Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France Cries Foul At World Cup "Spy Drone"

Posted by Unknown on from the but-did-it-have-a-vuvuzela dept.

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news of amateur drones appearing at the World Cup, quoting Ars Technica: "France's World Cup soccer team has filed a complaint with FIFA, claiming that someone used a small unmanned aircraft to spy on the team's training camp near São Paulo, Brazil as players prepared for their match against Honduras Sunday, the BBC reports. The quadrocopter appears from video to be a Phantom II autonomous micro-drone with a video camera.

'Apparently, drones are being used more and more,' France's manager Didier Deschamps told the BBC. 'We don't want intrusion into our privacy. It's hard to fight.' Deschamps did not comment on who might be behind the surveillance but said in an interview with Football Italia that he believed the drone was operated by one of France's potential opponents or by a French news agency." Police later captured the drone operator, who claimed just to be a fan bitten by a bit too much curiosity.

75 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. A taste of things to come? by jargonburn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like my privacy.
    In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

    Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

    Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.

    1. Re:A taste of things to come? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A drone is more like a telescopic lens camera and a directional antenna pointed at you - so even in the public space there are issues imho.

    2. Re:A taste of things to come? by Splab · · Score: 2

      Even if you are in public, local laws might prevent you from snapping away; usually people must have the ability to opt out of their picture being taken, which is pretty easy, when someone is pointing a camera at you, however, when a drone flies by, it's next to impossible.

      The other day I was stalked by a drone in a park, which I must say, is rather unsettling, don't really care about it taking pictures, but those propellers are aggressive and when the drone is only 2 meters from your head, you do start to wonder, just how good are those guys at handling it...

    3. Re:A taste of things to come? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

      While it is probably still illegal you could use paintball or soft air guns to mess with it. A stray bullet won't be as problematic.
      The cooler option would be a counter drone with a spray paint can.
      Can't take any pictures if the lens is bright orange.

    4. Re:A taste of things to come? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "The cooler option would be a counter drone with a spray paint can."

      It would take some very skillful flying to spray paint the camera without colliding with the drone

    5. Re:A taste of things to come? by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I think it's unlikely that France would be training for the World Cup at the local public park.

    6. Re:A taste of things to come? by CaptQuark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

      Arial photography is used in many situations. A traffic helicopter, a blimp at sporting events, small planes, balloons, and even kites have been used to capture pictures and video from the air. (Kite photography circa 1889 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff... )

      If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

      I agree that the use of toy helicopters to carry cameras is a new concern for some people, but stop using the word "drone" just to sensationalize it.

      ~~

    7. Re:A taste of things to come? by Molt · · Score: 5, Informative

      The use of the word drone to describe these is correct.

      The Oxford English Dictionary includes the definition for a Drone as 'A pilotless aircraft or missile directed by remote control', a use that dates back at least to 1946 ("The Navy's drones will be..led—by radio control, of course—to a landing field at Roi."). There's no definition listed for a completely autonomous unit.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    8. Re:A taste of things to come? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arial photography is used in many situations.

      Yet many people despise it. I blame it on typography elitism.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:A taste of things to come? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of terminal velocity for a falling bullet.

    10. Re:A taste of things to come? by queBurro · · Score: 1

      this is why they need to be autonomous, see http://www.ted.com/talks/raffa...

      --
      sag
    11. Re:A taste of things to come? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Nah, just use a high-pressure spray gun and paint the whole drone to get the camera.

    12. Re:A taste of things to come? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

      C'est la guerre would be much more appropriate. Celebrity security bodyguards will be soon be toting long range bird guns to ensure their customers' privacy.

      I'd personally recommend a Browning BPS 10 gauge with Tungsten Super Shot loads.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    13. Re:A taste of things to come? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Even if you are in public, local laws might prevent you from snapping away; usually people must have the ability to opt out of their picture being taken

      Not in the US, and not in many Western nations.

      You have a right to prevent the commercial use of your picture and you have a legal right to prohibit publication of pictures of you that mislead or defame.

    14. Re:A taste of things to come? by rvw · · Score: 1

      I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle.

      Do you want to say the drones the US sends to bomb the Taliban are not drones? I'm quite certain they are controlled by someone in the US. Maybe they can find their way back to safety if the connection is lost, but they are in no way autonomous. In that definition a V2 or Tomahawk is a drone, and everybody agrees that they are not.

    15. Re:A taste of things to come? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

      Drones are not a truly autonomous vehicle, but I agree that the word "Drone" is being misused. I believe that "R/C Aircraft" is to "Drone" like "boat" is to "ship".

      You wouldn't call an aircraft carrier a boat, and you wouldn't call a dinghy a ship. Same could be said about small R/C planes not being called "Drones" and the Predator Drone not being called a "R/C Aircraft". Technically Ships are a boat and Drones are R/C aircraft but their size and capability justify the different terminology.

      Just my two cents.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    16. Re:A taste of things to come? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I observed during an ARRL field day many years ago that if you want to stop small R/C aircraft from operating near you, simply tune an antenna and begin operating a high powered 6 meter transmitter. The planes will eventually crash into something or fly away from you.

      Conversely, never host a R/C aircraft event and an amateur radio event at the same park at the same time.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    17. Re:A taste of things to come? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is accurate and misleading at the same time. People think of drones as military style drones while small RC aircraft are usually called RC models and have been for decades. The AMA is not happy about the use of word drone because they have had a very good relationship with the FAA up till now.
      As to RC aircraft with cameras. I remember reading about people putting cameras on RC planes back in the 70s. Of course that was in the days of film.

      This was a guy with radio control quad or a guy with a drone depending if you want to be scary or not.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:A taste of things to come? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      simple get another quad and hang a net from it. Fly it above the offending quad and tangle the props and land with it.
      In the US you own the airspace up to about 500 feet over your land so it should be completely legal if done safely. AKA don't do it over people.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:A taste of things to come? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I wish people would stop using the word "arial" unless they're referring to a font.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:A taste of things to come? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      A drone is more like a telescopic lens camera and a directional antenna pointed at you - so even in the public space there are issues imho.

      Well if someone can basically walk a cell phone to the same location...

    21. Re:A taste of things to come? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > There's no definition listed for a completely autonomous unit.

      "Orderly legal command: Step to the right, meatbag, errr, uh, citizen."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    22. Re:A taste of things to come? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      EMP? :D

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  2. Other consequences by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are still at $1000 but once these toys fall below a tenth of that price, some things will have to change.

    It will start with laws to regulate their possession and fines for illicit uses, but it will also promote a business of countermeasures.

    Nude beaches, celebrity mansions, "secret" open air activities or even high end hotels that want to guarantee some degree of privacy to their customers, will want a way to block their use.

    Whoever knows how to make an anti-drone device better patent it quickly and put it on Amazon for hundreds of bucks. Clients will soon come.

    1. Re:Other consequences by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 2

      I most civilized countries the use of fire arms for this purpose would be illegal. Just make protection drones that force the intruding drones down. It would be fun to watch the drone wars.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    2. Re:Other consequences by meerling · · Score: 1

      Squads of boomerang throwing 'security specialists'. ;)
      Kite fighters whose fighting kits have a special 'fringe' hanging from them that will get tangled in rotors if they get too close.
      (Yes, Kite fighting is a thing, has been for a really long time, it's just not popular in most of the world.)
      Your own remote controlled aircraft that drops shiny colorful celebratory strands that can conveniently get tangled in rotors.
      A horde of people with lasers desperately trying to play with imaginary flying kitties. Do not use on manned aircraft.

      I'm sure there are lots of other methods to intentionally or 'accidentally' mess with unwanted aerial surveillance.

    3. Re:Other consequences by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Seeing does not equate recording and publishing on the internet.

      What do you think would be the result of someone going to a nude beach and record everyone with a gopro? Well, the drone would be the same thing but less reachable.

    4. Re:Other consequences by mrvan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an important part of the story. Public decency laws, and nude beaches as an official exception to them, are not there to protect the nude people, they're there to protect the prude from the nude.

      The sad truth is, however, that while being nude at a nude beach is OK, having a picture taken of you and distributed outside that context is not OK. For one thing, it violates my feeling of privacy more than a picture of me walking in the park (I guess there is still a remnant of prudishness there), but it can also damage my reputation and social standing among people who dislike nudity. Thus, it makes perfect sense to be stricter about taking and distributing pictures from nude beaches, just like there is a distinction between taking a picture of me in my front garden (maybe ok?), sunbathing in my back garden (less ok), watching television in my living room (bad) and having fun in the bedroom or bathroom (really bad).

      (Note also that most people don't go to nude beaches because they're exhibitionist: they go there because it is much nicer to sunbathe and swim without swimming gear. If you've never swum naked, you should really try it one day, it's a world of difference)

    5. Re:Other consequences by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Too difficult to aim, unless you equip it with something like a gun data computer. What about a directional broad-band jammer?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Other consequences by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      How about a big net?
      Couple of flagpoles, fine mesh between them. Drone cameras move fast - it'd be impossible to avoid if you don't know it's there, and very hard even if you do.

    7. Re:Other consequences by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is still the common misconception that having windows in your bedroom allows the guy across the street to record and broadcasting everything happening inside. And there is still the common misconception that me publishing a picture of me allows you to publish all the pictures you have of me.

      This could be called the Facebook fallacy. "Some people publish intime details about themselves on Facebook, thus everyone is allowed to record and publish every intime detail about everyone in the world."

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Other consequences by swillden · · Score: 1

      There is still the common misconception that having windows in your bedroom allows the guy across the street to record and broadcasting everything happening inside.

      It depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but at least in the US if your curtains are open, and the window is positioned so that the interior of your bedroom is visible from the street, and close enough that no magnification is required, it's perfectly legal for the guy across the street to record and broadcast what is visible to the public. He can't use it commercially (essentially, in advertising) without a model release, and if it constitutes explicit pornography he has to have a release that also asserts that all of the "actors" are over 18.

      Outside of that... yes, he can record and broadcast whatever is visible to the public, even if that happens to include your bedroom. If you don't like that, close your curtains.

      Of course, using a quad-copter mounted camera gains visibility of areas which are not expected to be visible to the public, so this argument doesn't really bear on the case here. Or nude beaches.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Other consequences by Tom · · Score: 1

      Whoever knows how to make an anti-drone device

      It's called a gun, and I'm quite sure we'll see it in action soon. Other than that, if you don't want to go lethal, nets around your premisis might work quite well, especially when they are so thin that the camera won't spot them (it's a low-resolution, shaky image on low-end models, so that's not very hard to do).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Simple answer by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't play foozball outside. Duh.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. French privacy laws are quite different by evilandi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's worth noting why the French team in particular, so vehemently object to drones, in a way that other nationals might not, or at least might do so less outspokenly.

    In France you have ownership of your own image. A photographer needs to have your permission if they want to take a photo that has you as the main subject.

    Obviously they don't need permission if you're just an incidental bystander or a face in a crowd. But if you're one of the primary subjects, then in France, you have to give your permission.

    This also applies to merchandising and the law is often used in a similar way to trademarking or endorsement.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    1. Re:French privacy laws are quite different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you have ownership of the photons i collect?

      Well, I'm only claiming ownership of the photons that bounced on my body (or were emitted by it -- I used to live near a nuclear plant).
      You can therefore take any photo you want provided you do not interact with /my/ photons.

    2. Re:French privacy laws are quite different by Nyder · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting why the French team in particular, so vehemently object to drones, in a way that other nationals might not, or at least might do so less outspokenly.

      In France you have ownership of your own image. A photographer needs to have your permission if they want to take a photo that has you as the main subject.

      Obviously they don't need permission if you're just an incidental bystander or a face in a crowd. But if you're one of the primary subjects, then in France, you have to give your permission.

      This also applies to merchandising and the law is often used in a similar way to trademarking or endorsement.

      If the ball is the primary subject, then they don't need players permission.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:French privacy laws are quite different by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It has them until a country with armed forces says otherwise.

    4. Re:French privacy laws are quite different by swillden · · Score: 1

      If the ball is the primary subject, then they don't need players permission.

      A judge is unlikely to buy that argument, unless there is something really unique and distinctive about their ball -- other than it being theirs, of course. Otherwise, the prosecutor will just argue that if you'd really been after a picture of a ball, you'd have used your own.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. Luftfwaffe Light by korbulon · · Score: 1

    Probably the Germans doing reconnaissance on the French squad.

    1. Re:Luftfwaffe Light by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably the Germans doing reconnaissance on the French squad.

      Because if it was the Belgians it would have been a Luftwaffle.

    2. Re:Luftfwaffe Light by mrvan · · Score: 1

      I had to read it twice, but that's actually quite funny :-)

      (no mod points today...)

  6. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by Splab · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know how people know you are a true 'Murican?

    Did you miss the part about local laws? This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

    Just because you feel like your picture is important, doesn't mean some random stranger wants to be in on it.

    Also, if the subject happens to be a model by trade, they can by local law sue you for the damages to their brand, if the picture you took end up on the internet (there are some exceptions to this). Again local law.

  7. Easy. by goodEvans · · Score: 2

    Paintball gun. Non-damaging to the drone, preserves privacy. Simples.

    1. Re:Easy. by wed128 · · Score: 2

      Non-damaging to the drone

      These inexpensive toy drones are pretty lightweight. I doubt a paintball *wouldn't* damage the drone...

    2. Re:Easy. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Paintball gun. Non-damaging to the drone, preserves privacy. Simples.

      The drone in the article can fly about 1000 ft above ground level. Hope you're a good shot!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:Easy. by masterofthumbs · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are shooting the paintball at the average velocity of 91.44 m/s (300 ft/s is the maximum velocity that fields will allow you to use although the paintball could be fired faster but with less accuracy), the paintball's maximum height it could obtain would be 426 m (1397.64 ft) above the shooter. However at this height, the paintball has no more energy.

      If the drone is flying at 1000 ft (304.8 m), you can expect the paintball to be moving at 48.86 m/s (160.30 ft/s). At this speed, the paintball probably won't even break on the target.

      Conclusion, you might be able to hit the UAV and *possibly* break something but chances are you will miss anyway and the paintball won't even break.

      Also, none of this accounts for drag or wind speed which would slow it down even more.

    4. Re:Easy. by dkman · · Score: 1

      If you got it to one of the blades would the blade "chop" it, splattering it and creating a general mess or potentially damaging the blade?

      But I agree that you're more likely to miss and splatter your car in the parking lot.

      --
      I refuse to sign
  8. Drones over the matches by RCourtney · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice the shadow of the drone flying over the actual matches (with accompanying replay footage from said drone after certain plays)? Was I the only one fixated on the shadow during the Germany vs Portugal match to see if it was just the usual camera running on wires up and down the field until it went circling in ways only a drone could? The shadow ended up being a corner-of-view distraction to me - I wonder if the players see it moving and think a player might be coming up behind them.

    1. Re:Drones over the matches by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Most high importance stadiums have cameras on wires, as you said you thought it was initially - but are you aware that they aren't just on wires that allow them to move forward and backward? These days they are connected to four wires (north, south, east and west), and can travel in all directions, can be lowered to the height of the pitch, raised to a given maximum height, and do all sorts of things (the wires have pulleys at each end, which lengthen or shorten the wire as required - work all 4 in tandem and you have 360 degree movement) - its no longer just one linear direction of travel.

      Thats probably what you saw, rather than a drone.

    2. Re: Drones over the matches by RCourtney · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of that. I am not a huge sports fan, other than the World Cup every 2 years (Men's and Women's), so thank you for the lesson!

    3. Re:Drones over the matches by aviators99 · · Score: 1

      I actually believe that "drones" were being used at the matches. They were certainly used at the Olympics this year.

      I also think the objections do have to do with the thought that it was another team trying to watch training.

      The Phantom 2 has a range (out of the box) of approximately 800m. So whoever was controlling it was nearby. It might have been possible to track him/her down.

      I've been told by my friend who has one that it uses point-to-point 802.11 in order to communicate, so you can imagine all sorts of ways to mess with it.

    4. Re:Drones over the matches by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Its actually two or more, so I am correct in using it in that manner.

  9. They know how to deal with drones in L.A. by wiredog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They bring them down!

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  10. what could he possibly have seen? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Football is, like basketball, largely a game of reaction.
    How could "spying" on a training camp be that useful?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:what could he possibly have seen? by iksbob · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when it comes to simple ball handling and player-on-player action, that's true. However, like all team sports, strategy can be applied with respect to general placement of players, passing and the like. Ideally, these strategies should leverage each player's individual strengths, thus making them unique to a given team. Opposing teams could extract much of this strategy from existing game footage, but not newly developed strategies (such as those designed to counter a specific opposing team) or tactics that are being kept 'up their sleeve' to be used in a pinch.

  11. Private airspace by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    We need a revision to the common law statues around private airspace. This law is horribly outdated in the modern environment.

    Reasonable provisions could be made, for example, one has complete control of all airspace 500m above their property. This would not interfere with any "real" aircraft but would prohibit spying by cheap quadcopters without a warrant.

  12. 410 by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    "someone used a small unmanned aircraft to spy on the team's training camp"

    A 410 loaded with some bird shot and choked right would solve that problem real easy for you and be of no real danger (except for the drone).

    1. Re:410 by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      A 410 loaded with some bird shot and choked right would solve that problem real easy for you and be of no real danger (except for the drone).

      Yes, that would definitely take out the drone, and would probably get the LiPo battery nicely on fire, too, as it comes crashing down in urban Brazil. And certainly no danger, except for possible eye damage to someone a hundred meters away, and that whole whatever-the-equivalent-is-in-Brazil part where discharging a firearm in town and/or at someone else's property is a For Real felony. Otherwise, excellent plan.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. Pahontom II - Yes! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I love my Phantom II with camera gimbal!

  14. "Nanny" by Philip K Dick by evilandi · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  15. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

    Apparently, you don't know your own laws:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...

  16. Invest in camouflage netting companies by Andover+Chick · · Score: 1

    Teams of the future will need to have tall poles with hoisted camouflage netting to counter to drone spying (assuming they cannot find indoor facilities). Perhaps also outward facing strobe lights to distort the camera's imaging.

  17. As in many things in life... by judoguy · · Score: 2

    ...the phrase "That's why they make shotguns" applies here.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:As in many things in life... by masterofthumbs · · Score: 1

      So when the birdshot and the flaming bits of drone (LiPo batteries kind of catch fire when punctured) come down upon a person, I hope they hold the shooter liable for any injury and damages.

    2. Re:As in many things in life... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      birdshot fired at near vertical angle doesn't come down hard enough to hurt someone, and your fire scenario is just laughable. fret much?

    3. Re:As in many things in life... by masterofthumbs · · Score: 1

      If you fire from the ground, the birdshot will hit the ground near the same velocity that it left the barrel at. That's conservation of energy.

    4. Re:As in many things in life... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Maybe on the moon, but not on this planet.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:As in many things in life... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      completely wrong, most of the energy is lost to the atmosphere, the birdshot will rain down with much less energy than required to even break the human skin. Even high powered rifle bullets come down at 250-325 feet per second, which either causes bruise or is just enough to break the skin.

      in short, real world once again trumps over-educated person with incomplete knowledge who thinks they know something.

    6. Re:As in many things in life... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      on the moon rifles and shotguns can put things into orbit. so can baseball pitchers

  18. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by Drethon · · Score: 1

    Well he didn't specify what he meant by "remove it". Denmark requires permission to publish a picture so he could be talking about remove it from the internet, rather than from phone memory.

  19. Re:How can you spy on soccer practice? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Or just finds soccer really incredibly boring

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  20. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by Splab · · Score: 1

    Well thank you for posting a link to someone who is trying to boil something quite complicated down to 3 columns.

    The actual law is:
     264 a. Den, som uberettiget fotograferer personer, der befinder sig pÃ¥ et ikke frit tilgængeligt sted, straffes med bÃde eller fængsel indtil 6 mÃ¥neder. Det samme gælder den, der ved hjælp af kikkert eller andet apparat uberettiget iagttager sÃ¥danne personer.

     264 a er ændret fra d. 01.07.2001 ved lov nr. 433 af 31.05.2000 (afskaffelse af hæftestraffen)

     264 b. (Ophævet)

     264 c. De i  263, 264 og 264 a indeholdte straffebestemmelser finder tilsvarende anvendelse pÃ¥ den, der uden at have medvirket til gerningen skaffer sig eller uberettiget udnytter oplysninger, som er fremkommet ved overtrædelsen.

     264 c er ændret fra d. 01.07.2004, jfr.  1.7 i lov nr. 352 af 19.05.2004

     264 d. Med bÃde eller fængsel indtil 6 mÃ¥neder straffes den, der uberettiget videregiver meddelelser eller billeder vedrÃrende en andens private forhold eller i Ãvrigt billeder af den pÃ¥gældende under omstændigheder, der Ã¥benbart kan forlanges unddraget offentligheden. Bestemmelsen finder ogsÃ¥ anvendelse, hvor meddelelsen eller billedet vedrÃrer en afdÃd person.

    On top of that, you can be punished for publishing pictures on the internet without consent (persondataloven)

    Now this law is primarily about non-public places, however, iff you are photographed on a public place you can request they do not take picture(s) of you, that is full frame, up close or zoomed etc. if you happen to be in the background and not primary focus of the picture some exceptions are granted. *HOWEVER* you are still not allowed to publish these pictures, unless they are in the interest of the public, e.g. public television shooting a segment - but again there are exceptions.

  21. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by stenvar · · Score: 1

    There's nothing "complicated" about it; it only seems complicated to you because you don't understand it. Danish law appears to be a fairly liberal law on photography, similar to the US. Unlike France, you don't have a right to your own image, and you don't have a right to demand that people remove your image from their camera. Danish law (like the US) merely provides simple privacy protections and protections against commercial use of your image.

    (And, geez, if you insist on quoting laws in an obscure Germanic peasant dialect, at least have the courtesy of getting your Unicode encoding right.)

  22. Watching them train? by Meetch · · Score: 1

    Don't they mean watching their acting lessons? I'm wondering which team gets the best chance at an academy award this year.