The court's argument does not hinge on the "widely publicized" nature but on her "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life". If you still want to argue semantics, I would like to quote the ECHR again (P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kingdom)
> There are a number of elements relevant to a consideration of whether a person’s private life is concerned by measures effected outside a person’s home or private premises. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, although not necessarily conclusive, factor.
Here you have it on the record: Someone arguing that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. In conclusion, there are places in this world where this is a legally protected concept. Case closed.
Just because a case involves publication it does not mean that legal concepts developed therein only apply to that. Anyhow, the quoted P.G. and J.H. vs The United Kingdom in my last reply specifically deals with surveillance. You may find the court's arguments nonsensical but you can't stand by the fact that this has never been a concept anywhere. It certainly is a concept there. I even quoted you the court's assessment that when talking about public places you have to consider their "reasonable expectations as to privacy".
Right, I've had a look at the case you mentioned and it so happens that it has nothing to do with expectation of privacy in public places, but is about covert police wiretapping of phone lines and of private premises, and acceptability of evidence in court.
In fact, the paragraph you quoted previously is immediately followed by the following (which you left out by mistake, I'm sure):
> A person who walks down the street will, inevitably, be visible to any member of the public who is also present. Monitoring by technological means of the same public scene (for example, a security guard viewing through closed-circuit television) is of a similar character.
I.e. video surveillance of public space is fair game. The issue is with permanent record and automated processing (as per the case right after the excerpt above), which is not too different from what I have been saying.
The paragraph I left out is exactly the argument in my very first reply.
You can't expect the whole world to share your definition of the word "privacy". If they did, my last quote would have been utter nonsense. This is all what I have been saying. When people talk about privacy in this context, they mean something different than what comes to your mind. This does not make them wrong in using that word.
It's not my definition of the word. It is the definition.
People who complain about being filmed when in public because that would breach their privacy do not understand what a public place is, or do not understand what privacy means. This is clear from all this discussion.
As those "people" include basically any European legal practitioner I'm not sure you are in a position to tell all of them that they made such a basic fundamental mistake.
> There are a number of elements relevant to a consideration of whether a person’s private life is concerned by measures effected outside a person’s home or private premises. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, although not necessarily conclusive, factor.
Here you have it on the record: Someone arguing that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. In conclusion, there are places in this world where this is a legally protected concept. Case closed.