Google Street View Could Be Unlawful In Europe

arallsopp writes "European data protection laws restrict the commercial use of photographs where individuals are identifiable. The law sets extra requirements for so-called sensitive personal data: it demands explicit consent, not just notification: 'If Google's multi-lens camera cars come to Europe and inadvertently find themselves taking pictures of persons leaving a church or sexual health clinic, they may just need to pull over and start picking up signatures.'"

Comments

Facial Recognition

[castlec]

with blur. It's that simple. They don't need an advanced algorithm to identify individual people, only one to identify that there is a person there and then apply a blur on that region of the photo. I think Google can handle it.

Not blurring license plates...

[BobMcD]

I've seen the plentiful comments about simply blurring the faces, but a quick look at the San Fran streets shows me they're not bluring the license plates. I've got a crystal clear pic of one up right now. I can even clearly see that the vehicle was purchased at 'SERRAMONTE FORD', whatever that is. It also has some kind of a work-rig on top. I wonder if those are commercial plates? A quick DMV lookup should tell me, one sec... I can't quite make out the letters on the tags, but I bet Cali uses a color-code system. They're - well you get the point.

If they won't/can't do that, why then would they do faces?

Where's the fancy image processing?

[geeche suede]

I'm surprised google hasn't endeavored to capture multiple shots of locations at different times and aggregated that data to create unobstructed views along each street.

Why allow people, cars and trucks to obstruct signage? If they don't help identify the location or give you a feel for the "street view", remove them.

There's that tourist remover project that seems relevant.

Privacy shouldn't even be an issue because the people simply don't need to be in the photos.

That's not what the law says

[Richard Fairhurst]

IANAL, obviously, but I'm the editor of a UK magazine which regularly prints pictures which happen to include people - without getting their consent. And I don't agree with TFA at all. It says that "if we're taking snaps for commercial use, where individuals are identifiable, there is no such exemption". Fine. But to back this up, it links to a report of an earlier ECJ case. This report says:

Mrs Bodil Lindqvist was an active member of her church in the parish of Alseda in Sweden. As part of a computer course Lindqvist had to set up an internet home page, and chose to create a site giving information to church parishioners. Unfortunately the pages included information about Mrs Lindqvist and 18 of her fellow church volunteers. This information included some full names, telephone numbers and references to hobbies and jobs held by her colleagues

And according to the ECJ, this was a problem because:

"that the act of referring, on an internet page, to various persons and identifying them by name or by other means, for instance by giving their telephone number or information regarding their working conditions and hobbies, constitutes the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automatic means within the meaning of [the Directive]."

You see the difference with what Google's doing? Google Street View means people are identifiable. But it doesn't identify them. That's what Mrs Lindqvist did - she posted their names and phone numbers - and that's what she was fined for. So if you annotate GSV to say "this is Fred with Mary, who isn't his wife", you've infringed. But I don't see how Google, by merely posting the photos, is doing anything wrong. (French privacy law may well apply a stricter standard, of course.)

Re:Far more likely (and useful)...

[phayes]

The French Yellowpages have had pictures of addresses with recognizable people on their website for years. Search for an address in Paris then click on "Photo" link. While the pictures are small, and usually taken early enough in the day that few people are around, if you navigate around you can find pictures of buildings with recognizable people in them.

If these privacy kooks want to condemn google, they should have condemned FT first.