Slashdot Mirror
EU Says Google Street View Violates Privacy
upto0013 notes the latest spot of trouble for Google in Europe: the EU says that Google's Street View images violate privacy laws. The EU's privacy watchdog asked Google to notify cities and towns before photographing (Google says it does this already) and to delete original photos after 6 months (Google keeps them for a year and says it has reason to do so). "[T]he privacy official] said that the company should revise its 'disproportionate' policy of keeping the original unblurred images for up to a year, saying improvements in Google's blurring technology and better public awareness would lead to fewer complaints — and a shorter delay for people to react to the photos they see on the site. Complaints about the images put online would usually be checked against the original photos."
However, remember that the Google van has the camera a lot higher than what you could see walking on the street. For example there has been many cases where the camera has photographed inside peoples apartment or over garden walls, even people without clothes. If you went taking photos of someones backyard that is otherwise shield, you would be violating law. Same thing if you went taking pictures of someone through his/her window. Google is doing exactly this, on a mass scale, and then putting them on the internet for everyone to see.
The EU has been around since 1973?
1951: European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
1957: European Economic Community (EEC)
1967: European Community (EC)
1973: UK, Ireland & Denmark join EC
1993: European Union (EU)
If I remember correctly, that case involved Google's van photographing him over his garden wall, so no, he wasn't clearly visible to anyone just walking by. If you climbed up the garden wall and photographed people without clothes in their private property, you would be breaking law too. Even without even putting them on the Internet for everyone to see.
That wooshing noise was the point flying over your head. The burden for preventing such a clear and abusive invasion of privacy should not lie with the potential abusee, and a system where people (or corporations) can invade your privacy and then share the results with the world unless you actively opt out does not scale.
I prefer the approach taken by Japan, where this over-the-wall problem was common given typical Japanese architecture and infringements were widespread, and Google was forced to throw away the lot.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And in the US anyway, the cops would tell you that this is perfectly legal and to stop filing bogus complaints (or they SHOULD).
Unfortunately it's been demonstrated that a lot of police aren't aware of this - hence the post-9/11 arrests of photographers taking photographs of railroad trellises, etc.
The cases have all eventually been dismissed, but it ends up costing these people several days out of their lives just to prove they were doing something completely legal.
#DeleteChrome
They're not really that high. The earliest streetview vehicle was a van, but they're using sedans now (photos at the link). The camera is no higher than the head of a driver of an SUV, perhaps not even as high.
If someone in a Hummer can see you naked it's your own fault.
Free Martian Whores!
Ah, yes, that was quite the media brouhaha around these parts last fall. Despite the fact that it later turned out the woman who filed the complaint had been trespassing, cutting through his yard (resulting in her being in a place a normal person would not have been able to see in his kitchen window) he was convicted of indecent exposure a few months later. The judge waived any jail time, saying that he didn't put people in jail for being stupid [referring to the defendant not closing the curtains] or (and I quote) "We'd all be in jail." Despite not getting jail time, the case is being appealed "on principle" according to the man's lawyer.
Of course, in VA, indecent exposure will land you on the sex offender registry, too.
That? That was a pigeon.