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.'"

42 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. lunacy by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:lunacy by xp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the Greeks are worried Google's van is a trojan horse.
      --
      Are you slow?

    2. Re:lunacy by niceone · · Score: 4, Informative

      I to love how people have no problem with police videotaping you

      To be fair to Greece's Data Protection Authority, they do have a problem with police videoing people and have stopped the government using street cameras to fight crime as well.

    3. Re:lunacy by xlotlu · · Score: 2

      To be fair to Greece's Data Protection Authority, they do have a problem with police videoing people and have stopped the government using street cameras to fight crime as well.

      Let's all move to Greece..

    4. Re:lunacy by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so sure about the standard of living, but they do have plenty of sun, excellent food & wine and beautiful women.

    5. Re:lunacy by moon3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real reason for ban is quite different, the new street view used in Europe has hell of a resolution, meaning Greece tourism can be in danger, you can go around all the famous places from the comfort of your PC.

      I roamed around Napoli (Italy) the other day, and even get texture grade quality facades from zoomed details for our project. SV is really an amazing tool.

    6. Re:lunacy by kyriosdelis · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and beautiful women.

      That's true, we have a lot of hot tourist girls.

      --
      I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
    7. Re:lunacy by mstamat · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would be more accurate to say: "plenty of sun, excellent food and enough wine so that every woman you meet looks beautiful".

    8. Re:lunacy by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are referring to US practices when the article is about Greece, where for example the "Personal Data Protection Authority" has power over courts & the Police. So far they have disallowed cameras from being used at streets, deny requests even by embassies for outside cams, do not allow cameras in schools (they say have private guards if you want to thinkofthechildren). Sorry but all links are in Greek.

      Personally, I'd rather there were cameras in public places, since that might allow the very ineffective Greek police to catch a bad guy or two once in a while. I mean, they ARE public areas, if you want privacy stay in your hut.

      And to make it clear, in Greece as in most other countries outside the US, "terrorism" is no excuse for anything, certainly not for the police. The "you are subject to search" big-brotheresque messages I hear every day in the NYC subway are not common in other countries, which is why I hate it that such things are taken for granted here. Yeah, for our protection. Right.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    9. Re:lunacy by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world doesn't run by your standards! In greece people do not want picture of them in public view published on the internet, so they have passed laws/etc to prevent it. If you don't like it move to...

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    10. Re:lunacy by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real reason for ban is quite different, the new street view used in Europe has hell of a resolution, meaning Greece tourism can be in danger, you can go around all the famous places from the comfort of your PC.

      You're kidding, right?

      If you think a bunch of pictures is a good substitute for actually visiting a place, then you haven't really traveled. You must also think that a movie or Cliff notes are good substitutes for a book.

      I do agree SV is an amazing tool, and I think it would increase tourism, not derease it, much in the same way books/brochures in a travel office do.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    11. Re:lunacy by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Pretty much everyone has a problem with both. The article mentions Google's usual argument that they're not showing anything that can't be seen by taking a walk down the street. Similarly, there's nothing that can be seen by 10 hovering cameras surrounded every person's head recording every visual and audio detail of his public time for permanent display on the internet that can't be seen by walking down the street while watching and listening.

      I don't think their argument works.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    12. Re:lunacy by tzot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd rather not... they don't really seem knowledgeable about this whole "Internet" thing.

      http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/thespamreport/0,39025001,39153964,00.htm

      I hereby declare that as true, as I'm currently using the latest stone-tablet-2-internet direct interface of 72 hammer-hits-per-minute bandwidth with the weird name "barbarois homilein" v1.0.

      --
      I speak England very best
    13. Re:lunacy by janrinok · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might not have RTFA, but the Greeks are NOT complaining about the filming per se, but they want to be reassured that the data collected will be protected in accordance with current European law. For example, police recordings are protected or, at least, they have made a case for how they will protect the data which has satisfied the appropriate legal bodies. However, Google has not convinced the Greek authorities that it will provide adequate protection of its data.

      Now this might not worry you. But in Europe, collecting the data is only the start of it. Personal data (and that includes identities, addresses, personal habits and traits, a person's car details etc), if stored on computers, can be collected only for a specific purpose and must then be protected from unauthorised use i.e. from being used for any other purpose. Google must state what they intend the authorised use to be (which they have) and then state how they intend to protect the data from any other unauthorised usage (which they haven't yet done). How will they prevent criminals from accessing the data for unauthorised purposes? The claim that it is all in the public domain is a bit of a red herring - criminals don't usually have such a mass of data at their fingertips and, in any event, it is for Google to show how they will comply with the current law not to argue the case for why the current law should be changed. How will they prevent individuals from accessing the data for a purpose other than that intended by Google?

      I don't criticise Greece for its actions but I do criticise many other European countries which have simply ignored European law and allowed the data collection to continue. Google might be able to comply with the current legislation and, if they can, they will be allowed to continue.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    14. Re:lunacy by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anything in public view should be fair game to publish on the net.

      Why?

      There is a difference between one person incidentally observing something while going about their daily business and having a commercial organisation with vast resources deliberately and systematically collect information about the entire world and then provide it in a permanent, publicly available, searchable form that anyone can use for any purpose.

      Well, actually, that's at least seven qualitative differences.

      If you really can't see why those differences matter or why it might be better to consider one form of behaviour antisocial and legislate accordingly, then I invite you to have some random stranger follow you around every time you go out in public, running a live video feed on the Internet, looking over your shoulder every time you enter a PIN or sign your name to make a card purchase or withdraw cash, cataloguing every road you follow and the times you've been there, looking up the identity of every person you meet and sticking their name and face up there as well. Then when you get home, they can wait outside your house in a public space, and use high resolution video equipment to look through your windows (or any gaps if you close the blinds/curtains) and film whatever you're doing on your computer, whoever is getting changed upstairs, who's visited you and when, and anything else they can see. After all, this is all stuff that you've done that's visible from a public place, so in your world it seems everyone in the universe has a right to see it.

      If people put themselves in embarrassing positions why is it wrong to expose them?

      Because everyone makes mistakes, and perhaps the world would be a nicer place if they didn't have to suffer for them publicly, universally and eternally?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. 'Street level' a bit misleading by Spatial · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't the cars have big masts on them for the camera? They see into places you can't see walking down the street.

    1. Re:'Street level' a bit misleading by __aarvde6843 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you think this is a "big mast"...

      Any average tall adult could take pictures that high...

    2. Re:'Street level' a bit misleading by __aarvde6843 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 ;)

    3. Re:'Street level' a bit misleading by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Greeks are always telling us how great they are (I didn't see the appeal, but My Big Fat Greek Wedding about killed my predominantly-Greek Lady) yet they can't figure out how to prevent someone from looking through their windows. In the USA, ground floor apartments have big windows that anyone between midget and giant height can see everything in your house through, yet we have a number of window covering products available to help us preserve our privacy and yet still permit us to use our windows when we feel like looking like we're living in a fishbowl.

      Maybe someone should ask the Japanese how they feel about google street view, I'm honestly interested but I can't see it being a big problem there. Anyone acting like a freak on the street probably wants to be immortalized... but I do wonder which way the cultural reaction goes. Is it no big deal because everyone lives on top of each other and assumes that there's eyes everywhere, or is it a huge deal because everyone is expected to pretend they don't see things?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. So very stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:So very stupid by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, the debate is whether or not to allow exhaustive street-level imagery. No one is suggesting making photographs from public locations illegal in general. (Well, some police forces actually are, but that's a separate debate...)

      So in other words, you should say: "If you outlaw the acquisition and distribution of exhaustive street-level imagery, only outlaws will produce and distribute exhaustive street-level imagery."

      Again, the debate is about whether doing something legal to an exhaustive extent (in this case, creating a massive database of location-specific images that is then freely available) becomes an an illegitimate act with respect to privacy. Many of us would agree that this logic applies in some cases. E.g. there's nothing illegal about looking up public records. But there comes a point where someone is so thoroughly investigating your life (getting all records, taking pictures of you in public, phoning people you know, etc.) that this collection of innocuous legal actions becomes a large illegal action (e.g. "stalking").

      Having said all that, I find Google StreetViews very valuable (e.g. for planning trips or scoping out places to go...), so I hope society can reach a compromise that allows these images to be available without unduly infringing on anyone's privacy.

    2. Re:So very stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a really sad statement on the state of society. Whatever happened to quiet, friendly communities where you can throw your windows open to let in the fresh air and chat with passersby?

      People started walking around naked in their living rooms! It used to be practically a sin to go to bed naked. Now people want extra privacy! I mean, I like doing this myself, but if my hairy ass ends up on the goog as a result, I have only myself to blame.

      A lot of people have also decided that they want more than the baseline of privacy. For instance, it was once considered polite to invite people into your front room to talk; it was decorated and organized to receive strangers. These days there's ample reason NOT to let anyone into your house... The interior of the house has become a more private space. But then people don't want people to look into their private space, and that is just stupid.

      Google isn't looking at anything you can't see from a legally-sized vehicle on a public road. If you have something private that can be seen from that vantage, you're not very smart.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:So very stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      so I hope society can reach a compromise that allows these images to be available without unduly infringing on anyone's privacy.

      There already IS a compromise like that, it's called what google is already doing. Google is NOT infringing on anyone's privacy because by definition anything that they are photographing is visible from a public thoroughfare. They are trampling some people's mistaken assumptions about privacy, though. Here's a hint: if you want something to be private, you don't do it in public.

      The amount of data should not even be considered as a factor; if one person did what google is doing in every state of a nation, would that be too much data in one place? What if it was one person per city? Now, imagine that those people link their map sites together seamlessly. What's the difference between that and what we have now? That google did it for us?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:So very stupid by achurch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the last time I visited the US I was appalled at how many bars there were on the windows of houses, that didn't seem very friendly. You almost never see that here in Canada, even in the big cities like Toronto.

      Where did you see them, out of curiosity? I honestly can't recall seeing such while I lived in the US (though I never visited the really big cities like New York or Chicago).

  4. Britain by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Britain by Smivs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, streetview is great. Us Brits can check up on all the CCTV cameras from the comfort of our armchairs.

    2. Re:Britain by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think most Britain's hold the view, that what you do in public is public and what you do in a shop can be recorded by the store owners for whatever means they see fit. IMO this is a good deal, however some people are unhappy and looking for more privacy in public places (less CCTV) and thats also cool, it appears that the greek have a somewhat different balance and would rather not have thier public spaces photographed by streetview and IMO that is also fine.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  5. Re:Breaking News! by iainl · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  6. Which?... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  7. Re:Breaking News! by esme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. Extremism by Option1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. What it is *really* for... by JerryQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Bribe by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Bribe by xlotlu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh take off your US-manufactured tinfoil hat. From TFA:

      The authority has repeatedly ruled against Greece's conservative government and banned the use of street cameras for fighting crime. The cameras were set up as part of elaborate security preparations for the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

      It also clashed with the Greek Orthodox Church after it ruled that recording Greek citizens' religion on state ID cards was illegal.

      If only more countries had such agencies...

  11. The DPA might have a point by xlotlu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So (emphasis mine),

    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.

  12. 2 different things by tonylemesmer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  13. Timeo Danaos... by DrYak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they fear Google, wherever or not Google brings presents.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  14. Protecting your own privacy by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Photographs != Video Surveillance by divisionbyzero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Eventually, Google's going to get somebody kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  17. Fascinating for tourism ... by MindKata · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.
  18. Street view != dood walking down the street by pentalive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.