‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops
-
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,
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.
-
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.
Making picture in public of others is alreasy not allowed under GDPR, but only if somebody complains you will get into issues most of the time.
We need to stop the bullshit excuses people like you are using to allow for the recording or eveeything it really needs to stop. You are already no allowed to have a camera watching the public streeth
-
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?
-
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?
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.
Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.
-
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?
-
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.
Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.
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.
-
it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.
Again?
Source2
I can't see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.
I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.
If you're into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There's a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
You're doing nothing to fix it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]fix what. You have some expectation that everything is actionable and merely a matter of nattering at people to go do it?
We cant know its a honey pot and its not even remotely realistic to say a citizen can fix it or investigate it. Even an arm of the state would be unable to investigate an intention. So you're trolling.
-
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren't fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
Hard agree. Its a non negotiable part of the job. I dont know that it would work to say absense of footage is evidence of wrongdoing, but its definitely enough to fire someone. Accountability would keep cops in line. Currently there is VERY little real systematic accountability for cops, in any situation.
-
Making picture in public of others is alreasy not allowed under GDPR, but only if somebody complains you will get into issues most of the time.
We need to stop the bullshit excuses people like you are using to allow for the recording or eveeything it really needs to stop. You are already no allowed to have a camera watching the public streeth
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?
-
You're free to choose the authoritarianism instead of the personal risk, but then you can't claim that you're resisting, because you're not; it's either or.
There's "personal risk" and then there's losing your livelihood.
If we’re not ready to put our jobs at risk to protest for what we believe in, do we really believe in it.
Our founding fathers were risking their actual lives. GTFO with the “livelihood” bullshit.
-
If we’re not ready to put our jobs at risk to protest for what we believe in, do we really believe in it.
Our founding fathers were risking their actual lives. GTFO with the “livelihood” bullshit.
That's up to you. I just don't like to see it downplayed.
-
it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.
Again?
Source2
I can't see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.
I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.
If you're into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There's a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.
You have to be trolling as I’ve provided text from the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Article 85 of GDPR and a couple of extra sources.
If you’re from the UK I suggest you contact your local MP with a view to stop spreading misinformation, if you’re not from the Uk then in the nicest way possible fuck off and stop talking about stuff you have no clue you silly cunt.
-
Not that often, since it is a very formal matter to sue a registered accountant over here. It costs like 50 euro to complain or something and the accountant can lose his title from it.
https://www.nba.nl/tools-en-ondersteuning/publicaties/2025/jaaroverzicht-klachtencommissie-nba-2024/
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.
-
That's up to you. I just don't like to see it downplayed.
That’s why they call it ‘risk’ and not ‘safe.’
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected](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 most democratic countries are at least somewhat based on.
Trias Political is the sense that you have the government, the police and the judges. Everybody needs to follow the law, the government makes that law, the judges judge who gets punished and how long and the police enact that punishment. (Very broadly explained).
If the system works like intended or at least close to, then everybody has the same rights and need to follow the same low.
You are were talking about "the regime" what regime are you talking about? Generally people mean the 1%er's or at least the actual rich. Corruption is what allows the inequality between people, but removing the corruption can also cause issues. Just look at the situation in Brazil.Facial recognition is not something any company can just use in a GDPR country in the way they do in China or in this example. Again, we have rights.
My original comment was more an "if" question about what IF the US actually functioned like a democracy instead of a consuming focussed, angelo-saxton country.
" 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. -
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
If the police weren't unaccountable invaders, and just, liked, issued annoying tickets or whatever instead of murdering children and doing to crowds of peaceful civilians things that would be war crimes if done to uniformed enemy soldiers literally any tike they assemble, or even if the obes who actually did that stuff were punished literally at all when they did, i don't think anyone would have even thought to do this.
They are abd they do and they don't, though.
-
fix what. You have some expectation that everything is actionable and merely a matter of nattering at people to go do it?
We cant know its a honey pot and its not even remotely realistic to say a citizen can fix it or investigate it. Even an arm of the state would be unable to investigate an intention. So you're trolling.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, they're all honeypots. Signal, honeypot. Lemmy, honeypot. Linux, honeypot. Can't make anything else. /s
You won't gaslight us.
