Yes. It’s easier said than done. I often find myself thinking, I could do more to make my country better.

But I am just too irritated by the selfishness and privilege on display. Just relocating to a nicer country is an option that 99% do not have. You need to be young and well-educated, or be relatively wealthy. Otherwise, a rich country will simply not have you.

At the same time, those who can just pick up and leave are the same people who are most able to change things for the better. Americans are not risking their lives by speaking up. The rule of law is mostly being followed. Democratically elected representatives hold power.

Freedom and life can be taken from us, but never honor. -Otto Wels, 1933, in the final session of the elected german parliament.

You’re ignorant of history and that’s a problem.

There were fewer than 500,000 jewish Germans in 1933. That’s less than 1% of the population.

The millions who were murdered were mainly citizens of Poland and the Soviet Union. If the nations of Western Europe had prepared themselves better for war and fought with more tenacity, millions would have lived.

The absolute disaster that the Wehrmacht inflicted on the Soviet Union is largely the result of Stalin’s defects. Dictators are bad; an obvious lesson. A less obvious lesson comes from the Generalplan Ost. The Nazis wanted to murder much of the population east of Germany; Poles, Czecks, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians, and others. Many tens of millions of individual human beings were to be killed, mainly through hunger. Then the territory was to be settled by Germans, That’s the whole Lebensraum thing.

Where should all these people have gone?

That’s why the Ukrainians today don’t have a choice. Putin wants to eradicate the ukrainian ethnicity. We know that. We don’t know how many people he is willing to murder; to physically eradicate. Would you take the chance?

In 1939, immediately before WW2 and the holocaust, the MS St. Louis sailed with 900 jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to Cuba. But Cuba refused to take them in, as it had just hardened its laws. The ship sailed to Canada and the USA, but they, too, refused. Something, something, race.

Eventually, the UK, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands took pity on these people and gave them shelter. Obviously, many of those on the continent were murdered in the Holocaust.

Where do you think 65 million US Latinos will go? They live in the US and they will die in the US. One way or the other.

Non-Muricans, what’s the thought on accepting US refugees?

Stand and fight, you cowards.

The murder of political enemies by the Nazis is usually not considered part of the Holocaust.

The Nazis created concentration camps to detain people immediately after they assumed power. The death camps in which millions were gassed were its own thing within that system.

The detainment concentration camps were for leftists and democrats. Then also people from the margins of society. The so-called “work-shy”; meaning people who had for whatever reason troubles functioning. It would have included Hitler if he hadn’t succeeded with that politics grift. Gay people, of course. Jehovah’s Witnesses because they were conscientious objectors. Of course, people were tortured and maltreated in these camps, too. But how bad it was very much depended on the status of the prisoner.

The first Holocaust killings are usually said to be the hospital patients who were victims of the Aktion T4 in September 1939 when the war started. Disabled people who needed care were murdered to free up resources for the war effort. One method was locking them in an idling truck and suffocating them with exhaust fumes.

If someone puts a camera in a locker room, that means that someone entered a space where you would usually feel safe. It implies the potential of a physical threat.

It also means that someone observed you when you were doing “secret” things. One may feel vulnerable in such situations. Even a seasoned nude model might be embarrassed to be seen while changing, maybe in a dishevelled state.

I would think it is very different. Unless you’re only thinking about the psychological effect on the viewer.

This is mostly about swapping faces. You take a video and a photo of someone’s face. Software can replace the face of someone in the video with that face. That’s been around for a decade or so. There are other ways of doing it.

When the face belongs to an underage individual, and the video is pornographic…

LLMs only do text.

The most deepfaked women are certainly actresses or musicians; attractive people that appear on screens and are known by much of the population.

In some countries, they do not allow people to appear on-screen exactly because of that. Or at least, that’s one justification. If the honor or humanity of a woman depends on sexual feelings that she might or might not arouse in men, then women cannot be free. And men probably can’t be free either.

At no point have I claimed that anyone is being liberated here. I do not know what will happen. I’m just pointing out how your message is harmful.

Historically, the respectability of a woman depended on her sexuality. In many conservative cultures and communities, that is still true. Spreading the message that deepfakes are some particular horrible form of harassment reinforces that view.

If having your head on the model of a nude model is a terrible crime, then what does that say about the nude model? What does it say about women who simply happen to develop a larger bosom or lips? What does it say about sex before marriage?

The implicit message here is simply harmful to girls and women.

That doesn’t mean that we should tolerate harassment. But it needs to be understood that we can do no more to stop this kind of harassment than we can do to stop any other kind.

When copying is legal for profit, it’s safe to assume that it’s also legal without profit.

it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.

Again?

Source2

I can’t see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.

I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.

If you’re into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There’s a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.

You still thinking that you don’t have the right to photograph people in a public place and post them on photography forums for instance.

Put like that, that’s exactly correct. That’s not a recognized right in the EU, unlike data protection. That does not mean that it is forbidden, provided that the GDPR is followed.

Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.

I have very patiently and kindly answered your questions and corrected your misunderstandings. I am not sure what you expect of me. Should I google explanatory links for you and paste the content here? I feel it would be rude to treat you like you are a child.

Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here

Yes. That is what the member states are instructed to do. What is unclear?

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online

That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO’s website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don’t seem to value that favor.

Article 85

Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,

I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. “Presumption of privacy” is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.

Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.

Do you need any further help?

I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,

I didn’t write there was one. It sounds like you “know” that photography is “protected” because you need that to be true.

it’s quite easy for you to Google this

Indeed. For anyone who’s not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.

but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

That’s true. You can’t because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.

Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

What do you mean “again”?

The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.

I know for a fact

Do you remember why you “know” this? Just curious.

I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.

Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.

What’s highly illegal in Europe? Taking a photo or using publicly available images to match that photo to?

1. Taking a photo for that purpose is likely out.

2. Matching it to any publically available images is definitely out.

3. Creating a database of face images for searching: Nope.

4. Using this system is very problematic.

Some of this is because of the GDPR. So it’s likely to be illegal in the UK, as well. And some is because of the AI Act (in particular 4. but also 3. to some degree). That’s not something that needs to concern Brits.

Highly illegal in Europe, obvs. Looking forward to finding out how this will go in the US.

So, which one of them heard boss music?

That’s no moon.