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."

Comments

Same here.

[WK2]

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.

Re:Same here.

[martin-boundary]

Google just doesn't care.

What this really reminds us of is that meatspace is fundamentally different from cyberspace. On the net, we've evolved the ROBOTS.TXT for just this problem, and everybody agrees that websites aren't private by default, unless the owners explicitly say so. Google is a net company, and views the world as if it was an extension of the internet.

But the real world is not like the net, and in the real world the ROBOTS.TXT convention is inverted: the onus is not on the people to inform Google which data is out of bounds, instead the onus is on Google to ask every possible person which data is public. As a result, Google's company culture is fundamentally ill suited for meatspace information gathering.

The streetview example is only one of a long line of self inflicted troubles Google has brought upon itself. Here are some other examples:

When Google started scanning books and offering them online, it was behaving like a net company, assuming that if it went to a library, everything was available to them unless specifically prohibited, just like on a website. But the real world doesn't work like the web, and Google got sued by publishers. The correct approach was to ask the publishers for permission, for each and every book.

When Google started offering news stories written by others online, it was behaving like a net company, assuming that if it's on somebody's website, they can use it unless the ROBOTS.TXT says otherwise. But in the real world, those websites were only licensed to display syndicated news stories from the big organizations (Reuters, AP, AFP,...), and Google got rightly sued. The correct approach was for Google to license the material from Reuters, AP, AFP etc. themselves, before showing the material to their users.

When Google stated that Gmail wouldn't necessarily delete peoples' emails even if they shut their accounts, they got in trouble. In the real world, emails are considered private by most people, and just because they use Google's service doesn't mean they want Google to keep everything.

These examples show that Google's netroots are both an advantage (when competing in net technologies) and also a disadvantage (when trying to enter markets where the internet rules don't map well to reality). The world is more complex than what Google's management thinks.

Re:Same here.

[EdIII]

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.

Re:Same here.

[Dachannien]

On the net, we've evolved the ROBOTS.TXT for just this problem

I've found that the CURTAINS.TXT convention works pretty well in meatspace.

Re:Same here.

[cyborch]

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.

I thought Taboos applied to people not things.

[im_thatoneguy]

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

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.

You can't claim "the photo made you look". It's like child pornography. The fact that it exists does not force you to go download it. If you find it impolite to look at people's houses... don't look at people's houses. I'm going to let those who find the images offensive in on a little secret: nothing is stopping some insensitive smeghead from just driving down your street and staring at your house.

My view on all this? The Googmobile drove past work this last week and I hung out the window and waved.

Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things.

[Anonymous Coward]

And Google is not run by people?

Of course Google isn't run by people. The company reached singularity years ago.

In Soviet Russia, and more

[caywen]

In Soviet Russia, the street views YOU. Seriously though, I completely agree with this letter. My wife is Japanese and has been living here in the Bay Area for 5 years. She's pretty accustomed to American life, but as soon as I showed the Street View Japan, she went silent and then said something like, "No. no no no, this is bad. Not in Japan. No way." And her friends feel exactly the same way. It really is a cultural difference, and Google really is asking for a world of hurt here. What is astounding is that they pretty much did *all* of Tokyo. Look at how much of that map is blue. Did it occur to them to try it out in a small area to see how the Japanese would react? To me, this reeks of extreme hubris on Google's part.

Re:You conveniently ommitting...

[martin-boundary]

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

There, I fixed it for ya.

Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does it

[bug]

Since when are the Japanese sensitive about photographing private residential areas!?

I live in the Weststadt residential neighborhood of Heidelberg, Germany. Heidelberg is a beautiful city, and sees many tourists. For some reason, the Japanese tour groups frequently travel down my street. Also, for some reason, many of the older Japanese tourists frequently take pictures of me doing such mundane things as bringing home groceries. I find it amusing that I am probably in several dozen Japanese photo albums, probably entitled "typical German going to the grocery store." I find it especially amusing, because I am an expatriate American, not a German.

In any case, is it typical for the Japanese to consider their own residential neighborhood private, but everyone else's to be public?

Re:After living there...

[kestasjk]

No! You are outraged and disgusted!

Re:Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does

[alexborges]

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.

The land of the free (as in beer).

[arth1]

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

Being an American who originally came from Europe, I "STRONGLY" disagree.

Here in the US, people never ask permission before taking a picture that you might be on, for example. If you're in the public, you're expected to suck it up. If you don't want your picture taken, you have to stay at home.

Then there's newspapers publishing the name and pictures of crime suspects. Which quite often costs people their job and friends -- even if they are later found "not guilty". In other countries, where privacy is valued higher, this is a big NO.

Then there are the ubiquitous closed circuit cameras in pretty much every store. Even in the goddarn dressing rooms!

Oh, and try to rent a hotel room with cash, without showing a driver's license. Nope, they want your private information, so they can sell it to the highest bidder. Cause there are no privacy rights.

And let me not get started on direct advertising. Wonder why you get all the ads in your own name? Because everyone you trade with will happily sell your personal details. Not only name and address, but what you've been buying or which services you've used, so you can get targeted for maximum effect. Take your dog to the vet, and a month later, you get ads for dog food dumping into your mail box. Subscribe to a magazine, and you suddenly get eight different catalogs in the mail with the same misspelling as the magazine.

Here in the US, privacy is a commodity, not a right. I can think of few, if any countries I have lived in that had less privacy rights. Certainly not any of the European countries.