dfps

All police interaction is newsworthy.

Newsworthiness is already a defense in some parts of law. It is a matter worked out by society through cases over time. I know I'm talking to someone who hasn't studied law much so I'll just say you can read a lot about this when you study it, especially the history of constitutional law. But you could start with the idea that it is an event that later might be subject to debate or controversy.

Yes, chat app users could be fined if they identifiably capture the images of strangers (but, as you know, it is not required to video strangers in order to use chat apps). You would sometimes know and sometimes not, like many crimes, but it provides recourse for those affected and chills those who would otherwise do it without considering the effect on others.

That's not the case, but is just a common attitude/excuse for ineffectual/lazy citizens. Simply by making a law you allow offended citizens to act against privacy invasion, and they can chose to expend their efforts to remedy such abuses, which chills the will of offending people to video strangers and upload the videos, and we can also mention the de-monetization effects, since many people video all strangers as they walk to fund their travel, for example.

In practice, that qualification allows people to walk around with a cellphone or 360 degree video camera in front of them, film everyone, and upload it as a 'walking through a city' video to monetize on YouTube. They don't blur the faces, and people presented in it, who are clear and identifiable, have no recourse (mostly because YouTube and Facebook ignore complaints). If it were people taking individual photos it would be different, because photo taking is more limited (but still too privacy invasive if strangers are identifiably photographed) and the focus is usually on the person or his companions, but when video, cloud, and YouTube enter the picture it becomes a different practice.

It also doesn't protect people's data privacy. Capturing their image in an iPhone or most Android phones means, for basic people, the photo is scanned and stored in the cloud. All identities (on a 50 megapixel camera) are marked and stored automatically.

These two issues are the heart of my question. Those European laws were arguably adequate in addressing the issue 20 years ago, but technology has changed the shape of the issue.

Apple is in its own category because its users consent (by purchase and use) to allow Apple/its friends to scan and store the data, ie iPhone users are essentially corporo-state agents. I think HN participants mostly don't need to hear this since they're pretty educated already.

Is the dashcam footage local to the dashcam or the users private data storage, and is gone when the user deletes it?

Or is the dashcam managed by a company that collects and stores the data up uploaded to a cloud of an insecure company?

See 'newsworthy exception'

It wouldn't be impossible to enforce, but like all laws it is impossible to enforce 100%, while they have an effect and provide at least government and ethical support and remedy for those affected.

Also it would allow people to sue YouTube creators who do so, whereas currently there is no recourse because YouTube can just ignore complaints.

Is Iran ineffective or are the goals just other than stated?

(To reply to other statements in your reply, Canadians I know don't really have any new beef with the US and seem to have an issue only with Trump/White House (and are divided on support, like Americans are), but since 2028 might be more of the current Trump party it's hard to decide whether to plan for 2 more years or 6 more. Wouldn't a different US leader cause an immediate rapprochement?)