On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:55:08 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message 
>, at 
>11:25:04 on Sun, 13 Jul 2008, davidmcn@gmail.com remarked:
>>> I think the argument is that it's personal data relating to
>>> identifiable individuals, and thus falls under the DPA. The key
>>> difference being that it's not just street photography (which
>>> certainly isn't restricted by any UK law), but that it's a database of
>>> images - including images of identifiable individuals - linked to
>>> specific locations.
>>
>>If that argument is upheld (and I hope it isn't) I'm not sure at what
>>stage something becomes a database - there are plenty of other ways of
>>searching for locations on the internet and finding photos which
>>contain identifiable individuals, such as sites which enable you to
>>upload photos and apply geolocation tags to them e.g.
>>
>>http://www.panoramio.com/photo/52853
>
>aiui the expression is "structured filing system", and it all depends on 
>whether the Data Controller (ie Google, or Panoramio) can identify 
>people from the photos. So, for example, can I ask Panoramio to show me 
>just the photos that I appear in - having sent them a photo of me as a 
>reference.

And  it is pretty certain they will not be able to.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Originality is the art of concealing your sources.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom