws.

Yes, we have issues with housing, the tax system and maybe even schooling.
The housing thing is mostly because of bureaucracy and because of environment reasons, we haven't been able to comply with the EU regulations surround the environmental values.
The tax system just fucks over a lot of people, either because the system is to complex for people or because it is just badly written.
And the whole school thing is partially resolved and partially an issue because people didn't read that the loan was only 0% interest for the next few years and because people didn't know what their options are. Again it is a complex system and some people don't really understand it, but don't seek help either or they don't get the correct help.

There have been talks about making it easier to get the bureaucracy done for building more houses, which hopefully passes. The entire tax system will not be redone anytime soon, so people can still have issues with that, but we will wait and see for that.

Compared to most nations, yes the Dutch government is crap at the time of writing, but that is partially because we do not have a government.
The previous Schoof government was also a shit show, but that's because WIlders can just play opposition and besides his extreme right statements he mostly has left leaning once so he contradicts himself half the time. He is also a one man party which doesn't help. The BBB is just a one statement party and the NSC just fell apart almost instantly, at least Omtzigt tried I gues. He was like the only person that we could vote for last time that understood how the issues with our tax system are making everything worse.

Schoof and his gand didn't need PVV to go hard right-wing.
"WIlders has left leaning once" (ones probably) but What?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31924287

I'm not from the U.S. either, so a lot of that is coming from a place of ignorance, so bear with me please. But the way I understand it, is that the website just lets you look up name and badge number - things that police officers (at least in most jurisdictions) are obliged to provide upon request, but often fail to do so in recent U.S. developments. So one could argue that this is more about access to information that should be available anyway, rather than doxxing people for the fun of it, right?

In my opinion you should look at the law objectively, a group of people who aren't fully educated on the law and aren't trained in being objective will not form an objective opinion.

Juries would be fine to give advice to the judge on how the public sees it, but they shouldn't have a real impact on the outcome of the situation. That should be a question of executing the law.

We have no trial by jury in The Netherlands and the international court of law doesn't have a jury either. The just have 15 judges to decide the outcome.

If you file a complaint with an instance like the NBA in this instance it will not go directly to the person who you complained about. They should stop the harassment.

In the case of accountants, the rules and regulations already make us write down a lot of our work and why we made certain decisions. If something is not written down, it is going to be hard to defend.

Yes in a restaurant it is different, but generally harassment is pretty rare, at least with the restaurants I have or had as clients. None really saw it as an issue. You just ban them, kick them out, call the cops if it really becomes bad or just deal with the couple bad reviews.

Depends, if you have a security camera on your own yard it is legal, but if it films the sidewalk it is illegal.

Bitching about things like unlawful camera use is exactly how things like the GDPR get enforced. A lot of people don't even know that it isn't allowed.

Heck the police will still use your camera if it is filming the road. They cannot use it as evidence, but it can help them in their investigation.
FIlming cars is fine, but it is hard to fil the cars without filiming the people walking or cycling. There is also a balance that needs to be struck between privacy and being able to find/monitor actual criminals.
This article from the authority of personal data goes into the Police and their camara use

It's still a very new area, will continue to be debated and evolve over time. What we think is "ideal" today will not be what people think is "ideal" in 20 years.

Yeah, that's how it should work. We have personal experience of a bogus complaint being filed by a big player with a regulatory agency, the agency coming around and interviewing / intimidating us, and subsequently sending us paperwork finding that the complaint was "substantiated" - something we consulted with a couple of lawyers about and they said "this would never, ever stand up in any kind of hearing or trial or other official process, but... to get it reversed will effectively cost you a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket and a lot of time and hassle - better to ignore it." Of course the real issue is that the big player was guilty of everything in the complaint and more, this is just them "getting in front of the problem" before we complained about them - which we actually had no intention of doing...

The restaurant example comes from a friend who was running a restaurant when he decided to run for political office. His incumbent opponent was directing health inspections of his restaurant at about 10x the normal frequency of inspections... Again, you can fight it, but even if you have the resources to win, what do you get for your troubles?

Meanwhile, the bad actors in the above scenarios repeat their bad actions over and over for marginal advantages. Maybe someday they'll be taken down for it, but usually not.

Yeah... As someone who has been on a jury, I have to disagree completely. Putting people's lives into the hands of one (most likely old, straight, white dude in the case of the US) single person is an awful idea. The concept of a trial by a jury of your peers is far from perfect, but it works relatively well.

For an example a single judge being responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of children as a result of outright quid pro quo, look into "cash for kids" scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal