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
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?"
Yeah, it's a cool thing to be able to browse the streets of a city in 3D, but honestly, who wants their faces, car plates, etc. published for all to see? Not everybody. And until it's everybody then we should assume nobody except with express consent.
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.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
So if you break US IP law in a country like say, Australia, you can be extradited and shipped for trial/prosecution in the US. But you have no problem with breaking French law by placing the servers inside the US?
IE - USA! USA! USA! We'll do whatever we want, only when it suits us.
Those days are over, mon ami.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
" 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.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
exactly. we Frenchmen have seen the pictures of Americans taking a piss in these Google pictures. According to French law, a citizen owns the right to control how his/her image is used. Don't mind us if we have respect for ourselves.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
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.
Temporarily blocking streets sounds like a plausible solution, but it is at best a difficult one; one blocked street (in a mess of narrow one-way streets) can wreak havoc for circulation, and (street-blocking) deliveries often continue until 9:00 am - when the heavy 'to-work' traffic starts.
The best solution is to run the project, using as many cameras/cars possible, during the month of August - this town is dead then. Save of course for the 'touristy' areas - whose numbers (especially during that month) count a majority of foriegners.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
I don't understand this French law thing. Let me see if I can get it straight...
If I'm walking down a public street in Paris, I assume I'm allowed to look at other people, and be looked at by other people. If I have a camera with me I assume I'm allowed to take pictures, as I do not, and no one else, has any expectation of privacy. You're on a public street.
Now if I publish those photos, given that any person viewing the images could have just as well been there at the scene at the time I took the images and seen it for themselves without violating anyone's privacy, I assume that there's no violation of privacy there either.
Thus we find ourselves in Google's situation. So what is the privacy problem here?
If they were to pick a person at random and use that person in advertising in a way that made it seem the person was endorsing something, then that shouldn't really be allowed unless the person actually does endorse the product and agreed to be represented as such. But that's not happening here.
If the person had some reasonable expectation of privacy, such as walking around a gym locker room in the buff, or in a public restroom, or in their own home or on private property not viewable from a public area, that would be different. Doesn't seem like that's happening here either.
Where is the big ethical problem here? I just don't see it.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
You don't actually have permission to take photos of any faces in public. It's the same law in other countries. People have to consent to having their picture taken. Of course there is spillage and people unwittingly enter millions of tourist happy-snaps.
But if I take photos with identifiable faces and publish them on my blog or website or whatever, the people who own the faces can claim offense if I didn't ask them first.
Where is the big ethical problem here? I just don't see it.The big ethical problem is that if there aren't these controls on how your photo/voice/identity is used, then people get exploited.
In many countries, you are not even permitted to photograph the front lawn of someone's private residence, even though it is the 'public face' of his home. Not everybody wants their stuff photographed, thank you very much.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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.
You know, people's rights to their image do not only exist in France.
Don't you remember the Australian Virgin mobile fiasco ? They had taken pictures from Flickr under the Creative Common license for their advertising campaign. So far, so good. However, they did not have the consent of the people on the pictures.
Now, the family of the girl on the picture got a little wild and sued both Virgin and Creative Commons. The latter case has been dropped, but I believe the former is still ongoing.
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."
In most countries, it is legal to take and sell photos of people without their consent in a public place - otherwise it would be practically impossible to take pictures anywhere. What you're not allowed to do is to sell them for use in advertising, to endorse products or services etc. without the consent of the people involved (model release).
I'm not aware of the specific laws in France, it just seems to me that these picture agencies would have thoroughly investigated that before selling pictures of people taken in France. It seems particularly absurd to pic on google in this case, given all the other examples of public photography available. However the rules as quoted in the summary would outlaw tourists taking any pictures too - that seems unlikely in the extreme.
Since the google pics are not used to advertise a product or service (the people are in fact really incidental), they should be safe.
The case you're talking about took and used a photo for advertising, to endorse a product, and hence was illegal.
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.
You're also wrong in the UK, the US, Australia and most other countries I can think of, unless by 'claim offence' you mean they can claim they were offended rather than seek legal remedy. What sources exactly have you based your opinion on?
Here's a few of links explaining the situation in the UK, Australia and US for photography of people in public places :
UK
US
Australia
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.
Did you read the UK one?
There is also a fair possibility that photographs of people may be subject to the Data Protection Act, which controls the âoeprocessingâ of âoepersonal dataâ, that is, data relating to an individual from which the individual can be identiïed. The deïnitions of these terms are complex, but taking a photograph of a recognisable person would appear to ït within them. The Act contains an exception for processing undertaken with a view to publication of any journalistic or artistic material, and much photography will probably be protected by this exception, but obtaining a model release puts the issue beyond doubt.
So Google would likely do the same in the UK as they're doing in Paris.
Using a telephoto lens to take a photo of
someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is probably an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.
I think taking a photo from the street through a window and putting it on the Internet is an invasion of privacy too, I think it would be easy to argue this in court and win if it came to it.
I don't think I'm an egomaniac, but I was thrilled when I saw myself on street view. The excavator I was having unloaded even stopped them from imaging most of the street! I don't know why, but it's exciting.
I didn't notice the car go by at the time.
Dear Google, If you ever set foot in France, you will be arrested. Regards, the French Republic
What does this mean? Privacy is an illusion? Should we dismiss this old fashioned concept?
Respect for other people will never be an outdated concept.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
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 don't actually have permission to take photos of any faces in public.
Bullshit.
The big ethical problem is that if there aren't these controls on how your photo/voice/identity is used, then people get exploited.
The only "ethical problem" is if nitwits want to restrict the public's right to document public events in public places. That's a threat to our democracy, not because people are desperate to document your bad hair day or lack of style, but because those restrictions could be used by individuals and corporations to prevent the release of embarrassing but information of public interest on them.
In many countries, you are not even permitted to photograph the front lawn of someone's private residence, even though it is the 'public face' of his home.
Well, that may be the case in North Korea, but I can't think of any democracies where that's the case.
Not everybody wants their stuff photographed, thank you very much.
If you are in a public place in a country that doesn't specifically prohibit it, you're fair game to be photographed and published on the web; I don't give a damn if you want to or not. And if there is a compelling interest to photograph you, I'll do so even in countries where there are laws against it.