I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.

"Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
Stephen stations"

This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).

Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.

"Allan" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iiee72Fn35hU1@mid.individual.net...
> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>
> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord
> 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the
> webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen
> stations"
>
> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>
> Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.

GDPR is wrong on so many things IMHO. I would say that if you are in a
public place (a street, a railway station, a train, a bus, a public building
as opposed to a workplace such as an office) you shouldn't have any
expectation of privacy to the same level as in your house/garden/office -
either as regards being seen or being heard. And it should be used as
precisely as possible: muting or blurring the smallest amount of
dialogue/picture that is necessary - *if* it really *is* necessary.

I've seen some driver's-view videos where every time a train enters a
station, the picture goes blurry so faces can't be seen - which is a bugger
if you are looking for station name signs to work out where you are :-( And
some of them have no sound for fear that we'll be able (shock horror) to be
able to hear the driver conversing on the CSR with the signaller. Maybe I'm
naturally suspicious or curious, but when I hear the sound go mute, I wonder
"what is so sensitive that the public can't hear about it".

There is the converse: professional people who discuss sensitive details in
a public place. We were once on a bus in the IOW and two "professional
gentlemen" (suits, handkerchieves in breast pocket) got on and sat behind
us. From their conversation, which we couldn't help overhearing because they
were talking in loud voices, it seems that they were solicitors or
barristers. And they were discussing details of cases, with names mentioned.
Eventually my wife turned round and said "I don't think you should be
talking about that here where everyone can hear you". The younger one
retorted "Shouldn't have been listening then" but the older one looked
mortified as if he'd suddenly realised the enormity of their faux pas.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Allan" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:iiee72Fn35hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>
>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord
>> 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the
>> webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen
>> stations"
>>
>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>
>> Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.
>
> GDPR is wrong on so many things IMHO. I would say that if you are in a
> public place (a street, a railway station, a train, a bus, a public building
> as opposed to a workplace such as an office) you shouldn't have any
> expectation of privacy to the same level as in your house/garden/office -
> either as regards being seen or being heard. And it should be used as
> precisely as possible: muting or blurring the smallest amount of
> dialogue/picture that is necessary - *if* it really *is* necessary.
>
> I've seen some driver's-view videos where every time a train enters a
> station, the picture goes blurry so faces can't be seen - which is a bugger
> if you are looking for station name signs to work out where you are :-( And
> some of them have no sound for fear that we'll be able (shock horror) to be
> able to hear the driver conversing on the CSR with the signaller. Maybe I'm
> naturally suspicious or curious, but when I hear the sound go mute, I wonder
> "what is so sensitive that the public can't hear about it".
>
> There is the converse: professional people who discuss sensitive details in
> a public place. We were once on a bus in the IOW and two "professional
> gentlemen" (suits, handkerchieves in breast pocket) got on and sat behind
> us. From their conversation, which we couldn't help overhearing because they
> were talking in loud voices, it seems that they were solicitors or
> barristers. And they were discussing details of cases, with names mentioned.
> Eventually my wife turned round and said "I don't think you should be
> talking about that here where everyone can hear you". The younger one
> retorted "Shouldn't have been listening then" but the older one looked
> mortified as if he'd suddenly realised the enormity of their faux pas.

I was once on a train to London, and for a significant portion of the
journey a doctor in the same carriage made a succession of phone calls
concerning a terminally ill patient, going into a bit of detail about her
condition. Medical confidentiality!?!

--
Jeremy Double

In message <s9t4ff$77j$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:35:33 on Thu, 10 Jun
2021, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:

>GDPR is wrong on so many things IMHO.

That ship sailed long ago. There was at least five years of hot debate
in the EU before it was adopted.
--
Roland Perry

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Allan" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iiee72Fn35hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>>
>>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord
>>> 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the
>>> webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen
>>> stations"
>>>
>>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>>
>>> Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.
>>
>> GDPR is wrong on so many things IMHO. I would say that if you are in a
>> public place (a street, a railway station, a train, a bus, a public building
>> as opposed to a workplace such as an office) you shouldn't have any
>> expectation of privacy to the same level as in your house/garden/office -
>> either as regards being seen or being heard. And it should be used as
>> precisely as possible: muting or blurring the smallest amount of
>> dialogue/picture that is necessary - *if* it really *is* necessary.
>>
>> I've seen some driver's-view videos where every time a train enters a
>> station, the picture goes blurry so faces can't be seen - which is a bugger
>> if you are looking for station name signs to work out where you are :-( And
>> some of them have no sound for fear that we'll be able (shock horror) to be
>> able to hear the driver conversing on the CSR with the signaller. Maybe I'm
>> naturally suspicious or curious, but when I hear the sound go mute, I wonder
>> "what is so sensitive that the public can't hear about it".
>>
>> There is the converse: professional people who discuss sensitive details in
>> a public place. We were once on a bus in the IOW and two "professional
>> gentlemen" (suits, handkerchieves in breast pocket) got on and sat behind
>> us. From their conversation, which we couldn't help overhearing because they
>> were talking in loud voices, it seems that they were solicitors or
>> barristers. And they were discussing details of cases, with names mentioned.
>> Eventually my wife turned round and said "I don't think you should be
>> talking about that here where everyone can hear you". The younger one
>> retorted "Shouldn't have been listening then" but the older one looked
>> mortified as if he'd suddenly realised the enormity of their faux pas.
>
> I was once on a train to London, and for a significant portion of the
> journey a doctor in the same carriage made a succession of phone calls
> concerning a terminally ill patient, going into a bit of detail about her
> condition. Medical confidentiality!?!

I was once on a train with a minor media personality. She used her phone
to order some books. If I’d been on the ball I could have noted down her
home address and her credit card details as she broadcast them to the
train. I can’t remember if that was before or after she wrote a column on
how difficult household budgetting was.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Allan" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iiee72Fn35hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>>
>>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord
>>> 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the
>>> webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen
>>> stations"
>>>
>>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>>
>>> Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.
>>
>> GDPR is wrong on so many things IMHO. I would say that if you are in a
>> public place (a street, a railway station, a train, a bus, a public building
>> as opposed to a workplace such as an office) you shouldn't have any
>> expectation of privacy to the same level as in your house/garden/office -
>> either as regards being seen or being heard. And it should be used as
>> precisely as possible: muting or blurring the smallest amount of
>> dialogue/picture that is necessary - *if* it really *is* necessary.
>>
>> I've seen some driver's-view videos where every time a train enters a
>> station, the picture goes blurry so faces can't be seen - which is a bugger
>> if you are looking for station name signs to work out where you are :-( And
>> some of them have no sound for fear that we'll be able (shock horror) to be
>> able to hear the driver conversing on the CSR with the signaller. Maybe I'm
>> naturally suspicious or curious, but when I hear the sound go mute, I wonder
>> "what is so sensitive that the public can't hear about it".
>>
>> There is the converse: professional people who discuss sensitive details in
>> a public place. We were once on a bus in the IOW and two "professional
>> gentlemen" (suits, handkerchieves in breast pocket) got on and sat behind
>> us. From their conversation, which we couldn't help overhearing because they
>> were talking in loud voices, it seems that they were solicitors or
>> barristers. And they were discussing details of cases, with names mentioned.
>> Eventually my wife turned round and said "I don't think you should be
>> talking about that here where everyone can hear you". The younger one
>> retorted "Shouldn't have been listening then" but the older one looked
>> mortified as if he'd suddenly realised the enormity of their faux pas.
>
> I was once on a train to London, and for a significant portion of the
> journey a doctor in the same carriage made a succession of phone calls
> concerning a terminally ill patient, going into a bit of detail about her
> condition. Medical confidentiality!?!
>

I was once left in a first class compartment of a Weymouth bound 442 with a
request from the two other occupants to “keep an eye on our papers” while
they went to get a coffee.
Initially they had greeted my entry into the compartment with a look that
hinted I was unwelcome(not surprising as though the boiler suit I was
wearing was clean it isn’t usual 1st class garb), but once a ticket check
proved my entitlement they became less hostile.
The papers concerned were spread over the rest of the seats where they were
sorting them and it was quite obvious from the content I could read
without straining that they employed by a Police force working on a
serious investigation in liaison with others.

GH

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Can anyone shed any light on why the webcams will have to go.

It's difficult to see exactly what was going on but looks to me like
the cameras had been installed without full authority from the
"landlord". Anyway good news, 2 of the 4 (and the best 2) will
continue so whatever the issue was it's resolved!

<https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan wrote:

> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>
> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
> landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
> remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
> Stephen stations"
>
> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).

Probably, as it is a public place, they need to put up signs saying that
people are being recorded, and give out the contact details for the
recordings, as well and doing the paperwork to lay out their requirements
as to how people may view 'their' recording, how long it is held for etc.
For a small organisation, this is probably too much a task to achieve.
The fines for a breach of GDPR are excessive, so I'd presume they want to
make sure they are following the rules.

My understanding of GDPR is that you can film people publicly, with some
small safeguards if you are making that data public.

On 11/06/2021 21:03, Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan wrote:
>
>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>
>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
>> landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
>> remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
>> Stephen stations"
>>
>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>
>
> Probably, as it is a public place, they need to put up signs saying that
> people are being recorded, and give out the contact details for the
> recordings, as well and doing the paperwork to lay out their requirements
> as to how people may view 'their' recording, how long it is held for etc.
> For a small organisation, this is probably too much a task to achieve.
> The fines for a breach of GDPR are excessive, so I'd presume they want to
> make sure they are following the rules.
>
> My understanding of GDPR is that you can film people publicly, with some
> small safeguards if you are making that data public.
>

You can film people in a public place without too much hassle. The
problem is that railways are not public property within the meaning of
the act.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 21:03, Alan wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>>
>>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
>>> landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
>>> remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
>>> Stephen stations"
>>>
>>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>
>>
>> Probably, as it is a public place, they need to put up signs saying that
>> people are being recorded, and give out the contact details for the
>> recordings, as well and doing the paperwork to lay out their requirements
>> as to how people may view 'their' recording, how long it is held for etc.
>> For a small organisation, this is probably too much a task to achieve.
>> The fines for a breach of GDPR are excessive, so I'd presume they want to
>> make sure they are following the rules.
>>
>> My understanding of GDPR is that you can film people publicly, with some
>> small safeguards if you are making that data public.
>>
>
> You can film people in a public place without too much hassle. The
> problem is that railways are not public property within the meaning of
> the act.

Legally, a public place is normally anywhere that the public has access to,
including places where a ticket is needed. Very recently, I watched a
video about this by the Black Belt Barrister on YouTube.

--
Jeremy Double

On 11 Jun 2021 21:15:13 GMT, Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 21:03, Alan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>>>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>>>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>>>
>>>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
>>>> landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
>>>> remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
>>>> Stephen stations"
>>>>
>>>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>>>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>>>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>>>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>>>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably, as it is a public place, they need to put up signs saying that
>>> people are being recorded, and give out the contact details for the
>>> recordings, as well and doing the paperwork to lay out their requirements
>>> as to how people may view 'their' recording, how long it is held for etc.
>>> For a small organisation, this is probably too much a task to achieve.
>>> The fines for a breach of GDPR are excessive, so I'd presume they want to
>>> make sure they are following the rules.
>>>
>>> My understanding of GDPR is that you can film people publicly, with some
>>> small safeguards if you are making that data public.
>>>
>>
>> You can film people in a public place without too much hassle. The
>> problem is that railways are not public property within the meaning of
>> the act.
>
>Legally, a public place is normally anywhere that the public has access to,
>including places where a ticket is needed. Very recently, I watched a
>video about this by the Black Belt Barrister on YouTube.
>
Give or take a few words in a slightly elastic definition- "Any
highway or any other place or premises to which the general public or
a section thereof are admitted whether by right or on payment".
That gets tweaked in various Acts for the specific purposes of those
Acts, e.g. a brothel is not a public place for purposes of the Sexual
Offences Act, an off-licence is not a public place for purposes of the
Licensing Act. Regarding a railway, you can have grey areas where a
non-public area (e.g. an office) can in general not be a public place
but become one if the context of an offence dictates it. Whether it is
public or private matters little unless specific law or legislation
affects the place or premises. A part of the railway might be a public
place but the owner has much the same rights as any other property
owner to control how the premises are used aside from what is obliged
to be allowed.

On 11/06/2021 22:15, Jeremy Double wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 21:03, Alan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:17:37 +0100, Allan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
>>>> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
>>>> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.
>>>>
>>>> "Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our
>>>> landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to
>>>> remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby
>>>> Stephen stations"
>>>>
>>>> This seems a crying shame to me. I would hazard a guess that it's to do
>>>> with having cctv/webcams in public places i.e. it's fine for someone to
>>>> have a webcam on their own private land, but once you could beyond your
>>>> private land, there are GDPR requirements to fulfill (so why can't those
>>>> requirements be complied with or is it to onerous).
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably, as it is a public place, they need to put up signs saying that
>>> people are being recorded, and give out the contact details for the
>>> recordings, as well and doing the paperwork to lay out their requirements
>>> as to how people may view 'their' recording, how long it is held for etc.
>>> For a small organisation, this is probably too much a task to achieve.
>>> The fines for a breach of GDPR are excessive, so I'd presume they want to
>>> make sure they are following the rules.
>>>
>>> My understanding of GDPR is that you can film people publicly, with some
>>> small safeguards if you are making that data public.
>>>
>>
>> You can film people in a public place without too much hassle. The
>> problem is that railways are not public property within the meaning of
>> the act.
>
> Legally, a public place is normally anywhere that the public has access to,
> including places where a ticket is needed. Very recently, I watched a
> video about this by the Black Belt Barrister on YouTube.
>

Now tell that to nervous company lawyers. See also bans on filming in
shopping malls.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/06/2021 13:17, Allan wrote:
> I've seen this on the Settle Carlisle webcams page at e.g.
> https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
> but I imagine from what is written it applies more widely.

[snip]

As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/

Also on the S&C trust page
https://settlecarlisletrust.org.uk/webcams/
it says

Important announcement: Some of the existing webcams provided by RailCam
UK and located on our properties have direct views of Northern Railway
stations. Northern have informed us that there are GDPR issues and have
asked that RailCam UK remove them. This relates specifically to the
webcams on Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen stations which are
non-compliant and will be removed shortly. We are working with RailCam
UK to ensure that we retain the remaining two webcams covering Horton in
Ribblesdale and Ribblehead Viaduct.

On 14/06/2021 08:54, Allan wrote:
> As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
> https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/

A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
Bot that searches for them).

It is a bit like the claim that "you cannot take pictures of children"
or even "you cannot take pictures of people".

MB wrote:

>A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
>have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
>areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
>compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
>Bot that searches for them).

Quite!.

<https://one.network/> is rather useful and shows current and
planned roadworks, and originally would give details of the work
to be carried out.

Now, there have been changes, and only the effect upon traffic is
given. Some entries include the text

"Please note: Works Descriptions are no longer publicly available
due to Department for Transport data processing policies."

additionally
<https://one.network/legal?lang=en-GB>

"2.4 Non-consumer use only. The one.network Service is intended
for internal business use only and is therefore not aimed at
consumers. By using the one.network Service and/or by agreeing to
these Terms you represent and warrant that you are not a
consumer."

So far I have not been blocked, but who knows.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:51:29 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 14/06/2021 08:54, Allan wrote:
>> As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
>> https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/
>
>A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
>have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
>areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
>compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
>Bot that searches for them).
>
>It is a bit like the claim that "you cannot take pictures of children"
>or even "you cannot take pictures of people".

What were the personal data concerns, anyway?

At pretty well every heritage site I have ever been to, somebody will
have taken photographs which may or my not include me if I happened to
be in the picture because I was looking at the engine. I don't give it
a thought, and have never complained.

In message <u2qecg9cg8cgpbincv0dplqk69gnkgqjk0@4ax.com>, at 10:02:25 on
Mon, 14 Jun 2021, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> remarked:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:51:29 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 14/06/2021 08:54, Allan wrote:
>>> As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
>>>
>>>https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-
>>>railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/
>>
>>A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
>>have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
>>areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
>>compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
>>Bot that searches for them).
>>
>>It is a bit like the claim that "you cannot take pictures of children"
>>or even "you cannot take pictures of people".
>
>What were the personal data concerns, anyway?
>
>At pretty well every heritage site I have ever been to, somebody will
>have taken photographs which may or my not include me if I happened to
>be in the picture because I was looking at the engine. I don't give it
>a thought, and have never complained.

It might start mattering if the photos in question were uploaded in bulk
to a public website.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <u2qecg9cg8cgpbincv0dplqk69gnkgqjk0@4ax.com>, at 10:02:25 on
> Mon, 14 Jun 2021, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> remarked:
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:51:29 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/06/2021 08:54, Allan wrote:
>>>> As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
>>>>
>>>> https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-
>>>> railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/
>>>
>>> A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
>>> have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
>>> areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
>>> compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
>>> Bot that searches for them).
>>>
>>> It is a bit like the claim that "you cannot take pictures of children"
>>> or even "you cannot take pictures of people".
>>
>> What were the personal data concerns, anyway?
>>
>> At pretty well every heritage site I have ever been to, somebody will
>> have taken photographs which may or my not include me if I happened to
>> be in the picture because I was looking at the engine. I don't give it
>> a thought, and have never complained.
>
> It might start mattering if the photos in question were uploaded in bulk
> to a public website.

Such as Flickr? Home to a great many enthusiast pictures of greater or
lesser quality? (See also Facebook incl. groups).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sa88d7$3i9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:50:15 on Mon, 14 Jun
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>>> As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, some of the cameras may continue:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://news.railcam.uk/index.php/2021/06/11/agreement-secures-future-
>>>>> railcam-coverage-on-the-settle-carlisle-line/
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people panic if GDPR is mentioned, I am sure that many things
>>>> have been removed out of fear rather than it being necessary. In other
>>>> areas it is ignored, someone has been checking websites for GDPR
>>>> compliance over Cookies and finding many not compliant (I think he has a
>>>> Bot that searches for them).
>>>>
>>>> It is a bit like the claim that "you cannot take pictures of children"
>>>> or even "you cannot take pictures of people".
>>>
>>> What were the personal data concerns, anyway?
>>>
>>> At pretty well every heritage site I have ever been to, somebody will
>>> have taken photographs which may or my not include me if I happened to
>>> be in the picture because I was looking at the engine. I don't give it
>>> a thought, and have never complained.
>>
>> It might start mattering if the photos in question were uploaded in bulk
>> to a public website.
>
>Such as Flickr? Home to a great many enthusiast pictures of greater or
>lesser quality? (See also Facebook incl. groups).

I wonder if this railcam issue was driven by the recent movement wrt EU
Decisions on "Recital 7" Transfer Terms and Conditions for processors
outside the EU (under former law known popularly as "Safe Harbour
provisions" - and could be characterised as "if you are offshoring your
personal data handling, make sure the contract is stringent enough"), or
unconnected to that?
--
Roland Perry