Slashdot Mirror


Google's Streetview Seen As Culturally Insensitive In Japan

Jim O'Connell writes "Global Voices has a translation of an excellent open letter to Google by Osamu Higuchi, explaining that Street view is too invasive for Japanese traditional values when used in residential areas. Having lived here for ten years, most recently in an older residential area, I can attest to its accuracy — Living in such close proximity to your neighbors, it becomes necessary to 'not look' at everything that you might be able see from a place such as the street, where you may have a legal right to be. The cultural boundaries are simply different than those of the US."

16 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Same here. by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cultural boundaries are simply different than those of the US.

    It's that way here in the U.S. too. It is impolite to take photos in people's windows. Google just doesn't care.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Same here. by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. A total bullshit statement, pardon my french. It is not that Google does not care either. It is a pervasive campaign by government and corporations to remove all expectations of privacy from anywhere EXCEPT private property that is literally 100% covered from view. Google is not supposed to "be evil". Yeah right. I'll believe that when they stop keeping logs well past 12 months. I don't mean to bash specifically on Google or anything, but they don't seem to have a stellar track record with respect to consumer's rights and expectations of privacy.

      That kind of behavior is not remotely consistent with our cultural values. Our cultural values are diverse as well, as we are a nation of immigrants. I don't know a single person that is comfortable being on a security camera while in their backyard or even in the front yard. It's just not acceptable.

      Obviously where the US and Japan differ, is that the Japanese still strongly fight for their expectations of privacy or "cultural values" while in the US there is a sense of apathy and hopelessness. Those that would dare to speak up and passionately fight for anonymity, privacy, and just plain decent respect for other people's boundaries get labeled as subversive, unpatriotic, fanatical, and paranoid.

      For the RECORD, I would have to say that AMERICAN VALUES (which anybody can have regardless of nationality, race, gender, etc.) is STRONGLY supportive of both privacy and anonymity. We like to to be free, and do exactly what we want when we want it, within reason of course. We don't believe that we should have to walk around in public or private identifying ourselves to anyone that asks, especially when we are just minding our own business. If someone is watching us, then we want to know who it is. There is a lot more too it, but it is not even remotely close to how I personally feel.

      I guess I just resent the implication since it makes it sound like we are a totalitarian fascist country devoid of any of the freedoms we once cherished, fought, and died to protect. I guess I resent more that maybe, it is in fact, a correct assessment and that we ended up exporting all of our freedom and democracy while losing it all.

    2. Re:Same here. by cyborch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Culture vs. law.... If it isn't illegal than that culture should have passed laws to protect itself

      Not all countries are like America. Some other countries don't make a habit of sueing each other, but would prefer more civilized approaches. Like, for instance writing a letter and asking them to respect local culture.

    3. Re:Same here. by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am continually amazed by the fact that so many people fail to see a significant difference between any individual (you, me, a cop) taking photos or video in a public place, and a company like Google taking photos across cities and permanently posting those photos on a publicly available website.

      There is a reasonable expectation that individuals, even police, are not going to be driving around entire cities continually taking photos and posting them permanently online. Our current laws and behavior are based on that expectation.

      The fact is, Google's Street View is doing something very different than what you are talking about, and on a much larger scale. While it may not be illegal (and who knows, state laws probably vary as to whether it is or not), it's certainly novel and unexpected, and it's not at all unreasonable for people to wonder if it's appropriate.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  2. Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know that what google is doing is taboo seeing as they are a technology in this case not a person.

    And Google is not run by people?

  3. No addresses in Japan. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a country like Japan that doesn't use "addresses" Streetview is a god send.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  4. Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the people at Google were reviewing the images then yes it would be 'run by people'. But I imagine the process is almost completely automated by this point. The invasion of privacy is to look at someone's house. Not the camera capturing the image.

    It's a question of ethics. A camera cannot commit an immoral act. Only a photographer can. Google's web crawler cannot be charged with child pornography possession if it simply indexes a page containing child pornography. Google's street view is nothing more than an automated tool which captures data.

    It only becomes a question of morality when someone chooses to view those images. Morality can only be tied into intent. If you view child pornography on accident then you have not commited an immoral act. If you intend to view child pornography and you view it then you've committed an immoral act.

  5. You conveniently ommitting... by Rix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that Google won those suits, for the most part.

  6. Real estate by NewToNix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well Japan may not like Street View, and maybe some people here in the U.S. don't like it either.

    But I'm currently looking for a new (well new to me) house to buy --and where I need to move to is several hundred miles from where I live now.

    Google Street View has been a godsend for me --I can get a easy idea of the neighborhood and usually the property it's self --for free, from home.

    So, as usual, any new use of technology has upsides as well as downsides... and who ever I buy the house from will be very happy about my use of Street view. (eventually I will have to go and take a physical look, but my list of places to look at will be vastly shorter because of S.V.)

  7. Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's taboo to spy on your neighbors then don't use Google's street view. Or at the very least keep the view centered on the road.

    Ah, yes, always push responsibility away, isn't it? Don't you feel this clashes with all the fine words about privacy that we always hear so much about on Slashdot? Or is privacy only important when you hide your own lurid little affair from the view of the authorities? If privacy is all-important, then it is important even to people you don't care about.

  8. Re:Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Every time I have visited China I have been practically assaulted by Japanese tourists. They not only photo me. They try and touch my hair and start posing in front of me etc etc etc. Needless to say this was unappreciated.

    My aunt lives in Hawaii and japanese tourists are amazed by the size of her feet. She's been lieing on the beach and had Japanese tourists come up and lay down right next to her and have their pictures taken by their family with their feet right next to hers for comparison.

    It's been my conclusion that any view of privacy on the part of the Japanese is strictly limited to the island of Japan. Which I've never had a problem with from a priacy standpoint--just a personal intrusion. I don't care if I'm in a photo. I do care that I'm being prevented from going about my business by someone standing in my way trying to pose in front of me. Or touching me. They can touch my blonde hair photos on the internet all they want as long as I don't have to be there while you do it.

  9. Re:Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does by alexborges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The japaneese take pictures of sidewalks.... they have this love for the cammera that i will never understand.

    However, dont get them wrong: its completely harmless and they dont go publizicing them all over.

    On the other hand, google is selling your life for profit: there is a difference there.

    --
    NO SIG
  10. Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. by janrinok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the Japanese people are about to discover is that their expectation of privacy was ALREADY too high.

    And who gave you the right to decide how each country and culture should think? You might not agree with the Japanese view - tough luck, just don't choose to live there. But you have not got the right to tell others that they are wrong simply because it is not in accord with your own personal view or it isn't the view adopted by your own country.

    Are you honestly suggesting that Google should be censoring content it indexes based on "morality" and not legality?

    No, but Google shouldn't be conducting itself in a manner which local custom and culture say is unacceptable. If Google doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. I'm sure that there are huge expanses of the USA which haven't been photographed yet. Why not concentrate on their home ground and then, if other nation's decide that it is a good idea - and perhaps there is money to be made - they can invite Google to do the same in their country.

    By the way, has Google tried doing this in some parts of Russia yet? There are areas occupied by the 'nouveau riche' where they will be lucky to leave alive. Ditto, there are areas in China and N Korea I believe where they will not be welcomed. You see, I don't think that they will operate in such places with the same degree of freedom as they expect in some other places, because those nations deem it unacceptable behaviour.

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  11. Re:The land of the free (as in beer). by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mention a lot of problems, yet also don't mention any Americans that you KNOW that actually AGREE with what is taking place.

    There is a BIG difference between what is actually happening in the US and what the average American is actually comfortable with. Bush does not have an approx. 30% approval rating for no reason.

    I don't know a single person that is comfortable with the examples you gave. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Everybody I have ever had a conversation with, in person, is as outraged and disturbed as you are by the erosion of privacy.

    The real problem is one of representation. The average US Citizen has NO REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. I would state 100,000% that ONLY companies and various organizations get represented in US government today. There is NO VOICE for privacy rights, anonymity, and freedom anymore. It is just one long continuation of arguments and supporting events (which some claim are manufactured) to progressively remove all rights to privacy of any kind. RIGHT DOWN TO YOUR DNA. If they really can read thoughts in a decade or two, I would not even be surprised if that loses it's privacy too.

    So I REALLY understand your point, but please UNDERSTAND MINE. The America you are talking about is not one that was created by the people. It was created over the protest of Americans every single step of the way.

  12. Re:I LOVE Google Streetview! by WNight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bull. Not only did that letter from the Japanese guy sound just like the letters many Americans have written re Streetview, thus negating the whole "it's another culture" argument, but it's an objectively wrong stance and catering to it is harmful.

    Reality. People need to cope with it. They're visible. If they're doing something interesting their neighbors are already taking pictures, they just aren't (yet) sharing them in an easily indexable way.

    If you complain about this you'll go on acting like you have privacy until it becomes painfully obvious that you don't. If you suck it up and act now, regardless of your cultural preference, as if you do not have privacy where you do not (publicly visible areas) you will not get a rude awakening.

    Banning Google's Streetview would prevent people from seeing the area, but would not prevent an enemy of yours from placing a perfectly legal webcam and watching you specifically, or sharing this data - it would merely prevent all the other uses.

    Don't feed the concern trolls.

  13. Re:Japan respects privacy??? by ex-geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They couldn't care less if gaijin (foreigners) get fingerprinted and photographed when they enter Japan. (The only Japanese who ever get fingerprinted are criminals)

    Oh, you mean like the way the visitors to the USA are treated?