I thought (and i very well maybe wrong ) but that GDPR pertained to the holding of information that directly made you identifiable ?
As in if i hold your name, phone number and address then thats fairly clear but showing footage of you doesn’t make you identifiable per se , as it would only be people that would already know you that would recognise you in that regard.
If someone else commented “oh thats John Smith” then thats the fault of the person that made the comment but not necessarily the fault of the person that took/uploaded the footage.
Could well be talking bollocks too
This is where things get interesting for the guys who festoon gopros or garmins all over their vehicles and then go out generating content by deliberately inciting road rage incidents.
Now that the UK is no longer (happily) part of the EU, GDPR doesn't apply to them, which is probably why the person recording footage of an errant motorist and titling the result with the identifiable number plate of the vehicle, it could be said that the number plate made the individual identifiable and therefore fell foul of the GDPR.
Also, the "d" in "GDPR," stands for "Data" and now that photography is overwhelmingly digital, many people would claim that their image is their property and capturing it, storing it, analysing it, or broadcasting it without their consent is in breach of their rights to privacy.
Capturing an image in a public place is not illegal. The garmin/gopro/dashcam roadrage content generator brigade are however clearly in breach of multiple pieces of legislation.
Ironically, this tends to place the road rage brigade in the laughable position that they break one law while trying to highlight what they perceive to be someone else breaking another law. If you are using dashcam or gopro footage or CCTV footage for your own personal use than you would normally fall under the "household
exemption. clause.
More here:
"Those using a dash cam in a public area should be aware that the publication of footage, for example on social media platforms, could represent a further act of processing and could risk infringing the data protection rights of recorded individuals. In general, and in line with the CJEU’s reasoning in the Buivids case (C–345/17), publication of material to an indefinite audience, such as on a fully public social media channel, cannot be considered to fall within the personal or household exemption."
