Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 25 Jun 2014.
When out in public you should not have any expectation of privacy.
Do you live in Finland? There seems to be a thriving street photography scene there.
HELSINKI STREET PHOTOGRAPHY , CHARACTER OF HELSIN…: http://youtu.be/ZKNU45VZrHA
I can't find anything that says it's illegal to take a picture of someone in Finland. I have found people saying it's OK though (within certain parameters, not unlike the UK), like this "Photography laws in Finland" thread in the Finland Flickr group. https://www.flickr.com/groups/finland/discuss/72157625327655580/
If there are so many laws against taking someones picture why do you need to resort to violence? In the UK you can legally defend yourself if attacked but there is a limit called "Reasonable Force", your not in the UK but wouldn't the law in Finland consider hitting someone just because they took your picture "Beyond reasonable force"?
You had better not come to the UK, especially London as there are tourists taking pictures everywhere you go and you might find yourself a bit outnumbered if you try and hit them all and you would also probably be arrested for assault, there are also more CCTV cameras watching you than you can count, good luck hitting them
You need to go back further than that: Project Glass, as it was known then, was first unveiled in 2012. I wrote about it for Expert Reviews. I draw your attention to the final paragraph:
Those figures were straight from the Google press release: $250 to $600 when it hits retail. "Promise" may have been a bit strong, but the figures don't lie: the current retail model costs nearly three times Google's highest original projection. Bad show, really.
I'm no expert in Finnish law, but I'm willing to bet there's a law that says you can't punch people in the face too. Wonder which law would trump which in a court setting? I'm not putting my money on the "but he might have been taking my photo" defence, put it that way.
I see, cheers. I still think they mean the retail-retail version, not the pre-retail-retail version.
I get the feeling jrs77 was joking about the hitting people comment.
Maybe we could moony anyone wearing Glass, no wait... we can't do that because of indecent exposure. How about we all carry around cartoon masks and put them on when we see someone with Glass, or does that get you arrested nowadays too?
On a more serious note though our privacy laws are in bad need of reform (IMHO), what with cameras on phones, Googles Glass, and drones capable of flying above private property and filming anything they see, soon we won't be able to get dressed in the morning without fear that someone maybe filming us Well maybe not me as it ain't a pretty site
Isn't something retail when it's being sold to the end-user, in this case i would say Google is selling it to the people who use it.
EDIT: Have you got a source to Finnish law that states you must obtain permission from someone who features in a photo (who is not the main subject of the photo i.e. in the background) in a public space?
Do you also go around punching CCTV cameras in shops and city centres?
...and how many people have fallen foul of these hissy fits? If you can't remember, just refer to a copy of your criminal record - you're bound to have one.
It's also increases the likelihood of a hilarious youtube video of you getting knocked onto your arse when the Google Glass wearer turns out to be a better fighter than you.
Better start throwing rocks at Google streetview cars too I guess!
Did you miss the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment?
Anyway, I do think people are getting too hung-up on one word here. Google have said this isn't the finished version, which is obviously the one they were referring to when they said "retail version" back then.
Just wait a bit longer, it'll soon be here.
Waste of money is waste of money. Yet to see glass as anything but a gimick.
Glass may well be a gimmick. However, I'm interested in what direction the technology develops so, while I'm not a fan, I want it on the market just to see what development it drives.
That's the Finnish equivalent of the Data Protection Act, and like said Act has no application to private citizens. "Tämä laki ei koske henkilötietojen käsittelyä, jonka luonnollinen henkilö suorittaa yksinomaan henkilökohtaisiin tai niihin verrattaviin tavanomaisiin yksityisiin tarkoituksiinsa." Translated via Google, that means "This Act does not apply to processing of personal data by a natural person of a purely personal or comparable to conventional private purposes," which I'm interpreting as "This Act does not apply to the processing of personal data (as defined in said Act) by an individual for purely personal or comparable private purposes."
In other words: yes, I can take a photo of you in public without your consent, even if you're immediately recognisable from it. No, I can't sell it to an image library without your consent. That's pretty much the same law as the UK; otherwise they'd have to arrest every tourist taking a photo in Finland, 'cos if I take a picture of my wife and daughter at a scenic location I'm almost guaranteed to capture multiple other individuals in the shot - even though that wasn't my intent.
So no, there's no law in Finland that prevents a private individual taking pictures in a public place for their own non-commercial purposes. There certainly isn't one that justifies assault as a response.
So when are you going to take on the NSA and GCHQ? And I suppose it's alright for Finish tourists to take pictures of people in other countries but not for tourists if they come to Finland.
You got further than I did, not all the subjects are translated to English and I didn't think of Google translate
From WikiMedia Commons. "Commons:Country specific consent requirements."
Table near the top lists by country whether consent is required to take a picture of a person in a public place, publish the picture and publish the picture commercially.
More detail given further down.
For example, Finland, France and Germany:
To summarise, in Finland...
"Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent."
"Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. "
So, as long as you're in a public space, not the main subject of the photograph and not being portrayed unfavourably, there's not a lot you can do about it.
I already linked that previously and was told that "doesn't reflect the current law"
Clearly he's wrong and is a **** if he thinks he can go around punching people
Ah yes, apologies - I missed that.
I'm surprised no-one has filmed it and stuck it on Youtube.
Separate names with a comma.