New EU Data Protection Law Could Affect People Who Take Pictures

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

The European Union's new data protection law is intended to strengthen privacy rights and stop abuses by social media giants. But the law also forbids people from posting anyone's picture online without their permission and that includes tourist vacation photos.

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/24/614195844/new-eu-data-protection-law-could-affect-people-who-take-pictures-with-their-phon

 

 

...sounds bad for street photogs in the EU.

[Phil Rhodes]

Staggering regulatory overreach is one of the most common issues people have with the EU.

 

Alarmingly, their response to this particular issue has long been "Oh, we don't mean this to apply to you... we'll be nice to you..." while still leaving the door wide open for them to do exactly the opposite.

 

Most of the GDPR is fine, this particular clause (in that photographs of people are considered personal data) is not and could in effect make all public photography very legally risky. It could certainly be used to shut down news stories that rich, powerful people find inconvenient.

 

Unfortunately, it is likely to become part of UK law as part of the process of leaving the EU, which is irritating - we missed avoiding that little chestnut by less than a year.

 

P

[Mark Dunn]

This is a misinterpretation of GDPR, which doesn't in fact change any principles of data protection. Our own data protection regulator in the UK (ICO) has said that images of individuals are not personal data unless gathered with the intention of identifying them- such as surveillance images. Street photographs are clearly not that.

Unfortunately, OP, misinformation like this is weaponised by those in the UK opposed to the EU and to UK membership and has been for years. EU directives are in fact incorporated into each member state's law in a manner compatible with its legal framework and traditions.

As to data protection, one US email management business has apparently stopped touting for clients in the EU because its monetising of information collected from reading emails is incompatible with GDPR. Good.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Phil Rhodes]

EU directives are in fact incorporated into each member state's law in a manner compatible with its legal framework and traditions.

 

The problem is that's not actually true.

 

If national authorities fail to properly implement EU laws, the Commission may launch a formal infringement procedure against the country in question. If the issue is still not settled, the Commission may eventually refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

 

From the EU's official website. EU law is imposed upon member states and they are forced to comply with it, either by modifying their laws to implement the directive or, sometimes, by direct effect.

 

In the main I have no great problem with this. Creating a toothless organisation with no power to enforce would achieve next to nothing and I am a proponent of geographically broader government. EU federalisation is probably a decent idea, but as an alternative to preexisting government, not in addition to existing government, and crucially with the consent of citizens. The principal (valid) objection to the EU is that it constantly and massively exceeds its mandate, as here. There is no mandate for EU federalisation, no mandate for imposition of EU law on member states, and no mandate for much of what the EU does. It had a mandate to be a trading bloc, not a proto-USA. It was pursued regardless. That's not OK.

 

As to this particular law the EU is at least as bad as many governments when it comes to exactly this sort of "oops, we just accidentally banned public photography" issue. I don't believe for a second that this was their intention. I don't think they're evil. Like most apparatchiks, they're not bright enough to be evil. I think they're incompetent - but the result is the same.

 

The only way - the only way - that this can be seen as anything other than a very serious risk to street photography is if we just hope the bureaucracy will be nice to us. Forgive me if I'm not confident in that.

 

P

[Mark Dunn]

 

The problem is that's not actually true.

 

 

From the EU's official website. EU law is imposed upon member states and they are forced to comply with it, either by modifying their laws to implement the directive or, sometimes, by direct effect.

 

In the main I have no great problem with this. Creating a toothless organisation with no power to enforce would achieve next to nothing and I am a proponent of geographically broader government. EU federalisation is probably a decent idea, but as an alternative to preexisting government, not in addition to existing government, and crucially with the consent of citizens. The principal (valid) objection to the EU is that it constantly and massively exceeds its mandate, as here. There is no mandate for EU federalisation, no mandate for imposition of EU law on member states, and no mandate for much of what the EU does. It had a mandate to be a trading bloc, not a proto-USA. It was pursued regardless. That's not OK.

 

"oops, we just accidentally banned public photography" issue. I don't believe for a second that this was their intention.

P

It wasn't. They haven't.

Last time I looked, the EU parliament was directly elected, and has been since 1979, and the Council of Ministers and the Commission were also all either elected politicians, or nominated by elected politicians, in their respective member states, and any legislation proposed by the commission had to be approved by the parliament. Each successive EU treaty was also ratified by each national parliament, in the same way as any other law.

 

The EU is a good idea. It's not helpful to perpetuate myths about it to a non-EU audience. Especially to one with a President such as it now has.

 

I'll be leaving it there.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Phil Rhodes]

The EU is a lovely idea. Unfortunately it's been so poorly implemented (as you'd expect from modern politicians) that there are serious questions over whether it's worthwhile long term.

 

I wouldn't have brought this up if you hadn't, Mark, but the democratic credentials of the EU are a very silly platform for defending it. The European Commission is effectively the executive branch of the EU and is appointed, not elected; it is a group of 28 people ruling 508 million. The House of Lords suffers similar criticism, of course, and it's barely an excuse that it only exists having been grandfathered into the modern world. It should be reformed. But to propose the creation of a superstate based on something similar is the next best thing to deliberate malfeasance. Beyond that, at least some EU member states (France, Ireland) are so desperate to further the aims of the EU that they'll essentially ignore referenda, as they by did by passing barely-modified versions of various EU treaties in the 2000s after the populace had voted against them.

 

The EU is many things, it is nothing even remotely like democratic. It's significantly less democratic than the UK, and the UK uses first-past-the-post voting!

 

But that's not really my problem with it. Many national governments suffer the same problems (raising the question of why we'd want another layer in Brussels). The problem is that the actual outcome of the EU, in deed if not intent, is to create more EU - to create more committees, institutions, offices, and organisations of all kinds in order to show that the project is somehow progressing. This is why the EU has treated the people of Greece so incredibly poorly. The country should have defaulted years ago, but the EU cannot allow a Eurozone member to fall - the project must be seen to succeed. No matter how unconvincingly, implausible deniability must be maintained. The project is all. The project doesn't work very well, but it must not be allowed to lose face, even if it means essentially economically subjugating the entire population of a member state (and this is not to defend the behaviour of recent Greek governments.) Related things have happened in Spain and Italy.

 

And, to drag us desperately back on topic, this is why they keep coming up with bad law. It's politically easy to make a case for law to prevent large, unpleasant corporations trading in people's personal information. That's a good idea. But they have written the law very broadly, as EU institutions tend to do, because it is a power grab. The purpose of the EU, remember, is to expand the EU, to consolidate power and to build power for power's sake so that the project looks good. They write law in the same way that people write patents. They knew, or should have known, that the GDPR risked having this effect on photography. They didn't care. The project looks good, if you don't look too hard.

 

In the end it is likely that there will be very little effect on most things, because most people will not even be aware of being depicted online or on TV. But some people will - unpleasant people, people who should be publicly outed for their misbehaviour. People that you and I would agree are unpleasant will be empowered to ruin people's lives with this law. It may not happen much, it may not happen to the moneyed acquaintances of politicians, but it will happen.

 

I'll finish with something I've said a lot recently: it is a very bad idea to defend the EU based on what we all would like it to be, as opposed to what it actually is.

 

P