Slashdot Mirror
Greece Halts Google's Street View
Hugh Pickens writes "Greece's Data Protection Authority, which has broad powers of enforcement for Greece's strict privacy laws, has banned Google from gathering detailed, street-level images in Greece for a planned expansion of its Street View mapping service, until the company provides clarification on how it will store and process the original images and safeguard them from privacy abuses. The decision comes despite Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle license plates when displaying the images online and that it would promptly respond to removal requests. In most cases, particularly in the US, Google has been able to proceed on grounds that the images it takes are no different from what someone walking down a public street can see and snap. And last month, Britain's privacy watchdog dismissed concerns that Street View was too invasive, saying it was satisfied with such safeguards as obscuring individuals' faces and car license plates. The World Privacy Forum, a US-based nonprofit research and advisory group, said the Greek decision could raise the standard for other countries and help challenge that argument. 'It only takes one country to express a dissenting opinion,' says Pam Dixon, the group's executive director. 'If Greece gets better privacy than the rest of the world then we can demand it for ourselves. That's why it's very important.'"
I to love how people have no problem with police videotaping you/preventing you from videotaping with an excuse of terrorism just to cover their asses while everyone panics over a google streetview of a public area.
Don't the cars have big masts on them for the camera? They see into places you can't see walking down the street.
If you outlaw street-level imagery, only outlaws will have street-level imagery. Security through obscurity never works. Don't do things in public if you don't want people to see them. If you want to keep people off your driveway, install a gate. Close your fucking curtains! It's already safest to assume that everyone has a camera, because practically everyone does.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Greek Tourists Now Prohibited From Taking Photos In Public Places!
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Yeah, let's ban the satellite photos too. They're clearly an invasion of our privacy.
Also, documentary filmmakers should never be allowed to shoot in public. Why, they don't even have to blur faces!
Is anyone surprised Britain is ok with it? They've apparently been desensitized.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Which would you prefer, a world in which you know you'll never stumble upon a picture of your home or car or face on the internet because your privacy is so secure or a world in which it is illegal for you to take a photo outdoors because you may have someone's home, car, or face in the frame and thus be breaking privacy laws? That's an important question for you to ask yourself before you take a stance on this issue...
too many don't have a problem with THEIR government doing it.
Of course I have a problem with it, but I was born and raised in the United States and frankly trust Google (or other corporation) more than I trust the Government. Considering my government's willingness to spend me and my children into debt for the foreseeable future I doubt that my view will change.
Throw in the fact that far too many people think they have much more privacy than they truly do... totally forgetting how much information not using cash for transactions provides other people
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I really am bemused by the extreme ranges of responses to this story. It seems that there is only either end of the spectrum - "Yay, for Greek Government for protecting our privacy" to "I trust Google more than I trust any government" - and almost no middle ground. Have we really become that fractured and that single-minded about things?
Neil
It's nice that we have laws governing things like this, and that we can take companies to court when we believe that they have broken them. Supposedly government can be taken to court as well. However, it's rare that anything ever comes from it. When a company is wrong, they get punished. When the government is wrong, the law is amended to make them right. In the odd case where the government can't get the laws amended, they simply continue doing what they were doing before, it's just that they don't tell anyone. Not that they were telling anyone to begin with, but that's the government for you.
Move sig!
Years ago I built a panoramic, stereographic photography system (spaceshot) and also did a great deal of work with rendering and measuring spaces using stereo images. This leads me to the following theory, which, if Google are NOT doing what I describe here would be pretty damn surprising. J from: http://jerrykew.blogspot.com/ If you have a perfect spherical photo of a city, taken at equidistant intervals, then you have the necessary information (think stereo images) to reverse engineer the 3D form of the city. Google will build a virtual version of every city, and we will click on objects in that 'space' to go to sites. PPC ads will follow in the space, and thus their investment in Google Maps, Earth, Sketchup and Streetview will deliver their returns. I am sure they will be playing with it now in their labs.
This is Greece we're talking about. Google just hasn't bribed the right person yet. This is just part of the procedure to extract money from foreign nationals.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The Greeks just misunderstood the driver of the Google van! He said he was going to sneak some trojans inside the van and the Greeks feared that the Trojans' time for revenge had come!
Maybe Greese doesn't want to be known for more google flashers like this guy...(NSFW) http://media.googlesightseeing.com/2009/5/ajdt209.jpg or possibly they don't want to be caught going to strip clubs like this guy.. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=cheaters&near=Providence,+RI&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=41.838618,-71.402206&spn=0.061005,0.116386&z=13&om=0&cbll=41.807434,-71.403703&cbp=1,567.3164656162561,,0,0.7974551423761682 and just for fun here are some other odd sightings... http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/
DPA said it wanted clarification from the U.S. Internet company on how it will store and process the original images and safeguard them from privacy abuses
despite
Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle license plates when displaying the images online.
The question is then, does Google store the images with faces and license plates blurred, or that's just post-processing for online display?
Google's statement definitely tends to point at the latter. And I could see a few problems there.
The Greeks would seem to be specifically asking about how the __original__ images are to be handled, not just how the images which eventually make onto the service will be presented. 2 different things.
A secret video may be taking a shot of your wife bending over in her short summer dress.
On the internet, you can see that shot and get it removed.
Didn't you know that CCTV in US Malls were monitored and they found many of those cameras had been tuned to follow the good looking women rather than watch the store.
Also, if you're a paedo, would it be better to hide a camera on your person to take photos from a distance of kids playing in the schoolyard, where you may still be found out, or to be esconsed in a closed monitoring booth with CCTV cameras outside a school, monitoring the public places?
And how many times have the police said "We cannot find the tape" when the tape would have caught them in an illegal act, but oddly seem to find it when it catches someone in the same manner?
If the output were public, you would KNOW what the police are watching. You would KNOW what they look at. And knowing we are watching them will keep them honest.
While Ms Dixon states it almost as a pre-established fact, I'm not sure one can assert "It only takes one country to express a dissenting opinion".
North Korea, China, Iran...there are a quick handful of countries who would quite clearly 'dissent', yet I don't see case law being formulated to accommodate their views.
The whole "right" to privacy is a vague and questionable concept anyway. Clearly it doesn't apply where lawbreaking is concerned (not many people are murdered in public; ergo someone's privacy must be violated to apprehend the murderer).
So what is the much-bandied "right to privacy"? It was really a concept INVENTED in the late 19th century by Judge Brandeis, before he was a USSC judge. As far as I can tell (and Wiki seems to back me up on this), there are 4 basic precepts:
1. the protection of one's identity as unique
2. protection from defamation
3. protection of one's private facts
4. protecting someone's ability to be left alone
NONE of these are articulated in the US Constitution, and in fact #4 may be directly contrary to some basic concepts of modern civilization - for example the idea that the law is pervasive and applies to everyone, it doesn't stop at your threshold.
So where does this come from? IMO it's a natural reaction to the increasing pervasiveness of state power, and not unjustified. But let's be clear: the assertion that it's a "right" is not established in law or custom.
-Styopa
Maybe it is for the children.
Dear Google, people go to Athens to see the Parthenon which is on top of the Acropolis, has no roads to it, and not visible from street level.
If you can't go on holiday. There are many books and sites that are much better.
Maybe they fear Google, wherever or not Google brings presents.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When Google alleges that what they show is no different from what could be seen by a person walking down the street, they miss the point. That hypothetical viewer is also part of the scenery...and can be seen. For example, someone lurking in the area of a women's shelter would run the risk of being noticed and identified. Google allows such a person to stalk their victim safely and securely, and merely blurring faces and license plates wouldn't prevent an abuser from identifying their victim with ease.
Privacy is easy to lose, and almost impossible to get back.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Our government tell us that we can have cameras anywhere we like - look the british.
Our banks can take photos of our eyes.
Football teams have surveillance.
C4I is spying on us since 2004.
Is google going to be our big brother?
Welcome all to Greece and do anything you like - naked or not.
The anonymous coward
The decision comes despite Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle license plates when displaying the images online and that it would promptly respond to removal requests.
So while I can go to my house and request that google blur the license plate of my car in my driveway. How else do I find my license plate in the pictures that are not of my driveway? Do I have to now check out ALL of the various gas stations, supermarkets, parking lots etc... that my car could have been photographed? What about all the highways and streets that I've driven?
It seems that google is saying in the above quote, "If you can find something you don't like, then we'll blur it.
It's very possible (how ever probably) that someone could be convicted (or proven innocent) because their license plate was in various street view maps.
While I do like streetview because it allows me to see what a give store/location actually looks like before I drive there. It also enables "evil doers" to see that type of car that everyone on my street has, or parks in their driveway. And very easily compare it against the hundreds of other streets in the area. Sure criminals could do this by hand, but in this case it doesn't require the criminal to fly from NY to SanFrancisco and drive around with a camera. They just open up a web browser and put in various addresses to mine the database for neighborhoods with Porsches in the driveway.
Does google have any safeguards in place from someone recording all sorts of data/screenshots and running OCR on them? To record thousands of license plates? I wonder what privacy advocates would think if they knew that one could build a database of "License Plate & Street Address" Sure there would be some margin for error (say when your car is at another house, but I'd bet those building this database are willing to live with that.
Google should be by default blurring all license plates and faces. I haven't seen a reason yet justifying why they need to display either faces or license plates.
This is ridiculous. It's one snapshot taken at a more or less random time. How is this an invasion of privacy when the picture is taken in a public place? Total idiocy.
What, do you seriously think Google's street-view provides real time updates of it's images?
I couldn't imagine seeing Google's goofy cars driving by at a rate of ~1 per second, ON ALL ROADS IN THE WORLD.
"That hypothetical viewer is also part of the scenery". Yes, and the Google cars are an extremely visible part of the scenery when they drive by. One which you can easily and safely ask to go away (i.e. remove the image)... it's much harder to keep random people from driving by in a generic car.
"Google allows such a person to stalk..." - um, no, it isn't a real-time video feed... you must have it confused with technology in the movies.
I think Google should blur everyone's face and license plate. I think our privacy should be more protected here in the US than it is now. I'm happy to see a country lookout for it's citizens for once.
That's ridiculous, if you're stalking someone you'll be part of the scenery sooner or later... and that only supposing google street view can be browsed LIVE wich cannot, it only takes pictures and stores it, if you see someone on GSV you probably notice it's a still image... what use could that be? And what are the odds of finding someone you wanna go and kill walking on the street when google car is taking pictures? Come on!
You see the google car taking pictures, it's the same if you walk the street taking pictures and later post them in your blog, picture album or whatever...
"you can go around all the famous places from the comfort of your PC"
That's not going to stop tourism. If anything its going to greatly encourage tourism. I've just been driving down a road in Rome, then I jumped to Paris and crossed the Seine. All within a few minutes. My first thought was I wish I was there for real.
I can understand Greek fears of wanting to maintain privacy of buildings and routes behind buildings etc... Although that is security through obscurity, which is a very weak form of protection. If anything if crooks can find a way in via Street View its stress testing houses to become physically more secure.
Also all privacy is ultimately an attempt at protection against exploitation. So privacy isn't such a problem, its how it can be exploited. I think how someone can exploit a new technology gives a clear distinction of if its a good or a potentially bad new technology to implement. I don't think all Big Brother technology is a bad thing. (I would say that Big Brother technology that can cause greater political and/or commercial corruption to grow is bad, as that opens up ever greater exploitation of people without power to resist or stop being exploited or outright abused (e.g. Phorm and all DPI technology is a good example of an outright violation of privacy for the financial gain of just the few who run and control that technology). However I don't think Street View is such a technology. Sure it could be exploited by someone looking to break in, but security through obscurity is already a weak protection. Crooks have found it no trouble to break into houses for centuries. Better to stress test building security now and sort it out.
Also I think one of most important aspects of Google Street View is its historical importance. Imagine say in 100 years from now the historical importance of being able to view cities all over the world as they were once decades before. It'll obviously take decades to build up such a detailed history of changes, but future generations are going to love being able to see how previous generations lived. I wish I could view my city decades or even centuries ago. (Imagine for example future Google searches back through all this data to dig up views of a house you are interested in buying back throughout its entire existence, from the moment it was built right up to the present day).
Future generations are going to be able to look back like never before with Google Street View data. I think its utterly fascinating just how much potential this data has to allow future generations to look back at us and how we live now.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Except, you know, actually being there makes the images change.
Streetview is pretty static, as far as stalking goes.
It is fairly rare for a single person to show in more than one single picture.
In addition, you can't type in that persons name and have any/all street view pictures with them in it come up.
Unless your hypothetical 'victim' is the street itself, it would be pretty useless information for a stalker to have.
In most cases, particularly in the US, Google has been able to proceed on grounds that the images it takes are no different from what someone walking down a public street can see and snap.
Google Street view is completed unlike a person walking down the street, perhaps even if they have a camera.
One, I don't seem to have the entire web-viewing population of the earth marching by my home on the sidewalk. The pictures Google may take are available to anyone who cares to look.
Two, of those that do come by many of them do not have 'photographic' memories. (and don't seem to be snapping pictures of each and every house they pass).
Three, Even walking down the street looking at each house, one does not expect the person walking to remember many of the details for as long as they will be displayed on Google Maps.
Google, you are free to come over and map our streets.
The real concern is that people, cars, etc. are still in the images. Google needs to perfect a post-processing cleansing of the image to remove all evidence of cars, people, and other movable objects. The final result should look like an abandoned city.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
The neo-luddites really need to lighten up. As if the entire world isn't on camera already, and you're worried about a single still photo designed to help people find things on Google maps? Do they even know what millenia we're living in, or are they worried that Google's magic boxes will steal their souls.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
We all know the saying "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
I've got another one: if you outlaw photography, only outlaws will photograph. If the police start arresting anyone caught in public with a camera, watch lapel-pin cameras become really popular.
I can't imagine it would be too hard to outfit a discrete Street View car with enough cameras to take 360 pictures. The imagery wouldn't be as nice as from the typical Google street view cameras, but would be a great alternative in areas where the street view cars would be pulled over and/or vandalized. If they need a higher-up view than is available from a passenger car, they could use 15-passenger vans with windows going all the way around.
For that matter, could a camera assembly be integrated into a fake "Ray's Pizza" magnetic roof sign?
Well, as many people said, it's up to Greece to decide.
I feel very uncomfortable with all those cctv & other cameras in the UK, to the extent I moved place so that I didn't have to tolerate it (not 100% of residential areas have cameras). I don't mean that as an offense, I understand that many people here do not consider the presense of cameras to be offensive and it is their right to feel so, what I do not understand is why some slashdoters have trouble to see that in Greece we consider privacy to be very important and it is our right to do so.
A few people say there exist other means which hurt privacy, so what? we have to put up with yet one more just because there are other means?
To those saying that it's silly to expect laws to protect our privacy, well I very much expect them to do so. Let's disband the parliament abandon laws which protect civilians and call it a jungle, sure that would work better.
Also, comparing Google to the State is totally unfit. A State may not be perfect, but the "management" there is elected and everyone can be a part of it. There are mechanisms within the state (read elections) that allow changes to be made according to voters will, even if these happen at a slow pace. In Google and any multinational company, no similar mechanism and right to be elected exist, I wonder how to some minds thought that Google should feel as priviledged as a state run by a democratic goverment.
Finaly, Greece's Data Protection Authority did this solely based on legal arguments and it is up to the parliament to create laws that comply with the Constitution. I can't see why Google's profit should be ranked above the constitution, the law and GDPA within Greek territory.
But this time for a tube photo not for airforce bases.
nemesis. Home of an experimental fe code.
..Beware geeks bearing gifts
At least they didn't kick the Google Street View car into a bottomless well.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Reminds me of the story a coworker told me. A non-techie friend of his called him to say he'd be late because of traffic, or something like that, so my coworker jumped on the internet and gave his friend directions to route around the congestion. Apparently his friend was amazed that he could see the traffic jam in realtime, so my coworker started playing along. He guessed about where his friend would be, and using the Google imagery told his friend something like "I see you've just passed that red building on the right." The friend was utterly astounded. Eventually he had his friend waving his hand out the car window, believing that my coworker was watching him do so.
Sadly, I'm sure this isn't terribly uncommon. A lot of non-technical people probably assume things like Google maps and streetview are realtime, without thinking about it and understanding that we're still quite far from having the bandwidth and infrastructure to support something like that.
Since when have actions in PUBLIC PLACES been private?
And second... it's really only valid data once, it's not like it's constantly being updated.
As a Greek citizen I am very happy that our government and data protection authority are protecting our right to privacy and were determined enough to stand up against Google, an American capitalist company.
I do use Google Street View and I love it, but only when I can see the others without letting them see me. I have used it to virtually travel to so many countries, but when I suddenly saw Google's spying car near my home's street I immediatelly started shouting at them and showing them my fists. Other residents also came out of their homes being angry with Google. Nobody wants it here because it's actually nothing else than a spy, an American spy.
Google came here because our charismatic leader, Karamanlis, rejected American influence and partnered with the Russians. Americans wanted to know who goes where, when, and how. What a better cover than a company that is taking photos in the streets?
So now I hope you see why we, the great Greeks, don't want Google in our streets. I just hope our government never allows this spy to take photos of our children and our homes, with only our omnipresent God knowing which paedo is looking for our children or which illegal immigrant is looking to steal from our homes when we go on holiday...
By all means I support my government's and privacy authority decision. I just hope our leader Karamanlis can continue his opposition to American imperialism after the elections, where I expect to see the socialists and commies be crushed. Our future is with the European Union and Russia, not with American corporations, the same corporations that ordered socialist Clinton to attack our historial and spiritual ally, Serbia. Our liberation of Macedonia is due to Serbia, and we will support Serbia until death.
well, if Google wants to play nice with everyone, then they should do this:
1) geotag the pictures with the homes and send a letter to each owner/tenant that they took a pic of their residence/business.
2) freely provide gmail with analytics to them
3) force everyone who uses street view to be a registered, VERIFIED, and logged Google user
4) provide a constant and ARCHIVED feed of those "who viewed you" logs to all the people whom their faces, cars, homes, stores got viewed, when and from where
then everyone would be REALLY safe, because no evil doers will dare to watch without ALSO been recorded.
and know you can all stop whining.
fairplay means faiplay from all sides.
wanna take a look at my car oustide my house?
lots of kids take its picture because its an expensive sports car. but if they knew I have the right to kick their ass for taking a picture without asking, then they wont bother.
otherwise we can all install james bond style licence places, hide our numbers to protect our assets and give you stupid americans the finger.
YES I DO MIND someone taking a picture of me, my home, my store, because you didnt ask.
Greetings from Greece, the birth land of true democracy
this answer is for all the posters, not a specific one.
US, CA, UK and Australia are police states.
every one is recorder for the sake of "national security"
thats pure BS.
get your act together like we did 6.000 years ago,
and nobody will give a rats ass about you or your sorry ass countries. using cameras to feel safe is equally stupid as driving a car and feeling safe, where you can get killed at any time, via a ton of different accidental ways.
that's why all of your stupid privacy laws are a joke. we have a better solution. "you take my pic, I take yours, otherwise I kick your ass"
and that my friends from abroad, actually WORKS.
ask any paparazzi that got their ass kicked.
and tell those lame ass nerds at ./ that anonymous ain't coward since my IP is logged. if you dont like it, get a life, get a girl, and post pics of you at flickr so that we can all see your lame faces.