buzer

There is https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Rb._Gelderland_-_C%2F05%2... for example. While it didn't touch Article 13 itself it did touch 2(2)(c). One of the reasons court gave is (machine translated, I do not speak Dutch):

> In addition, with Facebook it cannot be ruled out that placed photos may be distributed and may end up in the hands of third parties.

So court considered just that possibility as one of the aspects which led to household exemption being unavailable.

> What you're saying sounds insane. You're saying that a person taking a photo/video in public -- EVERY person doing so -- has to identify EVERY person in the photo/video, and inform EVERYONE of their rights, etc.... if they upload it to YouTube or Flickr?

They do not need to identify them, but they need to provide the sufficient Article 13 notice. That could be, for example, sufficiently clear sign that they wear. You can check C‑422/24 for what CJEU said about body worn cameras. One of the important points court highlighted is:

> If it were accepted that Article 14 of the GDPR applies where personal data are collected by means of a body camera, the data subject would not receive any information at the time of collection, even though he or she is the source of those data, which would allow the controller not to provide information to that data subject immediately. Therefore, such an interpretation would carry the risk of the collection of personal data escaping the knowledge of the data subject and giving rise to hidden surveillance practices.

And regarding:

> If the law were applied like you say it is, the only legal filming in public would be to CLOSE the area to the public and have no members of the public in public. Like a film set, where the only passers-by are paid extras who signed a release. That's completely untenable.

It can be legal to film in public, but it either requires using the derogations and applicable Member State laws (like artistic expression exemption) or making sure you actually give that Article 13 notice. Or truly just use it for household use.

Of course these things are not normally enforced unless someone actually files a complaint.

[EDIT] since I forgot to address this point

> My understanding is that when videos are uploaded to YouTube, the fact Google is publishing it makes Google the data processor, and Google's duties are fulfilled by not seeking to identify the people in the video, but offering them their rights nonetheless should the data subject be able to identify themselves.

Processing is evaluated per processing operation. YouTube itself is controller for many of these. These could, for example, include actually surfacing the video via algorithm. The important decisions here are C‑492/23 from last year and C-188/24 from this year.

Comment · 8 days ago

It's true that if it falls within household exemption then GDPR doesn't apply. However household is exemption is narrow.

For example CCTVs that point to public street are not within household exemption scope even if you are only doing it personal protection.

In the context of this app the video was taken and posted to YouTube for everyone to see. So it would no longer be within household exemption -> the original author would have needed to fulfill their GDPR obligations.

And in regards to Article 11, that does not give exemption for Article 13/14, only for 15-20.

Platforms tend to rely on Article 14(5)(b), but I don't think that it would often hold up if challenged. CJEU puts a lot weight on Article 13/14 since they the primary ways for data subject to even find out about the processing. And if they don't find out the processing they cannot effectively exercise their other rights.

Comment · 8 days ago

I don't really get Finland. It says Finland–Helsinki Airport, but the stops say Lempäälä and Toijala. Those are about 150km from Helsinki Airport and there is no direct train between them (Lempäälä/Toijala and Helsinki Airport).

Comment · 8 days ago

Generally speaking it's illegal in EU due to GDPR. The major issue is Article 13. When you obtain personal data directly from data subject (which is what would happen when you record video) you need to give them the information that Article 13 requires.

Basically the only exceptions to this come from Article 23 (which is unlikely to apply) and Article 85. Article 85 covers "journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression", but it requires separate law in Member State and these then set out the requirements what actually qualifies under it. The standards for that tend to be much stricter than US' First Amendment (which allows essentially anyone to say that they are press).

Comment · 9 days ago

> If it was illegal them I’m sure the state prosecutors will take care of it.

In Finland prosecutors are not involved in most of the illegal things, they are only involved in criminal matters (and in some cases civil compensation claims which are linked to criminal case). Various regulators/authorities are the ones who enforce civil side.

In many cases the penalties that law allows those to authorities to issue are limited to ordering to stop doing that illegal thing, reprimands and conditional fines ("if you don't stop you need to pay fine"). Straight up fines tend to be more uncommon (unless individual is doing it, then fines tend to be very common). Targets of these can then file appeal in administrative court and usually behavior is allowed to continue while case is appealed (see e.g. various GDPR/ePD cases).

Comment · 10 days ago

You also need to block access to the approved CT list until it fails open after 70 days.

This is assuming the CT logs no longer issue SCTs for these CAs. If they do then you just need to the CT dance and publish that certificate there.

Of course this assumes the app/device isn't using certificate pinning.

Comment · 10 days ago

It's also very early in EU and evening/night time in part of US. The information that was out earlier was on level "make sure you update tomorrow when the patch comes out", the actual details weren't out yet.

Comment · 11 days ago

> - Could this be used to run a benign mitm attack on the traffic of some apps, consoles etc? I could see some interesting uses for reverse engineering. For example you can't simply add a CA to the system store on Android anymore. But this one is already there. It won't work for long but it could be used on any unpatched client.

One issue might be that from what I understand Android itself also enforces CT, but it has fail-open design if it cannot obtain the updated list of qualified CT operators for 70 days. So you would need to block the access to that endpoint.

This is assuming the CT logs will stop/stopped actually giving SCTs for those CAs.

Comment · 13 days ago

I see the Cloudflare challenge even on normal Chrome & Firefox very often, 100% of "first access" (after some timeout) on many sites.

Comment · 15 days ago

If you are referring to "lines from what I assume separate pieces assembled together." I didn't mean that the photo was assembled from multiple pieces, I meant that part of car was (panels or similar). Those lines between panels were no longer visible.

Comment · 15 days ago

It's currently accessible, but I'm sure they will start adding whatever roadblocks they can. e.g. Requiring attestation before running game, keeping some logic in server side which will be sent only to clients which pass the attestation, requiring platforms which grant more protections etc.

Comment · 15 days ago

Look between the Eni and ApeCoin logos. In lossless you can see there are lines from what I assume separate pieces assembled together. Next to ApeCoin there's also a round piece in the lossless version which is missing from the AVIF. JPEG XL loses most of these as well though.

That's what I noticed anyway, not a car or photo guy either.