Court Tells Grandma To Delete Photos Of Grandkids For Violating GDPR

[unixman_again]

"Yes, there are cases where people will have things posted online about themselves that they'd rather are not there. And I understand that this is an even more fraught area when it comes to children. But there are very real free expression concerns as well, and the ability to use this as a tool of blatant censorship seems way too likely."

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200521/11304944547/court-tells-grandma-to-delete-photos-grandkids-facebook-violating-gdpr.shtml

[elsiegee40]

This is plain daft

In view of these circumstances it has not appeared in the scope of these preliminary relief proceedings that there is a purely personal or domestic activity of [defendant]. This means that the provisions of the General Data Protection Act (AVG) and the General Data Protection Implementation Act (hereinafter: UAVG) apply to the present dispute.

 

Surely the court should be ruling on fact? It can’t be assumed the Facebook/Pinterest accounts were purely personal is fair enough, but surely the court’s job is to establish whether or not they are?

[mavhc]

Problem with having your photos online is face recognition, in 10 years time everyone will be tracking the movements of everyone via their faces, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

[jmak]

Problem with having your photos online is face recognition, in 10 years time everyone will be tracking the movements of everyone via their faces, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Wear a surgical mask whenever you're in a public place [emoji57]

[GrumbleDook]

This is plain daft

 

 

Surely the court should be ruling on fact? It can’t be assumed the Facebook/Pinterest accounts were purely personal is fair enough, but surely the court’s job is to establish whether or not they are?

 

From commentary I have been reading on it, the fact that the court did not establish this is down to the court only being able to establish past and present use, but being unable to establish future use and the impact that could have.

[GrumbleDook]

"Yes, there are cases where people will have things posted online about themselves that they'd rather are not there. And I understand that this is an even more fraught area when it comes to children. But there are very real free expression concerns as well, and the ability to use this as a tool of blatant censorship seems way too likely."

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200521/11304944547/court-tells-grandma-to-delete-photos-grandkids-facebook-violating-gdpr.shtml

 

This is an area that touches very close to home for me. The pressure on schools to allow all and sundry to take pictures at school events is a real struggle. I have had some other parents grumble about me being that parent that stops photos being taken at events, but more often than not I am faced with the battle of do we allow others to take pictures which include our children and put them up online or do I prevent our children taking part in certain activities.

 

As Neil Brown has put, it is about ownership of our own data ... and the detractors of that ownership do tend to be those with an interest in being able to commoditise our personal data, whether via profiling, ads, manipulation of interest ... some companies just don't get the principles of Security by Design and Privacy by Design.

[bobsmith]

For once (and only after having read the article in it's entirety) I am agreeing with the court on this one - maybe they are some issues with this case and how it could be used to overreach with this legislation - but there's already a real issue with parents/relatives posting pictures of their children/relatives under the age of 16 without their consent.

 

Bearing in mind a lot of us on this forum work with children - how often do we have to ask people not to post pictures of us doing things that we don't really want on social media? It doesn't have to be anything illegal or wrong - just behaviors like smoking, drinking, having fun that we don't want the kids at work to be able to find.

[enjay]

For once (and only after having read the article in it's entirety) I am agreeing with the court on this one - maybe they are some issues with this case and how it could be used to overreach with this legislation - but there's already a real issue with parents/relatives posting pictures of their children/relatives under the age of 16 without their consent.

 

I think that's pretty much where I come down on this particular case too (acknowledging each case is individual), especially as there is obviously some back-story to it whereby the children's mother has already asked for the photos to be removed and the grandmother has refused.