To be shocked to discover

[Junipercrumble]

Apparently, it is NOT illegal for a stranger to take photographs or video clips of people, including their children in a public place. 😵

I, like many of my friends are astonished if this is true.

I wonder how many people are aware of this?

But there are many places where this simply isn't possible. To not capture other children in the background would mean absolutely no photos of days out. E.g. splash park, theme park, crowded beach. Especially anywhere (splash park / beach) where there are kids running around and a child can run into shot between you pointing your camera and clicking the button.

I actually try not to have too many people in photos of my kids for this reason and also because I prefer it when it's less crowded but there are certain places where this is literally impossible.

I honestly don't have a problem in a public place if my kids are in the background of other people's photos. Why would I? They don't know who my kids are or where they live?

No it's not illegal and if you smash their camera you'll be arrested for criminal damage.

Of course I don't have any images of my children on social media with my name (or theirs), so I think it would be impossible to trace their identity. I think as long as you're careful with what you yourself post online about your children there would be no way to trace back.

As PP have said, it's the intention that's the issue. If someone is specifically targeting and photographing a particular child that could be harassment or stalking, covered in other laws, people capturing other kids in the background of photos of their kids is fine.

To simply ban everyone from taking photos in public would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

So why did you say it is a breach of privacy?

Yep. No permission or consent required. And they can do whatever they want with that photo and post It anywhere they want.

You can’t demand they delete the photo. You have no rights to.

If you smashed their camera, they would probably call the police on you and you would be the one in criminal trouble because they haven’t done anything wrong.

If you're out in public then people can actually see you, for real, with their very own eyes. They can even legally come right up and talk to you or your child - they can literally say or ask almost anything they like (shocking I know!) Why is that legally acceptable to you but them having a photo that you happen to be in not?

Why is them having a picture of someone more concerning than them being able to see and talk to them in the flesh?

I was aware, yes and frequently reply on posts by people who don't.

Yes I knew, it seems obvious too as it's public. There's CCTV everywhere. If it were illegal you wouldn't be able to film police officers doing bad things, which is very important!

You are literally out in public. What right to privacy an you possibly expect?

That link does not claim that at all. It’s referring to GDPR when you use a model who has consented to model for you.

Why misrepresent it like that?

It is strange that anyone take a photo of anyone and do whatever they like with it.

Some people actually take photography seriously as a hobby and they take photos of lots of different subjects, including people. It's not strange at all - maybe educate yourself on famous photographers and see what they take photos of.

Why do you keep posting this idiocy? No, a picture of you is not your personal data. You know that you are making this up, so why are you doing it?

There are many differences between seeing someone in the flesh and having a photo of them. If there wasn't why would anyone take photos?

I'd love to try to explain to the ico that file size is my personal data

Ffs people really should not be posting crap

Why do you keep posting this idiocy? No, a picture of you is not your personal data. You know that you are making this up, so why are you doing it?

Trying to convince us all they're right. Yet everything else says they're not.

Wrong consent doesn’t need to be given and consent and legitimate interests are two different tests for processing reasons. One doesn’t need the other.

people seem to think GDPR is about consent, it’s not all the law does is set down a number of tests that need to be done and documented in order for legitimate processing. It also lays out what is deemed personal identifiable information with guidance and which types of data may need additional tests (special categories)

but the law isn’t about making the public give consent it’s predominantly a corporate governance tool

And there's a household activity exemption for GDPR anyway.

Domestic purposes – personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR’s scope. This means that if you only use personal data for such things as writing to friends and family or taking pictures for your own enjoyment, you are not subject to the UK GDPR.

I even highlighted it for the hard of thinking.

Posted too soon.

From here: ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions

Yes, I knew this. Surprised people still don't.

I always knew this. I'm shocked that you are shocked.

Upskirting photos only became illegal recently so not sure why you're surprised regarding public photography when blatant sexual harassment has only just been outlawed.

www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/11/australia.mobilephones

An offence because of invasion of privacy to take someone's picture on the beach in Australia.

Nope

Why are people defending taking a strangers picture in public? Why do they need to do that?

Also nope.