Slashdot Mirror
Google's Street View Meets Resistance In France
Ian Lamont writes "Google has begun to scan the streets of Paris as part of its Street View service, but the company may be hindered from publishing them unedited. The reason? French privacy laws. Google may be forced to blur faces or use low-resolution versions of the photographs. The Embassy of France in the US has a page devoted to French privacy laws, that says the laws are needed to 'avoid infringing the individual's right to privacy and right to his or her picture (photograph or drawing), both of them rights of personality.'"
Or in this case, Paris. The law is the law, and Google need to respect the local laws. They do it in China, with their censored Google, so I can't imagine them putting up too much of a fight against French privacy laws.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
What exactly is illegal,
1. taking a picture in France
or
2. publishing it in France?
To avoid (1), take the picture from space.
To avoid (2), put the servers in the U.S.
If a Parisian is concerned their face may be seen, they should just baguette.
I've looked around for information before, but have never found any. Does anyone know how often people actually use the Street View for the purpose for which it was designed (i.e. non-voyeuristic purposes)?
Personally, I just don't see the overwhelming need for it. I've never really needed to see what a road or a street looks like before driving on it. The only case that springs to mind is for odd places way out in remote areas, where there the lay-out may be different... but that's exactly the sort of place that would never get put into the StreetView system anyway.
So, does anyone find StreetView genuinely useful enough to be worth all the privacy hassle?
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
" Google's Street View Meets Resistance in France"
...) to obey American laws on the American soil (e.g. Washington D.C.)
It is not resistance, it is the french law.
As a French citizen, I find the Slashdot title offensive.
Paris is the capital of a free sovereign country, France, which has its own Constitution and legal system, which is not the US ones!
The title implies that american law should prevail everywhere! No! France is not a US colony.
I am sure that most american (& french) citizens would expect French coorporations (e.g. Thales, Air Liquide,
Why should it be different for Google (an american coorporation) in France?
California has a similar law, Civil Code section 3344. This covers "publicity rights". Each person's "publicity right" in recognizable images of themself is by law worth at least $750, if used in any manner related to advertising or selling. If you're famous, the price goes up, to cover "actual damages".
So if you're in California and recognizable in Google StreetView, you could put in a claim. It's not worth it unless you're a major celebrity.
They lost in the French Nazi auction case, which established the precedent that even big American Internet companies have to abide by national laws. The excuse that the Internet is some sort of separate place, or that national laws have no clout in the Internet Age died right then and there, in 2000.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The online French Yellow Pages (http://www.pagesjaunes.fr) has a primitive streetview feature. Most of the pictures appear to be taken early in the morning when there are very few pedestrians, but it's still fairly common to see people in the background.
If this were true then it would be illegal to take a photograph in a public place in France with any people in it. Just considering professional photographers alone, that makes thousands of offenders a year.
There are over 5000 infringing photographs of people in France on Corbis if you search for 'crowd france'.
http://www.corbis.com/
"Among the technical solutions it is considering are blurring faces in images, which would require an enormous amount of image processing"
It's not like they just drop the photographs and they're ready to be used by the application, they already go through some sort of process to get the cylindrical effect, so adding some sort of face and text recognition and then blurring to the mix doesn't sound like a bad idea, and i guess that would make everyone happy.
why not add a part of a french in slashdot ?
take photographs at 2.am !
The trend, and the goal, is to be able to read more people, at greater distance. We don't know how far this technology can go, but some of the things already being tested are capable enough to give one pause. If you are not allowed to think unauthorized thoughts (to question the state; to remember a song without paying royalties), do you have a personality? Do you have free will? It seems to me that at that point, consciousness would be a curse.
Gene Wolfe wrote, I believe in Soldier of the Mist, that "A man without a sword is a slave." I would contend that today it's more relevant to say that a man without privacy is a prisoner; a man without private thoughts is a slave.
It's nice to know that some places still maintain the concept of a right to privacy.
"Sometimes just because something can be done does not mean it should be done."
That's what I think about the Google Street Maps. Personally, at least for me it would be a perfect tool (as I was born in NYC but haven't been back home in 9 years), so being able to plan a trip would be awesome. That being said, however a lot of people (perhaps rightly or wrongly) have deep fear and differing views of privacy, so we have to accomodate the "lowest common denominator" of the population; which for Google would be low-quality images and / or blurring of faces. It is too bad really, because its a faboulous tool, but there are ethical / moral questions that should be asked / evaluated first.
Regards,
MBC1977,
pagesjaunes (the french yellow pages site) already does streetview (and has done for about 4 or 5 years now).
Maybe it's because google isn't french...
How is that an interesting idea or even relevant? Taking pictures of a home or something is one thing, identifying who it belongs to is another. Google isn't giving you the ability to click on a home and get the details of whose inside. Nice job trying to instigate though. You get a C for effort.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
I don't think the article I mentioned is the best or most relevant report on that topic, but it is interesting to test the threshold of privacy. In fact it is very easy to connect information about a person with the picture from Google street map. E.g. in Germany you need to provide proper contact information on professional web site, including postal addresses. Install the right Firefox Plugin and you could see the picture of the house in Google maps.
Well, I do live in Paris, and I can tell you this law is not really enforced unless you explicitly ask for it. Several times, photographers (*professional* ones I mean) tried to take a photograph of my baby girl (a cute and smiling one, but I'm not neutral on that topic! ;-), without asking for authorization, of course. I had to ask them to stop that, which usually led to a verbal argument.
Google has been caught red-handed. Good. Next time they will hide their cameras and nobody will notice, except for the few usual whistleblowers.
The French are crazy when it comes to photography; it's the only place where I have ever experienced hostility towards street photography. For a country for which tourism is so important, that just seems stupid. The notion that your image is public when you're in a public location (barring a few exceptions) seems to be fine, but the French seem to assume that they can stroll along with their mistresses and be safe from accidental embarrassment.
My conclusion? Avoid France for tourism, and publish the pictures I took anyway. So sue me.
The french law simply says that people own their picture.
This means that in France a company has to ask people the right to use their photograph before publishing it. Google could photograph all streets in France in HiRes, but they have to ask the people that are recognizable on the photo the right to publish their photo. If Google blurs their face, there is no problem.
If you are making a Film in France you also have to ask the people that apear in the Film the right to use their image.
It is done to avoid having your picture used for things you disagree.
The funny part is: You can *take* the picture but you are not allowed to *publish* or *use commercially*. And that's not only people, that's everything someone has "created". Art, buildings, you name it.
(the standard model release for french models is significantly more detailed than the ones for all other states)
Or you can go to the address yourself and get even higher resolution pictures, sound and even smell.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
I think it's just another stupid headline pun based on the cliche of the French Resistance. Don't try to take it too literally.
What does this mean? Privacy is an illusion? Should we dismiss this old fashioned concept?
These laws are outdated as any law dealing with technology might become. We have cameras everywhere, and they will record things, and these things will be on the internet. Are you seriously going to hunt down every YouTube or Flickr picture that has your face in it? Or are you going to accept that just like people can *gasp* walk down the street and *SEE YOU*, well, the street (or people's vision) just got bigger. You can see everyone in the world, everyone can see you, and you know what? It's not such a big deal.
Well said! After all, those are all like totally the same as public streets.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A people, paranoid about getting their picture taken without their consent; perhaps, more importantly, taken in the wrong light without make-up: then I remembered, this is France we're talking about :)
Always look beneath the surface at the laws of a nation.
The law is the law, and Google need to respect the local laws.
Yes, but that may not mean what you think it means.
French laws apparently are restrictions on publishing, not taking, pictures. So, Google can legally take those pictures, and legally take them out of French jurisdiction. And since they are not subject to French laws in the US, they can publish them in the US unedited. Google would seem to be in full compliance with all local laws at all times.
They do it in China, with their censored Google, so I can't imagine them putting up too much of a fight against French privacy laws.
Yes, and by that analogy, Google can censor French content for French viewers going to French Google servers, and everybody else can presumably see the uncensored images.
Of course, I expect Google to back down on this and censor French pictures globally, but I don't think they have any particular legal obligation to do that.
It's a matter of common decency, not just law. I hate it when people talk as though the law is the only thing we should pay any attention to.
In many countries, I have a legal right to take your picture if you are in a public place, and I also have the right to publish your picture, even against your consent (with some well-defined exceptions, like I can't maliciously and for no reason embarrass you).
I will defend that right. And even in countries where the law may attempt to restrict that right, I may deliberately ignore that law if I think it is the right thing to do, because the freedom to record and document public life and public events is one of the essential freedoms in a democracy.
What really amazes me is that yesterday people were arguing that people on a public street had no right to expect privacy from cameras.
Before people jump all over me about the diffences, yes, I realize that this is apples-to-oranges. There are lots of differences in how and why the laws are written, and a big difference between law enforcement cameras (presumably not for public distribution or corporate profit), and Google cameras, etc etc etc.
What surprises me is that two societies with such close physical, economic, historic (+/- ad infinitum) ties have such radically different expectations of control over personal images taken in public.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
You have no expectation of privacy in public.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Didn't help Princess Diana when Romuald Rat & company chased her down and killed her. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3702288.ece
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I think the point is another one. Privacy is never perfect - we have to find a compromise. Even if someone pees in an public place, you shouldn't put a picture of his penis on 500 different web sites.
You missed the point of the OP : Compare the following Example of title for the article :
* Google's Street View Meets Resistance In France
Now compare to :
* Google's Street View expected to respect french privacy law for french streets
Just like you can influence the response of a person to a question by formulating it in a way or another, I have started to expect that all title of article in slashdot or skewed to force a knee jerk reaction, like yellow newspaper. It is not really patriotic chest beating, but IMHO it does point out that the article title is indeed made to induce the same reaction as the OP had.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Does this mean that in France one can't take candid street photographs as one can in the US, and publish such photos? As an amateur photographer I was pleased to read in the NYT not long ago about a man wining a case against a Rabbi objecting to his portrait (taken in a manhattan street) being shown at a photo exhibition...and tho i usually favor privacy laws, there was something i liked about the freedom to photograph public spaces and the people within it i found acceptable - particularly for artistic purposes. Is the distinction in France particularly because of the intended purpose not being for art but for a form of commerce? Is there a similar distinction in US law?
-F-
VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I actually can and do speak French, moron mods. Perhaps my comment was perceived as "insensitive".
They just have to follow the sames rules used by http://www.pagesjaunes.fr/villeendirect/photo/AfficherPageAccueilPhotosVilles.do which are showing most of big cities streets with a better resolution than Streetview.
have you been defaced today?
It must be comfy under that rock you've been living under! The issue is with Google's "Street View", which is achieved by people driving around the streets with cameras, taking street-level photos of buildings and houses.
If they were photographing inside people's homes that would be one thing. But the streets are called public places for a reason. One of us doesn't understand the right to privacy, but I don't it's me. And no, I don't respect people's obsession with their appearance.
Seriously, cut the bullshit.
Hey, that's the first time I've ever been moderated as Flamebait. And I wasn't even trying!
at least the French resist to something... http://www.english4france.com/NEWS/Google-Street-View-Meets-Resistance-In-France