Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
...is that they will start taking multiple sets of photographs in the same locations on each street, and then splicing or otherwise removing the people present in the photos.
This was never meant to be an exercise in snooping on people, though it has turned into an artistic representation of real life.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Google doesn't need consent from anyone. All they need to do is blur out the images of any people in a street scene, just like the TV networks do.
Why is everyone making such a fuss over this when the solution is well known and trivial to implement?
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.
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
In godless, sexually liberated Europe, I don't see that happening anyway.
Have you seen the google van? A quick stop in Italy to make some modifications to the van, and you'll get that explicit consent, right boss?
Hey Tony, get out of the van, this guy doesn't wanna sign the consent...
That's not entirely accurate; The guide linked from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php gives a very good overview of what you can and can not do with a photograph.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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?
Some countries in Europe may have laws against photographing people, I don't know. But here we are talking about laws against publishing said photographs without express permission from the people being photographed. Many countries have such laws and the exception is typically if the person being photographed can be said to be a "public figure", in which case you are free to publicise pictures of them without permission, except if the pictures where obtained in a way that would be consider a violation of privacy (climbing over their garden fence to spy at them in their swimming pool).
The main reason for this kind of laws is that two parties freedom are directly at odds. The freedom of the photographer and publisher has to be weighed up against the freedom and privacy of the individual.
The laws surrounding surveillance cameras are in other words completely irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about the right to publish rather than the right to monitor. The police state discussion is a different discussion altogether.
If some people don't care whether they are photographed in public, but others do, then regardless of the law you should act considerately and ask permission before photographing someone, rather than assuming they feel the same way you do. People have no choice but to appear in public occasionally; it shouldn't be used as justification for photographing them, and the law in Europe recognizes this.
Yes, well, see, that's just what makes it a privacy issue. Being such a godless bunch, we wouldn't want to be caught on photo coming out of a church, would we? What would our godless friends think about that? Beats having to find some quick explanation like, "I... uhh... thought it was a kinky S&M club. You know, what with the naked guy on the cross, and all." ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is not really a problem.
r ize.php
;)
Of course Google will have to implement some algorithm to avoid publishing recognizable pictures of someone. But a lot of technologies are already available to solve this problem. One of the most impressive I have seen is inpainting: once you have selected the area you wish to remove from the picture it rebuilds the missing part... There is a Gimp plugin that perform this kind of operation: http://www.manucornet.net/Informatique/Gimp_Textu
Ah yes I almost forgot... it turns out that the author is now working at Google.
I am pretty sure that with all those people working there they can do something about it
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.
If it said GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURE CAM-VAN and wasn't secretive about doing it, it would upset me that much.
I agree that blurring license plates faces may be a good idea, but I can understand why Google doesn't wander around in a van that advertises "Hey! Do something crazy now and you'll be immortalized on Google!" Secrecy is not always a bad thing. Google just wants pictures of the streets as they are. If they advertise what they are doing the would get all kinds of crazies doing crazy/stupid/dangerous stuff.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
>People have no choice but to appear in public occasionally; it shouldn't be used as justification for photographing them, and the law in Europe recognizes this.
Yea man, what do you want us to do? wear a "robots.txt" around our necks?
As I understand it, French law specifically prohibits the publication of any image derived from a photograph taken in a public place without the consent of the person in that image, if the person is the main or only subject in that image.
If I take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and you happen to be in the shot along with a few other people, I don't have to get your consent before publishing the photo, even if I gain commercially from doing so, and even if you could be recognized and identified by your face in the photograph.
There are no doubt some guidelines somewhere about the percentage surface area taken up by the person's face, compared to the main subject (the Eiffel tower, in my example), and you could dig up some jurisprudence on the subject.
source: http://www.scaraye.com/article.php?rub=27&sr=36&a= 270
Since this is so important, I'll summarize from the text.
Bernard Tapie had been held in a prison called "la Santé" and was being released. A weekly magazine "France Dimanche" published on its cover a photo of Tapie's release. The photo showed a police officer getting into a car to the right of Tapie and his family.
The court decided that
there was no grounds to penalise the magazine or to compensate the office.
Contrast this with article 226-1 of the French Penal Code, which concerns publication of photographs taken in a private place.
source: http://www.cru.fr/droit-deonto/droit/protection-dr oits/personnalite.htm
Yet another commentary on this article gives the contrasting situation of a person in a public place:
and goes on to: