I hoped you’ve done some reflection on this thread as your outburst seemed unnecessary.

I send my work emails to my boss to proof read cause I can’t be trusted to be succinct and relevant (not that they force me to, I just overthink).

Throw us some work if you like, although I already work as software engineer but wouldn’t turn down a side gig cleaning up after LLMs.

Truly. I’ve been on the motorway before with a dude seemingly angry about something I did, not sure what, that he was chasing me across the motorway even if I went from lane 4 to 1 and back he was there.

Some people are insane. Best to avoid them even if you can handle yourself as some people won’t let it go and not worth the fight if you’re not immediately in danger.

Start an only fans, some freaks out there and I’m finna get rich

It’s semi-skimmed and it’s the best milk.

Being alive. 😉

Even the home app struggles to turn on my lights and I don’t know if it’s Apple or the hue bridge loses connection.

I can’t ask anymore than someone to admit when they maybe didn’t take the right approach and I find that commendable. Thanks.

This is the vibe I’m getting from Lemmy lately just angry people shouting at clouds.

Then don’t spread information online that you don’t know to be true, Jesus Christ man.

Nauseating.

Removed by mod

It’s one of the reasons I use Lemmy a little less these days as it’s evident to me that it’s an echo chamber for a tiny subset of humanity and at times it just feels like a circle jerk where real change isn’t an option.

You can also see here on this article, but it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.

Source

Source2

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

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.

Yes, with the key difference being that it’s anonymous. Publicly viewable but the users can be as anonymous as they like.

You seem to be misunderstanding my hypothetical application and my street photography.

To make it abundantly clear, as per the discussions in the House of Commons / Lords, that taking photos of people in public is not limited by any law, stature, or rule.

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online as the person in the photo isn’t easily identifiable, like you can’t get their name from it, they don’t have a right to stop publication simply because their face is shown providing the image isn’t defamatory, misleading, or used for commercial purposes.

UK GDPR may apply if:

• The subject is clearly identifiable, not incidental, and
• the photo is used in a context that processes or organises personal data (eg tagging, profiling, categorising people)

Key point Artistic and journalistic expression are except from most GDPR rules, under Article 85, if the images are published as part of legitimate artistic or documentary work.

So:

• A candid street photography posted to a gallery as art or commentary is generally exempt from GDPR
• A facial recognition project or tagging system using those images then GDPR applies fully.

So do you want to refute these claims when you’ve read Article 85 or concede, as conceded to your other points.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

Edit: Furthermore, they are not a source of law they’re a source of an absence of law as was evidenced by those debates and Article 85 as I articulated above.

Is it really the people or just a subset of people that use Lemmy, the vast majority of people seemingly don’t care as is evidenced by the sheer number of people using things like social media.

What might be important to use in this echo chamber isn’t reflective of society on the whole.