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.
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.'"
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...
Can you really blame them for not believing that "normal" Britons go around looking at planes on military bases and keeping track of the call letters in their little books? While on vacation to Greece?
I certainly think the British government should have applied more pressure to get them out of jail sooner. But you have to admit their behavior was suspicious.
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
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.
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.
Is it that different from you walking down the street and take pictures yourself? Is it against the law? If I don't want people peeking inside my house, I use blinds ;)
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.
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.
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.