Hacker News Reader

Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...

I'm not sure I'd trust random wikipedia page to be up to date on this, but it's good evidence at least that there isn't a EU-wide prohibition on taking pictures of people (without publishing them) without consent. Also that there are some EU countries where it is likely illegal.

>> We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen ...

> Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong

"Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place"

a restaurant is not a public space.

I think that legally, a crowded space is a public space in some EU countries

what _you_ "think" doesn't matter. if it's on the premises of company then it's private.

Great. Can you provide any resources to back this up?

In this case, the person is outside and not on the property; if the restaurant wishes to be private they can take measures (curtains or blinds) but they’ve chosen not to.

This is where jurisdictions differ and is not cut-and-dry.

I don't know about "public place" in Germany, but that certainly isn't universal. In my jurisdiction (Canada), "public place" effectively means any location that is open/accessible to the general public.

They weren’t saying what they think, they were saying what they think the law is.

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with how my neighbour countries define public spaces. My response was based on the fact that for tobacco legislation, for instance, public spaces are defined as follows by the EU commission: "places accessible to the general public or places for collective use, regardless of ownership or right of access" - Directive 2014/40/EU

This implies restaurants. Another paper by the EU commssion regarding terrorist soft targets describes crowded spaces as public spaces as well.

Given all this, I assumed that some countries in the EU share this definition, and some don't. Because in the end it's up for each country to decide, and it's always a mess like that.

It is not public vs private place that matters in this situation. Here's a summary of German photography laws [1]. It's mostly based on privacy rights, and your privacy rights do not go away just because you happen to not be in a public space.

[1] https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

Argh! Spoiled my tape-delay match.

https://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-grr-fists-grrr-l0NwOkgTYRi30...

> Is my friend wrong? Is this more complicated? Or am I right that the discussion of what happens in Europe is framed in a way that keeps me uninformed about what is really possible?

European (Polish) here.

Saying that all of Europe is privacy conscious is like saying that the entire US is extremely republican and never gets below 40 degrees Fahrenheit; there are a few states that fit this definition, but that's not the entire country.

You have countries like Germany on one hand, where taking photos in public places is heavily restricted, you can get a ticket if the police find a dash cam in your car, quite a few organizations are passionate about avoiding Microsoft and hosting their own solutions, and a significant percentage of the population has Signal installed on their devices. On the other, you have countries like Poland, where everybody uses Facebook Messenger, nobody uses Signal, door and dash cams are perfectly legal, privacy isn't really that much of a concern, and photo laws are quite a bit less restrictive.

We're both in the EU, we're neighbors actually, we both have to follow the GDPR, but the mentality and approach is very different.

Over here, GDPR is mostly seen as "another stupid law that Brussels came up with and that makes things more difficult than they ought to be", not so much in Germany.

A completely separate concern, unrelated to privacy, is how photo copyright is handled. In the US and some European countries (like Poland), taking photos of public buildings is legal, and you generally own the rights to those photos. In other countries, the owner / architect of a building, who owns the copyright on the design of that building, may disallow taking pictures of that design.

In some places, the restrictions on photos stem from that different stance on copyright, not from any privacy concerns.

A professional photographer in California before the age of the Internet, explained with great emphasis that is was not legal at that time to take photos of people for commercial purposes without a signed consent form. Following that talk, I was handed real consent forms to carry with me. At that time, privacy and commercial rights for resale were taken seriously. It is a social contract between strangers, and yes people can get very agitated.

Fast forward to the age of the smart phone. The expansion happened so fast, for so many.. and with the marketing commercials and endless hype on using the phone to take "fun vacation photos" or whatever, and the explosion of Facebook uploads with "friends at a party" .. that social contract changed rapidly. New adoptors are often under 25 years old, and may not have heard of this formal signed consent form.

Now, mass facial recognition at public events is "no big thing" ? Everyone has heard in California from someone that "privacy is dead - get over it" ? Then, covid-19 and masks. Now lots of people wear masks on the street or on public transport, with questionable effectiveness over disease prevention, but is that the only reason? Young thugs dudes certainly wear masks with hoodies every day here..

This situation is not settled and still evolving.

Are you claiming that people wear medical face masks for the sake of privacy? I have literally never heard a single person say a single thing about that. However, I’m finding I’m out of touch with “the kids” these days so maybe this is a thing. I’d love to hear more about it.

EDIT: Changed my comment because I decided I’m probably out of touch and I thought the tone of what originally wrote came across a touch more aggressive than I intended.

People who commit crimes are often wearing medical masks these days.

Before covid, there was the stereotype of criminals wearing ski masks. It would make sense if you were doing a serious crime and expected to be caught on camera. It did require you to commit to looking like a criminal. Now, you can just wear a medical mask, walk down the street, you can’t be identified, you aren’t blatantly criminal-looking, but you can opportunistically do a smash and grab or whatever without worrying about your face being seen.

Oh! I understand you now. I thought at first that you meant something along the lines of college students at parties choosing to wear masks as a new trend to avoid being recognized on social media. Thanks!

https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

Your friend was not quite right, but in general it's very poor form to photograph strangers in Germany, when it's not simply illegal. People will walk up to you and scold you.

If you host an event, you usually ask for permission before sharing pictures. At the very least, if someone asks you not to share pictures with them in it, you're expected to oblige them.

A while ago I needed a picture of a Späti to explain what they are to my readers. The owner walked out and asked me what I was doing. I didn't need his permission, but it was a surprisingly tense encounter until I explained my motives, showed how the picture would be used, and how he was not in it.

I wholeheartedly support this culture of privacy.

If it's true, it's not GDPR. GDPR explicitly does not apply to personal use. There can be other laws that apply here. I am not a lawyer.

> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages.

Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America and very weird.

Europe is not an entity. Every country has a different legislation and it's complicated. Some countries allow dashcams some don't because the lack of consent. Germany is one of the countries doesn't allow this, do police would ask you to turn it off if they see one.

What's infuriating is North Americans talking about "what's happening in Europe". It's equivalent to thinking abortion is banned and heavily persecuted in whole North America. Is what's happening North America really true?

>> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages.

>Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America

In London, Amazon drivers will happily dump your parcels on your door step on full view of the road. Some slightly more considerate drivers will attempt to hide them behind a bin or flower pot. Some will put them in the garbage bin, sometimes on collection day.

And yet in Germany you have to put your name and address on your website.

Yeah your friend is flat out wrong.

Its actually silly how many people (in Europe at least) think they can forbid you from recording them “because copyright”.

But if people generally believe the folk version of the law, does it really help to be technically in the clear? You can still easily find yourself in an really unpleasant and pointless confrontation.

If you avoid the slightest possibility of unpleasant and pointless confrontations, then you’re going to lead a very dull life. I sometimes photograph random people. Never has anyone had an issue with that. Sometimes they approach me and we have a chat. That’s all that happens. I’ve had more chances of being hit by a car than anyone having an issue with me taking pictures of them. Boils down not being a dick about it.

When we were travelling in the Andes, we were warned multiple times to not take photographs of local peoples without their permission as they could take offense. Seems like a reasonable position but should the wishes of people in the Andes be respected while those of people in Europe ignored? If so, why?

Is it standard for people in the Andes to take offence at people taking pictures of them? I don’t know, maybe it is, haven’t been there. It is not in Europe.

Err.. what?

If you walk up to a random European on the street and start taking photos of specifically them, they’ll get agitated real quick.

Thanks for taking the most uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote possible. It’s so productive.

"I'm not an animal in the zoo." how about that?

You are being a dick by taking my picture without permission. That's what it boils down to.

I would think you're a dick if I saw you taking pictures of me without asking. Also, a creep.

According to a lawsuit in 2020 [1] his friend is right.

From the lawsuit: "Ein gezieltes Fotografieren von fremden Personen ist auch dann unzulässig, wenn die Verwendung ausschließlich privaten Zwecken dienen soll."

Translation via DeepL: "Targeted photography of other people is not permitted even if the use is exclusively for private purposes."

[1] https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/bsha/document/NJRE0014656...

I find it difficult to understand the boundaries of private rights in public spaces with rulings like that one.

It's not like Hamburg residents have the freedom to opt out of surveillance cameras. Even Street View is back.

I would hope that such cases would use rules around harassment instead of privacy laws for people in public spaces.

How to tell what's targeted at you specifically and what's street photography art?

Who said anything about copyright?