no one answered my q about invasion of privacy all front doors  photos in Camden council available to all   n?
968641
yep wake up guys its only gonna get worse if people dont stand up for there rights and libertys .theres so many areas in which they think they can invade our privacy ,i read in a paper 2 weeks ago they have the right to go in a counsil house and photograph whatever they want .\n\nnext its the ID cards then its taking dna with out consent ,then face recognition cameras on every corner tracing your every move and constantly adding to your profile in the government data base ,then its biometric finger scanning everytime you buy everything everywhere you go eventually turning us into a cashless society in which you use your finger to pay for everything all numbers,all info going into your profile ,at this point i hear people say ive got nothing to hide .then they want retina scans everytime you enter any building all still adding to your profile and face recognition cameras are not enougth they want to inject a sat nav chip in your arm the size of a tic tac how long before you have no choice in the matter of having it done because the system does not work if all are not part of it .sounds science fiction yet all science fact the micro chip was made by M.I.T and has been implanted on over 100 people ,retina scan technology has been created ,biometric finger scanning yet not hooked up to the governments data base ,is being used in many school librarys and cafeterias to precondition this generation,its normal,the guinea pigs if you will ,and face recognition in early stages in the public is at the right standard to be implemented as part of the new world orders way of enslaving us. when it happens and you dont want to be part of this society you have to way up if you want to live in the wilderness or go along with being enslaved .this is gonna happen in years not decades.\n\nhttp://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm
453524
Who cares.\n\nThese door knockers looking to save everyone's soul need to start being charged with trespassing by everyone they bother. \n\nThey do the same as this question. Try to invade your privacy to nose into something that is a person's personal choice.\n\nTime to look after yourself rather then try to stick your nose into strangers business.
402275
Please do not try to record incoming webcam, it is dangerous because you are playing with other people's privacy.  Please respect other people's privacy....
465568
Here again another person trying to get by school security. The school has installed this due to more then likely over usage of bandwidth. The firewall has been installed to probably not allow such things as streaming and online radio. Businesses do the same thing, so that customers can upload and employees can get files quick and easy. Just accept it and dont try and be a hack wanna be.
1107538
Dear Joe\n\nIn answer to your qustion, there are different aspect's with regards to the law of taking photographs in public places.\n\n1st.....Although such places as Courts, the Houses of Parliament etc are classed as public buildings with public access to them, it is quit legal to photograph the exterior of these building's, but it is illegal and prohibited from photographing any part of the interior for security reasons.\n\n2nd.....Banks & Building Societies have a complete restriction on there premises being photographed either on the inside or the outside of there buildings for security reasons.\n\n3rd.....With regards to the photographing of any building, whether it as public access or not, you should in the first instance seek the consent of the occupier or owner first before taking any photographs.\n\n4th.....With regards to your question regarding statues, first of all statues are created by Sculptor's, whereas Artist's paint picture's. If you merely want to photograph a statue for example in a public park and do nothing more than that with your photographs, then you will not Breach the Copy Right's Regulation's and therefore there is no grounds for the Sculptor to bring a Copy Right's Action, because in law the only thing you have done is to take a photographic image of a solid creation.\n\nHowever, if you take the photographic image of a statue in it's solid creation form and then deside to use that photograph for the purpose of re-creating that statue in either wood, clay, timber, cement, concreate, paper, cardboard, plastic etc, then you will breach the Copy Right's Regulation's and the Sculptor will have a legal right of action against you under the Copy Right's Act.\n\nI therefore trust that this answer's your legal question.\n\nRegards\n\nMR STEVEN NEWBERT JP\nHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN'S\nJUSTICE OF THE PEACE\nfor\nENGLAND & WALES
800282
No it is not legal, and its trespassing.\n\nSo, you are in for a heafty battle. There are privacy rights, and your land lord can be liable if he is in on it.\n\nGood luck. DO you have hard evidence of this? you will need concrete. LIke pictures... Make sure you have them..
993195
that's not what the private setting is for. there is no way to stop those groups from showing up there. but you are the only one that can see them. when others come there they don't see them
268981
sounds like invasion of privacy to me. boss ever heard of civil rights?
539356
not without your permission. you can request the photos be removed and if they wont do this, make a formal complaint to the police. In some countries its illegal for PARENTS to photograph their own children in public let alone anyone else (because of child pornography fears....go figure!)
334500
Probably somewhere like the city hall.  Some places have online access.
112399
I find it quite intriguing.  Your pose is both sexually provocative and somewhat demure, particularly in that your face is hidden by your hand in a gesture reminiscent of those who are avoiding the press.  You ask for privacy at the same time that you are wholly exposed.  Moreover, the eye on your hand implies a desire to both see and be seen that you haven't quite come to terms with.  You are utterly conflicted.
876555
News photos are exempt from privacy rules. California, and for all I know other states and jurisdictions, have stricter rules than normal. Who took the photos? Often one relies on the photographer or the agency to get whatever permissions are required.\n\nYou might want to fudge the faces enough to make them unidentifiable. Remember that famous shot of the two lovers kissing in the rain in Paris? The photographer has been getting letters for years from people who claim to be those lovers. He never answered substantively, wanting to let the writers think they'd had their 15 minutes of fame, until lately when writers started claiming rights, and money. As it happens, the real subjects were paid models.\n\nI don't know what the moral of that story is, except that you should watch out. And that any answer you get on Y! Q/A is not worth much. Even from me -- and I try to watch these issues. From afar: I live in Europe.
698843
you know.. this type of question was just inviting me to look... Your photos are fine, I mean they are alright, why bother about removing them..
504203
i dont think so there is only where you allow for everybody to see them or only you & friends: (In upload/change photos)\n\n*Allow your photos to be viewable by: \n  Only You    Everybody
1030618
u can find it at www.ukaadt.com it is really good coz i have signed up and i have not been bothered since, u don't get a gun but the is a help line, if u need to report anyone who ignored your right to privacy. (it is backed by some really big companies)
241238
Decent mail dont allow naked pictures if you want a homepage click on tools--> internet options-->Under homepage type yahoo.com/google.com.If you dont wnt a homepage click on use blank --> apply-->ok
1071319
go into tools->options->privacy and there is a list in the right hand side, is there anyone there???