Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google May Blur Canadian Faces and License Plates

Posted by kdawson on from the blur-me-blur-me dept.

KingK writes "Reuters reports that Google is considering a Canadian launch of its Street View map feature, which offers street-level close-ups of city centers. But the company said it would probably blur people's faces and vehicle license plates to respect tougher Canadian privacy laws."

16 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Draw attention. by eggman9713 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, now I have to go find some other way to draw attnetion to myself. *Logs into Facebook*

  2. Wow! by the+roAm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now I'm even more glad that I'm moving to Canada -- after seeing this story I looked up a bunch of stuff and apparently Canada has some of the best privacy laws in the world.

    --
    ~The roAm
    1. Re:Wow! by aliquis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You aren't allowed to publish photos of people who can be identified on the web without their permission in Sweden either. Why don't they just take 3 or more photos at the same place with some time inbetween and remove the parts "which has changed" between the shoots?

    2. Re:Wow! by Metasquares · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was waiting for someone to say that.

      Hopefully without breaking the NDA, I should mention that people at Google looked at me strangely when I suggested that they blur faces on street view. They couldn't understand why the privacy implications of such a service are a problem, as what they are doing is technically legal in the USA. However, when people are posting images of random people picking their noses or something on Digg for millions to gawk at (and such things have appeared even on the Digg front page from time to time), there's a problem - it can ruin someone's reputation for a rather stupid reason if the person is identified. To me, that's evil. To them, fixing it should be the cautious thing to do so they don't get sued (weren't they already involved in a lawsuit for this?), even if it happens to jive with their morals.

      I don't know if the "don't be evil" thing is practiced as rigorously by the individual employees there as the company would like you to believe. Creating nifty things seems to win out over most moral considerations; at least, this was the impression I got while I was there. Nifty things are good, but people should think about how their technology is going to be used rather than just what they could make.

    3. Re:Wow! by seaturnip · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Reminds me of this passage from the Unabomber manifesto:

      131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.
  3. FUCK YOU! YOU DAMN COMMIE! GET OUT OF USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You are the kind of people Joseph McCarthy hates most. You fucking grow up in America and then betray us and go to live in commie-socialist Canada! NEVER COME BACK!

    VOTE GEORGE W. BUSH in 2008!

    Write in the man!

  4. Why not do the same in the U.S.? by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they have the technology, why wouldn't they do the same across the board? It's not as though there's added value in seeing someone's face or license plate. The article doesn't mention anything about this.

    1. Re:Why not do the same in the U.S.? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A more important question is why doesn't the US have these laws?

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    2. Re:Why not do the same in the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why doesn't the US have these laws? Are you kidding? Why would it?

      Everybody knows that the US is one of those countries where you have to vote for either wing of the governing two-wing status-quo-conserving party if you want your vote to count, and where the government has a security police that can take away your rights at the flip of a hat if they decide to consider you a threat.

      Why would the US suddenly have strong privacy rights? How would that facilitate the work of the government's security police?

      Of course in the US these things are sugar-coated in somewhat different ways than in other countries that have similar arrangements. In the US the terminology is emotionally charged in ways that will appeal specifically to the American temperament. So the government's security police is called Department of Homeland Security, and the suspicions that take away your right will invariably mention Terrorism.

      But that's just sugar-coating over the same old ugly mess.
  5. That and toplessness.... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not only that, decent privacy laws, but in the province of Ontario women are allowed to go topless in public. Pitty it is soo cold that no one really does.....

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
  6. Canada does America better. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America is dead. Nothing to see here. Vote for either party, buy a big mac cause all is well. You need not worry, the US government is taking care of everything for you.

    1. Re:Canada does America better. by bendodge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, vote for Ron Paul!

      --
      The government can't save you.
  7. How? by c · · Score: 4, Funny

    License plates shouldn't be a problem, but how does the algorithm know Canadians from non-Canadians?

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:How? by jagdish · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Last night, I cashed my pogey and went to buy a mickey of C.C. at the beer parlour, but my skidoo got stuck in the muskeg on my way back to the duplex. I was trying to deke out a deer, you see. Damn chinook, melted everything. And then a Mountie snuck up behind me in a ghost car and gave me an impaired. I was S.O.L., sitting there dressed only in my Stanfields and a toque at the time. And the Mountie, he's all chippy and everything, calling me a shit disturber and what not. What could I say, except, 'Chimo!'"

  8. Vacation pictures? by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So my vacation pictures from our visit to Canada that I posted on my web site are somehow illegal? Public photos of public spaces. Everyone could see those faces and license plates when the pictures were taken - how is this a privacy issue? When you can't make sense of laws anymore, everyone is a criminal.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  9. I just want to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw a Canadian once. I can, er, understand why they don't like to be photographed...