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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
No here is the item:
2. By taking, recording or transmitting, without his or her consent, the picture of a person who is in a private place.
When you take pictures on the street of somebody in a window of their house that is considered private. Google does that and hence is violating the law.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"