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

Far more likely (and useful)...

[Cutriss]

...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.

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.

Google doesn't need consent

[timholman]

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?

Re:Google doesn't need consent

[richdun]

You have a 5-digit user number, so I won't go with the standard "You must be new here," but come on - making a fuss over problems with trivial and well-known solutions is what we do here.

Not gonna happen

[El Cabri]

taking pictures of persons leaving a church or sexual health clinic

In godless, sexually liberated Europe, I don't see that happening anyway.

Re:Well, maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Google Pr0n

[Dogtanian]

Have you seen the google van? "Google van"? It sounds like a version of the Bang Bus for geeks.

A lot of people are missing the point

[GauteL]

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.

Re:Being in public is not "sensitive personal data

[robably]

You appearance on the street does not constitute "sensitive personal data"

True, but the law over here also recognizes that your appearance on the street does not constitute a consent to be photographed.

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...

[Moraelin]

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." ;)

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.

Re:Well, maybe...

[theStorminMormon]

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.

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:Well, maybe...

[Keith_Beef]

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.

Cas d'une photo prise devant la maison d'arrêt de la santé Dans l'hebdomadaire France Dimanche en illustration d'articles consacrés à Bernard TAPIE, alors incarcéré, figurait une photographie où l'on pouvait voir, à la droite de la famille TAPIE, un policier entrant dans une voiture en stationnement devant la maison d'arrêt de la santé. La Cour d'Appel de Paris (3) a considéré que la prise de vue était réalisée sur la voie publique, que rien ne venait isoler le policier du groupe de personnes représentées par la photographie, centrée sur la famille de Bernard TAPIE à l'entrée de la maison d'arrêt, et non sur la personne du policier dont l'identité n'était pas révélée. Elle a jugé que cette photographie illustrait un événement d'actualité auquel ce dernier s'est trouvé mêlé objectivement et de façon impersonnelle par l'effet d'une coïncidence due à des circonstances tenant exclusivement à sa vie professionnelle.

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

• since the officer was not picked out by the framing of the photo (centered on tapie and family)
• since the photo was taken on a public road

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.

l'article 226-1 CP dispose qu'"est puni d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45.000 euros d'amende le fait, au moyen d'un procédé quelconque," de porter atteinte volontairement à l'intimité de la vie privée d'autrui, en captant (parole) ou fixant (image), enregistrant ou transmettant, sans le consentement de la personne concernée, des paroles prononcées à titre privé ou confidentiel, ou l'image d'une personne se trouvant dans un lieu privé. Le consentement est présumé lorsque ces actes ont été accomplis au vu et au su de cette personne sans qu'elle s'y soit opposée.

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:

En d'autres termes, une image captée dans le cadre de la vie publique ne peut porter préjudice à quiconque.

and goes on to:

Le Code civil pose ensuite deux conditions : - il faut qu