General_Effort @ General_Effort @lemmy.world

Posts

70

Comments

1,270

Joined

2 yr. ago

You still thinking that you don’t have the right to photograph people in a public place and post them on photography forums for instance.

Put like that, that's exactly correct. That's not a recognized right in the EU, unlike data protection. That does not mean that it is forbidden, provided that the GDPR is followed.

Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.

I have very patiently and kindly answered your questions and corrected your misunderstandings. I am not sure what you expect of me. Should I google explanatory links for you and paste the content here? I feel it would be rude to treat you like you are a child.

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?

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 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?

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.

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 for a fact

Do you remember why you "know" this? Just curious.

I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.

Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.

...expecting sex "in return".

What’s highly illegal in Europe? Taking a photo or using publicly available images to match that photo to?

1. Taking a photo for that purpose is likely out.
2. Matching it to any publically available images is definitely out.
3. Creating a database of face images for searching: Nope.
4. Using this system is very problematic.

Some of this is because of the GDPR. So it's likely to be illegal in the UK, as well. And some is because of the AI Act (in particular 4. but also 3. to some degree). That's not something that needs to concern Brits.

Highly illegal in Europe, obvs. Looking forward to finding out how this will go in the US.

Just a joke. People rarely give away drugs without expecting something in return. Even on Halloween.

People are giving out free drugs to anyone? Oh no! Kudos to this brave person for speaking out with no regard for what that might do to their own business.

Alcohol and loneliness are a bad mix. Don't judge.

So, which one of them heard boss music?

That's no moon.

This was also tried in Canada and Australia. Here's the story in the EU:

Germany made this kind of law in 2013. This was struck down in 2019 because of a formality. The EU had not been notified in advance, as would have been required in such a matter. (outdated and incomplete WP entry)

Then the industry lobbied the EU and got such a law enacted EU wide in 2021. The press is still extremely influential in Europe and causes a lot of damage as it struggles against its inevitable decline.

The problem with these laws, as others have pointed out, is that tech companies will simply follow them. Outrageous, no? Well, it is when you're a copyright head. The press made licensing deals, but they want much, much more money.

The latest splash was a few months ago when Google made an experiment to better estimate the revenue they generate from news content. In France, the press went to court and got an injunction that stopped the experiment.

Neat. Looking forward to seeing what people build with that.

You upvote to increase visibility and downvote to decrease visibility. Same as on Reddit.

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/03-votes-and-ranking.html

I'd say, when there's a policy and its goals aren't reached, that's a policy failure. If people don't like the policy, that's an issue but it's a separate issue.

It doesn't seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It's ranked "Flawed Democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index. That's really good, I'd say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary.

OP has this to say:

Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future.

Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15).

Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure.

Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.