You seem to be misunderstanding my hypothetical application and my street photography.

To make it abundantly clear, as per the discussions in the House of Commons / Lords, that taking photos of people in public is not limited by any law, stature, or rule.

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online as the person in the photo isn’t easily identifiable, like you can’t get their name from it, they don’t have a right to stop publication simply because their face is shown providing the image isn’t defamatory, misleading, or used for commercial purposes.

UK GDPR may apply if:

• The subject is clearly identifiable, not incidental, and
• the photo is used in a context that processes or organises personal data (eg tagging, profiling, categorising people)

Key point Artistic and journalistic expression are except from most GDPR rules, under Article 85, if the images are published as part of legitimate artistic or documentary work.

So:

• A candid street photography posted to a gallery as art or commentary is generally exempt from GDPR
• A facial recognition project or tagging system using those images then GDPR applies fully.

So do you want to refute these claims when you’ve read Article 85 or concede, as conceded to your other points.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

Edit: Furthermore, they are not a source of law they’re a source of an absence of law as was evidenced by those debates and Article 85 as I articulated above.