[DanBC]

> Expectation of privacy in public places has never been a concept anywhere.

This is untrue. Naomi Campbell was in a public place, but courts found she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461187/Naomi-Campbe...

In England you can't just set up CCTV to monitor public space, you need to register that with the ICO.

[mytailorisrich]

Your link does not mention anything about her being in a public space, and it's difficult to comment on a specific case without knowing all the details.

In the UK there is no expectation of privacy in public places and anyone can film or take pictures in public. Case in point: the flourishing tabloid industry of celebrity pictures.

The ICO is about data protection. Even websites processing personal data must register with the ICO.

[DanBC]

She was on the street. MGM tried to say, as you are here, that because she was on the street she had no expectation of privacy. English courts disagreed.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html

> In the UK there is no expectation of privacy in public places and anyone can film or take pictures in public.

I've just linked you to a case where that was shown to be untrue.

> The ICO is about data protection.

Data protection is one of the laws that prevents people just setting up a CCTV camera to record public spaces. If you set up a CCTV camera in England that records the street you need to register it with ICO. What you can do with the images is limited because data protection law. You're claiming that because there's no expectation of privacy on the street someone can just run CCTV and do what they like with those images. They can't in England.

You said

> never been a concept anywhere

This is nonsense. See eg German or French law.

> In some jurisdictions it is an actionable wrong to publish a photograph of a person taken without consent – see Markesinis and Unberath – the German Law of Torts 4th Ed. at pp.75 and 445 and Dalloz 101 Ed. of the French Code Civil, notes at paragraph 15 on Article 9 of the Code

[mytailorisrich]

There is no expectation of privacy in public places. You are trying to prove me wrong by subtly shifting the argument.

> You're claiming that because there's no expectation of privacy on the street someone can just run CCTV and do what they like with those images.

I never claimed that. But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.

[DanBC]

I am not subtlely shifting the argument.

I'm giving you at least one clear example where someone in public had an expectation of privacy and that was upheld by English courts.

I've also showed that English data protection laws provide an expectation of privacy and restrict what type of filming and photography people do in public places.

> But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.

For fuck's sake, there are at least 3 and probably more.

1) Naomi Campbell case above

2) Data protection forbids certain kinds of filming in public

3) "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act" -- try standing on a public street filming a location that has these signs up and see how far you get.

[mytailorisrich]

> For fuck's sake, there are at least 3 and probably more.

The Met Police (among others) disagree. [1]

Again, Naomi Campbell's case is not about filming a public space.

It's also clear that there might be special cases, e.g. for national security.

Data protection does not forbid filming in public.

[1] https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...