Taking pictures of people is legal.
That said, if you take a 300mm zoom to a children’s playground you can expect to get in a fight.
In the UK, you should not take pictures or videos of someone without their permission. This includes taking pictures or videos in public places like streets or parks
5th most CCTV cameras per capita than anywhere else in the world says what?
Only your corporate oligarch overlords are allowed to surveil, peasant!
There’s little the authorities hate more than sousveillance
Its wild, meta style glasses (explicitly not run by meta) could be such a boon. Police don’t wear body cams, that’s no matter, every other member of the public is wearing a body cam to record your abuse.
But, like everything it’ll be a reflection of the society they find themselves: harvest data from the proles and harass women.
I’d wear a meta style frame (again explicitly not run by meta, probably locally) as a personal dash cam. But I don’t want to be associated with meta or perverts.
This looks like a classic good intention, horrible execution. Its obvious that this guidance is about not harassing women by being a creep and taking pictures of them, but its also clear the way its written it will be used by jobsworths to try and argue you aren’t allowed to take pictures in public places because they might contain people.
so about those meta glasses, any regulation on that?
At first glance, this sounds alarmist. It sounds like the same rules as continental Europe, where it effectively means you can’t focus on a person as the main subject of the picture or video without their permission, but it’s OK if they are just in the background.
Which will effectively mean the end of street photography.
Which will effectively mean the end of
street photographyCCTV.Silver linings and all that
If you think that this will apply to CCTV and surveillance I have a bridge to sell you…
Not worth killing street photography for
Because there’s absolutely no street photography in cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, or Madrid. /s
You don’t need to be a wannabe paparazzi to be a photographer.
where it effectively means you can’t focus on a person as the main subject of the picture or video without their permission, but it’s OK if they are just in the background.
The law allows for that, however the implication of the literature released by the Home Office implies otherwise. They literally said “you can’t photograph others without permission”.
The main issue is that this is an official government publication, and as such people will regard it as factual. It’s less that the law could come down on someone taking photos in public, but more that some self-righteous asshole might start a fight with someone taking photos, thinking the more strict version of the law the Home Office implied is accurate.
And there’s also the slippery slope aspect of this being a potential first step to removing the right to photograph others without permission altogether.
The literature in the article says “should not”, which is advisory and legally different to “can not”, as you say.
This effectively makes wearable cameras like the Meta glasses illegal.
Probably the only good thing that might come out of this.
Up next UK bans farting in public spaces. Will breathing cost money? We think so. previous prime ministers found working lobbying positions at 3m.
If this puts a stop to those “auditor” morons, then I’m 100% behind it.
