Privacy in the public space

[virtuo]

Problem is, realistically it would have to mean it goes back to Google et al to check the approved face list. Back to the Who watches the watchmen? issue.

I was thinking more a local keystore, someone has to look at the sensor for 10 seconds for it to be registered to the device - maybe do some simple blink pattern match or something to avoid picking up "starers" or, taking a creepy direction, people who are asleep. That way you give your approval per device rather then a blanket "yes" or "no"

[Saracen]

Hypothetically, if there were an option to be excluded from automatic face recognition routines in camera systems how would the camera know that you have opted out without first checking your face against it's database??

Got it.

Wear a motorcycle helmet with a one-way mirrored visor, and a gigantic digitus impudicus motif on the back or top. Up yours, Google.

Or adopt the niqab/burka.

[Rave]

I'm among those at the more concerned end of concern over privacy, and would object to my photo being taken in public without my permission UNLESS it is entirely accidental, and if it isn't, then it'll depend on who's taking it, and why.

Well it's a free country and so you're welcome to object, but you have absolutely no legal right not to have your photograph taken when you're out and about, and so if you were to object to me about it, my response would be "Your objection is duly noted. Was there anything else?".

I was going to suggest that a Burqa is ideal if you don't want to be identified in public, but you beat me to it!

[DDY]

What about, a hat with a few discreet high intensity IR LEDs stuck in it?

It's going to look hilarious on CCTV, like a mini lighthouse on legs, but done right cameras should have a hard time capturing your face.

EDIT: Just ordered a bag of IR LEDs, I need to try this for myself.

[wasabi]

Well it's a free country and so you're welcome to object, but you have absolutely no legal right not to have your photograph taken when you're out and about, and so if you were to object to me about it, my response would be "Your objection is duly noted. Was there anything else?".

The European Convention on Human Rights makes that a little less clear cut.

See this for more details and some examples.

[Rave]

The European Convention on Human Rights makes that a little less clear cut.

See this for more details and some examples.

Only skimmed it but I can't see anything in there relating to the taking of photographs, only the publication of them, and even then the protections are fairly minimal.

[wasabi]

Only skimmed it but I can't see anything in there relating to the taking of photographs, only the publication of them, and even then the protections are fairly minimal.

Indeed, but as with most Europeans stuff, the scope is likely to grow through precedent as people test the boundaries of the laws. The key sentence is this: The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development. It mainly presupposes the individual’s right to
control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication thereof (my emphasis) So publication is merely a subset of the core right, that being The right to the protection of one’s image.

I can see this one rolling and rolling in a world of cheap go-pros and consumer priced remote control drones.